Defense Level Playing Field Act

Madam President, I was not going to speak again, but I was prompted to by my colleague from Alabama, a friend and someone for whom I have great respect. The presentation by my colleague from Alabama suggested that President Obama is moving in the direction of disarming us, the implication is that of injuring our national security by proposing that we have fewer nuclear weapons. Let me make a point that I think is so important for the record.

I hope it is not now or ever considered a source of weakness for this country to aspire to have a planet with fewer nuclear weapons. It ought to be a source of strength that we understand it becomes our burden as a world leader--an economic leader and nuclear power--to try to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth.

This President has not proposed anything that would injure our national security. He is not proposing anything that is unilateral. He has negotiated and his team has negotiated a very strong arms reduction treaty with the Russians.

I know there has been great discussion about modernization, whether there is enough money, about why tactical nuclear weapons were not included, the issue of whether it limits us with respect to missile defense. All of those issues have been answered. All have been responded to.

The question, it seems to me, for us now and for all Americans, and particularly those who serve in Congress in the future, is will we be a world leader in pushing for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons on this planet?

There are some 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. The loss of just one of those weapons, into the hands of a terrorist or rogue nation who might then explode it in a major city on Earth would change everything.

My colleagues are probably tired of hearing me say it, but in my desk I have kept a piece of a Soviet Union bomber, a very small piece of a wing strut from a Soviet Union bomber. We did not shoot it down. We negotiated that bomber down by paying money to saw the wings off.

Nuclear arms reduction treaties work. We know they work. There are Russian submarines that were not destroyed in battle. We ground them up and took them apart. The wings were sawed off bombers, and they were sold for scrap. Nuclear missiles in silos with nuclear warheads aimed at American cities are gone.

I will give an example. One was in Ukraine. Now sunflower seeds adorn that pasture where there was a missile with a nuclear weapon aimed at America.

We know these arms reduction treaties work because we have seen them work. Fewer nuclear weapons, fewer delivery vehicles, bombers, submarines, missiles--we know this works.

My colleague seemed to suggest that it would be a horrible thing if the entire world were rid of nuclear weapons. I hope that every Senator would aspire to have that be the case, a world in which there was not one weapon left, for almost surely every offensive weapon on this planet has always been used. We need to be very concerned about the number of nuclear weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons, the need, the desire for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. That is why these treaties and these negotiations on arms reduction are so unbelievably important.

Never has it been more important because now there is a new threat. They do not wear uniforms. They do not belong to one country. It is the terrorist threat. And they strive mightily to acquire nuclear weapons.

This treaty negotiated at the start by the previous President and concluded by this President, in my judgment, strengthens this country, represents our best national security interests.

I ask the question of anyone who believes that it is a threat for us to begin reducing nuclear weapons through arms negotiations with others who have nuclear weapons: Who, if not us, will lead the way to do that? If not us, who? Is there another country they think will aspire to provide leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons? If there is, tell us the name because we all know better than that.

This responsibility falls on our shoulders. We are the leading nuclear power on this Earth. It is our responsibility, it is this country's responsibility to lead. I don't ever want anybody to suggest it is some sort of weakness for this President or any President to engage in arms reduction negotiations. That is a source of strength.

This treaty was negotiated carefully. I was on the national security working group. We had briefing after briefing in top-secret venues. This treaty was carefully negotiated. It represents our best interests. It represents a reduction of nuclear weapons, a reduction of delivery vehicles and represents, in my judgment, another step in reducing the nuclear threat. It is not even a giant step, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

This represents our best national security interests, and this President has demonstrated, yes, he wants a world with fewer nuclear weapons. He wants a world, as would I, with no nuclear weapons at some point. But this President would never allow negotiations or never allow circumstances in which this country is unarmed or unprepared or unable to meet its national security needs. He has not done that, not in this treaty, and will not do it in the future.

