Senate panel awaits Pentagon response to tanker lease plan

Air Force and Pentagon officials said they are preparing a response to a Senate Armed Services Committee proposal to scale back a Bush administration plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft for use as refueling tankers.

The committee's proposal, drafted last Thursday by Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., called for a lease of up to 25 aircraft, with the remaining number to be bought through the traditional procurement process. The Warner-Levin proposal also called for a handful of studies to be conducted on tanker platform alternatives and the urgency of the need to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135 tankers.

Warner's panel is the only one of four committees of jurisdiction that has yet to approve the lease. Sources said the Air Force drafted its response late last week, and it is now under review in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. A formal reply from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected this week.

Congressional sources anticipate the Pentagon will argue that a reduced number of leased aircraft will increase the overall cost of the deal, as the Air Force would lose out on any volume discount negotiated in the original leasing arrangement. But Air Force officials said the deal-breaker could be the additional tanker aircraft studies. These, Air Force officials said, could delay the acquisition, allowing inflation to kick in and raise the cost of the planes.

And, in the meantime, the Air Force would have to pay to continue to operate and maintain its aging fleet of KC-135E tankers, a costly endeavor that would rob the fleet of additional capability for a longer period of time, service officials said.

Last week, some members of the House Armed Services Committee, which readily approved the Bush administration's lease prior to the August congressional recess, raised the possibility of holding hearings to reconsider the lease proposal. However, committee aides Monday said there are no plans to schedule a hearing on the matter.