[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5471-S5472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AIR FORCE TANKER CONTRACT

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I also wish to inform and talk briefly 
to my colleagues about a major GAO study that is going to be out next 
week. It is about the bidding for the tankers for the U.S. Air Force.
  The GAO will announce the results of its review of the Air Force 
tanker contract next week. The GAO does not have authority to sustain 
or overturn the Air Force contract by itself. The GAO only reviews if 
and when the Air Force followed its own rules. Congress has the final 
say on this issue because only Congress can consider all of the 
relevant issues. Still, it is a major report that is going to be coming 
out on this issue.
  I have been very disappointed in the Air Force granting this tanker 
award to primarily a foreign builder, primarily to Airbus and EADS, 
which will build the biggest part of this tanker plane. I am 
disappointed for three major reasons:
  One is that I think the merits themselves of the contracting process 
were not followed by the Air Force.
  Second is the heavy subsidization by European governments of Airbus's 
plane. The base plane has had heavy subsidies of which the U.S. 
Government, by another arm--the U.S. Trade Representative's Office--is 
suing the European governments and Airbus and EADS, its parent 
corporation, for this. We are likely to see that case report out soon.
  Third, I think all the contractors should be subjected to the same 
rules, including things such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 
which U.S. companies are subject to, and I believe all foreign 
competitors and bidders should be as well.
  First, regarding the GAO, we need to look inside the process the Air 
Force used to award the contract. At the base of this, what is very 
puzzling to me is why the Air Force put so much stock in getting a 
bigger Airbus plane in this bidding process when they had been happy 
and desirous of the size of the plane Boeing had put forward. If they 
wanted a bigger plane, they should have put that forward in the bidding 
process.
  Plus, I put this forward: At a time when airlines are looking at the 
cost of running their airplanes and fuel costs, why is it that the Air 
Force would look at a bigger plane instead of a smaller plane that is 
more fuel efficient? That is what all the airlines are looking at. Why 
would we not look at the same thing? Plus, in looking at the bigger 
plane, I do not believe a realistic assessment of the military 
construction needs at the bases throughout the United States and the 
landing needs throughout the world has been looked at because you are 
going to have to increase landing space, you are going to have to 
increase hangar space for the larger airplane Airbus is putting 
forward. That is in the GAO report.
  On the foreign trade subsidies, the Air Force says it cannot consider 
foreign subsidies when it looks at the cost of contract proposals. As a 
result, the GAO will not review that issue either. But the United 
States is currently suing the European Union for subsidizing the same 
company to which the Air Force has awarded this new tanker contract. We 
expect that ruling on this WTO case very soon. We anticipate getting 
somewhere--if we win this case--a $4.5 billion judgment against Airbus 
and EADS for this same frame they are now being rewarded by the Air 
Force for with a $35 billion contract. So they subsidized the civilian 
aircraft, militarized it, and put it into the military building field. 
We sued them on this for an illegal international subsidy. We are 
giving them a contract here for $35 billion on the same subsidized 
plane. Only Congress can decide this issue, but I submit this is not 
the way we want to encourage other governments around the world to 
operate.

  Then a final issue is on foreign corrupt practices. The Air Force 
considers

[[Page S5472]]

each bidder's ability to execute a major contract, but it cannot 
evaluate the business practices used by each company, and neither can 
the GAO. But all U.S.-based companies are subject to the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. I submit we must require that same sort of 
performance. If a company is going to bid on a major U.S. military 
contract, they should be subjected to the same rules. I think this 
would be something that EADS, the parent corporation of Airbus, would 
be willing to be subjected to. We should require that they and other 
foreign companies compete for Defense contracts and hold themselves to 
the same standards we require of U.S. companies under this Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. Again, the Air Force has not considered this 
piece in their overall analysis.
  The bottom line is I think this is a highly flawed contract on the 
basis of the military not following its own design requests of its 
smaller plane; second, the United States awarding a contract on a 
subsidized plane that was illegally subsidized; and third, that these 
companies are operating under different rules. A foreign company 
operated under a more favorable set of rules. I think the Congress 
should look at all of these issues and say this is not the way we want 
to go on these tankers. We want to build them in the United States. We 
want these jobs in the United States. We want the workers to be in the 
United States. We want the military industrial complex to be U.S. based 
and not foreign based.
  As a gentleman said to me some time ago: There are two things we 
shouldn't be dependent upon another country's government for, and that 
is for your defense and for your food. Here we are being subject to a 
foreign government's building of a major piece of our military complex. 
The tankers are something that extend the ability for us to be able to 
fly missions. They are critical to our air campaigns. We are going to 
be dependent upon primarily a foreign producer to be able to build 
these planes. I think that has untold problems--potential problems--for 
us down the road and it would be something it seems to me this Congress 
should take a very aggressive look at and say no, we don't want to go 
that route. The GAO report will come out next week. It is going to be a 
key issue in this overall decisionmaking process.
  Mr. President, I thank you and my colleagues for the time.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________