Mobile Development Thread

[The 251]

Today in Capitol Hill, Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions and Representative Jo Bonner criticize efforts by Boeing's backers in Congress who are mischaracterizing Northrop Grumman's Air Force contract to build America's next generation of aerial refueling tankers.

Shelby, Sessions and Bonner write "several congressional members have attempted to overturn this decision by waging a public relations campaign based on misinformation and rhetoric. We find this approach both unfortunate and a disservice to our men and women in uniform."

The lawmakers note that the Air Force, "in a full and open competition, determined that the KC-45 was superior to the KC-767 in four of the five categories considered. The KC-45 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, pallets and troops. Its technology is more advanced, 15 years newer, and it is more versatile and capable than the KC-767. The United Kingdom, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also selected the newer, more capable tanker over the KC-767 in the past four international tanker competitions, leaving no doubt about (which is) the best."

After pointing out that members of Congress have threatened to kill the contract even if Boeing's protest to the Government Accountability Office is rejected, the lawmakers ask why their colleagues didn't raise concerns about the contract during the bidding process.

And while the lawmakers also have claimed that the Air Force did not take into account issues like jobs when considering the contract – even though the deal will support 48,000 American jobs, with work for 230 suppliers in 49 states – they point out that "in short, the Air Force did exactly as it was instructed to do by Congress, to include Boeing's congressional supporters, who raised no concerns at the time."

They also note problems posed by the protectionist stance raised by Boeing's backers. "We also agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates that changing the law now based on protectionist sentiment should be approached with caution," the lawmakers write. "The global environment in which we live makes it virtually impossible for any major military product to be 100 percent American-made - especially when we're seeking the best. Moreover, U.S. firms supply billions of dollars worth of American-made equipment to foreign countries."

"Our colleagues clearly are not considering the very real and significant threat of economic retaliation posed if we develop a newly protectionist sentiment," the lawmakers write. "And certainly, we should not retroactively apply these potential new laws to defense procurements that have already been decided."

"We also need to remember the consequences of our colleagues' argument that they would rather have the Air Force procure a more expensive, antiquated plane that clearly does not meet the needs of our armed forces nearly as well as the KC-45, simply because the winning tanker does not meet their definition of American-made," they add. "As a reminder, Mobile, Ala., where the KC-45 will be assembled, is in America."

"Just because you do not like the outcome does not mean the rules should be changed when the game is over," the lawmakers warn.