By Emelie Rutherford
A key House panel approved a $523.9 billion Pentagon spending bill yesterday with funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine, a move that could bode well for the future of the propulsion program the White House opposes.
Still, the fate of the second engine, the F136 developed by General Electric [GE] and Rolls-Royce, faces a rocky path in the congressional approval process.
After the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee (HAC-D) marked up its fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill yesterday, Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) told reporters he remains opposed to the engine, a backup to Pratt & Whitney‘s [UTX] primary F-35 engine. The second engine is in his panel’s bill, however, because he allowed the subcommittee to vote on an amendment to add the funding. The measure offered by House Appropriations Committee (HAC) Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) passed via an 11-5 vote.
Dicks, in explaining his opposition, said he didn’t want to spend an estimated $2.5 billion on the second engine. The White House’s threat to veto the defense bill over the inclusion of the alternate engine–as well as funding for additional cargo planes the HAC-D did not support–also was a factor, he said.
“I did not want to get my first bill vetoed,” said Dicks, who took charge of the HAC-D after the previous chairman, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, died in February.
Lewis’ amendment added $450 million to the bill for the F136 and took the funding from a stockpile-replenishment program.
“There has been much debate on the issue of the second engine, but it all comes down to this: competition saves money,” Lewis said in a statement. “I truly believe that spending a little money today will save a great deal in the future. And, to the question of a possible veto by the President, I say that we cannot let fear and threats keep us from doing what we believe is right for the taxpayers and our troops.”
The White House has repeatedly threatened to veto defense legislation that funds the engine effort, which lawmakers have consistently funded in recent years over the objections of the administrations of President Barack Obama and former president George W. Bush. Yet some observers believe Obama, unlike last year, could follow through with the threat and veto any FY ’11 defense bill supporting the second engine.
“Mr. Gates was very persuasive that they would veto the bill,” Dicks said.
As to the alternate engine’s future, Dicks noted support is strong in the House, whose members voted 231-193 to keep the program in the FY ’11 authorization bill during floor debate on May 27 (Defense Daily, May 28).
Still, he noted that House vote does not reflect the two-thirds support by the chamber, a margin that would be needed in both the House and Senate to override a veto by Obama.
While the House-passed defense authorization bill, which sets policy, supports the alternate engine, the version of the authorization legislation pending debate in the full Senate would not authorize it. The Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee (SAC-D) has not yet acted on the FY ’11 Pentagon appropriations bill, and continued support for the engine by Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) is in question.
The HAC-D marked up its bill yesterday in closed session. The full HAC is not expected to take up the legislation until after the House returns from the August recess. Like Dicks, HAC Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) voted against the F-35 alternate engine during the May 27 defense authorization bill debate.
The HAC-D’s $523.9 billion defense appropriations bill also has attached to it $157.7 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bases bill’s $523.9 billion price tag is $7 billion below the White House’s request.
The HAC-D did not fund any more of Boeing‘s [BA] C-17 cargo aircraft. The White House also threatened to veto the defense bill over if it includes unrequested funding for building additional copies.
No C-17s are included in the versions of the FY ’11 defense authorization bill the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee passed. The SAC-D, though, has several C- 17 backers.
The HAC-D’s bill also adds funding not requested by the White House for a Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship in FY ’11, raising the total number of Navy vessels in the bill to 10. Dicks said moving up the schedule for the MLP, so two of them are purchased in FY ’11, would save the Pentagon approximately $125 million.
The legislation would add other funding not requested by the White House, including $248 million for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems such as counter-IED capabilities and sensors, according to a summary.
The HAC-D is calling for cutting one of the F-35 aircraft the administration requested, Dicks said. The panel’s legislation also would reduce the administration’s proposal for developing a new Army Ground Combat Vehicle by $100 million, he said.
Overall, he said, the measure makes no large cuts to weapon-system programs, and instead slashed “little bits and pieces that added up to $7 billion.”
The HAC-D bill also includes $604 million to help “spur innovation and deliver solutions to the warfighter more rapidly,” according to a summary. Dicks highlighted to reporters the enhanced role he wants the Small Business Innovation Research program to have in helping smaller defense business access Pentagon contracts. His support of bolstering this program comes after a clampdown in Congress on lawmakers earmarking Pentagon funding for contractors in their districts.
Dicks said the HAC-D legislation contains no language regarding the Air Force tanker procurement or the U.S.-European trade battle over government support provided to bidders Boeing and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.