House committee backs Boeing tanker deal
WASHINGTON – Seeking to jump-start a flagging Air Force deal to acquire 100 air refueling tankers from the Boeing Co., the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday reasserted the need for the aging tanker fleet to be replaced as soon as possible.
Language inserted into a $422 billion defense authorization bill would require the Air Force secretary to enter into a multiyear contract for new tankers. It also would allow the deal with Boeing to go forward immediately, waiving a requirement for a lengthy analysis of alternatives that could delay the tanker deal until 2007.
Under the measure, nearly $100 million in new spending would be provided to speed development and acquisition of the planes.
The panel’s unanimous vote sets up a potential battle with the Senate Armed Services Committee, where top leaders have urged caution on the $23.5 billion tanker deal. The plan’s sharpest critic, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a senior member of the Senate panel.
An Air Force plan to lease 20 Boeing 767 planes for use as refueling tankers and purchase another 80 planes has stalled amid congressional criticism and a series of reviews by the Pentagon.
The latest review by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, said there is no compelling reason to acquire tankers immediately. Contrary to Air Force claims, the report says corrosion of the aging tanker fleet is “manageable” and several options exist to refurbish the fleet.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services panel, said he wants to give the deal “a fresh start.” Hunter and other supporters noted that the House bill directs the Pentagon to establish an independent panel of experts to review the tanker negotiations and ensure the Air Force strikes a good deal.
Hunter “realizes there are investigations going on, and he realizes there are a lot of opinions on both sides, but this is a critical command need, and we have to move ahead on this,” said Harald Stavenas, spokesman for the Armed Service panel.
Critics denounced the committee’s action.
“This is yet another attempt to ramrod this deal through” Congress before the Pentagon completes its reviews, said Beth Daley, spokeswoman for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. “It’s really premature, given new information from the Defense Science Board that we don’t need new tankers until 2040.”
Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., a member of the Armed Services panel, called the committee’s action good news. The planes would be built in Larsen’s district at Boeing’s plant in Everett, Wash., and modified for military use in Wichita, Kan.
“What’s gotten lost in all this (debate) is there is a real need for these tankers,” Larsen said. “The Defense Science Board report does not discount the need . . . for the tankers to be replaced eventually. I think the board’s conclusions about the use of the current fleet are going to be questioned.”