Floor Statements

Mr. President, before my colleague speaks, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Senator is correct. We will be offering his amendment later.

Mr. President, I would like to express my sorrow regarding the tragic death of one of Washington's finest young environmental advocates Shannon Harps on December 31, 2007. She was killed by an unknown assailant as she was returning to her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle from the grocery store. Shannon's death is a tremendous loss to our community and the many issues to which she devoted her life. I join with Shannon's family, friends, and colleagues in the Sierra Club in mourning the loss of this wonderful person and fine community organizer. Though her life was cut short, she was able to make a large impact on the quality of the Northwest environment.

Shannon came from her home State of Ohio to Seattle, WA, in February 2004 to join the staff of the northwest office of the Sierra Club. This move joined two of Shannon's strongest desires to work to protect our environment and to live in the Northwest where she could more vigorously pursue her strong love for the outdoors.

Shannon had a wonderful sense of humor and a style of working with people that immediately put them at ease and made it easy for them to join her in protecting our environment and quality of life. Shannon particularly enjoyed working with high school and college students to help them develop their interests and talents in working to create a better world. While Shannon's work was directly focused on protecting our environment, from wilderness to global warming, her values were deeply embedded in a strong sense of fairness and justice for all people.

In the 4 years that Shannon lived in Washington State she helped to protect some of our finest lands. Shannon worked with Sierra Club volunteers and staff from the many groups to help move the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal through the various steps of its arduous journey through the congressional process. She spent countless hours on the phone, in meetings, and on the trail helping to bring people together to advocate for protection of these spectacular wild lands. Shannon believed that people were better advocates if they had firsthand knowledge of the places they were advocating for. As part of this belief she led countless hikes into some of Washington's wildest lands.

Shannon's was a natural leader in the State of Washington and worked with colleagues around the country to help thwart the various efforts to open up America's Arctic Coastal Plain to oil and gas drilling. She was a lead organizer in the successful effort in 2006 to pass the renewable energy portfolio standard for Washington State. And, in the recent 2 years, much of her work focused on building relationships with local officials and creating public support so they would endorse the mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.

In her all-too-short life, she made contributions that benefited our community, State, and the world. She lived her life as an example of living lightly on the planet and engaged the people and world around her with grace, humor, kindness, and respect. Everyone who worked with her admired her style, tenacity, and sense of purpose, along with her sparkling smile and laugh.

Shannon loved living and working in the Northwest. She reveled in the outdoors and nothing made her happier than to participate in a competitive run, or hike our high mountain trails. Her death is a loss for us all. But her spirit still resides with all of those with whom she worked and walked the trails, and those who continue the struggle to protect our lands and environment and create a more just and fair world for us all.

Mr. President, today I honor Marc Hershman, a professor and former director of the University of Washington School of Marine Affairs and adjunct professor at the school of law, for his exceptional public service to our country. Since 1972, Professor Hershman has been a valued leader, colleague, and mentor in the fields of marine policy, coastal zone management, marine ports and transportation, and law.

Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to report that Professor Hershman passed away on Monday, February 18. Today, I want to extend my condolences to his entire family, including his wife Carol, his daughter Carla, his son Jordan, and his sister Susan.

Professor Hershman led faculty and students engaged in teaching and research on integrated coastal zone management, ports and transportation, living marine resource management, marine protected areas, impacts of climate change, and other ocean issues. He had more than 30 years of experience in the study of ocean and coastal law and policy. In 1972, he founded the Coastal Management Journal and served as its editor in chief. He served as president of The Coastal Society, was a cofounder of the Marine Affairs and Policy Association, and was an active member of the nationwide Ocean Governance Study Group. He was the founder and a board member of Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center on Seattle's central waterfront.

Over the years, Professor Hershman was the recipient of several awards in the marine policy field. As voted by his peers, he was the first to receive the biennial Orville T. Magoon Service Award, which recognized his long-time Achievement Award and was twice presented with the Distinguished Service Award from the Coastal Society. In 2001, at the recommendation of U.S. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Professor Hershman was selected by President George W. Bush to serve on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Recently, Professor Hershman was working on ocean policy in Washington State. He led 25 students in preparing ocean policy recommendations to the Governor's Ocean Policy Working Group. In collaboration with NOAA's Sea Grant Program and various State agencies, Professor Hershman developed the groundwork for a marine policy fellowship program in the State government, to be called the Hershman Fellowship.

I extend my condolences to Professor Hershman's family and friends. His passing is a loss not only to his family and those who knew him but to academia and the entire field of marine policy.

Mr. President, in the last several days, we have learned some surprising things about the Air Force's decision to award a $40 billion contract to the European company, Airbus.

The Air Force wants Airbus, which is headquartered in Toulouse, France, to supply our next generation of aerial refueling tankers. It chose Airbus over the American company, Boeing, which has been making those tankers for the last 50 years.

I have made it clear over the past several days that I think this decision is shortsighted and dangerous. But today, even more questions have been raised about the process the Air Force followed to make this decision. So I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to walk through the impact I believe the Air Force decision will have because I think we need to take a good hard look at whether we as Members of the Senate think this contract should be finalized.

First, we need to be very cautious about any decision that awards the right to build a critical part of our military air technology to a company

that is controlled by a foreign government. What happens if that government disagrees with us on foreign policy? What if it decides it wants to slow down our military capacity? Do we want another country to have that kind of control?

The Air Force, of course, did not take that into consideration. They said they didn't have to. I think this case is a perfect example of how misguided that idea is.

Airbus is owned by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company--EADS--which in turn is controlled by several nations. Among them are countries which have not always agreed with the United States on foreign policy. They include Russia, which has a 5-percent stake, and the United Arab Emirates, which controls 7.5 percent of EADS.

