Pelosi's Speaker Shuttle: The Inside Story
No, Nancy Pelosi doesn't routinely fly around in an Air Force One-sized jet.
Yes, she extends the Speaker Shuttle perk to her family and colleagues.
The next speaker will control the House of Representatives, and with it one of the biggest perks in politics: free flights on luxury jets that are the military versions of a Gulfstream V. Well, they're free to the speaker, but paid for by your tax dollars.
How much? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office says it doesn't receive "comprehensive cost estimates." Military documents indicate a one-way flight for the current speaker (between Washington D.C. and California) costs, on average, $28,210.
Figuring out the details about the so-called "Speaker Shuttle" service and how it's been used isn't easy. The information is undeniably public in nature, but it's not readily-available. Our attempts to contact the office of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert went unanswered. Pelosi's office provided some information, but a spokesman told us the office simply don't keep track of what types of planes Pelosi flies where and who's aboard.
The military does track all of that, but getting the answers requires filing a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request. It can take months for a FOIA response to be answered, and then the material provided is jumbled chronologically and often incomplete.
For this investigation, CBS News examined several thousand documents obtained from our FOIA requests and those from other organizations, as well as material provided by Pelosi's office.
The Roots of the Speaker Shuttle:
AP Photo
Records indicate that most often, Hastert (at left) and whoever was with him flew on a 12-seater Gulfstream III. The Speaker Shuttle first became controversial when it was discovered that Hastert dispatched it in 2006 to transport a colleague to a press conference. The colleague was Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), and he was helping defend Hastert amid the Mark Foley page scandal.
Today, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) regularly uses the military jets to travel to and from California, where she lives. Nine years after Sept. 11, her office says the service is still necessary for security reasons.
Yet security concerns were not cited by Assistant Defense Secretary Robert Wilkie when he discussed the shuttle service in 2007. The military shuttle support would be provided "as a courtesy in recognition of your position as Speaker of the House," says a letter from Wilkie to Pelosi on Feb. 7, 2007.
It continues: "Since the plan for continuity of the Presidency does not include routine use of military airlift for the Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific basis to your standing as Presidential successor or position in the line of succession."
The House Sergeant at Arms, who is elected by Members of Congress, issued a statement Oct. 1, 2010 saying he requested military aircraft for the speaker's use "based upon security concerns... Ongoing security assessments of the Speaker warrant continued use of such aircraft." Though security is a stated concern, no known directive requires the Speaker to use military transport.
"We can debate whether or not that type of security is required, or whether that security ought to mean luxury-style jets provided for by the military," says Tom Fitton of the conservative group JudicialWatch. "But either way, it's an expensive program."
757 Controversy:
CBS
For her part, Pelosi said she never asked for a 757. "It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance," Pelosi told reporters on Feb. 8, 2007. "We want an aircraft that can reach California" without refueling.
Pelosi's friend Congressman John Murtha, who oversaw the military budget at the time, admitted he called the Defense Department about a plane on Pelosi's behalf, but he didn't make details of his request public. Pelosi's office attributed the request for a different plane to the Sergeant at Arms, who released a statement saying he asked the military for a plane that could make non-stop flights "for security purposes... This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security."
Amid the political furor, the military assured the public that Pelosi would continue to travel much as her predecessor had: usually on a 12-seater. The luxurious Gulfstream V was capable of making the trip to or from California without stopping for fuel, and would be used whenever it was available. But in March of 2007, the military had to schedule an older model Gulfstream III for two of Pelosi's shuttle trips. Records show a Pelosi aide pressed the matter in an email to the military. "Is there nothing that can be done to get a non-stop flight?"
By December of 2008, the military and a Pelosi spokesman told Factcheck.org that the Speaker had only used the military version of a 757, the giant C-32, on one occasion: when no other planes were available. Since then, a spokesman tells CBS News Pelosi has opted to travel on commercial airlines if only a 757-sized military jet was otherwise available.
Pelosi's Colleagues
AP Photo/Javier Galeano
From her first month in office, even before the Feb. 7, 2007 policy guidance from the military, records indicate Pelosi began extending the perk of the Speaker Shuttle to Democratic colleagues. By March 15, 2007 Pelosi had invited members of Congress Mike Thompson, Barbara Lee (pictured), Anna Eshoo, George Miller, Ellen Tauscher and Jerry McNerney, all Democrats from California, to hitch rides with her on various Speaker Shuttle flights -- some multiple times.
Records indicate Pelosi was the first to use routinely invite fellow members of Congress aboard the Speaker Shuttle. Yet the issue of whether the extra passengers would pay for the rides, and if so, how much; hadn't been agreed upon. That was addressed in an email exchange between military officials and the Speaker's Counsel in March of 2007.
"The equitable rate" of reimbursement, says Pelosi's Counsel Bernard Raimo, "seems to be what the Member would pay for a similar coach flight at the government rate."
Fitton, the conservative watchdog, argues it's inappropriate for the speaker to hand out first-class travel perks to favored colleagues who merely pay the price of a government coach fare. "Reimbursing the military or the government at the commercial rate does not nearly cover the costs, which are exponentially greater than any commercial ticket," Fitton said.
When asked to respond, Pelosi's spokesman told us it's the military that sets the rate for reimbursement. Yet the March 2007 email exchanges put the decision squarely in the speaker's hands. "Please advise us of your final decision," says the military official. "We'll go with the government rate," answers Speaker Counsel Raimo.
Since then, records indicate the Congressional passenger list on the Speaker Shuttle has grown to also include from time-to-time Zoe Lofgren, Sam Farr, Lynn Woolsey, Jackie Speier and John Garamendi; all Democrats from California.
Pelosi's Family
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
A little more than a month later, an internal military email exchange makes it clear that Pelosi's family travel was not a one-time occurrence. Nor was it isolated to her husband and grown children.
"Speaker wants to put the following on her flight from SFO (San Francisco) to Andrews (Air Force Base)," says the April 2, 2007 email. "Daughter, son-in-law, infant grandson... Who authorizes the son-in-law and infant grandson?"
After some discussion, the military agreed to the extra passengers but noted, "Believe it is prudent policy for us to ask for reimbursement for all her travelling companions." Available records do not show individual reimbursement rates. Pelosi's office says her family members comply with all reimbursement rules, which require the equivalent of a commercial coach air fare.
Partial list of Pelosi family travel on the Speaker Shuttle (in addition to her husband) according to military documents:
Feb. 22, 2007 - San Francisco to D.C. Daughter Christine Son Paul April 15, 2007 - San Francisco to D.C. Daughter Alexander Son-in-Law Michael Vos Grandson Paul Vos June 15, 2007 - D.C. to San Francisco Son July 9, 2007 - San Francisco to D.C. Son Sept. 29, 2007 - D.C. to San Francisco Son March 16, 2008 - San Francisco to D.C. Daughter Christine | June 3, 2008 - San Francisco to D.C. Daughter Corrine Daughter Christine Granddaughter Madeleine June 26, 2008 - D.C. to San Francisco Son Son-in-Law Grandson Granddaughter June 20, 2009 - D.C. to San Francisco Daughter Son-in-Law Two Grandsons July 2, 2009 - D.C. to California Grandson |
"Repositioning" Controversy
San Francisco Airport
/ APBy the end of 2008, Pelosi had been speaker for nearly two years. But the military was about to confront another controversy regarding her use of the Speaker Shuttle. According to a Dec. 9, 2008 military email, the Speaker Shuttle was at San Francisco International Airport as usual, waiting to take her back to Washington D.C. The email said that Pelosi wanted the jet to be moved, or "repositioned," just 51 miles away to Travis Air Force Base, closer to her Napa Valley home but far outside of her district.
"(T)he jet will not reposition to Travis," says a military official, "Jet will depart from SFO."
"(W)hy can't the jet reposition to Travis?" asks another military official. "You know this is a firestorm waiting to happen."
"We can't reposition the airplane such a short distance. It is not a judicial use of the asset. It is too expensive to operate the jet when there is truly no need to do so."
The exchange between apparently frustrated military officials continues.
"You know I understand and feel with you...but, this is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker office..I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future. We know you are correct in your justification, but this is still the request from the speaker's office."
"We have never done this in the past. The deal is from (the Office of the Secretary of Defense and) the White House that the Speaker shuttle is from DC to SFO and back. We will not resposition. We do not reposition for convenience, even for the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). It is not too far of a drive from Travis to SFO. Did the (Air Force) escort suggest to the Speaker that this is ok? If so, I hope you guys correct them immediately. If you agree with me that I am correct, then you need to stay strong and present the facts to the Speaker's office."
"She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis... From our point of view, it is difficult to tell the speaker that we can't support her when the whole reason we have a jet is to support her. Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question, but instead is it worth upsetting the speaker due to what really amounts to a rather minor point?"
From there, the record drops off.
We asked Pelosi's office to respond to the controversy and they told us, "We have no record of any request to reposition an aircraft." They also said the Speaker Shuttle was "repositioned" once, in Oct. 2009, but that it was the military's call not the Speaker's.
Newly-released records show that the "repositioning" controversy may have been resolved by the military simply agreeing to fly the jet directly to or from Travis AFB when Pelosi requested it. In summer and early fall of 2009, records show the Speaker Shuttle made at least 8 trips to or from Travis AFB.
Is it Necessary?
Louie Traub
"The Speaker's office seems to be treating the military like a taxi service as opposed to men and women defending our country," say Fitton. "We're fighting two wars and... it costs tens of thousands of dollars to shepherd just one trip for Speaker Pelosi between Washington D.C. and San Francisco. She seems to treat that as an entitlement."
Pelosi's office responded by saying "the Sergeant at Arms has requested the Defense Department provide this security measure, which has been regularly provided to the Office of the Speaker of the House since 9/11. The Speaker, just as the President of the United States, has no role in determining what security procedures and measures are taken based on law enforcement assessments."
We wanted to know the position of the next Speaker of the House when it comes to use of the military shuttle. If Republicans win control of the House in November, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio.) is considered a likely candidate for Speaker. When we asked about it, a Boehner spokesman told us "he hasn't discussed the issue."
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 607 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 118 Comments
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
We pay the private sector because they earn it. We don't pay politicians because they don't make anything of value.
-------------------------------
Then why does that slimy Eric Cantor with the crooked smirk get so much from the taxpayer? It works both ways you vile contempt worthy beast.
The private sector steals a plenty. Wall street steals. The banksters steal and everyone knows it. Why do the youth fight to defend these evil pigs. Maybe at some point they won't defend the indefensible.
Introspection would require critical thinking skills which seem in short supply.
------------------------------
You are a servant of Satan. Justice is you choking on an imp dong in hell you filthy sociopath SOB.
of flying a military jet to and from their district. Some people
consider this an outrage, a selfish abuse power funded by tax payers.
These same people, however, lavish praise on the exorbitant salaries
commanded by hedge fund managers, bankers, and CEOs. They deserve that
money, because their talents are in short supply, and the market demands
their amazing talent.
Why does the private market demand such talent, but our government does
not? If outrageous salaries are what's required to run a top flight
business, why don't we also pay our highest ranking government officials
outrageous salaries as well? The disparity seems to reflect a deeply
cynical view of government. If our opinion of government is so low, why
don't we simply capitulate, and hand control over to the plutocracy
right now? After all, they are the ones who's talents we so ardently
admire. We vote with our dollars, and we have spoken. The vastly
wealthy are the people who deserve our abject admiration. All hail our
dear new leaders; let's kick our shabby government beggars to the curb.
Pick your favorite corporate overlord, kiss his boots, and beg for
consideration, because we live again in a feudal age.