$550 Million Slated for Purchase of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers' Travel Soars
WASHINGTON -- Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.
The purchases will help accommodate growing travel demand by congressional officials. The planes augment a fleet of about two dozen passenger jets maintained by the Air Force for lawmakers, administration officials and military chiefs to fly on government trips in the U.S. and abroad.
The congressional shopping list goes beyond what the Air Force had initially requested as part of its annual appropriations. The Pentagon sought to buy one Gulfstream V and one business-class equivalent of a Boeing 737 to replace aging planes. The Defense Department also asked to buy two additional 737s that were being leased.Lawmakers in the House last week added funds to buy those planes, and plus funds to buy an additional two 737s and two Gulfstream V planes. The purchases must still be approved by the Senate. The Air Force version of the Gulfstream V each costs $66 million, according to the Department of Defense, and the 737s cost about $70 million.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."
Congress turned harshly critical of companies that fly executives on private jets in the weeks following the government bailout of banks and auto makers last year. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Citigroup Inc. were among those caught in the cross hairs of angry lawmakers.The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said the changes were part of "Congress's normal oversight responsibility" to make sure "the troops have everything they need."
The 737s, known as C-40s by the military, are designed to be an "office in the sky" for government leaders, according to Air Force documents describing the plane. The plane is configured with all first-class leather seats, worktables, two large galleys for cooking and a "distinguished visitor compartment with sleep accommodations."Mr. Brachman said Air Force's passenger planes were mostly used by military officials, the White House and other members of the Executive Branch. Over the past five years, 44% of the use of the planes has been for the military, 42% for the administration and 14.5% for members of Congress, Mr. Brachman said.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of congressional records found that foreign travel by members of Congress and aides was increasing. Last year, House members spent about 3,000 days overseas on taxpayer-funded trips, up from about 550 in 1995, according to the Journal's analysis.Lawmakers disclosed they spent about $13 million traveling the world last year, a tenfold increase since 1995, when travel records first were made available electronically. The travel costs are covered by an unlimited fund created by a three-decade-old law.This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said he couldn't comment on the trip for security reasons. A spokeswoman for Mr. Shelby said the same.
Most travel must be approved by congressional committees. Once approved, the lawmaker who is leading a delegation can decide whether to fly on a commercial airline or to request a business jet from the Department of Defense.
Lawmakers typically fly on military jets, where members of the Armed Services carry bags and take drink orders. When flying on military jets, lawmakers are permitted to bring along spouses at no cost.
When there are too many requests for military planes, the speaker of the House or the Senate majority leader decides who gets to go. Two House employees work full time to organize overseas trips.
There is often a shortage of military planes for use by lawmakers when Congress is in recess, according to emails from 2007 obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request.
In June 2007, the House's travel coordinator, Kay King, was told that all military planes were booked for the July 4 recess. She replied to the Air Force officer: "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker."
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Thursday, "The speaker is extraordinarily appreciative of the Department of Defense's efforts to accommodate requests from Congress."
Most of the planes available for lawmaker's travel are based at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., a few miles from Capitol Hill.
The D.C. Air National Guard maintains three 737s and two Gulfstream V planes there. The 89th Airlift Wing operates 18 planes, including two military versions of the Boeing 747 that serve as Air Force One. The Air Force also keeps several more passenger planes at bases in Illinois, Germany and elsewhere.
Most of the planes are painted light blue and white, with "United States of America" painted on the fuselage. The C-40 costs about $5,700-an-hour to fly, according to the Department of Defense. The smaller Gulfstream V, called a C-37 by the military, seats as many as 12 passengers and costs about $3,000 an hour to operate.
MSNBC
WASHINGTON - The House is ordering up three Gulfstream jets to fly Pentagon and other top government officials — including members of Congress — around the globe in conditions far cushier than coach class.
The almost $200 million appropriation to buy three C-37 jets, the military version of the Gulfstream 550, is buried in a $636 billion Pentagon budget passed by the House last week. It's not as fancy as the version sold to private customers, but still is a very nice ride.
The Pentagon asked for only one of the $65 million planes as part of an ongoing effort to replace aging jets such as the C-20, an older Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. plane that costs about $6,100 an hour to operate, compared with less than $2,700 for the C-37, according to department figures.The move raised eyebrows from some Congress-watchers since the planes are sometimes used to ferry lawmakers on overseas trips. And the House measure directs that two of the aircraft be located at Andrews Air Force Base in the Washington suburbs — a favored departure point for congressional trips.
"Congress decided, 'No, no, you're going to buy two more — and those two are going to go to those units right here at Andrews,'" said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group.
"The Air Force is planning to replace these planes," said House Appropriations Committee spokesman Ellis Brachman. "The question is whether to do it sooner rather than later."
Pelosi's ride
Among the members of Congress who fly on the planes is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who generally flies Pentagon aircraft between Washington and her home in San Francisco. The Pentagon began supplying the planes to her predecessor as Speaker, Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., as part of beefed-up post-Sept. 11, 2001 security steps.
But Pelosi generally flies commercial on political and personal travel such as a trip Thursday between San Francisco and Denver in which she flew first class, accompanied by a security agent.
The Pentagon describes the mission of the planes as flying "worldwide special air missions for high-ranking government and Defense Department officials."
According to Appropriations panel spokesman Brachman, members of Congress have been responsible for just one in seven of the flights, with Pentagon brass, White House officials and other Cabinet executives taking up the rest.
The planes are made in Georgia by Gulfstream, a subsidiary of General Dynamics. Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., wrote the Appropriations panel to request $70 million for one of the planes. But the panel did not report this under disclosure rules since Congress was simply expanding an existing program.
The purchase of the planes was reported Wednesday by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.
Aviation Week Ares Blog
It isn't common that the Pentagon gets to wrap Capitol Hill's knuckles, but the latest brouhaha over flying lawmakers and other VIPs in Gulfstream jets that Congress earmarked is too good not to call out. Here's Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell yesterday at the usual press briefing:
Q That's all right. The Air Force has apparently asked for a -- for Congress to approve money for a Learjet-type aircraft, an additional Learjet. And Congress --
MR. MORRELL: I think it's a Gulfstream. The jet?
Q Gulfstream, yeah. Sorry. And Congress approved, apparently, money for three of the aircraft. And now I'm hearing also that they had also asked for a seven forty -- a 737, and then Congress gave them money for two additional ones -- two additional aircraft. Did the Air Force need that many jets, if they were asking for, you know one apiece and they're given money for three? Is the fleet getting that outdated, that they --
MR. MORRELL: Yeah. What I would say to this, Mike is we ask for what we need and only what we need. And beyond that, I would direct you to speak to the Congress. If, indeed, this is something that has been added to the budget above and beyond our request, they're the ones who should answer to it. But we make it a point of asking for those things we need and nothing more.
And we've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for, because inevitably we, in order to fund those or just, at least, sustain those after they are appropriated or -- we have to find money from elsewhere in the budget to support those new buys. So it comes at a cost to us, even if the up-front money is appropriated above and beyond what our budget request is.
Q Did the secretary -- (off mike) -- the --
MR. MORRELL: I don't -- I -- you know, listen, it's a -- it's an enormous budget, as you know. And I don't know that this specific line item, the additional Gulfstream jet, has come to his attention. His attention has been mostly focused on the items that he believes are red lines. The F-22 -- you know additional F-22s are clearly a red line for the secretary. An alternative F-35 engine is a red line for the secretary. The VH-71 program is a red line for the secretary.
So he's been focused on big-ticket items and, frankly, not an additional Gulfstream or two. That said, we ask for only what we need and nothing more, and the Congress will be the one who would best be equipped to answer why it is they've added additional Gulfstreams to the budget.
Q (Off mike) -- subject?
MR. MORRELL: Yeah.
Q You're talking about big spending, but this is $200 million, which is $150 million more than the initial budget request by the Air Force. I mean, isn't this a concern for the secretary that Congress is boosting its request for (things you don't need?), given that -- (off mike) -- language that specifically requests that two of the airplanes be based at Andrews -- (off mike)?
MR. MORRELL: I think -- Luis, I think I have addressed the range of concerns associated with this.
Q Are there serious concerns that maybe you won't accept this, that this becomes another red line?
MR. MORRELL: I don't want to -- I don't want to speak for the secretary. I know what his -- in terms of what may or may not become a red line. I know what his red lines are right now. I've communicated those to you, or at least some of them. I do not know this to be one. But as I said, Luis, anything that is above and beyond what we ask for comes at a price to us, maybe not in the up- front cost of purchasing that aircraft, but in terms of the follow-on maintenance and sustainability of that aircraft, that comes out of our budget and we've got to find dollars elsewhere for programs that are needed in order to fund one that is excess to our needs.
Why does the head of the delegation choose whether to go with a commercial liner or a business jet? Why are they travelling all over the place (11 delegations going to Germany in one month), trips to Kuwait and so forth?
