by Aamer Madhani
Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), two lawmakers with Boeing manufacturing plants in their districts, said last week that they may use the upcoming defense authorization debate to try to stop the Air Force from going through with its plan to give the tanker contract to a European rival of the Chicago-based Boeing.
The Government Accountability Office is expected to announce its decision by June 19 over Boeing's protest of the contract being awarded to the Northrop/EADS team.
Gates said that Boeing was using "legitimate processes" with its protest, but he wasn't so charitable about the prospects of Congress trying to use its power of the purse to derail what he said was a "fair process" in awarding the lucrative contract.
Since the winner of the contract was announced nearly two months ago, some lawmakers, including Tiahrt and Dicks, have fumed over the prospect of awarding the contract, in part, to a foreign company.
"All I can say is that I think it would be a real shame if the tanker were to get delayed yet again," Gates said in comments made at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in
Gates went on to point out that the law required the Pentagon only to consider the technology, capability and costs of the two bids.
"I think that some things unrelated to what the law says we can consider are being thrown into the mix, at least on Capitol Hill...and that's a concern," Gates said.
Earlier this month, Tiahrt and a few other lawmakers requested and received a classified intelligence briefing that detailed purported illegal practices used by several foreign companies to gain federal contracts, including EADS.
Tiahrt wouldn't divulge details of the report because it was classified, but a spokeswoman for the congressman said the report "proves even more that giving this Tanker contract to EADS could be a threat to our national security."
Some defense industry analysts say that Boeing, which like the Northrop/EADS team makes a fortune in foreign sales, and its surrogates on Capitol Hill have to tread carefully when making the argument that such an important and lucrative defense project should remain with an American company.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If the US military wants something specific for the KC-135 they need to tell Boeing, and Boeing needs to accommodate for the benefit of all Americans. What could be so wrong with Boeing's ability--as to be a deal breaker for American workers? Lets face it, I want my OWN guys packing my parachute--comprendo? Only fools allow other nations to manufacture their defense goods.
Posted by: Vivian | April 21, 2008 9:06 PM
Weren't we all suppose to show our patriotism not too long ago because the French were oppossed to the 2nd Iraqi invasion; be anti-everything French?
I guess I'll stop ordering "freedom fries".
Posted by: RomanB | April 21, 2008 9:19 PM
I wonder what old man McCain thinks of this?, especially since he has all of those Military Industrial Complex lobbyists riding around with him on his Insane-Talk Express bus everyday.
Posted by: John E | April 21, 2008 9:47 PM
The " Military-Industrial Complex " just can't get enough moola. They are like that cable company's ad: " More, More, More. " Meanwhile, little Sally and Johnny can't have healthcare!! We can't afford it!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 21, 2008 10:23 PM
Noticing the absence of facts in both the article and especially the comments, David Freddoso's comments on the airbus deal are especially relevant:
"The final refuge of those whining over Boeing’s loss is the fact that Airbus is a foreign corporation, and that the U.S. military is now relying on foreigners to produce necessary military equipment. But for the most part, Americans will be building these planes. Boeing had estimated that it would have created 9,000 American jobs and supported 35,000 others had it received the contract. Airbus is estimating that it will create 2,000 American jobs and support 25,000. Even taking these assumptions at face value, Democrats are trying to convince American taxpayers that it is worth their while to fork over $886,000 for each of the additional 7,000 jobs that Boeing would have supposedly created, or $316,000 for each extra job “created or supported.”"
Posted by: Bruce | April 21, 2008 10:46 PM
The Defense Dept. is criticized for not doing the right thing when they overpay for military equipment, but when they decide to buy a product because it's a lower price, they're accused of not doing the right thing because SOME of the money is going to a foreign company.
There is no American company other than Boeing that manufactures ariel tankers. Are you going to give Boeing a permanent no-bid contract for ariel tankers ?
Posted by: Daniel P. From Long Island, N.Y. | April 21, 2008 11:09 PM
@Vivian
You call the Polish and the Dutch fools for buying F-16?
The last tanker deal between Boeing and the Air Force was with $6 Billion baksheesh. Every American would have paid about $20 baksheesh for Boeing. Several people got jailed.
Did you know Boeing never has won a tanker contest. Lockheed has won the first contest. An Air Force General ordered some KC-135 instead. Didn't bother about the price. Cold war was icily at that time. Next time McDonald-Douglas won with the KC-10. This time Boeing lost again.
Posted by: MHalblaub, D | April 22, 2008 4:32 AM