Mr. President, the statement I am about to present may appear a bit redundant after listening to the great statement of the senior Senator from Mississippi, vice chairman of this committee. But as chairman of this committee, I want to, by…
Mr. President, the statement I am about to present may appear a bit redundant after listening to the great statement of the senior Senator from Mississippi, vice chairman of this committee. But as chairman of this committee, I want to, by this redundancy, emphasize that Senator Cochran and I work as a team, and we agree with the provisions in this measure. For the interest of this body, it should be noted that this measure was passed and presented to the Senate by a vote of 30 to zero--unanimous. A $636 billion bill coming out of the committee, after due consideration, unanimously is historic.
The amendment of the Senator from Arizona seeks to eliminate funds provided in this bill to sustain the C-17 program. As I indicated, Vice Chairman Cochran and I proposed, and the committee accepted, our recommendation to relocate $2.5 billion to procure an additional 10 C- 17 aircraft. If approved, this will bring the total C-17 inventory to 223 aircraft. We believe this is a critical investment which will support our national security strategy and add much to the needed airlift capability.
There are three main reasons the committee supported adding funding for the C-17:
First, as everyone in the military, from senior leadership to the soldiers being transported, will agree, it is, simply put, a superb aircraft. The C-17 represents the finest in military technology. It is efficient, cost-effective, and highly capable. In short, it has no detractors.
Second, we believe the facts now show that additional aircraft are needed to meet military requirements despite that it is being recommended by the Pentagon for cancellation.
Third, the C-17 embodies the only strategic airlift production program in our Nation. As the Senator from Missouri pointed out, there is nothing on the planning ledger to replace it. If we cut off the production at this moment, it will be unaffordable to restart this program.
The C-17 provides the U.S. military with the essential flexibility to respond on short notice--and I emphasize short notice--anywhere in the world. Our air fleet assets are a major enabler of strategy and operational plans. There is not a military scenario in existence today which can be put into effect without a strong airlift fleet. The C-17 was designed specifically to meet virtually all of the needs of our warfighters. It is the only airlift aircraft that has the ability to fly both great distances and to land on austere airfields anywhere in the world. That is very important because we don't have long runways prepared for us in far-off countries. When teamed with the tactical C- 130 and the C-5, the C-17 fleet provides the Nation with the capability to deliver outsized cargo to our forces wherever they may be located.
We believe the C-17 is today the finest airlift aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. With its new avionics and structures, it can maintain a very high mission capability rate. This is a term used by the Air Force to denote the aircraft's ability to perform. Comparative data filed by the Government Accountability Office in November 2008 showed that the C-17 was able to successfully perform its mission in excess of 85 percent of the time. And I think we should note that--85 percent of the time, they are able to perform their mission. On the other hand, the aging C-5 was only able to meet its performance demands 58 percent of the time. For our men and women in uniform, what this means is that if they are depending on a C-5, their needs will be only addressed a little more than half the time, while a C-17 will meet their needs more than 8 times out of 10.
In addition, the C-17 is much cheaper to operate than the C-5. It is true that a C-5 has the capacity to carry more cargo, but in the actual usage by the Air Force, the cost per flying hour of the C-17 is only 40 percent of the cost of the C-5. The Air Force has informed us that today its current statistics show that it costs $6.42 to fly 1 pound of cargo from South Carolina to Baghdad on a C-17--that is $6.42 from South Carolina to Baghdad--but $13.76 to fly the same item on a C-5. Why? Because the C-5 is unreliable, because we rarely need to fill either plane to its maximum capacity on an average mission, and because the C-17 is newer and modernized in comparison to the C-5. We simply cannot rely on the older, outdated C-5.
