Molotov

97th Congress - H.R. 2



Air Defence Fighter Development Bill
Introduced by Representative Carpenter, Oklahoma

To begin the process of the development of a new air defence fighter, contracted to the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, to enhance the defence of these Mountain States of America, and to replace the present models which are rapidly becoming outmatched internationally.

• Charging The Department of Defense, with oversight by the House Committee on Appropriations, to undertake a bidding process to determine a contractor for development of an advanced air defense fighter that meets the needs of the MSAAF.
• Contracting whichever company is awarded the contract to immediately and without delay begin development of the advanced air defense fighter.
• Specifying the aircraft to be an adaptable, twin-engined tactical fighter with supersonic capabilities and specializing in air-to-air combat.
• Stipulating for any post-deployment upgrades subsequently found necessary to be the chosen defense contractor's responsibility subject to an updated contract.
• Contributing the sum of 20 credits to the venture.
• Confirming oversight of the process to be undertaken by the Federal government and Department of Defense, with secondary oversight by the House Committee on the Armed Services.

Representative M.J. Carpenter, Republican, Oklahoma
House Minority Leader

Congressman Carpenter wrote:Representatives of the 97th Congress,

We live in a dangerous world - there are few things more certain than it being a dangerous time to be an American. There are those within and without our borders who desire to see the Republic fall, the Constitution fail, and the shining beacon of Liberty crushed. We must therefore be ever-vigilant, and aware that our freedoms are hard-won and hard-defended.

The previous congress wrestled often on this floor with the issue of a new fighter, to replace our resilient yet ageing air defence fighters, presently the F-4. While in the Stassen administration I pushed hard and with some success for an advanced tactical fighter, the Cargo administration saw proposals watered down to the extent that it would have been a waste of taxpayers' money to create a fighter obsolete by the time she rolled off the production line. Those were my reasons - I know many across this house had others. But all can agree that we require an improvement in our air defence systems and squadrons. I am aware of moves for the nomination of Secretary of Defence, and am hopeful for the future.

This is but a small, tiny part of what this country needs to defend herself. Our armed forces are underfunded while our country wastes excessive monies on other matters. I truly hope that across this house however, we can agree on this one small matter.

The proposition for the F-14 fighter is an entirely upgraded, adaptable, and modern air superiority aircraft. At present I would envisage an order of some 100 aircraft; my analysts and advisors tell me that a sum of 20 credits is a realistic minimal amount to spend on this. I await the contribution of the McDonnell company themselves should this reach the committee stage, further than the discussions I myself have had with them.

Finally, to those who would question our developing our own aircraft, I would say but this. We shall never cease to require new aircraft for the MSAAF. I fought fascism, as millions did, with American equipment - in my case flying many missions with the P51. We lose the ability, expertise and industrial base associated with our defence industry at our peril, and lose that pioneering self-sufficiency so unique to America.

I therefore motion this draft bill for the consideration of the House, and request the Speaker to refer it to the relevant committee with hope and anticipation.

Congressman Carpenter wrote:If the Speaker of the House would be so kind, I would appreciate this being moved to either Committee or debate.

Coinneach wrote:

Congressman Carpenter wrote:If the Speaker of the House would be so kind, I would appreciate this being moved to either Committee or debate.

Anthony Calhoun Nordquist wrote:The bill is hereby moved to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Congressman Thomas Higgins, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations wrote:After careful review, this proposed legislation is hereby passed from committee, and is now open to general debate and voting.

Representative Arthur Robertson, Socialist, Minnesota.

Representative Arthur Robertson, MN wrote: Representatives, representatives, listen to me.

There's a certain air of...cronyism, and old-fashioned thinking, about this bill. For starters, it bases all of our national security and sovereignty on the continued development and profits of the military-industrial complex that has, inexplicably, retained its influence in politics over the years regardless of its abject failure to bring us victory in the World War, somehow still claiming that its size and federal funding has managed to keep us safe, instead of chalking it up to a cold calculation by the Superpowers to avoid nuclear war with each other, which is probably the actual case.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Party stands before this House with a simple idea: that the strength and safety of a nation lies not with the profits of limited shareholders but with the preparation and capabilities of its patriotic peoples. If the Superpowers decided they could afford to wage war on the MSA, the expensive toys of McDonnell and others won't keep us safe. If Europe and Asia attack this land, then our country would only be safe and free to the extent that ordinary people decide to take up the mantle of Liberty and Democracy and stand up for what's right. In other words, it's the free folk of our nation who will, through their decided actions of determined resistance, push back the invaders and keep this great land strong and safe.