Now, EADS has already demonstrated it is willing to bend the rules if it can help the company make money. I have talked extensively on the floor of the Senate about their attempts to sell military helicopters and planes to Iran and to Venezuela. But now we are opening the doors to a key piece of our military defense to them.

America's global military strength is built on our ability to use our military might anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Aerial tankers are the linchpin of our air power because they allow the U.S. Air Force to stretch across the globe. Until now, the technology that powered these critical planes rested in the hands of Boeing and its American workforce that has been building them for more than 50 years.

Until now, our tankers have been built by manufacturers, designers, and engineers who are bound by law from selling technology to countries that sponsor terrorism. But as a result of this contract, we are allowing EADS to take over a cornerstone of our military technology, and we are actually paying them to do it. In fact, I argue that decision was a $40 billion investment in the military research budget of EADS and Airbus.

The Air Force has said it wasn't their responsibility to take our security or our industry into account. Well, I say to my colleagues: Congress must--we must--be more forward-looking than that.

Secondly, I question why the Air Force was not required to take the economic impact into consideration when it awarded this contract. If Boeing had won this contract, it would have created 44,000 U.S. jobs. But it is far from clear what kind of an investment Airbus and its partner, Northrop Grumman, plan to make in the United States.

Our economy is hurting. We are nearing a recession, if we aren't already there. Families across the country are struggling to get by, in part because their factory jobs have been moved overseas. Workers across this country are frustrated, and they are angry that at a time such as this, their Government is saying it wants to take American tax dollars--our tax dollars--and give that money to a foreign company to build planes for our military.

We have more reason for concern because for decades Europe provided subsidies, their subsidies, to prop up Airbus and EADS. Airbus, they have said, is a jobs program that has led to tens of thousands of layoffs in the United States, and EADS has made little secret of its desire to dismantle the American aerospace industry.

Our Government, in fact, is concerned enough about these practices that we now have a WTO case against the EU over this. Yet here we are, last week our Government awarded Airbus this $40 billion contract anyway. That should give us a great deal of pause because EADS is already looking to build on the toehold that contract gives them into our aerospace industry.

In fact, a report in a leading French news service today says the executive president of EADS--Airbus--wants to build on the company's success with the tanker contract and propose to the EADS board ``two takeover projects in the fields of defense, security, or services.''

And he said: ``One of them at least should be in the United States.''

That brings me to my final point this afternoon. Why didn't the Air Force consider these obvious questions about national security and about economic security? Well, the Los Angeles Times today suggests an answer. They report on the front page of their paper today that EADS and its partner, Northrop Grumman, may have played a role in narrowing the scope of what the Air Force looked at. In fact, the Times reports that Northrop executives ensured that the Air Force wouldn't ask the competitors how Government subsidies would help pay for the design and development of the tanker--the subject of the very WTO dispute I just mentioned.

According to that article, Northrop made threats in order to shape the criteria the Air Force followed.

The Times reports:

Northrop threatened at one point to pull out of the

competition if the Air Force didn't change the way the

aircraft would be evaluated.

So did the Air Force pull a bait and switch with this contract? Did it unfairly change the process to benefit EADS?

I believe there are many serious questions about this selection process. As U.S. Senators, it is our job to consider the future of our national security and our defense. I believe we need open and honest answers to those questions before this contract is finalized. In fact, I think we ought to demand the answers. Our economy and our aerospace industry are suffering, and we are at war across the globe. We have to get this right. Our future depends on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the course of this past week, I have come to the Senate floor every single

day to sound an alarm about the misguided and potentially dangerous decision to outsource a major piece of our aerospace industry to Europe.

I have talked about the dismay Boeing workers felt in my home State of Washington when they learned the Pentagon had decided to award a contract to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers not to Boeing but to a French company, Airbus.

I have talked about my shock that we would award Airbus this contract, given the EU's lengthy history of subsidizing these planes in order to create European, not American, jobs.

I have talked about the fact that Airbus is being less than open about how many U.S. jobs it will really create in this country.

All of these are reasons to be deeply troubled about this decision. But today I want to address yet another concern; that is, the ability to control our national security once we have effectively turned over control of our military capability and technology to a foreign government. This is an issue we all need to take a good hard look at.

America's global military strength is built on our ability to use military might anywhere in the world, at a moment's notice. Our aerial refueling tankers are the critical link that allows the U.S. Air Force to stretch across the globe. From Fairchild Air Force Base in my home State of Washington to the Far East, from Andrews to Baghdad, our bombers and our fighters can fly farther and faster because our tankers, which supply fuel in midair, are always there to support them.

Tankers, in fact, are so important to our military that Army GEN Hugh Shelton, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, once said the motto of the tanker and airlift forces should be: ``Try fighting without us.''

Until now, the technology that powered these critical planes rested in the hands of Boeing and its American workforce, who have been building them for more than 50 years now.

Until now, our tankers have been built by manufacturers, by designers, and by engineers who have been able to pass on those skills and technology that 50 years of experience brings, and who are bound by law from selling that technology to countries that sponsor terrorism. Well, last Friday, that ended. Last Friday, the Air Force made a decision that will enable a company that is controlled by a foreign government to develop and share that technology. Are we going to look back on this decision and say this is the moment when we threw open the doors to our military technology? Are we going to allow our tankers, a linchpin of our national defense, to be the first domino to fall?

I have said this before. With one contract, we could wipe out what it has taken our Nation 50 years to build up: an experienced and exceptional aerospace industry. Once it is gone, we are not going to get it back. We will not get it back. Once we lose the ability to produce military technology right here at home, we begin to lose control over our Nation's defense.

