| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
House Lawmakers Voice Tanker Concerns
A bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) last week, voicing deep concerns about the potential national and economic security threats of the Air Force’s decision to award a $40 billion aerial refueling tanker contract to the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS).
The letter, signed by Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL), Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA) and 37 of their colleagues, cites broad concerns beyond the legal and process-related questions currently being examined by the GAO.
“The necessary GAO review will not address the broader national and economic security concerns raised by the tanker decision,” the letter states. “Congress must address these serious issues before the tanker program can move forward—we owe it to the warfighter, to American workers and to American taxpayers to ensure not just that the technical acquisition process worked as it was supposed to, but that the nation buys the best tanker.”
The Air Force’s decision could impact as many as 44,000 U.S. aircraft and aerospace workers at hundreds of primary and secondary contractors in more than 40 states.
Over the next seven to ten years, the U.S. expects to purchase 179 new tankers, a number that will grow to over 350 in the next two decades. With over 85 percent domestic U.S. content, Boeing’s KC-767 tanker offered more storage for fuel, troops, medical supplies and equipment. The Airbus tanker is larger but also burns 24 percent more fuel while airborne. It is so large that it cannot land at many critical military bases, reducing its value as a military support asset.
Visit website













del.icio.us
Digg



Comments (0 posted):
Post your comment