Floor Statements

Madam President, let me just say to my friend, the distinguished chairman, all of our Members have very busy schedules. The Senator from Arizona, whose amendment it is, happens to be the second ranking Republican and has heavy responsibilities. I would point out that we waited for a couple hours yesterday for the same Senator yesterday afternoon to be able to come to the floor to address another amendment. At the same time, the clock is running because the majority leader has filed cloture on the bill.

So are we going to run the proceedings here, consideration of the authorization bill, based on the priorities of one Senator or are we going to carry out what we all agreed to last night in the unanimous consent agreement? There was no objection last night from the Senator from Massachusetts. He could have objected. So now we want to turn everybody else's schedules on their heads because one Senator has some other priorities.

Obviously, we are going to finish the bill because the majority leader filed cloture, and we have to close out the bill, after spending nearly a week on two issues, hate crimes and guns, neither of which had a single thing to do with the Defense authorization bill--because, unprecedented in the 20-some years I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee, the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor and proposed a hate crimes bill that had not been through the committee of jurisdiction and was, obviously, very controversial on this side.

So after getting bollixed up for a week and a half--or at least a week--on those two issues, we enter into a unanimous consent agreement when the majority leader files cloture to close off debate on this side. That is the reason it is done. So now we are supposed to overturn, some 10 hours later, a unanimous consent agreement because one Senator cannot fit it into his schedule, when the sponsor of the amendment is the No. 2 ranking member on this side? There is something wrong with that process.

I will be glad to discuss it with the distinguished chairman and we will try and see if we can adjust to it. In the meantime, the clock continues to run and we have fewer and fewer amendments that will be germane and be allowed to be discussed, because we find out this morning, after a unanimous consent agreement which could have been objected to last night, one Senator has a schedule that dictates we turn the unanimous consent agreement on its head.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my request.

Madam President, I would ask the distinguished chairman, then, in the spirit of compromise, can we arrange a time agreement on the Lieberman amendment that is reasonable so that perhaps we could take up the Kyl amendment later in the morning so that at least that might not upset his schedule, since we are making accommodation for the sponsor of a second-degree amendment, which seems to be our priority.

Madam President, let me say we can have 1 hour for each side on the Lieberman amendment and then move directly to the Kyl amendment, if that is agreeable.

Maybe we need a quorum call for a moment.

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which has been described by the proponent and opponent. Obviously, it would strip from the Defense authorization bill a provision that authorizes funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Underscoring Senator Lieberman's point and as was the case with the provision this body addressed in the F-22 program, funding for an alternate engine for the JSF at this time is something the Department of Defense has not asked for and does not want. It is not reflected in either the President's budget request or any of the Services' unfunded priorities list.

I believe there is good reason why neither the Department nor any of the services at this time want an alternate engine for the JSF. That reason is perhaps best expressed in a letter that Senator Lieberman has already quoted from and had printed in the Record, from Secretary Gates. He concludes by saying:

It is my belief that the Joint Strike Fighter Program

presented in the President's budget request is in the best

interests of national security. If a final bill is presented

to the President concerning provisions that would seriously

disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers

will recommend that the President veto the bill.

Before I go much further, I would like to apologize to all Members who had planned to speak on this very important amendment and had arranged their schedules to do so. We have obviously changed the timing, despite the unanimous consent agreement to the contrary, apparently to accommodate one Senator's schedule.

I hope, because this is a very important issue, that Senators both in support of Senator Bayh's position and in support of this amendment would seize the opportunity to come down and address this issue.

Some have cited the benefits of competition as a reason to pursue a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, but a competition for this engine was already conducted. It was already conducted as a part of the original flyoff competition for the Joint Strike Fighter itself. The current airframe manufacturer and engine team won.

In 1996, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas originally competed for the two Joint Strike Technology Concept Demonstration Awards. In connection with that, each of those airframe manufacturers solicited engine proposals from Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. Pratt & Whitney won the competition as to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and General Electric won separately as to McDonnell Douglas. Lockheed Martin and Boeing were selected to proceed to concept demonstration-- where Lockheed Martin ultimately won in 2001.

That is exactly how most military aircraft engines are selected--as a team, combining an airframe with a powerplant. That makes sense, I might say. Obviously, we do not want them being developed separately. So with regard to a second engine, we are not talking about competition, we are actually talking about another bite at the apple.

I hope the great engine war is over. I know of no data or analysis that supports that taxpayers will see any net savings from subjecting the engine for the JSF to any further competition.

I do not believe there is anybody who believes more in competition than the Senator from Connecticut and me, including the chairman. We need to have competition. But there comes a point where you have to make a decision in the development of both the aircraft and the engine and move forward. At some point you have to abandon the alternate engine or, in some cases, there have been advocates of an alternate aircraft itself, to perform the same mission, as in the case of the tanker, and to move forward in order to proceed in a fashion which is in the best interests of the taxpayers and the defense of the country.

That is why the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue that he says the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment is not adopted.

The fact is also funding an alternate engine over the next 6 years has been estimated to cost the program about $5 billion, the equivalent of 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the program manager.

Also, given that continuing development of a second engine would require in excess of $600 million in fiscal year 2010 alone, according to the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, GEN Mark Shackelford. Paying for the engines in just that year would require cutting production of at least two Joint Strike Fighters this year alone.

There may be some nonfinancial benefits to subjecting the engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter to additional competition-- improved contractor performance at the margins, for example.

Like Senator Lieberman, I am not persuaded those benefits are worth an additional cost of $5 billion to the Joint Strike Fighter's bottom line over the next 6 years. Certainly there are more cost-effective ways of ensuring contractor performance.

In my view, the possibility of a fleetwide grounding due to a single engine--that is another argument that is made by proponents of a second engine--is overstated. In fact, the only other U.S. military aircraft with an alternative engine is the F-16. All other aircraft have single- engine sources and have worked well.

There is no doubt the cost growth of the engine has been a huge problem. From fiscal year 2007 to 2008, the engine costs have grown specifically to meet the needs of the Marine Corps for a version capable of short takeoff and vertical landing. But I suggest the challenge there is to ensure that development costs leading to production remain stable, not to introduce a new engine to the program that will most assuredly add more uncertain testing requirements, complexity, and ultimately cost to the program.

So I believe the provision currently in the bill would be seriously disruptive because one of the offsets it uses to fund developing and buying a second engine derives from research, development, and testing and evaluation efforts supporting the program itself.

Also, it is my understanding the offset is of the C-130, which obviously is very much required in our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember, Secretary Gates restructured the Joint Strike Fighter Program this year precisely to provide for more robust developmental testing over the next 5 years to ensure that the program stays on its planned budget. Taking money out of the program's research, development, and testing and evaluation effort will, in my view, most assuredly disrupt the program.

One of the lessons of history on this program is its stability in funding is absolutely vital to executing that program soundly, the instability in funding--the disruption that the provision introduces into the bill--brings the bill within the scope of a veto threat.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment under consideration and prohibit any additional funding for an alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Let me also point out to my colleagues, I think this Secretary of Defense has decided, in an incredible act of courage, to take on certain institutions and the way we do business. I think this Secretary of Defense has decided to take on--and I know he has--the military- industrial-congressional complex which lards on porkbarrel projects and unnecessary spending which, in many respects, places parochial interests over the national interests. Obviously, he feels so strongly about it that he would recommend a veto by the President of the United States. That would be regrettable, obviously, because we have so many important provisions in this bill for the

men and women who are serving this country, from the wounded warriors, to a pay raise, for so many things--to the amendment of Senator Lieberman's that we adopted yesterday that we would provide an additional 30,000 members of the U.S. Army so we can better pursue the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, obviously, as of yesterday, the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue that he would recommend that the President veto the entire bill. Does that mean it would kill a bill? No. But it does mean there would be a significant period of delay in passing this legislation and therefore delay the ability of the Pentagon and the military to implement some of the very important provisions of this legislation.

So I would urge my colleagues to examine this issue carefully, as I am sure they do all of the issues before this body. Also I would hope they would take into consideration the views of our distinguished Secretary of Defense.

I do not agree on every issue with the Secretary of Defense, and neither does my colleague, Senator Lieberman. But I think he is on the right track. I think he can bring about change, at least on how we acquire weapons and how we spend money, and end these atrocious, outrageous cost overruns we have experienced in literally every single weapon system in recent years, which have cost the taxpayers incredible amounts of money, and end this earmarking and porkbarrel process that I will talk more on today.

Every day just about we pick up a paper and hear about, or go on line and hear about, some organization that got an earmark and their waste, mismanagement, and in some cases criminal behavior as far as use of the taxpayers' dollars are concerned. We have to do the big things and the small things. This is a big thing.

I respect, enormously, the Senator from Indiana. There has been no more valuable member of the Armed Services Committee than Senator Bayh. I respect his views. I understand where he is coming from in the name and sake of competition.

Senator Lieberman's and my argument is that the time for competition is over, and it is time to move forward with a tested engine that will, one, accelerate the development and operational entrance by the F-22, and also save some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money.

So I hope my colleagues will examine this issue very carefully and support the Lieberman amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the time situation?

Madam President, I want to add some additional comments about the $438 million that would be taken from the HC/MC 130s recapitalization program to fund development of the alternate engine.

I don't think there is any doubt that given the conflict in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, but particularly now in Afghanistan, as we move into the southern part of the country, the HC/MC 130s are critical weapons systems. Their platforms are designed to specifically support our special operations warriors, which is the kind of fight we are in. It is an irregular fight, and it puts increasing demands on our special forces.

As we know, these aircraft are specialized C-130s that are specifically designed for that fight. They have capabilities, such as aerial refueling and gunship weaponry, that meet the requirements of the special operations command.

I would be very reluctant and strongly opposed to taking funding away from special operations and using it to fund the second motor for the Joint Strike Fighter. It is a time, obviously, when we are fighting two irregular wars, and it is not a time to take this funding away.

According to the Defense Department, the current military requirement for the HC/MC 130s aircraft is 60. The Department recently recognized that the need to modernize the aging, worn-out special operations and combat search and rescue fleets is urgent.

According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ``the cut to these aircraft would slow down deliveries to the warfighter of the HC- 130 and the MC-130 impacting both the Air Force's Air Combat Command and Special Operations Command.''

According to the Air Force ``based on the JROC validated requirements for 37 MC-130s and 78 HC-130s, the Air Force, including the Air Force Special Operations Command and Air Combat Command, would benefit from an even greater acceleration of the recapitalization rate of all 9 aircraft that remain in the President's budget.

Taking that money out of this program would delay the delivery of new aircraft to the warfighter. I think that if General McChrystal were here, and our other leaders, they would make it very clear that in the very difficult situation we face in Afghanistan--large areas of geography that need to be traveled and controlled--these aircraft are very much needed. I hope my colleagues will also take that into consideration as we consider this vote.

I congratulate the Senator from Indiana for a very eloquent argument on behalf of his position. Again, I state

my appreciation for the very important role he plays as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This is one of the few times we disagree, but I think he has presented his side of the argument with eloquence.

I yield the floor.

I think we are prepared to vote.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, if the chairman would agree, the Senator from Montana wants to take some time to talk about his amendment which is germane, but he wants to talk about it. We have not had a chance to examine it. Then we could go back to the Kyl amendment, pending hopefully an agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy for a minute with the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, I understand we are hopefully close to an agreement on the Kyl amendment and then we could set up, following that agreement, the Burr amendment, followed by an Akaka amendment, and our staffs will be working on further amendments so our colleagues will know.

I thank the chairman. For the benefit of our colleagues I still think it is possible--and I think the chairman would agree--to finish up by tonight, if we could have expeditious handling of the amendments but which may require us to finish by tomorrow, I hope.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business while we are waiting for the outcome of the negotiations that I had a colloquy with the chairman about.

Mr. President, I have long spoken about the broken appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply concerned over the damage done to our country and, indeed, this institution by their continued abuse. I ask my colleagues: How many more pay-to-play scandals will it take before we enact comprehensive and meaningful earmark reform?

Look at the scandals over the last 5 years alone: Former U.S. Representative Randy Cunningham sits in a Federal prison today for selling earmarks. Among the many bribes Cunningham admitted receiving was the sale of his house at an inflated price; the use of a yacht, free; a used Rolls Royce; antique furniture; Persian rugs; jewelry; and a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the Department of Defense to award contracts to his coconspirators.

Of course, Senator Dorgan and I spent nearly 2 years investigating the Indian lobbying practices of Jack

Abramoff, who reportedly dubbed appropriations committees ``a favor factory.'' One former Senate staffer pled guilty to accepting gifts in exchange for helping Mr. Abramoff's team on appropriations matters. An ex-official in the Department of Justice pled guilty to accepting bribes for helping Mr. Abramoff's client secure millions of dollars to build a jail. In all, over 20 people--including an ex-Congressman, administration officials, congressional staffers, and lobbyists--have been indicted, convicted or pled guilty.

The Department of Justice investigation into this matter still continues to this day.

We have today multiple pay-to-play scandals unfolding before our eyes. We read weekly, almost daily, news article after news article about numerous criminal investigations revolving around earmarks. Take, for example, the ongoing criminal investigation into the PMA Group. Most Americans have probably never heard of the PMA Group. The PMA Group was a DC lobbying firm with deep ties to Capitol Hill and a reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially defense earmarks. As I have said many times, it is the ``Willie Sutton Syndrome,'' because when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said: ``That's where the money is.'' The reason why a lot of these corrupting earmarks came out of defense is because that is where the money is.

The PMA Group boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. The PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. The PMA Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers.

Last November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided PMA's offices and the home of its founder, Paul Magliocchetti. According to news reports, prosecutors were initially focused on whether Mr. Magliocchetti used a Florida wine steward and a golf club executive as a front to funnel illegal donations to lawmakers. The Washington Post examined campaign contributions reportedly given by employees of the PMA Group and found listed in donor records ``several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm,'' including a 75-year-old California man who had never even heard of the firm.

Since then, the Department of Justice has raided the offices of a number of PMA clients and their business partners. A Federal grand jury reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's congressional and campaign offices and the FBI is interviewing his staffers.

