[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 25, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1074-E1075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR AND TRADE SHOWS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 25, 1999

  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 any direct military 
involvement in air shows and arms bazaars. For the first time, during 
the Bush administration, military personnel and equipment were 
permitted in foreign air shows and weapons exhibitions. The aircraft 
used, during these air shows and weapons exhibitions, is paid for with 
American taxpayer dollars. The fees involved include the cost of 
insurance, ramp fees, transportation to and from the show and payment 
for government personnel needed to attend and monitor the show. In June 
of 1991 the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce changed the practice 
that the Pentagon had previously followed of leasing U.S. aircraft to 
industry at air shows. The practice adopted allows for the loan of the 
Department of Defense (DoD) aircraft to defense contractors free of 
charge. This means that taxpayers pay for the cost of industry 
participation at air shows and arms bazaars. If taxpayers are not 
sharing in the profits made during the air shows and arms exhibitions, 
why should they share in the cost?
  An example of this wasteful practice occurred in Singapore in 1992, 
during an air show intended to demonstrate new marine aviation 
technology. The Marine aircraft crashed and the American taxpayers were 
left with a bill of $18.9 million. In response to the crash Congressman 
Howard Berman sponsored an amendment to the FY93 Authorization bill 
which puts a limit on the government's ability to participate in air 
shows. The amendment requires the President to notify Congress 45 days 
prior to any participation in further air shows. It also requires that 
participation be in the interest of national security. In addition, the 
amendment requires a cost estimate to be submitted to Congress as well.
  In order to side step the Berman amendment, DoD sends aircraft and 
personnel to air shows on so called ``training missions.'' This 
fulfills the requirement that the air show be in the interest of 
national security.
  It is important to look at the total cost of foreign air shows in 
order to realize the abuse by the federal government on the American 
taxpayer. A conservative calculation of the total cost of taxpayer 
subsidies for 1996 and 1997 was at least $68.4 million. That is an 
average

[[Page E1075]]

of $34.2 million per year wasted at foreign airshows and arms bazaars. 
This figure is up over 31 percent over the period from 1994 to 1995.
  The Clinton administration has been underreporting cost and 
involvement to the U.S. by excluding transportation costs to and from 
the foreign shows. The costs reported by the Pentagon to Congress are 
15 to 20 times less than the actual costs, leaving the U.S. taxpayer to 
pick up the tab. An example of this practice is the transfer of a B-2 
bomber from the United States to France for a demonstration at an air 
show in Paris in 1995. This flight to Paris involved at least a 24-hour 
round trip ticket. The cost to operate the plane for one hour is 
$14,166, for a cost of over $330,000. The total cost submitted to 
Congress by the Pentagon to cover the entire show was underestimated at 
$342,916.
  The bill I am introducing today, the ``Restrictions on Foreign Air 
Shows Act'' bans any further direct participation of Defense personnel 
and equipment at air shows unless the defense industry pays for the 
advertising and use of the DoD wares. The bill prohibits sending 
planes, equipment, weapons, or any other related material to any 
overseas air show unless the contractor has paid for the expenses 
incurred by DoD. If a contractor decides to participate in the air 
show, he or she must lease the equipment, cover insurance costs, ramp 
fees, transportation fees, and any other costs associated with the air 
show. If a contractor is making a profit by showing the aircraft, they 
will also be required to pay for the advertisement and use of the 
aircraft. In addition, military and government personnel will not be 
allowed at the show unless the contractor pays for their services 
during the air show.
  This bill in no way outlaws the use of U.S. Aircraft or other 
equipment in foreign air shows or other trade exhibitions. The bill 
simply takes the financial burden off of the American taxpayer and puts 
it on the defense contractor. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.

                          ____________________