[HOUSE] Air Defence Fighter Development Bill

[Zar]

It seems as though Secretary Cabrini was right in his warning of the "politicization of national security." It is insane that Senator Perryman and Clayton have the gall to call the Secretary a, "fascist", when his expertise shows that this deal would leave our country defenseless for years. The people of my party who claim that "we lose the ability, expertise and industrial base associated with our defense industry at our peril, and lose that pioneering self-sufficiency so unique to America", when there is no evidence to support this.

Perryman clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and prefers to waste taxpayer money on weapons that will not make a difference in the event of war. I hope that my fellow senators can see through his personal attacks and focus instead on the interests of national security.

[Coin]

Neither I nor my colleagues claim Mr Cabrini is a fascist. But he is completely out of his depth on this issue, and does indeed dance to the tune of fascist appeasement. The alternative is incompetence, or worse.

On a practical note, is the Senator aware that you cannot train a pilot overnight in the use of a new aircraft, and that if we were to buy from two different countries, we would wind up with two different, incompatible and still-out-of-date fighters, with pilots requiring years of training in two entirely oppositely designed aircraft? There is no easy answer to the question of our air force, but it is a more sensible answer to develop our own aircraft.

Now Senator Rice appears to state that there is no danger in losing that ability to develop our own aircraft, when the neighbours from whom she supports buying obsolete aircraft are the probable antagonists in any real conflict. Let me be clearer - if this bill had failed, and were the MSA to support the Secretary's position, a precedent would be set that would destroy MSA development of combat aircraft. Does Senator Rice now support purchasing armour from the PSA or USA?

The final statement that a modern, MS American defence fighter will make no difference to defence I find deeply troubling from a senator. But I am glad a majority in Congress - both in the House and in this Senate - support the bill. I agree on one point with Senator Rice - we must all work in the interests of national security. Our national security; not our neighbors'.

[Zar]

On a practical note, is the Senator aware that you cannot train a pilot overnight in the use of a new aircraft,

I don't remember this being claimed at all. I would assume that it is a fact applicable to all fighter jets anyway.

and that if we were to buy from two different countries, we would wind up with two different, incompatible and still-out-of-date fighters, with pilots requiring years of training in two entirely oppositely designed aircraft?

I have no idea how this is relevant, buying aircraft from two different countries at the same time was never proposed.

Now Senator Rice appears to state that there is no danger in losing that ability to develop our own aircraft, when the neighbours from whom she supports buying obsolete aircraft are the probable antagonists in any real conflict.

I believe Secretary Cabrini explained that the fighter that this proposal is asking for would take decades to make, giving our "probable antagonists" an increasingly obsolete airforce to deal with. It was also explained that these fighter jets could not contribute much to air superiority when our nation's anti-aircraft, radar, and other logistical systems are out of date. It seems as though Secretary Cabrini's main point was that a fighter jet from the USA/PSA in combination with updated air defense systems would be a better force than an entirely new aircraft that would only start to be produced 10 years from now.

if this bill had failed, and were the MSA to support the Secretary's position, a precedent would be set that would destroy MSA development of combat aircraft.

There is no evidence of this. Perhaps it is something the DoD can look into.

It is a shame that congress is going against the will of our nation's military. Hopefully this will be a lesson to Congress to consult the military before drafting these bills.

[OYID]

Let me be the first to say...jikes, Cabrini! You really took us by surprise there! Truth be told, no one expected these final objections to come from our very own Republican Secretary of Defense and his congressional colleagues, for the most recently vocal detractors of this bill are Republicans, much as it may pain the formerly-hegemonic Conservative faction.

Over the last few days I've been consulting with many people as to what to do, and I'm told the Socialist Party has, too, mulled over the issue. It is true that they had previously voted for a version of this proposal on the House, but I've asked Senator Philip Donovan to hold off on voting before I could reach a decision.

And here we are.

Secretary Joseph Cabrini is our nation's foremost Defense official, with a sterling career in the field of military intelligence. I have no doubt that the late President Stone knew full well what he was doing when he appointed that PhD from New Jersey as Secretary of Defense. Before a politician, he proved himself as a patriot. I trust this man completely, and would not have kept him on my team if I didn't do so.

At the same time, it's true that the Socialist Party has expressed criticism of the ADF bill. I was actually one of its most vocal detractors earlier this year, which, taking into account recent developments, feels like ages ago. My stance is much the same as it was back then, though obviously tempered by access to new information and recent developments on the ground. The Coalition had compromised on this issue, yes. It did so out of a belief that the only major problem with it was a refusal by the Right-Wing to stop doing business as usual and their commitment to continue to cater to the lobbying interests of the military-industrial complex (all the while somehow accusing everyone else of being in a mysterious and ever-changing someone's pocket).

