Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, at an early age, my dad and mom taught me to walk on the rocks, not the alpine meadows they helped restore in Mount Rainier National Park. It is in that tradition that I have worked in Congress and the Natural Resources Committee to preserve the natural beauty of the Northwest for my children, grandchildren and generations to come. After 6 years of hard work and community input, wilderness supporters last Friday celebrated the newly designated Wild Sky Wilderness Area near my district in Washington state. It contains over 106,000 acres of national forest in east Snohomish County. Senator Murray and Congressman Larsen exercised great leadership to build such a wide consensus for this effort and have set the gold standard for how to write wilderness legislation in this country. In this same spirit of preserving our State's pristine old growth and mature forests, rivers, and mountain peaks, today I added my name as a cosponsor to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Wild Pratt River Act of 2007 (H.R. 4113). I did so because it is my hope that at some point we are successful in crafting a final bill that is as full and complete as this wilderness deserves. In its present form, the bill would add 22,000 acres of wilderness area to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area that first was established in 1976. As we learned with Wild Sky, getting a wilderness bill to the president's desk and signed into law takes a significant amount of effort from stakeholders, consensus from community members and widespread support from lawmakers. Therefore, we must get wilderness area designation right the first time, doing as much as possible to avoid piecemeal efforts to slowly add to wilderness time and again. I do have some concerns that this bill may not yet have reached the maturity and completeness necessary to bring the wilderness area to fruition, in two ways. First, the boundaries of the wilderness need full consideration. For example, we need to look at whether the absence of the inclusion of the north portion of the Pratt River Valley reduces the ecosystem benefits that this wilderness could accomplish. Areas southeast of the present boundaries deserve similar consideration for comparable reasons. Second, the success of the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2007 demonstrated the importance of being as open and inclusive early in the process in developing the boundaries of the area, as well defining all other aspects of the proposal. I would like to see an even greater effort to engage the full participation of the public. I look forward to working with my colleagues to add to Washington's prized wilderness areas in the tradition of the Wild Sky.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, today, I became a cosponsor of the Code Talkers Recognition Act of 2007 (H.R. 4544), a bill that recognizes the service of members of Native American Tribes in our Armed Services as Code Talkers in World War I and World War II. Code talking was made famous by the members of the Navajo Tribe who served in the Pacific in World War II, and we have rightfully recognized this service by the granting of such medals to these veterans in 2000. However, members of 17 Native American Tribes also used their languages as unbreakable, top secret codes, on the Western front in World War I and on all fronts in World War II. Time is running out to recognize these heroes. Ruth Frazier McMillian resides in my home State of Washington. She is the daughter of Tobias Frazier, a Choctaw Code Talker who risked his life to serve in the 36th Division of the American Expeditionary Forces, who helped the Americans win several key battles in the Mousse-Argonne campaign. I am told that this was the first time that a Native American language was used in an overseas battle for Americans. Mr. Frazier was wounded in battle and received a Purple Heart. It is my hope that Congress considers H.R. 4544, to honor the service of Tobias Frasier, his family and the many others who deserve the honor of a gold medal.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his help. A couple of amendments, one en bloc, will help advance the cause of efficiency and environmental responsibility. In this amendment we have an amendment that will encourage the DOD to look at systems to save energy in their computer networks. We have the ability to reduce our electric usage 20 to 30 percent. That helps us in our load growth. It's a great amendment. I want to thank the Chair. Later today we will have an amendment that will assist the service to move forward to judge our global warming emissions as well, and our procurement policy. A great thing for the environment, great thing for the service as part of our universal effort to advance several causes. I want to thank the Chair for getting both of these in there.