[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H853-H858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $9,710,998,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2012.

[[Page H854]]

                Amendment No. 162 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $971,099,800)''.
       Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,796,130,300)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,674, 240,500)''.
       Page 34, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,079,741,200)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,521,211,800)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce research and 
development spending at the Department of Defense by 10 percent. First 
inclination, we all know research and development is a good thing, but 
not when it begets wasteful spending. The continuing resolution before 
us makes deep cuts in non-defense discretionary spending. If we are 
truly serious about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at 
the whole picture--and that picture includes defense.
  Non-defense discretionary comprises approximately 15 percent of 
Federal spending. Meanwhile, defense spending comprises 20 percent of 
Federal spending. We cannot ignore one-fifth of the budget. As Admiral 
Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, ``Our 
national debt is our biggest national security threat.''
  My amendment would cut a modest 10 percent from the Department of 
Defense's research and development budget. DOD's R&D spending has 
experienced more spending growth since 2001 than any other major DOD 
appropriation category. DOD's research, development, testing and 
evaluation budget has increased 63 percent over the last 10 years, 
rising from $49.2 billion in FY 2001 to $80.2 billion in FY 2010. This 
is 33 percent more than the Cold War peak in real terms, even though 
today we face no traditional adversary comparable to the Soviet Union. 
Further, in FY 2009, R&D spending exceeded China's entire defense 
budget, the world's second largest, 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 
spending by 10 percent.

                              {time}  1930

  A number of fiscal commissions and watchdog groups agree that DOD 
research and development should be cut and proposed a number of 
proposals to reduce this development. The Sustainable Defense Task 
Force, a panel of defense experts from across the political spectrum, 
recently recommended requiring DOD to set its priorities and reduce R&D 
spending by $5 billion per year over 10 years. Additionally, the Cato 
Institute and the Task Force for a Unified Security Budget agree 
research and development could be significantly improved without 
harming security in order to achieve savings.
  The Fiscal Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center have also put 
forward proposals to reduce research and development costs. The Fiscal 
Commission proposes reducing DOD's R&D budget by 10 percent, for a 
savings of $7 billion in 2015. They pointed out this reduction would 
leave DOD at a level above the peak of the Reagan years in real 
dollars.
  The Fiscal Commission cites several ongoing projects that could be 
reduced or even canceled in order to reduce R&D costs. These programs 
include the Marine Corps version of the F-35, which has been put on a 
2-year 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 percent. Reduction in R&D would be possible, argues 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 investments 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, devices to sense improvised 
explosive devices, and investments in lower cost 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 and we must reduce our spending, but in 
doing so we must put everything on the table and cut anywhere where 
waste exists.
  Mr. Chairman, there is 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 are going to make these cuts and we are 
going to face the very real threats that this debt and deficits will 
create for us, we have to cut across all lines.
  I yield back.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the House, 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 reducing the 
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 is or that you are 
planning on having or that you have in the process, in the conceptual 
stage even. It never gets to where the soldier and the sailor and the 
airman and the marine needs it without research and development that 
makes it possible and feasible to build it and deploy it.
  We have already cut a substantial amount out of R&D. We can't put a 
soldier on the battlefield, and if his system that he is working with 
doesn't work, we can't recall it like you can an automobile or a 
medicine or pill or something like that. It has got to work. I don't 
want to see an American trooper on the front line, whether he is on the 
ground, whether he is in the air, whether he is on the sea, whether he 
is 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 would cut defense just to cut 
defense. If you are going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to 
be a good reason. There is not a good reason for reducing this account. 
We have already reduced the Defense Department $14.8 billion, and I 
just hope that nobody is tempted to vote for this just because it is a 
cut.
  I yield back.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. 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, 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 DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, which is funded in this category of the defense budget RDT&E, 
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation. Imagine what the 
Internet has meant to the American economy, let alone the world. Look 
what just happened in Egypt, ultimately because of the Internet.
  The GPS system that we have in our vehicles, we take it for granted 
now. Where did it come from? The RDT&E account in the Defense 
Department. This is what we want to cut out? We can't afford to.
  The unmanned aerial vehicles, the drones, the most effective 
warfighting weapon we have right now, a weapon that doesn't put our 
soldiers' lives at risk but is maximally effective at targeting the 
enemy, RDT&E. Defense research.
  Precision targeting was a result of research innovation within this 
account. That is what gives us our cutting edge. That is why we have 
the most effective defense capability in the world. But it is also one 
of the reasons

