TOPICS

Despite heavy pressure from colleagues, Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday he will not propose buying more C-17 transport aircraft when his committee marks up the fiscal 2009 supplemental spending bill Thursday.

Inouye said he would prefer to add funding to the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill for the Boeing Co.-built planes, which the Obama administration did not request in its supplemental or annual budget requests.

"We're trying to keep this supplemental as clean as possible," Inouye said. But 19 senators, including several appropriators, are angling to put billions of dollars in the supplemental to buy more C-17s.


RELATED STORIES

The House Appropriations Committee's version of the bill, which is set for the start of floor action Thursday, includes $2.2 billion to buy eight C-17s.

In a letter to Inouye and Appropriations ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Tuesday, the senators sought funding to buy 15 more C-17s this fiscal year, which would boost the size of the fleet to 220 planes.

"We cannot ignore the fact that the C-17 is the last remaining strategic airlift production line in the nation, and shutting down this line prematurely may prove costly for the American taxpayer," they wrote. "Across the United States, 30,000 people from 43 states go to work each day in support of the production of the C-17. Both the Air Force and the contractor have indicated that restarting a closed production line is prohibitively expensive."

The senators pointed to reviews within the Defense Department that could determine that the military needs more of the aircraft. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that the Air Force does not need more of the planes.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., who both signed the letter, would not comment Tuesday on Inouye's decision.

"We're still working on it," said Boxer, whose state includes the plant where the planes are assembled. "We're trying to get it [money for the C-17s] everywhere we can."

Inouye would not specify how many C-17s he hopes to include in the fiscal 2010 budget but said it would be enough to keep the line up and running.

The chairman said he does not want to add funding to buy Lockheed Martin C-130 cargo aircraft in the supplemental. The House version includes $904 billion to buy 11 of the propeller-driven planes.

In addition to aircraft procurement, the issue of closing the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should dominate the Appropriations markup.

Senate Democratic leaders want to fence off the $80 million requested in the supplemental to begin shuttering the facility until the administration submits a plan for its closure. They want to prohibit the transfer of any of the roughly 240 detainees there to the United States.

Republicans, who have accused Democrats of wanting to bring "terrorists" to U.S. soil, have called the proposed steps insufficient.

House appropriators eliminated the funding entirely amid concerns that the administration has not drawn up plans to move detainees, holding trials for suspected terrorists and closing the facility by early next year. Republicans tried unsuccessfully during the markup to attach language barring their transfer to the United States.

One appropriator, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he wants the money available for the administration to use immediately.

"I am for shutting down Guantanamo," Harkin said. "The money ought to be there to get it done -- the sooner the better."

But other Democrats on the panel appear to support fencing off the money until the administration announces the details. "I'd prefer to see a plan," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, another appropriator, wants to hear the formal proposal from Democratic leaders before deciding whether to support it.

"Suffice it to say that I think the president should have had a plan in place for what to do with the detainees before setting a date-certain proposal," Collins said. "I do support the eventual closure of Guantanamo, but we should have a plan for where we are going to put the detainees first."

Inouye said he expects to send the bill to the floor Tuesday and wrap up work on it in a day. He added that he hopes to have a conference agreement with the House by the Memorial Day recess.

COMMENTS

  • The reason Gitmo was a good choice then as it is now is the same reason the former INS processed Haitian refugee's there. Namely it's not considered the USA. A good number of Haitians were noted to have health issues that precluded them from becoming residents then USC's without waivers, as granting these waivers would likely unduly tax our already strained social programs to the breaking point. With our current definition of asylee if we bring these suspected terrorists into the USA by any means please lets do it via a military ship through a military base rather then via a Recognized Class A air, land or sea Port of Entry and not allow the US Marshal Service to disregard CBP's authority to Grant Immigration Parole of these subjects into the USA (For Prosecution and accept CBP’s Detainer in these regards). If the US Courts really does believe it has jurisdiction over these detainee's remaining in Immigration Parole status during and after their hearings and trials must suffice until they are returned to whatever country wishes to offer them Safe harbor or Safe Third Country consideration.
  • Plan shman - Why would he have a plan to close Gittmo? He got elected w/o having a plan for much of anything, other than tripling the debt in 3 months!
  • Whoops! Someone got their decimal point in the wrong place. No way it costs $82 billion, each, for C-130 aircraft ($980 Billion for 11 C-130s in the article). For instance, compare to $2.2 billion for eight C-17s, or $280 million each, also in the article. Well, as they say around the Pentagon, "A billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're into real money." (Or, is that a trillion -- I've lost track.)