GovernmentExecutive.com

Conferees on the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill neared completion Thursday of the conference report on the measure after removing House language that would have postponed by two years a new round of military base closures, sources said.

The House provision to postpone the planned 2005 round of base closings prompted a presidential veto threat and is opposed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va.

Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., appealed to Warner and Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich, to back the House provision and allow "the necessary time to adequately define and plan domestic basing requirements," according to a joint statement issued late Wednesday.

In June, Lott, Snowe and Feinstein co-sponsored an amendment to the Senate version that would have delayed the upcoming round for two years. The amendment was defeated, 49-47.

Thursday night, conferees also made an 11th-hour deal on language that would prevent the Air Force from leasing Boeing KC-767 refueling tankers.

Congressional sources said House language calling for the Air Force to renegotiate by March 1 a contentious $23.5 billion contract with Boeing for the tankers had been removed, and a compromise had been reached to give the Air Force up to 10 years to buy as many as 100 of the planes through a multi-year procurement.

Specifically, the Air Force would have to fully and openly complete a new tanker contract through the Pentagon's normal acquisition process, a move that overrides language included in the fiscal 2002 Defense appropriations bill sanctioning a sole-source award to Boeing for the KC-767. The compromise also prohibits the use of incremental funding and would require the Air Force to develop new operational requirements for the tankers.

In addition, the Air Force would be required to review options for a tanker maintenance contract, including cost, benefits and alternatives to using contract personnel. The Air Force had previously proposed awarding more than $5 billion to Boeing for the tanker maintenance contract.

The final conference agreement also retained language included by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a staunch opponent of the Air Force's tanker acquisition plan, from retiring any of its legacy KC-135 tankers in 2005.

COMMENTS

• It doesn't matter if they close more bases now or delay it two more years. By the time the process has been influenced for political reasons and to save the best base golf courses, the cost savings is lost. Yes, the Defense Department makes it look good on paper. But, they are mostly just playing with numbers. For example, they closed a small base a few years ago and consolidated their functions and personnel into another base. But they built new multimillion dollar office buildings for them. That was DLA's intent to begin with. They, with the help of a couple of Congressmen, built this huge new office complex in Columbus, Ohio. It was far more expensive than just leaving things the way they were. Now, that base is being considered for closure. All of those new office buildings may ultimately be shut down. But, that's because the Department of Defense didn't deal with the real problem to begin with. The Defense Logistics Agency branch of the DOD is an outdated cold war relic. It's a big sponge that soaks up resources and produces little to show for it. All DOD did was to put old, outdated functions in a pretty new building. It was obsolete before the functions were even consolidated. So, shut them down already. But what is the DOD going to do with empty million dollar office buildings? Robert M. Posted October 8, 2004 10:31 PM
• Well, how many bases are they closing in North Korea or Iran next year? marvin slay Posted October 8, 2004 8:50 AM