“The subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes $82 billion in DOD procurement and research and development in Titles I and II and another $20 billion in Title XV, for overseas contingency operations, which the committee will address later in the markup. 

 “This mark reallocates funds for higher priorities within the jurisdiction of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. The proposed mark gives first priority to readiness -- providing equipment needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; to provide better response capability to meet natural disasters or crisis response abroad or here at home; and address the most urgent needs of the services. 

 “The subcommittee mark provides an additional $845 million in unfunded requirements for the Army and Air Force and $600 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, in the subcommittee’s continuing attempt to fund reserve component required capabilities at the appropriate level.

 “The mark also provides an additional $603 million for procurement and research and development of the F136 competitive engine for the F-35 aircraft program.  This is largely offset by rebalancing within the F-35 program, by a reduction of one Marine Corps aircraft and one Air Force aircraft; 

 “The recommended procurement of 28 total U.S. F-35 aircraft is still twice the number approved last year.  Also, the year-over-year production rate for the program is maintained at the Department of Defense’s desired rate of 1.75. 

 “If everything proceeds as planned for the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 will compose the vast majority of the fighter force for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force twenty years from now. 

 “Beginning in 1996, Congress directed that the competitive engine be part of the JSF program.  The F-35 program included the F135 engine as the baseline engine and the F136 engine as the competitive engine.  The Pentagon funded development of both engines for ten years, until cost pressures in other parts of the JSF program resulted in the Pentagon no longer budgeting for the competitive engine. 

 “Congress has funded the competitive engine program in fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009.  The current engine for the JSF, the F135, has had testing issues, having had two turbine blade failures within the past 2 years, requiring redesign, remanufacture, and delaying the flight test program.  The F135 engine has yet to even be flight tested in the most stressing flight regime – the vertical landing mode.  Those tests have been delayed for up to two years and are now scheduled to take place in September. 

 “While not as severe, the competing engine, the F136, has had a minor setback in testing, as well. 

 “In April of this year, the Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition cited the Joint Strike Fighter baseline engine cost growth as ‘an ongoing concern.’ From fiscal year 2007 to 2008, the Joint Strike Fighter engine costs have grown, causing a $3 million increase to the short takeoff vertical landing aircraft’s unit fly away costs.  

 “Testifying before the Committee this year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, stated that Pentagon and Institute of Defense Analyses studies, done in 2007, indicated ‘the costs of developing a second engine would outweigh any benefits you might see’ for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine.

 “The 2007 Pentagon cited study, in fact, indicated ‘savings or cost increases due to competition were relatively modest,’ that is to say indeterminate, because the then-year dollar estimates showed a savings of $2.2 billion for the alternate engine competitive option and a net present value calculation showed a cost of $1.2 billion.

 “The Pentagon study cited non cost benefits of an alternative, competitive engine program of ‘insurance against aircraft weight growth, dependence on a single engine possibly causing fleet grounding, providing growth paths for the engine, enhanced contractor responsiveness, technological innovation, improved operational readiness, and a robust industrial base.’

 “The 2007 Institute of Defense Analyses study concluded that ‘competition has the potential to bring benefits in addition to reduced prices, including force readiness, contractor responsiveness, and industrial base breadth.’

 “This issue is not about contractor ‘A’ or contractor ‘B.’  The issue is that we do not believe that it is prudent for up to 80 to 90 percent of the fighter fleet to be dependent on a single engine type, provided by one manufacturer.  Being tied to one engine is too high an operational risk to take.  This is what happened to the F-15 and 16 fleets in the ‘70s when those aircraft were dependent on one engine type and many were grounded as a result of reliability and durability issues.  As a result the alternate engine program was initiated and what is known as the Great Engine War resulted. 

 “Similarly, the AV-8 ‘Harrier’ was grounded for 11 months due to engine problems.  In the cases of the F-15, F-16, and AV-8, none represented a large fraction of the existing fighter force at the time.  With over 2,400 F-35 currently planned for procurement, and each of the services depending on one aircraft and one engine type for the vast majority of its capability, the potential risk is for the entire F-35 fleet to be grounded.

 “Again, we do not believe taking such an operational risk is prudent.  

 “The subcommittee reallocated a total of $2.6 billion within its jurisdiction, across the committee, to fund higher priority requirements. 

 “I believe that this mark funds the priorities of the Members on both sides and unfunded priorities of the Department of Defense and recommend adoption of this mark.

 “At an appropriate time, I will be offering an en bloc amendment that includes report language that has been agreed to by both sides.