Posted on 03/05/2008 1:15:16 PM PST by pissant
House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., may attempt to use the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill to overturn Friday's Air Force decision to award a contract worth up to $40 billion to Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS, the European consortium behind Airbus, for a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. Hunter, a fierce "Buy America" advocate who has sharply criticized the contract, is weighing his legislative options, a spokesman for committee Republicans said Monday. Options may include attaching language to the authorization bill to strengthen laws governing the amount of foreign content in U.S. defense hardware, or a provision prohibiting the Pentagon from awarding contracts to overseas-based companies that receive subsidies from foreign governments, as the Airbus maker does from several European countries, the spokesman said.
Hunter, whose protectionist efforts are typically met with strong opposition in the Senate, included a provision on foreign-subsidized firms in the House's version of the fiscal 2006 authorization bill, but it was dropped during conference negotiations. Hunter is trying to determine "what makes the most logical sense and what we can get others to coalesce around," his spokesman said.
The contract award to Northrop Grumman/EADS dealt a stunning blow to Boeing Co., the domestic aerospace giant that has had a lock on building Air Force tankers for over 50 years. Given Boeing's clout on Capitol Hill, Hunter could win support from several Armed Services Committee members, including Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., whose district includes the headquarters of Boeing's defense business. An Akin spokesman did not know whether his boss had discussed the issue with Hunter, but said the two lawmakers are "of a similar mind on this." At least two committee Democrats -- Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington, and Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas -- have criticized the award, but it is not clear if they would support Hunter's efforts. Boeing planned to build the tanker at its plant in Everett, Wash., near Smith's district. The firm would have used its plant in Wichita, Kan., west of Boyda's district, for final assembly.
But Hunter would likely encounter stiff resistance from many lawmakers -- including some traditional allies, such as Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Airbus plans to build the tankers at a plant in Mobile, Ala. The company says will employ 5,000 people across the state. Hunter's committee colleague, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., has praised the contract, saying the Mobile plant is expected to employ people from his northwest Florida district about 60 miles away.
Hunter plans to coordinate his efforts with appropriators, his spokesman added. His strongest allies on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee may be Reps. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose district includes Boeing's Everett plant, and Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Wichita. Dicks said Friday that he believes the Air Force contract decision would be met with "real skepticism among the defense related committees in Congress." Meanwhile, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who sits on the Senate Defense Appropriations panel, has said she looks forward to "asking tough questions."
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who also sits on the defense subcommittee, would be expected to fight any effort to use the Defense spending bill to kill the Northrop Grumman/EADS contract.
“THE remembrance of things past” is more than a Proustian image. Not as hindsight, but as hard-won knowledge does the narrative of history have meaning. For this reason it is necessary to pass in review the pattern of events in the United States in the years 1914-1918, and in particular the circumstances attending the entry of the United States into war in 1917. A comparison between the experiences of the United States in the World War and the Global War establishes parallels which cannot be considered accidental. They were and are the product of calculated military design. The German attack by cartels in 1914 had the same purposes, executed in much the same manner, as the attack on our economy today. The mistake of public policy which were made at that time and in the years following the Armistice provide a significant commentary which has value for the future.
In many respects, the war effort of this country in 1917 was even more severly handicapped than at the present time, because our industrial structure did not have the resilience which technological advances during the past twenty years have given us, and because we were at war before any countermeasures could be set in motion. It is to provide a frame of references for present and future strategy and to seek the causes of present conditions that the preview of cartel activities which was given to us in 1914 is outlined.
The most serious shortages in the United States at the time of the World War resulting from the action of the German cartels were those of dyestuffs, nitrates and potash, medicines, military optical goods, surgical instruments, heavy ordnances, and radio and electrical equipment.
(snip)
Cablegram: It is reported to me by Hossenfelder that the stock of dyes in this country is so small that by a German embargo about 4,000,000 American workman might be thrown out of employment.
(snip)
Joseph Borkin, Economic Advisor to the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
For all that keep referring Duncan Hunter as a ‘protectionist’, I strongly, strongly suggest you all read up on what cartelization is. The first symptom of cartelization is an unblanced exchange between organized industry. The next is the attempt of cartels to control foreign markets. Cartelization is not free market capitalism. Cartelization is an advocated new order of socialists. It is embraced to spread political dictatorship. We owe cartels our failure to expand American industry prior to Pearl Harbor. Currently, our present industry is unprepared for war.
I have trouble when politicians, even ones we trust, try to interfere with military decisions like this. I understand his 'buy American' philosophy and agree with it, but if the Air Force has specific technical needs that the American proposals were unable to meet, we should not sacrifice that quality or issue over a label stamped on it. Maybe Hunter can focus instead on reducing the regulations that make the American products unable to win the bid? Are regulations keeping it from meeting technical needs? Are taxes keeping it from being competitive. Fix the source or root of the problem. Hitting it at this end doesn't fix the problem in the future.
What happens when we want our allies to buy American planes when they are the better choice? Buy a few tankers from them, sell 20 fighters back.
Screw the French.
We’re already having trouble selling the F-35 (as compared to the much-desired F-22). Congressional stunts like this might just put another nail in the F-35 coffin.
Our allies buy considerable armenments and equipment from us. Is a fair turn too much to ask?
I'm glad Duncan Hunter is on our side and is on it! He better hurry up and be a governor so we can elect him president.
Patty Murray....recognized as the most stupid senator in the land....thank you Seattle and Tacoma, for blessing us with this embarrassment....I don’t think she has the intelligence to ask a “tough” question.
[Duncan Hunter]
“Northrop Grumman-EADS claims that the Airbus tanker will be made domestically. However, by Northrop Grumman-EADS’ own data, only 58 percent of the new plane and its components will be built in the United States.
“Northrop Grumman-EADS further claims that 27,000 new jobs will be created domestically.
“Comparatively, Boeing’s 776 tanker is 85 percent built in the United States.
“The direct impact of the Air Force’s decision is not an increase of 27,000 new jobs, as Northrop Grumman-EADS claims, but a loss of 12,570 American jobs.
“Furthermore, local communities throughout America will lose a total of one hundred thousand jobs over the period of the contract since billions of American taxpayer dollars will now flow to Europe.”
I’d like to know the effectiveness of asking “tough” questions after the horse is out of the barn. She wants to place blame.
A rather complicated scenario, but Boeing has basically had a monopoly on this type of aircraft manufacture for decades. They didn't get the award, so maybe they should have worked harder, or had a better design or lowered their costs and passed that on?
Also, there are advantages to having a producer of given military products on more than one continent. In fact, most all government contracts specifically state there must be two, unrelated sources of that product. It's strategery. Just my $.02/
Not that anybody here would truly know the definitive answer to this question, but I would like to know what Duncan Hunter’s future is after he leaves Congress. Would a President McCain (Good luck on that really happening!) even seriously consider having Duncan Hunter anywhere from within a McCain administration? I doubt it.
I know! What is so hard to understand about that?!
Many reasons why this is far more complicated than the Made in the USA label stamped on the side (albeit, as it has been pointed out, the company it was awarded to is also an American company..)
EADs is not though.
He hasn't mentioned this but I think Boeing outsources quite a bit - so what's the diff since there are no (I don't think but please correct me if I am wrong) American companies in this particular business that do not outsource?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.