National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. I don't stand up here before you representing myself as some great expert on airplanes, but I am a Member of this body who is very concerned about the deficit and about spending. And we must save money, particularly where we need to.

Now, when the Simpson-Bowles Commission says that this particular airplane is not necessary and should be cut--and recommendation 47, cancel the Marine Corps version of the F 35--I have to stop and take notice. When other organizations, many of which are fairly conservative groups--Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Cato Institute--no bleeding heart liberals there--the Project for Government Oversight, the National Taxpayers Union, the Project on Defense Alternatives, and the Center for American Progress, all agree that this is a wasteful program which we can save money with, I think we've got to stop and we've got to take notice.

Now I notice my colleague on the other side of the aisle was making very good points, and they sound very similar to some points I read earlier today from a memo from somebody from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is a private contractor who is making the program.

The talking points that they sent out are essentially arguing so that they can ensure a commercial success of their particular project, which they have a financial interest in. But they make no claim of cost. They do not say that this is an exorbitant expense that people who have an eye toward budget are saying is not worth the money.

We're not asking for the F 35A or F 35C to be cut. But we are saying that this particular program, where there is a diverse and broad range of parties who say that this is not a necessary program, should be cut and can be replaced by other good alternatives, and I think we have need to pay attention to that. I'm sure my friends who repeat constantly that, We're broke, we're broke, we're broke, would agree.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source