Cong. Saxton Returns to DC
Hearing challenges DoD’s actions on F-22 Raptor Program
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Jim Saxton unexpectedly returned to Washington this week as the Speaker reconvened Congress for a rare lame duck session. Yesterday he and the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee held a hearing about a recent U.S. Air Force decision to limit the F-22 program in 2009.
Saxton (R-N.J.), Ranking Republican on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, joined his close friend and colleague, Chairman Neil Abercrombie, (D-Hawaii) in challenging the Pentagon’s decision to reduce procurement plans from 20 to 4 aircraft.
"Although I don't think any of us thought another hearing on the F-22 would be required when we finished our work on the 2009 defense bill, it's nice to be back among my friends and colleagues on this subcommittee," Saxton said. He said he shared the chairman’s concern about how the Department of Defense (DoD) elected to implement the 2009 defense bill’s provision regarding buying F-22s.
Saxton asked DoD Under Secretary John Young to shed some light on the reasoning behind his decision to award less than the amount Congress authorized to buy F-22s. DoD’s actions allow for the procurement of parts support for only four aircraft instead of the 20 aircraft Congress authorized. Secretary Gates and Secretary England have endorsed putting off the F-22 program for consideration by the next administration. The DoD directs the Air Force to limit to $50 million any funds for advanced procurement of F-22s as a bridge to a January decision by the next administration.
"In my view, the Congressional intent is clear," Saxton said. "By authorizing $523 million—the full amount required for advanced procurement for 20 F-22s—we intended for you to do just that. The only stipulation we included was that you not obligate more than $140 million before the new Administration reviews the program and makes a decision on the path forward. It makes me wonder what the Department would have done if we had not included a restriction or stipulation on obligation of the funds. If we had simply authorized $523 million for advanced procurement for F-22s—just like the Congress does every year for hundreds of other procurement programs—would the Department have elected to use only $50 million? Would there be a question about our intent? Would there be a question about the amount to be obligated? I hope you will be able to explain to us how you determined that $50 million would be adequate to keep the long-lead suppliers under contract and in production until the new Administration makes a decision. I'm very interested in understanding the assumptions that went into your decision and I'd like to see the data to support your position. This is a critical point that we must understand, as I fear your decision to withhold the $90 million may already be impacting suppliers and driving up long-term costs."
# # #