The Standing Rules of the Senate are drafted to encourage vigorous public debate on our nation’s most important issues. Indeed, the U.S. Senate is often referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” The Rules allow any Senator to seek recognition from the Chair at any time and, absent a temporary agreement to the contrary, to speak without interruption so long as he or she wishes. Debating important questions before the Senate is one way a Senator can highlight an issue, advocate for a change in policy, or voice his or her opinion on pending legislation.
Senate debate occurs in public, and is televised on CSPAN and transcribed in the Congressional Record. For your convenience, I post transcripts of my Senate floor speeches on this site for your review. I hope you find them informative and useful. My web site also makes available information on my voting record and legislation that I have sponsored in the Senate.
 print |  email |
|
Boeing Protest
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to discuss the Government Accountability Office decision to sustain the Boeing protest of the KC-X tanker award, which I have followed closely. The Northrop Grumman/EADS proposal would have resulted in a fabulous new construction facility in my home State and would have created thousands of jobs within the United States. I confess that I am disappointed by the decision. I do think it is important that we continue to follow this process and to recognize the appropriate roles of the different Government actors involved.
It is, of course, not the GAO's job to pick aircraft for the Air Force. GAO used to be called the Government Accounting Office. Now it is the Government Accountability Office. It is fundamentally the accounting arm of our Government. As they said themselves when they made this decision in which they found flaws in the process for making this selection:
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs is largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors.
In other words, it is the job of the war fighters, the people who will use this aircraft, the U.S. Air Force and those who benefit from the U.S. Air Force refueling capability, it is for them to make a decision about which aircraft best meets their needs. The GAO has to make sure that all appropriate processes and procedures are followed in doing this. Both the Air Force and DOD have been unequivocal in their statements that they believe the Northrop/EADS aircraft is a superior aircraft for their needs. As Air Force Assistant Secretary Sue Payton said upon announcement of the decision:
Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government when you take a look at, in accordance with the RFP, the five factors that were important to this decision: in mission capability, in proposal risk, in the area of past performance, in cost price, and in something we call an integrated fleet aerial refueling rating.
They had a complex but serious evaluation procedure that they utilized. Last Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoffrey Morrell said the selection of the Northrop KC-45 ``provided our war fighters with the most capable aircraft and the taxpayer [with] the most cost-effective solution to this very real need of replacing the tanker fleet.''
The GAO found procedural flaws, according to their analysis, but they have not overturned this fundamental conclusion, the evaluation made by the Air Force personnel. The people who actually have to fly tankers and those who utilize them to refuel at high altitudes and high speeds over the Atlantic, over the Middle East, or wherever in the world, still favored and chose the KC-45.
Still, it is important for the Air Force to consider the GAO's objections and to take them into account. They have 60 days to do so. However, the GAO also acknowledged it is the Air Force's decision about what final action they are to take. They have not, as some suggested, been ordered to start over again.
My colleague, Senator Cantwell, whom I recognize represents the State of Washington where this work would be done if Boeing were the winner, had this to say:
The Air Force will have no choice but to rebid this project.
That is not true. That is not an accurate statement, frankly. We need to be sure about how we think about this as we go forward. Even more inaccurately, some of our colleagues have suggested that the GAO's decision means the award should be given to Boeing. Senator Brownback's press release, my good friend from Kansas, who would love to get some of the work in his home State, said that as a result of yesterday's announcement:
This contract should be overturned and awarded to Boeing.
That is not right. They didn't order that at all. There is no basis for that whatsoever.
Congressman Norm Dicks, of Washington, who until recently was telling people he didn't care what the GAO had to say, issued a press release yesterday touting the GAO decision and declaring as a result of it:
I believe the Air Force should set aside the agreement it improperly reached with EADS/Northrop Grumman and we should proceed expeditiously to build the best aircraft--the Boeing KC-767--here at home.
``At home'' meaning in his home State of Washington, not in my home State of Alabama.
That is a misreading completely of the GAO's decision and demonstrates a misunderstanding of GAO's role. They analyzed the process. They found some errors, they said. They said nothing about giving any award to the other competitor, Boeing. The military still adheres to its belief, as they noted, as to the superior aircraft.
Some of my colleagues also seem to misunderstand Congress's role in this, or at least to interpret their responsibility to the American military differently than I do. Senator Murray announced yesterday:
It is Congress's job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our war fighters and deserve taxpayer funding.