Now, this road will not be easy to travel (it's certainly harder than handing some big company a lot of money and calling it a day), and it will require not only the draft but the institution of a nationwide military service. It will require the formation of civilian defense corps all across the nation. Training, certification, weapon allocation... I know it's not what we're used to when we think about the American armed forces, but I also know that a possible tragedy could have been averted had our Minnesotan sailors been equipped with weapons and trained to use them. At the very least, the US Navy would think twice before intruding in our national waters.

This is the general outline for the Socialist defense policy. Let the House, and the public, now debate its merits.

Alright, so what do we do about the Republicans airplane proposal? Well, at least its spirit has a lot of merit, and the Socialist caucus believes it knows a way in which we can work with this spirit. See, what bothers us the most is that the Right-Wing, which claims to support austerity and fiscal responsibility, would propose a bill that heavily subsidizes a private corporation (and that with no less than 10% of the nation's Treasury, to borrow one of their own debating tactics) to produce a whole new plane, one that that we would later, presumably, buy from said corporation, thus performing a double operation in which a simply unconscionable amount of money would be spent.

What the Socialists say is this: why spend so much money on these sort of things when we already receive, though admittedly largely not out of our own free will, so many working-yet-outdated vehicles from our two lovely neighbors? We're not saying we should keep them as our ultimate standard for warfare, but merely: what if we take all that great technology they were going to put into the new plane, and retrofit it into the clunkers we're already stuck with? That way we're still buying these machines from our neighbors and thus so many of our colleagues will be dissuaded from voting against the interests of their own State.

We can also do this at a significantly lower expense to the taxpayer. The reformed bill would look like this:

• Contracting the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation to immediately and without delay begin development of a line of advanced air defence fighters that meets the needs of the MSAAF. This line of jet fighters is to be developed as adaptations and improvements on similar fighters bought from the PSA and the USA by our country, which will be provided by the Department of Defense for McDonnell to carry out this contract.
• Specifying the aircraft to be adaptable, twin-engined tactical fighter with supersonic capabilities and specialising in air-to-air combat, to be built in-mass by McDonnell as soon as the prototype models are working and approved by the overseeing entities.
• Contributing the sum of 10 credits to the venture.
• Stressing that the aforementioned amount already covers the cost of buying the developed results from the McDonnel Aircraft Corporation.
• Confirming oversight of the process to be undertaken by the Federal government and Department of Defence, with secondary oversight by the House Committee on the Armed Services.

Of course, this is just based on preliminary research carried out by our Congressional offices, it remains to be seen if the appropriate committees can find reasons to cut the cost of this venture even more. Naturally, this is also only a first step towards a useful compromise which will hopefully reflect the merits of the Republican proposal as well as the general direction of the Socialist model for defense. Just think: if all the money we've spent on these defense contracts over the years had instead been spent on building a veritable network of bunkers and well-regulated militias across the land, then maybe we would be safe in the knowledge of our assured sovereignty, and not frantically trying to outpace the Superpowers in the global never-ending arms race.

Representative M.J. Carpenter, Republican, Oklahoma
House Minority Leader

Congressman Carpenter wrote:Representatives of the House,

I thank Representative Higgins and the House Committee on Appropriations for the necessary scrutiny of the bill. I look forward to hearing what, if any, his own thoughts on the bill are; as well as our Progressive colleagues. You are all aware that I have invested particular time and effort into getting this to the floor of the House. Opposition is only to be expected, as the last bill to reach this stage was - entirely properly - scrutinised and debated at length. May I remind those minded to oppose this, thinking it the same bill, that I was among those who voted against the previous bill.

I also thank the representative for Minnesota from the Socialist party for his comments. They show a desire to contribute by the Socialists to debates on defence policy - something which has been lacking. Yet they do betray a fatal lack of understanding, and, I fear, are more for show and to make a political point than any serious improvement of our present capabilities. Much as our current - unelected - President's comments to a socialist magazine on the bill also showed a woeful lack of understanding of the bill when discussing it on February 25th.

I have three major concerns I would share with the House on this amendment which - at first sight - seems sensible.

Mr Robertson's proposal is firstly not financially sound. He claims the cost could be half of the 20 credits put forth by experts consulted by the Republican Party on the matter. A cost, he claims, lower due to retrofitting obsolete PSA and USA fighters with new equipment. Yet this says nothing of the cost of purchasing these fighters. A cynical mind would ask whether he or the President have been put under pressure by the PS or US government to stop this bill. Needless to say, financially speaking, this would incur greater costs dependent on the goodwill of two often antagonistic neighbours.

