Tanker Earmark Won't Fly
By Phil Kerpen
May 6, 2008
The Air Force needs a new tanker fleet-in fact the Air Force identified the new KC-45 tanker as its number one procurement priority, because the existing Eisenhower-era tanker fleet needs to be replaced. Unfortunately, this critical military asset has been delayed by an egregious pork-barrel earmark scandal, and, if some members of Congress and the chattering classes have their way, could be derailed once again by the closed door earmark process.
Boeing was originally slated to receive the tanker contract by means of a $23 billion earmark that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens placed in the 2003 Defense Appropriations Act conference report. That earmark gave Boeing a no-bid lease for 100 tankers, despite the fact that a lease makes less sense than a purchase for such a long-lived asset. It allowed no competitive bidding, and investigations revealed that this earmark was a product of criminal actions, resulting in jail time for a Boeing employee and a former Air Force official, and a $650 million fine for Boeing.
Following that embarrassing setback, the procurement process got back on track when the Air Force held an open and competitive bidding process in 2006. Two companies, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, submitted bids, and the process was widely regarded as fair and transparent by both sides during the competition-in fact representatives of both companies publicly praised the process throughout. .
On February 29, the Air Force announced that it had selected Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman's tanker bid, finding it superior on four of the five major selection criteria with a tie in the fifth. The Air Force believes that Northrop Grumman's tanker is militarily superior and provides a better value to taxpayers. Boeing exercised its right to appeal the decision and the Government Accountability Office is currently investigating the procurement process to determine if there were any defects that would call into question the outcome.
Now, some members of Congress want to overturn the merit-based process run by the Air Force without regard to the GAO investigation, effectively re-instituting a new version of the original scandalous earmark. There are reports that this could happen as early as this week in the defense authorization bill. This would be the largest earmark in history, at a time when voters have made more clear than ever that they believe federal spending decisions should be made based on a transparent, competitive process, not the politicized lobbying fights that occur when Congress steps in and earmarks spending.
Members of Congress that want to step in would seem to be saying they know more about tankers than the Air Force's top experts. Many retired Air Force generals have understandably taken offense at this suggestion, and surely active duty personnel, who are unable to comment publicly, feel similarly.
The protectionist argument that the Northrop bid relies on Airbus planes made in France ignores that Northrop Grumman won the contract, and that the Boeing plane also has many foreign-sourced parts, including parts made in China. There have also been false allegations from Boeing backers that sensitive military technology is being exported in this deal; in truth, the militarization work is being performed in the United States by Northrop Grumman at a secure facility in Mobile, Alabama.
Some members of Congress focus their arguments on the American jobs supported by the bids, which opens a window on their pork-barrel motivations. Quite simply, some members of Congress-from both camps supporting the competing bids-see a $35 billion procurement of a vital national security asset as an opportunity to bring home the bacon for their home districts in the form of jobs.
It might seem natural for members of Congress to want any major project to be steered to their home districts, for the benefit of their constituents. But that's what created explosive growth in pork-barrel earmarks in the first place, and that's why earmark reform is so important. Spending decisions, at the level of selecting specific contractors, should be left to the relevant agencies to be made through a merit-based, competitive process. That's the only way to get the political motivations of Congress out of the picture and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent for the benefit of all Americans, not just those whose representatives have the greatest political influence.
The integrity of the federal procurement process is at stake here. Congress should maintain a hands off approach until the GAO has completed its investigation, and unless that investigation shows defects that would justify reopening the bidding, the contract with Northrop Grumman should stand. The Air Force needs a new tanker; this is the one it wants, and if the GAO gives its seal of approval to the process, Congressional pork-barrel politics should not cause another delay.
---
Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.