Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has raised a point of order, and I want all our colleagues to know that his point of order lies against the emergency designations for the census funding, as he has just talked about, but in reality his point of order lies against all the emergency spending in this amendment, including the veterans education funding and the extension of unemployment benefits, and against the disaster relief. So I urge our colleagues to vote with us on the point of order. It has already been part of the agreement. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. ``Mr. President, let us vote for the 49th star in the flag.'' Those were the words from the great Senator from the State of Washington, Warren Magnuson, spoken on this floor in 1958, just before this body finally agreed to make Alaska one of the United States. Today, I am very pleased to join our colleagues from the north in Alaska to say a warm congratulations to the people of Alaska on this 50th anniversary of their statehood. Alaska's statehood, as you heard, was controversial a half century ago. But I think time has proven that the United States is a greater Nation thanks to the Land of the Midnight Sun. As Senator Murkowski has said, Washington State's Senators, Warren Magnuson and Henry Jackson, were some of Alaska's greatest friends. Their advocacy helped to sway this Senate that Alaskans were ready to join the Union. Today I want to give you a flavor of that debate at the time and their role in it. Back in 1958, Alaska's statehood had already been an issue for 42 years, and legislation to make it a State had been introduced in every Congress since 1943. As Senator Jackson said in one speech that led up to that final vote that Congress had held 11 hearings, two of them in Alaska, and others here in Washington, DC. And more than 4,000 pages of testimony had been published. ``It was time to put the issue to rest,'' he argued, and I quote: There can be no doubt that the record is complete. Our objective is statehood. It can be achieved now. Those were the words of Senator Jackson back then. And as the debate continued, Senators Magnuson and Jackson were confident that Alaska was ready. Senator Magnuson argued that with 180,000 citizens, Alaska had more residents than Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Nevada, Idaho, and 21 other States when they were admitted into the Union. He pointed out to this body that Alaska was strategically located between the United States and the Soviet Union and that it was home to two important military bases at the time right when the Cold War was escalating. He dismissed the argument that Alaska could not support itself as a State because that argument had not held up when it was used for his own State of Washington. He said: Alaskans feel confident that they can lick this problem as they have met and solved others. I say, we should give them that opportunity. So in Senator Magnuson's mind, the controversy was very similar to a family argument about whether a child was ready to leave home. He said: These United States, like fearful parents, can waver further in indecision, and allow our lack of confidence to undermine Alaskans and say, ``You will be ready for statehood someday, but not now.'' Or we can be proud of Alaskans' determination to strike out for their true independence through their own real self government. ``The United States should follow through the second course,'' Magnuson said. He said: The territory feels entitled to sit and deliberate with us--be one of us. Alaska wants to work out her own future, just as each of the other 48 partners in our nation have been allowed to do. Alaska's hopes, aspirations, and quiet self- confidence are understandable. She knows that her resources, her people, and their combined potential spell a brilliant future. Alaska has sat impatiently in the anteroom of history for 42 years. Alaska should be a State. I am very proud of the role Washington's two Senators played in this debate at the time. Alaska's road to statehood was long and it was hard. But Alaskans are some of the toughest people around. They fought for their rights. They did not give up. And they prevailed. So as they celebrate across their State I wish them a happy and a successful future. I want to close by once more quoting Senator Magnuson's words to the people of Alaska. He said: We approve and commend your vision, understand and believe your hopes, know that your mission and goal can and will be reached, so good luck and godspeed.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 months ago when the Air Force announced that Airbus, not Boeing, would supply the next generation of aerial refueling tankers, Air Force acquisition officials declared that the contest had been fair, open, and transparent. They said they made no mistakes, and they boasted that the decision could withstand any level of scrutiny. The Government Accountability Office called all of that into question in a 67-page decision that shows the Air Force competition was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning. The decision, responding to Boeing's protest of the Air Force competition, was damning. The GAO described the contest as ``unreasonable,'' ``improper,'' and ``misleading.'' It found that the Air Force significantly overestimated the cost of the Boeing tanker, that it misled Boeing while helping Airbus, and that the Air Force selected Airbus even though the company failed to meet key requirements of the contract. It concluded that: But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for the award. It is unclear at this point whether those errors were due to incompetence or to impropriety. But one thing is definite: This contest was anything but fair or transparent. I want to know how the Air Force got this so wrong. I have already asked for a meeting with Defense Secretary Gates so he can tell me how the Pentagon plans to respond. I will make it clear that the Air Force cannot go forward with this contract and that I expect it to follow the GAO's recommendations. The Air Force must return to the original request for the proposal, rebid the contract, and get this right. The difference between what the Air Force said about the acquisition process and the GAO's findings are startling. On February 29, Sue Payton, who is the Air Force's Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, said at a DOD news briefing: We have been extremely open and transparent. We have had a very thorough review of what we're doing. We've got it nailed. A week later, she told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: The Air Force followed a carefully structured source selection process, designed to provide transparency, maintain integrity, and ensure a fair competition. And throughout the last 4 months, Air Force officials have insisted that they selected the cheapest plane that best met their criteria and that they made no mistakes. The GAO's decision paints a very different picture of the contest and, as I said, it raises serious questions about how the Air Force conducted this competition. The GAO found the Air Force made a number of errors that unfairly helped Airbus and hurt Boeing. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane according to the Air Force description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities for which it did not even ask. The GAO found that the Air Force ``treated the firms unequally'' by helping Airbus at Boeing's expense. The GAO found that the Air Force misled Boeing about whether it had fully met the requirements in the RFP, all the while keeping up conversations with Airbus and giving it the correct information. The GAO said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. When the mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus A330 actually cost tens of millions of dollars more than the Boeing 767. The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposals, even though Airbus could not meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to provide long-term maintenance, as was specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not provide that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure. Let me say that again. The Air Force selected the Airbus A330 even though Airbus refused to agree to a key term in the contract and even though the Air Force failed to show that the A330 was even capable of refueling our military's aircraft by the books. These are serious findings. No matter how one looks at it, this competition was anything but transparent. Even though the Air Force declared its contest was fair, it appears it had its thumb on the scales for Airbus all along. But the last findings could be the most damaging of all of them. If Airbus cannot actually prove its tanker can do the job or that it will fulfill its obligations, how can it possibly be awarded that contract? Today the Air Force is contemplating what to do next. As I said, I think the answer is clear. This contract should be rebid. I agree with those who have said we need to get these planes into the hands of our air men and women as fast as possible. I represent Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State. Those air men and women fly those refueling tankers. I know how important this decision is to them. This was not an acceptable acquisition process, and it would be unconscionable to go forward with this selection without first addressing the questions that were raised by the GAO's decision. In order to do that, we must have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence, and we have to get the right plane. These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. They are the backbone of our global military strength. We need a competition where the criteria are clear, where the participants can earn credit that is spelled out in the contract and there is no extra credit that is awarded unfairly, and we need a fair evaluation of all the costs. We need to go back and start with a clean slate, hold a truly transparent competition that does our air men and women justice. That is what our American taxpayers expect, and our American servicemembers deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes and that the time be counted against the bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Vermont, that I have 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office issued its ruling on Boeing's protest of one of the largest defense contracts in history: the Air Force's decision to choose the European company Airbus to supply the next generation of aerial refueling tankers. In that ruling, the GAO agreed with Boeing that there were fundamental flaws in the process from the very beginning. GAO's attorneys found the Air Force made a number of significant errors that unfairly misled Boeing and favored Airbus. They recommended that the Air Force reopen the contract, get new proposals, and make a decision that corrects the errors GAO found. Madam President, to me, that decision was not a surprise. Air Force and Pentagon officials have told me, time and time again, that they followed the law and this contract would stand up to review. But since the very beginning, it has been very clear that Airbus tankers did not meet the Air Force's needs--no matter what its public relations campaign has said. Even though the Air Force claimed it had selected the cheaper plane and made no mistakes, we learned last week it had made a critical error when calculating the operating costs of the two tankers. The Air Force is now acknowledging the Airbus plane actually costs tens of millions of dollars more. Two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Gates forced out the top two Air Force leaders--Secretary Michael Wynne and his Chief of Staff, GEN Michael Moseley. By doing that, he expressed a serious lack of confidence in their leadership and lack of oversight. All along, the Pentagon has refused to answer even basic questions about this contract. I, and the many others who have raised concerns about the Air Force's decision, now expect a thorough and honest response from the Pentagon to the GAO's decision. But as I have said all along, the GAO ruling answers only one overarching question that has been raised in this process and that is whether the Air Force followed the letter of the law when it chose Airbus for the contract. That means that even if it was obvious that Airbus's plane was wrong for the war fighter and for the taxpayer, it could not push for answers. That is Congress's job, and we in Congress, who represent the American taxpayers, have to continue to press for real answers to those hard questions. We in Congress need to know why the Air Force chose a plane that is bigger and less efficient than it asked for--one that cannot use hundreds of our runways, ramps, and hangars, and one that will cost billions of dollars more in fuel and maintenance. We in Congress need to know whether our Government should buy a plane that even the Air Force says is less survivable, less able to keep our war fighters safe. We in Congress need to know what the effect on our economy and our national security will be if we turn this technology, which is vital to this Nation, over to a company that is owned by foreign governments. The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned about the subsidies Airbus receives that they have brought a case against the EU before the World Trade Organization. We need to know why in the world we would accuse Europe of unfair trade practices and then turn around and hand Airbus a major piece of our defense industry. We need to know why our Government would hand them the contract now. In May, employers cut 49,000 jobs in the United States. It was the largest 1-month jump in unemployment in 22 years. Yet the administration, right in the middle of this, wants to send 44,000 U.S. jobs overseas, when we are hemorrhaging jobs here at home. On the day in February that the Air Force first announced it awarded this plane to Airbus, I was out on the 767 line, in Everett, with our Boeing workers. I will never forget the shock and disappointment in their eyes. One woman came up to me and said: I can't believe this. My son is currently flying these tankers over in Iraq, serving our country. I want to build those planes with my taxpayer dollars to make sure he is safe and we know what is in that plane. Yesterday's GAO study proved she was right and she is vindicated. We now have the right process to move forward on this and make a good decision not only for that mom but for American taxpayers and for America's security for the future. For months now, I have been saying this process was flawed. I have been saying we should not hand over billions of dollars and thousands of jobs and that Boeing should build those tankers. The GAO's decision backed up all my concerns. The process was flawed. Now we need to know why. We should not be buying more expensive planes built in France. That seems obvious. With a level playing field, Boeing builds the best tankers at the best price. By reevaluating this deal with the proper criteria that GAO outlined, I am confident the Air Force will, in the end, agree with me and award this contract to Boeing--I hope in short order. I hope our airmen and airwomen will soon have the best possible plane to carry out their missions. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 3 months ago, our U.S. Air Force made a decision that is going to affect our military for decades. Our Air Force awarded one of the largest defense contracts in history to the European company Airbus. As my colleagues know, I have been here many times to talk about my numerous concerns about this contract and about whether it is in the best interest of our taxpayers and our service men and women for Airbus to supply our next generation of aerial refueling tankers. Those tankers refuel planes and aircraft that are stationed across the world. As long as we, the United States, control the technology to build those refueling tankers, we control our skies and our own security. But the Pentagon has yet to justify this decision to give that contract to the European company Airbus. Within the next 24 hours, we expect the Government Accountability Office to issue a ruling on one overarching question that has been raised about this contract and that is whether the Air Force followed the letter of the law when it made that decision. This GAO decision will not answer whether Airbus will supply the best plane for our military, and it will not answer whether buying the Airbus tanker would do permanent harm to our aerospace industry. So I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me and continue to fight to get those answers. It is common sense that before we, the Congress, finalize a $35 billion contract, we need to know why the Air Force chose a plane that is much bigger and less efficient than it asked for--one that cannot use hundreds of our runways, ramps, and hangars and one that costs billions of dollars more in fuel and maintenance. We, as Members of Congress, and the people we represent need to know whether our Government should buy a plane that even the Air Force says is ``less survivable.'' That means it is less able to keep our men and women who are in them safe. We need to know what the effect on our economy will be and the effect on our national security if we turn this critical technology over to a company that is owned by a foreign government. I was out on the Boeing 767 line the day the Air Force announced its decision. I will never forget the shock and dismay I saw on our workers' faces. After all, they have been making our Nation's refueling tankers now for more than 50 years, and they know how important those tankers are to the military. In fact, I remember so well this one woman rushing over to me on the factory floor to tell me her son actually flies those refueling tankers for the Air Force and that she--an American mom--wanted to be the one making them for him. She and workers across this country want to know why. Why would we give this contract, this Air Force contract, to a subsidized European company controlled by foreign governments that just want to put America's aerospace industry out of business and take away her job? The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned about the subsidies Airbus receives that it has brought a case against the EU before the World Trade Organization because of those illegal subsidies. We need to know why in the world we would accuse Airbus of unfair trade practices on one hand and then turn around and hand them a major piece of our defense industry. We, as Members of Congress and representatives of the American people, need to know why our Government would hand them this contract now. In May, employers cut 49,000 jobs. It was the largest 1-month jump in unemployment in this country in 22 years. Yet at the same time our administration is sending 44,000 U.S. jobs overseas to build our Air Force refueling tankers, when we are hemorrhaging jobs at home in this country. It does not make sense to me. Some of our colleagues are saying we need to move this process along quickly so we can get those planes into the hands of our airmen and airwomen. I agree. They need these planes. But this is a contract that will affect our military, it will affect our taxpayers, and it will affect our decisions in this country for years to come. So we had better be thoughtful, conscientious, and thorough. Members of Congress have a responsibility to thoroughly evaluate whether we are buying the best plane for our taxpayers and our men and women who fly those planes. So I hope my colleagues, as we hear from the GAO in the next 24 hours, will stand with me and ensure we get this contract right. I see my colleague from Maryland is here to speak, and I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, over the last 8 years, American families have watched as the price of everything from gas to groceries has gone up and up while the value of the dollar has gone down and down. Last month, they got more bad news. Employers cut jobs for the fifth straight month, bringing the total number of people looking for work to 8.5 million. It was the worst 1-month jump in unemployment in 22 years. That means that more of our workers are losing paychecks, even as they need money to pay for electricity, fuel, and food. It comes on top of the mortgage and credit crisis in which millions of families have watched their primary source of wealth, their homes, plummet in value. Americans are looking to us for help, and we have to take action immediately. We have a proposal before us that would offer some relief by extending unemployment insurance for an extra 3 months. That would have two benefits. It would ensure that Americans, while they are looking for work, will still be able to put food on the table and fill up their gas tanks, and it will give our economy an immediate boost because that money will be spent quickly. This same measure passed the House overwhelmingly last week, because Members on both sides of the aisle realize that we have to move quickly. I am concerned that now Republicans are more interested in blocking our progress on anything than actually taking meaningful action for the American people. Instead of working with us, Republicans have filled endless hours on the floor with speeches complaining about problems but not offering any solutions. Instead of focusing on the concerns of working families, President Bush threatened to veto this bill, and then he left on a tour of Europe. The American people are hurting. They have had enough of political games at their expense. I truly hope the President and his Republican allies will join us in supporting this very important measure to extend unemployment insurance. American Aerospace Jobs

