[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 15, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6682-S6683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AERIAL REFUELING

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning 
to raise a very important concern. As all of my colleagues are aware, 
our Nation's aerial refueling tanker fleet is aging and badly in need 
of repair and replacement. We are in the process of selecting a new 
plane right now that can serve our military for 40 years or even more. 
Those tankers are the backbone of our global military. They are 
stationed today throughout the world, and they refuel aircraft from 
every branch of the Armed Forces. I think everyone would agree, 
especially in a time of war, that as we work to replace that fleet, 
there is nothing more important than buying the best planes for our men 
and women and for our taxpayers.
  Last month, in its decision sustaining Boeing's protest of the 
competition, the Government Accountability Office found that the Air 
Force made significant errors when it evaluated the bids by Boeing and 
the European company Airbus. The GAO found that the competition was 
skewed toward Airbus even though Airbus failed to meet even basic 
requirements of that contract.
  I was pleased last week when the Pentagon announced that it would 
rebid the contest and take over the selection process. I had hoped it 
would ensure that we finally hold a fair and transparent competition 
and get this contract right. But instead of a fair do-over, I am 
concerned that it appears

[[Page S6683]]

that the Pentagon may be planning to change the rules to benefit the 
already chosen winner--Airbus--by awarding greater benefits to a bigger 
plane. That would be shocking, given the significant number of flaws 
found by the GAO and how important this competition is to our 
servicemembers. Changing the rules of the game in overtime to benefit 
Airbus is not the kind of transparency the American taxpayer is looking 
for now in this process. So I wish to spend a few moments this morning 
explaining why this is the wrong decision for our servicemembers and 
for our taxpayers, and I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of 
the GAO findings.
  The GAO's decision was damning. It left no doubt that the Pentagon 
should start over and rebid the competition. The GAO found eight 
separate errors, and it described the competition as ``unreasonable, 
improper, and misleading.''
  Among its findings was that the Air Force changed direction about 
which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for 
providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's 
description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for 
offering amenities it did not even ask for. And the Air Force accepted 
Airbus's proposal even though it could not meet two of the key contract 
requirements.
  Airbus, first of all, refused to commit to providing long-term 
maintenance as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force 
repeatedly asked for it. Secondly, the Air Force could not prove that 
Airbus could even refuel all of the military's aircraft, according to 
procedure.
  Some of my colleagues have tried to downplay the GAO's ruling. They 
say the GAO upheld 8 points of protest, not 25, not 100, so the results 
were somehow less significant. I think they ought to go back and read 
the GAO's report one more time because the list speaks for itself. The 
GAO found fundamental problems, including that the Air Force could not 
even prove the Airbus plane could actually refuel all of our aircraft 
by the books, and it determined that but for those errors, Boeing could 
have won.
  As Daniel Gordon, the Deputy General Counsel for the GAO said last 
week when he was asked about this issue before the House Armed Services 
Committee, he said:

       We don't focus on this being seven out of 100. We focus on 
     the seven that we found that caused us to sustain the 
     protest.

  I remind my colleagues about the GAO findings because after reading 
the decision, the next step should be obvious. The Pentagon should 
return to the original request for proposals and start this competition 
over. But instead, officials say they plan to change the criteria in 
order to benefit a larger airplane, and that is my first concern. When 
the right course for the Pentagon to take is so clear, I have to ask 
why in the world would it change the rules now, unless the Defense 
Department is hoping to skew the competition in favor of Airbus yet 
again.
  My colleagues will remember that compared to Boeing 767, Airbus's 
A330 plane is massive. Clearly giving greater benefit to a larger plane 
in the middle of the game would only help Airbus at Boeing's expense, 
and that would be blatantly unfair. Why should the Pentagon give extra 
credit only to Airbus? The Air Force itself found that the Boeing 
tanker was more survivable or better able to keep the warfighters safe. 
That is a clear advantage, and I think most Americans would agree that 
giving our air men and women the safest plane should count for more.
  I don't just object because the Pentagon's new criteria could 
unfairly skew this new competition. I am also very concerned that the 
Pentagon has lost sight of why it needs these tankers. It appears to me 
that by changing the rules in favor of a larger tanker, the Defense 
Department is pushing the military further and further away from the 
goals it had when it started this whole replacement process.
  I am not the only one who is raising this issue. Retired Air Force 
GEN John Handy, who is a former leader of the Transportation and Air 
Mobility Commands, pointed out in a recent article that the Air Force 
originally asked for a midsized tanker in its RFP because that is what 
the military needs to carry out its mission. The Air Force, by the way, 
already has a larger tanker, the KC-10, which has its own role in the 
Air Force.
  Midsized tankers are the Air Force's multitaskers. They are designed 
to respond to needs all over the world at a moment's notice. They have 
to be able to use our current hangars, our ramps, and our runways, and 
they must be flexible enough to allow our warfighters to refuel 
aircraft during combat or to haul freight and passengers and return 
home safely.
  General Handy is one of the many experts and observers who has 
questioned what the Air Force was thinking when it selected the larger 
Airbus tanker in the first competition because compared to the 767, the 
A330 simply could not do the job as well.
  I, too, have asked repeatedly for the Defense Department to justify 
that decision, and I have yet to receive any clear-cut answers--not 
from the White House, not from the Pentagon, and not from the Air 
Force. But I think General Handy has identified one possible reason. As 
he put it:

       Somewhere along this acquisition process, it is obvious to 
     me that someone lost sight of the requirement.

  Unfortunately, it is our servicemembers and our taxpayers who are 
going to end up paying the price.
  The Defense Department's decision is not yet set in stone. It has not 
yet officially reopened this competition. The Pentagon still can make 
the decision to go back to the original RFP and run a fair contest, and 
it can ensure that our servicemembers get the best tanker possible, one 
that will allow them to do their jobs and get home safely.
  I come to the floor today to urge the Pentagon to rethink the 
decision to change the selection criteria. For the sake of our 
servicemembers, for the sake of our taxpayers, I hope they do the right 
thing--start this competition over using the original RFP, and get 
these planes into the field where they are desperately needed.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time remains on our side in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                          ____________________