I tell you, I am a lawyer. I know our Presiding Officer is. Schoolteachers, accountants, veterinarians are not equipped or able, nor do we have the responsibility and the intense interest, to make these kind of decisions that the U.S. Air Force does. They have a long history of aircraft purchasing and managing. They know something about what it is like to refuel in the air, why an aircraft that can fly further and carry far more fuel may be a superior aircraft to one that does not. This is not a political decision to be made by people who spend a few hours looking at it and think they now are capable to reverse the decision made by the one agency in our Government that will have to live with the result. I believe it is the brave men and women of the Air Force who fly these planes and depend on them who should be making the decisions about their needs and what they think is best. We need to protect that. If they change their mind after this, so be it. But I hope and believe strongly this Congress should encourage the Air Force to consider the objections raised by GAO, to fairly evaluate them, and then to select, without political influence, the best aircraft for the men and women in uniform. That is the way we will serve our country. To politicize this process would be dead wrong, and I object to it. There has been too much of it.
Great progress was made when some of my colleagues including Senator McCain objected when the Appropriations Committee slipped language into an appropriations bill that leased 100 aircraft, $23 billion, sole source from Boeing. There had been no hearings. It was a sole-source contract for about $235 million per aircraft to just lease 100 of these aircraft. As a result of these questions that were raised, eventually, one of the top procurement officials, a civilian in the Air Force, went to jail. Members of the leadership of Boeing resigned and investigations were conducted. It was quite a scandal.
It was wrong, and it was corrupt. When that was discovered, people went to jail. So what did Congress do then? Congress, in my committee, the Armed Services Committee, had hearings about it. We discussed it. It was raised in the Airland Subcommittee, a subcommittee of which I was a member and that I at one point chaired. We directed and required that the Air Force conduct a competitive bid process for this contract. No more sole-source. You pick the best aircraft in the world to serve our men and women. That is what we directed--no ifs, ands, or buts, no qualifications. Not one amendment was offered to object. Everybody knew at the time there were two major aircraft-producing companies--only two--that could compete: Boeing and the Northrop Grumman-EADS team. So we ordered a bid.
We have all kinds of joint operations--the Joint Strike Fighter, where parts come from European and American sources. We and our European allies have come together to make the Joint Strike Fighter.
So we said we are going to bid this. The question came up during the debate: Well, is this just a joke? Is this just a game? Is it going to be a real, fair bid? Will everybody get a fair chance?
I remember I asked them: Is this going to be a political decision? Aren't you required to do it on the merits? They assured me they would do it on the merits.
As part of the bidding process, the Air Force produced and released a request for proposal. It is a detailed
statement of what the Air Force is looking for. They request the bidders--in this case, there were just two--to respond to that request for proposal. They also allowed the bidders an opportunity to make suggestions and criticisms about the proposal. Otherwise, it would go out as proposed by the Air Force.
The Boeing team made no official or formal objections, no written complaints about the details of that proposal. They did not request certain WTO provisions that might tilt the scales away from what is the best aircraft or not the best aircraft. They agreed to proceed under that process.
The Air Force believed they had the most open process in their history of any major contract of this kind. They were required to follow their procedures, and it is easy to make a mistake. So maybe they made some mistakes. Maybe they have a perfectly good explanation for some of the criticism GAO has raised. But that is where we are today. They found some procedural flaws. But I have to tell you, the GAO did not say it was time for a bunch of politicians, a bunch of lawyers, accountants, prosecutors, schoolteachers, to start picking which is the best plane available to the Air Force. We should not be substituting our judgments for those of the military.
So I am sorry we did not get a firm confirmation on this process. I fully acknowledge the Air Force will need to review the complaints that have been made. I hope they will move forward with the process quickly because it is a critical need. This Nation is really 8 or 9 years behind our timeline to get started with producing the aircraft. It is the No. 1 procurement priority for the U.S. Air Force. Many of the planes are 50 years old. I saw one being refurbished with a serial number of 1960 not long ago. The cost of operating these aircraft is rising.
I hope we can work through this process and make sure each bidder has a fair opportunity to bid. It is critically important that the Air Force treat all bidders fairly, that politics not interfere with the process, and that they select the best aircraft for the military.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||