Opponents might argue that when we modernize the C-5 it will be able to overcome many of these problems. I would concur that a modernized C- 5 will be a far better aircraft. However, I would point out that the C- 5 Modernization Program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. Because of the high cost of the C-5 Modernization Program, the Defense Department decided that it could no longer afford to modernize all 111 C-5s and it cut the program to 52. That means our military will be dependent on 59 of the old and often broken C-5s that cost twice as much to operate as the C-17 for the foreseeable future. That is 47 percent of the C-5 fleet that won't be updated and will be unable to operate efficiently to meet our military needs.
The Government Accountability Office noted that additional investments in the C-17 may be attractive. It calculated that the Defense Department would need to modernize, as Senator Cochran pointed out, seven C-5s--to modernize seven C-5s--to get the equivalent capability gained from acquiring one C-17. It is going to take seven C- 5s to do the work of one C-17, but it would cost three times as much to modernize the seven C-5s as it would to purchase one C-17.
I would like to point out that the C-17 is a fully matured program with stable costs and little uncertainty, while the C-5 Modernization Program is still in its infancy. If there is one thing we know about Defense programs, it is that new program costs generally increase during their early years.
Some may address the Senate and say we don't need any more C-17s. They note that today the Air Force now says we only need the 213 we already have purchased. I would like to point out that in 2002 the commander of the U.S. Transportation Command testified that his C-17 requirement was for 222 C-17s. Moreover, the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study also raises questions about how many aircraft are required. This study, which is supposed to be the basis of our strategic airlift capability requirements, identified the need for between 292 and 383 strategic airlift aircraft, a combination of C-17s and modernized C-5s. In the force today, we have 111 C-5s and 205 C-17s--a total of 315 aircraft--near the bottom of the requirement level. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
In the last Quadrennial Defense Review in 2006, the Defense Department opted to keep its total inventory near the bottom of this requirement range with 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s.
Although we have added C-17s since that time and lost one C-5, the more important fact is that the QDR based this recommendation on a plan to modernize all 112 C-5s. With the plan to only modernize 52 C-5s, the airlift capability of the fleet is drastically diminished.
In 2008, the commander of the Air Force Air Mobility Command expressed his concern with this plan. He testified that the plan with 52 modernized C-5s and 205 C-17s will not provide the strategic airlift that he required.
I would also note that these earlier studies did not take into account today's force structure. That is a very important point. Since the mobility study and the QDR were completed we have transformed our Army creating additional combat capability that requires lift. We have increased the end strength of our Marine Corps, and we have created the U.S. Africa command. All of these have increased our airlift needs.
At the same time, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are aging our airlift fleet beyond anticipated rates. We are flying the wings off our C-17 fleet. In November, 2007, the Air Force Chief of Staff recommended buying an additional 44 C-17s to meet the required force level. On the 2009 Unfunded Requirements List the Air Force asked for an additional 15 C-17 aircraft with a stated inventory objective of 248 C-17s. Our military leaders have called for additional aircraft, our forces have grown since our last studies were written and our plans have been altered to cut back on our modernization program.
It seems to me that notwithstanding the plan offered by the Defense Department, the country has a choice--we can either agree to modernize all the C-5s or we can continue to procure additional C-17s. As noted earlier, as the GAO discovered a new C-17 offers greater capability at a lower price. To me and to many of my colleagues this just makes sense.
Unless we act this year and approve the recommendation from the Appropriations Committee, we won't have a choice. Without the funds in this bill the C-17 program will begin to shut down. I say to my colleagues this is a critical decision and we have to be certain on our course. As the GAO noted, ``careful planning is needed to ensure C-17 production is not ended prematurely . . . Restarting production would not be feasible or cost effective.'' That is the GAO.
Earlier this decade, on several occasions the Defense Department urged the Congress to allow it to begin to retire the oldest and least capable C-5s. It too believed that purchasing additional C-17s was a far superior choice to meet our airlift needs. However, each year the Congress refused to allow DoD to retire any C-5s. Eventually, the Pentagon gave up trying and decided it would be stuck with the old unreliable C-5s. While it originally sought to upgrade all the old C-5s to at least make the best of a bad situation, the cost overruns and delays in the C-5 modernization program made that decision unaffordable. I would point out that the Congress rectified this problem this year in the supplemental and allowed the Air Force to begin to retire these aged aircraft. We know that it makes economical sense to retire these poorly performing aircraft and to replace them with new C-17s. We are looking forward to the Air Force revisiting this issue in the fiscal year 2011 budget with a renewed plan to retire the older C-5s and hopefully a desire to replace them with new C-17s.
In this year's budget the Secretary of Defense has made some tough decisions'' He has opted to kill the F-22, the JSF second engine, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter, the combat search and rescue helicopter and the kinetic energy interceptor. In the bill before the Senate we have supported each of these recommendations. I will be candid that I am not confident that each of these recommendations is in our Nation's interest, but in general I support the Secretary's plans.
There is only one program that the vice chairman and I felt strongly enough about to reverse the recommendation of the Secretary, the C-17.
I have explained at some length why, it is cost effective, it is capable, and it is needed. I urge all my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from Arizona and to vote to support the continuation of the C-17 program.
It is in our Nation's interest.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Senator is correct.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is the DOD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This measure contains approximately $636 billion, including nearly $130 billion to continue the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and all around Southwest Asia.
It contains funds to pay our men and women in uniform, as well as funds to operate our forces and to take care of our wounded. It provides the money required to equip the warfighters and to develop new weapons systems so that they may be protected in the future.
Today is September 29. The fiscal year ends tomorrow. I believe all of us should know that. On Thursday, the Department of Defense will begin to operate on a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure required because the Congress has not completed action on its 12 appropriations measures.
I want to point out that the Appropriations Committee reported its first fiscal year 2010 bill in the Senate on June 18, more than 3 months ago, and this last bill on September 10, nearly 3 weeks ago. All of the other bills were reported before the August recess.
However, because of the scheduling problems we have had, this Senate has passed just six bills. We have spent the better part of 7 weeks on the floor to pass these bills. I wish to note that in years past, most appropriations measures were taken up and passed by this body in 1 or 2 days. Now it is nearly 1 week on each bill. The Senate is known for being a deliberative body, but this is the third day the Senate has been on this important bill, and up until a few minutes ago, not a single amendment had yet to be offered.
Moreover, at this point, only eight amendments have been filed, and we have seen this pattern week after week. Our colleagues are waiting days before getting serious about these bills. The impact of these delays is that the end of the fiscal year is upon us, and
we are nearly only halfway done completing Senate action on our bills, and only one of the 12 bills has reported out of conference committee.
At this juncture, I wish to note that we have had 12 measures. Of the 12 subcommittees, 3 reported the bill to the Senate on a vote of 29 to 1--not quite unanimous, 29 to 1. The remaining nine subcommittee bills, after due deliberation, debate, and discussion, were passed on to the Senate. The Senate committee reported to this Senate with a recommendation that it be passed by a vote of 30 to 0.
This measure before us was adopted by the Appropriations Committee, made up of liberal members, conservative members, middle of the road and whatever you want, men, women, by a vote of 30 to 0.
In January, when I became chairman of this committee, it was apparent to me that the Senate and the legislative branch were losing control over the budget process. We had not passed all of our spending bills as freestanding measures since 2005. We only accomplished that feat once during the past decade.
In many cases, we have resorted to large omnibus bills to complete our work. The Senate has not been allowed to debate or amend many of the measures that were passed. This is no way to run the government.
Vice-Chairman Cochran and I agreed to put a stop to this practice. We vowed to pass 12 bills and to send them to the President individually. We have passed those 12 bills in a timely fashion and presented them to the Senate. Our leaders fully supported us in this plan.
I remind my colleagues that the entire Republican caucus sent a letter to the majority leader urging him to follow this approach. But when it came to putting this in practice, instead of working to get this accomplished, we have been hamstrung by slow progress on each and every bill.
