By Emelie Rutherford
House lawmakers voted last night to keep the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine in the Pentagon policy bill, though the program’s fate may be left to House-Senate negotiators.
That’s because Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) opted to not include the General Electric [GE]-Rolls-Royce engine program when it approved its version of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill last night.
As those battles raged on Capitol Hill, the White House officially threatened to veto the legislation if it supports the engine, which is an alternate to the F-35’s primary engine built by Pratt & Whitney [UTX].
In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said yesterday: “If the final bill presented to the president includes funding or a legislative direction to continue an extra engine program, the president’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.”
OMB raised objections to the alternate engine program last year as well, but used slightly different wording, saying President Barack Obama would be advised to veto legislation that would “seriously disrupt” the overall F-35 aircraft program. Obama did not veto either the defense authorization or appropriations bills last year despite their inclusion of the engine,
This year, though, the Pentagon has ramped up its campaign to end the second engine.
House lawmakers battled on the House floor yesterday over an unsuccessful amendment from Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) that would have removed $485.1 million for the alternate engine from the version of the FY ’11 defense authorization bill approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). The amendment was killed in a 193-231 vote.
HASC leaders on both sides of the aisle vehemently fought against the amendment, which was championed by House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.).
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has argued the nation cannot afford to invest another $3 billion to complete the alternate engine. The program’s Capitol Hill supporters, though, point to a Pentagon analysis that found the cost of developing both or just one F-35 engine would be roughly the same on a “net present value basis.”
HASC Air and Land Forces Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said yesterday “the second engine is all about fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayers money,” noting the Pentagon supported the engine effort for a decade.
“The simple argument is competition works, and being penny wise and pound foolish doesn’t,” Smith said. “We’ve already spent $3 billion. To save $2 billion on the front end, we risk a $100 billion program.”
Larson shot back that lawmakers are “pushing forward an unwanted and unnecessary $3 billion program” and declared now is the time to “make the tough choices to rein in wasteful spending.”
“Only in Washington, D.C., could a company that lost competition in the private sector, and already controls 88 percent of the military engine market, come seeking a government-directed subsidy and call that competition,” said Larson, whose state is home to primary engine builder Pratt & Whitney.
The Houser passed another controversial proposal tied to government subsidies and the Air Force KC-X tanker competition last night, via a 410-8 margin.
Boeing [BA] backers joined Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) in arguing for his amendment that would mandate the Pentagon, when weighing proposals from companies vying to build the tanker, consider any “unfair competitive advantage” a bidder received.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded in a March report that some European government aid to European firm Airbus was illegal. European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), Airbus’ parent company, is competing for the tanker contract against Boeing. The EU is expected to appeal the WTO’s March report, and the trade organization also is weighing the EU’s counter-complaint that Boeing unfairly benefitted from U.S. government support.
House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) argued European government support to EADS “gives it an unfair advantage in bidding this airplane, and that’s why we want the secretary of defense to at least take that into account.”
Meanwhile, the SASC opted to not include the second engine in the FY ’11 defense authorization bill it finished marking up yesterday in behind-closed-door sessions.
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) supports the second engine, which is opposed by committee members including Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) and SASC Airland Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I/D-Conn.).
Lieberman hailed the SASC’s action as “a great victory.”
“Now we in the Senate will look to our House colleagues to show their support for the men and women who serve in our armed forces by cutting this unnecessary, alternate engine in their version of the bill,” he said.
The SASC also agreed to a legislative provision saying no funds can be spent on the second engine unless the defense secretary certifies that it would reduce the total life-cycle costs of the F-35 program and improve the aircraft fleet’s operational readiness.
Levin had talked about leaving the engine effort out of the Senate bill in hopes that it could be approved behind closed doors by a conference committee that will reconcile the versions of the authorization bill passed by the House and Senate; that plan, though, would only work if the House-approved legislation retains the General Electric-Rolls-Royce engine.