Additionally, the 20 credits already involves the purchase of approximately 100 new fighters for the MSAAF. I am not sure where he got his information from, but the socialists are once again wrong on defence. This bill would be a fiscally responsible deal for the MSA.

Secondly the Socialist proposal, Representatives, is not technically sound. The quality of the fighters Mr Robertson proposes would be far short of what this bill intends. Now, before our red friends jump off their seats, we are not here proposing aircraft that match the Luftwaffe. But we do propose some far beyond our present, twenty-year-old capabilities. These are necessary when it comes to planning a defence policy of any form - and I would raise multiple issues with this "socialist defence policy".

You cannot simply propose to buy two completely different models of already-obsolete aircraft then merge them into some single, ostensibly-advanced type of fighter. These are not toys. The technology is not so easily interchanged or upgraded. The end products would be less capable fighters and less reliable fighters. You cannot retrofit them in any way that would improve their radar signature to any great degree; and both US and PS forces would feel more confident knowing that MS American pilots were flying sub-standard aircraft.

Thirdly - and perhaps most importantly - this is not strategically sound. I repeat one of the first things I said when I brought this bill forward.

We lose the ability, expertise and industrial base associated with our defence industry at our peril, and lose that pioneering self-sufficiency so unique to America.

This is not some fantastical attempt to "outpace the superpowers", as Mr Robertson makes out. This is nothing short of a sensible, robust and responsible way to respond to a dangerous world by improving our national defence in an area where we have failed to do so for twenty years.

Thirteen Republican Conservatives vote in favour of the bill.

Representative Arthur Robertson, MN wrote:
Alright, finally, a debate. Face to face, mano a mano, Socialist vs. Republican. I like it.

Let me just begin by saying that it would be better for everyone if the Right-Wing abstained from touting the cause and banner of Security and Defense if it's unwilling to face the realities that an American armed conflict would entail. In other words, the Republicans shouldn't speak about preparations for war unless they truly mean it.

What Mr. Carpenter has failed to mention so far is that this country was challenged: our people (common people, fishermen, not the kind of guys that can afford to send a lobbyist down to Capitol Hill so he'll push through big contracts for them) were threatened by vessels fit for battle, and now the world, and the MS American public, waits to see how we will respond.The Socialist Party has seen this scenario play out over the years, and based on this we've developed the plan for an all-new, innovative, profoundly thorough Defense policy, one that involves the citizens and the peoples of the MSA to form the greatest army the world has ever seen. The best part? It is exclusively a defensive endeavor.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Carpenter: how do you envision an American war? I mean it, man, in all seriousness. Do you really think there's any scenario in which our conventional army, great and brave as it is, won't be outmatched by the might of the combined armies of the Empire and the Reich? Do you really think a newer, sleeker, plane will help much in the event of actual full-on war? Or maybe you just seek to spend all of that money preventing border skirmishes like those in recent memory, in which case I might advise you to pursue funding for naval defense projects, as that's the theater where we've been consistently threatened for the last ten years.

No, Mr. Carpenter, the only way in which we'll really preserve our freedom in the case of invasion is if we truly dig in and entrust this great country to a prepared, willing and selfless people, who will doubtlessly rise to the occasion as they have done before, but who can be greatly helped if those in government work to make realistic plans for resistance a major matter of public policy. The Socialist Defense policy, Carpenter, we're still waiting for your so-called "issues" with it.

But now let's look at the Rightist speech:

First he touches on the issue of buying the old jet fighters, as if by pure magic or his force of will he could change the unfortunate reality and the perpetually tense position of our country. If there was a way, Mr. Carpenter, for us to stop purchasing obsolete equipment from our neighbors, then surely the Socialists would be the first to carry it out, but at present it's simply not feasible nor responsible when faced with the current correlation of forces. Perhaps if we were certain that our country could push back any invasion with a Popular Defense Strategy then maybe we could more openly defy our imperialistic neighbors.

Also, hilariously enough, it's the Right-Wing which accuses us of being in bed with Fascism. Did it forget that their very own President Stassen also signed many of these deals? And yet this isn't why we would accuse him of being a foreign agent, as he was clearly just doing what he could. At any rate, should that declaration stand, then the Republican Party would be putting into question the patriotism and integrity of someone who I believe still is one of their most beloved leaders.

They claim their budget for the bill included the purchase of a hundred of the new fighters, but if we look at the record we will see that this apparent fact comes from a comment made by Mr. Carpenter after the bill was presented, regarding what he believed to be a reasonable amount of vehicles to buy. This is relevant because, last time I checked, offhand comments on the House floor don't have force of law and what does in fact matter is the wording of the bills passed, which is, if you'd read it again, left wide open for covetous, opportunistic, and malicious interpretation.

