Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I was not suggesting that we not proceed this morning; I was suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate a Senator who is going to be offering a second-degree amendment. If that is not acceptable, we do not need to do that. I was simply trying to accommodate the Senator so that the second-degree or side-by-side amendment that was in the unanimous consent proposal last night could be offered by him. If that is not agreeable to the Republican side, then I obviously am not going to make the suggestion. But it would not delay anything; all it would do would be to change the order of events to accommodate us. If that is not acceptable to the minority, then I will obviously not make that unanimous consent proposal.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, of course, that is exactly what I was proposing. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Arizona to try to work that out. There is no problem with the time agreement on the Lieberman-Bayh matters because the reason we couldn't do that is that the Bayh language was not available in time for the minority side to consider a time agreement. We would be happy to have a time agreement of 1 hour on the Lieberman amendment, 1 hour on the Bayh amendment; 2 hours together, in other words. We are happy to have a time agreement on Senator Kyl's amendment, but we were only suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate things here. It would not result in any additional use of time; it would not delay anything; it would simply reverse the order for the accommodation of the Senator who needs to be here to offer a second-degree amendment, if we are going to do it, or a side-by-side to Senator Kyl's first-degree amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, what we need to do along that line is to see if we can get an agreement from Senator Lieberman and from Senator Bayh on a time agreement on those two amendments. I would suggest, as the Senator from Arizona did, that there be an hour equally divided on each, which will be a total of 2 hours, and then if the majority leader is agreeable to this----

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence---- Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest that we seek an agreement that there be 2 hours on the two amendments together, one equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for consideration of amendments this morning be switched and that the Senate now consider the Lieberman amendment No. 1627 and the Bayh amendment No. 1767; that the amendments be debated concurrently for a total of 150 minutes, with 90 minutes under the control of Senator Lieberman and 60 minutes under the control of Senator Bayh; that no amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the vote in relation to the amendments occur at a time to be determined, with the first vote in relation to the Bayh amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lieberman amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues for working this out to try to accommodate all of us the best we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 minutes of the time of Senator Bayh.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I oppose the Lieberman amendment that would eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. The committee voted 12 to 10 to keep this competition going. I emphasize, this is not a new engine that is being introduced. This effort is to have a competitive engine. This effort has been supported by Congress for many years. Indeed, our Armed Services Committee had a vote on this 2 years ago where we determined to maintain the competition. This year's vote was 12 to 10. A fundamental tenet for reforming the Defense Department's acquisition system is ensuring competition throughout the development and production cycle of major acquisition systems, whenever and wherever that makes sense. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Congress has concluded repeatedly that competition makes sense because of the size of this buy. The JSF program is planned to be one of the largest acquisition programs ever undertaken by the Defense Department. The Defense Department intends to buy more than 2,400 JSF aircraft, with our foreign partners slated to buy at least another 600. That means we are talking about a program of more than 3,000 aircraft. That means more than 3,000 engines. The cost of the engines alone will exceed $50 billion over the life of the program. This is not an issue such as whether we add F-22s. This is a matter of whether we are going to have competition in a program everybody supports and where we intend to purchase about 3,000 planes. A number of studies have been done trying to estimate the economic costs and benefits of developing a second engine. The analysis of our Government Accountability Office, which Congress directed to review this, came out a few years ago. Michael Sullivan, GAO Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, testified as follows in March 2006 before the House Armed Services Committee: The current estimated remaining life cycle cost for the JSF engine under the sole-source scenario is $53.4 billion. To ensure competition by continuing the JSF alternate engine program, an additional investment of $3.6 billion to $4.5 billion may be required. This was back in 2007. It is a lot less than that now to complete this program. Continuing from the testimony: However, the associated competitive pressures from this strategy could result in savings equal to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the engine. The cost analysis that we performed suggests that a savings of 10.3 to 12.3 percent would recoup that investment, and actual experience from past engine competitions suggests that it is reasonable to assume that competition on the JSF engine program could yield savings of at least that much. These results are dependent on how the government decides to run the competition, the number of aircraft that are ultimately purchased, and the exact ratio of engines awarded to each contract. In addition, DOD-commissioned reports and other officials have said that non financial benefits in terms of better engine performance and reliability, improved industrial base stability, and more responsive contractors are more likely outcomes under a competitive environment than under a sole-source strategy. [Department of Defense] experience with other aircraft engine programs, including that for the F-16 fighter, has shown competitive pressures can generate financial benefits of up to 20 percent during the life cycle of an engine program and/or the other benefits mentioned. The potential for cost savings and performance improvements, along with the impact the engine program could have on the industrial base, underscores the importance and long-term implications of [Department of Defense] decision making with regard to the final acquisition strategy. A few months ago, before the Armed Services Committee, in May of 2009, that same Mr. Sullivan of the GAO said that his study of 2007 is still relevant and the same conclusions can be drawn. This is not a new engine which is being introduced. This is an engine development program to provide competition which has been long underway. The Department of Defense and Congress have approved, authorized, and appropriated spending so far of $2.5 billion for this alternate engine. The most important point I think I can make is this is not $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion additional funds we are talking about. In order to complete the development of this competitive engine, it will require $1.8 billion. So that $2.5 billion is already sunk into this engine development program. That is probably two-thirds of its cost already sunk into it. The question is, do we complete the development of this alternative engine at a cost of about $1.8 billion? That would conclude the cost for the engine contractor and other government costs for that program, for testing activities and for oversight. So again, the issue is not whether to introduce a new engine. The question is, do we complete the development of a second engine which is already two-thirds paid for? We received a letter this morning--I received a letter this morning-- from the Secretary of Defense, and the letter concludes that if the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill. If the final bill presented to the President contained provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, I would recommend to the President that he veto the bill. There is no serious disruption to the F-35 program that would occur whether or not the Bayh amendment is adopted. The Bayh amendment makes triply sure there will be no disruption at all, even a minute disruption, in the F-35 program. It is not going to be disrupted at all. The funding for this alternate engine in the bill which the committee approved came from a Marine helicopter program, a part of which could not be produced this year. So the committee determined that it could safely take funds that were requested for that program, which could not be spent this year. A question has been raised about that. There is no one on this committee, there is no one in this Senate, who wants to slow down a Marine helicopter program. None of us will permit that to happen. That program is a vital program. We have spent a lot of money on it. It is critically necessary. The decision, which was made by the Armed Services Committee, was to simply take funds which could not be spent for that program, because of development delays, and to spend that, instead, for the second engine. However, what the Bayh amendment does is to make triply sure, to reassure everybody there cannot possibly be any impact on a Marine helicopter program, by finding a separate, a different, a distinct source, an alternate source, for this second engine. So the Bayh amendment removes any question about Marine helicopters. If adopted, that will be off the table. It was off the table in any event. But everybody wants to assure the Marines, assure our people that there is not going to be any impact on a Marine helicopter program for any reason, much less a second engine. There is another question which some have raised about whether two engines--

