TOPICS

Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., on Tuesday said it was up to the Pentagon to "clean up" the situation arising from an apparent conflict of interest involving retired Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads the government-funded Institute for Defense Analyses.

"This is extremely, extremely disturbing," Warner said during an Airland Subcommittee hearing, as he and other senators questioned whether Blair's ties to a subcontractor on the Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet could have tainted an IDA study that recommended a multiyear procurement contract to buy 60 planes.

Blair, who did not recuse himself from discussions on the report, sits on the board of directors and holds extensive shares of EDO Corp., one of hundreds of firms involved in the program, according to disclosures at the hearing.


RELATED STORIES

"It's sad," Warner said after the hearing. "I know Blair and it reflects on the Navy."

The IDA report, delivered to Capitol Hill in May, concluded that the multiyear procurement favored by the Pentagon and contractor Lockheed Martin would save at least $225 million -- a key argument used by supporters of the contracting strategy, which has been opposed by Warner and Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz.

Tuesday, advocates of multiyear procurement, an approach already approved by both the Senate and House in their respective versions of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill, argued that Blair's stake in the subcontractor did not sway the IDA report. Indeed, one Senate aide asserted that EDO has less than 1 percent of the total work on the massive F-22 program.

"I don't think the [disclosure] is going to change anybody's mind," the aide said. "I would be more surprised if a retired four-star didn't have equities in a major defense contractor." Meanwhile, Richard Nelson, an IDA researcher, told the panel the retired admiral did not attend final reviews of the study.

Opponents of using a multiyear contract to buy the Raptors argue that it would commit future Congresses to the aircraft long before money is actually appropriated, creating substantial financial risks. Conversely, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and others say that it would inject stability in the F-22 program, which has been subjected to dramatic cuts over the years -- and ultimately reduce costs.

The F-22 is assembled in Marietta, Ga. Chambliss on Tuesday acknowledged previous technological and other problems with the F-22, but stressed that the multiyear pact would help the Air Force "secure this asset."

Warner signaled that a multiyear contract would be a subject for conference negotiations over the competing authorization bills. Although the House bill was drafted by the House Armed Service Committee to approve the multiyear approach, the Senate bill was amended successfully by Chambliss on the floor after the Senate Armed Services Committee barred multiyear procurement amid concerns the F-22 failed to meet conditions allowing for such a deal.

"One important voice hasn't spoken yet and that's the conference and the conference chairman," said Warner, referring to himself.

COMMENTS

  • I agree with Cracked & Wired. As for the F-22, it is needed and anyone who can't see that wouldn't understand the reasoning anyway, so I won't waste time trying to explain.
  • This is another case of lawmakers becoming very sensitive about corruption as the elections near. Too bad this wasn't included in an oversight meeting. Oh, I forgot, the Republicans don't do oversight if an election is not around the corner.
  • These guys are discussing a procurement method that will result in the government saving $225 million over buying another way. If they dropped the entire program they would save billions. The plane is not necessary, the technology already has been developed and the program should be dropped until such time that the plane is needed. Why can't Congress save us billions on this single program rather than spend time arguing about saving $225 million because they buy 60 planes? Buy none and save some real money!