[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22084-22087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              APPROVING PURCHASES OF LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS

  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6494) to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 to improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the 
Navy, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page 22085]]

  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6494

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

     SECTION 1. LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Contract Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 121 of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
     (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2211) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``ten Littoral Combat Ships and 15 Littoral 
     Combat Ship ship control and weapon systems'' and inserting 
     ``20 Littoral Combat Ships, including any ship control and 
     weapon systems the Secretary determines necessary for such 
     ships,''; and
       (B) by striking ``a contract'' and inserting ``one or more 
     contracts''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``liability to'' and 
     inserting ``liability of''.
       (b) Technical Data Package.--Subsection (b)(2)(A) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``a second shipyard, as soon 
     as practicable'' and inserting ``another shipyard to build a 
     design specification for that Littoral Combat Ship''.
       (c) Limitation of Costs.--Subsection (c)(1) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``awarded to a contractor selected as 
     part of a procurement'' and inserting ``under a contract''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Littoral Combat Ship Program started off as a very 
good idea. It was to be a single purpose, low-cost war ship that would 
help our Navy get to the stated goal of at least three Chiefs of Naval 
Operations of getting back to a 313-ship Navy.
  With that said, the program has had, admittedly, a number of 
problems. First of which was, we were going to build it to commercial 
specifications. That was a mistake that Congress later corrected 
because this is a warship. It needed to be built to warship 
recommendations. You don't build disposable ships unless you want to 
have disposable crews, and our Nation will never settle for disposable 
crews.
  Madam Speaker, having solved that problem, we found that the two 
vendors took a ship that was supposed to stand for LCS, Littoral Combat 
Ship, and it came late, costly, and subject to protest. And only 
because of the great work, in my opinion, of Under Secretary of Defense 
Sean Stackley of devising a strategy about a year ago that, in effect, 
read the riot act to both vendors and told them they were going to do a 
number of things.
  No. 1 in order to submit their package to Congress, their proposal, 
they were going to submit with that a technical data package which 
meant that our Nation that has paid to develop these ships would have 
the specifications to those ships so that if either vendor continued to 
underperform, we could then go out and seek additional vendors to build 
this ship if we felt like our Nation was not getting the ship we 
deserved at the price we need to pay. Under Secretary Stackley came 
back with a proposal that said we would give to one vendor a contract 
for 10 ships and then take that technical data package, put it out on 
the street and give a second vendor a contract for five, a winner-take-
all strategy between a monohull ship and a trihull ship and gave the 
vendors about 8 months to come up with a price.
  Madam Speaker, one of the few pleasant surprises of this Congress was 
that both vendors came back with remarkably good prices when given that 
all-or-nothing proposal. And I want to compliment, give credit where 
it's due to Under Secretary Stackley. I also want to give credit where 
it's due to the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin), and the other gentleman from Missouri, Chairman Skelton, for 
allowing us to work with Under Secretary Stackley to get this program 
back under control.
  Having said that, Madam Speaker, Under Secretary Stackley, once he 
looked at those prices--and I deeply regret the gentleman from Arizona 
was exactly right over in the other body when he said yesterday, What's 
the price? The public needs to know. Unfortunately, under the rules of 
our Nation, we are not allowed to divulge them just yet. Part of that 
reason is the fear that both vendors will drop their bids and come back 
later at higher prices.
  So one of the limitations we are going to be working under today is 
the inability to give the exact price to Congress but to tell you that 
this ship that started out to be about a $220 million dollar ship grew 
to be about a $720 million ship. We have now got the price a heck of a 
lot closer to the first number than the last number which is where we 
needed to go all along.
  Under Secretary Stackley is now asking, since both prices came back, 
and since there is a working ship of each variety out in the fleet 
right now that are performing well, he has asked for permission to buy 
both ships at the low price that the contractors have agreed to build 
them on. Having given that some thought, I think he is right. And also 
given the economic circumstances that the price of aluminum is down by 
about half since 3 or 4 years ago, the price of steel is down by about 
half from 3 or 4 years ago, that American vendors need work, that 
because they need work, they are supplying the kind of prices that our 
Nation should have been paying all along, that we can get the Navy the 
ships they need at a price our Nation can afford and build 20 ships for 
about $2 billion less than we had originally budgeted to build 19 
ships. For all of these reasons, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of 
this program. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) 
for being a cosponsor to this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6494, a bill granting 
authority for the Secretary of the Navy to construct up to 20 Littoral 
Combat Ships, 10 each from the shipyards currently building the 
vessels. This is a change in already passed authorization to ``down-
select'' to one of the two types of ships and build 19 of them over the 
next 5 years. This change in acquisition strategy is the result of 
lower than expected construction proposals from the two competing 
shipyards.
  The LCS has a very troubled history, but the bill before us today is 
about the future, it is about how true competition between vendors has 
actually forced these contractors to return competitive bids that this 
Nation can afford. These are good ships. Up until now they have just 
been too expensive to build. Neither contractor, until faced with the 
prospect of being shut out of the program, had ever submitted a 
realistic proposal for affordable construction. They now have.
  I would not be here today requesting this House pass this legislation 
if I was not highly confident that this is the right thing to do, and 
that this action will not come back to be an issue that my friend and 
colleague from Missouri will need to deal with in the next Congress as 
he takes the gavel of the Seapower subcommittee.
  I will also be the first to admit that the timing for this new 
acquisition proposal from the Navy is flawed. Normally, this is not the 
kind of decision that we would consider at the end of a Congress. 
However, the Navy has bids in hand from the two contractors that will 
expire this month if not acted upon. Unfortunately, time is of the 
essence.
  For my colleagues, the bottom line is this: The Navy has budgeted 
approximately $12 billion dollars for 19 ships over the next 5 years. 
This new strategy would buy 20 ships for approximately $9.8 billion 
dollars, a savings of over $2 billion from the budget, with the 
additional benefit of getting an extra ship. I believe this is a good 
deal and we should take it.
  I would like to state for the record that this affordable strategy 
for the purchase of this class of ships would not have been possible 
without the tireless work of our Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, 
the Honorable Sean Stackley. He was the official responsible for the 
strategy which forced the contractors to offer affordable bids, at a 
firm fixed price, to build these ships. I congratulate him on the 
effort. If the Department of Defense could just get 100 Sean Stackleys 
working over there, we would have far fewer issues with cost overruns 
and program delays on weapons and equipment our warfighters need.
  I urge my colleagues to agree to this resolution.