We are well aware that Members have amendments they wish to have considered on this and other appropriations bills. We understand that and have been waiting to debate them. Senator Cochran and I came to the floor Thursday night but were told there was nothing to do. We came here on Friday morning with the same results. We are back this afternoon, and we have one amendment.
The go-slow approach that has been taken by a few of our colleagues has put us in a position in which the government must now begin to operate on a continuing resolution. What does that mean to our agencies? It means they must throw out their plans for operations and streamline activities so that only the most essential operations are funded. Continuing resolutions will continue programs that have expired and are no longer needed, and the new programs that will replace them will not be in place. It means they must delay purchases until they are sure the resources they are seeking will be approved.
In the case of the Defense Department, it means they have to delay starting new weapons development and procurement programs. Some of my fiscally conservative colleagues might applaud this, thinking it means they are cutting spending. But, unfortunately, they are wrong. In fact, we are only running up expenses, as we follow penny-wise, pound-foolish practices which cost more in the long run than they save.
Senate rules are written to protect the rights of the minority and to ensure that legislation is carefully reviewed. But it is also true that when time is of the essence, the deliberative process is frequently turned on its head and complex matters rushed through with no time to debate or opportunity to offer amendments. Rather than delay these bills, which have minimal controversy, leaving the body no choice but to adopt expedited procedures to complete action, let's proceed apace and get this and the other five bills through the Senate as quickly as possible because it is the responsibility of the Congress to ensure that taxpayer funds can be expended efficiently by passing each of these appropriations measures without depending on continuing resolutions or omnibus measures.
I urge all of my colleagues to work with us so we can complete our work, the work of this Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, earlier, the Senator from Arizona raised concerns that the Committee on Appropriations had reduced funding in the operation and maintenance accounts. As I noted in my opening statement, this committee of ours reviews the entire budget and adjusts funds based on that review. That review came out with various results, and I would like to discuss some of them with you.
Before I do the analysis, I would just point out to my colleagues the budget that we are considering at this moment was formulated about a year ago--a year ago. That is when the process began. I am certain all of us will agree that since that time much has changed. Therefore, the committee believed we owe it to the Senate to apply the funds we recommended where they are most needed at this moment, not where they were needed a year ago.
For example, the reductions to operations and maintenance programs we recommended are based on a lack of justification or of changed requirements. The funds are not reduced because of a need to transfer funding to other appropriations.
The Senator from Arizona suggested we are taking out certain funding to pay for earmarks. The O&M accounts--operation and maintenance accounts--were reduced in this fiscal year 2010 base budget for many reasons, and just let me explain a few.
Five hundred million dollars, or half a billion dollars, was not a cut as suggested by the Senator from Arizona, but it was, rather, a transfer from the base budget request to the overseas contingency operations budget because the resources for certain programs were more appropriately funded for the Iraq and Afghanistan war. This is what they suggested.
One hundred million dollars was reduced based on administrative savings proposals. In April of this year the Office of Management and Budget was directed by the President to work with agencies to identify cuts to their administrative budgets separate and apart from those identified by the fiscal year 2010 budget--beyond that.
The DOD savings identified by the administration was $100 million in fiscal year 2010, and we allocated these funds to other worthy projects.
Finally, $100 million was cut from the Security and Stabilization Program because that was not authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. President, we do this type of review every year. Every year someone complains their programs are cut, but we stand by our recommendations. We do more to enhance the readiness of the forces in this bill than was requested. Keep in mind since this budget was drafted, we have requested and added 30,000 more troops. We do so by providing equipment to our National Guard and Reserves. Everyone supports the National Guard, but we give them secondhand tools. It is about time they got some good ones. We do so by applying resources to buy MRAPs to protect our troops. And, yes, we do so to buy more C-17s to carry our forces wherever our leaders send them.
I thank the Chair.