EXPOSING LEAHY’S LEGACY OF LIES: Week of Nov. 12
EXPOSING LEAHY’S LEGACY OF LIES — Part 2
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Quotations from the Air Force’s official records of the F-35 Burlington Basing Selection Process
Introductory Statement:
“We are here to read to you a quotation from the Air Force official administrative record of the F-35 Burlington basing selection process and to get your response to it.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concluding Statement:
“We request that Senator Leahy initiate an independent investigation into the political corruption of the F-35 Burlington basing selection process.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Day 20: Tuesday, November 12, 2019
In the first quote from January 17, 2013, Lieutenant Colonel Wilder of Headquarters Air Force wrote to Mr Bush also in Headquarters Air Force about Senator Leahy’s concern that in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Air Force was misinterpreting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations by stating that they (FAA and HUD) may not provide federal financial mortgage and insurance assistance to people whose homes were located in the F-35 high noise zone. In the second quote on January 22, 2013, Ms Engelman of Headquarters Air Force Noise Encroachment Management office wrote to Colonel Kilbourn of the Air Combat Command (ACC) F-35 EIS Program Management Office about Leahy’s concern. She was relaying to her that Air Force basing experts could not change FAA and HUD regulations; and that the experts objected to Senator Leahy trying to get them to report incorrect information about other federal agency’s policies. This is one of the rare examples in which the Air Force did not acquiesce to Senator Leahy’s inappropriate demands.
“Sen Leahy’s office called and had the following concern — AF [Air Force] may be misinterpreting FAA and HUD guidance/regs wrt [with regard to] noise contours and characterization in the Draft EIS needlessly limiting or negatively misstating impact. How should we convey to ACC to make sure they either address or provide sufficient analytical supporting info (or do we direct to engage with HUD and FAA through consultations? Thoughts?” (Admin Record #56905)
“Apparently someone from Leahy’s office made this comment. HUD, FAA, and DOD use the same compatibility criteria. I still need to add a little bit more regarding what we have in the EIS, and I was going to add something at the end that says if they can point us to the specific section(s) that they feel we have mis-interpreted FAA and HUD guidance we will take a look at it. (Without them pointing us to the section that they feel mis-interprets the guidance we can’t really look at it.” (Admin Record #56930)
Day 21: Wednesday, November 13, 2019
In June 2013, Senator Leahy and his staff were concerned when they learned that the number of comments from Vermonters who were opposed to the F-35 basing far outnumbered those who supported the basing. The correct numbers were in the EIS, but the Air Force made a major mistake in another draft. The Air Force reported (incorrectly) in that document that 80% of the comments received were in support of the F-35 basing. In reality, 65% of the comments received were opposed to the basing. Leahy and his staff liked the mistake the Air Force made, which showed more people supported the basing, and they tried to get the Air Force to keep using the incorrect numbers.
On June 11, 2013, Lieutenant Colonel Bryan wrote to three National Guard officials about Leahy’s involvement in the reporting of the public comments: “Sen. Leahy’s office is concerned and pushing all the buttons they can to find out what is going on. (Admin Record #59447)
June 12, 2013, Brigadier General Howe of Air Combat Command, wrote to Lieutenant General Robinson, the Vice Commander of Air Combat Command: “SECAF/CSAF [Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force] have asked for explanation of an error in the draft F-35 Ops EIS. It states that 80% of comments in the first public comment period favored the ANG beddown at Burlington, 20% opposed. Accurate numbers are 35% supported, 65% opposed. Looks like admin error (correct data was published in two separate places in the 3-in thick draft EIS). Our project officer is accurately quoted in the article saying the error was found before the revised report was issued and was supposed to be fixed, but was not. Sen. Leahy’s staffer inquiry is a complicating factor — they like the erroneous numbers.” (Admin Record #59489)
Day 22: Thursday, November 14, 2019
In June 2013, Senator Leahy and his staff were concerned over the number of public comments the Air Force received from Vermonters who were opposed to F-35 basing. Initially, the Air Force made a major mistake by reporting (incorrectly) that 80% of the comments received were in support of the F-35 basing. In reality, only 35% of the comments received were in support of the basing. Although, Leahy and his staff liked the false percentage, the Air Force corrected their mistake. In an attempt to increase the percentage of those in support of the basing, Leahy and his staff then tried to get the Air Force to change the established way they counted the comments, in particular, petitions. The Air Force practice is to treat petitions differently than individualized emails and letters. Petitions, regardless of the number of signatures on it, are counted as one comment. This is because signatures on a sheet of paper with a printed statement (which may or may not be an accurate statement) do not provide any individualized views. Whereas, personal emails or letters come from an individual who took time and effort to write about their views and opinions. Therefore, Air Force policy was to count petitions differently than communications from individual members of the public. Moreover, the title of the petition to which Leahy and his staff were referring, “Save the Air National Guard” which was not pertinent to the F-35 basing, since the Air Force had stated that the future of the Vermont Air Guard was not reliant on the F-35 being based with them.
