By Emelie Rutherford
With the Government Accountability Office’s decision on Boeing‘s [BA] protest of the Air Force tanker contract to Northrop Grumman [NOC] expected this Thursday, lawmakers on both sides of the battle last week ramped up their rhetoric and eyed post-decision strategies.
Boeing supporters have been very vocal on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a Senate appropriator and member of her chamber’s leadership, calling on the Senate floor as recently as last Wednesday for Congress to intervene regardless of the GAO decision. Some House appropriators reiterated last week that if the GAO sides with the current contract they likely will move to cut off funding in the defense appropriations bill next month.
Some Northrop Grumman tanker supporters on the Hill said they are trying to keep quiet and hope the GAO calls for keeping the contract in place, and the matter fades from the limelight. Some also are speaking out. Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and Rep. Jo Bonner, all Republicans from Alabama–where Northrop Grumman plans to open a new tanker plant June 28–ran an opinion piece in The Hill newspaper last Monday decrying “pro-Boeing rhetoric on tanker” on Capitol Hill.
They slammed calls by Washington and Kansas lawmakers for Congress to intervene in the contract dispute to tackle issues the Pentagon and GAO cannot or did not address.
The Alabama Republicans write “the Air Force followed the laws Congress passed, stating only certain factors would be considered.”
“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 say.
Aides to lawmakers supportive of the Northrop Grumman contract said they are waiting for the GAO decision, and confirmed various contingency plans were being talked about last week.
Murray highlighted a feature on her Web site last Thursday asking constituents to sign on in “denouncing the Air Force’s decision by joining the fight.” Her Web site said more than 59,000 people have signed on, as of last Friday.
“We are at a critical juncture in the fight to keep our aerospace industry strong and your voice is now more important than ever,” Murray said in her plea.
On the Senate floor last Wednesday she called for congressional intervention in the tanker contract, raising concerns about Air Force leadership and reminding listeners about U.S. government claims of EADS company Airbus receiving illegal subsidies.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) said more than 75,000 people signed on to his survey gauging the level of “outrage” over the Northrop Grumman contract award.
He and other members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee (HAC-D)–including Vice Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.)–last week gave indications they’ll move to cut off tanker funding, if the GAO protest doesn’t go their way, when or after the HAC-D marks up the FY ’09 defense appropriations bill July 16.
Multiple “dear colleague” letters on the tanker dispute circulated on Capitol Hill last week, including one from Tiahrt and Dicks noting analyst Loren Thompson’s concerns about the process the Air Force used in selecting Northrop Grumman’s tanker. Thompson, the chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute who has close ties to the Air Force, initially said Northrop Grumman’s win was a “slam dunk,” but then learned more about the competition.
Tiahrt and Murray also were quick to jump on news reports late last week that the Air Force acknowledged Boeing’s proposed tanker would cost less over time than Northrop Grumman’s.
The Air Force awarded the contract for the KC-45A aerial-refueling tanker, a pact estimated to ultimately be worth more than $35 billion, on Feb. 29 to Northrop Grumman and a team including European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS)–spurring outcries from some U.S. lawmakers about lost job opportunities in the United States.
Losing bidder Boeing protested the tanker award March 11, and GAO has until day’s end June 19 to issue a decision.