Language inserted into a $422 billion defense authorization bill would require the Air Force secretary to enter into a multiyear contract for new tankers, and would provide nearly $100 million in new spending to speed development and acquisition of the planes.

The House bill also would waive a requirement for a lengthy analysis of alternatives - which could delay the tanker deal until 2007 - allowing the deal to go forward immediately.

The panel's unanimous vote Thursday sets up a potential battle with the Senate Armed Services Committee, where top leaders have urged caution on the $23.5 billion tanker deal. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the plan's sharpest critic, is a senior member of the Senate panel.

An Air Force plan to lease 20 Boeing 767 planes for use as refueling tankers and purchase another 80 planes has stalled amid congressional criticism and a series of reviews by the Pentagon.

The latest review, by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, said there is no compelling reason to acquire new tankers immediately. Contrary to Air Force claims, the report says corrosion of the aging tanker fleet is "manageable" and that several options exist to refurbish the fleet.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services panel, said he wants to give the deal "a fresh start." Hunter and other supporters noted that language in the House bill directs the Pentagon to establish an independent panel of experts to review the tanker negotiations and ensure the Air Force strikes a good deal.

Hunter "realizes there are investigations going on, and he realizes there are a lot of opinions on both sides, but this is a critical command need, and we have to move ahead on this," said Harald Stavenas, a spokesman for the Armed Services panel.

Critics of the tanker deal denounced the committee's action.

"This is yet another attempt to ramrod this deal through" Congress before the Pentagon completes its reviews, said Beth Daley, a spokeswoman for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog group. "It's really premature, given new information from the Defense Science Board that we don't need new tankers until 2040."

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services panel, called the committee's action good news. The planes would be built in Larsen's district at Boeing's Everett, Wash., plant, and modified for military use in Wichita, Kan.

"What's gotten lost in all this (debate) is there is a real need for these tankers," Larsen said. "The Defense Science Board report does not discount the need ... for the tankers to be replaced eventually. I think the board's conclusions about the use of the current fleet are going to be questioned."

Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett said the company appreciates the House panel's action. Kennett said the company has not yet received the Defense Science Board report, but is reviewing what impact a delay in the tanker program would have on Boeing's work force.

A company official who is familiar with the tanker program challenged the Defense Science Board's conclusions, saying that delays could cost taxpayers billions of dollars for additional maintenance and operation.

Several of the alternatives suggested by the Defense panel are inadequate, the official said.