PDA

View Full Version : House Pencils in Millions for Jets the Air Force Did Not Request


Defender968
08-06-2009, 08:29
Wow and the AF didn't ask for them but I guess our lawmakers know better. :rolleyes: Considering the status of the rest of the AF fleet shouldn't we maybe focus on those capacities that are critical to national defense, like Refueling or fighters considering Air Force Fighters have been falling out of the sky at an alarming rate and the average age of an AF refueler is over 30 years old. But I guess those capacities don't help congress go on vacation so....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/house-pencils-millions-jets-air-force-did-request/?test=latestnews

House Pencils in Millions for Jets the Air Force Did Not Request

House lawmakers approved millions for military jets the Air Force did not request. But an aide says the decision was made to speed up the replacement of an aging fleet.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, August 06, 2009
Congress is supposed to be taking a knife to the federal budget.

But when it comes to new military equipment, they've traded their knife for a spoon -- tossing in scoops of cash that the Pentagon hasn't even requested.

The latest example comes with the House approving more than $500 million for eight passenger jets, when the Air Force only asked for four.

In the 2010 defense spending bill, the Air Force originally requested money for one C-37 and three C-40s as part of its effort to replace its aging fleet. But the House Appropriations Committee added an extra $132 million for two more C-37s and $200 million for two more C-40s, according to an aide to the panel.

The aide, who asked not to be identified, said the decision was made in order to speed up the replacement process which was already underway, and that the move could save money in the long run.

"You've got an aging fleet," the aide said. "It costs more to fly aging planes that are unreliable. It's the same reason you update anything."

Though Roll Call reported Wednesday that two of the C-37s are to be assigned to units that routinely transport government officials and members of Congress, the aide disputed the notion that Congress was just awarding itself an upgrade, saying both types of jets can be used for "many purposes" including transport of military personnel and officials -- not just elected officials.

"It's not like there's two planes assigned for flying members of Congress around," the aide said. "It's not like Congress is buying Congress planes here."

But when asked about the addition, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the military generally frowns upon any appropriations that are above and beyond what is asked for.

"We ask for what we need and only what we need," he said.

He said when the military is funded above the requested level for any project, it generally comes at the expense of some other item in the budget. He said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is more focused, though, on making sure other more "big-ticket" items do not get over-funded.

Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said members of Congress are abusing the military by using their jets too often for travel. He said that except for trips to war zones, members should fly commercial and expense it. He surmised the latest funding for more jets reflects members' personal interest in being able to fly in style.

"Congress wants to be ferried around as if they're kings and queens and they want to do it on taxpayer dime," he said.

The act of unrequested generosity toward the Air Force came as the House foisted several other acquisitions onto the military that the Pentagon said it didn't want.

Though lawmakers killed additional funding for the F-22 fighter jet -- at President Obama's request -- they kept in funding for unrequested C-17 cargo jets, a controversial new presidential helicopter fleet and an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They did cut funding in other areas.

Ellis Brachman, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said budgeting for such items is part of Congress' "normal oversight responsibility" to make sure the military has everything it needs.

"If Congress just rubber-stamped the Defense Department's budget request every year, we would not have Predator aircraft today and our troops would not have the body armor they need," he said.

The C-37 is the military version of the Gulfstream G550.

The company Web site boasts that with its "long legs," the aircraft "easily links" from Washington, D.C., to cities like Dubai, Singapore and Tokyo. The site says the cabin combines "productivity with exceptional comfort," has three temperature zones and has many communications features -- including a fax machine, a printer, a wireless network and satellite communications.

The House aide said those "long legs" are important, since the aircraft that the C-37 will eventually replace did not have the stamina for long journeys.

"They have to do repeated stops for refueling and other activities," the aide said.

The Air Force originally asked for $66 million for one C-37, and $154 million to cover the cost of buying one C-40 and purchasing two other leased C-40s.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the additional funding for the aircraft.

Richard
08-06-2009, 08:33
I'm feeling like Congress is stimulating the hell out of my prostate - and I'm not enjoying it! :mad:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Snaquebite
08-06-2009, 09:01
two of the C-37s are to be assigned to units that routinely transport government officials and members of Congress

This says it all.

