Skip to comments.
Senate removes provision to aid Boeing tanker deal
Posted on 10/06/2003 6:40:17 PM PDT by chance33_98
Senate removes provision to aid Boeing tanker deal
By Amy Svitak, CongressDaily
The Senate late Thursday removed a provision in its version of the fiscal 2004 $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill that could have paved the way for approving the Bush administration's controversial plan to lease Boeing commercial 767 airplanes as refueling tankers.
Prior to a voice vote, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, offered an amendment that removed a requirement for the Pentagon to describe alternatives for replacing the Air Force's fleet of KC-135 tanker aircraft. The provision was added by the committee during its markup, and it was unclear today why Stevens chose to drop the tanker language at the last minute, although an aide for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said McCain, a staunch opponent of the Boeing lease, asked the chairman to remove the language.
"This authorization legislation is not germane to a wartime appropriations bill," the aide said. "And Sen. McCain had a serious concern that this provision would somehow call for a half-baked analysis of tanker alternatives for the air refueling fleet" in the span of only one month, although a formal analysis of alternatives can take as long as one year, the aide said.
Specific legislation for executing a formal tanker analysis of alternatives by an independent agency is included in the Senate version of the 2004 defense authorization bill.
The provision was likely tied to the Bush administration's much-disputed plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 jets and convert them to aerial refueling tankers to replace part of the Pentagon's aging KC-135 tanker fleetan effort that has languished while the Senate Armed Services Committee mulls the deal. That panel is the only one of four committees of jurisdiction that has yet to sign off on the administration's reprogramming request. Approval from all four committees is needed to expedite the lease.
Although the provision would have called on the Air Force to conduct some form of inquiry into other, perhaps less costly tanker options, it also would have provided a vehicle for lawmakers who support the Boeing lease to amend the legislation in conference with the House and, potentially, approve the reprogramming.
While the provision was eliminated from the Senate bill, the Housewhich boasts numerous champions of the Boeing dealhas yet to mark up its supplemental bill.
"Once the conferees go into closed doors, they can do whatever they want," said Christopher Hellman, director of the Project on Military Spending Oversight at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. "But if neither house has spoken on it, and if you can show a legislative history where one of the houses spoke against it, that would be very bad form, and individual members might conceivably take that personally."
KEYWORDS: appropriations; boeing; contracts; kc135; lease
Bush administration's controversial plan to lease Boeing commercial 767 airplanes as refueling tankers.
I thought this was tom dashole's wife's plan???
The page cannot be found
|The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is unavailable.
Please try the following:
- If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
- Open the www.freerepublic.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
- Click the Back button to try another link.
- Click Donate to help support the best site on the web. Face it, you don't want to sit down to start freeping someday, only to see...
HTTP 404 - File not found
posted on 10/06/2003 6:47:34 PM PDT
by Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
Whatever deal "Congress" comes up with, I hope the contract stays with an American aircraft builder. In fact, Congress is to blame for waiting so long to replace the fleet of tankers. While The Klintoons let our military inventories get obsolute and unnecessarily endanger our troops, Congress cannot be immune from some of the guilt.
posted on 10/06/2003 6:50:35 PM PDT
They tied the word "controversial" to it and Presto!Chango! it is Bush's plan.
Here is an alternative. Buy the damned planes for a fair market value. The $20 billion ought to cover it about twice over.
BTW, if some of those leased planes were shot down or accidentally crashed, who would be stuck with the tab?
posted on 10/06/2003 7:16:11 PM PDT
by Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Ted Stevens Remove Spending from a bill. Oh the pigs much be a flying.
posted on 10/06/2003 7:31:03 PM PDT
To: Blood of Tyrants
>>BTW, if some of those leased planes were shot down or accidentally crashed, who would be stuck with the tab? <<
Best guess would be the USAF.
Tankers don't have a history of driving intentionally into hostile airspace, as they almost always are well behind and safely protected. However, as air supremacy is achieved they move out and sometimes fly over bad guy territory. But, by flying the tankers over hostile territory or by flying them in a war zone, it is clear the USAF would be liable.
As far as crashing, if it can be proven to be a design flaw or some manufacturing failure, then Boeing would be liable, as is the usual case in these matters. However, if it were a "crime" (a willful violation of flight regs or flight limitations) that caused the mishap, then the USAF would be liable.
Using history as a guide, and most recent history as a highlighter, we can see that the risk of losing a tanker due to hostile fire or a crash is minimal.
that the risk of losing a tanker due to hostile fire or a crash is minimal.
We lost one in Bosnia, due to a crash they said, not hostile fire.
posted on 10/06/2003 7:46:51 PM PDT
(Shooting- The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.)
One loss does not impeach my point: If you look at the history of mishap rates in the USAF, tankers have the lowest of all jets.
I think that leasing the Aircraft is a logical step in upgrading our military. We need to start looking at leasing a great deal of our equipment. In this manner, we only have (Theoretically) obsolete equipment for a couple of years until it can be refreshed.
The computers that the Military uses should be leased, it would be a great boon for those who are still dealing with 386 computers to try to do their jobs.
posted on 10/07/2003 4:07:22 AM PDT
(To my wife, the Wonderful AND Beautiful - ODC-GIRL - Ready to Defend our Country 24x7!)
I think that leasing the Aircraft is a logical step in upgrading our military.
If it saved money in the process, I would agree. But this is much more taxpayer money going out the door (and into LInda Daschle's pocket). Mr.M
posted on 10/07/2003 4:15:30 AM PDT
by Marie Antoinette
(Caaaarefully poke the toothpick through the plastic...)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson