Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE COMMITTEE WILL
BE IN ORDER.
THE CHAIR REQUESTS THAT MEMBERS
CLEAR THE CENTER AISLE AND THE
WELL.
THE COMMITTEE WILL RISE
INFORMALLY TO RECEIVE A
MESSAGE.
THE
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE CHAIR WILL RECEIVE A
MESSAGE.
THE MESSENGER: MR. SPEAKER.
A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER.
MADAM
SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY: I HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED BY THE SENATE TO
INFORM THE HOUSE THAT THE
SENATE HAS PASSED WITH
AMENDMENT H.R. 514 TO EXTEND
EXPIRING PROVISIONS OF THE
U.S.A. PATRIOTS ACT IMPROVEMENT
AND RE-AUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2005 IN WHICH THE CONCURRENCE
OF THE HOUSE IS REQUESTED.
THE
COMMITTEE WILL RESUME ITS
SITTING.
THE CHAIR WOULD ASK
THAT MEMBERS REMOVE AUDIBLE
CONVERSATION SO THE COMMITTEE
CAN CONTINUE ITS WORK ON THIS
BILL.
THE COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER.
MEMBERS WILL REMOVE
AUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS.
THE CLERK WILL CONTINUE TO
TITLE 4, PAGE 33,
LINE 1, TITLE 4, RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT TESTS AND
EVALUATIONS.
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT TESTS AND
EVALUATIONS, $9,710,998,000.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ILLINOIS RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE --
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 32
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, OFFERED BY MR. QUIGLEY
OF ILLINOIS.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES,
BUT FIRST, IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL HOLE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON
THIS AMENDMENT.
I RISE TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT THAT WILL REDUCE
SPENDING AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE BY 10%.
FIRST INCLINATION, WE KNOW THAT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IS A
NOT WHEN IT BEGETS WASTEFUL
SPENDING.
THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
BEFORE US MAKES DEEP CUTS IN
NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING.
WE ARE TRULY -- IF WE ARE TRULY
SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING OUR
LONG-TERM DEFICITS, WE MUST
LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE AND
THAT PICTURE INCLUDES DEFENSE.
COMPROMISE -- COMPRISES 50% OF
DD -- 15% OF DEFENSE SPENDING
AND DEFENSE SPENDING COMPRISES
70% OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
AS ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN,
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF, HAS SAID, THIS IS OUR
BIGGEST NATIONAL SECURITY
THREAT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD CUT 10% FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
BUDGET.
D O.D.'S -- D.O.D.'S R&D
SPENDING HAS INCREASED MORE
THAN ANY OTHER CATEGORY.
THEIR EVALUATION BUDGET THAT IS
INCREASED 63% OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS, RISING FROM 49.2 -- FROM
$49.2 BILLION IN 2001 TO $80.2
BILLION IN FY-2010.
THIS IS 33% MORE THAN THE COLD
WAR PEAK IN REAL TERMS, EVEN
THOUGH TODAY WE FACE NO
TRADITIONAL ADVERSARY
COMPARABLE TO THE SOVIET UNION.
FURTHER IN 2009, R&D SPENDING
EXCEEDED CHINA'S ENTIRE DEFENSE
BUDGET.
THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST,
LARGEST BY 10.-- BY $10.5
BILLION.
SURELY AS WE LOOK FOR PLACES TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET AND IN LIGHT
OF THE VAST SUPERIORITY OF OUR
R&D BUDGET, WE CAN AFFORD TO
REDUCE SPEND BIG TEN%.
A NUMBER OF FISCAL COMMISSIONS
AND WATCHDOG GROUPS AGREE THAT
D.O.D. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SHOULD BE CUT AND PROPOSE A
NUMBER OF PROPOSALS TO REDUCE
THE DEVELOPMENT THE SUSTAINABLE
DEFENSE TASK FORCE A PANEL OF
DEFENSE EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE
POLITICAL SPECTRUM RECENTLY
RECOMMENDED REQUIRING D.O.D. TO
SET ITS PRIORITIES AND REDUCE
R&D SPEND BIG $5 BILLION PER
YEAR OVER 10 YEARS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CATO
INSTITUTE AND THE TASK FORCE
FOR UNIFIED SECURITY BUDGET
AGREE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED
WITHOUT HARMING SECURITY AND IN
ORDER TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS.
THE FISCAL SAVINGS IN THE
BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER HAVE
ALSO PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS TO
REDUCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
COSTS.
THEY PROPOSE BY REDUCING THE
BUDGET OF 10% FOR A SAVINGS OF
$7 BILLION IN 2015.
POINTED OUT, THIS REDUCTION
WOULD LEAVE D.O.D. WITH A LEVEL
ABOVE THE PEAK OF THE REAGAN
YEARS IN REAL DOLLARS.
THE FISCAL COMMISSION CITES
SEVERAL WHICH CAN BE REDUCED
R&D COSTS AND RUN THE MARINE
CORPS F-235 WHICH HAS BEEN PUT
ON PROBATION PERIOD BY
SECRETARY GATES FOR CONTINUED
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, COST
OVERRUNS AND DELAYS.
THE BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER
OFFERS A SIMILAR PLAN CALLING
FOR REDUCED FUNDING OF R&D
PROPORTIONAL TO THE REDUCTION
SIZE OF FORCES OR 18.5%.
REDUCTION IN R&D WOULD BE
POSSIBLE, ARGUING THE
BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER, AS WE
WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN AND REDUCE OUR
FORCES ABROAD.
SUCH A REDUCTION IN R&D WILL
IMPOSE GREATER DISCIPLINE IN
RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT WHILE
CONTINUING TO BUDGET
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RESOURCES
THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY'S R&D.
A CUT IN OUR DEFENSE R&D IS
ALSO ENABLED BY NEW SECURITY
THREATS WE FACE.
SECRETARY GATES HAS CALLED FOR
A REORIENTATION OF OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY STRATEGY.
WITH A GREATER FOCUS ON
COUNTERINSURGENCY WARFARE
RATHER THAN TRADITIONAL
WARFARE.
THIS REORIENTATION CALLS FOR
INVESTMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
GATHERING AND PROVIDES
EXPLOSIVE DEVICEMENTS AND
SMALLER MACHINES SUCH AS DRONES
AND WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE AWAY
FROM THE MORE EXPENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR WEAPONS
SYSTEMS.
WE MUST REDUCE OUR DEFICIT AN
WE MUST REDUCE OUR SPENDING,
BUT IN DOING SO WE MUST PUT
EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE AND CUT
ANYWHERE WASTE EXISTS.
MR. SPEAKER, THERE'S A UNIVERSE
OF THOUGHT THAT LESS GOVERNMENT
IS BEST AND THAT GOVERNMENT CAN
DO ALMOST NOTHING RIGHT.
THAT THOUGHT ENDS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE
THEY CAN DO NO WRONG.
THEY HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE BLINDERS ON WHICH BLIND
THEM FROM THE FACT THAT IF
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THESE CUTS
AND FACE THE VERY REAL THREATS
THAT THESE DEBTS AND DEFICITS
WILL CREATE FOR US, WE HAVE TO
CUT ACROSS ALL LINES.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
AND I WOULD SAY TO
THE HOUSE, FIRST IN THE $14.8
BILLION THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED WHICH IS IN THIS
BILL, A REDUCTION IN THE
DEFENSE BUDGET, A VERY LARGE
AMOUNT OF THAT WAS CONDUCIVE TO
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.
BUT YOU CAN'T REDUCE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT TOO MUCH.
I DON'T CARE WHAT THE BEST
WEAPONS SYSTEM YOU HAVE OR
PLANNING ON HAVING OR YOU HAVE
IN THE PROCESS IN THE
CONCEPTUAL STAGE EVEN, IT NEVER
GETS TO WHERE THE SOLDIER AND
THE SAILOR AND AIRMAN AND
MARINE NEEDS IT WITHOUT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT
MAKE IT POSSIBLE AND FEASIBLE
TO BUILD IT AND DEPLOY IT.
WE'VE ALREADY CUT A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OUT OF R&D.
WE CAN'T PUT A SOLDIER ON THE
BATTLEFIELD WITH A SYSTEM THAT
HE'S WORKING WITH DOESN'T WORK,
WE CAN'T RECALL IT, NOT LIKE A
MEDICINE OR PILL OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE AN AMERICAN
TROOPER ON THE FRONT LINES, OR
ON THE GROUND OR WHETHER HE'S
IN THE AIR OR SEA, OR WHETHER
HE'S UNDER THE SEA THAT HAS A
FAILED SYSTEM BECAUSE WE FAILED
TO PROPERLY RESEARCH IT DURING
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
SOME WHO HAVE CUT DEFENSE JUST
TO CUT DEFENSE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE
DEFENSE BUDGET, THERE OUGHT TO
BE A GOOD REASON.
THAT IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR
REDUCING THIS ACCOUNT.
WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED THE
DEFENSE PART $14.8 BILLION.
AND I JUST HOPE THAT NOBODY IS
TEMPTED TO VOTE FOR THIS JUST
BECAUSE IT'S A CUT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
I RISE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN,
SIMILAR TO THE SMALL BUSINESS
INNOVATION RESEARCH, THIS IS
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE VERY --
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN BE
DOING WITHIN THE DEFENSE
BUDGET.
BUT NOT JUST FOR OUR MILITARY,
NOT JUST FOR NATIONAL SECURITY,
BUT EQUALLY FOR OUR NATIONAL
ECONOMY.
THIS IS THE LINE ITEM THAT
FUNDED THE INTERNET.
THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE
INTERNET CAME FROM DOPA WHICH
IS FUNDED IN THIS CATEGORY OF
THE DEFENSE BUDGET.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
TESTING AND EVALUATION.
IMAGINE WHAT THE INTERNET HAS
MEANT TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY,
LET ALONE THE WORLD.
LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN EGYPT
ULTIMATELY BECAUSE OF THE
THE G.P.S. SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE
IN OUR VEHICLES, WE TAKE IT FOR
GRANTED NOW, WHERE DID IT COME
FROM?
THE RTD -- RDT&E ACCOUNT.
THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO CUT
OUT?
THE UNMANNED VEHICLES, THE
DRONES, THE MOST EFFECTIVE
WAR-FIGHTING RELATIONSHIP
WEAPON WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THAT
DOESN'T PUT OUR SOLDIERS' LIVES
AT RISK, BUT IS MAXIMUMALLY
TARGETED ARE RDT&E, DEFENSE
RESEARCH, THE ENERGY RESEARCH
ACCOUNT.
WE'RE MAKING ENORMOUS STRIDES
IN THAT AREA.
PRECISION TARGETING.
THAT WAS INNOVATION WITHIN THIS
ACCOUNT.
THAT'S WHAT GIVES US OUR
CUTTING EDGE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE MOST
EFFECTIVE DEFENSE CAPABILITY IN
THE WORLD AND ALSO IS ONE OF
THE REASONS WE HAVE THE
STRONGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.
THERE'S NO OTHER AREA OF
RESEARCH.
THAT MEANS AS MUCH TO THIS
ECONOMY.
AND FRANKLY, IT MEANS A GREAT
DEAL TO THE ENTIRE WORLD'S
ECONOMY.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH, WE DO WONDERFUL
RESEARCH THERE, BUT THE SPINOFF
TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS NOT AS
EXTENSIVE AS THE SPINOFF FROM
THE RESEARCH WE DO WITHIN THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
MY GOSH, I GUESS IT'S A GOOD
THING WE GET THESE AMENDMENTS
BECAUSE IT GIVES US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY
THE TAXPAYER, WHAT THEY'RE
GETTING FOR THEIR MONEY.
WHERE THESE IDEAS COME FROM.
AND MANY OF THEM COME FROM THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE INVESTMENT WE'VE
MADE IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TESTING AND EVALUATION.
SO I OBVIOUSLY WOULD URGE
UNANIMOUS REJECTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
QUIGLEY.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE NOES HAVE IT AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 33, LINE 11,
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT, TESTS AND
EVALUATION, NAVY,
$17,961,303,000 TO REMAIN
AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION UNTIL
UP SEPTEMBER 30, 2012.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA
RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK,
AMENDMENT 2.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT 2 PRINTED
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
OFFERED BY MR. ROONEY OF
FLORIDA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTES ON HIS AMENDMENT.
SPEAKER.
I RISE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF MY
AMENDMENT STRIKING FUNDING FOR
AN EXTRA ENGINE FOR THE F-35
FIGHTER JET TO IMMEDIATELY SAVE
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS $450
MILLION.
IT IS DUBIOUS WHY CONGRESS
CONTINUES TO FUND A PROGRAM
THAT THE AIR FORCE, THE NAVY,
THE MARINE CORPS, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ADAMANTLY
STATE THEY DO NOT WANT.
JUST TODAY DEFENSE SECRETARY,
SECRETARY ROBERT GATES, CALLED
THE PROGRAM, QUOTE, AN
UNNECESSARY AND EXTRAVAGANT
EXPENSE AND STATED THAT THIS
MONEY IS NEEDED FOR HIGHER
PRIORITY DEFENSE EFFORTS.
AS WE DECIDE WHICH CUTS TO MAKE
IN OUR DEFENSE, ONE THAT WON'T
HURT OUR TROOPS TODAY, THIS
SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THE
LIST.
MR. SPEAKER, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE SENT US HERE TO CHANGE
THE WAY THAT WASHINGTON WORKS.
THIS AMENDMENT IS A PERFECT
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW YOUR
CONSTITUENTS THAT BUSINESS AS
USUAL IN WASHINGTON IS OVER.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO FOLLOW
THROUGH WITH THEIR PROMISES, TO
LISTEN TO THE VOTERS AS TO WHY
THEY SENT US HERE, AND TO VOTE
TO STRIKE THE FUNDING FOR THIS
EXPENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY
PROGRAM.
MR. SPEAKER, THANK YOU, AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
DURING THE DEBATE THE STRIKE
FUNDING FOR THE F-35
COMPETITIVE ENGINE, YOU'RE
LIKELY TO HEAR MANY STATEMENTS
THAT DON'T SQUARE WITH THE
FACTS IN THE PROGRAM.
JUST TODAY I'VE HEARD IT HAS
BEEN STATED THAT THE PRIMARY
ENGINE FOR THE F-35 AIRCRAFT
HAS IN ONE CASE 200,000 FLIGHT
TEST HOURS.
ANOTHER STATEMENT SAID 20,000
TEST HOURS.
THE REALITY IS, THE F-35
PRIMARY ENGINE HAS, AS OF THE
END OF 2010, JUST 680 FLIGHT
TEST HOURS AND HAS 90% OF ITS
FLIGHT TESTING TO GO.
YOU'RE ALSO LIKELY TO HEAR
THERE ARE ALMOST 30 U.S.
MILITARY AIRCRAFT THAT OPERATE
WITH A SOLE SOURCE ENGINE.
THAT'S INTERESTING.
THE F-35 AIRCRAFT IS A SINGLE
ENGINE AIRCRAFT.
NO FIGHTER AIRCRAFT ENGINE
THAT'S EVER BEEN REQUIRED TO DO
WHAT THE F-35 ENGINE IS
REQUIRED TO DO, PROVIDE POWERED
FLIGHT AND ALSO POWER A LIFT
FAN FOR THE SHORT TAKEOFF AND
VERTICAL LANDING OF THE F-35-B.