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to express my honor for the gentleman from Colorado in the chair today, who did extraordinary work in leading the Congress to green building standards and the introduction of a bill today, and I appreciate his leadership on this. Thank you for leading on this issue. I come to the floor today to address my concerns about this misbegotten decision by the U.S. Air Force to ignore great work by Americans with a consortium building the Boeing 767 aerial refueling tanker, in fact, sending American tax dollars and American jobs out to Europe. And I want to express the five reasons why this decision does not add up. There is a particular odor about this decision. It needs to be revisited one way or another. We need to have an American tanker built by American workers to be fair to American service personnel and taxpayers both, and I want to go through the five reasons why this decision does not add up. Reason number one: There is no sense on this green Earth why the American Government has sued the Airbus Corporation, asserting that they have violated international trade laws because they received illegal billion dollar subsidies, and at the same time another agency of the Federal Government, the Air Force, turns around and gives that same corporation that our own government has declared is acting illegally contrary to international and American law--turns around and gives them a $40 billion contract. It is most unfortunate that at least one person in the other Chamber specifically said that we can't take into consideration these subsidies. It is absolutely ludicrous for the American Government to sue this company in one court, saying they violated law, and then turn around and give them $40 billion. That's exactly what has happened here. It makes no sense. This does not add up. Reason number two: Boeing has been building these tankers successfully, hundreds of tankers, without difficulty. And instead of going with a proven, tried and true American contractor, the Air Force has decided to accept the risk of a company that's never made an aerial tanker, building it in a way that it has never been built, in factories that do not exist, in multiple countries with a supply chain that has never been proven. We cannot and should not tolerate that risk of this risky decision. Reason number three that this does not add up: It does not add up because all estimates have concluded that the Boeing 767 is 24 percent more fuel efficient overall, looking at all the emission statements, 24 percent more fuel efficient. Well, for anyone who has gone to the pump recently, let me suggest that it doesn't make sense to be buying a product that is a gas guzzler when we know that fuel prices are going only in one direction. A study performed by the Conklin & de Decker analyst company concluded that by going with Boeing instead of this Airbus monstrosity, we would save the American taxpayers $30 billion in fuel costs. At the same time when we're trying to wring efficiencies to deal with global warming and reduce fuel costs, this decision is buying the gas guzzler rather than the fuel-efficient aircraft. This does not add up. Reason number four: The Air Force basically decided bigger is better. Bigger is not always better. They said they told Boeing and Airbus that they wanted a medium-size plane. Boeing provided them a medium-size plane. In the middle of this process, they decided they wanted a bigger airplane. Bigger is not always better, and I will tell you why. It's going to cost the American taxpayers over $2 billion to remodel all of these hangars all across America to try to fit this large airplane in. This is real money from real taxpayers that was not considered in the lifecycle costs. It does not add up. And the fifth reason is lifecycle costs. The Air Force, what they did was they looked at original acquisition costs and downplayed the lifecycle costs associated with fuel costs, maintenance costs, hangar remodeling, and all the other things associated with these airplanes. When you make an acquisition for the American taxpayers, you need to look at the entire lifecycle costs, not just the upfront acquisition costs. It does not add up. So here are five reasons that this Congress ought to get up on our hind legs and blow the whistle on this misbegotten decision. It doesn't add up. We need to change this decision.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I support this rule, in part, because it allows Congress to finally rein in an out-of-control policy by the administration in Iraq. For too long our Congress has stood by while an administration has pursued a course in Iraq fraught with peril, with no plan for its conclusion, with no plan for resolution, with no meaningful plan for international involvement, to end this problem in Iraq. While Congress has not reined in this administration, the American people have been raising a hue and cry for relief from this negligent lack of plan in Iraq. I came across, a few weeks ago, some work that some citizens had done to provide an exit strategy from Iraq. This is a plan called A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. It was organized by a group of citizens, a woman from Carnation, Washington, named Darcy Burner. It is endorsed by considerable military thinking, endorsed by Major General Paul Eaton, U.S. Army, retired, former Security Transition Commanding General in Iraq; Dr. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration; Brigadier General John Johns, specialist in counterinsurgency and nation-building; Captain Larry Seaquist, U.S. Navy, retired, former commander of the USS Iowa and Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning. Here is a plan that has considerable parallels to the amendment we will be allowed to offer to finally having some responsible plan to end the war in Iraq. A meaningful timetable, a statement about permanent bases, meaningful requirements for not overburdening our military. It's time, simply, for Congress to act. This rule allows us to do so. We should pass it.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend this bill for two reasons. First, the passage of the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act. It is long overdue. We will finally present a monument to a chapter in American history that should never be a occasioned again. On March 30, 1942, on Bainbridge Island, Washington, the island where I live, the United States Army rounded up 227 people living on Bainbridge Island, put them on a ferry boat, shipped them by trains to a camp in Manzanar for the duration of the war, totally without legality. And 62 of those people subsequently served in World War II. Two years ago a 95-year-old woman, Fumiko Hayashida, came to Congress and testified about the pain that episode caused her and all of America. And this dedication of a monument on Bainbridge Island will serve as a monument to all Americans of all future generations that we should never ever allow the power of fear to overcome the promise of liberty. This monument will serve to do that. I want to thank the great work of people on Bainbridge Island: Fumiko Hayashida, Frank Kitamoto, Clarence Moriwaki; Senator Cantwell and others who worked on this bill. And I invite all Americans to come see this monument when it's completed. I would also like to congratulate my colleague Rick Larsen and Senator Murray for their incredible work, who really set the model of how to do wilderness legislation in finally today passing the Wild Sky Wilderness. I sat on top of Berry Mountain a couple years ago and looked down, and I want to thank them for their great leadership so that my grandchild will be able to look down from the top of Berry Mountain and see the same wilderness; and to their allies, Tom Uniack, Mike Towns, and Jon Owen, all of who really created a model of how to do future wildernesses. Thank you very much, Rick and others, and I congratulate all of us for final passage of these great pieces of work.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I just had a meeting I think is relevant to this conversation. I just met with the leaders of the Phoenix Motor Car Company of Ontario, California. They hope to bring out an all-electric car that will go 120 miles on one charge. You can charge your car for $3 and not use a drop of gasoline. Now they could use a little assistance from Uncle Sam to bring these products to market as quickly as possible, and we on this side of the aisle proposed some bills to do that because we wanted to take the 21 billions of dollars that this side of the aisle wants to give to the oil and gas companies in tax breaks and give those tax breaks to consumers and companies so that we can get all-electric cars, so we can break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. That is a solution. You want solutions? You can't handle solutions. We gave you a solution: Let's get electric cars on the road. We have a bill to do that. And if we can get some help there from the other side of the aisle, then the President will make this happen. I will give you another company, the Astro Solar Energy Company. They can produce electricity just by solar thermal power. We wanted to give them some help to do that, this side of the aisle blocked it because they wanted to help some friends in the oil and gas industry. So those are the long-term solutions. But I wanted to mention a short-term solution. Tell me why on this green earth we do not have the oil and gas industry futures market protected and governed by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission? We want them to put them under the regulation of that, have transparency. We regulate the orange, wheat, and soybean futures market; this market ought to be regulated as well. This side of the aisle stands to do that; 36 Democrats are on the bill to do that, Mr. Stupak's bill. We have only got two Republicans. We welcome Republicans to get in the solutions business. Help us pass this bill. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. INSLEE. We have solutions. What we don't have is a President in the White House who will sign these bills or the Republicans who will break a filibuster in the Senate. You have got a Presidential candidate running this year who didn't vote to break the filibuster to give these tax breaks to these all-electric and solar thermal companies. That is what we need and we will get this job done.