This decision effectively gives foreign governments control over aspects of our own national security. In this case, we are giving up control and $40 billion to the European Aeronautical Defense and Space Company called EADS. That is the company that has made no secret of their desire to dismantle our American aerospace industry. In fact, this decision can be seen as a $40 billion investment in the military research budget of EADS and Airbus.

So we are allowing Airbus to take over a cornerstone of our military technology, and we are actually paying them to do it. While that certainly doesn't make sense, the fact that this deal could allow Airbus to share American technology with whomever they please is just plain dangerous.

The Air Force's decision means that American tanker technology, which has been developed over the last 50 years, is now out on the free market, available to the highest bidder. Under American law, the law that Boeing has to abide by, they are prohibited from selling technology to countries that sponsor terrorism. In other words, we have control. We have control over where that technology goes right now. But EADS and Airbus don't have to follow those same restrictions. They have said so in the past, and they have demonstrated that they don't care about giving technology to terrorists. They only care about their bottom line.

In fact, back in 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran. But if the company is so pro-American, as they are saying right now, why was it ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran? Well, the answer to that question was simple to EADS Representative Michel Tripier. When he was asked about this back in 2005, his response was:

As a European company, we are not supposed to take into

account embargoes from the U.S.

Let me repeat that. Here is what he said:

As a European company, we are not supposed to take into

account embargoes from the U.S.

In 2006, EADS, the parent company of Airbus, proved they meant it when they tried to sell transport and patrol planes to Venezuela. That is a circumvention of U.S. law.

What if in the years to come Airbus wants to sell their tanker technology to Pakistan, to China, or to Iran? I wish to remind my colleagues that Russia now owns 5 percent of EADS, and it is pushing for 10 percent more. The United Arab Emirates now controls 7.5 percent of EADS.

What the Air Force has done is extremely shortsighted. They have said it wasn't their responsibility to take our security or our industry into account. Well, I say to my colleagues: Then Congress has to. Congress has to. We need to be more forward-looking than the Air Force was last Friday.

What happens in 20 years if EADS is controlled by countries that disagree with our policy on, say, Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East or around the globe? What if they decide to slow down production of tankers, to put us at a strategic disadvantage? Right now, we have no way to prevent that.

Where do we go from here? What other aspect of our military technology are we Americans willing to part with? Our aerial tankers are the backbone of our military strength. But what about our other critical military supplies? Are we going to outsource our tanks? Are we going to outsource our military satellites? What about the missiles that are currently made in Alabama? Are we going to outsource those? What about the equipment that has to be delivered constantly to our troops in the field? Are we going to outsource our meals ready to eat, our ammunition? I would not support that, and I know many of my colleagues wouldn't either.

So I am here to ask all of us: Where do we draw the line? The Air Force said it wasn't their job to consider the future of our national security and defense, but we as Senators have taken an oath to do that.

I urge all my colleagues to take pause and truly think about the consequences of this shortsighted contract. The American people and our national security are depending on it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I understand we are working toward final passage on the bill. I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas for the tremendous job he has done on this legislation. While everybody is putting together the last of this bill, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

Madam President, I have come to the floor this afternoon because we have to wake up the country. We are at risk of losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever.

I am outraged the Pentagon is not only going to stand by and let it happen, but it is the Pentagon itself that made the decision in the first place. I am referring, of course, to the Air Force's decision last Friday to award one of the largest military contracts in history to the French company Airbus over the American company Boeing. With this $40 billion contract, our Air Force is beginning the process of rebuilding our aerial refueling tanker

fleet, and the planes we are purchasing are going to be used for the next 30 years or more.

As we learn more about this decision, I have to say I grow more and more astounded at the shortsightedness. As I speak today, Airbus does not actually supply this military capacity to any government. The tanker that the administration wants Airbus to build is unproven. In fact, in my home State of Washington, the machinists call it a paper airplane because it only exists on paper. Right now, the company that supplies those real planes is Boeing, and it has built them for almost 50 years. Up until now, we have in this country controlled our own military refueling capabilities, but with this decision we are now handing Airbus that control.

What makes this so disturbing is we are now outsourcing those jobs to a company that has spent years blatantly working to dismantle our American aerospace companies. Airbus is controlled by foreign governments which follow the social welfare model. Those countries subsidize Airbus, allowing it to sell planes at discounted rates, as long as it creates jobs for European workers.

Our Government is concerned enough about that practice that we have a WTO case pending at the EU, but apparently that does not matter to the administration, because by giving Airbus this contract, we are laying out the welcome mat to walk all over our military production capability. What is the incentive to buy an American tanker if they can get an import at fire-sale prices? With this contract, we are allowing Airbus to take over our military technology, and we are actually paying them to do it.

Airbus has now launched a very slick marketing campaign to try to convince us in Congress and the public that this decision will actually be good for the United States. I spoke on the floor at length yesterday about Airbus's long history of exaggerating the number of jobs it has produced, and it is very interesting that while Airbus has put its supporters on radio and TV over here--and you have heard them--to talk about how excited they are about the number of U.S. jobs this deal is going to create, the news in Europe is about 180 degrees different. Reuters ran an article, the dateline out of Paris yesterday, reporting that Airbus's parent company, EADS, was scrambling over there to clarify that no jobs would be relocated from Europe to the United States. And a British publication earlier this week reported that almost all of the construction work will be done in Europe and then Airbus will fly that plane to the United States for ``finishing.''

If Boeing had won the contract, it would have created 44,000 real United States jobs. By awarding this contract to Airbus, the U.S. Government is leading those jobs to the guillotine.

The most frustrating part about all of this is the Air Force has insisted on defending their decision. Yesterday, according to the Associated Press and other news outlets, one official testified in the House that the Pentagon did not have to consider the location of assembly and manufacturing facilities for those planes; all it needed was a promise by Airbus that it would team with Northrop Grumman and U.S. suppliers. In other words, the Air Force did not consider at all Airbus's record of playing unfair on trade. It did not consider at all the number of jobs we will certainly lose because of this contract. And it did not consider at all what this would mean for our ability to produce our own military technology.