Last week, we read about yet another scandal involving people and firms in PMA's orbit. According to a July 15 Associated Press news article, the former head of the defense contractor, Coherent Systems International, pled guilty in Federal court to defrauding the U.S. Government and accepting kickbacks. Two former PMA clients are reportedly caught up in the scandal.

According to court documents, in October of 2005, the Air Force Research Lab awarded Coherent an $8.1 million contract to deliver four Ground Mobile Gateway Systems. An $8.2 million earmark contained in a tsunami relief bill funded the contract. Get that: It was for a Ground Mobile Gateway System included in a tsunami relief bill. Not surprisingly, Coherent had lobbied for that earmark. At the time, Coherent was represented by a firm called KSA Consulting.

Coherent submitted to the government at least $1.8 million in purchase orders outside the scope of the Air Force contract. What did the government get for its $1.8 million? Coherent paid two subcontractors, which were also represented by KSA Consulting, almost $600,000 for software that was not called for under the Air Force contract. What did Coherent do with the software? It literally threw the software in a closet where it sat collecting dust.

Coherent paid another subcontractor $650,000 for the delivery of five prototypes, also not part of the prime contract. Some reports suggest that this is the same subcontractor that allegedly bribed Coherent's president and whose offices the FBI raided earlier this year.

Coherent also paid Schaller Engineering, a former PMA client, $200,000 for technology that was never delivered. We now know where the money went. On July 21, 2009, Roll Call reported that the former Air Force contracting official, on the Mobile Common Data Link Gateway program, pled guilty to ``skimming money from an earmark that was provided to a Pennsylvania defense contractor.'' In his plea agreement, the official admits to approving invoices that were not part of the contract and then taking the kickback from the defense contractor.

This is outrageous, but I also believe it is only the tip of the iceberg. We will undoubtedly see the continued march of news reports about further indictments and guilty pleas.

Earmarks breed corruption, purely and simply. The current earmarking process doesn't stop it or adequately guard against it. So I ask my colleagues: How many more scandals must we suffer before we enact meaningful earmark reform? How low must Congress's approval rating sink before we act to repair this institution's reputation? How many more lawmakers, staffers, government officials, and contractors have to go to jail before we actually fix this process?

Unfortunately, Congress's earmarking practices have grown worse, not better, just about every year I have served in the Senate. This year promises to be the worst. We began the year by passing a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill with almost 9,000 earmarks in it. Contrary to his promise to the American people to stem the tide of earmarks, the President refused to veto that pork-laden bill. In fact, he signed it in a quiet room far from the public eye, I might add, using the rationale it was ``last year's business,'' even though it was passed this year.

Two weeks ago, the Senate approved a $44 billion Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It was over $200 million more than last year's bill and almost $100 million more than the President's budget request. It, too, was laden with numerous unrequested, unauthorized earmarks added at the direction of members of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. Rest assured, we will see more earmarks in the other appropriations bills that come to the floor later this year. Even the pending fiscal year 2010 national defense authorization bill is not insulated from the practice.

Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes. So what do we do? We continue this disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. The President pledged during his campaign he would work to eliminate earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to drain the swamp. Given the abysmal state of our economy, Americans can no longer wait for them to make good on their promises. Earmark reform is needed and it is needed now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record:

July 21, 2009: ``Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to Murtha Earmark.''

The Hill, July 21, 2009: ``Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark Probe.''

July 21, 2009: ``Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties.''

July 15, 2009: ``Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty Plea.''

Washington Post, February 14, 2009: ``Despite Listing, Donors Don't Work For Firm Being Probed.''

So I wish to tell my colleagues, I will be coming to the floor a lot and talking about this, sometimes with charts. This practice has to stop. We cannot afford not only the earmarking because of the costs, but we can't afford to have the continued corruption that is associated with this.

I know some of my colleagues are offended when I use the word ``corruption,'' but when former Members of Congress are residing in Federal prison and their aides and former staffers and others are indicted and convicted in Federal court, I don't know how you can describe it as anything else.

So we will be talking a lot more in the days and weeks ahead. The American people are sick and tired of it and so am I.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Akaka, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I would imagine has some very good and helpful provisions associated with it. It also applies to Federal employees and perhaps some Department of Defense employees are included in that. But it is a very large amendment. It is composed of six retirement-related provisions and some expenditure of funds.

As I understand the bill, there is not provision for paying for it. I may be wrong. Let me point out that the Chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee have looked at these issues as well. I am wondering why it was not included then on Homeland Security. We just finished doing the Homeland Security appropriations.

It would reduce mandatory spending by $36 billion over 10 years. It has significant costs that will have to be appropriated, at least $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. Because they would be added on this bill, it would add to the cost of the National Defense Authorization Act and would exceed our budget allocation. Properly, it would be subject to a budget point of order which the Senate would then speak on whether it is an appropriate budget point of order.

There has been no strong opposition from the administration, and these costs were not included in the administration's budget request.

I understand that a lot of these provisions, because of the large number of employees, fall under the Department of Defense. I don't think it is a good idea to have a bill of this magnitude, although certainly the amendment is in order--but I am not sure it is appropriate that a bill of this magnitude should be tacked on to the Defense authorization bill.

I say that fully aware that we are tacking on a hate crimes bill which has even a lot less to do with the Department of Defense.

I say to my friend, I will be glad to have a vote on this amendment. Perhaps there is going to be a budget point of order raised on this amendment. But hopefully we can alert our colleagues and give them the opportunity in the next few minutes to raise a budget point of order or ask for a recorded vote. If there is no objection, then we would have a voice vote.

I wish to point out to my colleagues, this is fairly large legislation which does fall under the proper authority of the Homeland Security Committee.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should continue developing and planning for the proposed deployments of elements of a

ground-based midcourse defense system. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for this amendment and his willingness to work with all parties, which will then allow us to voice vote this very important amendment.

Obviously, there are a lot of strong feelings on the issue of missile defense in Europe. I believe this amendment addresses and expresses our concerns and our goals, including a midcourse radar in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland, as well as the reservation of funds for the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe.

As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tirelessly to develop delivery vehicles capable of reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts. Enhancing missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to addressing rogue state and in-theater threats we face and expect to face in the future.

As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. The Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April of 2008, the allies cited the threat of ballistic missile proliferation as one of great concern to their forces, territory, and populations. Missile defense in Europe, according to NATO ``forms part of a broader response to counter this threat . . . [a] substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long- range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European-based United States missile defense assets.''

Uncertainty about the future of missile defense in Europe, some stemming from perceptions, whether wanted or not, that Russia will have a say or veto power over the disposition of our missile defense architecture, has caused concerns both here in the Senate and among some of our closest European allies. I urge the administration to provide some clarity on how it plans to honor the commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic.

The last administration recognized the importance and need for a European component to our missile defense system, reached out to the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, and asked that they make what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite unwanted threats from Russia, both governments recognized the importance such a capability would provide to their citizens and to Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic.

Given the perception, one that has been strengthened by the testimony of administration officials before the Armed Services Committee, that the United States is preparing to back away from its commitments to our Polish and Czech allies, this amendment comes at an important moment. It was only a year ago, after all, that the United States and the Czech Republic affirmed that:

Within the context of, and consistent with, both the North

Atlantic Treaty and the Czech Republic . . . the United

States is committed to the security of the Czech Republic.

[And that] the Czech Republic and the United States will work

together to counter emerging military or non-military threats

posed by third parties or to minimize the effects of such

threats.

Similarly, on August 20, 2008, the United States signed an agreement with Poland stating that the:

United States is committed to the security of Poland and of

any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the Republic

of Poland. . . .The United States and Poland intend to expand

air and missile defense cooperation. In this regard, we have

agreed on an important new area of such cooperation involving

the deployment of a U.S. Army Patriot air and missile defense

battery in Poland.

Our Polish friends are clearly uneasy and have been quite vocal. During a forum earlier this year in Brussels, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said:

We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States.

I urge the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to join me in reiterating our commitment to the security and freedom of these nations as well as deterring and defending them against any threats to their security.

With respect to Russia and the ongoing START negotiations, I urge the President to continue to reject any Russian attempt to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear weapons with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. Russia, too, must recognize that the current Iranian path is unsettling to the global interests of all peace-seeking nations. Missile defense in Europe is not and should not be viewed in Moscow as some new form of post-Cold War aggression. It is, rather, a reasonable and prudent response to the very real threats the Iranian regime continues to pose to the United States, Europe, and the world.

Again, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from North Carolina. He and the other Senator, the junior Senator from North Carolina, argued passionately and, to some degree, persuasively in the markup of this legislation.

I think it is very appropriate that they are reacting to local concerns and perhaps even the fact that I think, in straight talk, perhaps the Department of the Navy has not approached some of these communities in a way that would gain the cooperation of the communities.

I agree also with Senator Burr that the people of North Carolina are among the most patriotic that we have in our Nation. But facts are facts, and the Navy needs a field to train carrier pilots stationed on the east coast within the range of both Naval Air Station Oceana and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. The Navy needs to field trained pilots in order for us to have the best qualified pilots in the world. Part of that training, of course, is to learn landing on aircraft carriers, among other types of training.

Again, a lot of local communities in North Carolina and Virginia have expressed concern about noise, about hours, and about the impact it will have on their communities. During the markup we adopted an amendment by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, that basically requires the Navy to do extensive consultation with local communities, to consider assistance to local communities in case there is substantial economic impact, and to do everything they can to reach an agreement with the local communities as they go through this siting procedure.

Madam President, I cannot change geography. I think this committee can do a lot of things, but we cannot change the map. The map is that two of our major air stations, Oceana and Cherry Point, are where our pilots and air wings are stationed. They have to have the ability to train, and they have to train someplace within a reasonable range.

So I believe after a spirited discussion in committee, the Senator from Virginia came up with a very excellent amendment that basically requires a lot more participation in the local communities, a lot more consideration and consultation, and even--I have never seen this before--some economic assistance to the local communities, if necessary. Nobody likes to be awakened at 1 or 2 a.m. by the sound of jet engines. I understand that. But I also understand--and I hope our colleagues do--that on the entire east coast, because of population and the location of these two major bases--Cherry Point and Oceana--we don't have much choice but to look in Virginia and North Carolina. We cannot let, over time, that requirement be overridden forever. We can try to accommodate and understand, and we can try to do whatever is necessary to ease the burden. But the fact is, our pilots have to train.

I appreciate the fact that both Senators from North Carolina were eloquent in stating the concerns their local communities have, which may be under consideration for the location of an airfield--just as the Senator from Virginia was concerned; but the Senator from Virginia, I think, in his amendment, laid out some parameters that I think will lead to a fair process, which will take into consideration the very understandable concerns of the local communities.

With reluctance but concern for the ability of our Navy and Marine Corps pilots to train and be adequately prepared to fight, I oppose this amendment.

Madam President, I would like to, once again, thank Chairman Levin for the work he has done in this bill on the structure of military commissions. I appreciate his working closely with me and with Senator Graham, and I believe that the changes in this bill put our military commissions framework on a solid footing so that our nation will be ready to proceed with the trials of terrorist detainees by military commission.

In the same vein, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment No. 1710, which deals with the protection of classified information used in military commissions. This amendment is based on extensive meetings between our staffs and the professional prosecutors who wish to ensure that classified information receives the fullest possible protection in the course of these trials.

The amendment is based in large part on the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, which includes protections for the use of classified information in trials. Based on 20 years of experience with CIPA, and with 3 years of experience with the Military Commissions Act, the protections contained in this amendment are what the professional prosecutors believe they need to ensure that classified information is not improperly disclosed and to allow trials to proceed more efficiently by providing military judges with an extensive body of law based on CIPA upon which to base their decisions. Avoiding the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a key to ensuring the protection of our national interests, and so I am pleased to advocate the adoption of this amendment. I note that the Departments of Defense and Justice concur with the language contained in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator have an estimate how much this will cost the taxpayers?

I understand from the amendment there is a provision that all the money is paid back.

Could the Senator tell me the connection between this amendment and the Defense authorization bill?

May I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am in agreement. We do strange things around here, particularly late in consideration of the bill. I thank him for at least bringing it to the attention of the American taxpayer.

Mr. President, I think we have a package of cleared amendments we would like to do first, if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Levin and the staff as well on both sides of the aisle and thank Senator Levin for his patience, for his perseverance, his knowledge, and his commitment to the security of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. I am honored to have the opportunity to serve with him. I share his praise for our staffs. In addition, I also thank our floor staffs who make our machinery run when it comes to a grinding halt from time to time. I am grateful for their help, their assistance, and the hard work they have given us as well.

I think we have a managers' package, and we will be done for this year. Again, my sincere appreciation to the chairman whom I had the great honor and privilege now of serving with for nearly a quarter of a century.

I yield the floor.

Particularly Lula.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we may move ahead shortly with debate and vote on an amendment by Senator Brownback and a side-by-side vote on the same subject with Senator Kerry.

I believe Senator Kerry's amendment would be first. Hopefully, we can agree with that soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ask several questions of the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, has the Senator from Kansas detected any change in North Korean behavior since the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations?

Including launching missiles on the Fourth of July.

Isn't it true that there is evidence that North Koreans were involved in the construction of a nuclear facility in Syria which the Israelis felt was enough of a threat to their national security that they destroyed it?

Isn't it true that there is a published news report that North Korea and Iran have worked together in the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, and if Iran acquires that capability, it certainly ratchets up the tensions between Iran and Israel?

The latest information in the last few days is that there is cooperation between North Korea and Myanmar, better known to some of us as Burma, one of the real rogue nations of the world.

So if that North Korean ship, which was shadowed for a period of time by the U.S. Navy, had gone into port in Myanmar, do you think there is any likelihood the Government of Myanmar would have complied with the U.N. resolution that required that ship to be inspected by ``port authorities''?

I thank the Senator. Of course, maybe North Korea, when we look at it with a very fine definition of terrorism--from the recent Washington Post article about 200,000 people in the most horrible prison conditions in the world perhaps would argue that we should do whatever we can--short, obviously, of any military action--to try to see that the North Korean regime acts at least in some civilized fashion.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will not object, I say in the case of the amendment of Senator Cardin, there is no objection on this side. We would be glad to agree to a 15-minute time agreement, if that is agreeable.