[[Page 22086]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6494, a 
bill that would authorize procurement for the Littoral Combat Ship.
  And I will start by thanking Chairman Taylor, who has been 
extraordinarily diligent in this effort in making sure that our Nation 
gets the best deal on LCS, knowing that there have been some hiccups in 
the past. He stood up and made sure this process was going to happen 
properly, that it was going to be the best value for our Navy and the 
best value for the United States. So I applaud the chairman for his 
leadership there. And also to Ranking Member Akin who, alongside the 
chairman, made sure also that this process was going to happen properly 
and that the proper decisions were going to be made and that we were 
going to make the best decision on behalf of our Navy.
  And as we all know, this legislation would amend the FY 2010 National 
Defense Authorization Act to authorize the procurement of 20 Littoral 
Combat Ships which are absolutely needed these days in our Navy. This 
bill would also allow the Navy to enter into one or more contracts and 
allow the Navy to conduct a competition for an additional shipyard for 
ship construction to be built to a design specification for that ship. 
That technical data package will belong to the United States, so if 
something doesn't go right with this two-ship acquisition, we have the 
opportunity to fix that and get it back on track.
  Absent an NDAA, it is imperative to ensure that our Navy shipbuilding 
program remains on the right track. By procuring 20 Littoral Combat 
Ships, that gives our Navy the ability to increase its mission 
capability and project power throughout the littoral waterways around 
the globe.
  We need to do everything we can to get Federal spending under 
control, and this bill does that. This bill, as Chairman Taylor says, 
cuts to the heart of reducing spending, gets us actually the same 
number, if not a little bit more, for $2 billion less. It is a good 
deal for this Nation. The thing we have to keep in mind in the future 
is looking at the operation and maintenance costs of two platforms, 
making sure they were holding the Navy firm to controlling costs there, 
both the training costs of multiple crews and the operation and 
maintenance costs. We have been assured by Under Secretary Stackley 
that that will happen. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, 
which I think strikes the right balance in terms of the need for our 
Navy to build up its Littoral Combat Ship Program but also addressing I 
think a lot of the problems of this program, which has been very 
troubled over the last few years in terms of trying to get the cost per 
ship down.