Ultimately, however, I stand with my Cabinet. This team of rivals was assembled by President Stone and I will not work against it to pacify partisan agent provocateurs who have taken an ugly, uncivil, and frankly bully-like attitude towards members of their own Party. Perhaps we're only seeing what happens when a faction's dominance is challenged within the political Right. Senator Rice is right to reprimand us all for coming so close to passing a bill about the military without actually consulting the military. It might surprise the Conservatives, but the Secretary of Defense is in close contact with all the branches of the armed forces and did not reach his position lightly. For all of this bill's supporters' posturing about having contact with our military, they seem awfully closed to criticism coming from it, and from within their own Party, even.

Secretary Cabrini is right in saying that this bill would, at best, in the final estimation leave our Air Force still outdated by ten years, ten years down the line. As always, the lobbyists of the McDonnell Corporation talk big about Defense without any understanding or consideration of the nation's real necessities in the event of war. An Air Defense bill centered around improving our radar, Anti-Air Defenses and, might I add, civilian preparedness for such an eventuality would do a lot more towards defending our people than just throwing money at contractors once again.

It is thus that, acting on the advice of the Secretary of Defense, and noting the strategy of bullying against his unimpeachable character undertaken by the Far-Right, I hereby make use of my Presidential authority to return this bill unsigned to Congress, until such a time as it may return to my desk bearing the approval of the top Defense and military officials in Government.

Let's do this one over, everyone. And let's try it without the personal attacks this time.

[Huojin]

OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL CLERKS

With the President's veto of this bill, it is returned to Congress - first to the House of Representatives. To progress further in its current state, it must garner a two-thirds supermajority to override a veto.

If this procedure is completed, a two-thirds supermajority is also required by the Senate, before it passes into law without Presidential assent.

[Snacks]

I think I speak for most of the Progressives present in stating my puzzlement with these statements that have come from our friends across the aisle. I was under the impression that the Republicans would not have put forward a bill without indication that there was desire within the military for such an undertaking. I'm inclined to give my friend Representative Carpenter the benefit of the doubt, and to give him a chance to defend this proposal among his colleagues before commenting further on this legislation. While the Hard Left caucus and the Progressives as a whole remain committed to providing for the needs of defense in a modern fashion, I hope that from now on the Secretary of Defense will remain so eager to share what he sees as lacking in the MSA military.

[Coin]

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

Representatives of the 97th Congress,

It will come as no surprise to you all to find that I share my Texan colleague's puzzlement. But I am also angry at the mistruth spread by the President and his Secretary of Defense. Among many other questions before them, I would ask why they seek to mislead Congress and the MS American people on their reasons for opposing a bipartisan, healthily debated and robustly scrutinized bill that Socialists, Progressives and Republicans all voted on in the House.

I will not speculate on the true reasoning; perhaps it is mere partisanship. What is not up for speculation is that there is no truth to the accusations leveled at the bill - chiefly, that there is no support from the military. Let me go through several quotations to illustrate my point.

"Even if this fighter could be developed and produced immediately, it would do little to improve the air defense of the MSA."

"...plans for purchasing older fighters will not leave the air force obsolete."

These come from Secretary Cabrini and Senator Rice, respectively. The intrinsically paradoxical latter statements are, suffice to say, completely false.

It might surprise the Conservatives, but the Secretary of Defense is in close contact with all the branches of the armed forces and did not reach his position lightly.

That one from the President. I am not the Secretary of Defense, and I am long-retired from the air force. But I did not sponsor this bill lightly - and I believe the Secretary of Defense's opinion to be utterly at odds with common sense and national security. In all of my conversations with the top brass of the MSAAF they have pushed for the development of MSA-built aircraft. It has been so since I arrived in Congress. Representatives, just today, they have said it better than I ever could.

Air craft from our neighbors are designed and sold to us specifically to keep our capabilities within limits they are familiar with - and they know they can overcome.

The need to upgrade our fighter capability is vital to defending our skies, and therefore our nation.

I believe these quotations show the absolutely farcical stance of the Secretary for Defense and the President in opposing this bill. I have little confidence in Cabrini's experience as an intelligence official making him an expert on the air force. I have little confidence in whatever scheme is truly behind the Presidential veto. I have the utmost confidence that this bill is in MS America's interests, creating MS American jobs and safeguarding MS American expertise necessary for the defense of this republic for future generations. I have the utmost confidence that Congress knows this.

Representatives, this is not an issue of opposition or governing parties. It is an issue of national security. Do not let Roux-Johnson's veto stand. The Mountain States of America deserve better.

13 Republican conservative votes IN FAVOR

[Snacks]

I appreciate the response of Representative Carpenter. That said, I believe it has become apparent we need to review testimony from knowledgeable figures within the MSAAF as to our course of action, as the Defense Department has made it clear that even were this bill to be passed a second time with the margin needed to override a veto, the executive branch would be unlikely to be cooperative in implementing it. I do not intend to give the appearance of not trusting you at your word, Representative Carpenter, far from it. Rather, I think this whole chamber should hear out the advice that led to this bill's drafting in a more public manner.

As such, I motion that this chamber summon for testimony:

• The Chief of Staff of the MSAAF
• Former Air Force General Matthew Busch
• Senior Anonymous Former MSAAF official, cited by Representative Carpenter as support for this bill.

