Jerry Moran: “I can understand that there are a lot of jobs at stake, there's politics, there's regional economies, and so on, to be…”

“I can understand that there are a lot of jobs at stake, there's politics, there's regional economies, and so on, to be considered in this issue. I don't particularly have a dog in the hunt, but I'd like to share with you why I disagree with the amendment, why I think it's in the national interest to have an alternative engine. The experience that we had in the 1980s with the F-16 engine, it seems to me, should inform this debate. We had a sole source contract, basically; with the same manufacturer to build a single engine for the F-16. It was way over budget and outside of--any reasonable production schedule. Production was substantially delayed. And we had little leverage until we brought in an alternative contractor. We brought in competition. All of a sudden we got right on schedule and on budget. I think this situation is analogous. We're talking about a $100 billion contract for the principal jet fighter we're going to have for the next generation. And we have one engine manufacturer that we're going to be reliant upon. It's also going to be one of our most substantial exports to other militaries around the world. It's going to be a very substantial source of jobs and revenue, and in fact, I have to say, military dominance. What we are talking about is having competition to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers.”