I did want to stand up and say that because of the comments earlier by the Senator who suggested there is some sort of weakness for a country that aspires to have a reduction of nuclear weapons on this planet.

Let me finally say, I have spoken at length on this floor about the severity of losing even just one nuclear weapon. I have told the story about a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire who reported 1 month after 9/11 that a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from Russia and that nuclear weapon had been smuggled into New York City and was to be detonated. There was an apoplectic seizure in this town about it because no one knew what to do about it. They did not even notify the mayor of New York.

They discovered a month later that was probably not a credible piece of information. But as they did the diagnosis of it, they discovered it is plausible someone could have acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from Russia, it was plausible; if they had done that, they could have smuggled it into an American city and if terrorists did that they could have detonated it. Then we are not talking about 3,000 deaths, we are talking about 100,000, 200,000 deaths.

The work we have done in so many areas, the work in this administration, let me say, to secure loose nuclear materials, circumstances where plutonium or highly enriched uranium in the size of a liter or, in one case, in the size of a small can of soda, enough to kill tens and tens of thousands of people with a nuclear weapon--this is serious business. At a time when we debate a lot of issues--serious and not so serious--this is serious business.

I think the work that has been done by the chairman and ranking member in recent days--I watched a lot of this and watched it over this year--is extraordinary work. But so too is the work by this President, by the negotiators. My colleague described the folks at the State Department who had a significant role as well.

Let us not ever think it is a source of weakness to be negotiating verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons among those who possess them. That is a source of strength, and it is important for our kids and grandchildren who can succeed by continuing to do that with treaties that make the best sense for this country's national security interests.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts does not yet have a unanimous consent request, but I know all my colleagues are anxious to see one.

I yield the floor, and I expect, as the majority leader indicated, within the next half hour or so we will be voting, and I think that is good news. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator from Alabama wants to finish his objection--

I ask the Senator from Alabama, I thought he was objecting on Senator Murray's time, and I was next in the unanimous consent. My question is, is he finished with his objection?

Madam President, I rise to speak on the START treaty. I spoke on the floor Saturday stating my concerns about this treaty and the need to address a number of very important issues. I had hoped that amendments that had been offered would be able to clarify the position--the United States position--on this treaty.

I have listened to the debate. I have watched many amendments go down. The treaty supporters have said that these amendments are deal killers,

treaty killers. I disagree. I believe everybody has been sincere, but I am not persuaded that the Senate's role to advise and consent to treaties has successfully finetuned the understanding on our part, if we accept this treaty, nor the Russian positions--have they been clarified with our objections or disagreements with the Russian position.

I understand it would have made it hard for the administration to amend the text. But even amendments that would try to amend the preamble, or even the ratification resolution that would clarify the United States position, have caused me great pause. For instance, when we are talking about missile defense, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, said:

Russians tend to interpret every utterance as binding

commitment.

She went on to write:

The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the

full range of American technology and talent to improve our

ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of

hostile countries.

I am concerned that this treaty still has a lot of misunderstanding about the United States missile defense capability. I am concerned that our capability, with the understanding of Russians, would be restricted. Russia and the United States each have issued unilateral statements when they signed the New START that clarified their position on the relationship between START and missile defense. Russia stated:

The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United

States refrains from developing its missile defense

capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

I think we should state clearly in the resolution to ratify that it is not the position of the United States to place any limitations on missile defense. The President wrote a letter saying he disagreed with the Russian position and, yet, Senator McCain offered an amendment that would have stricken language in the preamble of the treaty that would have made it clear what the United States position was, and that amendment was not adopted by this body.

As we speak, I don't believe Russia is our enemy. This is a 10-year treaty. We don't know 10 years down the road how relationships might change. I believe our relationship with Russia is important, but there are rogue nations in the world that are hostile to the United States, which are working in earnest to get nuclear capability and possibly already have it, plus warheads to put those nuclear weapons on.