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I turn now to another example of how the President's priorities are hurting working families, and that is the administration's decision to send 44,000 American aerospace jobs to Europe. Within the next couple days, the Government Accountability Office is going to issue a ruling on a decision regarding a defense contract. It is Boeing's first protest of a defense contract in three decades. Boeing is challenging the Air Force's choice to award a $35 billion contract to supply the military's next generation of aerial refueling tankers to a European company, Airbus. We are all now awaiting the GAO's ruling because it was clear there were some major flaws in that contract. Ever since the Air Force announced in February that it had awarded the contract to Airbus, the Air Force has insisted there were no mistakes and the Airbus tanker cost less. Yet we have already learned that is not true. Last week, the Air Force admitted to making a critical error when it calculated the operating cost of the two tankers. It is now acknowledging that the Airbus plane actually cost tens of millions of dollars more. That isn't news that surprises us, but it is further evidence that we have to get more answers from the Pentagon before we, Congress, allow this contract to become a reality. That is why I have come to the floor this afternoon. While the GAO decision is important, it won't even come close to addressing all of the questions that have been raised about this contract. That is because the GAO's role in this process is very limited. It can examine whether the Air Force followed the letter of the law in the selection process, but it cannot look at anything beyond that. So even if it is obvious to them that the Airbus tanker costs more, that it is less safe, or it doesn't meet the Air Force's needs, the GAO can't take any action. That is our job. That is Congress's job. We have to get answers to the questions that have been raised about this deal. This is one of the largest contracts in our history, and it is incredibly important. Our tankers refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. As long as we control that refueling technology, we control our skies and our security, and that is extremely important to our national security. We have to make sure we are making the best decision for our taxpayers and for our servicemembers. That is Congress's responsibility. I am especially concerned because when you compare Boeing's 767 with Airbus's A-330, the 767 is clearly a better plane. Compared to the 767, the Airbus tanker is a lot larger, it is less efficient, and it is more expensive to operate. According to the Air Force itself, the A-330--the Airbus tanker--ranked lower than the Boeing 767 in survivability, which is our ability to make sure that our warfighters who are flying those planes are safe. The Airbus tanker ranked much lower than the Boeing plane in keeping our men and women who are flying them safe. Yet although I have asked the Air Force to explain its decision on this tanker numerous times over the last 3 months, I have been stonewalled again and again on answers. No one has explained why the Air Force would ask for a medium-sized plane and then go out and choose a much larger design which is going to cost billions of dollars more in just fuel and maintenance. No one has explained why we would buy a plane that is so big that we are going to have to rip out and replace hundreds of runways, ramps, and hangars around the globe in order to land that plane. No one has explained why we would not buy the safest possible airplane for our servicemembers. Perhaps most importantly, no one can explain why we are giving a multibillion-dollar contract to a company that has made no secret of its desire to dismantle our U.S. aerospace industry. For years, the foreign governments that own Airbus have flooded it with illegal subsidies in order to compete with Boeing. In fact, the A- 330 is a result of that subsidized system. The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned that our Government has accused the EU of unfair trade practices before the World Trade Organization. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we would accuse Europe of illegally subsidizing Airbus and then turn around and award it a $35 billion contract of U.S. taxpayer money. It is especially troubling because the consequences to our national security and our economy will be huge. A report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute shows that Boeing would create at least twice as many American jobs as Airbus. In other words, we stand to lose as many as 14,000 jobs right here in the United States by sending this contract to Airbus. With those jobs that we lose, we lose the knowledge and we lose the expertise that helped us create our global military strength and has made the United States the world leader in aerospace technology. Yet no one has explained why we would let that slip away. Not only am I very troubled that I haven't been able to get answers to these questions, but this month the Air Force gave us new reason to be concerned. About 2 weeks ago, the Defense Secretary forced out the Air Force Secretary, Michael Wynne, and its Chief of Staff, Michael Moseley, after finding systemic problems in the service that led him to have a serious lack of confidence in their leadership and in their oversight. Mr. Wynne and General Moseley blessed this Airbus contract. Clearly, we in Congress--those who represent the taxpayers of this country--need to look at this deal more closely. Congress is entrusted by the American people with the responsibility to look out for our taxpayers and to be a check on this administration or any administration. When it is clear that the administration has gone in the wrong direction, we--Congress--have to step in. Now is one of those times. We owe it to our taxpayers and to our service men and women to make sure we buy the right plane. This contract is too important. So I am here this afternoon on the floor of the Senate to implore my colleagues to stand with me and continue to demand that the Air Force justify this decision. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John Engber for his 11 years of service to the U.S. Senate and the people of Washington State. John served as my State Director during this time, and he was a critical part of my staff. On June 1, he ended his tenure in my office. We were sad to see him go, but we wish him all the best in his next endeavor. John was a thoughtful and dedicated public servant. As my State Director, he helped ensure that even though Washington State residents are 2,500 miles from DC, their needs are up-front and center. Overseeing my State operations, he was responsible for listening to the people in our communities and for connecting them to the Senate and the Federal Government. And thanks to his hard work, residents of towns from Forks to Clarkston have access to me and my office. One of John's greatest accomplishments during his time with my office was his help in drafting the recently enacted Wild Sky Wilderness law. John worked closely with local leaders, the environmental community, outdoor enthusiasts, and others to create a wilderness proposal built on community consensus. We faced some tremendous obstacles over the 9 years that we worked on the bill, but John helped us all remain dedicated to the goal of preserving Wild Sky for future generations. Finally, I would like to thank John for his years of service to me and the people of Washington State. His leadership and his dedication are truly appreciated, and I know that he will always have Washington State's interests at heart. I wish him happiness and success as he moves on to the next phase of his career.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have not received answers to those questions either. This is a critically important matter. What happens if France or Russia--which, by the way, is pushing to increase its stake in EADS--want to slow down our military capacity because they do not like our policies? Do we want another country to have that kind of control for decades to come--especially given the concerns the Defense Secretary has now raised about decisionmaking and leadership at the Air Force? I think we have to push for an explanation before we move forward on this contract. I have detailed this morning three very serious concerns about Airbus and EADS. The facts are clear. When it comes to international trade, EADS doesn't play fair. It has repeatedly lied about its impact on our economy and it has more than once given us reason to worry about how hard it will work to protect our security interests. The bidding process for the tanker contract was so flawed that Boeing filed its first ever protest of a defense contract decision with the GAO, and we are waiting for that decision. But we need to remember the GAO can only look at whether the Air Force followed the procurement laws and regulations. It cannot answer whether the Air Force should have awarded that contract in the first place. We, Congress, have to ask those questions. I have raised those questions in hearings, in letters to Pentagon officials, and in face-to-face meetings, yet no one at the Air Force or the Pentagon or the White House has begun to justify why we should award a $35 billion contract to supply the linchpin of our military strength to a company that another branch of our Government has accused of illegal business practices, one that distorts its records, and does not have our national security interests at heart. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Defense Secretary has raised serious questions about the leadership and oversight at the Air Force. Given those concerns, we here in the Senate and the Congress must examine this contract carefully, demand the Air Force explain its decision, and consider whether it is in our Nation's best interests to move forward on this contract. We owe it to our taxpayers. We owe it to our servicemembers. I hope with new leadership and oversight at Air Force, we will get those answers. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week the Defense Secretary took historic action by forcing out both the Air Force Secretary, Michael Wynne, and its Chief of Staff, Michael Moseley. It was the first time ever that a Defense Secretary has simultaneously dismissed a service secretary and a service chief, and he did so after finding systemic problems in the Air Force that led him to have a serious lack of confidence in their leadership and oversight. I have come to the floor today because Secretary Gates's move raises red flags about many of the Air Force's recent actions, including the decision to award a $35 billion contract to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers to the European company Airbus instead of Boeing. This is one of the largest contracts in history, and it is critically important. Our tankers refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. As long as we control the technology to build them, we control our skies and we control our own security. So I was astounded when the Air Force announced in February that it would award this contract to Airbus, and here is why. Airbus and its parent company, European Aeronautic Defense and Space, or EADS, have made no secret of their desire to dismantle the U.S. aerospace industry, and we have seen time and again that Europe is willing to try anything in order to do that. EADS is so flooded with subsidies from the European Union that we, the United States, have accused the EU of illegal business practices before the World Trade Organization. EADS has lied repeatedly about its contribution to the U.S. economy, and EADS has given us more than one reason to question how hard it will work to protect our security interests. Given this history, I have asked repeatedly over the last 3 months that Air Force leaders explain how they came to their decision. After all, the Air Force is well aware of these concerns, and I believe the American taxpayers deserve answers. But I have been stonewalled again and again. As the Pentagon moves to restore its leadership in the Air Force, I hope we will finally get some answers. Let me begin today by talking about the unfair trade practices that led the United States to challenge Europe at the World Trade Organization. Back in 1970, several European governments created Airbus to challenge our country's aerospace dominance. But unlike Boeing, which is a private business operating in a free-market system, Airbus followed the corporate welfare model. Europe views Airbus as a jobs program, and it is willing to provide subsidies no matter what, even if they lose money and even if their products fail. That means Airbus can grow without having to assume the same kind of risk American companies do. The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned that this has created an uneven playing field that we have demanded that Europe stop the subsidies and play by the rules. As I said earlier, because of Europe's illegal tactics, our Government now has a WTO case pending against the EU. So I think it would make absolutely no sense that we would on the one hand haul Airbus before an international dispute settlement organization while on the other hand award it one of the largest defense contracts in history, a contract that will make it a major U.S. defense supplier for decades and further erode the American aerospace industry. It is as if you caught a thief in the act of stealing your car, but instead of turning him in, you hand him the keys and you give him your wallet too. It is not just a matter of one government branch contradicting another. It was that illegal system that allowed Airbus to develop the A330. Airbus's tanker received millions of dollars in launch aid, which significantly reduced its production costs. Europe is now unfairly using that break to get into our defense industry. The result could be significant permanent harm to our aerospace industry. Boeing spent decades