IN FACT, THIS CHALLENGING ACT
OF PHYSICS RESULTED IN THE
F-35-B BEING PUT ON PROBATION
BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
REQUIRING REDESIGN OF THE
F-35-B UNIQUE ENGINE
THE CURRENT ESTIMATE TO
COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
F-135, THE PRIMARY ENGINE, HAS
BEEN EXTENDED SEVERAL YEARS AND
THE ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE
THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IS $--
IS 450% ABOVE THE FEBRUARY 2008
ESTIMATED COMPLETION COSTS.
IN FACT, ONLY TWO U.S.
OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT ARE
SINGLE-ENGINE AIRCRAFT.
THE AIR FORCE F-16 AND MARINE
CORPS AV-8-B.
THE F-35 IS SCHEDULED TO
REPLACE THESE AIRCRAFT WHICH
WILL NOT BE OPERATIONAL UNTIL
AT LEAST 2016.
THE F-16 WAS THE FIRST AIRCRAFT
USED IN ALTERNATE ENGINE
BEGINNING IN THE MID 1980'S AND
STILL DOES SO TODAY.
ACCIDENT RATES HAVE TRENDED
FROM 14 MISHAPS PER 100,000
FLIGHT HOURS IN 1980 WITH THE
PRATT AND WHITNEY ENGINE WHEN
THE ALTERNATIVE ENGINE PROGRAM
WAS FIRST FUNDED TO LESS THAN
JUST TWO MISHAPS PER 100,000
FLIGHT HOURS IN 2009 FOR BOTH
THE PRATT AND WHITNEY AND G.E.
ENGINES.
A REVIEW OF THE AV-8-B ACCIDENT
DATA LAST YEAR INDICATED
ACCIDENT RATE SIX TIMES THAT OF
THE OTHER NAVY FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT, THE FA-18 AND OVER 3
F-16.
THE AV-8-B WILL BE REPLACED BY
THE F-35-B, SO WHILE THE
ALTERNATIVE ENGINE F-16 HAS
BENEFITED FROM COMPETITION WITH
AN ACCIDENT RATE HAVING
DECLINED BY A FACTOR OF SEVEN,
THE AV-8-B HAS AN ACCIDENT RATE
3 1/2 TIMES THAT OF THE F-16.
SOME WILL SITE THE F-136,
THAT'S THE COMPETITIVE ENGINE,
WILL REQUIRE $2.9 BILLION OVER
SIX YEARS TO MAKE IT
COMPETITION READY.
IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THE
COST INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT
FOR THE CURRENT PRIMARY ENGINE,
THE 135, IS $3.4 BILLION AND
DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER
GOVERNMENT COSTS, INDEPENDENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING.
THE ENTIRE REMAINING
DEVELOPMENT OF THE F-35
COMPETITIVE ENGINE COULD HAVE
BEEN FUNDED WITH THE OVERRUN TO
DATE IF THE F-35 PRIMARY ENGINE
AND FURTHER, THE G.A.O. FOUND
KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE COST TO
THE F-35 COMPETITIVE
ENGINE WERE UNNECESSARILY
PESSIMISTIC BASED ON HISTORIC
EXPERIENCE WITH THE ORIGINAL
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROGRAM.
ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAS SAID
THAT THE F-35 PRIMARY ENGINE IS
FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS AHEAD OF
THE F-136 ALTERNATE ENGINE IN
DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL.
FIRST, THE ACQUISITION STRATEGY
FOR THE F-35 COMPETITIVE ENGINE
CALLED FOR IT TO BEGIN FOUR
YEARS AFTER THE PRIMARY ENGINE.
THE PENTAGON TOLD US LAST APRIL
THE COMPETITIVE ENGINE WAS TWO
TO THREE MONTHS BEHIND SCHEDULE
OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND AT THE
SAME TIME THE PENTAGON NOTED --
NOTIFIED THE COMMITTEE THE
F-135 PRIMARY ENGINE WAS 24
MONTHS BEHIND THE SCHEDULE SET
IN THE ORIGINAL OCTOBER 2001
CONTRACT.
IN OTHER WORDS, HAD BOTH
ENGIBBS BEGUN AT THE SAME TIME
THE -- ENGINE BEGUN AT THE SAME
TIME THE ALTERNATIVE ENGINE
WOULD BE TWO YEARS AHEAD OF THE
PRIMARY ENGINE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S
CONFUSION OVER THE FACTS
RELATED TO THIS ISSUE.
OUR COMMITTEE FOLLOWED THIS
ISSUE OVER 15 YEARS AND ASK YOU
TO SUPPORT THE F-35 COMPETITIVE
ENGINE PROGRAM AS AN IMPORTANT
ELEMENT TO CONTROLLING F-35
PROGRAM COSTS AND FUTURE FORCE
READINESS.
THE G.A.O. HAS LOOKED AT THE
COMPETITIVE ENGINE PROGRAMS AND
HAVE NOTED HISTORICALLY THE
THINGS.
IT MAKES THEM CHEAPER AND IT
MAKE THEMS BETTER.
FURTHERMORE, THIS AIRCRAFT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE ULTIMATELY 95%
OF ALL THE AIRCRAFTS IN ALL OUR
SERVICES.
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM
WITH THE ENGINE AND WE HAD TO
STAND DOWN IN WE'D HAVE NO
FIGHTER AIRCRAFT IN ANY OF OUR
SERVICES.
IT'S ESSENTIAL WE CONTINUE WITH
THE ALTERNATIVE ENGINE, I HOPE
NOT JUST TO CONTINUE THE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE THE
PRIMARY BETTER AND CHEAPER BUT
TO HAVE A SECONDARY BACKUP
ENGINE.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE AND
MOVE THE -- MOVE TO STRIKE THE
RECK --
THE G.E. ENGINE LOST TO ONE
BROUGHT BY PRATT AND WHITNEY.
A SOLE-SOURCE DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT WAS SIGNED IN 2005 BUT
SINCE 2007, CONGRESS PROVIDED
FOR A JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
ENGINE ALTERNATIVE.
THIS INCLUDES $450
MILLION FOR THE ALTERNATE EP
GIN IN THE JOINT STRIKE
FIGHTER.
ACCORDING TO THE PENTAGON, THE
SECOND ENGINE'S COST IS CLOSE
TO $2.9 BILLION.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS
CLEAR.
IN THEIR VIEW, OUR MILITARY AND
THE TAX PAYERS ARE BEST SERVED
BY NOT PURSUING A SECOND
ENGINE.
THERE ARE MORE PRESSING
PRIORITIES.
THERE IS JUST NO GUARANTEE THAT
HAVING TWO ENGINES WILL CREATE
ENOUGH LONG-TERM SAVINGS TO
OUTWEIGH THE NEAR-TERM COSTS OF
NEARLY $3 BILLION.
THE RISK FROM A SINGLE ENGINE
WITH PAST ACQUISITIONS.
A SINGLE ENGINE IS NOT A NEW
APPROACH AND DOES NOT CREATE
DANGEROUS LEVELS OF RISK.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO CURRENT
AIRCRAFT PROGRAM THE F- 2 AND
F-18, WHICH BOTH UTILIZE A
SINGLE ENGINE PROVIDER.
ADDITIONAL COSTS AND THE BURDEN
OF MAINTAINING TWO SYSTEMS ARE
NOT OFFSET BY THE POTENTIAL
SAVINGS GENERATED THROUGH
COMPETITION.
WE ARE NOT MAKING PROCUREMENT
DECISIONS IN A VACUUM.
IF WE HAD ALL THE MONEY IN THE
WORLD, MAYBE AN ALTERNATE
ENGINE WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
BUT WE DON'T.
WE HAVE A DEFICIT OF $1.5
TRILLION AND A DEBT OF $4
TRILLION AND ALL OUR FUNDING
THAT.
I URGE SUPPORT FOR THE ROMNEY
AMENDMENT, MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
BACK.