With the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or Pakistan, which is our ally, which has a fragile government, or even Venezuela, which is working with Iran and is certainly within our hemisphere, it would be unthinkable to have any kind of miscommunication about the United States capability to control its own defense capabilities. That is exactly what the Russian statement said we could not do.

U.S. planning and force requirements may have to change in the next 10 years and, frankly, I think they ought to be going forward right now to ensure that we can withstand any kind of warhead, nuclear or otherwise, that would come in from rogue nations.

That in itself is enough for me to say we have not fulfilled our responsibility under the Constitution for advice to the President on treaties. That is our solemn responsibility, and I do not think we have been successfully able to do that because we have been blocked on every amendment, calling them deal killers.

I think a strong New START is in our best interest. But I believe that this treaty does not address other areas of concern I have voiced as well. I believe this treaty could further be improved by increasing the number of type one and type two inspections, as was attempted by the Inhofe amendment that was defeated yesterday.

For instance, we know there are loose nukes that have come from Russian arsenals in the past, because the Russians have not had a clear control, or list of, or don't seem to be totally firm about where all of their arsenal is, and they don't seem to have the accountability. So the loose nukes, it has been reported, have shown up in other places, such as, for instance, North Korea. So I think verification becomes more important, to get a true idea of exactly what the Russians have, so there can be an accountability going forward to assure that whatever number are in whatever place would always stay the same, unless they are part of the drawdown.

I think the verification amendment Senator Inhofe had that was defeated would have improved our capability to understand exactly what was out there that might loosely go to Iran or North Korea, with whom the Russians have relationships, though we do not.

Former Secretary of State James Baker described the treaty's verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. I agree with his comment, and I hope we can improve the situation. To be fair, Secretary Baker supports the treaty. But he did recognize its shortcomings, and I think that should have been addressed by the Senate, without fear of what the Russians might say about our capability to defend against threats, not from Russia necessarily, other than the haplessness of not knowing for sure where your nuclear weapons are--I don't think Russia is our enemy. I want a relationship with Russia.

The missile defense we were not able to even clarify in the resolution of ratification causes me great concern. The verification not being as adequate as I think we need, and then the modernization, which we also address in other amendments, I think, are also problematic. I believe we must know our nuclear warheads could be used in the worst-case circumstance, because I think that is a deterrent.

Because of these things, I am going to vote no today on the ratification of the treaty. I think the Senate could have improved the understanding of this treaty. I think we could have strengthened it with real amendments that would have strengthened even what the President said in his letter to the Senate, saying that he disagreed with the Russian interpretation. But then when we tried to put that in writing, that didn't pass. So I believe we should not pass this treaty today. I think we can fulfill our responsibility for advice and consent and have a more bipartisan passing of the resolution. I think we need a good relationship with Russia. I think we need to protect, at all costs, the United States unilateral capability for missile defense for our country against other nations. I don't think Russia is a threat, but I do think rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities are. I think the symbiotic relationship between Venezuela and Iran is a very real threat to the United States. I think we need to start preparing more carefully about that.

I know my time is up. I appreciate the time to state my reasons for voting against this and hope that when it passes--which I think it will--we will be more firm in clarifying with the Russians our view of our national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to call on the Senate to move and pass H.R. 6540, which is the Defense Level Playing Field Act, a bill which was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday.

This is a bill that is identical to a bipartisan provision I have introduced here in the Senate with Senators Brownback, Cantwell, and others from States that know the value of American aerospace. It is a bill that will require the Pentagon to take into account illegal subsidies to foreign companies in our country, and that will finally deliver an even playing field in our procurement process.

But above all, this is a jobs bill. It is about protecting skilled, family-wage jobs, manufacturing jobs, and engineering jobs--jobs with technical skills and expertise that are passed down from one generation to the next; jobs that not only support our families during a very difficult economic time but are also helping to keep our communities above water. These are jobs in communities in Kansas, in Connecticut, in California, and in my home State of Washington. They are jobs that support small businesses, they pay people's mortgages, and they create economic opportunity. These jobs right now are at risk. Why? Because of illegal subsidies that undercut our workers and create an uneven playing field for America's aerospace workers.