In response to the Senator from Alabama, I will do everything I can to get his amendment in order. Senator Isakson and Senator Burr and Senator Bond and others have all come up and said they want their amendments in line. I think we have to have some kind of consultation on our side to establish a priority.

I also would like to point out, the amendment of Senator Sessions, I believe, is on missile defense, a very important amendment.

I also think, in full disclosure, the majority leader, I am told, will file cloture tonight, which will then, at some point, rule out nongermane amendments. But I will do everything I can to get Senator Sessions' amendment up, in order. But we have been following a process, as I am sure the Senator from Alabama knows, of one side's amendment and then the other side's amendment, going back and forth.

I am not sure anyone wants to challenge Senator Cardin's eloquence.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, it is also my understanding then that at the beginning of business tomorrow we will be taking up the Kyl amendment and the Bayh either second degree or side-by-side, with 2 hours equally divided.

So we would be taking up the Kyl amendment first, and then----

And there are time agreements on both amendments?

Once the other sides of these amendments are aware of the side-by-side, then it is our intention to have an hour or two equally divided, and then move on to pending amendments.

I thank the chairman. I think that clears up what our plans are for a good part of tomorrow.

Madam President, I thank the chair. I, again, thank my friend, the distinguished chairman, for proposing this amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman for being the sponsor of this amendment. It is a privilege to work with him on this as well as many other issues.

This amendment is probably the most impactful amendment I have seen in this body on almost any issue, much less the issue of defense. It boils down to whether we are going to continue the business as usual of once a weapons system gets into full production it never dies or whether we are going to take the necessary steps to reform the acquisition process in this country.

The F-22, in itself, is $1.75 billion. That is an impressive number anyplace outside the beltway. But more important than that, it is a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems that are plagued with cost overruns, which outlive their requirements for defending this Nation and, very frankly, starts to gain control of the acquisition process which is completely out of control.

The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that there were over $295 billion in cost overruns in the last several years--$295 billion in cost overruns. Recently, a close friend of mine and great leader and former Secretary of the Navy wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal. He stated:

When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was

flying an A-4 sky hawk. That jet cost $860,000.

By the way, I didn't know that cost to the taxpayers I had caused. But the jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700 percent since then. So Mr.

McCain's A-4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a

generous factor of three for technological improvements, the

price for a 2008 Navy F-18 fighter should be $18 million.

Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new

fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.

This is disarmament without a treaty.

The situation is worse in the Air Force.

Then Secretary Lehman says:

In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-

22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for

$60 million each. . . .

That was in 1983 dollars.

Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps

the program at 187 jets.

Then he adds:

At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in

China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that

runs them.

He then goes on to cite other problems, including Navy shipbuilding fiascoes, et cetera.

. . . the Army's Future Combat System that was meant to re-

equip the entire Army, the 400 percent cost overrun of the

new Air Force weather satellite . . .

And similar cost overruns.

It is out of control, I say to my colleagues. I will match my commitment to equipping the men and women in the military with that of anyone in this body, but it has to stop, and this vote on the F-22 will determine whether it is business as usual with the earmarking and pork- barreling of billions of dollars which has bred corruption--we have former Members of the Congress residing in Federal prison--or whether we are going to finally get it under control.

Who better to be a spokesperson, in my view, than our Secretary of Defense? I have known and admired many Secretaries of Defense. I know of no one whom I admire more than Secretary Gates. He gave a very important speech, on July 16, at the Economic Club of Chicago--a remarkable speech. I hope all my colleagues would have the chance to read it. In part of it he says, about the problems we are having in defense spending:

First, there is the Congress, which is understandably

concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about

protecting jobs in certain states and congressional

districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which

has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of

these programs.

And there is the institutional military itself--within the

Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of

retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid

consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are

quoted as experts in the news media.

Secretary Gates goes on to say:

As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end

failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside.

Nonetheless, I determined in a triumph of hope over

experience, and the President agreed--

I wish to emphasize my strong support and appreciation for the President's stand on this issue.

--and the President agreed, that given the urgency of the

wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we

will inhabit for decades to come, and our country's economic

problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business

as usual.

Then, later on, he talks about the F-22.

Air superiority and missile defense--two areas where the

budget has attracted the most criticism--provide case

studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22

fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future

conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix

of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to

deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air

supremacy. For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles

that can simultaneously perform intelligence,

reconnaissance--

Et cetera.

The President's budget would buy 48 of the most advanced

UAVs. We also took into consideration the capabilities of the

newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint

Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-

22.

He goes on to say how important the F-35 is, and then he says:

The F-22 is clearly a capability we do need--a niche,

silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios--

specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter

fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense

anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict.

I ask my colleagues, would you ask yourselves why the F-22 has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been in production for nearly 5 years. It has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. And I want to emphasize that I think it is an important fighter. We are building 187 of them. The question before this body is why we continue to build more, whether we continue to build more, or the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which goes to the Marine Corps and the Navy and the Air Force. Is this the weapons system we need to balance our entire capability of manned aircraft?

I would ask my colleagues, since the F-22 was on the drawing boards and moved into production, look at the advancement in unmanned aerial vehicles. I say that as an old pilot. The unmanned aerial vehicles have been performing a magnificent job both in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been a critical element sometimes on the battlefields. And this President's budget understands that and gives extreme priority to that.

So as we go on, in light of these factors, Secretary Gates goes on to say:

With the support of Air Force leadership, I concluded that

183--the program of record since 2005, plus four more added

in the FY 09 supplemental--was a sufficient number of F-22s

and recommended as such to the President.

The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable

for many of the reasons I described before. The most

substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program

means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To

assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential

threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries

have now or in the pipeline.

The fact is, in the view of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and most any objective observer of the military scene, they believe the F-22 is important, we need to have what we have, but it is now time to move on to the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter.

So this amendment really means, are we going to look at the real and compelling needs we have to have in order to win the war in Afghanistan, continue our success in Iraq, and put our funds into that kind of equipment and weapons systems or are we going to continue?

Finally, I have great sympathy for the Senator from Georgia and other Senators who have come to the floor. I understand the sincerity of their views. I respect them. I would also point out, though, that to argue we should build weapons systems in the name of jobs is not what we should be about. What we should be about is procuring and building the best weapons systems to ensure our national security and how we can best equip the men and women who are in harm's way all around the world today.

So I understand the economic impact, particularly in these hard times. My sympathy goes out to the communities that are dependent on the contracts for the F-22 aircraft. All I can say to them is we will do everything we can to help you and your families and make the adjustments, and there will be--we continue to increase spending on defense. We hope that we will be able to provide you with the necessary jobs and manufacturing that would be devoted to what we have ascertained as our national defense weapons systems procurement priorities, I say with sympathy to my colleagues who are deeply concerned about the loss of jobs in these difficult economic times. But this is not the way to provide jobs. Our obligation is to defend this Nation.

So I think this amendment is overdue. I think it will be a significant, a very significant amendment, as I said before, as to whether we will get our priorities straight and listen to our esteemed Secretary of Defense, our President, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders in whose hands we entrust to make the tough decisions. I understand the final decision is here in Congress, but I also don't think we should dismiss the arguments that have been made by I think one of the finest men to ever serve this country, and that is Secretary of Defense Gates.

I yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Utah?

Madam President, we would be glad to yield a couple more minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Three, four. I ask the Senator, do you want to go ahead now?

Madam President, I will be fairly brief. This argument has been made, and we pretty well covered most of the issue. I would remind my colleagues that all the things we do are a matter of choice because we do not have unlimited amounts of funding, obviously, and if you spend money on one project, then obviously you may have to spend less on another. That is the case of the F-35, if we do not eliminate this $1.75 billion.

But most importantly, I want to point out again, this amendment is more than just about a weapons system. This amendment is about whether we will stop doing business as usual; that is, continuing to fund weapons systems that are no longer needed and unnecessary. We are not saying the F-22 is not a good aircraft. We are saying it is time to end the production of the F-22.

The President of the United States has threatened to veto this entire bill. That is not good for the men and women in the military to have to go through this whole process over again. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and, very importantly, the Secretary of Defense, who has served now under two Presidents and has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us for his service--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary of Defense Gates' speech last July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am a student of history, and there is one particular President whom I have grown, along with historians, to appreciate more and more for his two terms as President of the United States; that is, Dwight David Eisenhower. We were at peace during President Eisenhower's term, and many believe that perhaps the war in Vietnam might have been avoided if we had heeded his wise counsel. There are many things President Eisenhower did to contribute to this Nation both in war and in peace.

On several occasions, I have reread his farewell speech of January 17, 1961. In his speech, President Eisenhower said:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the

acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or

unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential

for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will

persist. We must never let the weight of this combination

endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should

take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable

citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge

industrial and military machinery of defense with our

peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may

prosper together.

He also said:

To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much

the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather

those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and

without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex

struggle with liberty at stake.

I would only add to President Eisenhower's farewell address to the Nation--which is compelling in many ways--that the words should be changed from ``military-industrial complex'' to ``military-industrial- congressional complex.''

What we are seeing here, with the advice and counsel of our President, of our Secretary of Defense, of our uniformed military, with rare exception, is a recommendation that we stop with this aircraft and build another--not that we stop building fighter aircraft for our inventory, not that we stop defending this Nation with weapons systems we need. We are even defending a weapons system's continued production that has never flown in the two wars in which we are engaged.

So I urge my colleagues to understand the impact of this amendment. If we are able to succeed, it is going to send a signal that we are stopping business as usual, and we must move forward providing the men and women with the necessary means to win the struggles we are in throughout the world, especially two wars. So I urge my colleagues to understand that sacrifices will be made. Jobs will be lost. It will cause disruption in some communities. But our first obligation is the defense of this Nation and the use of scarce defense dollars in the most effective fashion.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before my colleague Senator Lieberman leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for this amendment. We are working right now to see if we can get the amendment pending and possibly a voice vote, because it is clear it is a very important amendment and one where I think we need to express very strongly the sense of the Senate, given the situation as it exists in Iran.

I wish to thank Senator Lieberman, and right now it is my understanding that your side is checking to see if it is an agreeable amendment. Hopefully,

we will get that decision and move forward with it right away on a voice vote, if that is agreeable to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, the amendment is straightforward and expresses the sense of the Senate that there should be a date certain-- and soon--by which Iran is required to end its nuclear program or face severe sanctions. The amendment expresses that if the Iranian regime has not accepted the offer of the United States of direct diplomatic talks by the time of the G20 summit in late September or if it has not suspended all of its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities within 60 days after the summit, and if the U.N. Security Council does not adopt new and significant and meaningful sanctions on the regime, the President should sanction the Central Bank of Iran.

The situation with respect to Iran is nearing the crisis point, if it is not there already. We have all watched the brutal crackdown in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere as the Iranian regime imposed the results of a fraudulent election. We have been astonished by the courage and resolve of those Iranian citizens who have protested for their own inalienable rights in the face of repression. And we have known that, while these dramatic events have played themselves out, the Iranian regime has continued its enrichment of uranium, growing ever closer to the day on which it has a nuclear weapons capability.

The Iranian regime has gotten away with too much for too long. Its illicit nuclear activities, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles, support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and its repeated threats against Israel and the United States, represent a real and growing threat to the security of the United States and the Middle East. It is in the interest of the United States, and the world's other great powers, to achieve an end to the Iranian nuclear program.

The administration has held out an ``open hand,'' making clear that it intends to open direct talks with Iran. Yet 3\1/2\ months since the President's formal offer, the Iranian government has made no response, nor has it suspended its enrichment activities, as required by U.N. Security Council resolutions. Time is not on the side of those pushing the Iranians to cease these dangerous actions. Administration officials and others, including the French President, have stated that they will not wait interminably while the Iranian nuclear program proceeds.

At the G-8 summit 2 weeks ago, the assembled leaders agreed that the Iranians do not have forever, and that they should return to the negotiating table by the time of the G-20 summit in September. This amendment puts the Senate on record behind that timeframe, irrespective of any Senator's individual view about the likelihood of agreement soon.

Make no mistake: we must not wait interminably. According to the IAEA's latest report, Iran has increased its stockpile of low enriched uranium by some 60 percent in the previous 6 months, and has brought the number of active centrifuges above 7,000. The IAEA also reported that Iran denied inspectors access to the Arak heavy water reactor. As the threats--including to the State of Israel--continue.

As the Secretary of State has recently articulated, should Iran continue to defy the international community, it must face severe sanctions. Should the regime not take up the historic offer extended to it, this resolution advocates sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank, the country's major connection to the international financial system. The U.S. Treasury Department has stated that the central bank has engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the movement of funds to those involved in proliferation and terrorist activities. This must end, and in fact 67 Senators have cosponsored legislation-- the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act--that urges the President to sanction the central bank.

By adopting this resolution, we will send an unmistakable message to the government of Iran that its actions are unacceptable and will result in real and severe consequences if continued. The administration has offered to talk; the ball is in the Iranian court, and if that regime continues down its destructive path, we have no choice but to impose crippling sanctions for its continued defiance.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Let me point out again, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, an important sense of the Senate but certainly one that allows the administration the latitude it needs in its handling of its relations with Iran.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. It is at the desk.

The amendment is in the name of Senators Kyl and Lieberman. I am calling it up on their behalf.

I object. Let's dispose of the amendment.

I object to the Senator from Florida going into morning business until we dispose of the amendment. Then he can do it right away.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Florida, we will find out if there are others who want to speak on his amendment. If not, we are in favor of disposing of his amendment. Part of the agreement we made, in order for us to proceed, was that if anyone came to the floor to speak on the pending amendment, that Senator would have priority. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Florida, the Senator from New York would go ahead and then we could go back to him speaking in morning business.

Why don't we wait until after the Senator from New York finishes, to make sure there is no one else who wants to speak on the amendment of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas concerning North Korea.

I must say I was entertained by the outlook--as far as North Korea's behavior is concerned--by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I can't remember when I have disagreed more.

The State Department's 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism stated that ``as part of the six-party talks process, the U.S. reaffirmed its intent to fulfill its commitment regarding the removal of the designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism in parallel with the DPRK's actions on denuclearization and in accordance with criteria set forth by law.''

They certainly haven't taken any action on denuclearization, and it certainly hasn't been in accordance with the criteria set forth by law.

There was a problem with this trade, however. We delisted North Korea, and we got something worse than nothing. Facts are stubborn things. In response to our action, Pyongyang has embarked on a pattern of astonishing belligerence and has reversed even the previous steps it had taken toward the denuclearization prior to its removal from the terrorism list.

A few facts. In December 2008--just 2 months after the United States removed Pyongyang from the list--North Korea balked at inspections of its nuclear facilities and ceased disablement activities at the Yongbyon reactor. In March, the regime seized two American

journalists near the China-North Korean border and subsequently sentenced them to 12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. These are two American citizens who may have strayed over a border. Does that mean they are sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in the most harsh prison camps in the world? What are we going to do about it? It is remarkable. Two weeks later, it tested a long-range ballistic missile, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and then announced it was expelling international inspectors from Yongbyon, reestablishing the facility, and ending North Korean participation in disarmament talks. In May, Pyongyang conducted its second nuclear test; in June, a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit cargo departed North Korea in likely defiance of U.N. Security Council obligations; and earlier this month, Pyongyang again launched short- and medium-range missiles into the Sea of Japan, including on the Fourth of July.

All these are indications that the North Koreans somehow should not be listed as terrorists? I think we ought to, frankly--I respect and appreciate my friend from Kansas. Maybe we ought to have a binding resolution, rather than a sense of the Senate. It is remarkable that these events have taken place against a backdrop of belligerence and intransigence by North Korea. Pyongyang has never accounted for or even acknowledged its role in assisting the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria, which the Israelis had to bomb. Similarly, it has refused to provide a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear program. Of course, something we all know, which is one of the great tragedies in the history of the world, is this is a gulag of some 200,000 people, where people are regularly beaten, starved, and executed. According to the Washington Post, most of them work 12- to 15-hour days until they die of malnutrition-related illnesses, usually at around the age of 50. They are allowed just one set of clothes. They live and die in rags, without soap, socks, underclothes or sanitary napkins. It is a horrible story.

It is not an accident that the average South Korean is several inches taller than the average North Korean. This regime may be the most repressive and oppressive and Orwellian in all the world today. So the Chinese have been serious--according to Mr. Kerry, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Chinese have been resolute on the issue of the ship inspections. The U.N. Security Council resolution calls for monitoring and following of the ship, and if the decision is made that they need to board a North Korean ship, if the North Koreans refuse, then the following ship cannot board but can follow them into a port, where the port authorities are expected to board and inspect the vessel. And then that violation is reported to the U.N. Security Council. That ought to rouse some pretty quick action. I don't share the confidence of the Senator from Massachusetts that if a North Korean ship goes into a port at Myanmar, you will see likely action, except maybe the offloading of whatever materials are being bought by Myanmar.

Look, the North Koreans have clearly been engaged in selling anything they can to anybody who will buy it because they need the money-- whether it be drugs, counterfeit currency, nuclear technology or missiles. Every time we have held onto the football, like Lucy, they have pulled it away.

I think this is a very modest proposal of the Senator from Kansas. I point out that years and years of six-party talks, different party talks, negotiations, conversations, individuals who have been assigned as chief negotiators who then end up somehow negotiating, with the end being further negotiations, has failed.

If the North Koreans continue to test weapons, test missiles, sooner or later, they will match a missile with a weapon that will threaten the United States of America. Right now, those missiles they are testing go over Japanese territory. I think it is pretty obvious we are dealing with a regime of incredible and unbelievable cruelty and oppression of their own people. The newly published Korean bar association details the daily lives of the 200,000 political prisoners estimated to be in the camps. Eating a diet of mostly corn and salt, they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their bones weaken and, as they age, they hunch over at the waist.

This is a regime that, in any interpretation of the word, is an outrageous insult to the world and everything America stands for and believes in. I believe they will pose a direct threat, over time, to the security of not only Asia but the world. They were able to export technology all the way to Syria, obviously. Why should they not be able to export that to other parts of the world?

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment by the Senator from Kansas, and I hope we can vote on that sooner rather than later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding that the amendment authorizes the additional forces Secretary Gates said yesterday in his speech that we need--or the day before yesterday. Why do we need to put this into the bill?

And there is no doubt that the Army very badly needs the help now and in the foreseeable future.

And if I could question the Senator further, perhaps this would illuminate any requirement for stop loss or for involuntary extensions in a combat area.

I thank the Senator.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Republican leader on his statement. I think it was very thorough. I think it was very thoughtful, and I am sure it took a lot of hours of deliberation and observation not only of Judge Sotomayor's record but also of her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. So I congratulate the Republican leader on a very thoughtful statement and one that I think makes very clear the reason he reached the difficult decision to oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I wish to say that we are supposed to be on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Obviously, we are not. We are on the hate crimes bill, which the majority leader decided was important enough to replace the proceedings of the Senate on the Defense authorization bill and the very urgent mission we have and obligation and duties we have as a Congress to authorize the means necessary to defend the security of this Nation and the men and women who are defending it. So we will be wrapped around the axle on amendments and which ones are allowed and time agreements. I am not saying this legislation would have moved forward smoothly; there are always some difficulties. But for many years now, I have been involved in the authorization bill, and this is the first time I ever saw the majority leader of the Senate come forward and propose a comprehensive piece of legislation which had not gone through the committee of authorization, and, of course, this side of the aisle then had to, as is our right, propose an amendment of our own. Of course, there is some reluctance on this side of the aisle to agree to a time agreement, and so we go back and forth. Meanwhile, the men and women of the military are in two wars and they don't quite understand why we don't just move forward and do what our oath of office requires us to do, and that is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So I will continue to work with the distinguished chairman, and I am hoping we will be able to work together to get the legislation moving again.

I understand there are four amendments to be considered on the hate crimes bill and that a gun amendment has been introduced and there may be amendments on that, and time agreements. Meanwhile, the issue of the F-22 and whether we continue production of it is set aside while we debate nongermane amendments to the Defense authorization bill.

So I guess what is probably going to happen, from previous experience--and I don't know--probably around Thursday, the majority leader will come to the floor and say that we haven't moved forward and we haven't made progress, blame it on this side of the aisle, and file cloture. Then we will have a vote on cloture. I would imagine that given--I don't know how that vote turns out; it depends on whether Members on both sides of the aisle feel their amendments or their views have been adequately addressed.

But I am convinced that we would have moved forward with the authorization bill, that we probably could have addressed the issue of the F-22--and I do not say this side of the aisle is blameless, but I do understand why, when we knew hate crimes was going to be brought up, that those who feel strongly on this side of the aisle--including the fact that it never went through the Judiciary Committee; it has never been reported out but is added on a defense authorization bill--had their concerns. So it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, and it is not really a good statement about the way we represent the American people, because if there is any legislation we should be moving forward on--and I will take responsibility on this side of the aisle too--that certainly is the Defense authorization bill.

I believe there is an unbroken record of approval of the Defense authorization bill over a many-year period of time. I hope that, on behalf of the greater good, we can sit down and work out amendments and work through the hate crimes and the amendment by the Senator from South Dakota, and we can move forward and get this issue resolved. I don't think it is the right way to do business, particularly when we are talking about the defense of the Nation.

So I pledge to my colleague from Michigan, the distinguished chairman whom I have had the great honor of working with for many years, to try to work through this. But I still maintain that the fact that the majority leader of the Senate felt it necessary to bring a hate crimes bill up before the Senate on a defense authorization bill, which is clearly not germane, triggered this situation we are in today.

Having said that, it is what it is, and so I will go in the back now and see where we can work out amendments, see if we can work out an agreement to have the hate crimes vote, to have the gun vote, and then hopefully work with the target of tomorrow morning for voting on the F- 22 since, as we have discussed in the past on the floor of the Senate, the importance of that vote is far transcendent of any single weapons system. It is really all about whether we are going to have business as usual and spend taxpayers' money on what the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and our other military leaders think should be spent on the Joint Strike Fighter rather than further production of the F-22. From what I understand, it may be a close vote and a very interesting one. I wish we were spending more time debating that than hate crimes and gun amendments.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

For how long?

Madam President, may I say for the information of my colleagues, we are working on a unanimous consent agreement so that we can take up the hate crimes issue, the F-22 amendment, and a Republican amendment. Both sides are working hard to get that resolved.

Health Care Reform

This is an interesting time in America and in the Congress. We have the very important Defense authorization bill before us. We have the hearings for Judge Sotomayor. We have the HELP Committee reporting out its legislation. There may have been more issues before the Congress, but I don't recall them in the years I have been in the Senate.

Today we had an event that is in the ``you can't make it up'' category. I read from the CNSNews.com. It is entitled ``Joe Biden: `We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt.' ''

I quote completely from the news report from CNSNews.com:

Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town

hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care

plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the

only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend

more money.

``And folks look, AARP knows and the people working here

today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status

quo is simply not acceptable,'' Biden said at the event on

Thursday in Alexandria, Va. ``It's totally unacceptable. And

it's completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it

the way we have it. It can't do it financially.''

``We're going to go bankrupt as a nation,'' Biden said.

``Well, people that I say that to say, `What are you

talking about, you're telling me we have to go spend money to

keep from going bankrupt?' '' Biden said. ``The answer is

yes, I'm telling you.''

That is a very interesting story. The thing that probably makes it more interesting is the Washington Post story today entitled ``CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures.''

I quote from the Washington Post story:

Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal

catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by

congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget

outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the

nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office said this morning.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget

Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted

by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not

propose ``the sort of fundamental changes that would be

necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending

by a significant amount.''

``On the contrary,'' Elmendorf said, ``the legislation

significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-

care costs.''

Here we have on the one hand the Vice President today telling the American people that we have to spend money, we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt, and yet the Congressional Budget Office says that the proposed changes would weaken our economy and expand the Federal responsibility for health care costs.

Continuing from the article:

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad

[Democrat from North Dakota] has taken a leading role in that

effort. This morning, after receiving Elmendorf's testimony

on the nation's long-term budget outlook, Conrad turned

immediately to questions about the emerging health care

measures.

``I'm going to really put you on the spot,'' Conrad told

Elmendorf. ``From what you have seen from the products of the

committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort

being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?''

Elmendorf responded: ``No, Mr. Chairman.''

Asked what provisions would be needed to slow the growth in

federal health spending, Elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or

limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health

benefits . . .

That has a little echo associated with it. I don't know where that idea came from.

. . . calling it a Federal ``subsidy'' that encourages

spending on ever more expensive health packages. Key

Senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax

employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week

objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among

Senate Democrats to win passage.

Elmendorf also suggested changing the way Medicare

reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs.

``Certain reforms of that sort are included in some of the

packages,'' Elmendorf said. ``But the changes that we have

looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental

change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to

offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would

result from the insurance coverage proposals.''

Then incredibly:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid [of Nevada] dismissed

Elmendorf's push for the benefits tax. ``What he should do is

maybe run for Congress,'' Reid said.

I have disagreed from time to time with the Congressional Budget Office. I have agreed from time to time with the Congressional Budget Office. But I don't think it is appropriate to use that kind of language from the majority leader of the Senate about these hard- working people. This wasn't just Mr. Elmendorf's product. This was the product of endless nights and days of work on the part of the Congressional Budget Office. If you disagree with them, as I have in the past, disagree and give your reasons for doing so. But for the majority leader to say that what he should do is ``maybe run for Congress,'' frankly, I don't think is an appropriate response to the incredible work that these individuals are doing.

Continuing from the article:

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus . . .

expressed frustration that the tax on employer-funded

benefits had fallen out of favor, in part because the White

House opposes the idea.

Critics of the proposal say it would target police and

firefighters who receive generous benefits packages. And if

the tax is trimmed to apply to only upper income

beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost-

containment measure.

``Basically the president is not helping,'' Baucus said.

``He does not want the exclusion, and that's making it

difficult.''

But he added, ``We are clearly going to find ways to bend

the cost curve in the right direction, including provisions

that will actually lower the rate of increase in health care

costs.''

* * * * *

Ideas under consideration include health-care delivery

system reform; health insurance market reform; and empowering

an independent agency to set Medicare reimbursement rates, an

idea the White House is shopping aggressively on Capitol

Hill.

But Baucus is not giving up on the benefits tax. ``It is

not off the table, there's still a lot of interest in it,''

Baucus said.

Well, what this is all about--what this is really all about--is heading in the wrong direction with the wrong fundamentals of what the problems with health care in America are--a fundamental misunderstanding. The health care in America is the highest quality in the world. I went to M.D. Anderson with the Republican leader and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. At M.D. Anderson--one of the great, premier institutions in America, where cancer treatment is incredible-- there were people there from 90 countries around the world. Most of those people were wealthy people. They had the choice of going anywhere in the world to get the treatment they felt they needed. They came to the United States of America. That is true of the Mayo Clinic. That is true of many other medical facilities and institutions in America.

So the problem with health care in America is not the quality of care. The problem with health care in America is affordability and availability. The cost of health care continues to increase--inflation of nearly double digits. We cannot afford it.

The Vice President is right when he says it is unsustainable. But when the President says that we want to do nothing, obviously, that is not the view of Republicans. We believe you have to do a lot. We believe you have to do a lot, and that is increase competition in America so people will have choices, affordability, and availability, and not a government-run health care system.

So the architects of the legislation passed through the HELP Committee and being considered by the Finance Committee and that came through the House were fundamentally wrong to start with. They were not attacking the problem of health care in America, and that is the cost. And the quality of health care in America is what needs to be preserved.

How do you install competition? You install competition by letting people go across State lines to shop for the health insurance policy they want. That is prohibited now. Why is that? Why is that?

The other is wellness and fitness. We are in agreement, I want to say, on a lot of issues that have not been highlighted in debate on the floor--Republicans and Democrats. Wellness and fitness, insurance policies that will encourage such things; rewards by employers for people who practice wellness and fitness. In fact, probably one of the best known individuals in America today is the CEO of Safeway. They have had an incredibly successful program for their employees, where if they practice wellness and fitness--they do not smoke, they regularly engage in exercise, including membership in health clubs--guess what. They are rewarded for doing so. And the overall costs of health care in Safeway have gone down. They have told every insurer: Come, if you want to insure our employees, encourage wellness and fitness and let them make a choice. Do so.

That is the essence of what we have to do. The problem in America with health care is that too often there are fixed costs. There is no competition, and there are incentives to drive up the costs of health care. We all know that. We all know there are certain procedures which are more rewarding than others, and the system is gamed, and that there are billions--tens of billions--of dollars of fraud, abuse, and waste in the Medicare system that have been identified on numerous occasions.

We also know that medical malpractice is a problem, and we need to reform it. Some years ago, the State of California--not known as a conservative State, to say the least--enacted fundamental medical liability practice reform. And guess what. It has resulted in cost savings. It is well known that physicians practice defensive medicine, which many times accounts for a 10-, 15-percent increase in those costs for fear of being sued. And the new technology, which has made such tremendous advances, then, indeed, increases costs because they are overused because that physician knows, in some States, in some cases and places, unless every kind of test is administered--whether that physician thinks it is needed or not, it is going to be administered and prescribed in order to avert the eventuality of appearing in court and not having administered all the necessary, or what the plaintiff's lawyers believe is necessary, tests and procedures.

So look, we know now--we know now--from the Congressional Budget Office, for the second time, that this proposal is not going to cure the health care issues of America. It is time we went back to the drawing board. It is time Republicans and Democrats sat down at the negotiating table--not calling one or two Senators down to the White House, not trying to pick off one Republican or two Republicans, not doing that.

I know that with this plan the Democrats and the administration may be able to pick off a couple Republicans and get 60 votes and enact this massive movement of the government takeover--eventual takeover--of the health care system in America, or we can sit down together for the first time with incredibly knowledgeable people. There is nobody who knows more about health care than our two doctors, Drs. Coburn and Barrasso. There is nobody who knows more about health care than Senator Enzi, who has been our leader in the HELP Committee--Senator Alexander. There is a lot of knowledge on health care issues. We could sit down together, scrap this idea, scrap this ``spend money to keep from going bankrupt,'' scrap this proposal where the Congressional Budget Office says ``the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs,'' that the measures would ``worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt.'' That is not the proposal the American people want to pay the penalty for.

So events today have been very interesting. The fact is, what we need to do now is sit down together for a change. I have done it in the past, I will admit, on issues that are not of this magnitude. I do not know if there has been an issue that consumes one-sixth of the gross domestic product of this country that I have been involved in. Certainly other major issues, certainly working together with my friend and colleague from Michigan on the Defense authorization and other measures to preserve our Nation's security. But this issue, I must say, causes all others to pale in magnitude. But that is also the reason why we should sit down together and not pass legislation that is purely on a partisan basis.

Let's listen to the experts. Let's listen to the Congressional Budget Office. I know of no one who believes there is bias in the Congressional Budget Office. As I say, sometimes I have been very disappointed or disagreed with them. But I know of no one who thinks they are not doing the very best they can under the intense pressures of getting out these numbers.

I want to take this moment to salute the Congressional Budget Office, whether I agree with or disagree with them, for the incredible work they have done in the past. I hope at some point to be able, when this health care debate is over, to enter into the Record the thousands of hours that have been put in by the Congressional Budget Office and the staff there in trying to come up with their best assessment so we can legislate with the benefit of the knowledge that, frankly, only they possess.

So let's listen to them. Let's listen to other outside experts. Let's recognize the fact that this issue has badly divided this Congress. But let's also listen to the fact that the American people are becoming more and more skeptical of the proposals we are considering or that have been reported out by both the House and the Senate HELP Committee and maybe start over and do something the American people can believe in and for which we can tell the American people we put their interest first.

I note my friend, the Senator from Michigan, is on the floor. I hope we can give a ray of hope to our colleagues and let them know how they are going to be able to spend the rest of the evening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interests of my colleagues and the American people, such as the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor; the HELP Committee, of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayer dollars in history; and we have this bill on the floor, and there are other issues. So it has probably gone unnoticed that we have seen another really--if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority.

Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences. What we have just seen is an amendment before this body and a piece of legislation before this body that I think one could argue is probably of more importance than any other we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this Nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military, and meet the future threats we will face in the 21st century.

So what has happened here is that the majority leader, with the agreement of my friend from Michigan, whom I highly respect and regard, has made it clear that their highest priority is not that. Their highest priority is a hate crimes bill--a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this Nation.

My friend from Michigan just complained that we haven't had a time for the vote. Of course we haven't had a time for the vote on the Levin-McCain amendment because we have been made aware that a hate crimes bill--and by the way, not an ordinary, small, specific amendment, but 17 pages, plus 6 additional pages, encompassing a piece of legislation that is before this body that has never moved through the Judiciary Committee. It has not moved through the Judiciary Committee, the appropriate committee of oversight.

So the majority leader of the Senate comes to the floor, after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment-- an amendment of some consequence, a $1.75 billion expenditure, and, far more important than even the money, a real confrontation between special interests and the national interests--so that we can move to the hate crimes bill.

The hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say. In fact, it is interesting that on June 16, 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Vice President and to the leaders of the Congress opposing the hate crimes bill.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter saying:

Dear Mr. President and distinguished Senators: We write

today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepard Hate

Crimes Prevention Act.

That is basically the bill the majority leader has just inserted into the process of legislation designed to defend this Nation's national security. Of course there are strong feelings on it. This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee but, more importantly, could hang up this bill for a long period of time. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we are going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that is more important--more important--than legislation concerning the defense of this Nation. I am sure the men and women in the military serving in his home State would be interested to know about his priorities.

So here we are. Now we will go through--I am sure the majority leader will file cloture, we will go through 30 hours of debate, and we will have another vote. All of this is unnecessary. Why couldn't we move the hate crimes bill--remember, this is not a single-shot amendment on a specific small issue; this is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes. It is a huge issue. It deserves hearings and debate and amendment in the Judiciary Committee. But what are we going to do? For reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don't get it, he wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way. He will probably succeed, and he will call it ``bipartisan.'' The last time I checked, it has 44 Democratic cosponsors and 2 Republicans. That is the definition, by the way, around here of bipartisan bills. That is the way the stimulus package was bipartisan. That is how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan. And I am pretty confident that if health care ``reform'' passes, it will probably be in another ``bipartisan'' fashion.

So we will have some hours of debate. We will have more exacerbated feelings between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. I would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization bill--a huge issue. A huge issue will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the Congress and signed by the President. That is a great disservice to the American people. The American people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation. They deserve it. They don't deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatsoever to hate crimes.

I will probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead. I have been around this body a fair amount of time. I have watched the Defense authorization bill wind its way through Congress, and occasionally, including at other times, I have seen amendments put on bills which are nongermane, but I haven't seen the majority leader of the Senate--the majority leader of the Senate, whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate--take a totally nonrelevant, all-encompassing, controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the Nation's security as is this legislation. We are breaking new ground here, let's have no doubt about it. It is one thing to sometimes have one Member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve. It is an entirely different thing--it is an entirely different thing, and I have never seen it before--that the majority leader of the Senate comes to the floor and introduces an irrelevant piece of legislation that is controversial, that is fraught with implications for this and future generations, to a bill that is totally nonrelevant. After 30 hours of debate, we will have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation. I am deeply, deeply disappointed, and I question anyone's priorities who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage, and distinction.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to repeat and emphasize the unprecedented fashion that we are now addressing legislation that concerns our Nation's security and the well-being and welfare of the men and women who are serving it.

I always thought the job of the majority leader of the Senate was to move legislation through the Senate. Obviously, the majority leader has come to the floor of the Senate and, at the request of the majority leader, the chairman of the committee has taken out an amendment that addresses a $1.75 billion F-22 amendment that the President has placed his personal stamp on passing, that the Secretary of Defense has viewed as one of his highest priorities, as did the Secretary of the Air Force and other administration officials. What did we do? We come to the floor and withdraw the amendment, withdraw it so we can take up a major piece of legislation.

I am reminded that there are amendments proposed by various Members of this body who believe their amendments need to be proposed and believe there is no other avenue but to put them on pending legislation. The majority leader of the Senate can bring up legislation wherever he wants to. That is the privilege of the majority. That is the right of the majority.

Here we are trying to address an issue of paramount importance to the well-being of the men and women of the United States of America. Here we are trying to address an issue of $1.75 billion, which has far more importance, in many respects, than the actual cost of the F-22s themselves, and without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, without a bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of oversight, the majority leader of the Senate has one very important amendment pulled and then puts in a piece of legislation which is far- reaching in the consequences and very controversial.

I introduced into the Record a little while ago the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes this legislation. Doesn't this legislation, the hate crimes bill, deserve the amending and debate process that legislation is supposed to go through--committees and then on the floor of the Senate, open to amendments? No, it has been inserted now on the Defense authorization bill, and within a short time, I am sure the majority leader will come to the floor and file a motion for cloture to cut off debate on an issue of significant importance to all Americans and railroad it through on a ``bipartisan basis,'' with possibly two Republican votes.

That is not the way this body should work. It is an abuse of power. It does not make for comity on both sides of the aisle. In fact, those of us who are committed to seeing this authorization bill done as quickly as possible because we are worried about the security of this Nation take great offense when the majority leader of the Senate, whose job is to move legislation through the Senate, brings extraneous

and unrelated legislation to a bill as important as this to the men and women of this country and our Nation's security. To somehow equate that with other amendments that have been proposed, from time to time, by Members on both sides, I think is not an appropriate comparison. I resent it a great deal. It is not good for the health of this body, in my view.

Perhaps there is precedent for this. Perhaps there is precedent when a Defense authorization bill, an issue probably, as I say, of the highest criticality, with an amendment on it that the President of the United States has fully weighed in on and committed on, is taken off the floor, is taken away from consideration in order to put in an extraneous and very controversial full package of legislation.

The hate crimes bill before us is not an amendment. It is legislation. It is an encompassing bill, 20-some pages long. We are going to have about 30 hours of debate, a discussion on it, the majority leader will come and cut off debate and we will probably pass it, thereby exacerbating a situation where those of us who oppose this legislation--and it is important legislation--will be faced with a dilemma of choosing between a bill which will harm, in my view, the United States of America and its judicial system and defending the Nation. I do not think that is fair to any Member of this body.

I yield the floor.

I will just take a few minutes.

That would be fine with me.

I am not sure what the Senator's reaction will be to what I have to say. I can't give him a specific time agreement. I am sorry. This is a vital issue we are addressing.

I will make my remarks as short as possible. I believe the Senator from Illinois has the floor; is that correct?

Madam President, I want to point out again, the legislation which is now pending has replaced the F-22, the Levin- McCain amendment. My argument is that the majority leader has put in legislation which is not relevant to the pending legislation, which is the Department of Defense authorization bill. I am perfectly willing for the hate crimes bill to come up under the regular order. Why it should be put on the Defense authorization bill, which will then not allow adequate debate and discussion of amendments, not to mention the fact that it hasn't gone through the committee of jurisdiction-- frankly, I do not think it is the appropriate way of using the Defense authorization bill. In fact, I think it is highly inappropriate. Therefore, why don't we do this, I ask the Senator from Illinois: agree that as soon as the Defense authorization bill is complete, we take up the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act under the regular order and do business the way the Senate should do business?

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 909

So therefore, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be immediately withdrawn; that no amendments on the topic of hate crimes be in order to the pending legislation; further, I ask that when the Senate completes action on the Department of Defense authorization bill, it be in order for the Senate to proceed to S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, under the regular order.

So, Mr. President, here are the facts. The fact is, the majority leader, whose job it is to move legislation through the Senate, is now blocking progress of Defense authorization--that progress through the Senate--by proposing an unneeded, irrelevant amendment, which is a large piece of highly controversial legislation.

The Senate majority leader will come to the floor and he will file cloture. Then, after some hours--with no amendments because he will probably fill up the tree--the Senate will pass a highly controversial, highly explosive piece of legislation to be attached to the authorization for the defense and the security of this Nation. That is wrong. And why--I want to put it this way: It is unanswerable that we do not just take up the hate crimes bill in the regular order and allow Senate debate and discussion. That is how the Senate is supposed to work--not put it on a major piece of legislation.

I will also point out to my friend from Illinois something he knows. It is one thing for someone who sits back there to propose an amendment to pending legislation because they feel that is the only way they can get their argument heard. The majority leader of the Senate has the authority to move whatever legislation he wants. And the majority leader of the Senate should move the hate crimes bill if he wants it considered rather than give it priority over the legislation that accounts for the national security of this country and the men and women who serve it.

So I am sure there will be all kinds of comments about the Republicans blocking a vote, blocking this, blocking that. Why don't we take up legislation in the regular order? Hate crimes has been opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This is a very controversial issue. By putting it on the DOD bill, we are not going to have the adequate debate, discussion, and amendment an issue such as this deserves. There is passion on both sides of the aisle.

So it is obvious, whether it is the intention or not, what is happening here is the whole process of debate and amendment will be short-circuited, because we on this side of the aisle are more than willing to take up the legislation as a separate piece of legislation, debate, amend, and discuss it, and let the American people decide. Instead, the men and women in the military right now today are being shortchanged by putting irrelevant legislation that is highly controversial and highly complex on a bill designed for defense of this country and for the men and women who serve it.

Actually, I will be glad to yield. But if the Senator wants to have a colloquy, go ahead.

Could I respond to that?

It is one thing to have the chairman of the committee support it; it is another thing to have the legislation go through the committee with the proper debate and discussion and amendment. But go ahead.

In deference to the Senator from California, I will make my answer brief, just to say I do not think--as I have said in my previous argument, it does not belong on a defense authorization bill, particularly so moved by the majority leader of the Senate. But, Mr. President, the Senator from California is waiting, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I am not asking that there be a time agreement on hate crimes, I am asking that the hate crimes bill be brought up as a standing bill. The Senator has 60 votes. The Senator could bring it up whether this side of the aisle objects or not as a freestanding piece of legislation. I object to it being considered on the Department of Defense authorization bill. It has no place for it. It should not be there. The longer we wait, the longer the delay is in providing the men and women of the military the tools they need. So I do object. And we should take this up. I am sorry my unanimous consent request was not agreed to--that we would take it up as a freestanding bill after the consideration of the Department of Defense bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, from the story of the Burmese prison, let me quote:

Human rights campaigners say incarceration at the top

security prison, which is known as the ``darkest hell-hole in

Burma'', could be tantamount to a death sentence--especially

as the 63-year-old's health--

Referring to Aung San Suu Kyi's health----

is known to be fragile.

Bo Kyi, now joint secretary of Assistance Association for

Political Prisoners (Burma), has firsthand experience of life

in Insein jail.

He was jailed for more than seven years for political

dissent, and was kept in solitary confinement for more than a

year, in a concrete cell that was about 8ft by 12ft. . . .

There was no toilet in the cell--just a bucket filled with

urine and faeces. He slept on a mat on the floor.

Mr. Kyi says he was tortured and beaten by the prison

guards. He was shackled in heavy chains, with a metal bar

between his legs, which made it difficult to walk.

Every morning for about two weeks, he says he was made to

``exercise''--forced to adopt awkward positions and if he

failed he was brutally beaten.

During this time he was not allowed to shower and was

forced to sleep on bare concrete.

It goes on.

So she is there in that prison. I hope and pray the treatment she is receiving is not anywhere along the lines of what this prison is well known for.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his words concerning the parliamentary situation we are in. Of course, I am very appreciative of his words about the long service we have shared together, both in the other body and in the Senate. Since I have returned from the campaign trail, I have appreciated his kind words about my service to the country. I must say, while the majority leader is still on the floor, I might point out that they are dramatically different from the comments he made about me during the campaign--not just our political differences but my qualifications to serve and other statements about my character. All those things are said in political campaigns, but I am certainly glad to see sort of a significant change in his comments concerning me, and I am always very grateful.

Can I also say that the distinguished leader said he couldn't understand that I couldn't understand. Well, the thing I can't understand is the fact that the majority leader can, by virtue of being majority leader, put legislation at any time before this body. I have never been majority leader, and in all candor I never want to be majority leader. I think the majority leader in the Senate has a very tough job. I appreciate the hard work he does in trying to move legislation through the Senate. My former colleague and one-time majority leader, Senator Lott, once said that being majority leader of the Senate was like herding cats, and I certainly agree with that assessment.

So let me say I appreciate the work the majority leader does, but if I had been majority leader, I would never have had to do any of those amendments. The majority leader sets the agenda for the Senate. All he has to do if he wants the hate crimes bill up is to schedule it to be taken up and debated and discussed and amended--but in the

regular order of the Senate. Instead, he chooses to put it on the Defense authorization bill, a bill that is vital to the future of the security of this Nation.

I understand his passion concerning hate crimes. I have heard speakers come to the Senate floor all day, and they, in very graphic and moving terms, described events, as I am sure the next speaker will--about the terrible crimes committed in this country by some of the worst of the worst people who have ever inhabited this country.

But the question remains: Why should a bill of this importance--the hate crimes legislation--not have been, at the majority leader's direction, moved through the Judiciary Committee, reported out, and reported to the floor of the Senate? We have been in session since January. I am sure the Judiciary Committee has a lot to do. This has been described by proponents, as they come to the floor, as one of the most important issues of our time. If it is, why not move it through the Judiciary Committee, move it to the floor, and allow us to amend, debate, and discuss the issue? Instead, it is put, as an amendment, on the Defense authorization bill.

That is not right, Mr. President. The fact is, the amendment the majority leader just, very rightfully, extolled, the Levin-McCain amendment--and I appreciate his strong remarks about the importance of it--is the one he wanted withdrawn. The reason we are not debating it now is because the majority leader told the chairman of the committee to withdraw the amendment.

I appreciate his passionate advocacy of this issue. I also want to reemphasize this isn't just about $1.75 billion. This amendment is about whether we are going to change, fundamentally, the way we do business.

If the opponents of the amendment succeed, and we fund additional F- 22 aircraft, which as the majority leader pointed out has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan, that signal to the military industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us about is business as usual in our Nation's Capitol.

So this is an amendment that has transcendent importance. The President has guaranteed a veto. The Secretary of Defense came out and staked his reputation on succeeding here and eliminating, bringing to an end the F-22 production line and moving forward with the F-35 production line.

A lot of my friends ought to understand this is not just about cutting or eliminating or ending production of the F-22. It is also about the F-35 aircraft. If I had been majority leader, I would have-- when he described those amendments I put on bills that were before the Senate, it was because I could not get them up in any other way.

Let me say this: Hate crimes legislation deserves the attention of the Senate in the normal legislative process with amendments, debate, and discussion. If it is so important, and speaker after speaker, including the majority leader, came to the Senate floor talking about how important and vital it is and all of the terrible things that have happened as a result of, in their view, not having this bill--although that is not in agreement with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But the fact is, then you would think we would want to take it up in the regular fashion and debate it, and that we would want to improve it and make it more effective through the amending process. But, no, we are not going to do that. We are going to take down the pending amendment that is probably one of the most significant amendments we have had in recent history of the Senate--at least as far as defense is concerned-- and replace it with a piece of legislation that is complex, certainly controversial, and certainly deserves the full attention of the Senate.

I proposed earlier a unanimous-consent request, which was rejected by the majority, that we move back to the F-22 amendment, that we dispose of this legislation, and then that we move to the hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, even bypassing the Judiciary Committee, which is not a normal thing to do given the complexity of the issue.

I am deeply moved by the stories the majority leader told, and both Senators from California came to the floor, and many others have given very graphic and dramatic and compelling stories recounting terrible things that have happened to our citizens--horrible, awful, horrifying things. I understand that and my sympathies and thoughts and prayers go out to their families. We must do everything in our power to make sure these kinds of horrendous acts are never repeated.

Let me point out another thing, if I could. There are also men and women in the military who are in harm's way now and who have been gravely wounded. The sooner we enact this legislation, we will make preparation and be able to better care for them.

Mr. President, I don't usually tell these anecdotes. I heard a lot today, and I sympathize with them. Before the majority leader took the floor, I was outside the Senate Chamber. There was a young man there who said he wanted to meet me--a young marine in a wheelchair, badly wounded. He was there with his family. He was escorted by Congressman Kennedy. I was gratified and moved that he wanted to meet me.

Do you know what. That made me want to come back here and pass this legislation as quickly as possible because this legislation, No. 1, provides fair compensation and first-rate health care and addresses the needs of the injured and improves the quality of life of the men and women of the All-Volunteer Force--Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and their families. That is the No. 1 priority of this legislation.

Instead of moving this legislation as quickly as possible through the Senate, we have now withdrawn the amendment and moved on to a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the purpose and our obligation to the men and women serving this country.

I understand what numbers are, and I understand what the outcome of elections is. I understand there is a majority on the other side of the aisle. But what is being done by withdrawing an amendment that has transcendent importance and putting another totally unrelated piece of legislation in--it may set a dangerous precedent for this body.

This is not a one-shot deal; this the hate crimes bill. This is not an amendment to say you can carry a gun in a national park. This is not a single specific issue bill--hate crimes. We are talking about a very large, encompassing piece of legislation that, by any rational observation, demands to be considered through the proper committee and on the floor through the proper process.

We are now holding up the progress of legislation that is important to the future security of this country and the men and women who serve it, to give them the resources, training, technology, equipment, force protections, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations.

I understand and appreciate the passion of the advocates of hate crime legislation. They have made it very clear and told compelling stories on the Senate floor. I believe we must take it up and enact it as immediately as possible. What we should be doing is taking up the hate crimes bill in the Senate for full debate and discussion as soon as we finish the Defense authorization bill. There is no connection between the Defense authorization bill and hate crimes. It is a complex and detailed--26 pages, as I recall--piece of legislation.

Again, I appreciate the kind comments of the majority leader, who came to the floor and said he couldn't understand certain things I have done. I hope the majority leader understands better now. If he doesn't, I will be glad to come to the floor again and point out that what we are doing is wrong. It is wrong for us to get off the legislation that provides for the defense and security of this Nation. It is wrong to take up a piece of legislation that should go through the appropriate committee.

This is what we teach kids in school in Civics 101--that a bill is proposed and goes through the proper committee, is reported out, and then it comes to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment. Instead, we are violating the fundamental rules of procedure of the Senate.

As we continue and vote at 2 a.m.--or whatever it is that we are going to do--

all we will have done is delay the responsibility we have, which is to provide for the security of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the pending business, I understand, is the DOD authorization bill.

And when does that time expire?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, at this point, I thank Chairman Levin for his important comments, especially about the letters from the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on this issue. Let me repeat that this debate is not about depriving, in my view, the U.S. Air Force of a much needed part of our arsenal to defend this Nation's national security; it is about whether we will continue to spend money on the F-22, of which we are already acquiring 187, and additionally adding the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is very badly needed by the other services as well. I believe the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, is a very important counterpart to the F-22. The F-22 has great capabilities in certain areas, and the Joint Strike Fighter does too. So this debate is not just about removing the funds for the F-22. What it is about is removing funds for the F-22 and moving forward with the Joint Strike Fighter to give the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy a balanced inventory that will maintain the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as the most powerful projections of air power in the world for a long time to come.

So I emphasize, this is not so much about terminating a program as it is ending a much needed program and supplementing it with another. I think that sometimes this argument is portrayed simply in the area of the F-22 itself. It is not. I know the chairman and I and the majority of the committee want a balanced, powerful, capable Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy throughout the 21st century.

There have been various points raised and arguments made during this debate. I would like to respond to several of those arguments that have been made so far and probably will be raised again during the rest of this debate.

The first argument addresses the fact that 187 F-22s will not meet operational demands at an acceptable level of risk.

In the view of some Air Force officials, including the Air Combat Command general, John Corley, for example, a total of 381 F-22s would be sufficient to meet operational demands at a low level of risk and a total of 243 to 250 would be sufficient to meet operational demands with a moderate level of risk. That is the view of some very credible individuals.

Our response to that is that in December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that 183 F-22s was sufficient to meet its military requirements. This is back in December of

2004. The Department conducted several analyses which affirmed that number based on a number of variables, including the lengths and types of wars the Department of Defense believes it will have to fight in the future and future capabilities of likely adversaries.

The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of the Air Force have all stated that 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined with other U.S. military assets, including cyber warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range standoff precision weapons to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries.

We need to look at this in the entirety of its inventory. That means cyber warfare, it means long-range standoff precision weapons, it means the dramatic increase in capability of unmanned aircraft. Look at the role unmanned aircraft have played in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all candor, look at the role the F-22 has not played in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has not been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; whereas, our unmanned aircraft, our Predators, have had an incredible effect in identifying, locating, and destroying the enemy. I think General Petraeus will attest to that in a very persuasive fashion.

In response to the argument that more F-22s are necessary to close a gap in fifth-generation fighters between the United States and China, on May 14, Secretary Gates noted, ``[W]hen you look at potential threats--for example, in 2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. China will have 1,700. But, of ours, 1,000 will be fifth- generation aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35. And, in 2025, that gap gets even bigger. So, the notion that a gap or a United States lead over China alone of 1,700 fifth-generation aircraft in 2025 does not provide additional fifth-generation aircraft, including F-22s, to take on a secondary threat seems to be unrealistic.''

Secretary Gates summarized his position on the operational need issue on June 18, when he said that ``the U.S. military has to have the flexibility across the spectrum of conflict to handle the threats of the future'' and that ``this will mean a huge investment for the future, one that is endangered by continuing the F-22 Raptor program.'' He concluded, ``frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States, I find complete nonsense.''

As military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition GEN Mark D. Shackleford said, ``the capability that we get out of the 187 F-22s we believe is more than sufficient for the type of threat that the Secretary of Defense is addressing in the future''. Whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program, now is merely short term and, under the Air Force's Combat Air Force--CAF-- restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force for all the Services.

The next argument being made is buying more F-22s could help mitigate a projected fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024 that Air Force leaders identified in 2008 and a projected gap recently identified within the Air National Guard's fighter inventory. Such purchases could also hedge the United States against the risk of unexpected age-related problems developing in the Air Force's legacy force.

Our response to that is the fighter gap that the Air Force identified is questionable, given that it turns on various assumptions regarding threats and whether the United States will fight by itself or as part of a coalition. In any event, the Air Force has put in place a plan that will both mitigate any shortfall in fighter capability and bridge the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force. An essential element of that plan--called the Combat Air Force-- CAF--restructure plan--is to stop investing in the F-22 program after the current program of record of 187. That plan addresses possible shortfalls in fighter capability more cost-effectively than simply buying more F-22s. It does so by restructuring the Air Force's current fleet of fighters now and directing resulting savings to modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, including, upgraded F-15s and F-16s, procuring less expensive aircraft, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and investing in joint enablers. Under the plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force.

In addition, in the years ahead, the Department of Defense needs to focus on improving its capabilities for irregular warfare operations, and the F-22 is not a key program for improving those capabilities. While the F-22 is an extraordinarily capable ``air superiority'' platform, its limited air-to-ground capability makes it less appropriate for supporting counterinsurgency operations--so much so that, as Secretary Gates has pointed out several times, ``the reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater.''

The next argument is the decision to end the F-22 program is purely budget driven.

Secretary Gates has indicated numerous times that his decision to end the program is not resource driven. He announced that decision on April 6, weeks before his plan was even submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for vetting. On April 30, Secretary Gates plainly stated, ``if my top-line were $50 billion higher, I would make the same decision [regarding the F-22 program].'' That having been said, given the current fiscal crisis, buying more F-22s would likely reduce funding for other more critically needed aircraft, such as the F-35, F/ A-18E/F, and EA-18G, which unlike the F-22 are equipped with electronic warfare capability--the combatant commanders' number one priority. In that sense, continuing to purchase of F-22s could create operational risks for the United States military in the near term.

The next argument is buying more F-22s will ensure the Air National Guard gets modernized fighter aircraft sooner.

Our response is that under the Total Force policy, all the Services, including the Air National Guard, will receive Joint Strike Fighters at the appropriate time and at the appropriate rate to replace their aging F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The only requirement that the Air National Guard obtain Joint Strike Fighters ``sooner'' arises from the ``additional views'' of Senator Chambliss in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill.

In a letter to Senator Chambliss, the head of the Air National Guard LTG Harry M. Wyatt III noted, ``I believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform'' such as the F-22. However, that threat is simply not present today. This is something that is being closely looked at now in the on-going QDR debate. When asked about the cruise missile threat during our committee hearing recently, Secretary Gates correctly noted that the most effective counter to these sorts of threats is an aircraft that doesn't have a pilot inside of it.

The next argument is that large-scale production of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters has only recently begun and has not yet increased to planned higher annual rates. Until production of the Joint Strike Fighter has been successfully demonstrated at those planned higher annual rates, it would be imprudent to shut down the F-22 production line, which is the only ``hot'' fifth-generation production line.

Our response is that given how relatively similar the development and manufacturing efforts supporting the Joint Strike Fighter are to those supporting the F-22, concerns about an overall compromise in the industrial base appear to be overstated. In addition, whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is operationally acceptable: it is short-term in duration and, under the Air Force's Combat Air Force--CAF--restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth- generation fighter force for all the Services.

It is true that although ``full-rate production'' of the Joint Strike Fighter isn't anticipated until 2015, the program is making very meaningful

progress. But, maturation in the technical, software, production- processes, and testing aspects of the program are on track to plan and are in fact exceeding legacy standards--including those for the F-22. All 19 ``systems development and demonstration'' aircraft will roll out by the end of the year and major assembly on the 14 aircraft comprising the earlier ``low-rate initial production,'' L-RIP, lots have begun. I can assure the Members of this body that Senator Levin and I and our capable staffs will be keeping a very close eye on the Joint Strike Fighter production. It is vital that aircraft meet its cost estimates and meet its time schedules.

At this point, the first of those copies is expected to be delivered on time to Eglin Air Force Base in May 2010, and the first operationally capable versions of the fighter are expected to be delivered to the Marine Corps in 2012, the Air Force in 2013, and the Navy in 2015.

This is not to say we should take, as I said, our eyes off the program. We need to track continuous progress on the F-35 to ensure that development costs leading to production remain stable.

I am persuaded, as I hope the majority of this body will be, that on the issue of whether the F-22 program should continue, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force are all correct: Ending the F-22 program now is vital to enabling the Department to bridge its current fighter capability to a more capable fifth-generation fighter force that is best equipped to both meet the needs of our deployed forces today and the emerging threats of tomorrow.

Finally, the chairman and I are not unaware that this will lead to the loss of jobs in certain States in certain production facilities around the country. We know this is very tough, particularly in times of high unemployment across the country. But I would like to make the argument, No. 1, that the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, once it gets into production, will also be a job creator.

But I would also point out that the purpose of building weapons is not to create jobs. The purpose is simply to defend this Nation's national security. We have an obligation to be careful stewards of all our taxpayers' dollars but, most importantly, those taxpayers' dollars that go to the defense of this Nation should be first and foremost what can best defend the Nation's national security in times when we are in two wars and facing future threats that are, indeed, formidable in the view of most.

We are not without sympathy for the parts of our country, including the State of Georgia, where there are a large number of jobs that are at risk. Our sympathy is with them, and we will do everything we can to provide job opportunities, including in the defense industries across this country. But we cannot argue that we should spend taxpayers' dollars for weapons systems simply to create or keep jobs. That is not the use of taxpayers' dollars. If we want to do that, then there are many other programs we should fully fund to help create jobs and small business opportunities across this Nation.

This issue, I hope, will continue to be debated today and that we could resolve it, hopefully, sometime tomorrow morning with a final vote.

I know, from previous experience, there are perhaps 100 or more amendments that await the consideration of this body on the Department of Defense authorization bill. This is, obviously, a very important issue. This issue, perhaps, is maybe even more important than the $1.75 billion we are talking about. This debate is about whether we are going to make the tough decisions to most wisely and most expeditiously defend this Nation and spend those dollars wisely.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to make a quick response to the remarks of Senator Chambliss concerning the F-22 and a couple of remarks about what I understand is going to be next on the agenda which will be proposed by the majority leader, which is a hate crimes bill, which is very difficult for me to understand.

Senator Chambliss very appropriately pointed out that many times when we put together an authorization bill, we find offsets, as we call them--ways of paying for whatever item we want to add in the authorization bill. But I think it is important for us to point out that the Chambliss amendment during the markup, while putting this bill together, provided $1.75 billion for F-22 procurement. It took funds from presumed unobligated balances of several accounts. In all candor, they were unjustified assumptions.

The amendment cut $850 million from O&M accounts, which is operations and maintenance. That means the operating, the maintenance, the equipping, the replacement of very much needed parts and supplies that provide for the readiness of our troops, enabling them to stay ready for today's conflicts and for tomorrow's challenges. The account also covers day-to-day costs of the Department. This includes items such as training, maintenance of ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, recruiting, education support, procurement of general supplies and equipment, and repairs and maintenance of Department of Defense facilities.

Our military is engaged around the world. It is irresponsible to cut the resources they rely on to prepare successfully for their mission to protect the United States and its security interests worldwide. We owe it to our military to provide them with every resource. Based on historical data, the reductions that are in the Chambliss amendment to pay for the additional $1.75 billion would affect the following areas: Army's training and operating tempo, including training additional helicopter crews for irregular warfare missions; Navy's depot maintenance for surface ships; Air Force's depot maintenance and contractor logistical support for critical aircraft and unmanned vehicles; and the special operations command missions support and training of its forces.

Furthermore, a reduction of this magnitude would affect the Secretary's initiatives to hire and train additional acquisition professionals needed to improve the Department's ability to contract, develop, and procure weapon systems and to replace contractors with Federal employees, thereby reducing the $1.2 billion in savings that is reflected in the budget.

In addition, these accounts will have to absorb the increased cost of fuel that has occurred since the budget was submitted and additional civilian pay raises. That assumes the Congress sets the civilian pay raises at the same level as the military pay raise of 3.4 percent.

The other two ``offsets'' are $400 million from military personnel funding. Much of the funding in the military personnel accounts is entitlement driven. Thus, there is limited flexibility to absorb these reductions without affecting the readiness of U.S. forces. These reductions will directly translate into cuts to recruiting and retention bonuses incentives and other important programs such as covering the cost to move members and their families to new assignments. It will affect unit readiness by hindering the services' ability to meet end strength goals and fully staff operational units with critical personnel prior to deployment. If Congress sustains these reductions, the services will need to submit a reprogramming action to make sure our military forces are fully supported.

Finally, the Senator from Georgia assumes $500 million in first-year savings from the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which he referred to in his remarks. I am very proud to have worked under the leadership of Senator Levin and together coming up with a very important piece of legislation, strongly supported by the President and the Secretary of Defense, to reform the way we acquire weapon systems. The cost overruns have been outrageous, as we know, throughout the past few years. But there is no one--no one in our wildest imagination--who believes that in the first year of acquisition reform we will save $500 million. I would love to see that happen. I would love to see pigs fly. But we are not going to save $500 million in the first year of a piece of legislation that has not been implemented and would not be for some period of time.

So I am very flattered by the reliance of Senator Chambliss on $500 million in savings from the legislation we recently passed through the Congress and that has been signed by the President of the United States, but in all due respect, it is totally unrealistic. So what we are really doing is adding $1.75 billion and not accounting for ways to reduce spending or impose savings in any other way.

But I also understand and appreciate the passion, commitment, knowledge, and contributions of Senator Chambliss of Georgia. There is no more valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We simply have an honest disagreement on this issue. I appreciate the many qualities of the F-22 aircraft and the enormous contribution it makes to our Nation's security, but the fact is, we don't need any more of them. That comes from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and others involved in these issues for a long period of time.

Mr. President, just for a minute, because I know colleagues are waiting, it is my understanding that following the disposition of this amendment, which we hope would happen tomorrow morning, the majority leader will move to take up a hate crimes bill. The hate crimes bill is, to say the least, a very controversial piece of legislation and may deserve the debate and discussion of the Members of this body. But the fact is, it has nothing to do with the Department of Defense authorization bill. What the Defense authorization bill has a lot to do with is the training, equipping, taking care of reenlistment and retention, and all of the things necessary to defend our Nation's national security.

We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and we need to pass this legislation. So the majority leader's priority is a hate crimes bill--a hate crimes bill which has nothing to do with the Defense authorization. I hope if the majority leader does that, it will be the last time he will ever complain about an unrelated amendment being brought up by this side of the aisle.

Look, there are important amendments that need to be debated and considered on this legislation. This has to do with the defense of this Nation. So what are we going to do? We are going to tie up the Senate for a number of days. For a number of days we are going to tie up the Senate on a totally unrelated, very controversial, very emotional issue that has nothing to do with defending this Nation.

So I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I urge the distinguished chairman, I urge the majority leader, let's move forward with addressing the defense needs of this country, save the hate crimes bill for another day, and do what is necessary for the men and women in our military rather than putting an agenda item that has nothing to do with defense next before this body.

I predict again that when this bill comes up, if the hate crimes bill is proposed by the majority leader and agreed to by the distinguished chairman, it will lead to a great deal of controversy and unnecessary debate and discussion on a defense bill. If the majority leader, who controls the agenda, wants to bring up a hate crimes bill, I would imagine he would be able to bring it up on his own. Instead, he wants to stick it on to the bill that the men and women who are serving in our military and are in harm's way today are depending on. It is not right. It is not the right thing to do.

I hope the majority leader and the chairman of the committee will reconsider their position and wait and bring up a hate crimes bill as a separate piece of legislation for deliberation and discussion and vote from this body and not tie it to the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin, and I share his gratitude in thanking our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who contributed so much to writing this bill. They held numerous hearings on many important issues, and I thank them all for their hard work. And they were ably assisted by our extremely competent committee staff. Bringing this bill to the floor each year is a tremendous undertaking, and it would not be possible without the hard work of our outstanding professional staff who ensure that the process goes smoothly.

I also extend my special thanks to Chairman Levin, with whom I have worked for many years now. I commend him on his leadership, grace, and integrity in shepherding this bill. It is not easy managing the competing interests, views, and opinions of 26 Senators, but Chairman Levin does an outstanding job at ensuring we all feel heard and understood, even if we do not always agree. I continue to admire his steadfast dedication to the committee's long tradition of bipartisan cooperation.

Chairman Levin, you are a friend and great colleague, and I appreciate your support in both regards.

Consistent with the longstanding, bipartisan practice of the Armed Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is, for the most part, an excellent bill, and I believe the committee has made informed decisions regarding the authorization of over $680 billion in base and overseas contingency operations funding for fiscal year 2010. To a great extent, it reflects the priorities laid out by the Secretary of Defense and the administration. It also reflects his decision to end troubled programs and focus our limited resources on today's threats and the lessons we have learned after more than 8 years of war.

While the provisions in the bill demonstrate our commitment to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, training, and support in order to provide them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions, I believe we can and should improve the bill in certain respects, and I will offer amendments during our floor debate to do so.

The bill takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families by providing military members with a 3.4-percent pay raise. It expands care for wounded warriors, supports families, and improves military health care. It fully funds the growth of the Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, it authorizes further growth of the Army should that be necessary to sustain our combat operations and further reduce the strain on our forces.

The bill retains a balanced capability to deter aggression by increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, investing in tactical aircraft and ships, and accelerating the purchase of mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan.

This bill acknowledges that the United States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. It supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by Congress based on identified needs to date and calls on the President to provide our U.S. military commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed.

In Iraq, the committee ensures that the Congress will support the President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and ensure the safety of our forces.

One of the toughest issues this committee has taken a leading role in--both in past years and in this bill--is detainee policy. Since 2005, this committee has developed legislation on detainee matters-- sometimes in cooperation with the White House and sometimes over its strong objections--because it is critical to our national security and the preservation of our democratic principles.

This bill makes changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We have all--Senator Levin, Senator Graham, and others--worked closely together to address some of these difficult issues.

We have not resolved all of the challenges military commissions and other aspects of detainee policy present, but I believe we have made substantial progress that will strengthen the military commissions system during appellate review, provide a careful balance between protection of national security and American values, and allow the trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair result.

The committee also had a healthy debate on the future of missile defense and our strategic deterrence capabilities. I welcome and share President Obama's aspirations, hope for a nuclear-free world. However, I believe we must also be prudent and practical in our reductions and remain vigilant about the global proliferation of advance missile and nuclear technology. While recently much of our national defense posture supports combating terrorists, we cannot grow complacent to the danger that rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose to us-- whether it is missile launches within range of Hawaii or transferring weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas.

We must strengthen our commitment to enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the existing inspections regime. We must lead an international effort to interdict and prevent the world's most dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the world's worst actors. I know there are varying views on the future of missile defense and our long-term strategic force posture, and I look forward to those debates.

The bipartisan nature of our committee allows for candid discussion, lively debate, and, at times, disagreement. In that spirit, there are some items in the bill I do not support and were not in the President's budget request, such as continuation of the F-22 aircraft production line, funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and earmarks totaling approximately $6.4 billion. I was disappointed that, in spite of a veto threat from the White House, our committee chose to add $1.75 billion for seven F-22 aircraft and at least $439 million for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Neither the President nor the Pentagon asked for F-22s or the alternate engine in the budget request, nor were they part of the Service's Unfunded Priority List. Secretary Gates has consistently opposed the need for additional F-22 aircraft and has indicated on a number of occasions that additional F- 22 aircraft are not required to meet potential threats posed by near- term adversaries. I strongly support Secretary Gates' decision to end the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and his commitment--and the President's commitment--to building a fifth-generation tactical fighter capability by focusing on the timely delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

I look forward to lively debates on these and other important issues over the next few days.

I want to make very clear to my colleagues, the reason Senator Levin and I support the administration's and Secretary Gates' proposal to terminate at 187 the F-22 fighter aircraft is not because we believe we are going to leave the Nation undefended. We need the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our armed services are counting on them. We want to increase funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft and weapon system that in the view of many experts--including my view-- would be far more capable of meeting the emerging threats of the future. So I want my colleagues to understand this debate is not just about cutting a weapon system or bringing to an end, frankly, the line of a fighter aircraft; it is bringing to the end the line of one fighter aircraft and moving forward with another generation-- for all three services, a very capable weapons system, one that meets the threats of the 21st century.

So I think it is important that we look at the argument that will come forward about jobs created or jobs lost.

There will be jobs created, but the rationale for defense weapons systems should never be the creation of jobs. It should only be about the best way to defend this Nation in a very dangerous world.

So it is my understanding it is the wish of the chairman--and I join him--that the first amendment for debate will be the administration proposal to finish the F-22 aircraft production line, saving some $1.75 billion. So I look forward to that debate. I look forward to my colleagues coming to the floor who would oppose that amendment. I hope my colleagues understand we would like to get this done this week, if possible.

One more comment about the F-22 and the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter: The President of the United States, I am told, and the Secretary of Defense have made it very clear a veto is very likely if the Congress does not act to end production of the F-22 line. I would strongly recommend the President of the United States go ahead and veto this bill if the F-22 is included. At some point, with unemployment at 9.5 percent, with people not being able to stay in their jobs, with health care being less available and less affordable in America, we cannot afford to spend $1.7 billion additional taxpayer dollars for a system that can be replaced by a more capable weapons system and one that can defend our Nation with greater efficiency and less cost.

So I believe, frankly, there is more at stake than just whether we adopt the Levin-McCain amendment to terminate production of the F-22 as originally scheduled. I think this is a much larger issue, and I hope my colleagues understand the importance of it. I hope, if the Levin- McCain amendment is defeated--I hope it is not because I believe Senator Levin and I can make a convincing argument on behalf of the administration and the Secretary of Defense--but if it is, that there be no doubt that the President of the United States would veto this bill.

I say that with great reluctance. I say it with almost a sense of deep regret because there are so many things in this bill that are important to the defense of our Nation, whether it be the care and pay raises and hospitalization and care of our wounded warriors, along with many other issues. But at some point this Congress and this Nation have to exercise the fiscal discipline the economic crisis we are in today demands.

I again wish to thank Senator Levin for the long and close relationship and work we have done together. Sometimes we have had very spirited but very informative discussions, and I know those will continue as we address this very important legislation before the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record material in support of my remarks.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No, I will not speak.

I thank Senator Levin for his eloquent statement and comments concerning this amendment. I thank him for his leadership on it.

I have been for many years engaged in the Senate consideration of the Defense authorization bill. This is probably one of the most interesting--I think my colleague will agree--because we are beginning with a measure that, if not passed, will result in a veto by the President of the United States of America.

I appreciate this letter the President of the United States sent to Senator Levin and to me and to the entire Senate. I appreciate the President's courage because right now the votes are not there. Right now I think my friend from Michigan would agree the votes are not there to pass this amendment.

What the President has said, not only do we need to stop the production of the F-22, of which we have already constructed 187, but we need to do business differently. We need to have a change in the way we do business in order to save the taxpayers billions of dollars spent unnecessarily. So this will be kind of an interesting moment in the history of a new Presidency and a new administration and, frankly, an old Secretary of Defense. I say ``old'' in the respect that he obviously covers both administrations. I do not know of a Secretary of Defense who has had more appreciation and admiration from both sides of the aisle than Secretary Gates. I appreciate very much Secretary Gates' letter, also, where he describes in some detail, as does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, why we need to have this amendment passed to remove the additional F-22s. I want to emphasize ``additional.''

I wish to pay special appreciation to President Obama for taking a very courageous step in making it very clear, as he says:

As Secretary Gates and the military leadership have

determined, we do not need these planes. That is why I will

veto any acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded

by Congress.

The statement is very clear. I appreciate it. I hope it has a significant impact on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Again, my appreciation to President Obama and my appreciation to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Secretary of Defense, who lay out in more detail why it is that we need to eliminate this unneeded $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s.

I emphasize to my colleagues that these funds will go to the acquisition of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which when produced will provide a careful balance between the air superiority provided by the F-22 and the other capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter, which is also badly needed. This argument is not about the capability of the F-22, although that will be brought to the floor and I intend to talk a little bit about many of the difficulties the F-22 has had. But I would also like to point out that the F-22 has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a remarkable statement. It has been in production since December 2005. We are in July of 2009, and the F-22 has yet to fly in combat in the two wars in which we are engaged. It has been plagued with some significant maintenance problems, not to mention dramatic cost overruns.

This is not an argument about whether the F-22 is an important capability for our Nation's defense. It is. The question is, When do we stop buying them?

I quote from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff letter:

It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation

newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of

areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air

defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the

Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next

five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program.

So I think arguments that may be made on the floor that somehow we are curtailing or inhibiting the ability of the U.S. Air Force to carry out its responsibilities to defend this Nation are contradicted at least by the views of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and literally every other individual or position that is involved in this debate.

The Secretary of Defense goes on to say:

Furthermore, under this plan the United States by 2020 is

projected to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost

1,100 of them will be fifth generation F-35s and F-22s.

There is going to be a lot of debate and discussion about China and its emerging capabilities.

The Secretary of Defense goes on to say:

China, by contrast, is expected to have only slightly more

than half as many manned fighter aircraft by 2020, none of

them fifth generation.

I am concerned about the rising military capabilities of China. They are increasing their naval and maritime capabilities. They are increasing the efficiency of their army and their entire overall inventories, and it is of great concern. But with the combination of the F-35 and the F-22, we will clearly have a significant advantage over the Chinese for some period of time. That is not to in any way denigrate the long-term aspect of the Chinese military buildup. But in the short term, this is the best way to make sure we maintain complete superiority with a mixture of the F-35 and the F-22.

The Secretary goes on to say:

The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget

reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two

different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff

of the Air Force.

My colleagues are going to come to the floor and say the Chairman of the Air National Guard says we need additional F-22s. We do not disregard that opinion, but we do weigh that opinion as opposed to the opinion and judgment of the individuals whom I just cited.

If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond

what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other

Air Force and Department of Defense priorities--and require

deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more

critical for our Nation's defense.

There is no free lunch. There is no free $1.75 billion. There is no free money. Here we are with a projected $1.8 trillion deficit, a decrease overall in some defense areas that is coming sooner or later, and we cannot afford a $1.75 billion procurement that is not absolutely needed.

Again, I wish to state very clearly, F-22 is a good airplane. The fact that it has not flown in Iraq or Afghanistan is telling, and some of the issues I will mention later on are telling. But this is not an attack on the F-22. What it is is an assessment of the Nation's national security needs and what we need in its inventory to maintain our superiority over all other nations and meet various threats ranging from radical Islamic extremism to the conventional capabilities of a rising power in the east.

Again, I wish to say thanks for the great leadership of our Secretary of Defense and Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the importance they place on this amendment.

I would like to refer my colleagues to an article that appeared last Friday in the Washington Post. It was entitled ``Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

I will quote in part from this article, which I think is worthy of my colleagues' examination. It is by Mr. R. Jeffrey Smith, a person who is widely respected on defense issues. He says:

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-

22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance

for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of

flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the

warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results

show.

It goes on to talk about some of the problems it has experienced. It goes on to say:

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to

repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22

have been negative in recent years, and on average from

October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the

deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions

guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged

this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or

Afghanistan.

I point out that the cost per aircraft is around $350 million, depending on how you calculate it. We have a $350 million airplane investment by the taxpayers of America that has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan, the two conflicts in which we are engaged. We know for a fact that much older aircraft--the A-10, the F-18, many of the older aircraft are flying routine missions, plus our newest kinds of technology in drone and predator aircraft.

Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's

foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a

fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-

controlled Congress--

I point out to my colleagues, the Democrat-controlled Congress--

over whether the program should be halted next year at 187

planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's

contractors around the country had anticipated.

There are divisions over in the Pentagon.

It says:

Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees

last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to

keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed

messages from the Air Force--including a quiet campaign for

the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for

lawmakers--

I do not think that the chairman or I received the snazzy new Lockheed video--

and intense political support for States where the F-22's

components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June

25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration.

After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary

Robert Gates called the $65 billion fleet a ``niche'' silver-

bullet solution to a major aerial war threat that remains

distant. He described the House's decision as ``a big

problem,'' and has promised to urge President Obama to veto

the bill.

The administration's position is supported by military

reform groups.

In the article it talks about pilots who have flown the aircraft who talk about its impressive capability. I do not disagree with those assessments at all. Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A- 10 warplanes, said that from the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be ``too big to fail, that is, to be cancelation proof.''

Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. I would like to repeat that. Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. And Sprey, now a prominent critic of the plane, said that by the time skeptics ``could point out the failed tests, the combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most Congressmen were already defending their contractors' revenues.''

John Hamre--this is an individual known to all of us--a very capable individual, who was on the Senate Armed Service Committee staff and served in previous administrations, was the Pentagon Comptroller from 1993 to 1997. He says the Department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill.

We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air

Force thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower

number, and I was there [Hamre told the Senate Armed Services

committee in April.]

``I am not proud of it,'' Hamre added in a recent interview, which I think is a mark of the quality of the individual, that he admits he made a mistake, as we all do from some time to another.

So I do not want to quote and spend too much time on this article because it is a long one. But it is an important item for our colleagues to consider when we consider the vote on this amendment.

The cancellation decision got public support from the Air

Force's top two civilian and military leaders who said the F-

22 was not a top priority in a constrained budget. But the

leaders' message was muddied in a June 9 letter from Air

Combat Commander John D. W. Corley to Chambliss [that is

Senator Chambliss, the Senator from Georgia] that said

halting production would put ``execution of our national

military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.'' The

right size of the fleet, he said, is 381.

So it is enough to say that given our overall joint capability to obtain air superiority, stopping the F-22 at 187 fighters is vital to achieving the correct balance.

I have discussed already the importance of a fifth-generation aircraft. I discussed earlier the importance of us making these tough decisions. Not irrelevant to this debate is the view of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Cartwright. He is a Marine General aviator. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' most senior adviser on joint operational requirements.

In recent testimony before the Armed Services Committee, General Cartwright outlined why, in his best military judgment, the F-22 program should be terminated. He said:

Looking at the lines in hot production, the number one

priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the

services. Number-two priority was to ensure that we had a hot

production line in case there was a problem. And, number

three, was to have that hot production line producing F-18Gs,

which support the electronic warfare fight.

In General Cartwright's view:

Those issues stacked up to a solid position that it was

time to terminate the F-22. It is a good airplane. It is a

fifth-generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those

fifth-generation fighters to all of the services, and we

needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to

produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability. In

the F-18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are

more capable of addressing any threat that we'll face for the

next 5 to 10 years.

Interesting comment. He is saying, in the F-18, we can also produce frontline fighters that are more capable of addressing any threat we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.

In any case, let me clear up the record on some discussions about the risk the Air Force is taking on by ending the F-22 line at 187 aircraft. References to some of that discussion appear to have been taken out of context. The Air Force's acceptance of risk by

discontinuing the program needs to be understood in the context of the Air Force's overall combat Air Force restructure plan, a plan that is intended to bridge the Air Force's current fleet to the predominantly fifth-generation force of the future. Basically, that plan works by restructuring the Air Force's current fleet of fighters now and directing the results and savings to fund modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, weapons procurement, and joint enablers.

Under this plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force. As you can imagine, the effectiveness of the plan depends on a lot of moving parts, perhaps most importantly stopping the F-22 program at 187 fighters now.

While some short-term risks in the Air Force's fighter force may arise from stopping the program at 187 aircraft, the Combat Air Force Restructure Plan is designed to accept that risk to ensure a more capable fleet in the long term. I believe this strategy is sound and needs the support of this body. Please do not be deluded by references to risk associated with ending the F-22 program.

Given the strength of the reasons cited by the National Command Authority, the best professional military advice by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the considered recommendations of the service Secretaries, I can find no good reason why I should replace their judgment on this critical national defense issue with my own and call for funding for the continuation of the F-22 program. I, respectfully, suggest the Members of this body do the same and support the amendment under consideration.

I understand where votes are. I understand that right now, probably this morning, anyway, and I hope that the very forceful letter by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the very strong letter from the President of the United States will move my colleagues in support of this amendment.

But I have no illusions about the influence of the military industrial complex in this town. Long ago, President Eisenhower, when he left office--probably the most noted military leader or certainly one of the most noted military leaders ever to occupy the White House-- warned America about the military industrial complex and the power and the increasing influence he saw that military industrial complex having over the decisionmaking made in the Congress and in the administration and in the funding of different programs and the expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

We are at a very interesting moment, if not a seminal one, in the history of this administration. If we accept the threat of the President of the United States to veto and overcome the individual concerns, I think it will be a great step forward to providing the taxpayer with a far better usage of their hard-earned dollars.

These are difficult and terrible economic times for America. We cannot afford business as usual. We cannot afford to continue to purchase weapons systems that are not absolutely vital to this Nation's security. I would point out, again, and maybe it is not appropriate to keep mentioning, this plane has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It is never part of the two wars we have been in. It is a good airplane. It will probably be important, the 187 of them we are procuring, to the security of the Nation.

But to continue production and procurement at some $350 million a copy, when in the judgment of the people we give the responsibility to make the judgment in the strongest possible terms have told us: We need to move on to another aircraft. We need the Joint Strike Fighter, and we do not need any more of the F-22 aircraft, it is a very interesting time. I look forward to the debate and vote on this amendment as soon as possible. I respect the views of my colleagues who feel very strongly that we need to continue the production of this aircraft. But I think it is wrong. I hope we can have an enlightened and respected debate on this issue.

I understand the passion that some of my colleagues have about it and the importance it is to jobs in their States and communities. I would point out, again, defending this Nation and expenditures of the taxpayers' dollars for its defense should not be based on jobs. It should be based on our national security needs. There are not unlimited amounts of money.

I wish to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman again. I am sure that both those letters have been included in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the distinguished chairman.

Can I ask the distinguished chairman what he thinks is going to be the situation as regarding the disposition of this amendment?

Could I say to my friend, the distinguished chairman, from our past experience, there will be at least a couple hundred pending other amendments. I do not mean to diminish the importance of this one. But I would hope we could spend whatever time in debate that anyone might want to talk about the amendment today and into tomorrow and at least have a target to have a final disposition on this amendment tomorrow, since we will have many other amendments. Would that be the desire of the chairman?

Mr. President, we encourage colleagues to come to the Senate floor so we can debate this important amendment.

I thank the chairman. I hope all colleagues will bring their amendments as well as debate on the pending amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Ryan Farris, Mr. Yariv Pierce, and Mr. Stratton Kirton be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the week on the behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.