When we are at war across the globe, we should at least consider what it means to give a company owned by a foreign government control over our military technology, and I think we should do it before we finalize this deal.

Airbus and EADS have already given us plenty of reason to worry about how hard they will work to protect our security interests. Let me give a couple of examples. Back in 2005, EADS, the parent company of Airbus, was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran. And in 2006, EADS tried to sell transport and patrol planes to Venezuela. That is a circumvention of U.S. law.

Suppose in the future that Europe and the United States have a major disagreement over foreign policy. Do we want France or any other country to have the ability to slow down our military capacity because it does not like our policies?

That is a serious question we should consider. With one contract, we could wipe out 50 years of experience of aerospace in the United States, and once it is gone we are not going to get it back. It is not going to come back. Shouldn't we in Congress at least have a serious debate about this before we give it all away?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to spend a few minutes talking about the future of our Nation's global aerospace leadership, because, frankly, I believe it is in serious jeopardy.

Now, for any of my colleagues who have not heard, last Friday, the Air Force awarded one of the largest military contracts in history. It is a $40 billion contract. But the Air Force picked

a group led by the French company, Airbus, over an American company, Boeing, to supply our next generation of aerial refueling tankers.

I think I speak for many of us when I say it is deeply troubling we would turn our aerospace leadership over to a foreign company. If the contract had gone to Boeing, it would have meant 44,000 American jobs. So now Airbus is arguing that this contract isn't outsourcing jobs because it teamed with Northrop Grumman, and they have their supporters on the radio and TV talking about how excited they are about the work that will come to the United States because of this deal.

I think we better step back and take a good hard look at what Airbus is planning before anybody pops the champagne. The reality is, we don't know what Airbus is planning.

The Air Force has already said it did not consider jobs a factor when it awarded the tanker contract, so all we have to go on is Airbus's word. We have seen Airbus's slick marketing campaign before, and we have very good reason to be worried. Airbus has a history of bending the truth to try to convince Congress that it plans to invest in the United States, but when you examine their claims, they don't hold up.

Five years ago, when Airbus was first working to unravel Boeing's tanker contract, Airbus and its parent company, EADS, hired a small army of lobbyists to come out here and assert to us that their business was good for America. Well, at the time I was very skeptical of their PR campaign, so I asked our Commerce Department to investigate. Guess what I found. Airbus had claimed they had created 100,000 jobs here, but the Commerce Department looked into it and it wasn't 100,000 jobs; it was 500. Airbus said it had contracted with 800 U.S. firms, but the Commerce Department came back and said it was only 250.

At that point, Airbus did something very funny. They changed their numbers, decreasing the number of contracts from 800 all of a sudden to 300, but they increased the alleged value of those contracts from $5 billion to $6 billion a year. So I said at the time: You cannot trust Airbus's funny numbers.

What is interesting is, if you peel back the veneer on Airbus's promises this time, you start asking similar questions. Airbus had said it will build an assembly plant in Alabama. The Air Force says the planes will be American. A plant doesn't exist in America, and the only thing we know about the jobs it will create is that most of that work is going to be done overseas. If you don't believe me, read the British newspapers.

An article in a newspaper in Britain reported Monday that:

Airbus will build the planes in Europe, and fly them to a

plant in Mobile, Alabama, for fitting out.

Supposedly, this allows them to call them ``made in America.'' That is like shipping a BMW over from Germany, putting new tires on it, and calling it America's newest luxury car.

As I have said before, you can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American made.

I think we have to take some cues from the reaction of the French and German leaders about what this contract means for Boeing and the American industry, and it is not good. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the deal ``an immense success for Airbus and the European aerospace industry.''

That is what they are saying in Europe.

A spokesman for French President Nicolas Sarkozy called this deal a ``historic success.'' That is what they are calling it in Europe.

Four years ago, I stood on this floor to raise an alarm to my colleagues about Europe's attempt to dismantle the American aerospace industry, and I have spent years warning the administration and Congress that we have to defend our industry and demand that Airbus play by the rules. For decades, Europe has provided subsidies to prop up Airbus and EADS. Airbus is, to them, a jobs program in Europe, and it has led to tens of thousands of layoffs in the United States because of their illegal tactics, which I have been out on the floor a number of times over the past years to delineate for all of my colleagues. The U.S. Government now has a WTO case pending against Airbus--against the exact company the Air Force has now awarded a $40 billion contract to.

So I think we have even more reason for concern because this contract now gives Airbus a firm foothold as a U.S. contractor, and it is one that is going to hurt our U.S. workers for years to come.

It took us 100 years to build an aerospace industry in the United States. But once our plants shut down, the industry is gone. We can't just rebuild it overnight. So let's set the record straight. With this contract--this Air Force contract--Airbus is not creating American jobs; it is killing them. With this contract, we can say bon voyage to 44,000 U.S. jobs and bon voyage to $40 billion of our taxpayer money.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

How much time is left?

Madam President, I rise this morning to respond to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who came out a few moments ago to talk about the budget. We are in the process right now of putting together this year's budget. It will be voted on in committee today or tomorrow and, of course, then out here on the floor. We will have a lot of floor time over the next week to discuss the budget.

I felt it was really important to set the record straight because it is that rhetorical time again when we will hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle come out and say Democrats are tax-and-spend liberals. Let me set the record straight.

Last year's budget had a $180 billion tax cut in it--not for the wealthiest Americans but for hard-working middle-class Americans.

