WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) issued the following statement on the Senate floor regarding the Boeing tanker decision. 

 

 

“Just last Friday we were all stunned and extremely disappointed by the Air Force's decision to award its tanker bid to Airbus/Northrop Grumman. What I think stunned us the most was the Air Force's rationale.

 

“Boeing worked hard to meet the Air Force requirements for the tanker bid. It picked the 767 as the platform that best matched Air Force requirements. If the Air Force had called for a large tanker, Boeing would have offered a 777 tanker with far more “capacity” than the KC-30.

 

“The Boeing KC-767 would have been a much better option for our environment.   The U.S. Air Force currently uses more fuel than any other military branch. By not awarding this contact to Boeing, the Air Force is taking a major step backwards. The Boeing KC-767 burns 24 percent less fuel and would have saved taxpayers approximately $10 billion over the life of the tanker.

 

“The Air Force uses more than half of all the fuel the U.S. government consumes each year.

 

“Aviation fuel accounts for more than 80 percent of the Air Force’s total energy bill. In 2006, the service spent more than $5.8 billion for almost 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel, more than twice the $2.6 billion spent in 2003.

 

“An Air Force assistant secretary told a House Armed Services subcommittee on Friday that it wants to leave a greener footprint with more environmentally-sound energy resources.

 

“He testified that the rising gas and oil prices have forced Air Force to take a hard look at the budget to find ways to save money while maintaining a high-operations tempo in the war on terrorism.

 

“Assistant Secretary Bill Anderson said: “The increasing costs of energy and the nation's commitment to reducing its dependence on foreign oil have lead to the development of the Air Force energy strategy -- to reduce demand, increase supply and change the culture within the Air Force so that energy is a consideration in everything we do.”

 

“The Boeing KC-767 would have been a much better option for energy efficiency. The Boeing KC-767 burns 24 percent less fuel and would have saved taxpayers approximately $10 billion over the life of the tanker.

 

“Did the Air Force really fully consider the national security impact of fuel efficiency when it made the decision on the tanker? Given that the Air Force uses more than half of ALL the fuel the U.S. government consumes each year, I hope they are thinking about the big picture when it comes to our nation’s dependency on foreign oil. 

 

“The KC-767 has greater operational flexibility. It can land on shorter runways and it can be based at more locations worldwide with existing infrastructure.

 

“Boeing’s medium-sized 767 tanker makes a lot more sense than the over-sized Airbus tanker. It has greater operational flexibility.

 

“Tanker size will determine bases required for operations, booms in the sky, air refueling orbits covered and the number of aircraft refueled.

 

“The Boeing tanker can land on shorter runways and the KC 767 provides for over 1000 more basing options worldwide.

 

“Furthermore, the Boeing KC 767 would have contained 85 percent U.S. constructed materials – resulting in the creation of more than 45,000 U.S. jobs.

 

“According to various estimates, the Northrop EADS KC-30 will have use only 50 – 60 percent US-materials and create about 25,000 jobs. That is a difference of about 20,000 high-skilled American jobs that, because of this contract, will now be shipped overseas.

 

“One has to ask - has the Department of Defense taken a hard look at the loss of critical skills in U.S. manufacturing ? I mean very technical high skilled jobs that could impact the United States readiness to respond in the event of future international conflicts and crises. 

 

“In times of national crisis, America has historically relied on our homegrown workforce to respond to manufacturing and engineering needs. If we outsource those very jobs, how can we claim preparedness for the next conflict?

 

“I believe the U.S. Government needs to consider the national security impact of fuel efficiency in its procurement decisions. It also needs to take a look at the U.S. work force and determine whether the loss of high skilled manufacturing jobs is impacting our national security interests. I plan to ask the Government Accountability Office to study both these issues and report back to Congress so we can have full debate as we move ahead on funding.”

 

 

# # #