Military Modernization and Readiness Bill

[Јas]

Nay, for much the same reasons as Jake outlined.

[afleitch]

I urge senators who have not voted to consider voting in favour of this bill with it's amendments. While it is claimed that the $3bn that I have urged to be ring-fenced has not been properly costed or attributed; where this funding will be targeted to is already outlined in the text of the bill and needs no further elaboration.

The very fact that Senator Jake made no provision for increasing the funding to improve the facilities and weaponry of our armed forces on the ground in the first instance while budgeting for somewhat excessive military hardware that god willing will never be used makes me doubt the reasons given for now opposing his own bill.

[Bdub]

Nay

Now that I think about it, I cant support section 3 for the same reasons Jake outlined.

[Jake]

The very fact that Senator Jake made no provision for increasing the funding to improve the facilities and weaponry of our armed forces on the ground in the first instance while budgeting for somewhat excessive military hardware that god willing will never be used makes me doubt the reasons given for now opposing his own bill.

The bill was not written as an omnibus military budget, it was written to address three glaring areas where modernization was needed in our military. 1. To convert some of our big stick nuclear weapon systems to more usable platforms in the War on Terror. The Senate decided that maintaining nuclear parity with Russia was preferable. 2. To correct deficiencies in our tanker force. 3. To correct deficiencies in our long range cargo transport capabilities.

Now, the dishonorable Secretary is getting his panties in a bundle because we ask (gasp) for a list of which programs his $3 billion cash dump is going towards and whether $3 billion is enough to cover his goals, or if it's to much. Apparently, he has time to make veiled accusations about my motives for voting against my own bill, but he doesn't have time to actually research his amendment.

The dishonorable Secretary says the destination for his funding is outlined in the amendment. Wrong. Writing bills like his amendment is written would result in the following:

"The Senate shall appropriate $40 billion to address concerns about the aging USAF tanker fleet."

No mention of what should be done with the money, just dump several billion in the DoD's coffer and pat yourself on the back for "helping the troops".

[afleitch]

I urge the Senator to withdraw his accusations that I am 'dishonourable'

In the amendment I layed out where the $3bn would be spent. As it would be impossible to list each and every item no matter how miscellaneous and then budget each and everyone one of them. The moment such a list were drawn up it would be instantly out of date. I trust the armed forces to know what they require and I trust them to budget it more accurately than any Senator or Secretary could. Indeed, I could not based on the figures that I could find with regards this information online; so I made the amendment specific, but flexable.

The arbitary figure of $3billion; approximately 1 billion a year was reached through the figures avaliable. It comes on top of what is already invested; it is a boost and nothing more on top of the $109 billion spent on military personell. I would have proposed an even greater increase if it had the backing and I would have supported a further amendment to do so. I also believe that you too Mr Senator would have proposed greater spending and wider miltiary development if you believed it would pass securely without compromising the programs listed in the bill.

I have made clear my disatisfaction at the Senates lack of response to the budget requests I made when I entered office, in short I believe the office is underfunded and I supported your bill.  But I believe strongly that if you propose a bill with the intent to 'modernise and ready' the military you cannot do so from the top up which is why introduced this measure and yes Mr Senator it is a token gesture because I can bet your bottom dollar this would not have gone down well with the boys on the ground if it had passed as it originally stood.

[Jake]

Yes, we've all seen the mass disgust when new funding allocated for new weapon systems. Oh wait, we've yet to, ever.

And we all saw how difficult it was to research the cost of new aircraft systems and which programs to fund them under. Or not...

[afleitch]

Yes, we've all seen the mass disgust when new funding allocated for new weapon systems. Oh wait, we've yet to, ever.

And we all saw how difficult it was to research the cost of new aircraft systems and which programs to fund them under. Or not...

If thats all you have to say on the matter then that's fine. I can't explain myself more clearly unless you want me to cost how much it costs the army each year in things like socks or disposable razors.

Your programs are specific, mine is not and never can be because it covers such a wide range as I have alreay explained.

[WMS]

Aye.

[Virginian87]

Aye.

[Democratic Hawk]

This Bill has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I urge the Senator to withdraw his accusations that I am 'dishonourable'

That the Senator should. You and he have had your differences on this Bill. You have stated what the money is for but some Senators are happy with the final Bill as it stands but others aren't. That is their prerogative

Nevertheless, for him to call you dishonorable is out-of-order

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

With 6 Ayes, 4 Nays and 0 Abstention, this Bill has passed. I hereby present it to the President for his signature

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

Under the powers invested in me in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution I veto and remove Section 3 of this bill:

VETO

I sign the remainder of the legislation:

Ebowed

[Democratic Hawk]

The President has subjected Section 3 of the Military Modernization and Readiness Bill to his line-item veto. With 6 votes in favor of the Bill, the Senate does not have the two-thirds (i.e. 7 votes) to override it

Therefore, given that the President is happy to sign the Bill into Law albeit without Section 3, I shall be reintroducing the revised Bill for consideration by the Senate

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby present the revised Bill to the Senate, which I shall sponsor

Military Modernization and Readiness Bill

Recognizing that the age of mutually assured destruction and massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons has ended, and recognizing that future wars will depend on rapid deployment of Atlasian assets overseas, the Senate resolves that;

1. Atlasia shall purchase 80 Boeing-767 aircraft and lease an additional 20 Boeing-767 from the Boeing Corp. and convert them to KC-767 Tanker specification by the end of FY2010. The total cost of the program shall be $22.4 billion, $7.4 billion in FY2007, and an additional $5 billion in FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010.

2. Atlasia shall purchase 42 C-17 aircraft from the Boeing Corp. with production ending in FY2010. The total cost of the program shall be $5.9 billion, $1.9 billion in FY2007, and an additional $1.0 billion in FY2008 through FY2011.



Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

While, this is not the final Bill I would have liked, it is, nevertheless, my intention to support the the revised Bill

'Hawk'

[Bdub]

I will support this bill now that section 3 has been removed.

[Јas]

Firstly, may I say that I welcome the President's line item veto.

Secondly, may I ask the bill's author a few questions (as these are matters with which I'm very unfamiliar).

1. How the number of aircraft to be puchased and leased was arrived at? Do these purchases represent outright additions to the military stock or are they replacements for aircraft currently in use?

2. Why the decision to lease the KC-767 upgrades, instead of buying them outright? Also, how long would the lease last?

[Democratic Hawk]

If this Bill ain't done and dusted by Noon Friday, I'll be reintroducing this Bill as the revised Bill that is now under consideration

'Hawk'

[Jake]

Firstly, may I say that I welcome the President's line item veto.

Secondly, may I ask the bill's author a few questions (as these are matters with which I'm very unfamiliar).

1. How the number of aircraft to be puchased and leased was arrived at? Do these purchases represent outright additions to the military stock or are they replacements for aircraft currently in use?

2. Why the decision to lease the KC-767 upgrades, instead of buying them outright? Also, how long would the lease last?

The number was arrived at based on a 2003 defense agreement to lease 100 aircraft for approximately 138 million for 10 years (2007-2017), with a 40 million/aircraft option to buy at the end of the lease.

Later that year, the plan was shifted to buy 80 and lease 20 aircraft. The bill to approve the sales was approved after our transfer of power here in Atlasia. This aims to correct that deficiency.

These aircraft are replacements for the KC-135 line of tankers, most of which are over 40 years old.

[Јas]

I thank the outgoing Senator for his reply.