Boeing Has a Powerful Ally With Hastert

Druyun's hiring "is the worst example of the 'revolving door' in quite some time," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group. The Boeing deal was "absolutely a waste of taxpayer money -- in the billions of dollars."

Nonetheless, seed money was shoehorned into the legislation thanks to heavy and repeated pressure by Hastert and his aides, Tiahrt and others involved in the process say. Hastert's team made its case at the White House, at the Pentagon and to key lawmakers. In the end, they managed to overcome more obstacles than any weapons program in recent memory. "The battle over these tankers is in a class by itself," said Scott Lilly, who spent 31 years as a Democratic congressional staffer, most of them dealing with appropriations.

The only program that came close in controversy, Lilly recalled, was the B-1A bomber, which was canceled by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 after only four prototypes were built. But that plane was shelved not so much for reasons of cost or ethical concerns but because Carter wanted to pursue a different nuclear-weapons strategy. He decided to develop cruise missiles that could be carried by less expensive subsonic aircraft like the B-52 rather than deploy a new, fast-flying jet like the B-1A.

Hastert did not accomplish everything he sought. The House-passed version of the appropriation designated Boeing as the supplier. The final version is less specific. What's more, the Pentagon is conducting two studies of the program and is reviewing its options, which include buying new tankers from another supplier, possibly the France-based Airbus SAS, and refurbishing rather than replacing the existing, 43-year-old fleet. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put the entire contract on hold until after the November election. It's also unclear whether any new jets would be leased or bought.

Nonetheless, the mere fact that the appropriation survived gives hope to Boeing and its congressional friends. "We're pleased with this language; we hope it will further the program," said Dicks, whose home state of Washington houses major Boeing facilities.

According to Hastert aides, the Speaker worked with Tiahrt and Dicks to round up support in both the House and the Senate, where the Boeing deal faced louder opposition. Hastert counted among his allies there the Republican senators from Kansas, Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback.

Their basic argument: The current fleet is so old that it needs to be replaced and only one American company is positioned to provide the tankers, Boeing.

Boeing has not been coy about saying one reason it decided to move to Chicago from Seattle was that it could count on Hastert's patronage. Hastert, the House's top Republican, makes a habit of helping Illinois-based corporations. He has championed measures for years that have benefited Caterpillar Inc. and UAL Corp., the parent company of United Airlines. In 1998, he added $250,000 to the Pentagon spending bill so that Amurol Confections Co. of his hometown of Yorkville, Ill., could study caffeinated chewing gum.

On the Boeing deal, Hastert had to face down many congressional opponents, including his own state's senator, Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.). "The tanker lease was an unusually unfavorable deal for the taxpayers and an unusually favorable deal for Boeing," Fitzgerald said. "It appears to me that he [Hastert] is becoming fairly renowned for doing special little favors behind the scenes here and there at interesting times for some of his corporate buddies."

Regardless of his reason, however, when the Speaker spoke, money moved. "Out of respect for who the Speaker is, when he puts his blessing on something, it's a done deal," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), another Hastert ally on Illinois appropriations.