From snipers to car bombs to organized ambushes, American troops around the globe face immediate threats each and every day. But they also face another serious threat, one that is far-reaching and large-scale. With every passing day, more and more of the weapons and equipment that protect our troops and our nation are being built on foreign shores. That threat was made crystal-clear last week, when the Pentagon chose an international group that includes British and Italian manufacturers, rather than Sikorsky, to build Marine One, the presidential helicopter.

On the merits, Sikorsky should have been the clear winner. Sikorsky has manufactured Marine One here in the United States since the Eisenhower administration – and the president’s helicopter has never had a single accident. The American-based leader of the international group, Lockheed Martin, has never built helicopters at all. When stacked up against the international group’s helicopter, the Sikorsky helicopter flies faster, costs less, and can carry a heavier load. But the international group had a political trump card: unlike Sikorsky’s bid, its contract will provide a windfall for two nations that supported the Iraq war.

To most Americans, the idea that the President of the United States will have a foreign-made helicopter is unthinkable and insulting. Could any of us imagine England’s Tony Blair, or Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, being driven around in a Ford or a Chevrolet?

Unfortunately, this decision is only the tip of the iceberg. It underscores a much larger problem that threatens America’s ability to build the best, most advanced military technology for years to come.

“Offshoring” or “overseas outsourcing” affects workers of all kinds: from blue collar to white collar, from manufacturers to computer programmers. But the outsourcing of defense technology is perhaps the most disturbing trend. When we rely on foreign manufacturers to build our troops’ planes, tanks, missiles, and armor, we are not only outsourcing jobs, but our national security.

Consider this real-life example: at the initial phase of the Iraq war, a Swiss subcontractor refused to supply our military with critical parts for smart bombs because it opposed the war. This action could have cost the United States precious time, or even lives. Fortunately, in this case, we were able to buy the parts from a domestic manufacturer. But if we continue to send defense work overseas, expertise here at home will become harder and harder to find.

The United States has the best-equipped military in the world. Why? Because American companies specializing in defense technology have built up generations of experience and know-how. Thanks to the men and women working on assembly lines making ball bearings, engine parts, and firearms, American soldiers from the trenches of Europe to the streets of Baghdad have gone into battle outfitted with the very best weapons and protection available. But each time workers are laid off and their jobs sent overseas, our experience and knowledge base erodes – and eventually disappears.

America’s defense manufacturing industry is at a crossroads. Currently, all critical U.S. military systems are required to be built with at least 50 percent American-made products. A recent attempt in Congress to raise that amount to 65 percent revealed a stark reality – according to members of the defense industry, there is no way we could meet that requirement right now. Our reliance on foreign suppliers is far too great.

Some have argued that offshoring is all part of a necessary give-and-take in today’s global economy. The Bush administration has praised offshoring, calling it a “good thing.” If we allow foreign nations to manufacture defense technology for us, so the argument goes, they will offer us the same opportunities in their countries.

In fact, the opposite is happening. Even as we send our defense work to Europe, the European Union is considering policies that would require 100 percent of their defense work to be done by EU nations. Why is it that only Europe’s leaders – not ours – understand that sending critical defense work overseas is far from a “good thing?”

Along with my Connecticut colleagues in Congress, I intend to leave no stone unturned in our effort to bring the Marine One contract back to Sikorsky. But it will be an uphill battle. Americans’ attention should focus not only on this contract, but on our defense industry as a whole. And a sensible and pragmatic step in the right direction is to stop using American taxpayer dollars to outsource American jobs, and American military technology.

At the same time, it’s imperative that we make concrete investments in research, development, and production here at home. That doesn’t mean a return to the massive military industrial complex of the Cold War. But if the United States is to retain its military superiority worldwide, we need to make sure that the most cutting-edge military technologies are developed here, not overseas.

All of us in America are proud of our men and women in uniform. For over three generations, workers at companies like Sikorsky have been providing our troops with concrete and meaningful support – by manufacturing the very technologies that keep them safe. Last week, it became clear that decades of support, and superior performance, matter little to the Bush administration. With the future of the American military at stake, the time has come to stop the outsourcing of America’s security.