This is a commonsense, straightforward way to protect American aerospace jobs from unfairly subsidized European competition. It is a bill that specifically targets a major job-creating project--the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract--as a place where we can begin to restore fairness for our aerospace workers. This bill says that in awarding that critical tanker contract, the Pentagon must consider any unfair competitive advantage aerospace companies have, and there is no bigger unfair advantage right now in the world of international aerospace than launch aid.

As my colleagues may know, launch aid is direct funding that has been provided to the European aerospace company Airbus from the treasuries of European governments. It is what supports their factories and their workers and their airplanes. It is what allows them to price their airplanes far below those that are made here in the United States and still turn a profit. It is what allows them to literally role the dice and lose on a product and what separates them from American aerospace companies, such as Boeing, that bet the company on each new airplane line they produce. In short, it is what allows them to stack the decks against American workers.

In July of this year, the World Trade Organization handed down a ruling in a case that the United States brought against the European Union that finally called launch aid what it really is: a trade- distorting, job-killing, unfair advantage. That is what the WTO said. It is one of our Nation's most important trade cases to date. The WTO ruled very clearly that launch aid is illegal, it creates an uneven playing field, it has harmed American workers and companies, and it needs to end.

Specifically, the WTO found that European governments have provided Airbus with more than 15 billion Euros in launch aid, subsidizing every model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years, including, by the way, the A330--the very model they are now putting forward in the tanker competition. The WTO ruled that France and Germany and Spain provided more than 1 billion Euros in infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants between 1989 and 2001, as well as another billion in share transfers and equity infusions into Airbus. They ruled that European governments provided over 1 billion in Euros in funding between 1986 and 2005 for research and development directed specifically to the development of Airbus aircraft. In fact, the Lexington Institute states that launch aid represents over $200 billion in today's dollars in total subsidies to Airbus.

Launch aid has very real consequences. It has created an uphill battle for our American workers and American aerospace as a whole. Because of launch aid, our workers are now not only competing against rival companies, they are competing against the treasuries of European governments. At the end of the day, that has

meant lost jobs at our American aerospace companies and suppliers and the communities that support them.

I have been speaking out against Europe's market-distorting actions for many years because I understand that these subsidies are not only illegal, they are deeply unfair and anticompetitive.

My home State of Washington is, of course, home to much of our country's aerospace industry, and I know our workers are the best in the world. On a level playing field, they can compete and win against absolutely anybody. But, unfortunately, Airbus and the European Union have refused to allow fair competition. Instead, they use their aerospace industry as a government-funded jobs program, and they use billions in illegal launch aid to fund it.

So let me be clear about one thing. The objective of this bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday is not to limit competition; it is to make sure everyone can compete on a level playing field. Airbus has made it clear they will go to any lengths to hurt our country's aerospace industry. We need to make it clear we will take every action to stop them because this is not only about the future of aerospace; it is about jobs right now that will help our economy recover. In fact, as we look at ways to stimulate job growth and keep American companies innovating and growing, we shouldn't look any further than this bill.

This bill is a commonsense policy. It makes sure U.S. Government policy translates to Pentagon policy because the fact is that the U.S. Government, through our Trade Representative, has taken the position that Airbus subsidies are illegal and unfair. Yet, on the other hand, the U.S. Department of Defense is ignoring that position as we look to purchase a new tanker fleet, and that does not make any sense--not for our country, not for our military, and certainly not for our workers. The WTO made a fair decision. Airbus subsidies are illegal and anticompetitive. Now the Department of Defense needs to take that ruling into account.

When I go home and talk to our aerospace workers in Washington State, I want to be able to tell them we have evened the stakes. I want them to know their government is not looking the other way as policies continue to undercut their jobs and their opportunities. I want them to know that while they are working to secure our country by producing the best airplane in the world, their government is doing everything it can to make sure fair opportunities are there that will keep them on the job.

