Washington, D.C. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement yesterday on the Air Force's decision to award a multi-billion dollar aerial tanker contract to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) - the parent company of Airbus:

"The Air Force's decision to award the contract for a much-needed modernization of the nation's aerial tanker fleet to Northrop Grumman and Airbus raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly:

• What are the national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm for this essential mission?
• Were the risks associated with choosing a conceptual design over a proven capability properly assessed?
• Was sufficient consideration given to the impact of the contract award on jobs in America and on our technological base?

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."

It's interesting to see how quickly rhetoric among Democrats in Congress changes from "end no-bid contracts" to "end no-bid contracts unless the winner of the bidding war is a foreign company."

In case you missed it, last Friday, Chicago-based Boeing lost the bid for the $30-40 billion contract to replace the Air Force's aging aerial tanker fleet to the Northrop Grumman-EADS partnership.  The contract may end up being worth $100 billion if the company ends up replacing the entire Air Force fleet of nearly 600 tankers.

Speaker Pelosi wants to rally members of Congress to prevent the Air Force from honoring the contract with Northrop Grumman-Eads in the interests of national security.  Apparently, they fear the European half of the company - EADS - will sabotage the design of the flying gas stations, despite the fact Northrop Grumman, an American company, is the number two biggest contractor for the U.S.  

Last year, Northrop Grumman was awarded $8.3 billion in defense contracts from the U.S.  Military products developed included amphibious assault vehicles, aircraft carriers, and part of the missile defense system - now famous for blowing a decrepit satellite out of the sky.  If giving this company a military contract poses national security risks, Pelosi's whistle blowing comes about thirty years late. 

Clearly, the warnings are stemming from fear over the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, owner of Airbus, which the Defense Department has not done business with until this deal was reached.  Still, most of the members of Congress have likely flown back and forth from their district offices to Washington, D.C. on Airbus planes; so why the sudden fear over their product?

Pelosi's warnings might seem a bit more rational if an United Arab Emirates company had won the contract, but given how much the nation's defenses already depend on Northrop Grumman, and how many American airliners use Airbus planes, it hardly seems rational to suddenly begin arguing that the Northrop Grumman-EADS partnership isn't trustworthy.  

And it isn't an issue of who will do a better job either.  Air Force officials awarded the contract to the bidder with the best proposal.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said of the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-45A tanker.

On the surface, jobs don't seem to be an issue either.  Northrop Grumman-EADS said the contract would create 25,000 jobs involving 230 suppliers in 49 states.  While the planes will be built in Toulouse, France, final assembly is planned for a new plant in Mobile, Alabama.  

Additional investigations revealed that Boeing's California plants are in financial trouble and could be facing massive layoffs.  Thus, Pelosi's probing questions are nothing more than an attempt to gain valuable pork for her home state of California.  

By playing politics for her own gain, Pelosi jeopardizes the country's reputation as an honest and fair trader in the eyes of the world and hampers ongoing Congressional efforts to reign in no-bid contracts.  If the contract is handed on a silver platter to Boeing - a company still reeling from a procurement scandal -  solely because an American company (Northrop Grumman) partnered with a foreign company (EADS), what kind of message would that that send to foreign governments and companies?   The last thing the country needs during tough economic times is for doors to be closed abroad to American companies in return for selfish legislating on the Hill.