PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2008
KC-X Tanker Recompete Act - Prohibits funds from being used by the Department of Defense (DOD) on the KC-X (aerial refueling) tanker contract. Defines such contract as the contract awarded by the Department of the Air Force on February 29, 2008, for such aircraft.
Outlines requirements and conditions as part of the acquisition process for the award of a contract for a replacement for the KC-135 tanker, including: (1) an independent cost estimate; (2) an increase in the proposal cost or price by the amount of any illegal subsidization by a subsidized person; (3) ensuring an evaluation of the cost borne by a supplier and the cost borne by a foreign government; (4) the consideration of national security impacts; (5) defense industrial base considerations; (6) consideration of the loss of U.S. employee and corporate tax revenue when awarding contracts to foreign entities; and (7) the impact of U.S. regulatory burdens.
Directs the Secretary of Defense and the contract source selection authority to require any prospective defense contractor or subcontractor not already covered by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to comply with such Act's requirements as a contract award condition. Allows a waiver of such requirement for national security purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6426 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6426 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6426 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6426 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.