It is time to take these job-killing subsidies into account. It is the right thing to do for our workers, for our economy, and the future of our airspace industry.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes from Friday, December 17 through Wednesday, December 22, 2010. I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes:

Friday:

H.J. Res. 105--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey--Appropriations) (Voice vote)

1. H. Res. 1377--Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Representative Honda--House Administration)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1107--To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'' (Representative Conyers--Judiciary)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 628--To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges (Representative Issa-- Judiciary)

4. H. Res. 1733--Recognizing Mark Twain as one of America's most famous literary icons on the 175th anniversary of his birth and the 100th anniversary of his death (Representative Snyder--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. H. Res. 1621--Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of Catholic Charities USA (Representative Holt--Oversight and Government Reform)

6. H. Res. 1767--Commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid (Representative Baldwin-- Education and Labor)

7. H. Con. Res. 335--Honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the monumental contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict (Representative Lowey--Foreign Affairs)

8. S. 3874--Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Senator Boxer-- Energy and Commerce)

9. H.R. 6533--To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service (Representative Doyle--Energy and Commerce)

10. H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

11. H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform)

12. H.R. 5510--Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010 (Representative Kaptur--Financial Services)

Tuesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5116--America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)(228-130)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform) (216-139)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2751--FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Representatives Waxman/Dingell--Energy and Commerce) (215-144)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey-- Appropriations) (193-165)

1. S. 3592--A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' (Senator Chambliss--Oversight and Government Reform)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 81--Shark Conservation Act (Representative Bordallo--Natural Resources)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5809--Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Representative Inslee--Energy and Commerce)

4. H.R. 6540--To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess (Representative Inslee--Armed Services)

5. H.R. 6547--To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees (Representative George Miller--Education and Labor)

6. S. 118--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act (Senator Kohl--Financial Services)

7. S. 1481--Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Senator Menendez--Financial Services)

8. S. 3243--Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Senator Pryor/ Representative Shuler--Homeland Security)

9. S. 2925--Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010 (Senator Wyden--Judiciary)

10. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4748--Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Representative Owens--Judiciary)

11. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1746--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 (Representative Oberstar--Transportation and Infrastructure)

Wednesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (Representative Maloney--Energy and Commerce)(206-60)

Bills Adopted By Unanimous Consent (13):

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

2. S. 3481--Amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution (Senator Cardin--Transportation and Infrastructure)

3. House Amendment to S. 372--Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Senator Akaka--Oversight and Government Reform)

4. H. Res. 1461--Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants (Representative Langevin--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. S. 4036--A bill to clarify the National Credit Union Administration authority to make stabilization fund expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury (Senator Dodd--Financial Services)

6. S. Con. Res. 67--A concurrent resolution celebrating 130 years of United States-Romanian diplomatic relations, congratulating the Romanian people on their achievements as a great nation, and reaffirming the deep bonds of trust and values between the United States and Romania, a trusted and most valued ally (Senator Voinovich-- Foreign Affairs)

7. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6560--Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Representative Hank Johnson--Judiciary)

8. H. Res. 1779--Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders (Representative John Lewis (GA)--Judiciary)

9. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5901--Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010 (Representative Joe Crowley--Ways & Means)

10. H. Res. 1783--Technical Correction to H. Res. 1757 (Representative Brady (PA)--House Administration)

11. S. 4058--Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010 (Senator Kerry--Veterans' Affairs)

12. S. 3903--To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Senator Udall--Natural Resources)

13. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6517--To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes (Representative Levin-- Ways and Means)

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6540) to require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have another great bipartisan success today, at the closing day of our Congress, and I want to thank Representatives Larsen, Blunt, Tiahrt, Moran, and McDermott for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. This bill is the Defense Level Playing Field Act, which will incorporate in standalone legislation an amendment we adopted with huge bipartisan support previously by a vote of 410-8 on the defense authorization bill.