Mr. INSLEE. I don't have any more time. I will yield on your time if you like, Mr. Hastings. I will be happy to yield on your time.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I want to share a little note of optimism we heard yesterday in our Global Warming and Energy Independence Committee. We had a group of venture capitalists and investors come before us, and they told us that they were supremely confident that America can create a clean-energy economy that is based on new types of technology so we can solve our global warming problem and wean ourselves off our addiction of Middle Eastern oil. It was very heartening. But they told us they need one thing to really open up the floodgates of technology. They need a cap-and-trade system to cap carbon dioxide and really spur investment. The President yesterday gave short shrift to that. He was disappointing. We've got to provide leadership here to get this job done. His message was sort of a ``can't-do'' message for a ``can-do'' people, we Americans. Let's get this job done. Pass a cap-and-trade system. We will have a burst of new economic growth in this country.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment I'm offering with Mr. Van Hollen. The amendment is quite simple. It will simply direct the EPA to report to Congress on how to mitigate the effects of climate change on recreation at our Nation's beaches. I'm particularly partial to islands and beaches. I live in one, Bainbridge Island, Washington. It's a great place. And like others, I'm concerned about the impact of global climate change on rising sea levels that can impact the quality of our beaches. And we need to get to the bottom of what those impacts will be so that we can help local communities respond to rising beaches. Scientists have agreed that sea level is already rising across our coast. In my neck of the woods, the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group has predicted that sea levels in Puget Sound could rise by as much as 50 inches by 2100. This could have a $1 billion impact on waterfront investment. Rising sea levels intensify flooding, we know. They intensify storms and the erosion associated with them. And they can impact the water quality of our Nation's beaches as they impact sewage disposal systems. Already, under BEACH Act programs, the EPA does collaborate with government agencies to predict where and when this pollution can occur. My amendment simply directs the EPA to report to Congress on how climate change may exacerbate those problems. We know how important recreation is on our beaches. In fact, beaches are the leading tourist destination. I was surprised to learn 85 percent of all U.S. tourism is associated with beaches. They contribute over $700 billion each year to the GDP, and that's not just the Beach Boys. In 2006, recreation brought in $948 million, just the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas where I live. So knowing about the problems we're going to have with climate change locally is a boost. You don't have to live on an island or near a beach to recognize that. I want to thank the Chair, Mr. Pallone, and the Chair for their help in drafting and accepting this amendment. And I hope you'll join me in supporting a very commonsense measure to help respond to these problems we know we're going to have. And I hope we can prevent them. But we're going to have some of them no matter what we do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I congratulate students from Redmond High School in my home state of Washington for winning a prestigious national honor, the President's Environmental Youth Award. These outstanding students took it upon themselves to create and develop the ``Cool School'' campaign with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 1,000 pounds per classroom. Their efforts went well beyond the initial goal and reduced their school's carbon footprint by 72 tons and saved the school $7,500 in its electric bill last year alone. Led by science teacher Mike Towns, who is an inspiration to those committed to leading a zero-carbon lifestyle, these students exemplify the effort and ingenuity needed to launch a U.S. clean-energy revolution. I have no doubt that these bright minds will continue to be environmental leaders. It's among the greatest honors as a member of the House of Representatives to meet and work with youth who are involved in their communities and deeply committed to making our world a better place. Our future depends on these young people who are making a real impact in the fight against climate change. I commend the students and staff of Redmond High School for their efforts and look forward to working with them in the years ahead to beat global warming.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to show my dismay that it has been 3 months since the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, missed an important deadline to determine whether they would give the polar bear protections under the Endangered Species Act. Naysayers argue that the polar bear population is not at risk, but the studies show that an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide are threatened with ``losing their habitat over the next 50 years'' because of global warming and melting sea ice. The U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, predicts that without action, ``11 of the 19 subpopulations will be extinct by the middle of this century, with an additional three subpopulations vanishing shortly thereafter.'' That same USGS study showed that Arctic melting is occurring faster than any scientific models have previously predicted. Incredibly, at the same time we are seeing these sobering scientific reports, the Department of Interior has moved forward with leasing oil and gas exploration rights for almost 30 million acres of the Polar Bear Seas. Just off the northwest coast of Alaska, this environmentally sensitive area is home to about 16,000 polar bears. This is not the time for drilling in prime polar bear habitat. It is the time for protecting polar bears and their habitat under the Endangered Species Act. FWS should act today to list the polar bear as a threatened, or even an endangered, species.