We worked very hard to put together a fiscally responsible budget. We are not going to sit here and listen to ``tax and spend'' thrown at us time and time again when, in reality, with the Democratic President 7 years ago we came into the time with a budget that had a surplus, which we soon saw diminished incredibly, and we are now in deficit spending because of an irresponsible tax cut the Republicans have been pushing for the wealthiest of Americans, which even Senator John McCain didn't vote for at the time. It did leave us without the capacity to make sure we had the investments we needed to be able to ensure that Americans can stay in their homes; that they can have roads they can drive on to get to work; that they can make sure their children have the kind of education they need so they can get a job and contribute back to this country; and, importantly, to take care of our veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and finding long waiting lines at our medical facilities and not getting the adequate care they need.

The budget that the Budget chair will present this afternoon is, once again, a fiscally responsible document that understands the needs of Americans and will make sure we are responding to the crisis we are in today in this country and invest in America's people. It is fiscally responsible. It is not about tax cuts or tax increases, it is about making sure we have the revenues available to make sure every single American today has the opportunity that is available for them, that dream that they can live to be a strong American citizen and to keep our communities and America strong.

So I reject the argument that we all hear thrown at us time and again that Democrats are ``tax-and-spend'' liberals. We are fiscally responsible Democrats, and we are proud of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Friday I stood on the floor of the 767 line with workers in Everett, WA, who have put their hearts and their souls into making Boeing airplanes. I was there as those workers learned that after 50 years--five decades--the Air Force no longer wants them to build its refueling tankers. I saw the dismay in their eyes when they learned their Government is going to outsource one of the largest defense contracts in history to the French company Airbus. It was devastating news for Boeing, for American workers, and for America's men and women in uniform.

Today, those workers are frustrated, and they are angry, not only because the tanker contract would mean 44,000 new American jobs in 40 States, including 9,000 in my home State of Washington; they are frustrated and angry because their Government let them down. They are frustrated and angry because their Government wants to take American tax dollars, their tax dollars, and give that money to a foreign company to build planes for our military.

I am frustrated and angry, too, because I cannot think of a worse time for a worse decision. Our economy is hurting. We are nearing a recession, if we are not already there. Families are struggling just to get by, in part because their factory jobs have been moved overseas.

This tanker contract was not just one defense contract, it was a key piece

of our national and economic security. The Boeing 767 tanker would have helped stabilize and strengthen the American aerospace industry. We are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to foreign countries already, so I cannot imagine why, at a time like this, our Government would decide to take 44,000 American jobs, good jobs, and give them to the Europeans instead of securing the American economy and our military while we are at war. We are creating a European economic stimulus plan at the expense of U.S. workers.

I have a lot of tough questions I hope I will get answers to soon because there seems to be some real disconnect here. For one, how can we, while we are at war across the globe, justify putting a contract that involves military security into the hands of a foreign government? Outsourcing a key piece of our American military capabilities to any foreign company is a national security risk.

Airbus and its parent company, EADS, have already given us reason to worry about how hard they will work to protect our security interests.

In 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran despite our concern about Iran's support of terrorists in Iraq and their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. When they were confronted, EADS answered that as a European country, they were not supposed to take into account embargos from the United States. Well, that is the company to which the Air Force is now going to give a major military contract. But that is just one example. In 2006, EADS tried to sell C- 295 and CN-235 transport and patrol planes to Venezuela--a circumvention of U.S. law. We prohibit foreign countries from selling military products containing U.S.-made military technology to third countries without U.S. approval. Part of the reason is because we want to keep our weapons from falling into the hands of countries such as Venezuela which have threatened U.S. security and mean us harm. We cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interests in mind, especially one that has a history of trying to sell weapons and military technology to unfriendly countries.

But you know what, I think this raises a bigger question too. What happens if France or Russia--which is pushing to increase its stake in EADS, by the way--decided it wants to slow down our military capacity because it does not like our policy? Do we want another country to have that kind of control? I think that is one of the questions we need to answer, and we need to answer it now.

I also want to know why this Government would choose an unproven plane using unproven technology for a program that is so vital to our U.S. Air Force. Tankers are so important to our military that Army GEN Hugh Shelton, who was the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that the motto of the tanker and airlift forces should be ``try fighting without us.''

Boeing has 75 years of experience designing planes for our Air Force. Boeing's tanker has been a reliable part of the U.S. military fleet for so long that we have squadron pilots whose fathers and even grandfathers have flown them. Boeing could have started building these tankers immediately.

In Everett, the machinists call Airbus's tanker a ``paper airplane.'' Why? Because Airbus's tanker only exists on a sheet of paper. Now, although Airbus has taken contracts for tankers, it has not yet actually delivered a single refueling tanker, ever. Yet our Air Force just picked that plane--that ``paper airplane''--to serve one of military's most critical functions.

Finally, I do not understand why the Air Force did not take jobs into consideration when it awarded this contract. Yet that is what they said on Friday. The Air Force said simply that Airbus's tanker will be an American plane with an American flag on it. Well, you know what, you can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that does not make it American-made, especially if it was made in France. It seems to me extraordinary that when the military is deciding how to spend $40 billion in American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, it would not at least consider the effects it would have on the economy.

This is not just $40 billion either, and it is not just 44,000 jobs; it is much bigger because this affects Boeing's entire 767 line and all of the communities that depend upon it. In Everett, we know this. Boeing's health touches everything: how much people spend on groceries and clothes and whether they can buy a car or even a home. I think the Everett Herald put it in perspective Saturday when it quoted the general manager of our local mall, who said:

When Boeing sneezes, we all grab for the Kleenex.

This loss is going to be felt in our homes and our businesses and communities throughout Washington State and the entire country wherever there is a Boeing factory or a Boeing supplier.