                              {time}  1040

  I'd just like to say, though, on a personal note, that the work that 
Chairman Taylor has done on this program going back to 2007 with a 
series of hearings, looking at, again, the alarming increases in cost 
growth has been an extraordinary contribution, not just to this 
Congress, but to our country. There has been no one who has been more 
diligent in terms of trying to look out for the American taxpayer. 
There is no one who, in my opinion, has been more knowledgeable about 
every aspect of these vessels than the gentleman from Mississippi who 
is departing in a few days, and who I think is going to be sorely 
missed by this country in terms of the amazing work that he's done as 
chairman of the Seapower subcommittee.
  All across the spectrum, in terms of ships, he has been there trying 
to, again, advance this country to get to the goal of a 314-ship Navy, 
which has been a struggle, protecting the industrial base, from New 
England all the way to San Diego and, again, all the time while being 
open and accessible to all Members across both party lines in terms of 
making sure that, again, we're going to achieve those goals and make 
sure that our country, which is still a great maritime power, is going 
to have a Navy that can project our force in a way that, again, is 
adequate for the challenges of the 21st century.
  Again, his service to this country has just been extraordinary. It 
has been a privilege to serve with him over the last 4 years. Passing 
this legislation, I think, will be, again, another capstone to a great 
career in Congress. And, again, I want to thank him for his service.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who has been the ranking member on this 
committee a number of times.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Madam Speaker, I've been involved with the LCS program 
from its very inception; and when the Navy announced that they were 
going to do a down select with this competition, I was somewhat 
dismayed because these are two very different ships, an aluminum 
trimaran, and the more conventional ship optimized for these special 
missions. And I wasn't sure that we knew enough about the potential of 
these two ships to make that down select during this competition.
  So I was very pleased when Sean Stackley called me and said that they 
were surprised and shocked by the quotes that came in. Competition, you 
know, really does matter. And when the down select was threatened, each 
of these competitors came in with a really good price.
  So I was very pleased when the Department decided that they would 
like to buy 10 of each of these ships. These are multi-mission ships. 
I'm sure one of these ships will be better for one mission than 
another, so I am very pleased that we're taking this route; and I 
couldn't be more supportive of where we're going now with this.
  If we're ever going to get to a 313-ship Navy, the LCS is going to 
play a big part of that. This is going to be a huge class of ship. A 
half of that class is going to be bigger than almost any other class of 
ships that we have had, so this is a win-win for everybody, and I'm 
pleased that we are taking this route.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, before I get into my comments, I think there 
are a couple of people that we, as a Congress, and even we, as a 
people, as Americans, need to be thankful for. And the first is 
Chairman Taylor, who I've had a chance to work with now a couple of 
years as the minority leader on the Seapower Committee. I don't know of 
anybody in our country who is more committed to the Navy or to making 
sure that we use our money wisely, and to the overall security of our 
country than Chairman Taylor.
  And so I want to extend my personal thanks for the fact that what you 
don't see here just for a few minutes' discussion on the floor was 
hours and hours of tours through shipyards, all kinds of details, 
talking to all kinds of people and trying to make sure that a program 
that was a little difficult as it started out got on track, and now is 
not only on track, but represents a significant opportunity for us to 
invest in the security of our country.
  And so hats off to Chairman Taylor. And I agree completely that we're 
going to certainly miss your expertise and your hard work, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BARTLETT. For 4 years I was the chair of this subcommittee, and 
Mr. Taylor was my ranking member; and then the leadership in the 
Congress changed, and for 2 years, I was his ranking member and he was 
my chair. And then, sadly, due to our term limits on the Republican 
side of the House, I had to leave that subcommittee, but never left my 
interest, strong interest in that subcommittee.
  And I will tell you that there is no person in the Congress who has 
been more committed or more effective in making sure that we have the 
right kind of Navy, the right size Navy.