[[Page H855]]

why we have the strongest economy in the world. There is 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, notwithstanding the lives we save, the spinoff to the private 
sector is not as extensive as the spinoff from the research we do 
within the Defense Department.
  I guess it is a good thing we get these amendments because it gives 
us an opportunity to explain to the American people, particularly the 
taxpayer, what they are getting for their money, where these ideas come 
from. Many of them come from the Defense Department, and it is because 
of the investment we have made in research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
  So I obviously would urge rejection of this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $17,961,303,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2012: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Cobra Judy program.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rooney

  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $225,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $225,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 Robert Gates called the program 
``an unnecessary and extravagant expense'' and stated that this money 
is needed for higher priority defense efforts.

                              {time}  1940

  As we decide which cuts to make in our defense, ones that won't hurt 
our troops today, this should be at the top of the list. Mr. Chairman, 
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. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTLETT. During the debate to strike funding for the F-35 
competitive engine you're likely to hear many statements that just 
don't square with the facts in the program. Just today, I have heard 
that 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 percent of its 
flight testing to go.
  You're also likely to hear that 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 has 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 F-35B. In fact, this challenging act of 
physics has just resulted in the F-35B being put on ``probation'' by 
the Secretary of Defense, requiring redesign of the F-35B unique engine 
components. The current estimate to complete development of the F135 
primary engine has been extended several years and the estimated cost 
to complete the development program is 450 percent above the February, 
2008, estimated completion cost.
  In fact, only two U.S. operational aircraft are single engine 
aircraft--the Air Force F-16 and the Marine Corps AV-8B. The F-35 is 
scheduled to replace those aircraft and will not be operational until 
at least 2016. The F-16 was the first aircraft to use an alternate 
engine, beginning in the mid-1980s, and still does so today. Accident 
rates have trended from 14 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours in 1980 
with the Pratt & Whitney engine, when the alternate engine program was 
first funded, to less than just 2 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours in 
2009 for both the Pratt & Whitney and the GE engines. A review of the 
AV-8B accident data last year indicated an accident rate six times that 
of the other Navy fighter aircraft, the F-18, and over 3\1/2\ times the 
rate of the F-16. The AV-8B will be replaced by F-35B. So while the 
alternative engine F-16 has benefited from competition, with an 
accident rate having declined by a factor of seven, the AV-8B has an 
accident rate 3\1/2\ times that of the F-16.
  Some will cite that the F136--that's the competitive engine--will 
require $2.9 billion over 6 years to make it competition ready. It's 
interesting to note that the cost increase in the contract for the 
current primary engine, the F-35, is $3.4 billion, and that does not 
include other government costs, independent research and development, 
and component improvement program funding. The entire remaining 
development of the F-35 competitive engine could have been funded with 
the overrun to date in the F-35 primary engine. Further, the GAO has 
found that key assumptions in the cost to go for the F-35 competitive 
engine were unnecessarily pessimistic based on historic experience with 
the original alternate engine program.
  One of our colleagues has said that the F-35 primary engine is ``5 to 
7 years ahead of the F136 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 4 years after the primary 
engine. The Pentagon told us last April that the competitive engine was 
only 2 to 3 months behind schedule of the original plan. At the same 
time the Pentagon notified the committee that the F135 primary engine 
was 24 months behind the schedule set in the original October, 2001, 
contract. In other words, had both engines begun at the same time, the 
alternative engine would now be almost 2 years ahead of the primary 
engine.
  I don't know why there's such confusion over the facts related to 
this issue. Our committee has followed this issue for over 15 years, 
and we 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 GAO has looked at the competitive engine programs. They 
have noted that historically the competitive engine always does two 
things: it makes the engines cheaper and it makes them better. Notice 
the accident rate that I noted earlier.