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I rise in support of Mr. Grijalva's bill. I really applaud his leadership on this. It is long overdue. This bill really takes care of the landscape conservation treasures that we have come to enjoy. It protects 26 million acres of BLM's most exceptional landscapes. And to put it in perspective, that is a lot of territory, but it is only 10 percent of the BLM-managed areas. It is a very reasonable thing for us to do. And the reason is that it protects the heritage, the ancient Native American sites, pioneer ranches and pioneer homesteads. I am a fellow of the West. I enjoy looking at them. It preserves historic trails, rugged and remote mountains, deserts, prairies and rivers. These are the jewels in the crown of the BLM- managed property, and all Americans have a stake in them. When you think about how expansive this is, there is something for everybody in America in this bill, those who like to raft, to hunt, to sightsee, to fish, to hike, to study, to bird-watch or to just hang around with their kids. This is an all-purpose bill. And it is a lot of places: Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, Idaho's Craters of the Moon National Monument, California's Headwaters Forest Preserve, Nevada's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Montana's Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, Utah's Beaver Dam Mountain Wilderness Area, Oregon's Lower Deschutes Wild and Scenic River, and my kind of favorite, the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide National Trail System, a trail system that is in trouble and this bill can help preserve. So this really is a universal bill. And I want to point out something that is kind of uniquely American. These systems really rely on volunteers to keep them healthy. And I want to commend the thousands of volunteers who spend their weekends working on these trails providing interpretive services. Thank you to all of you who are doing this. This bill will help them to have a more organized system, and I think it is a real economically sound thing to do. The Bush administration has indicated its support for this bill. It's straightforward codifying legislation. As a member of the Resources Committee, I want to applaud Mr. Grijalva and all of those Americans who are going to take their kids out to these places and have a grand time. Congratulations on passing this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, due to the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, we were able to experience a profound and moving time in Dharamsala, India, 2 weeks ago, and it was profound for two reasons. One, when you talk to a Buddhist monk who has walked for 5 days through the Himalayan mountains to escape suppression and obtain some modicum of religious liberty, it would move the hardest of hearts. And we talked to monks who had that experience, monks who couldn't even show a little medallion with a picture of the Dalai Lama on their chest without having to go to jail in Tibet under the control of the Chinese Government. It was profound in that sense, but it was profound in meeting the Dalai Lama, as well, a person of great humor, great grace, great courage and great nonviolence. And he has asked for an investigation of what has gone on in Tibet, to quash what the Chinese Government has been saying about him, saying that he has instigated this violence. Anyone who makes that claim couldn't distinguish between Mahatma Gandhi and Che Guevara. And I take great umbrage at this assertion that somehow he has been the reason for violence. His position has been reasonable. He has asked for a dialogue with the Chinese Government. He has asked for an investigation to what happened in Tibet. He has not called for a boycott of the Olympics, an extremely reasonable position given what his people have undergone. His aspirations for China I think should be the world's, that as China grows into a great economic power, let it seek to be a great power in the sense of morality and humanity. My district has a growing relationship with China selling jets, software and agricultural products. And we like to see the economic potential of China. But that has to be married, to become a great nation, with a commitment to humanity, morality and religious freedom. This is consistent not only with America's core values, but international values in the Olympic spirit. We hope we move in that direction.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas and I, and others may join us later, have come tonight to talk about an important issue with large national ramifications, and that is the decision by the United States Air Force to decline a contract for our next extremely important tanker and to give it to a consortium, a very significant portion of which will be manufactured in Europe through a consortium in part with EADS and the Airbus company in Europe. I represent an area north of Seattle with thousands of Boeing workers; so obviously this is an important issue in my district. Certainly the hometown team is Boeing. But our discussion tonight will be about why all America ought to be very concerned about this decision for several reasons. And it is an obvious situation where there is very significant employment in my district that any Congress person would be concerned about that, but what we want to talk about tonight are the national ramifications and why we believe this is a very, very injurious decision that needs to be reversed one way or another. For background in this regard, the very able and really spectacularly performing aircraft, the KC-135, that for decades have provided the very backbone of our United States Air Force capability, will soon be at some point entering their obsolescence. Herculean efforts have been put forward to keep those great airplanes in the air, but at some point we've got to have a new airplane, and we know that that is the case. So we have