developing the technology and training the workforce to supply our military tankers. Boeing has made American refueling tankers now for more than 50 years. Our workers have made them with pride because they know they help to fortify our military strength. But with this Air Force decision, we are letting all of that slip away. Once our workers move on to something else, we just can't recreate this industry overnight. So I think we, as a Congress and as a nation, need to think long and hard about whether that is the best decision for our national security. But it isn't just Europe's record of subsidizing EADS that I am concerned about. EADS and Airbus also have a long history of creating slick marketing campaigns that distort their contribution to our economy. So I want to turn to that next because I fear EADS is being less than honest about its plans to create jobs with this tanker contract. Five years ago, when Airbus was first working to unravel Boeing's tanker contract, Airbus and EADS hired a small army of PR specialists to assert to us that their business was good for America. As you can imagine, I was skeptical so I asked the Commerce Department to investigate their claims, and guess what they found. They found that Airbus's numbers were hugely inflated. Airbus claimed it had created 100,000 American jobs, but after looking into it the Commerce Department found the real number was 500. Airbus said it contracted with 800 U.S. firms. The Commerce Department found it was 250. Then Airbus did something funny--it decreased the number of contracts it said it made from 800 down to 300, and then it increased the alleged value of those contracts from $5 billion to $6 billion a year. As I said at the time, you cannot trust Airbus's funny numbers. The same is true today. When you scrutinize the facts, Airbus's numbers do not hold up. This time, Airbus says it will finish these tankers here in the United States at a factory in Alabama. But there is no plant in Alabama. It has not been built and there are no workers yet hired. Economists are now saying we are actually going to lose jobs if Airbus supplies our tankers. A study last week by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute shows that Boeing would create at least twice as many American jobs as Airbus. In other words, we stand to lose as many as 14,000 jobs here in the United States with this Air Force contract to Airbus. I cannot think of a worse time for our Nation to have this decision. Last month our country saw the biggest increase in unemployment in more than two decades, and that was on top of the mortgage and credit crisis and the skyrocketing gas prices we have been hearing about this morning. The Air Force said it did not have to consider jobs when it considered Airbus's bid, so it has not even tried to justify that decision. But I believe that as Members of Congress who represent the American people, we have a responsibility to look long and hard at whether this contract is in the best interests of America, its workers, and its economy--especially at a time when our families are struggling to get by. Finally, I have some very serious concerns about giving a company owned by foreign governments control over our military technology. Airbus and EADS have given us plenty of reason to worry about how hard they might work to protect our security interests. Let me give a couple of examples. In 2005, EADS was caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran. Despite our concern about Iran's support of terrorists in Iraq and despite their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, they were caught trying to sell military helicopters to Iran. In 2006, EADS tried to sell C-295 and CN-235 transport and patrol planes to Venezuela. That is a circumvention of United States law. As with the other questions I have raised today, I have repeatedly asked the Air Force whether we, the United States, can trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interests in mind, particularly one that has a history of trying to sell weapons of military technology to unfriendly countries. Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Baucus.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act; that there be 1 hour for debate prior to the cloture vote, equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the final 20 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow Senators should expect that the first rollcall vote will begin shortly after 11 a.m. and that vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Consumer-First Energy Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions through June 16, 2008.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this evening amid new and very pressing concerns about the future of our economy. Today, millions of Americans are struggling to keep their homes. The price of just about everything, from gas, college, health care, you name it, is on the rise, and families from coast to coast are wondering how they are going to make ends meet. Just last week, we saw new and shocking statistics illustrating this crisis. With the price of the American Dream going up, working families seem to be facing new challenges every day. Last week, it was a new report from the Department of Labor. They told us the overall unemployment rate rose from 5 percent to 5.5 percent in May, up from 4.5 percent just 1 year ago. That is 861,000 new unemployed people in 1 month, bringing the total to 8\1/2\ million people unemployed in America today in May. Today, there is even more bad news. Gas has, for the first time, hit an average of $4 a gallon. Madam President, the American people are hurting. While job creation and wage levels are dropping, prices are going up. Everything costs more, but families don't have enough money to spend. The bottom line is the American Dream is slipping through the fingers of too many Americans, and we have to do something about it. Now, this evening I want to talk specifically about oil and gas prices because this week the Senate is going to have an opportunity to take a step in the right direction and put consumers first. Tomorrow morning, we are going to vote on a Democratic bill that seeks to address the root causes of these high gas prices because we are committed to putting consumers first and to fixing the root causes of high gas prices so these solutions have a real lasting effect. We want to force big oil to pay its fair share and invest in clean and affordable alternative energy sources. We want to protect consumers from price gougers who rip off Americans and greedy oil traders who manipulate this market. We want to stand up to OPEC and countries colluding to set high oil prices. These basic, commonsense steps will attack the root causes of high gas prices, but they are only the beginning. Step 2 has to include a long-term strategy to decrease our dependence on oil and promote clean renewable energy. That is why later this week we are going to propose billions of dollars in tax breaks to promote those new energy sources. Our plan seeks to address the high price of gas at the pump now, but it will also help to ensure that energy is affordable for years to come. With