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE TO
STRIKE THE WE CAN SITH NUMBER
OF WORDS.
-- THE RECK SIT NUMBER OF WORDS
-- THE RECK SITH NUMBER OF
WORDS.
THERE'S A LOT OF
POLICIES TO CONTINUE THIS
ISSUE.
I DON'T PARTICULARLY HAVE A DOG
IN THE HUNT BUT I'D LIKE TO
SHARE WITH YOU WHY I DISAGREE
WITH THE AMENDMENT.
WHY I THINK IT'S IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST TO HAVE AN
ALTERNATIVE ENGINE.
THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAD IN
THE 1980'S, WITH THE F-16
ENGINE, IT SEEMS TO ME SHOULD
INFORM THIS DEBATE.
WE HAD A SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT
BASICALLY, A SINGLE ENGINE, FOR
THE F-16.
IT WAS WAY OVER BUDGET AND
OUTSIDE OF SCHEDULE.
ANY REASONABLE SCHEDULE,
REALLY.
PRODUCTION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
DELAYED.
AND WE HAD VERY LITTLE LEVRANL.
UNTIL WE BROUGHT IN AN
ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTOR.
WE BROUGHT IN COMPETITION.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE GOT RIGHT
ON SCHEDULE AND ON BUDGET.
AND I THINK THIS SITUATION IS
ANALOGOUS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $100
BILLION--- A $100 BILLION
CONTRACT.
THE PRINCIPLE JET FIGHTER WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE FOR THE NEXT
GENERATION AND WE HAVE ONE
EN-IN MANUFACTURER THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE RELIANT UPON.
IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE ONE OF
OUR MOST SUBSTANTIAL EXPORTS.
TO OTHER MILITARIES AROUND THE
WORLD.
IT'S GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL
SOURCE OF JOBS AND REVENUE AND
IN FACT I HAVE TO SAY MILITARY
DOMINANCE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS
HAVING COMPETITION, ENSURE THAT
WE GET THE BEST *** FOR THE
BUCK FOR THE TAXPAYERS.
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
HAS ESTIMATED THAT OVER THE
LONG RUN, WE WILL SAVE MONEY
THROUGH THIS COMPETITION.
THAT'S WHY THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
AND DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE HAVE DECIDED AFTER A
GREAT DEAL OF DELIBERATION THAT
WE NEED COMPETITION IN THIS
PROGRAM.
IF IT WAS NOT SUCH A MAJOR
PROGRAM, IF IT WAS NOT SO
EXPENSIVE, $100 BILLION
SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT, MAYBE IT
WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED.
BUT WE ARE SO DEPENDENT UPON
ONE MANUFACTURER, IT WAS THE --
BASICALLY THE CONSENSUS OF THE
AUTHORIZING AND APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES THAT WE SHOULD LOOK
TO TWO MANUFACTURERS TO COMPETE
AGAINST EACH OTHER AND TO GIVE
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER THE
GREATEST *** FOR THE BUCK, THE
MOST EFFECTIVE AND MOST
EFFICIENT JET FIGHTER THAT WE
CAN POSSIBLY PRODUCE.
I THINK WE ALL AGREE WE BELIEVE
IN THE PRINCIPLE OF
COMPETITION.
WHEN YOU HAVE MONOPOLY CONTROL,
INVARIABLY, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN
THAT ANYBODY'S AT FAULT, BUT
INVARIABLY, YOU SLACK OFF A
LITTLE BIT.
IT'S OK TO BUMP YOUR NUMBERS UP
A LITTLE BIT, PERHAPS.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO COMPETE
WITH SOMETHING ELSE, YOU'RE
ALWAYS LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM
LINE, ALWAYS WANTING A HIGHER
QUALITY, A LESS EXPENSIVE
WEAPON.
PRODUCT.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ALL
ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT A BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY.
COMPETITION.
FOR THAT REASON, I OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MISSOURI RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
THIS IS A DEBATE
THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SOME
TIME.
THERE ARE MANY OF US WHO SERVE
ON THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
AND HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW AN
THE PENTAGON ON THIS SUBJECT.
SO WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE
SECOND ENGINE?
SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED.
SECURITY.
YOU'VE GOT BASICALLY AN
AIRCRAFT NOW THAT'S GOING TO BE
SERVING THE MARINE CORPS, THE
NAVY AND THE AIR FORCE, ALL OF
OUR SERVICES WILL BE DEPENDENT
ON THIS ONE AIRCRAFT, WHICH IS
THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER.
AND THAT PARTICULAR JOINT
STRIKE FIGHTER HAS ONE ENGINE.
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU WANT IT TO
WORK WELL, THE ENGINE HAS TO
RUN RIGHT.
SO THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEES HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT
THIS AND THOSE WITH A FEW MORE
WHISKERS HERE UNDERSTAND THE
PROBLEM THAT CAME ALONG ON THE
F-16, WHERE WE HAD AN ENGINE
MANUFACTURER THAT COULDN'T GET
THE ENGINE DONE AND THE WHOLE
AIRFRAME WAS AT RISK.
IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE THE
AIRFRAME FOR THREE OF THE
DIFFERENT, THE MARINES, NAVY,
AND AIR FORCE.
AND SO THIS CONGRESS, WISELY,
DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TWO ENGINES.
NOW -- SO FIRST OF ALL, FROM A
SECURITY POINT OF VIEW, WHAT
THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE AN ENGINE
THAT'S ON TIME AND ON DELIVERY.
CERTAINLY, THE COMPETITION IS
ANOTHER GOOD POINT.
YOU SAVE A LOT OF MONEY IF
YOU'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT
CONTRACTORS BIDDING AGAINST
EACH OTHER, WE'RE GOING TO GET
A GOOD PRICE ON THE INJINS, AND
THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT,
PARTICULARLY YEAR IN AND YEAR
OUT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER
THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
MENTIONED THAT I'VE HEARD THIS
EVENING.
ONE IS THAT THE SECOND ENGINE
ALSO HAS 10% TO 15% MORE
THRUST.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
WELL, IT'S INTERESTING, IF YOU
HAPPEN TO BE A MARINE CORPS
GUY, THE MARINE VERSION OF THIS
IS STAALED A STOBALL, IT HAS TO
TAKE OFF SITTING ON A DECK AND
TAKES OFF STRAIGHT UP.
THAT TAKES A LOT OF THRUST.
THE FIRST ENGINE IS ABSOLUTELY
MAXED OUT AND WHAT WE SEE OVER
TIME IS WE WANT TO PUT MORE
STUFF IN OUR AIRPLANES.
WHEN YOU DO THAT, IT GETS
THRUST.
THE SECOND ENGINE OFFERS THAT
10% TO 15% MORE THRUST.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION TO
DEFINE WHAT THAT'S WORST, BUT
-- WORTH, BUT THAT EXTRA 10% OR
15% COULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE
OF A STABLE AIRCRAFT THAT COULD
CARRY SOME PARTICULAR
ADDITIONAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
WE MAY NEED IN THE FUTURE.
THE OTHER POINT I'VE NOT HEARD
MADE AND IS KIND OF KNEW TO US,
THAT IS, THESE ENGINES ARE BIG
SUCKER.
-- SUCKERS.
THEY ARE VERY, VERY BIG
TURBINES.
AND THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF POWER THEY'RE
GENERATING.
IF WE'VE GOT ONE TURBINE THAT
WORKS FOR THE MARINES, NAVY,
AND AIR FORCE.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE WERE TO
USE THAT TUR PINE IN OTHER
APPLICATIONS?
YOU GET ALL THE MORE BENEFIT OF
HAVING FEWER PARTS AND HAVING
INTERCHANGEABILITY.
THESE ARE BOLT-FOR-BOLT
INTERCHANGEABLE.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE START TO
DEEP STRIKE BOMBER?
