[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6639-H6640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EXTENDING MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F-18 AIRCRAFT

  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6102) to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy 
to enter into multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G 
aircraft.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6102

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F/A-18E, F/A-
                   18F, AND EA-18G AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Extension of Certification.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     128(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2217) is amended by 
     striking ``a reference to March'' and inserting ``a reference 
     to September''.
       (b) Required Authority.--Such section 128 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Required Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, with respect to a multiyear contract 
     entered into under subsection (a), this section shall be 
     deemed to meet the requirements under subsection (i)(3) and 
     (l)(3) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAYLOR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6102, a necessary 
amendment to section 128 of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense 
Authorization Act which granted permission for the Secretary of the 
Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for F/A-18 series 
aircraft.
  Madam Speaker, I mention this is a necessary amendment, and I ask the 
patience of the House as I briefly explain the technical issue in law 
which will prevent the Navy from entering into this cost-saving 
contract unless the House passes this bill and it is taken up in the 
Senate and passed before the end of this month.
  In the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress granted 
permission to the Navy for a multiyear contract if they could meet the 
intent of the requirements contained in title 10 of the United States 
Code for projected cost savings. The authority granted the Navy one-
time permission to miss the title 10 reporting timelines as long as 
they submitted the required reports by March of this year. The Navy 
subsequently reported the significant cost savings this type of 
contract would achieve but missed the reporting requirement by a month, 
due to a variety of factors.
  As a result of the missing of this reporting requirement, the letter 
of the law prevents them from entering into this cost-savings contract. 
To fix this new problem, this House subsequently agreed to the exact 
language contained in this bill when H.R. 5136, the Fiscal Year 2011 
National Defense Authorization Act, passed the House in May.
  This stand-alone bill is necessary because the Senate has yet to take 
up the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which means 
we may not have an authorization act signed into law by the end of this 
fiscal year.
  Madam Speaker, this is not an argument about the number of strike 
fighters the Navy needs. That is a debate for another day. This is an 
argument that we know that we can save hundreds of millions of dollars 
by using a multiyear contract to purchase the remaining 84 aircraft 
that are scheduled to be built.
  The majority of economic savings in a multiyear contract come from 
savings in the cost of materiel and equipment. As any businessman or -
woman who has been successful will tell you, the more of any item you 
order, the lower the per-unit cost will be. In this case, a multiyear 
contract will allow the prime vendor, in this case the Boeing Company, 
to contract with their vendor supply base for the materiel and 
equipment for the remaining 84 aircraft all at once instead of 
contracting for 25 to 30 per year. They will get a much better price 
with the larger order and save our Nation $590 million. Madam Speaker, 
with just the savings on this contract alone the Navy will be able to 
purchase an additional Littoral Combat Ship.
  Madam Speaker, an almost $600 million savings is too large a figure 
just to sweep under the rug. The bill that I offer today along with my 
cosponsor, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and, I must add, 
strongly supported by the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary 
Roughead, and the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, will allow the Navy 
to enter into this contract by the end of this month. I am assured by 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy Stackley that all the contracting 
negotiations are complete, and, as soon as this bill is passed by the 
House and Senate and signed into law by the President, the Navy and the 
Boeing Company will complete the contract.
  Madam Speaker, to use a phrase popular today, this is a ``no-
brainer.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will result 
in an almost $600 million savings to the taxpayers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the good comments from the chairman of the Navy and 
Marine Corps Subcommittee, Chairman Taylor, and he has got it 
absolutely right. This is pretty straightforward. This is whether you 
want a good deal on buying something. There is a little more to it. And 
I would join with the many members of the Armed Services Committee, 
including Gene Taylor from Mississippi, and rise in support of H.R. 
6102.
  This legislation was included in section 122 of the Fiscal Year 2011 
National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed unanimously by the 
subcommittee, the full committee, and by a majority of this House in 
May. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet passed its version of the 
Fiscal Year 2011 Defense bill. It's essential we pass the authorities 
contained in H.R. 6102 prior to the end of fiscal year 2010, which is 
why the chairman and I have co-authored this stand-alone bill today.
  Simply put, the legislation would ensure that the Navy can enter into 
a

[[Page H6640]]

multiyear procurement contract for F/A-18E/F/G aircraft, which would 
save the Navy and taxpayers almost $600 million. The Navy plans to buy 
124 of these aircraft between now and 2013.
  This bill would make no changes to the quantity to be procured. 
Rather, the Navy has a choice between buying these aircraft in four 1-
year increments or spend nearly $600 million less by using one 4-year 
contract.

                              {time}  1500

  Basically you are just getting a volume discount. The Congress 
already gave the Navy the authority to use the multiyear contract in 
the fiscal year 2010 National Authorization Act. But the Department of 
Defense was late in submitting a required report to Congress regarding 
the terms of the contract. It was due in March, and the Navy submitted 
the report in May. Due to the Department's delay, unless we provide a 
one-time fix or extension of this due date, the authority to sign the 
multiyear contract will expire by the end of the month. This is the 
correction that was made by the 2011 defense authorization bill passed 
by the House, also captured by H.R. 6102.
  It is true that the Department of Defense was slow to embrace the F/
A-18 multiyear contract, but it eventually saw the wisdom in entering 
into this 4-year contract for 124 of the Navy fighter planes. The House 
Armed Services Committee has been pushing the Navy to consider this 
contracting strategy for nearly 3 years. In 2008, I inserted language 
into the 2009 Defense Authorization Act requiring the Department of 
Defense to report to Congress on the potential cost savings of a 
multiyear contract for F/A-18s. Last year, I successfully added an 
amendment to the Defense Authorization Act giving the Navy the 
authority to enter into a multiyear contract for F/A-18s. This year, I 
added an amendment to the House-passed Defense Authorization Act adding 
eight additional F/A-18s to help address the Navy's looming fighter 
shortfall.
  Although this bill would not have been necessary had Secretary Gates 
embraced this cost-savings measure from the outset, I am nonetheless 
pleased to see that his eleventh hour efforts to secure approval for 
the multiyear contract are in keeping with his well-publicized position 
on reducing wasteful defense spending. Likewise, I am hopeful that the 
Secretary will remain consistent with his new and positive stance on 
savings and competition as the Armed Services Committee considers 
additional ways in which to maximize taxpayer dollars.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this bill will save over half a billion 
dollars in taxpayer money while providing vital stability to the fine 
Americans who build these planes in St. Louis and across the country. I 
want to thank Congressman Taylor for his leadership and support on this 
issue, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill quickly.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6102.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________