American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008

Floor Speech

AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008 -- (Senate - June 19, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

GAO SUSTAINS BOEING'S PROTEST

Mrs. MURRAY. Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office issued its ruling on Boeing's protest of one of the largest defense contracts in history: the Air Force's decision to choose the European company Airbus to supply the next generation of aerial refueling tankers.

In that ruling, the GAO agreed with Boeing that there were fundamental flaws in the process from the very beginning. GAO's attorneys found the Air Force made a number of significant errors that unfairly misled Boeing and favored Airbus.

They recommended that the Air Force reopen the contract, get new proposals, and make a decision that corrects the errors GAO found.

Madam President, to me, that decision was not a surprise. Air Force and Pentagon officials have told me, time and time again, that they followed the law and this contract would stand up to review.

But since the very beginning, it has been very clear that Airbus tankers did not meet the Air Force's needs--no matter what its public relations campaign has said.

Even though the Air Force claimed it had selected the cheaper plane and made no mistakes, we learned last week it had made a critical error when calculating the operating costs of the two tankers. The Air Force is now acknowledging the Airbus plane actually costs tens of millions of dollars more.

Two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Gates forced out the top two Air Force leaders--Secretary Michael Wynne and his Chief of Staff, GEN Michael Moseley. By doing that, he expressed a serious lack of confidence in their leadership and lack of oversight. All along, the Pentagon has refused to answer even basic questions about this contract.

I, and the many others who have raised concerns about the Air Force's decision, now expect a thorough and honest response from the Pentagon to the GAO's decision.

But as I have said all along, the GAO ruling answers only one overarching question that has been raised in this process and that is whether the Air Force followed the letter of the law when it chose Airbus for the contract. That means that even if it was obvious that Airbus's plane was wrong for the war fighter and for the taxpayer, it could not push for answers.

That is Congress's job, and we in Congress, who represent the American taxpayers, have to continue to press for real answers to those hard questions. We in Congress need to know why the Air Force chose a plane that is bigger and less efficient than it asked for--one that cannot use hundreds of our runways, ramps, and hangars, and one that will cost billions of dollars more in fuel and maintenance.

We in Congress need to know whether our Government should buy a plane that even the Air Force says is less survivable, less able to keep our war fighters safe. We in Congress need to know what the effect on our economy and our national security will be if we turn this technology, which is vital to this Nation, over to a company that is owned by foreign governments.

The U.S. Trade Representative is so concerned about the subsidies Airbus receives that they have brought a case against the EU before the World Trade Organization. We need to know why in the world we would accuse Europe of unfair trade practices and then turn around and hand Airbus a major piece of our defense industry. We need to know why our Government would hand them the contract now.

In May, employers cut 49,000 jobs in the United States. It was the largest 1-month jump in unemployment in 22 years. Yet the administration, right in the middle of this, wants to send 44,000 U.S. jobs overseas, when we are hemorrhaging jobs here at home.

On the day in February that the Air Force first announced it awarded this plane to Airbus, I was out on the 767 line, in Everett, with our Boeing workers. I will never forget the shock and disappointment in their eyes. One woman came up to me and said:

I can't believe this. My son is currently flying these tankers over in Iraq, serving our country. I want to build those planes with my taxpayer dollars to make sure he is safe and we know what is in that plane.

Yesterday's GAO study proved she was right and she is vindicated. We now have the right process to move forward on this and make a good decision not only for that mom but for American taxpayers and for America's security for the future.

For months now, I have been saying this process was flawed. I have been saying we should not hand over billions of dollars and thousands of jobs and that Boeing should build those tankers. The GAO's decision backed up all my concerns. The process was flawed. Now we need to know why. We should not be buying more expensive planes built in France. That seems obvious. With a level playing field, Boeing builds the best tankers at the best price.

By reevaluating this deal with the proper criteria that GAO outlined, I am confident the Air Force will, in the end, agree with me and award this contract to Boeing--I hope in short order. I hope our airmen and airwomen will soon have the best possible plane to carry out their missions.

I yield the floor.

Source