Now, my colleagues from Alabama came on the floor last night and defended Airbus. They argued that this contract does not outsource jobs. We still do not really know how many jobs Airbus might create in the United States. That has not been decided. The only thing we know for sure is that much if not most of the initial work will be done overseas. And today, guess what. The Europeans are celebrating that. The United Kingdom's Business Secretary is already counting the jobs. Do not listen to me. Listen to what they are saying in their papers overseas over the weekend after the contract was announced.

UK's Business Secretary, John Hutton, quoted in the papers in Europe over the weekend:

The massive contract will secure a number of years of work

for the UK industry benefitting not just Airbus UK, but also

many other UK suppliers.

The German Government's coordinator for the aerospace industry said over the weekend:

It is a massive breakthrough for the European aerospace

industry on the key American market.

They are not talking about jobs that might be created in the United States, they are talking about jobs that are being created--and lots of them--in the European Union. For decades, we have been talking about this, and now here we are.

What does France's Prime Minister say? He said of the victory over the weekend:

It testifies to the competitiveness of our industry and

does honor to France and Europe.

They are not celebrating this as an American victory, they are celebrating it as a victory for France and Europe. Europe has provided subsidies for decades to prop up this company, Airbus, and EADS-Airbus is a European jobs program that has created an uneven playing field and led to tens of thousands of layoffs here in the United States. Europeans are willing to do anything to distort the market and beat out Boeing.

The tanker they will supply for the military is a result of that decades-long effort. I have for years--and my colleagues know this-- been coming out here and urging the administration and Congress to fight to save America's aerospace industry from a European takeover in order to save American jobs. We have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules. In fact, because of EADS illegal tactics, the U.S. Government right now has a WTO case pending against Airbus, the same company to which we are now awarding a $40 billion contract. It took us 100 years to build the aerospace industry in this country. We have to defend it. Once those plants are shut down and our skilled workers move on to other fields, we cannot recreate that overnight. What did the administration turn around and do? It handed Airbus $40 billion of taxpayer money and 44,000 jobs and did ``honor to France and Europe.'' It is no wonder Boeing's workers are angry. One worker said to me: It is a slap in the face. Many others are asking: How could this happen?

I am angry too. I am looking forward to asking these questions of the administration. The hard-working Americans in my State and across the country deserve to know why this administration has given their jobs and a contract involving a major piece of our military capability to France.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?

I am listening to the Senator from Kansas, and he makes a very good point about the infrastructure that will be needed to be built to build these larger airplanes. Was any of the cost of building those runways or those hangars to accommodate the larger airplanes in part of the bid from Airbus?

I thank the Senator. I think it is a point we have to look at in terms of the costs of providing this military contract to a subsidized foreign company as well as the future costs--not just for those airplanes but for the infrastructure to handle it and our capability of doing that.

Mr. President, our servicemembers in Iraq are fighting under incredibly stressful conditions each and every day. We are on the floor today talking about an Iraq resolution. We are focused on the war or the surge. I wish to talk today about the soldiers themselves who are called on. Many of them, as we know, have come home with terrible injuries that need specialized care. Yet there are too many examples that show today the Bush administration was caught unprepared to take care of these men and women when they have come home.

So as we continue to talk about Iraq, I think it is important we also talk about the toll that this war is taking on our troops and our veterans. I wish to focus today on the need to ensure that our injured servicemembers and veterans can get the care they need and deserve by reminding all of us what happened in the last year and how much we still have to do.

A year ago this month, the Washington Post published a story that uncovered the depth of the problems facing our servicemembers who were being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Post reported then that servicemembers were living in rooms with moldy walls and broken ceilings while they waited, waited to get care. The Post found that many of our servicemembers and their families felt trapped at the time in a bureaucratic catch-22 as they fought to get the disability benefits they had earned.

The news of the extent of the squalid conditions was a watershed moment in

the care of our military men and women. It focused the attention of the American people on the needs and treatment of our injured servicemembers and veterans. It put a spotlight on the frustrating redtape that was facing servicemembers as they transitioned out of the military and into the VA.

I am very proud that Congress, led by the Democratic majority, moved quickly to investigate the problems, not just at Walter Reed but throughout the military and VA systems to take that action.

Shortly after the Washington Post story ran, the Democratic leaders went to Walter Reed and met with our injured servicemembers. The Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee joined in a historic partnership to address the problems we saw there and at military and VA facilities across the entire country.

Many of us have continued to go to Walter Reed and other facilities on a regular basis, as we had even before those stories ran. In fact, I was up at Walter Reed a short time ago to tour the mental health ward and learn about what efforts are being made to decrease the stigma attached to mental health care and to help improve care.

As a result of the action we took, our country has made a lot of changes in its care for our servicemembers and our veterans. One of the most significant was the Wounded Warriors Act, which was included in last year's Defense authorization bill.

With the Wounded Warriors Act, we laid out a clear path, directing the Defense Department and the VA to address the shortfalls in the care of our injured servicemembers. So a year after the Walter Reed report, we required the Defense Department and the VA to work together to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, treat, and diagnose traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome, and we directed the Defense Department to create Centers of Excellence for TBI and PTSD to improve our understanding of these devastating injuries that were impacting our soldiers.

We are addressing the frustrating bureaucracy with which our troops have struggled. We have now directed the VA and the Defense Department to develop a joint electronic health care record. And we are requiring the military and the VA to work together, finally, on disability ratings.

The Defense Department is investing in new technology, more equipment, and state-of-the-art treatment to better care for injured soldiers. Walter Reed and facilities across the entire country are making similar improvements. In fact, in my home State of Washington, Fort Lewis has taken great strides in its treatment of wounded servicemembers who are recovering there. In one example, leaders there are working very hard now to help our servicemembers and, critically, their families understand the benefits available to them.