The Republicans claim that their precious old bill is "woefully misunderstood", but I believe what they really decry is that it has been understood and examined all too well. The Grand Old Party is serving a grand old contract to their friends in the arms industry on a silver platter, without first even asking themselves if any of their current biases and preconceptions are even valid. Remember, this is the Party whose "experts" led America into the Great Depression as well as history's greatest military defeat.

About the technicalities, let me say that if McDonnell doesn't feel up to the task of making a satisfactory product with the tools and materials given to them (given to all of us, by unfortunate historical circumstance), then surely their competitors would be willing to, well, compete for this contract. Say, isn't it strange that the "free market" Party is offering up a contract for which there have been absolutely no bids?

He claims the bill is robust? We say it's as obsolete as the fighter planes it plans to replace. He talks of a "dangerous world", yet claims business as usual to still be somehow "strategically sound", when it's clear to anyone with a bit of common sense that these contracts won't defend us against the Interventionist West and the restless Bellicose East, as that is a role that can only be fulfilled by a prepared and organized populace.

The Socialist Party cannot support this bill, and instead of it we call for a wider debate regarding our current and prospective conceptions of a real, responsible, patriotic Defense policy.

14 Socialist Votes Against.

OYID wrote:14 Socialist Votes Against.

Congressman Carpenter wrote:Representatives,

The far-left votes against the bill is as predictable as it is foolish. However Robertson does raise some issues which I shall quickly respond to, the better to enlighten those of more reasonable persuasion who may nonetheless be unsure of the specifics.

Mr Robertson appears to corroborate the fact that the socialist, unelected President is pushing the socialists to oppose the bill purely because he has listened far too keenly to a lobbyist and read too much into a sales pitch. It is not particularly statesmanlike to be bullied into letting foreign interests dictate party policy. I have not ruled out that in future we might purchase aircraft from our neighbors - this bill does not claim to. I merely wish to see the bulk of our fighter force improved to a standard where weak-willed leaders are not so easily scared into obeying foreign powers. His two other relevant points are worth noting. However the lack of the number of aircraft imagined to be produced was judged sufficiently within the oversight of the DoD and relevant committee. As you'll recall, the bill passed to the floor without amendment.

The essential point is that you remain wrong, Mr Robertson, as you can quite quickly find out by checking the detail of the costings. On McDonnel taking the contract, they are at present the only firm large enough to fulfill this contract, and presumably subcontracts will go out to tender.

Frankly, and I am reluctant to bring this up because it quite clearly shows the Socialists merely nitpicking instead of having anything of note to say, your own counter-amendment had neither numbers nor contractual tender to all interested parties included!

On your thoughts about defense in general, congressman, I am happy to debate with you in another forum, should you wish to bring these matters before the House. At the moment I do not trust that a half-baked speech with a half-presentable amendment constitutes a realistic presentation of an alternative vision for the defense of these Mountain States, but rather an attempt to derail this bill.

I would urge all who wish us to sensibly and proactively proceed along a road that defends our citizens and reinforces our industrial base, to vote for this bill.

Representative Arthur Robertson, MN wrote: It's funny, isn't it? How the Republicans are so keen on displaying their rabid Rightist nature that they don't even notice how far down they're digging their own graves. President Stassen signed those same deals, Mr. Carpenter, are you accusing him being a weak leader too? Did Stassen kowtow to foreign interests as well? Or was he simply being a reasonable man intent on navigating the treacherous waters of Divided America?

Ah, yes, McDonnell is big. Let's make policy so that it remains big and has no competitors, right? That's what you're proposing, that we help and strengthen even more what's already the virtual monopoly of a "primary provider". You know, we the Socialists openly espouse that the interests of the people at large outweigh the supposed "sanctity" of the free market, your Party, however, claims to defend the latter while still offering a no-bid contract with taxpayer money. We didn't present alternatives, sure, we apologize for even trying to reach such a compromise with our dear colleagues in the Right-Wing.

And sure, I'll debate you any time, at any place, about all these concerns, but right now it's important you present your thoughts, Mr. Carpenter, because the Socialist opposition to this bill stems from our conviction in the necessity of undertaking a Socialist Defense Policy, so if you not only want to defend your policy but also attack ours, as you seem determined to do, then you should at least present some reasoning for your pompous big harsh words. That is, a reasoning other than the twinkle in your eye whenever you think of McDonnell lobbying dollars.