gas prices on the rise, there has been a lot of finger-pointing in recent weeks, but you don't have to look very hard to see who is to blame and who is benefiting from these skyrocketing prices. While our working families have been scrimping, the economic downturn hasn't even registered for big oil. The major oil companies reported record increases in profits last quarter. ConocoPhillips recorded first quarter profits of $4.1 billion, beating their previous record by $600 million, with Shell and BP also reporting huge gains. The reason is that over the last 7\1/2\ years, Republicans have backed an energy policy that does little but give oil companies tax breaks and special favors while our middle-class families pay the price. In the first month of the Bush administration, oil prices averaged $29.50 a barrel. Now, almost 8 years later, the price has more than quadrupled. It is over $130 a barrel this week and pushing toward $140 a barrel. When President Bush first took office, Americans were paying $1.46 a gallon to fill their tanks, and this week gas prices are averaging a whopping $4 a gallon. We have gone from $1.46 to over $4 a gallon in this Bush administration. What is most disturbing to me and to American families all across the country is how fast these gas prices are rising. Six weeks ago, I came on the floor of the Senate and spoke on the same subject, saying a lot of the same things, and at the same time I was saying how shocking it was to see the national average at $3.60 a gallon. But in just a few weeks prices have gone up another 40 cents a gallon. I am a little scared to do the math and see what increase that is going to translate into by the Fourth of July, just a few weeks away or, even worse, Labor Day. Instead, I think it is time we come together for action in the Senate. I mentioned the national averages already, but in my home State of Washington and the home State of the Presiding Officer, drivers are paying even more. The average cost of a gallon of gas in Washington State is now $4.22. Yesterday, in my State, I paid $4.29 a gallon. Right now, AAA is saying that gas costs $4.22 in my State. That is the average. That is 44 cents higher than just a month ago, 95 cents higher than a year ago, and 20 cents higher than the national average. And our truckers are being hit really hard. AAA found the average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.89 a gallon in my home State. That is 40 cents higher than a month ago and $1.84 higher than just a year ago. When I travel around Washington State, gas prices are the first thing people talk to me about, and they have written me countless letters asking for help. Everyone asks what we are going to do about this matter. While they are cutting back their budgets in my home State, they do not see any action in Washington, DC. And I have told them time and again that Democrats want to act, but we need help to do that from our Republican colleagues. They will have a chance to help us do that tomorrow. But I am concerned that Republicans are more interested, from what I am hearing, in just blocking our progress and whatever we want to do here than actually taking any meaningful action for the people who are hurting so badly at home today. In fact, for the past several days, we have already seen, from what I have heard, a parade of Republican Senators out on the floor complaining about high gas prices, and in many cases blaming Democrats for failing to address this crisis over the past 16 months. They are bringing out their charts and showing the price of gas when Democrats took over Congress and what the price is now, and they ask us all to simply forget the real reason for this crisis--the misguided energy policy that this administration has pursued for years. But I don't think the American people are going to forget that. They are not going to forget it was this administration that asked oil and gas companies to write their energy plan. The American people aren't going to forget the only real idea coming from the other side is to drill our way out of the problem. And they are not going to forget that this is an administration closer to the oil and gas industry than any in our history. We are not going to forget either, and that is why we are fighting for change. We have already won higher fuel economy standards and new investments in renewable energy sources, but we know we need to do more because Americans know that we cannot rely--we cannot rely--on big oil to solve our energy problems. Madam President, the energy policy isn't the only area where Republicans have put special interests ahead of our American families. For 7\1/2\ years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have chosen to stand by while our highways are crumbling, hundreds of thousands of our veterans go homeless every night, and millions of our families struggle to keep a roof over their heads. In the last year, our new Democratic majority has had to fight Republicans and the administration for resources to address everything from veterans health care to the foreclosure crisis our families are facing. I think the legacy of this administration is going to be nothing but red ink and broken promises. People in my home State of Washington are very worried about the future. They want to be sure their children will have economic security. They want a solution to our energy problems that are going to keep us safe and protect our environment for the long run. And the same is true, I know, across the country. Americans are hurting because of these high gas prices. It doesn't matter whether they are Republican or Democrat, they want help. I know Republicans and oil companies are not going to give up on the status quo easily here. But Democrats on our side have been fighting for policies that will help us cut those prices, create jobs, and keep our air and water clean and, most importantly, our Nation secure. We are committed to taking strong action that will stop rewarding these oil companies and start looking out for our American families. We are going to keep up that fight. If my Republican colleagues want their constituents to have help, if they want to take action that will stop this pain at the pump, the solution is very simple: Vote yes with us tomorrow morning so we can move to a bill that will begin to solve this problem. (Mr. SANDERS assumes the Chair.)