I am optimistic the action we took is changing the way our military and the VA operates. But as I stand on the floor today, I must tell you we have a lot of work left to be done. Yesterday, the GAO reported to Congress the Army has significantly improved its support for servicemembers at Walter Reed and our military hospitals.

According to the Washington Post this morning, there is an article today: Army officials say they have transformed the way they care for soldiers and their families.

But the GAO also said, as has been reported this morning, there are still shortages of staff and other gaps we have to address. In fact, one-third of warrior transition units are still understaffed. And that, to me, raises concerns about the progress of a streamlined disability ranking system.

We still have a long ways to go to provide our servicemembers with the care they deserve. And some of these changes are actually going to require a cultural transformation within the military. We have to keep our eye on the ball.

I got a personal reminder of this when I reconnected recently with Army retired SPC Rory Dunn. He is an amazing young man who comes from my home State and lives in Renton, WA. Rory was horribly injured when his humvee was hit by a roadside bomb outside Fallujah in 2004. When I first saw Rory, he was in front of me with his entire skull crushed in, his head crushed from ear to ear. He lost an eye. He lost his sense of smell. He lost much of his hearing. He still today, in fact, has shrapnel in his brain. Rory, sitting in front of me, had visibly sacrificed for our country, nearly losing his life several times as he was moved from Fallujah to Germany and finally to Walter Reed. When he got to the United States, he was sent to Walter Reed, and there the Army tried to discharge him before he completely had recovered.

He and his mother have struggled to help make sure he gets the benefits he needs, not just that, the lack of medical care as he progressed. When I saw Rory at one time he was excited. He was being sent to Richmond, VA polytrauma center for treatment. Recently he told me about the horrific experience he had there. I hope much has improved since then, but he told me at the time, even though he could not get out of bed because of the tremendous extent of his injuries, he would wake up in the morning, ring his call bell, which apparently was not plugged in, and wait for a nurse to come and help him with basic restroom needs. No one came for hours. Rory was left there. A soldier who fought for his country in the Iraq war, had done everything his country asked of him, injured horribly, was left to sit in his own waste in a polytrauma center in Virginia.

Thankfully we have come a long way from there. Rory should never have had to go through that.

He was then sent on to Palo Alto for reconstructive surgery. They did an amazing job. In fact, when I first talked to Rory after his injuries, he asked me to pin his Purple Heart on him when he was awarded that. But he wanted to wait until he had his face reconstructed because he wanted the picture to look good. So he had to wait many months before I finally met him in Seattle and was so proud to pin that on his chest as his mother sat and watched with tears running down her face.

That was several years ago. Rory has continued to struggle every single day, a young man, barely out of his teenage years, injured dramatically in the war in Iraq, 4 years later, still struggling to do everything he can to be an American. What is Rory doing with his time? He and his mother, who has now spent 4 years helping Rory recover, are back at Walter Reed and other VA facilities to make sure no soldier goes through what Rory did, advocating for them, making sure they understand what they need, making sure they get the help and support and, importantly, making sure I continue to understand what is happening in the military in our VA system and making sure that no soldier goes through what he did when he came home. Rory told me a few weeks ago: There is much work left to be done. He still talks to soldiers who have been left behind, who are not getting the help they need, who feel like second-class citizens, who feel they are still fighting their Government when they come home.

For me, Rory is the face of this war. I think we have to ensure that the changes we are making to improve the conditions for all of our servicemembers and veterans such as Rory are not a flurry of action while the cameras are rolling. We have to work to ensure that action doesn't drop off once the media has moved on to the next story. I remain firmly convinced that we have to remain vigilant on three specific fronts if we are going to talk about real change for our troops and our veterans. I believe, first, we have to ensure that we cut through the bureaucracy between the military and the VA. It is simply unacceptable that after fighting for our country, our servicemembers have had to return and fight against the Government for the care they deserve. It isn't only from this war. Go back and talk to Vietnam-era, Korean-era veterans who have been fighting for years to get the disability benefits they deserve.

Thanks to the Wounded Warrior Act, we have now started a pilot project to work out ways to make the Defense Department and the VA disability rating systems compatible so our soldiers do not face this, but we do have to remember, this is the first step between bridging the gap between the VA and the Defense Department. It is only a pilot. We have a lot more work we need to do to ensure that those agencies don't do a pilot project and put it on

the shelf; that they look at how it is working, what is working, what is not, what are the challenges in front of us, are we making sure that we stay on them every day. Congress has to keep a close watch to make sure this isn't because the cameras were rolling a year ago or today but something that is effective far into the future. We have to work to make sure they meet those goals.

Secondly, we have to focus our attention on treating the new injuries to our servicemembers who are suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly traumatic brain injury. TBI is a significant wound of this war, but we have only just begun to understand how we treat it. We have to recognize that whenever there is an explosion in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever we have soldiers on the ground, the effects of that, not just on the soldiers in the vehicle but even those close by and sometimes hundreds of yards away, can have a damaging impact on the brain, called traumatic brain injury. We still don't know all we need to about how to treat TBI, and we still have soldiers coming home every day, every month who have just been diagnosed with TBI or perhaps not diagnosed, and we need to make sure they get the correct diagnosis and treatment.

Congress has authorized millions of new dollars for research, but we have to ensure that we get the results from that research. Then we have to make sure we take action based on what we have learned.

I am extremely disappointed that the President seems to have lost sight of that already. He has proposed to this Congress an 8-percent cut for VA medical and prosthetic research in his fiscal year 2009 budget. That is incredibly shortsighted, and he can be sure--and every Member of this body can be sure--I am going to fight that every step of the way. We need to find out how to better treat TBI, how to diagnosis it, how to deal with PTSD and how to diagnose and treat it effectively. That takes research, and we have to stay on top of it.

