[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

  (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ARCURI. Congress has supported a competitive acquisition for the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine for the last 14 years for good reason. 
The total program is expected to cost more than $100 billion over the 
next 30 to 40 years. The Government Accounting Office has concluded 
that competition between engine suppliers could provide a life-cycle 
cost savings of over 20 percent.
  A competitive F-35 engine program would also reap other benefits such 
as increased reliability, improved contractor responsiveness, a more 
robust industrial base, and less chance to ground the entire fleet to 
fix a problem.
  Chairman Andrews and Ranking Member Conaway of the bipartisan House 
Defense Acquisition Reform Panel have stated that annual engine 
competition will make both engines better and save taxpayers money--up 
to $21 billion based on the F-16 experience.
  The development of the alternative engine is now nearly 75 percent 
complete. To pull the plug on this program would forfeit $3 billion in 
taxpayer funds that have already been spent.
  Competition saves taxpayers money. It's been proven to on the other 
fighter engine program. Why would we write a blank check to a single 
supplier for 40 years?

                          ____________________