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the years this Congress has spent countless hours fighting for the best and the safest equipment possible for our men and women in the military. Whether it was better weapons or enough body armor, armored humvees, we have all worked tirelessly to make sure our troops around the world have what they need to do their jobs and return home safely to their families. I come to the floor today because the Pentagon is now on the verge of purchasing the next generation aerial refueling tankers. This is going to be a decision that will cost billions of dollars and affect our service members for decades. But I have serious concerns about the administration's decision to buy these planes from Airbus, a subsidized company that has never produced refueling tankers before. I believe we must again fight to ensure that our troops and taxpayers get the right plane. Now I am not the only one with these concerns. Because this contest was flawed from the very beginning and the rules were changed throughout, Boeing has filed its first ever protest of the bidding process with the Government Accountability Office. The GAO is now expected to make a ruling in the next few weeks and we are all awaiting their decision. But the GAO investigation has a very narrow scope. The GAO is only allowed to determine whether the letter of the law was followed in the selection process. It cannot look at anything beyond that. So even if it is obvious that the Airbus plane costs more or it has unproven technology, or it doesn't meet the intended mission, the GAO cannot take any action to ensure that the contract is justified or in the best interests of our military, or, in fact, our national security. So I have come to the floor today because I believe that because of the GAO's limited role, Congress must look carefully at whether major Defense acquisitions are in line with the concerns of the American people. We need real answers before we move forward on this contract, and we have to demand that the administration make the case for why we should buy--American taxpayers should buy--an unproven and very costly Airbus tanker. Let me begin by outlining why I am so concerned. When you examine both of these planes carefully as I have done, it is clear that Boeing's tanker is superior. Yet even though I have asked numerous questions in committee hearings, in letters, in face-to-face meetings in my office, no one--no one--has been able to make the case for why we should buy the Airbus tanker; not the Air Force, not the Pentagon, and not even the Commander in Chief. Compared to Boeing's tanker, Airbus's A-330 is, we all know, much larger, less efficient, and, in fact, more expensive. It is so big that that plane cannot use hundreds of our current hangars, our ramps, or our runways around the globe. It burns more fuel, and it is going to cost billions of dollars more to maintain over the lifetime of the fleet, yet the Pentagon has not explained why Airbus's plane is the better buy. The Air Force competition found that the Boeing 767 is more survivable than the A-330. That means it is better equipped to protect our warfighters when they are in harm's way. Yet the Pentagon has not explained why in the world it wants to give the Air Force a plane that doesn't match up. Airbus has never built a refueling tanker. Its technology is unproven, and it is proposing to do some assembly at plants in Alabama that haven't even been built. They don't exist. Yet the Pentagon has not explained why this is a better investment than the plane built by Boeing--the same company, by the way, that has been supplying our tankers for nearly 70 years. I also have very serious questions about whether we should give a foreign company a multibillion-dollar contract to build a major piece of our military defense. If this contract goes forward, we would be handing billions of dollars in critical research and development funding to a foreign company, owned by foreign governments, to learn how to build a military plane that is flown by American air crews. Let me say that again. If this contract goes forward, we will be handing billions of dollars in critical research in funding to a foreign company, owned by foreign governments, to learn how to build a military plane that is flown by our American air crews. I am talking about airplanes that are the backbone of our entire military strength. These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. As long as we control the technology to build these tankers, we control our skies and we control our own security. Yet the Pentagon has not explained why it would let all of this slip away. Finally, Airbus has always had a leg up on the American aerospace industry because the European Union floods it with subsidies. In fact, our Government has a case pending currently before the WTO accusing Airbus of illegal--illegal--business practices. So I am astounded that our Defense Department has not been able to answer why in the world, when we have a case pending before the WTO accusing Airbus of illegal-- illegal business practices, that we would turn around and give them a major Defense contract. It does not make sense. I am not the only one asking questions. Increasingly, even experts in military contracting are demanding answers too. One of those experts is Dr. Loren Thompson who, according to even the Secretary of our Air Force, was given access to inside information on the decisionmaking process. Dr. Thompson now believes that the contract process had been less than transparent and he recently wrote an article saying that he believes the military has failed to make its case about why it chose the Airbus plane. He wrote that he too wants an explanation for why the military believes the A-330 is superior to the 767, when Airbus's military air tanker is bigger--much bigger--much heavier, untested, and unproven. As he put it last week: The service has failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision was made to deny the contract to Boeing. . . . The Air Force has some explaining to do. As I said earlier, despite all of these questions, the GAO is not allowed to dig for these answers. In fact, its role in analyzing this decision is very limited. The GAO can only look at whether the Pentagon followed the letter of the law and regulations that govern the Federal procurement process. It cannot consider the real-world concerns of Congress and the American people. That is our job. The GAO cannot address whether the military made the right decision for our servicemembers. That is our job. That is why Congress has to get involved. It is our job to demand that we get answers to those questions before we go any further with this contract. Congress-- us--we, the people--have to ask whether this contract will leave our servicemembers unprotected when they fly a plane. Congress has to ask whether Airbus's plane will cost too much to all of us: to our taxpayers, in military construction, in fuel, in maintenance--serious questions that are our responsibility. Congress has to ask whether our workers and our national economy will suffer if we outsource this major aerospace contract. Finally, Congress--us--all of us--need to decide whether this contract will put our national security at risk. The GAO can't do that. That is our job. This is a major decision. We are talking about a contract that will cost at least $35 billion and could cost the taxpayers more than $100 billion over the life of these planes in purchasing costs alone. Yet the Pentagon hasn't made a case for why they would choose to buy the Airbus plane. ``I don't know'' is not an acceptable response when you are talking about billions of taxpayer dollars and the safety of our servicemembers who fly these planes. We deserve answers. Our taxpayers deserve answers. Our servicemembers deserve answers. I hope our colleagues will stand with me and others and demand that the Defense Department justify this decision. Mr. President, I yield the floor.