Finally, and most difficult, we have to change a military culture in which servicemembers are told that mental illness is an excuse for their pain and which fails to recognize that psychological wounds can be more serious than some of their physical injuries. Congress again has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care system. We have pushed through legislation this past year requiring the military and the VA to destigmatize mental health treatment, to increase awareness of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome, and to do further research on traumatic brain injury. But recent reports show that the Army's suicide prevention efforts need a lot more work. The numbers of suicides have risen since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and last year as many as 121 soldiers committed suicide. That is a 20-percent increase over the year before.

I was struck by a recent report by the Associated Press which was a stark reminder of how serious this issue is. That article reported on a VA study which found that more than half of the veterans who took their own lives from 2001 to 2005 were members of the National Guard or Reserve, even though the Guard and Reserve have made up less than a third of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Prolonged deployments are stretching our troops to the breaking point. Earlier this week General Casey acknowledged his concern about the strain on the military. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Army is under so much stress from extended deployments that we must reduce the length of combat tours as soon as possible. Many of our servicemembers have seen their best friends killed. They have seen other untold horrors. Yet somehow we expect them to come back from the battlefield, come back home unaffected by what they have seen, or their experience. We have to ensure that the military takes action to ensure that our troops are getting the psychological care they need. We need to see a change in the culture. That change has to be more than a talking point. Senior military leaders have pledged to do more, but they have to ensure that their words and their programs are being executed in the field. They have to work to break down the stigma that is, unfortunately, associated with seeking mental health treatment. They have to ensure that troops have psychiatrists and psychologists to talk to, and they have to ensure that those who seek help aren't then penalized. We have to find ways to reach out to servicemembers who are discharged and are not seeking care from the VA. This is especially important for our Guard and Reserves who oftentimes, when they come home, don't think of themselves as veterans. They return from the war and go back to their civilian jobs without ever getting help.

In my State of Washington, over 10,200 Guard and Reserve members have now served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops and veterans are heroes who are sacrificing for our Nation. It is time for our Government to wake up and provide them with the care they need.

I voted against going to war in Iraq. But I have said consistently that no matter how anyone feels about the war, we have an obligation as leaders to make sure our men and women who fight for us get the care they deserve. I am proud of the way this Congress, led by the Democratic majority, moved to address the problems facing our returning servicemembers, which clearly wasn't a priority for the Bush administration. Here in Congress, we said: Not on our watch, not anymore.

A year after the Walter Reed story drew attention to the treatment of servicemembers, we have made progress. But we cannot let this issue fade away. After examining the President's VA budget proposal, I have to tell my colleagues, I am disappointed that the administration still doesn't seem to get it. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Bush said he was dedicated to providing for our Nation's veterans. But at a time when thousands of new veterans are entering the VA system with serious medical needs as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration is underestimating the cost of medical care and is cutting funding for construction and medical and prosthetic research. At a time when our older veterans are seeking care in record numbers, the President is proposing fees for them and copays that are essentially going to shut the door of the VA to thousands of people who served our country. That is wrong. I am going to be working very hard this year to ensure that those misguided proposals do not become reality.

The same is true as we address the budget for caring for our troops. Our servicemembers risk their lives for our security every single day. They have done everything we have asked. We have to live up to our commitment to them.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to revise the previous consent order for the speakers on our side to be 5 minutes for the Senator from Washington, 5 minutes for the Senator from New York, 5 minutes for the Senator from North Dakota, and 5 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the Foreclosure Prevention Act because we have to take action now to help so many families in this country who have been hurt in the mortgage and credit crisis.

The bill that we will hopefully vote to move to shortly is going to help provide the resources to keep our families in their homes, help our communities recover from this foreclosure crisis, and help struggling businesses to weather this shaky economy. The bill we will consider going to will provide some commonsense solutions to help address the problems that are at the heart of our country's economic woes. It is an opportunity finally for us to invest in our communities now so we can prevent millions of families from going into foreclosure.

I wish to share with the body quickly a story of a constituent from my home State, a man named Clifford, who lives in Olympia and who let me know about what happened to him, which is happening to so many Americans. He thought he had achieved the American dream by owning a home. His home, he said, represented stability to him. It was his investment in his future. But he, similar to many Americans, lost his job in a factory. The bills started stacking up. The stress wore on him and his family. His wife, who had diabetes, got sick and she had to have surgery. Before he knew it he was several months behind in his mortgage.

Suddenly, all his dreams for a secure future evaporated.

He told me how he struggled to work with his mortgage company and he couldn't catch up. Eventually, he made a phone call to Consumer Counseling Northwest, and through the help of that counseling, he was able to get his payments reduced with his mortgage

company, get back on track, and keep his family home.

That is why in this bill we are going to vote on, we have included critical funding for housing counseling that will allow our families across the country to make a phone call--not to their mortgage company to say I can't pay my bill but to a housing counselor who can sit down with them and their family to get their finances back in order so they do not have to go to foreclosure.

We know the housing crisis is impacting millions of families. In fact, experts tell us it may impact as many as 2 million families in this coming year alone. We can help prevent that if we can give these families a place to go, a counselor to help them, and the ability to be able to manage their finances.

Why is it so important? Not just for those families who lose all their wealth and their home if they have to foreclose but for the neighborhood: So their home doesn't become a blight in the neighborhood, losing the value in the rest of the homes; so their community and neighborhood is safe and so we are strengthening the economy.

These and many other provisions we will hear about as my colleagues talk about this bill are critical. We cannot wait for another year. We can't wait and see what happens in June or September or December. We need to act now, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote with us for cloture to move to the housing bill we are proposing today--the Foreclosure Prevention Act--so we can begin the process to help families stay in their homes.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4034