Ret10Echo
08-06-2009, 09:43
But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

Richard
08-06-2009, 09:46
But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

She'll just have to go back to using her private broom. ;)

Richard's $.02

Snaquebite
08-06-2009, 10:26
But not just any ordinary broom......That wouldn't be appropriate for Queen P.

12726

Utah Bob
08-06-2009, 15:36
Planes the Air Force didn't want.
Ships the navy didn't ask for.
It's not about the military at all.

It's about the contractor$.:rolleyes:

afchic
08-06-2009, 15:45
My boss told us today to expect to get some requests for information from a certain out of power political party on this one.

I think the Republicans are looking to hang some democrats over this one.

Richard
08-06-2009, 16:07
My boss told us today to expect to get some requests for information from a certain out of power political party on this one.

"DANGER, Will Robinson!"

Watch your six, afchic. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

afchic
08-06-2009, 16:13
"DANGER, Will Robinson!"

Watch your six, afchic. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Luckily I am not in that business at the present time!!! Just my office mates

uboat509
08-06-2009, 20:07
Sadly, this is par for the course. Even the good (perhaps less bad) politicians have to do things that are more in the interest of their constituancy than of the nation as a whole. That means, for instance, that even thought the nation does not need those foghters, various rep's and senator's constituancies might need (or want) the jobs and money that those contracts provide. Both parties do it and I just can't even work up the energy to be angry about it any more.

SFC W

Praetorian
08-06-2009, 22:14
But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

Southwest Airlines- Bags Fly Free (http://www.swabiz.com/bagsflyfree/)

kgoerz
08-07-2009, 04:29
I'm feeling like Congress is stimulating the hell out of my prostate - and I'm not enjoying it! :mad:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Just wait six months from now. When people can't pay for all the new cars they purchased with their Clunker Money......IT'S THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BAIL OUT PROGRAM:eek:

Ret10Echo
08-07-2009, 06:20
Just wait six months from now. When people can't pay for all the new cars they purchased with their Clunker Money......IT'S THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BAIL OUT PROGRAM:eek:

Not to further the detour too much...but I just shook my head on the whole deal with the CFC.

So someone is driving a "gas guzzler". (Chances are there are reasons for that.)

You give them $4,500 to buy a $13 - 20,000 car (or more)

Quick math shows they have just incurred $8500 - 15,500 in debt
Higher insurance rates
Higher taxes

Not to mention the 250,000 + junk cars that have to be disposed of.

:mad:

JAGO
08-07-2009, 06:36
Sadly, this is par for the course. Even the good (perhaps less bad) politicians have to do things that are more in the interest of their constituancy than of the nation as a whole. That means, for instance, that even thought the nation does not need those foghters, various rep's and senator's constituancies might need (or want) the jobs and money that those contracts provide. Both parties do it and I just can't even work up the energy to be angry about it any more.

SFC W

uboat509

That is what they keep telling us.

It's a chicken/egg sort ofthing. I suspect the motive is more basic. MoCs have this craving to stay in power. In order to do that, they need contributions. The constituancies and the corps give the MoC money to get elected, and then the MoC pays them back for his getting elected.

Bottom line to me the problem is the "class" of people we have entrenched in the congress. We don't need public financing to keep these jokers in for 20 - 30 years. We need people that will go to Washington motivated by a desire to serve, who will then return to live in the home district and endure the silly laws the federal govt passes.

v/r
phil

Sigaba
08-10-2009, 18:56
Source is here (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=069FB8F7-18FE-70B2-A8C8FBEA58762F34).

Hill jets may be scrapped
By: John Bresnahan
August 10, 2009 07:23 PM EST

The new congressional jets may be getting scrapped.

After an uproar over a proposed purchase of new executive jets for use by senior government official, including members of Congress, the top Defense appropriator in the House has offered to eliminate funding for the planes – but only if the Pentagon, which operates the jets, agrees.

“If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommitee said Monday evening.

