Forum: F-35 Lightning II

WASHINGTON – Determined to reduce deficits, impatient House Republican freshmen made common cause with President Barack Obama on Wednesday, scoring their biggest victory to date in a vote to cancel $450 million for an alternative engine for the Pentagon's next-generation warplane.

"Right here, right now was a surefire way to reduce spending," declared Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a second-term lawmaker whose summons to cut money from the F-35 fighter jet was answered by 47 Republican newcomers. Speaker John Boehner and other House GOP leaders back the funding.

The incursion into the defense budget occurred as the Republican-controlled House debated legislation to cut federal spending by more than $61 billion through the end of the current fiscal year. Nearly all of the reductions are aimed at domestic programs, ranging from education aid to nutrition, environmental protection and farm programs.

Obama has threatened a veto if the measure reaches his desk, but he and the GOP newcomers were on the same side when it came to the engine for the F-35, the costliest weapons program in U.S. history. The House vote was 238-198.

Two successive presidents as well as the Pentagon brass have tried to scrap funding for the alternative engine, arguing it is a waste of money. In a measure of his opposition, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a House committee earlier in the day that overall costs could reach $3 billion, and he vowed to "look at all available legal options to close down this program" if lawmakers fail.

Strictly by the numbers, the vote was a bipartisan one, with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats supporting cancellation of the funds, while 68 Democrats and 130 Republicans wanted to leave them in place.

But that breakdown obscured the change wrought by the voters last fall. A similar vote in May ended in defeat for opponents of the alternative engine.

At the time, Democrats controlled the House, and only 57 Republicans voted to cut off funds. Many of today's first-term Republicans were mere candidates for office, campaigning with the support of tea party activists and promising to cut federal spending.

"Give these new freshmen credit. They went against their own leadership," said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., also a foe of the alternative engine.

"No federal agency is exempt," said freshman Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., who said the second engine "is militarily unnecessary and a wasteful use of extremely limited and precious taxpayer dollars."

Apart from spending cuts and the defense budget, the broader legislation before the House contains funding needed to keep the government operating normally after current authority expires on March 4.

House passage is expected by week's end, although debate has turned into something of an exercise in human endurance as Republicans live up to their pledge of free-flowing discussion and numerous amendments.

Lawmakers debated proposed changes to the bill well after midnight and into the early hours of Wednesday, and arrangements were in place for the House to stay in session as late as 3 a.m. on Thursday before adjourning for a few hours and returning to work.

More than 400 proposed changes were stacked up and could be voted on, ranging from the sweeping to the tightly targeted.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., wants to go big, cutting an additional $45 billion from the bill, to be taken across the board from domestic programs.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has one proposal to block the Department of Health and Human Services from studying "the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana among young people," and another to make sure the National Science Foundation does not research whether "video games improve mental health for the elderly."

The ultimate fate of the alternative engine wasn't sealed by the day's vote. Supporters of the project are likely to try and preserve it when the Senate debates its version of the bill. Gates' spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said the defense chief viewed the House vote as "one step, although a very important one, on the path to ensuring that we stop spending limited dollars on unwanted and unneeded defense programs."

The fight over the alternative engine has long been more a regional clash than a partisan issue.

The main engine is built by Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

General Electric and Rolls-Royce are major contractors for the alternative engine, and the program has brought jobs to Ohio, among other regions. Boehner, who represents a district in the western part of the state, did not speak during debate on the issue and did not vote on the proposed cut. A spokesman said he did not attempt to lobby fellow lawmakers.

Also in favor of continued funding were Boehner's top lieutenants in leadership, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy of California, the whip.

While a majority of first-term Republicans voted to strip out the funds, those from Virginia and Ohio as well as next-door Indiana were unanimously opposed, a dozen in all.

Whatever the bill's final shape, the heavy conservative majority in the House assures the legislation will face a hostile reception in the Senate, where Democrats generally favor higher spending for domestic programs.

A compromise is expected before the March 4 deadline to avoid a government shutdown that neither party says it wants, although the government may be forced to limp along on a series of short-term spending bills for weeks while the details are negotiated.

We'll have to what happens in the Senate. GE has purchased lots of Congressional support. GE wants that engine funded regardless whether anyone wants it or needs it.

The "Repeal Obama" ad seems kind of ironic.

What would the engine be used for- why would we need it?

IMO, I am for it if for 2 reasons, to maintain US industrial jobs and to keep GE's brains in the jet fighter engine game. Failing that we should dual source the F135 to GE to at least keep the jobs.

If the F-35B goes into production, they'll still get at piece of that pie because they're in involved with the lift fan, right?

The main reason I am against two engine types is because it creates a strain on the troops. I've had to work on different aircraft configurations and it's sometimes a huge pain. I'll take supporting the troops any day over supporting jobs. Sadly, I believe the money saved from this program being canceled will be blown on something else and it won't be for paying of national debt.

If we don't start supporting our industries the troops won't have anything to support them with. We keep acting like our military's equipment arrives from wishful, patriotic thinking. Or perhaps we'll just import our equipment from Chinese manufacturers. They wouldn't screw our troops right? If we maintain our industrial policies there won't be any US manufacturers.

I don't believe our national choices are the troops OR industry. In every major war we've needed both.

As for 2 different engines for the same plane causing log headaches, let's just dual source then.

The money we save will be for something important like midnight basketball. Mad

Just because it's made in America, doesn't mean it's great military hardware. As a former squad leader, I would have much rather had my troops armed with German H&K G36C assault rifles than M4s. The bottom line IS the troops, not jobs. If the troops weren't around, you wouldn't have jobs, wishful, patriotic thinking or not. Plenty of crappy US made military gear, parts, equipment, tools and what not have screwed over our troops. Maybe if the TF30 wasn't such a junk engine for the F-14A, we would have more men and women with us today. I want a strong base of industrial competition, not an illogical trend of industrial sympathy for companies who dropped the ball.

I never said if it's American it's the bestest anywhere, ever. I want military-industrial independence because when push comes to shove I don't trust ANYONE else.

I am well aware of the fact that the troops are the reason for our safety.

The TF30 was sh*t but that had to do with the USN in 1970-1971 rolling the budget dice to get a better engine and lost, not because they thought the TF30 was great for the F-14.

But I fail to see how GE is a company that has dropped the ball with its jet engines.

A military-industrial team won our wars. And our current industrial/trade policies for both civilian and military companies sucks.

I never said if it's American it's the bestest anywhere, ever. I want military-industrial independence because when push comes to shove I don't trust ANYONE else.

I am well aware of the fact that the troops are the reason for our safety.

A military-industrial team won our wars. And our current industrial/trade policies for both civilian and military companies sucks.

"Military-Industrial Team" I like that sound of that. Okay then, I'll buy it. If the industry (specific corporation) can't support the troops though (and the politicians, who are lobbied/bought by industry), they don't deserve the job. We find someone else. I know how it works, I'm not try to polarize things. I'm not going to even say that it's industry that lets the troops down (they do step up and rise to the challenges), it's the politicians and apathetic American public. I spent the better part of a decade serving my country and will eventually enter an industry (as an engineer). My opinions are still pretty much centered around my friends and family still serving.