been engaged in an effort to provide another replacement. A good United States product, Boeing, competed with subcontractors across the United States for a 767 airframe that we believed was perfect for the task, and by all information provided, the Air Force would provide the capability that was needed by the Air Force. Unfortunately, the Air Force has decided to reject an American contractor on this extremely important contract. And obviously it's important for dollars. It's a $40 billion contract, with a ``b.'' That is a significant contract. But of more importance to Americans are the job and employment prospects, and obviously that's important in the aircraft industry. If we see what has happened recently in the last decade, we know why it's important to think about this issue. If I can refer to a chart showing the decline in teal or blue, this shows United States aerospace industry employment from 1979 to 2007. We have suffered a very, very significant decline, just about 50 percent of employment jobs in the United States compared to what we had in 1983, a peak year. Now, that has corresponded with the rise of the Airbus aircraft deliveries that have gone up, as indicated in these red bars, pretty much every year since about 1979. So we have had a significant loss of employment in the United States already in our aerospace industry. It has been in sync with the rise of Airbus sales. And we respect competition in America and should not decry or shrink from competition, and we would congratulate Airbus in a legitimate competition in any of these sales. But we point this out to show that we have already suffered a significant decline of thousands of jobs in the United States. So now we have a situation where that loss will be exacerbated by this decision should it stand. Now, what is at stake here potentially could be 44,000 American jobs. Predictions are in that range of jobs that would have been involved in this contract. We know that we get different stories about where the Airbus employment will be. I want to point out one of the curious things, if I can. We get certain different viewpoints about where the jobs would be if, in fact, this contract is ultimately granted to Airbus. I note a newspaper article here in Les Echos, and I may mispronounce that, in Europe when Airbus talked about the employment on this contract. The article says that 76 percent of the employment associated with this tanker contract would be European and only 21 percent would be combined United States and Canadian content. That's in the article as publicized in France. In the United States, the rather large public relations effort that has gone on through Airbus, in fact, says it will be 50 percent in the United States. So it appears, at least in one instance, Airbus suggests that only 21 percent of the product in this tanker will be in the United States, and in America they suggest it will be about 50 percent. Some could chalk that up to hyperbole, salesmanship, but it means tens of thousands of jobs to Americans across this country, not just in the Seattle area where I reside but contracts across this country. We think that's significant and it's unfortunate. So this is a very significant thing that we are here to talk about tonight. It's not only employment but it's capability as well. So we are going to talk tonight about the ramifications of this decision, why we think it was inappropriately made, and what we may consider to reverse this decision. And with that I would like to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), who been a stalwart and a champion on educating our colleagues about the importance of this, something we are going to talk about tonight at some length, which is the favorable treatment of Airbus by the European governments and why this has skewed this particular contract.

Mr. INSLEE. That's most disturbing because of that experience and because of reading that in France, they tell the French they are going to have 76 percent of the jobs in Europe. Then they come over in America and tell us they will maybe have 50 percent. This is one reason, just one of the reasons this contract has to be reviewed. I want to mention one now just before I yield to Mr. Loebsack for a moment. There is another aspect of this that is outraging Americans, and certainly is in my State, and that is that we are issuing this $40 billion contract to a company that essentially one of the partners that the American Government itself says is acting illegally. Because according to our U.S. Trade Representative, who has initiated a legal action against these companies for receiving illegal subsidies, illegal subsidies that violate international law, and by extension, violate United States law, at the same time we have taken this almost unprecedented action to bring a case in the world courts, the World Trade Organization, against their illegal subsidies. That is one agency of the United States Government. Sort of the ``cop on the beat'' blowing the whistle. And at the same time, another agency, the Air Force of the United States Federal Government is bailing them out of jail and giving them a $40 billion contract. That is hard to explain to any American, particularly those in the 300 companies around this country in 40 States that are going to be losing jobs as a result of this. If this isn't a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, one hand attempting to sanction these illegal subsidies, and I think anybody who reviews this would conclude there would have been billions of dollars of illegal subsidies to Airbus over the years, we will talk about those in detail, and then to turn around and reward them with $40 billion. They ought to be receiving a sanction from America, a punishment from America, some type of slap on the wrist, at least. Instead, they get $40 billion of taxpayer money. This is wrong by any sense, the code of the West, international trade treaties. This is something we all ought to be united about. With this, I would like to yield to Mr. Loebsack from the great State of Iowa, who has a concern about this.

