Funny how one of the platforms of Speaker Pelosi's Democratic Party is the immediate threat of global warming, yet she puts in a request for a large personal plane that can transport her and her entourage from one coast the the other non-stop. Not to mention the fact that she would be denying the Air Force of a larger aircraft that could be put to better use in the Middle East. Unreal....


Pentagon limits Pelosi jet size
By Charles Hurt and Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 8, 2007


The Department of Defense yesterday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that puts limits on the size of the plane she may use to travel across the country and restricts the guests she can bring, The Washington Times has learned.
A congressional source who read the letter signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Wilkie said it essentially limits her to the commuter plane used by former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, which requires refueling to travel from Washington to Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco district. A second source, in the Bush administration, confirmed the contents of the letter.
The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the Department of Defense for an Air Force aircraft large enough to fly nonstop to San Francisco. She also has pressed to be able to include other members of the California congressional delegation, her family members and her staff on the plane.
"It's not a question of size. It's a question of distance," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters yesterday. "We want an aircraft that can reach California."
Earlier, Mrs. Pelosi did not comment on the matter but yesterday began a counteroffensive accusing the Bush administration of twisting the story.
These "misrepresentations could be coming from the administration," she told reporters yesterday.
"One would only have to wonder why," she said, though adding that she did not suspect President Bush "because he has impressed upon me over and over again the need for me to have the security that I need."
The letter from the Pentagon yesterday cites specific U.S. Code that government policy does not include the routine use of military aircraft for the speaker of the House.
"Nonstop service is not guaranteed, meaning she's getting Hastert's plane and nothing bigger," the congressional source said, referring to the commuter jet Mr. Hastert began using for security reasons after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
But the administration official said Mrs. Pelosi "wanted to be able to fly between Washington and the West Coast nonstop."
The letter leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Pelosi may get a larger plane that does not require refueling if one happens to be available in the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. But, generally, the larger military passenger jets are in high demand, especially due to the Iraq war.
In addition, the letter stipulates that the Air Force will only fly her between Washington and her San Francisco district and places limits on who can travel with her.
The Washington Times reported earlier this week that the Pentagon denied a request by Mrs. Pelosi to fly on a military aircraft to last weekend's Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, a two-hour drive from Washington.
"Non-governmental personnel, i.e. political supporters and contributors, may not fly," the congressional source said yesterday, paraphrasing the letter sent to Mrs. Pelosi. "The plane may not ferry her to any political events and other members may only accompany her after approval by the House ethics committee, which means Republicans would have to OK it."
Immediate family members who fly with her must pay the U.S. Treasury for the flight.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly acknowledged the letter but declined to get into specifics about it.
"We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the speaker's security," he said. "We are reviewing their letter."
Mr. Daly said the negotiations with the Pentagon and the Air Force over using a larger plane is a matter of security based on her position as second in line to the presidency.
"The military is saying she needs this for her security," he said yesterday afternoon. "She's the speaker of the House."
But the congressional source noted that no speaker of the House has ever succeeded to the presidency.
"Just because she's second in line to be president does not entitle her to a military taxi service around the United States," the source said.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday that while negotiations were continuing between Mrs. Pelosi's office and the Pentagon, she would ultimately have some sort of military transport at her disposal.
"The Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the speaker about it," he said. "So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft, and Speaker Pelosi will too."
In an interview on Fox News, Mrs. Pelosi said the plane request was not hers.
"I wish I didn't have to have so much security, because I like my freedom of mobility," she said, adding that she would be willing to fly commercial aviation. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country."
But Mrs. Pelosi's requests for the larger jet still has drawn ridicule from Republicans, who have dubbed the requested plane "Pelosi One."
It's especially galling, they say, since Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats ran on campaigns to clear out many of the perks provided to lawmakers.
One of the first changes she made to the rules governing House members was to ban free air travel by members of Congress on corporate-owned or chartered planes.
The "jumbo request," as one Republican called it, also comes at a time when Democrats are trying to push through Congress a resolution that sending 21,500 reinforcement troops to Iraq "is not in the national interest of the United States."
"So let's get this straight," Republican Study Committee spokesman Brad Dayspring said in a statement yesterday that reproduced a picture of a transcontinental U.S. military jet. "During a week in which Democrats are pushing a resolution that states, 'it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq,' they believe that securing Speaker Pelosi the military plane pictured below for luxury flights is in the national interest?"

http://washtimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm

Meh, ...

She thinks she needs a bigger plane. She gave some reasons. The Pentagon said "no." That's how the world works. I asked my boss last week for a GPS Navigator, she said, "no, we have other, bigger priorities."

