[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9350-9351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 FIVE REASONS WHY THE AIR FORCE'S DECISION TO AWARD AIRBUS A CONTRACT 
                            DOES NOT ADD UP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to express my honor 
for the gentleman from Colorado in the chair today, who did 
extraordinary work in leading the Congress to green building standards 
and the introduction of a bill today, and I appreciate his leadership 
on this. Thank you for leading on this issue.
  I come to the floor today to address my concerns about this 
misbegotten decision by the U.S. Air Force to ignore great work by 
Americans with a consortium building the Boeing 767 aerial refueling 
tanker, in fact, sending American tax dollars and American jobs out to 
Europe. And I want to express the five reasons why this decision does 
not add up.
  There is a particular odor about this decision. It needs to be 
revisited one way or another. We need to have an American tanker built 
by American workers to be fair to American service personnel and 
taxpayers both, and I want to go through the five reasons why this 
decision does not add up.
  Reason number one: There is no sense on this green Earth why the 
American Government has sued the Airbus Corporation, asserting that 
they have violated international trade laws because they received 
illegal billion dollar subsidies, and at the same time another agency 
of the Federal Government, the Air Force, turns around and gives that 
same corporation that our own government has declared is acting 
illegally contrary to international and American law--turns around and 
gives them a $40 billion contract. It is most unfortunate that at least 
one person in the other Chamber specifically said that we can't take 
into consideration these subsidies. It is absolutely ludicrous for the 
American Government to sue this company in one court, saying they 
violated law, and then turn around and give them $40 billion. That's 
exactly what has happened here. It makes no sense. This does not add 
up.
  Reason number two: Boeing has been building these tankers 
successfully, hundreds of tankers, without difficulty. And instead of 
going with a proven, tried and true American contractor, the Air Force 
has decided to accept the risk of a company that's never made an aerial 
tanker, building it in a way that it has never been built, in factories 
that do not exist, in multiple countries with a supply chain that has 
never been proven. We cannot and should not tolerate that risk of this 
risky decision.
  Reason number three that this does not add up: It does not add up 
because

[[Page 9351]]

all estimates have concluded that the Boeing 767 is 24 percent more 
fuel efficient overall, looking at all the emission statements, 24 
percent more fuel efficient. Well, for anyone who has gone to the pump 
recently, let me suggest that it doesn't make sense to be buying a 
product that is a gas guzzler when we know that fuel prices are going 
only in one direction. A study performed by the Conklin & de Decker 
analyst company concluded that by going with Boeing instead of this 
Airbus monstrosity, we would save the American taxpayers $30 billion in 
fuel costs. At the same time when we're trying to wring efficiencies to 
deal with global warming and reduce fuel costs, this decision is buying 
the gas guzzler rather than the fuel-efficient aircraft. This does not 
add up.
  Reason number four: The Air Force basically decided bigger is better. 
Bigger is not always better. They said they told Boeing and Airbus that 
they wanted a medium-size plane. Boeing provided them a medium-size 
plane. In the middle of this process, they decided they wanted a bigger 
airplane. Bigger is not always better, and I will tell you why. It's 
going to cost the American taxpayers over $2 billion to remodel all of 
these hangars all across America to try to fit this large airplane in. 
This is real money from real taxpayers that was not considered in the 
lifecycle costs. It does not add up.
  And the fifth reason is lifecycle costs. The Air Force, what they did 
was they looked at original acquisition costs and downplayed the 
lifecycle costs associated with fuel costs, maintenance costs, hangar 
remodeling, and all the other things associated with these airplanes. 
When you make an acquisition for the American taxpayers, you need to 
look at the entire lifecycle costs, not just the upfront acquisition 
costs. It does not add up.
  So here are five reasons that this Congress ought to get up on our 
hind legs and blow the whistle on this misbegotten decision. It doesn't 
add up. We need to change this decision.

                          ____________________