Murray blasts Air Force; Boeing demands answers
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Patty Murray has ripped into Air Force officials for their decision to buy air tankers based on a plane from Airbus instead of Boeing, as Boeing demanded the Air Force immediately explain its reasoning behind its decision.
In Tuesday's speech on the Senate floor, Murray said the $35 billion decision for 179 planes was "a key piece of our national and economic security."
"Instead of securing the American economy and military at a time while we are at war we are creating a European economic stimulus package at the expense of U.S. Workers," she said.
"We cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interest in mind."
Boeing, which has been supplying air-to-air refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and was widely expected to win the deal, will not decide whether to protest the decision until it is debriefed by the Air Force.
The Air Force planned a March 12 debriefing, according to Boeing. An Air Force spokeswoman said she did not know whether the timing has changed.
By awarding the contract to Europe-based EADS and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, the Air Force has touched off a furor in Congress, provoking questions about why a foreign company would receive such a high-stakes deal. The response has been strongest from lawmakers whose states stood to gain jobs had Boeing won the deal.
The contract to build up to 179 tankers is the first of three Air Force awards worth as much $100 billion to replace its entire refueling tanker fleet over the next 30 years.
"It's important for us to understand how the Air Force reached their conclusion," Mark McGraw, a Boeing vice president, said in a statement. "The questions we are asking, as well as others being raised about this decision, can best be answered with a timely debrief indicating how our proposal was graded."
Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both Democrats from Washington, and Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans from Kansas, were among the lawmakers who sent a letter to top Pentagon officials also requesting an Air Force briefing this week.
Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut. The company says a win would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at Boeing and more than 300 suppliers in more than 40 states.
The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. It would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, of Los Angeles, estimated a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.
Two top Air Force acquisition officials, Sue Payton and Lt. Gen. John L. "Jack" Hudson, are scheduled to testify about the contract before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on Wednesday.
And officials with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents Boeing workers, are calling for Congress to pass legislation barring the Pentagon from awarding contracts to foreign companies that receive "anticompetitive" subsidies. The U.S. Trade Representative has filed a complaint against the European Union with the World Trade Organization charging the EU with providing unfair subsidies to EADS subsidiary Airbus for large civil aircraft.
In the Boeing statement, McGraw responded to reports that the Air Force concluded that the Boeing tanker was the higher-risk option.
"Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides," he said. "We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering."
The contract award could still be challenged by Boeing or members of Congress.
Other Lawmakers Weigh In
Sen. John McCain said Monday that he hasn't made up his mind on the contract.
McCain, the likely Republican nominee for president, helped scuttle a previous deal that gave the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to Chicago-based Boeing Co.
"Having investigated the tanker lease scandal a few years ago, I have always insisted that the Air Force buy major weapons through fair and open competition," McCain said. "I will be interested to learn how the Air Force came to its contract award decision here and whether it fairly applied its own rules in arriving at that decision."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, said Congress should examine the Air Force contract.
"The Air Force's decision to award the contract for a much-needed modernization of the nation's aerial tanker fleet to Northrop Grumman and Airbus raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday.
The questions include "national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm," as well as whether the Air Force gave sufficient consideration to the contract's effect on American jobs, Pelosi said.
McCain said jobs were not the key issue.
"I've never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs," he told reporters in Phoenix. "I've always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."
McCain's two Democratic rivals have also criticized the Air Force decision, which came as a surprise to analysts and lawmakers and was widely seen as a major blow to Boeing. The company has supplied refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois expressed disappointment Sunday that his home-state company lost out on the tanker contract. Obama said it was hard for him to believe "that having an American company that has been a traditional source of aeronautic excellence would not have done this job."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she was "deeply concerned about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military."
While details of the decision are not fully clear, "it is troubling that the Bush administration would award the second-largest Pentagon contract in our nation's history to a team that includes a European firm that our government is simultaneously suing at the (World Trade Organization) for receiving illegal subsidies," Clinton said.
In Tuesday's speech on the Senate floor, Murray said the $35 billion decision for 179 planes was "a key piece of our national and economic security."
"Instead of securing the American economy and military at a time while we are at war we are creating a European economic stimulus package at the expense of U.S. Workers," she said.
"We cannot trust a foreign company to keep our military's best interest in mind."
Boeing, which has been supplying air-to-air refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and was widely expected to win the deal, will not decide whether to protest the decision until it is debriefed by the Air Force.
The Air Force planned a March 12 debriefing, according to Boeing. An Air Force spokeswoman said she did not know whether the timing has changed.
By awarding the contract to Europe-based EADS and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, the Air Force has touched off a furor in Congress, provoking questions about why a foreign company would receive such a high-stakes deal. The response has been strongest from lawmakers whose states stood to gain jobs had Boeing won the deal.
The contract to build up to 179 tankers is the first of three Air Force awards worth as much $100 billion to replace its entire refueling tanker fleet over the next 30 years.
"It's important for us to understand how the Air Force reached their conclusion," Mark McGraw, a Boeing vice president, said in a statement. "The questions we are asking, as well as others being raised about this decision, can best be answered with a timely debrief indicating how our proposal was graded."
Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both Democrats from Washington, and Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans from Kansas, were among the lawmakers who sent a letter to top Pentagon officials also requesting an Air Force briefing this week.
Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut. The company says a win would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at Boeing and more than 300 suppliers in more than 40 states.
The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. It would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, of Los Angeles, estimated a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.
Two top Air Force acquisition officials, Sue Payton and Lt. Gen. John L. "Jack" Hudson, are scheduled to testify about the contract before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on Wednesday.
And officials with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents Boeing workers, are calling for Congress to pass legislation barring the Pentagon from awarding contracts to foreign companies that receive "anticompetitive" subsidies. The U.S. Trade Representative has filed a complaint against the European Union with the World Trade Organization charging the EU with providing unfair subsidies to EADS subsidiary Airbus for large civil aircraft.
In the Boeing statement, McGraw responded to reports that the Air Force concluded that the Boeing tanker was the higher-risk option.
"Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides," he said. "We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering."
The contract award could still be challenged by Boeing or members of Congress.
Other Lawmakers Weigh In
Sen. John McCain said Monday that he hasn't made up his mind on the contract.
McCain, the likely Republican nominee for president, helped scuttle a previous deal that gave the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to Chicago-based Boeing Co.
"Having investigated the tanker lease scandal a few years ago, I have always insisted that the Air Force buy major weapons through fair and open competition," McCain said. "I will be interested to learn how the Air Force came to its contract award decision here and whether it fairly applied its own rules in arriving at that decision."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, said Congress should examine the Air Force contract.
"The Air Force's decision to award the contract for a much-needed modernization of the nation's aerial tanker fleet to Northrop Grumman and Airbus raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday.
The questions include "national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm," as well as whether the Air Force gave sufficient consideration to the contract's effect on American jobs, Pelosi said.
McCain said jobs were not the key issue.
"I've never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs," he told reporters in Phoenix. "I've always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."
McCain's two Democratic rivals have also criticized the Air Force decision, which came as a surprise to analysts and lawmakers and was widely seen as a major blow to Boeing. The company has supplied refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois expressed disappointment Sunday that his home-state company lost out on the tanker contract. Obama said it was hard for him to believe "that having an American company that has been a traditional source of aeronautic excellence would not have done this job."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she was "deeply concerned about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military."
While details of the decision are not fully clear, "it is troubling that the Bush administration would award the second-largest Pentagon contract in our nation's history to a team that includes a European firm that our government is simultaneously suing at the (World Trade Organization) for receiving illegal subsidies," Clinton said.