Mr. Chairman, I guess much of the world knows that last year our subcommittee went about what many thought to be impossible, that is, we came together in a forum that was entirely nonpartisan, beginning to attempt to address the question of future tactical fighter capability for the country. At question was the reality that we had three aircraft lines moving forward in terms of research and development. We had potential production costs that were almost endless. Yet our objective out there by 2020 and 2050 was to make sure that America had the best possible tactical aircraft available for our men and women who defend freedom in the world. As we raised this question about the F-22, our point was to say this appears to be an aircraft that can meet our needs in the decades ahead. But, indeed, if we commit to that line before we know that it really works, we could commit ourselves to a procurement line that is horrendously expensive; and we could find ourselves on a pathway not similar to that which was the B-2 not so long ago. So the committee dared to ask, should we insist upon testing, actual flight testing of this aircraft before we went forward with that long-term procurement?
Jerry Lewis: “Mr. Chairman, I guess much of the world knows that last year our subcommittee went about what many thought to be…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for testing before committing to the F-22 aircraft procurement.
Share
More from Jerry Lewis
I will never forget running for a school board, and people were talking about the Federal Government's beginning to get involved in education. I remember saying to those people, let us be very, very careful about going to Uncle Sam to…
this simple motion is to recommend or recommit. It is a sense of the Congress resolution that recognizes the service of General David Petraeus as well as all other members of our Armed Forces. It expresses our appreciation for his personal…
I find this conversation to be very interesting, and I noted that there is a tendency not to accept authorizing language in this instance because of a very specific problem, and because the authorizing committee has not acted. I, frankly…
It's my understanding that by considering the supplemental in this way, under this rather unorthodox way, the majority's new rule that's related to earmarks does not apply to the two amendments we're considering today.





