GovernmentExecutive.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Monday for a congressional review of the Air Force's decision to select the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS, the European maker of the Airbus, for a lucrative contract to supply a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers.

"Given the ramifications of this decision for the United States, the Air Force must explain to Congress how it meets the long-term needs of our military and the American people," Pelosi said in a statement. Congress must examine the national security implications of using a foreign-built aircraft for a mission as essential as aerial refueling, she added.

Pelosi joined an increasing number of lawmakers who have expressed concern after Friday's announcement by the Air Force to select the Northrop Grumman/EADS team over U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co. for the tanker contract, potentially worth $40 billion. The contract award prompted outcries from both ends of the political spectrum that American jobs will be lost to Europe.

A House leadership aide said some Democrats brought their concerns to the speaker. "She's not saying don't do it," the aide said. "She's just saying we should make sure . . . questions are answered."

COMMENTS

• Chuck, you made many of the points I was going to bring up and some that I wasn't aware of. Great job. I see now that Boeing wants an immediate debriefing. Maybe I can help them out a little more. Duh, you proposed a 30 year old airframe to replace our 50 year old airframe. How much sense does that make? Of our current inventory, the KC-10 is vastly preferred over the KC-135 because it can carry 50% more fuel than the KC-135. You proposed a tanker that carries LESS fuel than our less preferred current option. The Air Force would be better off buying new KC-135's than the 767 aircraft Boeing proposed. Boeing has no one to blame for this loss but themselves. The Air Force did not put out this request in order to keep Boeing's antiquated airframe in production which is what some members of Congress apparently want us to do. Whoever at Boeing made the decision of what airframe to use and probably Boeing's whole proposal team needs to be hung out to dry. This airframe provided nothing that fit the needs of the US Air Force and the support that our tanker fleet provides to the rest of the DoD and our allies. K D Posted March 5, 2008 1:33 PM
• Hooray for the underdog! Bigger is better when it comes to refueling, and I am happy for the community of Mobile. Congress needs to butt out of the Air Force's business. They made the choice based on real world criteria, not votes or how much lobbying power Boeing has (or had). AD Posted March 5, 2008 12:53 PM
• The speaker needs to be looking at the more critical systems like all of the helmet heads up displays and other systems being made in Isreal. Isreal at one time and may still be one of America's highest security threats for stealing infomation. I know we are allies and the main company that builds the units new owns several companies in the US that repairs their products. I like to kept jobs in the US but sometimes we focus on the wrong issues. I take it that the other option was to build the Tanker in California. Don Price Posted March 5, 2008 10:47 AM