This bill is very important to bring a level of fairness and competitiveness from a job creation perspective to the tanker contract, which is now one of the largest procurement contracts in American history, a $35 billion contract providing for 179, and ultimately 400, aerial refueling planes, which will replace the Eisenhower-era tankers, which is so critical to our Nation's skeleton and backbone of our Nation's defense.

I note the basic thrust of this bill is to make sure that in our procurement process that we have fairness--fairness both to the law and fairness to the American workers, who are so successful. And one of the bidders we hope to be so successful with is the Boeing 767 platform, which will be fully capable of continuing the tradition of American provision of the very backbone of our American fleet and providing our tankers.

I want to make four points about what this bill will do. Basically, what this bill will do is require the Defense Department to take into consideration any unfair competitive advantage of any of the bidders in this contract. What basically this bill will do is require that the Pentagon take into consideration any unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by either of the bidders, Boeing or the Airbus consortium, and that is defined as costs of development, production, or manufacturing that are not fully borne by the offeror of any such contract.

Obviously, what gave rise to this amendment was the fact that we have found that there were over $5 billion of illegal, unfair competitive advantage that has been enjoyed by one of the contractors, the Airbus consortium.

But I want to make four points about what our bill does. Number one, our bill basically says that we need a fair competition. We are happy to compete as Americans. We love competition. We're happy to compete, but we need to do it on a level playing field. And this bill is very fair because it says that any unfair competitive advantage of either of the bidders needs to be taken into consideration in this bill. We love competition, but it needs to be fair.

Second, this bill is fair to both sides, Boeing and Airbus, America and Europe, because it requires an unfair competitive advantage from either bidder to be taken into consideration. And it is WTO-compliant. We were careful to draft the bill with that in mind.

Third, this is an enormous contract, and there have been enormous unfair competitive advantages bestowed on one of the bidders--frankly, Airbus. The $5 billion of illegal subsidies that we have found come out to somewhere between 27 and $5 million an airplane. This is an extraordinarily unfair advantage that one of the bidders has been given, and we need to take that into consideration.

Fourth, the job importance of this issue cannot be overstated. It is estimated that 62,000 jobs could hang in the balance if we allow these illegal subsidies not to be remedied in this procurement contract. American workers have built the best airplanes. They're ready to do it. And we're not going to allow tens of thousands of jobs to be lost based on illegal subsidization by our friends in Europe.

Now we have standalone legislation. We look forward to giving the Senate every opportunity to act on this.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I want to put in a good word for my comrade in arms, Todd Tiahrt. He isn't with us right at the moment, but he did great work on this--he has had a great career--as well as Mr. Larsen.

A couple of closing comments.

I come from a Boeing family. My uncle's cousins have worked with Boeing products from the 707, to the 737, to the 727, to the 747. Now they hope to work on the 767 tanker product. So this is a hometown team issue for me, but it is an international issue as to whether or not we are going to have rules when we compete with our friends across the pond, and we are happy to compete no matter what team we are on. This simply insists that America will follow the rules in a fair competition. It is the right thing to do.

So, in that regard, Madam Speaker, I will note that sometimes Congress reserves the best in its legislation and the best in its speakers pro tem for the last, and I think that this is the best in both ways.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I just wanted to address Mr. Miller's concern, wanted to advise him that we have been in discussions for the last several days with the current minority staff on the committee, who have all been well-advised about our intention to bring this in one way or another, either by UC or suspension, to the floor, and we've appreciated their cooperation in doing that.

I also want to advise Mr. Miller that this is exactly the same language we did vote for, including the gentleman from Florida, in its previous incarnation in the Defense authorization bill. I hope that I can say this is a fairly noncontroversial issue in the House, and we hope that when the light of public interest is shone on the Senate that they will act on this as well on behalf of America.

Madam Speaker, I would reserve my time unless the gentleman has no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.