[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN AIR SHOWS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to stop 
the use of taxpayer funds from subsidizing the U.S. defense industry at 
international air and trade shows.
  Prior to 1991, the Federal Government avoided direct military 
involvement in air shows and arms bazaars. Aircraft were leased to U.S. 
companies by the Department of Defense [DOD]. The leasing fee covered 
the cost of insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show, 
and payment for Government personnel needed to watch the aircraft. In 
June 1991, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce changed the Pentagon 
practice of leasing U.S. aircraft to industry at air shows. The new 
practice allows for the loan of DOD aircraft to industry free of 
charge. This results in the U.S. taxpayer paying for the cost of 
industry participation at air shows and arms bazaars.
  In 1992, taxpayers were forced to absorb the cost of a Marine 
aircraft that crashed on its way back from an airshow in Singapore. 
This crash came with the price tax of $18.9 million to American 
taxpayers.
  In response to the Singapore incident, Congressman Howard Berman 
sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 1993 DOD authorization bill 
which limits the Government's ability to engage in future air shows. It 
requires the President to notify Congress 45 days in advance of any 
proposed participation in airshows. It also requires the President to 
certify that participation is in the interest of our national security 
and to submit a cost estimate.
  In order to circumvent the intent of the Berman amendment, DOD 
adopted a new standard of sending aircraft carriers to the sites of 
airshows on so called training missions. This practice allows the 
aircraft on display to do overflights of the airshow off the deck of 
the carrier under the guise of a defense authorized training mission. 
It also puts the U.S. military crew in close proximity to fraternize 
with prospective buyers. The Clinton administration has been 
drastically underreporting the involvement and cost of the United 
States in these airshows by excluding transportation costs. The 
Pentagon is able to classify shows as training missions in order to 
avoid reporting the real costs incurred. As a result, the costs 
reported by the Pentagon to Congress are 15 to 20 times less than the 
actual costs, and the American taxpayer pays the bill.
  One of the many examples of this practice is the transfer of a B-2 
bomber to France to do a demonstration flight at the Paris Air Show in 
1995. This flight involved at least a 24-hour round trip at $14,166 per 
hour to operate the plane, for a total cost of more than $330,000--all 
at the taxpayer's expense. However, the cost report for the entire 
airshow submitted to Congress by the Pentagon was only $342,916.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Restrictions on Foreign Air 
Shows Act bans direct participation of the defense personnel and 
equipment at airshows. It prohibits planes, equipment, weapons, or any 
related materials from being sent to exhibits on training missions 
unless the contractor has paid for the expenses incurred by DOD. The 
legislation prohibits training missions from involvement or contact 
with concurrent airshows. It requires contractors to lease the 
equipment covering insurance costs, transportation costs, ramp fees, 
salaries of Government personnel needed to watch the aircraft, and all 
other costs associated with these events. If contractors are making a 
profit by showing U.S. aircraft, then they should be required to pay 
for the advertisement of the aircraft. Additionally, the bill bans the 
availability of military personnel--either on site at the airshows or 
at nearby training missions--to assist the contractors in their sales 
unless the contractor pays for their services.
  This bill does not outlaw the use of U.S. equipment in foreign 
airshows or trade exhibitions. It merely takes the financial burden off 
of the American taxpayer and puts it where it belongs--on the 
contractor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________