  Furthermore, this new aircraft is supposed to be ultimately 95 
percent of all of the aircraft in all of our services. Can you imagine 
what would happen if there was a problem with the engine and we had to 
stand down. We would have essentially no fighter aircraft in any of our 
services. It is essential we continue with the alternative engine--and 
I hope not just to continue its development, to make the primary engine 
better and cheaper, but to provide a second engine for duplication.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, it is time to end the Joint

[[Page H856]]

Strike Fighter second engine mistake. In 2001, the GE engine lost in 
procurement competition to the one designed by Pratt & Whitney. A sole 
source development contract was signed in 2005. But since 1997, 
Congress has provided for a Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine 
program. This continuing resolution includes $450 million for the 
alternate engine 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 taxpayers are best served by not pursuing a second 
engine. There are more pressing Department of Defense 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 is reasonable and consistent 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 
programs, the F-22 and the F-18, which both utilize a single engine 
provider. Additional costs and the burden of maintaining two logistical 
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 $14 
trillion, and all our funding choices must--must--acknowledge that.
  I urge support for the Rooney amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I can understand that there are a lot of 
jobs at stake, there's politics, there's regional economies, and so on, 
to be considered in 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 1980s with the F-16 engine, it 
seems to me, should inform this debate. We had a sole source contract, 
basically; with the same manufacturer to build a single engine for the 
F-16. It was way over budget and outside of--any reasonable production 
schedule. Production was substantially delayed. And we had little 
leverage until we brought in an alternative contractor. We brought in 
competition. All of a sudden we got right on schedule and on budget.
  I think this situation is analogous. We're talking about a $100 
billion contract for the principal jet fighter we're going to have for 
the next generation. And we have one engine 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 very substantial source of jobs and revenue, and in fact, I have 
to say, military dominance.

                              {time}  1950

  What we are talking about is having competition to ensure that we get 
the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers. In fact, the Government 
Accountability Office has estimated, over the long run, we will save 
money through this competition. That's why the majorities of the Armed 
Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee have 
decided, after a great deal of deliberation, that we need competition 
in this program.
  If it were not such a major program, if it were not so expensive--a 
$100 billion sole-source contract--maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but 
it was 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 bang for the 
buck in producing the most effective and most efficient jet fighter in 
the world.
  I think we all agree that we believe in the principle of competition. 
When you have monopoly control--invariably, you slack off a little bit. 
It's okay to bump your numbers up a little bit, perhaps. But when you 
have to compete with somebody else, you're always looking at the bottom 
line, always wanting a higher quality, a less expensive 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 would oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate and a discussion that has 
been going on for some period of time. As has been noted before, there 
are many of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee who have a 
little different view than does the Pentagon on this subject.
  So what are the benefits of the second engine? Several of those have 
been mentioned.
  First of all, it is the sense of security. You've got basically an 
aircraft now that is 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. That particular Joint 
Strike Fighter has one engine. Obviously, if you want it to work well, 
the engine has to run right.
  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 the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force, so this 
Congress wisely decided that we're going to have two engines.
  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 is 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 engines, and that's 
going to be important, particularly year in and year out.
  Now, there are a couple of other things that have not been mentioned 
that I've heard this evening. One of them is that the second engine 
also has 10 to 15 percent 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 called a STOVL. It has to take off from just 
sitting on a deck, and it 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 heavier, and you need more thrust. The second engine offers 
that 10 to 15 percent more thrust.
  I don't know if there is a financial consideration to define what 
that is worth, but that extra 10 or 15 percent could make the 
difference of a stable aircraft that could carry some particular 
additional piece of equipment that we may need in the future.
  The other point that I've not heard made and is actually kind of new 
to us is that these engines are big suckers. They are very, very big 
turbines, and they have a tremendous amount of power that they're 
generating.
  Now, if we've got this one turbine that works for the Marine Corps, 
for the Navy and the Air Force, what would happen if we were to use 
that turbine in other applications? You'd get all the more benefit of 
having fewer parts and having interchangeability. These engines are 
bolt-for-bolt interchangeable.
  So what happens when we start to look at the design for a future deep 
strike bomber? One of the questions on that will be: How many engines 
do you need? Is it going to be a four-engine bomber or a two-engine? 
Four is a lot more expensive.
  What happens if you could get the power of two engines into one and 
make it a two-engine bomber and use the same engines that are going 
into JSFs? So now you've got a universal engine working for a number of 
platforms. There is a whole lot of simplicity and cost savings for that 
type of thing.
  If we're going to put our eggs in one basket, we want to make sure 
we've

[[Page H857]]

got at least two people and that we have the competition, the 
capability of using this engine in other ways, and the additional 
thrust for the second engine.
  I would recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, as a ranking subcommittee member of the 
House Armed Services Committee and as a strong supporter of the Joint 
Strike Fighter Competitive Engine Program, I rise today in opposition 
to this amendment for three basic reasons.
  First, the competitive engine program will save billions in taxpayer 
dollars. Second, it will create thousands of jobs. Third, it is 
imperative to our national security. I think all three of these are 
issues that all of us share a bipartisan concern about.
  I am 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, it does raise quality, and ensures 
responsiveness from the manufacturers.
  With the JSF 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 the lowest price. Striking funding for a 
competitive engine will give a 30-year $100 billion monopoly to a sole 
contractor. Funding the F136 engine, however, will allow two companies 
to compete head to head, resulting in the best price and the best 
engine. In fact, GAO studies have indicated that competition from the 
F136 engine will actually save taxpayers $21 billion over the life of 
the Joint Strike Fighter program.
  Second, the competitive engine program is about saving jobs. 
Currently, there are 2,500 U.S. jobs supporting the development of the 
alternative engine. Once full production occurs, the number will rise 
to 4,000.
  Third, the competitive engine program is about national security. 
Without a competitive engine, U.S. and allied forces will be dependent 
entirely upon one engine for 90 percent 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 favoring one particular contractor over 
another. It is about having strong bipartisan support for competition, 
for creating jobs, for national security, and for saving taxpayer 
money. In fact, this was demonstrated when this was voted on 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, of creating jobs, and 
of ensuring our national security through the alternative engine 
competitive program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment for 
a few reasons, not any as eloquent as the ones that have already been 
stated but for some fairly simple reasons, I think.
  Number one, what if one of us here, one of us Members, a Congressman, 
earmarked a $100 billion project today? If it were one of us who did 
this, who said that we're going to give this one job worth $100 billion 
to one company, I think there would be an outcry from all over. We 
don't do that anymore, and there's a reason we don't do it anymore: 
Because it leads to corruption, and it leads to people doing things 
that they should not be doing. We shouldn't give the DOD the same--
let's call it--temptations to have to give a $100 billion contract to 
one company.

                              {time}  2000

  Number two, competition. It's interesting now to see how things have 
switched where you have folks that have been talking about competition 
when it comes to health care, competition when it comes to business now 
saying that competition's going to bring quality down and bring costs 
up. That's not what competition does, Mr. Chairman. What competition 
does is bring quality up and bring costs down. I think 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, and the reason it went down is it had a 
cracked wing, and what we didn't know at that time is if that was an 
inherent flaw in the F-18 structure. So what we did in Afghanistan is 
we shut down all F-18 flights. In fact, the world over, F-18 flights 
were shut down until we could figure out if this problem was inherent 
in all F-18s or if it was just one problem for that one particular F-
18.
  If this happens with the F-35, with just one engine, we're going to 
ground the free world's new jet. That's what will be grounded, because 
the F-35 is being sold to other countries. It's being used by all of 
our services except for the Army, and if it goes down and we have to 
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. This is an issue of 
operational risk. You should have a backup engine for the main engine 
for the main fighter for this Nation and other nations going forward.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to 
participate in this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't have a dog in this fight. 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 over the course of the last 3 or 4 years. Something very rare 
happened when the gentleman in the chair and I worked on this. We 
produced two pieces of legislation that passed the House, essentially 
unanimously. And in that process of Democrat and Republican working 
together, we learned something very disturbing, and that was that, in 
major weapons systems, costs had 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 that analysis, we also learned something 
that I think most Americans know intuitively. When you have more choice 
and you have more competition, you get a better result. I think most of 
us, when we've had to buy a household appliance or a car, go out and 
get a couple of quotes. We have people compete against each other so we 
get the best deal. That very commonsense concept is the core argument 
in front of us this evening. And I think the burden would be on those 
who say we shouldn't have competition and those who say that the status 
quo would be okay if we had only one contractor.
  Now, 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

[[Page H858]]

military superiority this evening I think for two essential reasons. 
The first and most important one is the quality of the young men and 
women who volunteer to serve 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 just mentioned a 
few minutes ago, is at risk if we are dependent upon one supply chain, 
one manufacturing process, one set of parts, and one set of solutions 
to a problem. You always want to have a plan B. This would be a 
difficult call if having that plan B operationally 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. The 
GAO has estimated about $21 billion over time because of the merits and 
benefits of choice and competition.
  We have two fine enterprises involved with these engines, and I think 
what we ought to do is create a system where each flourishes, not 
because of the benefits of the job creation that will occur--although 
that's certainly a welcome benefit--but because operationally, 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 over time will reduce pressure 
on our taxpayers to the tune of $21 billion.
  I thank the Chair for his collegial work on this subject, and I would 
urge Members to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Conaway, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________