This motion is seconded. Furthermore, given his recognized experience as a former MSAAF officer, I would like to request our colleague Representative Grant Mason also participate in these proceedings

[Huojin]

I feel I should explain my position - to Congress, as called upon; to my fellow Neo-Conservatives; and to the country I serve.

I was born as America began its fight in Europe - the First World War. And I fought in the Second - in the skies above our Land of Liberty. That land now stands divided. And as a great Republican once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". This notion is doubly true here, in our nation's capital. Our armed forces suffer from years of neglect and ill-treatment, and we cannot couch such a position any longer. And let me tell you, had I flown in the aircraft we have now, or those the President proposes we purchase, against those fielded by our enemies, I would not be standing here now. My remains would lie, ignominious, in some forgotten field in Pennsylvania. Or Virginia. Or Kentucky. Or in one of any number of those lands that were taken from us.

In the past, armies may have held the high ground - and now the high ground is ever higher, as the conquerors launch terrors into the heavens - an arena we cannot yet compete in. But can still defend our skies, and a strong hold over them we must maintain. The Air Force, the military as a whole, and the whole country needs us to provide this additional capability - a fact proven to me personally, both by my own experience, and by discussing the matter with many of my brothers in arms, some who have retired, and others who continue to serve this great nation of ours.

As such, I will proudly affix my own vote to this bill:

1 Republican Neo-Conservative votes IN FAVOR.

[BgKnight]

After long debates in our group and discussions with our party leadership and consultations with the Military minds both within our party and in the Mountain States Air Forces. We have concluded that it is, indeed, better to support the Mountain States' own program rather then buy second hand weapons. While we do understand the worries of our colleagues, we cannot just relay on old weapons produced by none-other then our own enemies.

I myself have a particular stake in this, because I am well aware what happens once you are handed an old aircraft and expected to fight the enemies of the Republic. In the warm my plane was old, it was built before the war had begun and it had outdated technology. The truth was, we couldn't hold the line against the Messerschmidts, they far faster, better armed and crewed, and despite the heroic defense of the American Airforce, we lost and I was shot down. If it wasn't for the brave fighters of the resistance, I wouldn't be here to talk about this.

So I will proudly and without reservations put my vote on this bill and I urge my fellow representatives to do the same.

12 Republican Moderates vote in favor.

[OYID]

The Socialist Caucus supports Taylor's motion to bring forth witnesses to testify as to the merits of this bill.

[Gesar]

I appreciate the response of Representative Carpenter. That said, I believe it has become apparent we need to review testimony from knowledgeable figures within the MSAAF as to our course of action, as the Defense Department has made it clear that even were this bill to be passed a second time with the margin needed to override a veto, the executive branch would be unlikely to be cooperative in implementing it. I do not intend to give the appearance of not trusting you at your word, Representative Carpenter, far from it. Rather, I think this whole chamber should hear out the advice that led to this bill's drafting in a more public manner.

As such, I motion that this chamber summon for testimony:

• The Chief of Staff of the MSAAF
• Former Air Force General Matthew Busch
• Senior Anonymous Former MSAAF official, cited by Representative Carpenter as support for this bill.

This motion is seconded. Furthermore, given his recognized experience as a former MSAAF officer, I would like to request our colleague Representative Grant Mason also participate in these proceedings

I concur with the motion of my colleague of Texas. While I by no means doubt the good Representative's beliefs in this matter, or that the facts he uses to support his argument are valid, it seems to me that the wisest course of action in reconciling the differing opinions between the Cabinet and this House is a fair, impartial testimony.

[Flamelord]

I would like to thank Representative Hurst for his enlightening comments, as one of our number who does have experience with the Air Force. It is certainly welcome, and I'm sure we'll all take it under consideration.

With that in mind though, and seeing the deadlock we appear to be in with regards to the Presidency and the Department of Defense, the Progressive Moderates would agree with Representative Taylor's request to bring in those named persons who can provide testimony as to the various aspects of this proposed legislation.

[Coin]

I find the request of Representative Taylor perfectly reasonable and have no opposition to allowing their testimony to be heard by Congress. I shall consult privately with the figures concerned that I myself quoted to find firstly if they are contented to do so, and secondly when they may appear.

I regret not having published or requested such a hearing before the bill was vetoed to reinforce the case. If it would be helpful, I am sure an expert from the aerospace defense industry would likewise be happy to appear, regarding the timescale of production - something that has also been subject to mistruths spoken by Secretary Cabrini's camp.

[Huojin]

Agreeing to testify:

• General Oliver Scalia, Chief of Staff, Mountain States Air Force (1942 - present)
• General James Paisley, Former Chief of Staff, Mountain States Air Force (1941 - 1978)
• General Matthew Busch, Former General, Mountain States Air Force (1946 - 1977)

General Paisley, MSAF, Ret. wishes Congress to note that he gives testimony against his better judgement, as he personally wished to avoid becoming embroiled in present military decisions.

[[We can do this in a HUAC-style thing if people want, or they can list questions they want to ask here and I'll answer them on behalf of these guys. Should be noted that you guys can call up more witnesses to testify on stuff.]]