THE QUESTION -- ONE QUESTION
YOU NEED?
IS IT A TWO-ENGINE OR A
FOUR-ENGINE?
FOUR IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET THE
POWER OF TWO ENGINES INTO ONE
AND MAKE A TWO EN-IN BOMBER AND
USE THE SAME ENGINES THAT ARE
GOING INTO J.S.S., SO NOW
YOU'VE GOT A UNIVERSAL ENGINE
WORKING ON A NUMBER OF
PLATFORMS.
A WHOLE LOT OF SIMPLICITY AND
COST FOR THAT TYPE OF THING.
IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUR EGGS
IN ONE BASKET, WE HAVE TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO
PEOPLE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE COMPETITION
AND THE ADDITIONAL THRUST FOR
THE SECOND ENGINE.
I WOULD RECOMMEND A NO VOTE ON
THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA RISE?
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. SPEAKER, AS A RANKING
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEES
AND THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
PROGRAM, I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THREE REASONS.
THE COMPETITIVE PROGRAM WILL
SAVE BILLIONS IN TAXPAYER
DOLLARS.
SEC, IT WILL CREATE THOUSANDS
OF JOBS, AND THIRD IT IS
SECURITY.
I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE ARE
ISSUES THAT ALL OF US SHARE A
BIPARTISAN CONCERN ABOUT.
I'M PLEASED IN FACT, TO JOIN
BOTH THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE FULL
COMMITTEE AS WELL AS MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES FROM BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE, DEMOCRATIC AND
REPUBLICAN, IN SUPPORTING THIS
COMPETITIVE PROGRAM FOR THE
ALTERNATIVE ENGINE.
FIRST, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MAY
HAVE HEARD, THE COMPETITIVE
ENGINE PROGRAM IS ABOUT SAVING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER
MONEY.
COMPETITION DOES DRIVE DOWN
COSTS, DOES RAISE QUALITY AND
ENSURES RESPONSIVENESS FROM THE
MANUFACTURERS.
WITH THE J.S.F. PROGRAM BEING
THE LARGEST DEFENSE PROGRAM IN
OUR NATION'S HISTORY, WE HAVE
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT
COMPETITION TO GET THE BEST
QUALITY AND LOWEST PRICE.
STRIKING FUNDING
FOR A COMPETITIVE ENGINE WILL
GIVE A 30-YEAR, $100 BILLION
MONOPOLY TO A SOLE CONTRACTOR.
FUNDING THE OTHER ENGINE WILL
ALLOW TWO COMPANIES TO COMPETE
HEAD-TO-HEAD, RULLING IN THE
BEST PRICE AND BEST ENGINE.
G.A.O. STUDIES INDICATE THAT
THE COMPETITION FROM THE F-136
ENGINE WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS $21
BILLION OVER THE LIFE OF THE
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM.
SECONDLY, THE COMPETITIVE
JOBS.
CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 2,500 U.S.
JOBS SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENGINE.
ONCE FULL PRODUCTION OCCURS,
THE NUMBER WOULD RISE TO 4,000.
THIRD, IT'S ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY.
WITHOUT A COMPETITIVE ENGINE,
U.S. AND ALLIED FORCES WILL BE
DEPENDENT ENTIRELY ON ONE
ENGINE FOR 90% OF OUR FIGHTER
JET FLEETS.
ONE SMALL PROBLEM COULD GROUND
THE ENTIRE FLEET, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT NONE OF US WOULD
WANT.
THIS PROGRAM IS NOT ABOUT
CONTRACTOR OVER ANOTHER.
IT IS ABOUT HAVING STRONG,
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR
COMPETITION, FOR CREATING JOBS,
AND FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND
FOR SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY.
IN FACT, THIS WAS DEMONSTRATED
WHEN THIS WAS VOTED UPON LAST
YEAR WHEN WE HAD 116
REPUBLICANS AND 115 DEMOCRATS,
THAT'S ABOUT AS EVEN AS YOU CAN
GET, VOTE FOR THE FUNDING OF
THE ALTERNATIVE COMPETITIVE
PROGRAM.
FOR THESE REASONS, I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT AND RISE
IN SUPPORT OF SAVING $21
BILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY,
CREATING JOBS AND ENSURING OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH THE
ALTERNATIVE ENGINE COMPETITIVE
PROGRAM.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I STAND IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS AMENDMENT FOR A FEW
REASONS, NOT ANY AS ELOQUENT AS
THE ONES ALREADY STATED BUT
SOME FAIRLY SIMPLE REASONS, I
THINK.
NUMBER ONE, WHAT IF ONE OF US
HERE, ONE OF US MEMBERS, A
CONGRESSMAN, EARMARKED $100
BILLION PROJECT TODAY?
I THINK THERE WOULD BE OUTCRY
FROM ALL OVER.
THIS.
IF WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO GIVE
THIS ONE JOB WORTH $100 BILLION
TO ONE COMPANY.
WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
THERE'S A REASON WE DON'T DO IT
ANYMORE.
BECAUSE IT LEADS TO CORRUPTION
AND IT LEADS TO PEOPLE DOING
THINGS THEY SHOULD NOT BE
DOING.
WE SHOULDN'T GIVE THE D.O.D.
THE SAME, LET'S CALL IT
TEMPTATIONS, TO HAVE TO GIVE
$100 BILLION CONTRACT TO ONE
NUMBER TWO.
COMPETITION.
IT'S INTERESTING NOW TO SEE HOW
THINGS HAVE SWITCHED.
YOU HAVE FOLK WHO WAS BEEN
TALKING ABOUT COMPETITION WHEN
IT COMES TO HEALTH CARE,
COMPETITION WHEN IT COMES TO
BUSINESS, NOW SAYING THAT
COMPETITION WILL BRING QUALITY
DOWN AND BRING COST UP.
THAT'S NOT WHAT
COMPETITION DOES.
COMPETITION BRINGS QUALITY UP
AN COSTS DOWN.
I THINK THAT THAT IS -- THERE
IS DEFINITELY BIPARTISAN
AGREEMENT ON THAT.
AND NUMBER THREE, I SERVED IN
AFGHANISTAN ON MY THIRD TOUR
AND WHEN I WAS OVER THERE ABOUT
MIDWAY THROUGH IN 2007, AN F-18
WENT DOWN.
IT WENT DOWN HERE, STATESIDE.
AN THE REASON IT WENT DOWN, IT
HAD A CRACKED WING.
WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT
TIME WAS IF THAT WAS AN
INHERENT FLAW IN THE F-18
STRUCTURE.
WE SHUT DOWN F-18 FLIGHTS UNTIL
WE COULD FIGURE OUT IF THIS
PROBLEM IS INHERENT IN ALL
F-18'S OR JUST THAT ONE
PARTICULAR F-18.
WE ARE GOING TO GROUND THE FREE
WORLD'S NEW JET.
THAT'S WHAT WILL BE GROUNDED
BECAUSE THE F-45 IS BEING USED
BY OTHER COUNTRIES EXCEPT FOR
THE ARMY AND IF IT GOES DOWN AND
STOP FLIGHT FOR IT, IT COULD PUT
PEOPLE IN HARM'S WAY.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS FRANKLY NOT A
MONEY ISSUE OR A JOBS' ISSUE BUT
OPERATIONAL RISK.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A BACKUP ENGINE
FOR THE MAIN FIGHTER IN THIS
NATION AND OTHER NATIONS GOING
FORWARD.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
I THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS DEBATE AND I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO EXTEND AND REVISE MY
REMARKS.
I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS
NEITHER OF THE TWO FINE
COMPANIES THAT ARE ARGUING OVER
THIS HAS JOBS IN MY DISTRICT
THAT I'M AWARE OF.
I'M INVOLVED IN THIS ARGUMENT
BECAUSE I HAVE THOUSANDS OF
SERVICE PERSONNEL WHO SERVE OUR
COUNTRY AND I HAVE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF TAXPAYERS WHO PAY
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF OUR
COUNTRY.
AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THE
RIGHT ANSWER FOR OUR SERVICE
PERSONNEL AND FOR OUR TAXPAYERS
IS TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD MANY GOOD REASONS.
I THINK THE ONES THAT STAND OUT
THE MOST ARE THESE.
AS THE CHAIR WELL KNOWS, HE AND
I WERE GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT
DEFENSE PROCUREMENT
ACROSS-THE-BOARD THE LAST THREE
OR FOUR YEARS.
WORKED ON THIS.
WE PRODUCED TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT PASSED THE
HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY.
AND IN THAT PROCESS OF DEMOCRAT
AND REPUBLICAN WORKING TOGETHER,
WE LEARNED SOMETHING VERY
DISTURBING AND THAT WAS IN A
MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, COSTS
SKYROCKETED BY $296 BILLION OVER
WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO COST
AND THE DELAY IN FIELDING THESE
SYSTEMS HAD GONE FROM AN AVERAGE
OF 16 MONTHS BEHIND TO 22 MONTHS
BEHIND.
THAT WAS VERY UNWELCOME NEWS.
IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCTING
ANALYSIS, WE LEARNED SOMETHING
THAT MOST AMERICANS KNOW.
WHEN YOU HAVE MORE CHOICE AND
YOU HAVE MORE COMPETITION, YOU
GET A BETTER RESULT.
I THINK MOST OF US WHEN WE HAVE
HAD TO BUY A HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE
OR A CAR, GO OUT AND GET A
COUPLE OF QUOTES.
WE HAVE PEOPLE COMPETE AGAINST
EACH OTHER.
THAT VERY COMMONSENSE ARGUMENT
IS THE CORE ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF
US THIS EVENING.
AND THE BURDEN IS ON THOSE WHO
SAY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE
COMPETITION AND THOSE WHO SAY
THAT THE STATUS QUO WOULD BE OK
IF WE HAD ONLY ONE CONTRACTOR.
THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE
BEYOND MONEY IS ABOUT THE
OPERATIONAL CAPACITY OF OUR
ARMED FORCES.
THE UNITED STATES ENJOYS THE
BLESSING OF MILITARY SUPERIORITY
THIS EVENING, I THINK FOR TWO
ESSENTIAL REASONS.
THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT ONE
IS THE QUALITY OF THE YOUNG MEN
US.
WITHOUT QUESTION, THAT'S THE
MOST IMPORTANT REASON.
BUT THE SECOND, I BELIEVE, IS
OUR SUPERIORITY IN THE AIR.
OUR ABILITY IN ANY CORNER OF THE
GLOBE TO ESTABLISH DOMINANCE
OVER THE BATTLE SPACE BY VIRTUE
OF THE QUALITY OF OUR AIR
ASSETS.
THE OPERABILITY OF THOSE AIR
ASSETS, AS MR. HUNTER MENTIONED
A FEW MINUTES AGO, IS AT RISK IF
WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON ONE SUPPLY
CHAIN, ONE MANUFACTURING
PROCESS, ONE SET OF PARTS AND
PROBLEM.
YOU ALWAYS WANT TO HAVE A PLAN
B.
THIS WOULD BE A DIFFICULT CALL
IF HAVING THAT PLAN B OPERATION
NEAL COST US MORE MONEY.
BUT IT ISN'T A DIFFICULT CALL,
BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
HAVING THE PLAN B, HAVING THE
OPTION SAVES MONEY FOR THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER, GAMPLET A.O.
ESTIMATED $21 BILLION OVER TIME
BECAUSE OF THE MERITS AND
BENEFITS OF CHOICE OF
COMPETITION.
WE HAVE TWO FINE ENTERPRISES
INVOLVED WITH THESE ENGINES AND
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO IS CREATE A
SYSTEM WHERE EACH FLOURISHES NOT
BECAUSE OF THE JOB CREATION THAT
WILL OCCUR, BUT THAT IS A
WELCOMED BENEFIT, BUT BECAUSE
THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT
THOSE WHO SERVE US.
THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO AVOID
PUTTING THEM AT RISK BECAUSE OF
OPERATIONAL DEFECTS AND BECAUSE
THE BENEFITS AND MERITS OF
COMPETITION WILL REDUCE PRESSURE
ON THE TAXPAYERS OF $21 I WILL
MILLION.
I THANK THE CHAIR FOR HIS WORK
ON THIS SUBJECT AND URGE MEMBERS
TO DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I MOVE THAT THE HOUSE
DO NOW RISE.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE MOTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AYES HAVE IT.
THE COMMITTEE RISES.
MR.
CHAIRMAN?
THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE HOUSE HAVING UNDER
CONSIDERATION H.R. 1, IT HAS
COME TO NO RESOLUTION THEREON.
THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE HOUSE HAS COME TO NO
RESOLUTION DELON.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I SEND TO THE DESK A
PRIVILEGED REPORT FROM THE
COMMITTEE OF RULES FOR FILING
UNDER THE RULES.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE.
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY
HOUSE RESOLUTION 93, RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
H.R. 514, TO EXTEND EXPIRING
PROVISIONS OF THE U.S.A. PATRIOT
AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005 AND
INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND
TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
RELATING TO ACCESS OF BUSINESS
RECORDS, INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS
AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS AND
ROVING WIRETAPS UNTIL DECEMBER
8, 2011.
REFERRED TO THE HOUSE CALENDAR
AND ORDERED PRINTED.
THE CHAIR DECLARES THE HOUSE IN
THE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 1.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS,
MR. CONAWAY, KINDLY RESUME THE
CHAIR.
--
THE CLERK WILL REPORT
BY TITLE.
A BILL MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE
OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEN THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE ROSE EARLIER TODAY, --
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO RISE?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE DEBATE THE
FUNDING OF A COMPETING ENGINE
FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
PROGRAM, THERE ARE A FEW KEY
POINTS WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND.
FIRST, COMPETITION HAS LONG BEEN
THE BEST WAY TO CONTROL COSTS ON
LARGE DEFENSE PROGRAMS AND
COMPETITION IS THE CENTERPIECE
OF ACQUISITION REFORM.
BY FUNDING COMPETING ENGINES FOR
THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER, WE CAN
SAVE $21 BILLION, LET ME REPETE,
$21 BILLION ACCORDING TO THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE.
BEYOND THE G.A.O.'S PROJECTIONS,
COMPETITION ALSO LEADS TO A MORE
EFFICIENT PROCESS, QUICKER
RESPONSIVENESS.
THE QUAD DRENIAL DEFENSE PANEL
CONCLUDED AND I QUOTE, HISTORY
HAS SHOWN THE ONLY RELIABLE
SOURCE OF PRICE REDUCTION
THROUGH THE LIFE OF A PROGRAM IS
COMPETITION BETWEEN DUEL
SERVICES, UNQUOTE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE ABSENCE OF
COMPETITION MAKES IT HARDER TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT
INEVITABLY ARISE WITH
SOPHISTICATED AND CRITICAL
TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS JET ENGINES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE THE JOINT
STRIKE FIGHTER.
AND UNDER THE THEORY IT COULD
EFFECTIVELY DERIVE AN ENGINE FOR
ITS ENGINE.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT AS EASY
AS ANTICIPATED.
THE LEAD ENGINE FOR THE JOINT
STRIKE FIGHTER IS BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OVER BUDGET AND WORSE,
STRUGGLING TO PERFORM THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AIRCRAFT.
I QUOTE DIRECT ILY FROM THE
G.A.O. REPORT.
THE PRATT ENGINE ESTIMATED TO
COST $7.3 BILLION, 50% INCREASE
OVER THE ORIGINAL CAT AWARD.