Come on, man, we want to arm the people to truly defend against the possibility of invasion, while you on the other hand merely want to hand out money to big business once again. Just face it: you're wrong on this one.

Representative Raymond Freeman, AR wrote: Loathe as I am to interrupt a healthy and necessary debate on the future of our nation's defense policy, I feel that a resolution to that matter and to the proposal immediately at hand would be better served by tabling discussion of the Socialist Defense Policy in full to a later time. I know a number of my fellow Representatives would be eager to aid drafting a formal resolution on such a policy, and I am led to believe that there are many tenets of such a policy that I would be willing to support. However, I implore my esteemed friend from the Socialist camp to keep debate to the merits of this bill itself.

While Representative Robertson has made some points that are quite salient on the need of this country to do more to aid our military readiness than simply provide updated equipment, and the cost of this contract to the taxpayers of the Mountain States would be rather steep, it does not seem apparent to me that the bill itself should be thrown out, especially for the fact that: whatever doctrinal changes we make to our military policies, reinforcing those policies with modern equipment has a marked impact on the effectiveness of our military. This is a bill with problems, yes, but I am not so sure that the bill cannot be amended to resolve some of the most glaring, and what seems to be the most contentious.

This is an expensive bill, yes. It is also a necessary investment. As Representative Carpenter has pointed out, the F-4 is quite an old craft, as far as military standards go. The design, as a whole, is two decades old. I do not sit into this chamber to point fingers, only to resolve problems, so as to the issue I will say this: a problem that is not dealt with will grow, and the amount of time that it has taken our nation to develop a new fighter craft has led the cost of catching up to a modern standard to rise. We have a lot of ground to cover, and research shows that to do so we must spend money. It is left to us to get the American people their money's worth.

Representative Ricardo Solana, TX wrote: It is my understanding that McDonnell was chosen by Representative Carpenter for this proposal as they were one of the higher rated candidates during the bid process undertaken during the last attempt to develop a new fighter aircraft. It is not an unsound reasoning, especially if taken on the understanding that their bid would not be significantly changed in this time, and the premise that they are the only contractor within the MSA capable of fulfilling such a contract expediently.

Nonetheless, I agree with our Minnesotan friend in seeing the situation as troublesome, and potentially sending the signal that we are apathetic to fostering a fair market. Expediency in business cannot outrank our duty to ensuring the American people's money is not going to waste in face of an political outsider who can offer them a better deal. While the promising offers of McDonnell should of course be taken into strong consideration, equally thorough examination of the facts is needed to make sure they are the best offers this time around.

Representative Donald Taylor, TX wrote: In the hope of maintaining the intent of the Republican proposal and avoiding watering down its aims as feared, while also addressing concerns of undue influence by the conditions of the last bidding process, the amended proposal is submitted to my fellow Representatives for review:

• Charging The Department of Defense, with oversight by the House Committee on Appropriations, to undertake a bidding process to determine a contractor for development of an advanced air defense fighter that meets the needs of the MSAAF.
• Contracting whichever company is awarded the contract to immediately and without delay begin development of the advanced air defense fighter.
• Specifying the aircraft to be an adaptable, twin-engined tactical fighter with supersonic capabilities and specializing in air-to-air combat.
• Stipulating for any post-deployment upgrades subsequently found necessary to be the chosen defense contractor's responsibility subject to an updated contract.
• Contributing the sum of 20 credits to the venture.
• Confirming oversight of the process to be undertaken by the Federal government and Department of Defense, with secondary oversight by the House Committee on the Armed Services.

Geoffrey Wise wrote:With the amendment suggested by my colleague from Arkansas, I can rest satisfied that the American people can get their money's worth when it comes to this bill. I, and hopefully the rest of my colleagues, will support such a bill.

Orval Scott wrote:I vote for this bill provided the amendment is accepted and added.

Representative Arthur Robertson, MN wrote:
The points raised about McDonnell are very interesting: if said corporation is the only entity within MSA borders capable of supplying the country's defense needs, isn't it rather risky and irresponsible to leave such an enterprise vulnerable and exposed to the action and dangers of the private-model free market? I mean it's already a given that it functions practically as an asset of the MSA government, only different in that it largely benefits a limited few...

At any rate, ffter consulting with our base and the rest of the Coalition, the Socialist Party has decided to support Representative Freeman's amended version of the bill, and we gladly take up the offer to expand the debate over the Socialist Defense Policy and begin working together towards compromise that will get our country on the path to becoming an impregnable fortress against Fascism and Imperialism.