Mike Levin: “I will be opposing the Chambliss amendment, although I am both a supporter of the F-22 and a supporter, generally, of…”

“I will be opposing the Chambliss amendment, although I am both a supporter of the F-22 and a supporter, generally, of multiyear contracts. Where they meet the criteria for multiyear contracts, I am very supportive of them because of, mainly, the money that can be saved. I oppose this amendment with some reluctance. Again, I very much support, and have supported, the airplane. And I, in general, like the multiyear approach, where it meets the criteria. But some of the criteria have not been adequately met; for instance, whether the multiyear contract would result in substantial savings compared to using annual contracts. The studies are that the savings would be, I would say, very modest and not substantial. There are some savings, but I could not say they are substantial savings. Another criteria is whether the contract is for a number which is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of both numbers, production rate, procurement rate, and, again, total quantities. The F-22 total program quantities are likely to increase before the end of production. There is also a requirement that there be a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with the purchase are not excessive. There are some unresolved operational test deficiencies, and there are what I think can fairly be called major modifications that are planned for providing more robust air-to- ground capability.…”