This amendment prohibits any further funding for the alternate F-35 engine. In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money. I could not put it any better than the Secretary of Defense put it himself: Given the many pressing needs facing our military and the fiscal challenges facing our country, we cannot afford a 'business as usual' approach to the defense budget. Tough choices must be made by both the Department and Congress to ensure that current and future military capabilities can be sustained over time. This means programs and initiatives of marginal or no benefit, like the F136 engine, are unaffordable luxuries. I urge my colleagues to vote 'yes' and finally end this wasteful, unnecessary program.
Chellie Pingree: “This amendment prohibits any further funding for the alternate F-35 engine. In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is addressing funding for the alternate F-35 engine and urging its prohibition.
Share
More from Chellie Pingree
This amendment eliminates funding for the Council on Environmental Quality. The office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment. It also…
Maybe my colleagues have heard of New York Fashion Week, which was at the beginning of this month, but this week is New York Climate Week, giving us an opportunity to spur climate action. The fashion industry is a massive, $2.5 trillion…
Moreover, as Members of Congress who represent nearly eight thousand civilian workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, we are concerned about the proposed rule’s impact on workers essential to our national security.