On June 12, 2013, Mr McGhee from the Secretary of the Air Force office wrote to Ms Ferguson, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Logistics & Environment about Leahy’s involvement in the reporting of the public comments saying:
“Sen Leahy’s office dialed in direct to Mr Germanos yesterday evening and discussed the matter to learn more background; according to ACC [Air Combat Command], the Senator’s staffer was hoping that the article was wrong and the document was correct (i.e., that we found more supportive comments vs opposing comments to the Burlington location)…. It is also important to know that, even with the correction, Sen Leahy’s staffer, while they understood the conversation with ACC, expressed concern with how ACC counted comments and derived our numbers. That is, Sen Leahy’s staffer believed Air Force should have counted “X” signatures on a petition called “Save the Air National Guard” as “X” comments in support of the basing at Burlington. Instead, ACC counted the overall petition as one supportive comment.” (Admin Record #59459)
Day 23, Friday, November 15, 2019
Senator Leahy and his staff were concerned that the Air Force had not counted the thousands of identical post cards which had been distributed by the Burlington business community to people to send to the Air Force. Leahy and his staff tried to get the Air Force to change the established way they counted mass mailings. Air Force practice is to treat mass and identical mailings differently than individualized emails and letters. Another complicating factor was that the pre-printed statement on the post cards contained incorrect information. In this entry, the F-35 EIS Project Manager is trying to explain why the Air Force could not count comments which contained false reasons for supporting the F-35 basing. Unfortunately, in the end, Leahy pressured the Air Force to count the post cards.
This entry from September 23, 2013 is from Mr Germanos, the F-35 EIS Basing Program Manager at Headquarters Air Combat Command, to Mr Dryden, an official at Air Combat Command, regarding Leahy’s pressure to change the way the Air Force counts identical mass mailings. Mr Germanos is responding to criticism about a point (bullet) in a briefing which shows the reasons underlying the Air Force practice of not counting comments which contain incorrect statements or false reasoning. For the Burlington basing, the Air Force received thousands of identical post cards which contained incorrect information about the F-35. Specifically, the pre-printed post cards stated that the noise of the F-35 would be “similar” to the noise of the F-16. The EIS stated otherwise. Specifically, the EIS reported that the F-35 noise would be four times louder than the F-16 noise. The Air Force did not consider that to be “similar sound.”
“The bullet {regarding the pre-printed post cards received in support of the basing} is important because it is impossible to determine whether the people who submitted the postcards would still support the beddown if each knew that the pre-printed “similar sound” reason on the postcard was factually inaccurate. Since the “similar sound” statement on the postcard can be proved to be factually inaccurate (Table BR 3.2-1), I am at loss to understand the Col’s claim that we are “subjectivizing” the point. To not include the bullet would be overtly misleading and intentionally withholding important qualifying information. Additionally, the people who wrote out statements on the “opposing” postcards were not told what to say. Each of these is totally unique.” (Admin Record #62688)