PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6365)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 7, 2008
Encourages the Air Force to quickly recompete the KC-X (aerial refueling aircraft) solicitation on terms the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended in its June 18, 2008, decision.
Recognizes that a rapid, thorough, and fair recompetition is the best means to provide the Air Force with next-generation aerial refueling tanker capability in a timely manner.
Recognizes that such solicitation is the first of a three-phased strategy for recapitalizing the tanker fleet, and that it should be based on a full and transparent competition to select a single aircraft design.
Supports the GAO recommendation that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain and reevaluate revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision.
People & committees
Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6365)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 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 S.Res.609 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 S.Res.609 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 S.Res.609 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 S.Res.609 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.