At least she didn't ask Abramoff to bilk the Cherokee Tribe out of a jet.

LOL.


LeninFlux, you don't think that politicians mean for those speeches they make and the those laws they write to apply to them do you?

No, but then again one of the upsides to the new Democratically-controlled Congress was advertised as intending to "drain the swamp" and put an end to this type of stuff. It's disappointing to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Also, it's hypocritical to go on about global warming yet ask for a personal plane big enough (and thus would burn more fuel) so she can drag along her extended family. Give me a break.

$300,000 to fly her entourage from Washington to San Diego.

Yup. That's governmental responsibility.

Further proof power corrupts.

We need complete and total political upheaval. All of these people need to be removed.

Fiscal responsibility in Government is a thing of the past.


Nice to see it took her about 3 weeks to forget all that economic responsibility stuff she ran on. Republicans are no better. This taking Air Force 1 all over the country campaigning is complete bullshit too.

This kind of gross waste of taxpayer money is EXACTLY the reason public healthcare is going to suck ass. Anytime the government is put in charge of vast sums of other peoples money these kinds of attrocities happen at the expense of responsible spending.

Want to give everyone better healthcare?....

Regulate insurance and drug companies....but I bet they have the best lobbiests.

I think you mean San Francisco.

Anyway, I don't fault her for having a private jet for security reasons....this was one of the 9/11 security changes that would apply to whomever the Speaker of the House is. But to put in a request for a bigger one when you're so concerned about global warming and "giving the troops everything they need" is bullshit. That and everything you've mentioned.

[quote="Electromatic"]$300,000 to fly her entourage from Washington to San Diego.

Yup. That's governmental responsibility.

Further proof power corrupts.

We need complete and total political upheaval. All of these people need to be removed.

Fiscal responsibility in Government is a thing of the past.


Nice to see it took her about 3 weeks to forget all that economic responsibility stuff she ran on. Republicans are no better. This taking Air Force 1 all over the country campaigning is complete bullshit too.

This kind of gross waste of taxpayer money is EXACTLY the reason public healthcare is going to suck ass. Anytime the government is put in charge of vast sums of other peoples money these kinds of attrocities happen at the expense of responsible spending.

Want to give everyone better healthcare?....

Regulate insurance and drug companies....but I bet they have the best lobbiests.[quote]


Yeah, that's a pretty safe bet for sure....

hastert used it.

no, hastert used a much smaller plane.... still gross misuse of tax funds but no where near the one that the new speaker has asked for.

The speaker is in line for the presidency, it makes sense to protect them while they travel. No need to protect their lobbyiests though...

Like B said, she asked, and got turned down because it isn't necessary. That's not exactly what I would call corruption.

Its also misleading to say that she asked for a personal jumbo jet - she asked for a plane that had a longer range, and seperately asked to get a ride in an Airforce Jet. From what I understand, military personell can get free rides on Transport Aircraft to wherever the plane happens to be going in exchance for acting as ballast. I wouldn't see a problem with a similar thing happening with government officials, although I'd imagine some of them might be indignant at the prospect of being human ballast.

She shouldn't be all that suprised though - D.C. has no love for the West Coast.

Oops. Looks like the request was just a wee bit blown out of proportion. Even Tony Snow says so....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_go_co/pelosi_plane;_ylt=AoZEd8r3jI4tgVJx4.dmMmWs0NUEWASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

In an interview with Fox News Thursday morning, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard," she said.

The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee nonstop service.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family."

Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record) of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called Pelosi's desire for a large transport plane "an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won't swallow."

"It's important we see what the specific request was," Putnam said.

But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office — or the White House.

The guidelines provided by the Pentagon say Pelosi could be accompanied by family members, provided they pay the government coach fare. The plane could not be used for travel to political events. Members of Congress could accompany her on the plane if the travel is cleared by the House ethics committee.

Jesus Christ. The only reason she wanted a bigger plane is so she could fly non-stop from Washington to San Francisco. Is that a major extravagance? Security wouldn't let her fly commercial.

For the record I'm more upset at how military planes are being used than with Pelosi. I know a lot of this is sensational, it just cost a shitload to operate those types of planes, it makes a lot more sense economically to get her back to her district commercially or even on a discrete private jet like a G4 or something like that. It's another bad economic policy by the compassionate conservative administration.

May be. It's certainly nothing new.

Whatever makes the most sense, not the most sensation, that's all I'll say on teh matter.

If i took a job out of state, i would move my family with me.

I like the way Leninflux complains about $300,000 for a jumbo jet but has no problems with the $1trillion+ spent on Iraq...

If you were a member of Congress who didn't spend time in your home district, you wouldn't be doing your job very well.