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore. Madam President, how much time is left for Senator Bayh?

Mr. LEVIN. I would, in that case, conclude my statement. If there is additional time for Senator Bayh, I will then ask at a later point for some of that time. But for those reasons, and more, which I have not yet been able to reach, I very much support the Bayh amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from Georgia, about how much time does he believe he would be using?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after that 10-minute time is used Senator Kerry be recognized for a period of up to 10 minutes on Senator Bayh's time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Indiana yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me confirm what the Senator from Indiana said. This issue does not involve 130s. Congress has put all the money in for 130s that the President requested. The reason this money for 130s was in our committee report is because we did not know at the time that the supplemental appropriations bill would put money in for the 130s. So we do not need this money for the 130s to fully finance the request of the President of the United States for 130s. I wish to reiterate one point I made earlier. This is not an issue of whether we insert a new engine, whether we start down the road with a second engine. That issue was resolved years ago by Congress when we started to fund a second engine for the purpose of competition. We have already put $2.5 billion into this second engine. Roughly $1.8 billion more is needed. So our sunk costs are approximately two-thirds of the cost of this second engine. We have consistently supported it in the Armed Services Committee. This is not new. We feel the value of competition will more than make up for all of the costs and surely far more than make up for the final costs which we need in order to complete the development of this second engine. I do support the Bayh amendment. I think it makes sense in terms of the fundamental point of competition, it makes sense fiscally, and it makes good sense in terms of the quantity we are buying. There is a huge buy, 2,500 planes, engines, and perhaps 500 more in terms of the export market. It is a huge buy. With this size buy and given the precedent of other planes--at least three that have had two engines available for them--with that precedent and with these savings, I hope the Bayh amendment is accepted.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, has all the time been yielded back?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:35 p.m., all time remaining for debate with respect to these amendments, Nos. 1627 and 1767, having been yielded back, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order previously entered, with the second vote 10 minutes in duration and all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I modify that unanimous consent request and ask that the vote begin immediately at 12:34 and a half p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1627

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with the concurrence of the proponents and the opponents, that the 2 minutes be yielded back and that this be voice voted.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me thank my friend from Arizona. First of all, we are trying to work out an approach which would be satisfactory to the issue and will save a lot of time if we can work it out. If we cannot, we can go to a vote on his amendment. The regular order would be to go back to the Kyl amendment as I understand it at this point. We are going to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be recognized to introduce an amendment, that it be in order for him to do so, and that after 15 minutes we vote. I ask unanimous consent that after 15 minutes of debate, with no amendments being in order to the amendment, we then proceed to a vote, understanding it would be a voice, and then the regular order would be restored, which is the Kyl amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I would modify my unanimous consent request that after the disposition of the Schumer amendment, then Senator Tester be recognized for 10 minutes to talk about his amendment, without the consent to offer it.