[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11549-11550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        AERIAL REFUELING TANKERS

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the years this Congress has spent 
countless hours fighting for the best and the safest equipment possible 
for our men and women in the military. Whether it was better weapons or 
enough body armor, armored humvees, we have all worked tirelessly to 
make sure our troops around the world have what they need to do their 
jobs and return home safely to their families.
  I come to the floor today because the Pentagon is now on the verge of 
purchasing the next generation aerial refueling tankers. This is going 
to be a decision that will cost billions of dollars and affect our 
service members for decades. But I have serious concerns about the 
administration's decision to buy these planes from Airbus, a subsidized 
company that has never produced refueling tankers before. I believe we 
must again fight to ensure that our troops and taxpayers get the right 
plane.
  Now I am not the only one with these concerns. Because this contest 
was flawed from the very beginning and the rules were changed 
throughout, Boeing has filed its first ever protest of the bidding 
process with the Government Accountability Office. The GAO is now 
expected to make a ruling in the next few weeks and we are all awaiting 
their

[[Page 11550]]

decision. But the GAO investigation has a very narrow scope. The GAO is 
only allowed to determine whether the letter of the law was followed in 
the selection process. It cannot look at anything beyond that. So even 
if it is obvious that the Airbus plane costs more or it has unproven 
technology, or it doesn't meet the intended mission, the GAO cannot 
take any action to ensure that the contract is justified or in the best 
interests of our military, or, in fact, our national security. So I 
have come to the floor today because I believe that because of the 
GAO's limited role, Congress must look carefully at whether major 
Defense acquisitions are in line with the concerns of the American 
people. We need real answers before we move forward on this contract, 
and we have to demand that the administration make the case for why we 
should buy--American taxpayers should buy--an unproven and very costly 
Airbus tanker.
  Let me begin by outlining why I am so concerned. When you examine 
both of these planes carefully as I have done, it is clear that 
Boeing's tanker is superior. Yet even though I have asked numerous 
questions in committee hearings, in letters, in face-to-face meetings 
in my office, no one--no one--has been able to make the case for why we 
should buy the Airbus tanker; not the Air Force, not the Pentagon, and 
not even the Commander in Chief.
  Compared to Boeing's tanker, Airbus's A-330 is, we all know, much 
larger, less efficient, and, in fact, more expensive. It is so big that 
that plane cannot use hundreds of our current hangars, our ramps, or 
our runways around the globe. It burns more fuel, and it is going to 
cost billions of dollars more to maintain over the lifetime of the 
fleet, yet the Pentagon has not explained why Airbus's plane is the 
better buy.
  The Air Force competition found that the Boeing 767 is more 
survivable than the A-330. That means it is better equipped to protect 
our warfighters when they are in harm's way. Yet the Pentagon has not 
explained why in the world it wants to give the Air Force a plane that 
doesn't match up. Airbus has never built a refueling tanker. Its 
technology is unproven, and it is proposing to do some assembly at 
plants in Alabama that haven't even been built. They don't exist. Yet 
the Pentagon has not explained why this is a better investment than the 
plane built by Boeing--the same company, by the way, that has been 
supplying our tankers for nearly 70 years.
  I also have very serious questions about whether we should give a 
foreign company a multibillion-dollar contract to build a major piece 
of our military defense. If this contract goes forward, we would be 
handing billions of dollars in critical research and development 
funding to a foreign company, owned by foreign governments, to learn 
how to build a military plane that is flown by American air crews. Let 
me say that again. If this contract goes forward, we will be handing 
billions of dollars in critical research in funding to a foreign 
company, owned by foreign governments, to learn how to build a military 
plane that is flown by our American air crews. I am talking about 
airplanes that are the backbone of our entire military strength.
  These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from 
every single branch of our military. As long as we control the 
technology to build these tankers, we control our skies and we control 
our own security. Yet the Pentagon has not explained why it would let 
all of this slip away.
  Finally, Airbus has always had a leg up on the American aerospace 
industry because the European Union floods it with subsidies. In fact, 
our Government has a case pending currently before the WTO accusing 
Airbus of illegal--illegal--business practices. So I am astounded that 
our Defense Department has not been able to answer why in the world, 
when we have a case pending before the WTO accusing Airbus of illegal--
illegal business practices, that we would turn around and give them a 
major Defense contract. It does not make sense.
  I am not the only one asking questions. Increasingly, even experts in 
military contracting are demanding answers too. One of those experts is 
Dr. Loren Thompson who, according to even the Secretary of our Air 
Force, was given access to inside information on the decisionmaking 
process. Dr. Thompson now believes that the contract process had been 
less than transparent and he recently wrote an article saying that he 
believes the military has failed to make its case about why it chose 
the Airbus plane. He wrote that he too wants an explanation for why the 
military believes the A-330 is superior to the 767, when Airbus's 
military air tanker is bigger--much bigger--much heavier, untested, and 
unproven. As he put it last week:

       The service has failed to answer even the most basic 
     questions about how the decision was made to deny the 
     contract to Boeing. . . . The Air Force has some explaining 
     to do.

  As I said earlier, despite all of these questions, the GAO is not 
allowed to dig for these answers. In fact, its role in analyzing this 
decision is very limited. The GAO can only look at whether the Pentagon 
followed the letter of the law and regulations that govern the Federal 
procurement process. It cannot consider the real-world concerns of 
Congress and the American people. That is our job. The GAO cannot 
address whether the military made the right decision for our 
servicemembers. That is our job. That is why Congress has to get 
involved. It is our job to demand that we get answers to those 
questions before we go any further with this contract. Congress--us--
we, the people--have to ask whether this contract will leave our 
servicemembers unprotected when they fly a plane. Congress has to ask 
whether Airbus's plane will cost too much to all of us: to our 
taxpayers, in military construction, in fuel, in maintenance--serious 
questions that are our responsibility. Congress has to ask whether our 
workers and our national economy will suffer if we outsource this major 
aerospace contract. Finally, Congress--us--all of us--need to decide 
whether this contract will put our national security at risk. The GAO 
can't do that. That is our job.
  This is a major decision. We are talking about a contract that will 
cost at least $35 billion and could cost the taxpayers more than $100 
billion over the life of these planes in purchasing costs alone. Yet 
the Pentagon hasn't made a case for why they would choose to buy the 
Airbus plane. ``I don't know'' is not an acceptable response when you 
are talking about billions of taxpayer dollars and the safety of our 
servicemembers who fly these planes.
  We deserve answers. Our taxpayers deserve answers. Our servicemembers 
deserve answers. I hope our colleagues will stand with me and others 
and demand that the Defense Department justify this decision.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________