THE TOTAL PROJECTED COST
INCREASED $800 MILLION IN 2008
ALONE.
ENGINE DEVELOPMENT COST
INCREASES PRIMARILY RESULTED
FROM HIGHER LABOR AND MATERIALS,
SUPPLIER PROBLEMS AND THE REWORK
NEEDED TO CORRECT EFFICIENCIES
WITH AN ENGINE BLADE DURING
ENGINE TEST PROBLEMS HAVE ALSO
SLOWED DEVELOPMENT.
THE G.A.O. FURTHER CONFIRMED AN
ADDITIONAL PROJECT COST INCREASE
OF $1.2 BILLION IN 2010 ALONE TO
COVER HIGHER THAN EXPECTED
COSTS, TOOLING AND OTHER ITEMS.
AND ON FEBRUARY 11, 2011,
ANOTHER COST OVERRUN IN THE LEAD
ENGINE WAS ANNOUNCED, THIS TIME
TO THE TALING $1 BILLION
BRINGING TOTAL COST OVERRUNS ON
THE LEAD ENGINE IS $3.5 BILLION.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAYS
WE DON'T NEED A SECOND ENGINE,
BUT THESE WON'T FIX THEMSELVES.
ONLY COMPETITION WILL HELP
CONTROL COSTS AND CREATE A
BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS.
I ASK YOU, HOW CAN WE NOT AFFORD
TO INVEST IN A COMPETING ENGINE.
BOTTOM LINE, HAVING THE ENGINE
MAKERS FIGHT HEAD TO HEAD WILL
GIVE US A FAR MORE CAPABLE
STRIKE FIGHTER AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENTLEMAN
FROM FLORIDA'S AMENDMENT AND AS
A FELLOW MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, I WANT
TO SHARE SOME OF THE LENGTH OF
INPUT THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE TALKING
ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
WE HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF
HEARING FROM THE WAR FIGHTERS,
HEADS OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES
THAT ARE DEALING WITH THIS
PROGRAM, NAVY, MARINES, AIR
FORCE AND THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY
STATED THAT THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WASTEFUL
SPENDING WHICH AGAIN, BOTH THE
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE HAVE ALSO SUPPORTED.
ON THE SEA POWER SUBCOMMITTEE
THAT I SERVE ON, THE HEAD OF THE
NAVY TALKED ABOUT THE DISASTROUS
OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF HAVING TWO
ENGINES WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF
OUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.
AS HE STATED, ONE CAN LOOK AT A
CARRIER AND SEE A VERY LARGE
SHIP, BUT WHEN THE SHIP IS
DEPLOYED, WE HAVE THINGS PACKED
IN EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY TO
PROVIDE THAT RESPONSIVENESS.
HAVING TO STOCK TWO DIFFERENT
TYPES OF ENGINES IS NOT
PRACTICAL.
IT WOULD BE UNREALISTIC TO HAVE
A SITUATION WHERE THE F-35-B AND
C WHICH ARE THE PLANES THAT LAND
HAVE TO FLY WITH TWO SEPARATE
ENGINES THAT WOULD REQUIRE TWO
SEPARATE SYSTEMS OF MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR.
AND THE NOTION THAT WAS STATED
EARLIER THAT THEY ARE SOME HOW
INTERCHANGEABLE, WE MAY AS WELL
HAVE ONE ENGINE SYSTEM IN TERMS
OF THE F-18 SUPERHORNETS WHICH
LAND ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS EVERY
DAY OF THE YEAR.
ONE ENGINE SUPPLIER PROVIDES THE
ENGINES FOR THOSE SUPERHORNETS,
G.E.
AND GOOD FOR THEM.
AND THE ADMIRAL SAID HE DOESN'T
CARE WHICH ENGINE IT IS, BUT THE
NAVY NEEDS TO HAVE ONLY ONE
SYSTEM IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE
OPERATIONAL ON THE 11 AIRCRAFT
CARRIERS THAT MAKE UP A KEY
COMPONENT OF OUR NATIONAL
DEFENSE.
ONE PERSON ON THE COMMITTEE SORT
OF SUGGESTED THE FACT THAT MAYBE
A WAY TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM
WOULD BE TO HAVE G.E. AIRCRAFT
CARRIERS AND PRATT-WHITNEY
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, WHICH
HIGHLIGHTS THE ABSURDITY OF THE
NOTION THAT YOU WILL HAVE TWO
ENGINE WEAPONS SYSTEMS.
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF TALK
ABOUT COMPETITION.
I'M SURE THERE WILL BE REBUTTAL
ABOUT THE FACT THERE WAS A
COMPETITION WHICH LED INTO THE
SELECTION OF THE PRATT-WHITNEY
ENGINE.
BUT COMPETITION IS ONE THING.
REDUNDANCY AND WASTE IS ANOTHER.
WE DON'T HAVE TWO OF EVERYTHING
IN TERMS OF OUR PROCUREMENT
SYSTEM.
WE DON'T HAVE TWO ENGINES FOR
BLACK HAWKS OR TWO ENGINES FOR
OUR SHIPS.
WE DON'T HAVE TWO NUCLEAR
REACTOR SYSTEMS FOR OUR
SUBMARINES OR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.
WE DON'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE
ENGINES FOR OUR DESTROYERS.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS
SOMETIMES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
EFFICIENCY AND THAT'S WHERE WE
ARE TODAY WITH THE F-35 PROGRAM.
THE NOTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO
ADD $3 BILLION TO PRODUCTION
COSTS BY HAVING A SEPARATE
ALTERNATE ENGINE AND ALL OF THE
HEADACHES WHICH THE ADD MIRL
DESCRIBED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
OUR MILITARY CAN AFFORD TODAY.
WE HAVE REACHED A TIPPING POINT
IN TERMS OF OUR MILITARY BUDGET
AND WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON
EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT USE OF
RESOURCES TO HELP THE WAR
FIGHTER AND ADVANCE OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND HAVING A BLOATED,
WASTEFUL SYSTEM OF AN ALTERNATE
ENGINE WHICH IS THE WAY THE
"WASHINGTON POST" DESCRIBED THIS
PROGRAM IS NOT THE WAY TO
ACHIEVE THIS GOAL AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO PASS THIS
AMENDMENT FOR COST-EFFECTIVE,
EFFICIENT USE OF OUR RESOURCES
FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
TO STRIKE THE REQUISITE
NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED.
THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO GO.
CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED FUNDING FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE
ENGINE BECAUSE CONGRESS KNOW IT
IS FULL WELL THE BENEFITS OF
COMPETITION IN WEAPONS
ACCUSATION -- ACQUISITION.
LAST SESSION, WE PASSED THE
WEAPONS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT
OF 2009.
IN FACT, OUR SENATE COLLEAGUES
AGREED 95-0.
IF THERE IS SUCH OVERWHELMING,
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT IN BOTH
CHAMBERS ON THE NEED FOR
COMPETITION IN WEAPONS SYSTEMS
ACQUISITION, THEN WHY ARE WE
TAKING A VOTE TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITION FOR THE PROPULSION
SYSTEM THAT IS GOING TO POWER
95% OF OUR TACTICAL FIGHTER
FLEET OVER THE NEXT 40 YEARS?
SECTION 202 OF THE WEAPONS
SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT
CLEARLY STATES THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE SHALL ENSURE THAT THE
ACQUISITION STRATEGY FOR EACH
MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAM INCLUDES MEASURES TO
ENSURE COMPETITION THROUGHOUT
THE LIFE CYCLE OF SUCH PROGRAM.
THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S LARGEST
PROCUREMENT PROGRAM.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PLAN
CALLS FOR ACQUIRING NEARLY
2,500 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTERS,
HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL F-35'S
ARE EXPECTED TO BE PURCHASED
BYALL LIES.