[[Page 22087]]

  When I first came here, I looked up Gene Taylor because we shared 
some social things. And as a Democrat, he kind of shone out as 
different than the other Democrats. And we've become the very best of 
friends since then. He tells people that we're joined at the hip, and 
indeed we are.
  Gene, it's been a real, real pleasure to serve with you, and your 
departure is a grave loss to this Congress and to our Nation. I've been 
honored to serve with you, sir.
  Mr. AKIN. Thank you for those most appropriate comments, Roscoe.
  The second gentleman that I think we need to recognize, Under 
Secretary Stackley, has really helped tremendously with his level of 
detailed knowledge about how you work these contracts. And he got the 
contracts, as Chairman Taylor mentioned, reorganized to some degree a 
couple of years ago, and now we have two excellent bids before us.
  Now, one of the things that people know that have been around 
Congress a little bit is Congress has trouble making decisions rapidly 
or even wisely sometimes. I don't think that's the case today. Today, 
Secretary Stackley came to a number of us and said, look, there's two 
different ways we could go, the way we were planning to go, which is we 
down select, buy 10 ships, and then we resubmit bids to a number of 
different vendors.
  He said the other alternative, which is very interesting, is that we 
just go with both contractors and buy the 20 ships right off the bat. 
And so as we had a chance to ask some questions, though not to the 
degree that many of us would have felt comfortable with, it became 
apparent that we would save money for the Navy and we could project 
more seapower more rapidly by going with both contractors, buy 10 from 
each side.
  Now, the ships are different, as has been mentioned this morning. 
Certainly, an aluminum trimaran is a lot different than a monohull. It 
has its difficulties in anchoring in certain places or docking in 
certain places because it is so wide. But each has their place overall 
in the Navy.
  Now, these ships, to try to put them in perspective, there may be 
some people who are not immersed in the detail here, we're not allowed 
to talk about the price that's been bid, but, generally speaking, 
you're looking at, you could buy five of these for the cost of one 
nuclear-powered submarine. So what we're talking about is a ship that 
is inexpensive enough, and we have enough of them that it allows 
America to project its seapower to little corners of the world where 
otherwise we don't have a presence that we need to have.
  About a year or so ago, there was a lot of talk about pirates, and 
everybody got their best pirate voice out and talked about the pirates 
that were seizing commercial shipping. Some of that was allowed because 
of the fact that we didn't have as many ships as we might like in 
certain areas. This would be just one example of where these ships 
might become useful. They would become useful in hunting submarines and 
for all kinds and varieties of other missions.
  And so this proposal that's before us is a result of some very good 
work by both Under Secretary Stackley, his coming to us and saying, 
look, there is a better way to do this but, Congress, you have to be 
able to respond and be agile on your feet.
  Fortunately, there is a uniform agreement across the people that have 
been working these projects that, in fact Secretary Stackley is right 
and this is what we should do. So hats off to Secretary Stackley and 
particularly to Chairman Taylor for the good work that's been done.
  I'm obviously speaking in favor of the proposal before us here. And 
there was some sense of frustration early on in trying to get the 
numbers and to get through the details that we had to in order to make 
a decision here; but I am very comfortable that what we're doing is the 
right thing.
  The opportunity before us to pass this piece of legislation allows us 
to prove that it's wrong once in a while that Congress can't be agile 
and make wise decisions.

                              {time}  1050

  We will look to the Navy and to Secretary Stackley to help to 
continue to manage this program and make sure that the bids come in as 
we expect, that the Navy gets a good buy, and that we work to where we 
should be with enough ships to secure and give Americans the security 
that we believe is necessary and to provide a safe and peaceful world.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, first let me again thank future Chairman 
Akin, former Chairman Bartlett.
  I believe it was CNO Vernon Clark who first proposed this program. 
The idea was to build a ship under the speed of light, an inexpensive 
ship. That obviously didn't happen, and we learned some very painful 
mistakes as a Congress, and I hope those of you who remain on the 
committee will remember those painful mistakes. We can make mistakes 
doing things too rapidly. We made a lot of mistakes in this program.
  But the thing I want to most compliment the Armed Services Committee 
for, and particularly the Seapower Committee, was, when we recognized 
those mistakes, we admitted them and we went as far as to threaten to 
cancel the program if it wasn't corrected. I think those threats and, 
again, the phenomenal work of Secretary Stackley and Secretary Mabus in 
holding the vendors' feet to the fire, the economic circumstances of 
our Nation where people need work, the fact that the Navy needs the 
ships, that the frigates that these ships will replace are getting to 
the end of their useful life, and, again, the willingness of all the 
members on both sides of the aisle to hold these vendors accountable 
was the key element in turning this program around.
  So, again, I want to thank future Chairman Akin, former Chairman 
Bartlett, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Baldwin, 
and Mr. Conaway for being cosponsors of this measure.
  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. 6494, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________