Murtha was quick to point out that these jets, approved by the full House last month, were not additions to the current group of 24 executive aircraft already used for top officials, and were being purchased to replace older ones that have maintenance and safety issues.

And in his statement, Murtha basically put the blame on the Pentagon, whose spokesman has been quoted saying that the House Appropriations Committee added four executive jets beyond the Pentagon’s original request. The Defense Department originally requested $220 million for four jets – a total bumped to $550 and eight jets by the committee.

“These aircraft will not increase the overall passenger aircraft fleet, but instead will replace older aircraft that have both safety and maintenance issues,” Murtha said. “In addition, these newer model aircraft cost significantly less to operate than the current aircraft.”

Murtha also needled the Pentagon a bit, saying that “85 percent” of the use of these aircraft comes from the executive branch, and not Congress.

Murtha’s move may end what has been an embarrassing uproar for House appropriators, who approved the Defense spending bill with no objection about the congressional jets. There is already a movement in the Senate to kill the funding for the aircraft.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said the funding “kind of makes me sick to my stomach,” and has vowed to kill it. Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), both senior members of the Armed Services Committee, have also voiced their opposition to the plan.

The controversy is not going unnoticed in the Senate Democratic leadership circles either. Senate insiders said the Senate Appropriations Committee is unlikely to approve the additional plane funding, although Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the panel, was unavailable for comment on Monday.

Yet when the Pentagon-spending bill was taken up by the House, first in the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, then the full committee, and finally on the chamber floor, the executive-plane provision attracted no notice and no opposition emerged from either side of the aisle.

The full House Appropriations Committee, in fact, marked up the Pentagon bill in 15 minutes with no amendments.

Even Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), an outspoken critic of congressional “earmarks” who offered more than 500 amendments to cut wasteful spending in the defense bill, had nothing to say about the plane provision when the overall package was being debated on the House floor. Flake ended up voting against the defense bill on final passage.

How the passenger plane buy became a controversy is a testament to the current political environment, especially the sensitivity that government officials – both on Capitol Hill at the White House - have to any new perks for themselves as ordinary Americans suffer through the worst economic downturn in decades.

Back in February, President Obama signaled that he was not interested in the Navy’s multi-billion program to build a new “Marine One,” the official helicopter for the Commander in Chief. With the cost of the program to build new choppers ballooning from $6 billion to an estimated $11 billion – or roughly $480 million per copter – Obama said the current Marine One “seems perfectly adequate to me.” The White House has threatened to veto the Pentagon bill if Congress includes any funding for the project.

The new planes were be added to a fleet of two-dozen aircraft used to ferry top military and political officials around the United States and overseas. Members of Congress account for roughly 15 percent of that use.

The overall cost of the Pentagon’s request was $220 million.

But the House Appropriations Committee, on its own initiative, added three additional Gulfstreams to the package, and tacked on another 737 for good measure, bringing the total purchase to eight aircraft.

The new price tag - $550 million.

A person familiar with the drafting of the defense-spending bill said no effort was made by the Appropriations Committee to hide the aircraft buy, adding that the language authorizing the purchase “was in the print all the time.” That means it was fully known to appropriators from both parties throughout the drafting of the Pentagon legislation, or any other lawmaker who had read through the bill.

This source said the new aircraft would be significantly cheaper to operate than existing planes, and noted that the House Appropriations Committee was essentially just speeding up the aircraft purchases laid out in a 2006 Air Force program.

No mention was made of the plane purchase during floor debate on the defense spending bill.

Last week Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, reported that the House Appropriations panel had approved funding for three new Gulfstreams. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), who state is home to the General Dynamics unit that builds Gulfstreams, submitted a request to the panel for one additional plane.

Then on Aug. 7, the Wall Street Journal reported the 737 purchases and detailed that the overall package was for eight new planes.

The newspaper also tied to the new planes to the trips lawmakers take around the globe during the August congressional recess, including a world tour by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and several other members and their spouses.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the Defense Department asked for only what it needed, laying the blame for additional buys on the House Appropriations Committee.

Now it looks like Murtha is calling the Pentagon’s bluff and offering to eliminate the new fleet altogether.