Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:39 PM Mar 2013

Why is the US requiring the burning of US coal in Germany?????

SEC. 8055. Using funds made available by this Act or any other Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That in the City of Kaiserslautern and at the Rhine Ordnance Barracks area, such agreements will include the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy for municipal district heat to the United States Defense installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, if provisions are included for the consideration of United States coal as an energy source.


See Pages 79 and 80 of http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20130304/BILLS-113hr933ih.pdf

Making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments
and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2013, and for other purposes.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why is the US requiring the burning of US coal in Germany????? (Original Post) FarCenter Mar 2013 OP
It looks to me like the Air Force needed Joe Manchin's vote for something 1-Old-Man Mar 2013 #1
Actually, West Virginia's coal is bituminous KamaAina Mar 2013 #3
Sorry, my mistake, so it was your politician's they were buying, not mine 1-Old-Man Mar 2013 #6
A larger and more important question is MineralMan Mar 2013 #2
This is a prime example of why we can't downsize our military. Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #4
Yup. Military-related industries are the bread and butter MineralMan Mar 2013 #5
Nail on the head. timdog44 Mar 2013 #8
I love the specific prohibitions on foreign anchors, anchor chain, and roller and ball bearings FarCenter Mar 2013 #11
They are conditions that only affect military bases. MineralMan Mar 2013 #12
We have to keep the Russians from invading the West through the Fulda Gap! FarCenter Mar 2013 #13
I'd rather not see an incremental approach, actually. MineralMan Mar 2013 #14
There are many many bases to close still in Germany FarCenter Mar 2013 #15
Indeed there are. I was never stationed in Germany, MineralMan Mar 2013 #16
Panetta said the sequestration would be a disaster for the Defense Department. Lasher Mar 2013 #7
Base closures were excluded from sequestration....350 bases had already been closed.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #9
That is interesting. Lasher Mar 2013 #17
Yeah they'll just cut services for the enlisted. Ganja Ninja Mar 2013 #10
The officers I knew made sure their guys were treated before they saw the first gauze pad. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #18

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
1. It looks to me like the Air Force needed Joe Manchin's vote for something
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:46 PM
Mar 2013

Or maybe it was Shelly More Capitoe's vote or maybe Nick-Joe Randall's, or others from the anthracite mining districts of this country, but one way or another it was an offer to buy hard coal for heating American bases abroad for congressional vote(s).

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
3. Actually, West Virginia's coal is bituminous
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:58 PM
Mar 2013

Anthracite (hard coal) comes from northeastern Pa. So it's pork for one or more of their reps.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
6. Sorry, my mistake, so it was your politician's they were buying, not mine
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:10 PM
Mar 2013

I did not realize that all of the real anthracite deposits in the country were in PA, but I do now. I was thinking of the massive coal fields in south western WV, down there in Boon and Mingo counties.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
2. A larger and more important question is
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:54 PM
Mar 2013

whether our military forces are needed in Germany at all. Or, for that matter, anywhere in Europe. I think they are not, and that all US bases in Europe should be closed down forthwith. All easily transported materiel should be returned to the US, along with all personnel. The remainder of the materiel and all capital improvements would be transferred to the country in which it is located, free of charge, and written off as sunk costs. Said closings should be completed within six months.

Now, there are some serious budgetary savings.

Oddly, I never see this proposal raised by anybody.

Ganja Ninja

(15,953 posts)
4. This is a prime example of why we can't downsize our military.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:05 PM
Mar 2013

It's nothing but a cash cow for politicians. We need to make drastic cuts but even with all the budgetary fear mongering we can't recognize the end of WWII and the cold war.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
5. Yup. Military-related industries are the bread and butter
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:08 PM
Mar 2013

of Congressional members. It's how they get elected. Just build another military-related industry in your district and get re-elected.

That is one of the largest issues we have not yet faced in the US, and it is the source of more waste than almost anything else.

timdog44

(1,388 posts)
8. Nail on the head.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:27 PM
Mar 2013

I don't think we need any military bases in any other country, period. (Back to your previous post).

The thing about building military related industries is a real problem. Companies that make these "products" spread the industrial sites around the US for that very reason. When one company builds planes in one state, and ships in another, and missiles in another, etc etc etc. The reps from that state are then beholden to that companies interests. Raytheon and GE come to mind. But there are others. "Jobs are on the line" and so "we have to support that issue". Such BS.

$85 billion from the military/intelligence community would be a spit in the ocean. Scaling back even further and bringing military personnel home to work in industries that make a product that produces for us instead of destroying things elsewhere would be progress. Of course there would be the needed education and retraining, but that would put people to work also.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
11. I love the specific prohibitions on foreign anchors, anchor chain, and roller and ball bearings
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:33 PM
Mar 2013

These must have been strategic high-tech materials at one time. I'm sure there is some US anchor chain maker that relys on this mandate now.

There are actually a number of 'buy American' provisions in the bill, which is good. But why do they apply to the MIC and not to US industry generally?

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
12. They are conditions that only affect military bases.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:35 PM
Mar 2013

We can't impose such conditions outside of those in that agreement.

Again, those bases should be closed. It's long past time for that.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
13. We have to keep the Russians from invading the West through the Fulda Gap!
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:43 PM
Mar 2013

I agree that there is no reason to keep a US base anywhere in the EU. If we need to have access to a military hospital or airbase, such as Ramstein, then we should use them through a treaty arrangement with Germany.

A good first step would be to close all the small bases abroad and consolidate to a small set of larger, more important bases.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
14. I'd rather not see an incremental approach, actually.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:47 PM
Mar 2013

My preference would be an announcement that all bases would be closed and turned over to the governments of the countries in six months. That would be an announcement by our President that would make history. We are not at war with anyone in Europe, nor are any of the countries in that area any sort of enemy any longer.

It is time to leave. It is long past time to leave.

I would give our Asian bases a little more time, but would phase them out as well, except perhaps for South Korea, where we are party to a war that is still not over in a legal sense.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
16. Indeed there are. I was never stationed in Germany,
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 04:10 PM
Mar 2013

so I don't have any direct experience with any of them. I did meet a number of people who were, though, and they all seem to have enjoyed their tours there.

Lasher

(27,597 posts)
7. Panetta said the sequestration would be a disaster for the Defense Department.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:15 PM
Mar 2013

I don't see any foreign military bases closing, so it can't be that bad.

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
9. Base closures were excluded from sequestration....350 bases had already been closed....
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:27 PM
Mar 2013

....during BRAC.

Sequestration will primarily affect military programs (cutting, trimming back, and delaying), along with military and civilian personnel.

Lasher

(27,597 posts)
17. That is interesting.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:57 PM
Mar 2013

Will you furnish a link? I'm not doubting your sincerity, I just want some help in educating myself.

Ganja Ninja

(15,953 posts)
10. Yeah they'll just cut services for the enlisted.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:30 PM
Mar 2013

Need some pain killer for that wound? Here's an aspirin.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is the US requiring t...