Mr. INSLEE. We should point out that this law, this international law against subsidization, has not been waived by Congress. This is sort of a backdoor way to waive an international agreement. We have an agreement that now we are attempting to enforce that would prohibit this illegal launching. ``Launching'' basically is a situation where a European government assists the private manufacturer, in this case Airbus, by giving them essentially loan guarantees or essentially free money. You give them a loan that they don't have to pay back if the airplane doesn't do well. That is an enormous subsidy, to give free capital, in essence, or low cost capital, when you are manufacturing an airplane. Of course, when you develop an airplane, there are billions of dollars in development costs. Well, if a company like Airbus can go to their governments in Europe and say give us a loan we don't have to repay if the airplane doesn't perform as expected, we don't make money on it, that is an enormous subsidy. Europeans with Airbus have been doing this for years. We have international laws against that, and those laws are in effect national laws in America. But somehow it is just like we ignored these. It is like they didn't exist. Congress certainly never waived those laws, the courts have never waived those laws, the President has never waived those laws, the American people have never waived those laws. But somehow the Air Force did not take into consideration these enormous subsidies, and that is why this thing, this contract, has an odor about it, where we don't take into consideration that violation of international and American law. But I want to talk, if I can, about the capability of these aircraft too, because obviously we want the best possible airplane for the job. There is possibly no more critical infrastructure, certainly to our Air Force, than the ability to refuel our planes. This is the absolute spine of the whole skeleton of the Air Force, to have this refueling capability. There has been sort of a propaganda war that has been waged by the Airbus folks to sort of suggest that the Boeing airplane wasn't up to the job, and I just want to point out some of the facts about this aircraft that I think it is important to realize. First off, if you want to look at the only company in this bidding that has essentially ever built an air tanker and has been building them for 50 years for America, it is Boeing. This is the hometown team that has been doing it for decades successfully, and I think we should maybe start the discussion from that point. Second, the airplane that Boeing bid has some very distinct advantages that somehow were not considered, one of which is that the Boeing airplane can service about twice as many airfields as the competitor. The reason is it can land in shorter, not quite as equipped airfields. It can land fully loaded in 811 airfields around the world, compared to the competitor at 408. This is a distinct advantage, considering we don't know why where the next conflict is going to be. We don't know what sort of developing world airfield we are going to use. The airplane that Boeing proposes can be serviced and can essentially use twice the number of airfields. Second, and this is critically important, the Boeing 767 is 24 percent more fuel efficient. In these days of a crunch with fuel and global warming we have to be concerned with and the enormous increase in costs that the Air Force is experiencing, this ought to be taken into consideration. That adds up to $30 billion, a distinct advantage. Third, and this is one that I think is worth mentioning, this sort of propaganda effort that was started by the Airbus folks to suggest that the Boeing Company didn't score well just simply doesn't comport with the facts. There were several factors, the first of which is called mission capability. When they compete these, there is a very sophisticated way of evaluating these. On mission capability, the Boeing airplane scored blue, which means exceptional, and low risk in the area of mission capability. That is the highest possible rating and I think can be considered the most critical factor in the whole competition. The Air Force concluded that the Boeing airplane met or exceeded all key performance parameters, which are also called thresholds and objectives. The Air Force concluded that the Boeing product actually had significantly more strengths, also called discriminators, than the competitor. So you had Boeing receiving the highest rating possible for mission capability, it met or exceeded all of what is called KPP thresholds and objectives, and it was graded as having significantly more strengths than the competition, and somehow came up on the short end of the stick. This deserves not only GAO review, but it deserves Congress reviewing this. As folks know, this is being evaluated now under the protest consideration, and we know it will be looked at carefully. But, frankly, if this does not get the thorough review we want, Congress is going to be looking at this, because these numbers just don't add up to say this was the right decision. On factor two, proposal risk, just kind of from a commonsense standpoint perhaps we can look at the fact that we have one bidder, Boeing, that has been doing this for decades. They have an airplane, the 767, in the air, providing tanker services, ready to go, against a product that is going to be manufactured in this multi-nation system. To me, that would create significant confidence in the folks that have been doing it and have a plane that is in the air. In fact, the Air Force rated Boeing's risk as low, as it should be. Surprisingly, the competitor was also rated as low, despite to me obvious risk where you have a multi-country, multi-facility, multi- build approach, contrasted with Boeing's integrated approach to design, build and certify with the existing facilities. So, at worst it seems to me that there is certainly no advantage of the competitors in that regard. I would like to yield to Mr. Tiahrt. I have several more factors, but I want to yield to Mr. Tiahrt because I know he has a great idea.

Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield. So do I take it that in the current situation we would be issuing a contract for up to $40 billion with no enforcement mechanism to enforce the American content situation. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Loebsack. Madam Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. INSLEE. I want to point out about this cost. Even under the Air Force's own accounting, even with these what you may consider rigged accounting standards that Mr. Tiahrt talked about, even under the Air Force's accounting standards, they concluded that the 767 is about 24 percent more fuel efficient than the Airbus product. You're going to save massive amounts on fuel over the lifetime. In fact, the Air Force estimated the Airbus product will burn $30 billion more fuel over the lifetime, even under the rigged accounting standards. So the point is that we need the Air Force from a taxpayer standpoint to be looking at the operational cost. We just had the executives of the five biggest oil companies today. Those oil prices are not going down any time soon. If anywhere, they are going up. So this is why we are saying that the country, not just the place these planes are made, but the whole country has a stake in this to really look at the operational costs on that. Thanks for yielding, Mr. Tiahrt.

Mr. INSLEE. Coming back, it is not just cost, it is capability. Bigger is not always better, and I am very concerned here that the Air Force has been lulled into the sense that bigger is always going to be better. Frankly, when I found out that the Boeing tanker can serve in twice as many airfields, it can refuel the V-22, which is our tilt rotor aircraft, this aircraft they have can't refuel one of our aircraft, we are going with a company that has no boom experience, they have never built an airplane commercially with a boom. We have decided to reject a company, Boeing, that delivered a 767 to Japan, one February 19, 2008, a second one March 5, 2008, they are flying, they are in the air, they are a known quantity. And we are taking this risk, an uncertain risk, just for this apparent decision that all of a sudden bigger became better, which is very interesting, because Boeing could have competed a larger airplane, an airframe of the Boeing 777, and didn't, essentially because they understood that this was a satisfactory size component to deliver. It made sense when Boeing made that decision and when Air Force led them to that decision, because when you look at the loading, the range of loading and what it has done historically, the Boeing 767 is a perfect fit. If you look at the offloading potential, the Boeing 767 is significantly greater than the average offloading in any of either the Vietnam, the Iraqi Freedom or the Southwest Asia conflicts. So we are concerned that this decision of this deciding bigger was better was, A, not fair to a bidder, Boeing, which was not told that that apparently was now the Air Force's brand new criteria; B, exposes American taxpayers to greater risk with an uncertain contractor, with an uncertain plan in multiple locations; C, causes significant loss of jobs; and, D, violates international law, or at least awards folks who are receiving illegal subsidies violating international law. This is not a good thing for the American warfighter, the American taxpayer or the American worker, and that is why we are here tonight suggesting that this contract has to be redone one way or another, and we are going to be talking about ways to do that.

Mr. INSLEE. We thank the voice of Iowa. This is important across the country. The jobs that Mr. Loebsack is talking about losing would not have been lost if the Air Force had considered the fact that these companies are receiving these illegal subsidies. And it's not just we three Congressmen talking about it, it is the executive branch of the United States, which has fully evaluated this and come to the conclusion these were illegal subsidies. These were not just small. They received $1.7 billion in launch aid to develop the new A-350. They received $3.7 billion in launch aid for the A-380. That is why our U.S. Trade Representative has started this enforcement action, blown the whistle on these illegal subsidies. Frankly, it has been years later than it should have been. But we have finally done it. It's one of these great sort of black comedies to think in the year period when we finally blew the whistle after all of these years of abuse of these illegal subsidies that disadvantage American workers, that that same year the Air Force ends up giving a contract for $40 billion. These subsidies are not just an issue of dollars, they are jobs in Iowa as well. I want to thank Mr. Loebsack. I would like to yield to Mr. Tiahrt.