Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is the wrong way to go at our critical hour of need. Congress has consistently provided funding for the development of the alternative engine because Congress knows full well the benefits of competition in weapons acquisition and procurement.

Last session, we passed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, 411-0 in favor, and, in fact, our Senate colleagues agreed with 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 percent 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-35s were expected to be purchased by U.S. allies. If the propulsion system that powers nearly 3,000 tactical jet fighters is not a major defense acquisition, then I'm not sure what qualifies.

Passing this amendment will hand Pratt & Whitney a $100 billion monopoly on a 30-year contract that has never been competitively bid. Proponents of this amendment will argue that Pratt & Whitney won the engine competition when Lockheed was awarded the contract to develop a Joint Strike Fighter. Not so fast.

Last May, Mr. John Roth, from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, and Mr. Mike Sullivan, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO, both testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs that the competition was done at the contractor level and that the engines were never actually competed.

The point of all this, Mr. Chair, is that the engine competition never occurred, and it is disingenuous to argue that Pratt & Whitney has already won. The fact is that providing funds for the competitive alternate engine will ultimately 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 F16 program 21 percent in overall costs according to the 2007 GAO report. This represents $20 billion in savings for the lifetime of the Joint Strike Fighter Engine program.

Additionally, the alternative engine team represented by GE and Rolls-Royce offered the Department of Defense a fixed-priced contract. Their offer saves $1 billion in the first 5 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 percent 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 fundamental responsibility that Congress has to protect and provide the most reliable equipment to our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, 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 really going to save them money in the short run.

I yield back my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source