IF THE PROPULSION SYSTEM THAT
POWERS NEARLY 3,000 TACTICAL
DEFENSE DOESN'T QUALIFY I'M NOT
SURE WHAT DOES.
THIS WILL HAND PRATT-WHITNEY A
$100 BILLION MONOPOLIEN A
30-YEAR CONTRACT THAT'S NEVER
BEEN COMPETITIVE -- MONOPOLY ON
A 30-YEAR CONTRACT THAT'S NEVER
BEEN COMPETITIVELY BID.
THEY WILL SAY THEY WON THE
COMPETITION WHEN LOCKHEED
MARTIN WAS AWARDED THE CONTRACT
FOR THE JOINT STRIKET FIGHTER.
NOT SO FAST.
LAST MAYE, TWO OFFICIALS
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE
GOVERNMENT AND OVERSIGHT REFORM
SCHE ON SECURITY THAT THE
COMPETITION WAS DONE AT THE
CONTRACTOR LEVEL AND THE
ENGINES WERE NEVER ACTUALLY
THE POINT OF ALL THIS, MR.
SPEAKER, IS THAT THE ENGINE
COMPETITION NEVER OCCURRED IN
THIS DISINGENUOUS -- AND IT IS
DISINGENUOUS TO ARGUE THAT
PRATT-WHITNEY HAS ALREADY WON.
THE FACT IS, THE COMPETITION
WILL DRIVE DOWN COSTS, IMPROVE
PRODUCT QUALITY AND CONTRACTOR
RESPONSIVENESS, DRIVE
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND
ENSURE THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS
ARE NOT WASTED.
HISTORY SHOWS THAT COMPETING
ENGINES CAN RESULT IN
SIGNIFICANT, LONG-TERM SAVINGS.
THE GREAT ENGINE WAR SAVED THE
F-16 PROGRAM 20%, 21% IN
OVERALL COSTS ACCORDING TO THE
2007 G.A.O. REPORT.
THIS REPRESENTS $20 BILLION IN
SAVINGS FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ENGINE
PROGRAM.
ADDITIONALLY, THE ALTERNATIVE
ENGINE TEAM REPRESENTED BY G.E.
AND ROLLS ROYCE OFFERED THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A FIXED
PRICE CONTRACT.
THEIR OFFER SAVES $1 BILLION IN
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND PUTS
COST OVERRUNS AT THE RISK OF
THE CONTRACTOR.
THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE
IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION.
FINALLY, PROVIDING FOR A
COMPETITIVE ALTERNATE ENGINE
WILL SERVE AS A HEDGE AGAINST
OPERATIONAL RISK AND ENSURE
THAT A FIGHTER THAT MAKES UP
95% OF OUR TACTICAL FLEET IS
NOT GROUNDED DUE TO ENGINE
FAILURES.
FULLY FUNDING THE ALTERNATIVE
ENGINE IS NOT ONLY PRUDENT RISK
MANAGEMENT BUT AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE FUNDAMENT
RESPONSIBILITY THAT CONGRESS
HAS TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE THE
MOST RELIABLE EQUIPMENT TO OUR
MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM.
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO ON THIS
ILL-GUIDED AMENDMENT.
IT WILL NOT SAVE TAXPAYERS
MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE IT'S GOING TO
SAVE THEM MONEY IN THE SHORT
RUN.
AND I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RISE?
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
LET ME COMMEND MY
COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA, FIRST
AND FOREMOST, AND THOSE THAT
HAVE JOINED HIM IN THIS
AMENDMENT.
AT THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE
UNION MESSAGE, THERE WAS A
SYMBOLIC GESTURE IN THIS
CHAMBER FOR US TO SIT TOGETHER.
AND WE DID.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE
CAMARADERIE AND THE NEED TO
REACH OUT AND WORK TOGETHER.
I APPLAUD MY COLLEAGUE FOR HIS
STRONG STANCE AND HIS
WILLINGNESS TO WORK
BIPARTISANLY TO DO WHAT THE
NAVY, THE AIR FORCE, THE
MARINES, THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION HAVE ASKED
CONGRESS TO DO.
END THIS WASTEFUL, DUPLICATIVE
SPENDING.
THERE ARE NEW MEMBERS THAT HAVE
COME TO CONGRESS ON BOTH SIDES
WITH NEW ZEAL AND THE ABILITY
TO PERHAPS LOOK OUTSIDE THE
BELTWAY AT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO
EXPERIENCE ON A REGULAR BASIS,
AND THEY SCRATCH THEIR HEADS IN
AWE OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE A
COMMON -- A COMMONSENSE
PROPOSAL BY THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, BY THE AIR
FORCE, BY THE MARINES, AND BY
THE NAVY.
AND THAT'S TO END THIS WASTEFUL
SPENDING.
WE'VE HEARD GREAT TALK ABOUT
COMPETITION.
MY GOD, I'M ALL FOR
COMPETITION.
I DON'T THINK THERE ISN'T A
PERSON HERE WHO ISN'T FOR
COMPETITION.
TWO ENGINES, WHY NOT THREE?
WHY NOT FOUR?
WOULD IT BE BETTER OVERALL FOR
OUR INDUSTRIAL BASE BUT THE
PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE KNOW
THE HARD TRUTH, AS DO ALL OF
AMERICANS.
WE'VE SEEN IT.
I FAULT NO ONE FOR SUPPORT OF
THE INTEREST OF THEIR STATE OR
THEIR DISTRICT OR THEIR
EMPLOYEES.
BUT LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE
PRIORITIES.
I WITNESSED IT IN THE C-17 AND
THE F-2 2.
THERE -- AND THE F-22.
THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOU
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE -- WE NEED
THESE PRECIOUS DOLLARS.
THERE HAS TO BE CUTS.
BOTH SIDES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED.
I WANT TO COMPLIMENT MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
FOR THE ZEAL THEY HAVE COME
HERE WITH TO SAY, LISTEN, THE
PENTAGON ISN'T SACROSANCT
EITHER.
AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE CUTS.
HERE'S THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
PLEADING, YESTERDAY, AT A
CONFERENCE, SAYING PLEASE, THE
NAVY, THE MARINES, THE AIR
FORCE DO NOT WANT THIS ENGINE.
LOOK, COMPETITION IS GREAT.
BUT LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE
FACTS HERE THAT HAVE BEEN CITED
AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE 86% OF THE MARKET
CURRENTLY AND YOU'RE SEEKING TO
GET 92% OF IT, WHERE DOES
COMPETITION LIE?
WITH A COMPANY THAT HAS 86%?
AND I THINK ANYONE WHO LOOKS AT
THIS FROM A COMMONS PERSPECTIVE
COMES TO THAT UNDERSTANDING,
COMES TO THAT DIFFICULT
DECISION THAT HAS TO BE MADE
WITH RESPECT TO THE NATION'S
DEFICIT NOW MR. ROONEY HAS
PROPOSED THAT THIS MONEY GO
DIRECTLY INTO A LOCK BOX TO
DEAL WITH THE NATION'S DEFICIT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD
PROPOSALS WHERE TO USE MONEY.
BUT THAT'S WHAT HE HAS
PROPOSED.
I SUBMIT, AS A DEMOCRAT WHO
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MONEY
GOING TO COPS FUNDING, TO MAKE
SURE THAT LIHEAP FUNDING GETS
THERE, THAT THESE ARE THE KINDS
OF COMPROMISES AND DECISIONS WE
HAVE TO MAKE.
AND THIS IS WHAT'S RIGHT FOR
THE COUNTRY.
WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS
DEFICIT.
AND IF WE HAVE OUR LEADERSHIP,
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND
THEIR PENTAGON, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, YOU HEARD JOE
COURTNEY TALK ABOUT ADMIRAL --
ABOUT THE ADMIRAL SAYING AGAIN
TODAY THE ABSURDITY INVOLVED IN
THIS ARGUMENT.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT --
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THIS.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME