[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 104 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7383-S7397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1469

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the pending amendment Senator McCain and 
I have offered would strike the $1.75 billion that was added to the 
bill by a very close vote in committee to purchase additional F-22 
aircraft that the military does not want, that the Secretary of Defense 
does not want, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the Joint 
Chiefs do not want, that President Bush did not want, that the prior 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not want, and they all say the same 
thing: The expenditure of these funds jeopardizes other programs which 
are important, and they provide aircraft we do not need.
  These are fairly powerful statements from our leaders, both civilian 
and military leaders, in this country. I hope the Senate will heed them 
and reverse the action that was taken on a very close vote in the Armed 
Services Committee.
  We received a few minutes ago a letter from the Secretary of Defense 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A letter is on its way 
also from the President. When I get that letter, I will, of course, 
read the President's letter. But for the time being, let me start with 
the letter we have received from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as 
well as the Secretary of Defense, because it is succinct. It is to the 
point. It states the case for not adding additional F-22s as well as 
anything I have seen.

       Dear Senators Levin and McCain: We are writing to express 
     our strong objection to the provisions in the Fiscal Year 
     2010 National Defense Authorization Act allocating $1.75 
     billion for seven additional F-22s. I believe it is 
     critically important to complete the F-22 buy at 187--the 
     program of record since 2005, plus four additional aircraft.
       There is no doubt that the F-22 is an important capability 
     for our Nation's defense. To meet future scenarios, however, 
     the Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft 
     are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of 
     Unmanned Aerial Systems and the significant number of 5th 
     generation Stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat air 
     portfolio.
       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.
       Furthermore, under this plan, the U.S. by 2020 is projected 
     to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost 1,100 of 
     them will be 5th generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by 
     contrast, is expected to have only slightly more than half as 
     many manned fighter aircraft by 2010, none of them 5th 
     generation.
       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.
       If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond 
     what has been requested, it will

[[Page S7384]]

     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.

  The letter concludes with the following very pointed paragraph:

       For all these reasons, we strongly believe that the time 
     has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress 
     sends legislation to the President that requires the 
     acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond Fiscal Year 
     2009, the Secretary of Defense will strongly recommend he 
     veto it.

  It is signed by Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen.
  The determination of the Department of Defense to end the production 
of the F-22 is not new. Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush, as well as 
the current President and Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, are recommending the same thing. We have testimony on the 
record at the Armed Services Committee from the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, both urging us 
strongly to end the production of the F-22.
  Let me read, first, Secretary Gates's testimony on May 14 of this 
year:

       . . . [T]he fact is that the F-22 is not going to be the 
     only aircraft in the TACAIR arsenal, and it does not include 
     the fact that, for example, we are going to be building, 
     ramping up to 48 Reapers unmanned aerial vehicles in this 
     budget.

  The F-35, he said, is critically important to take into account.

     . . . and the fact is that based on the information given to 
     me before these hearings, the first training squadron for the 
     F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base is on track for 2011. The 
     additional money for the F-35 in this budget is to provide 
     for a more robust developmental and test program over the 
     next few years to ensure that the program does stay on the 
     anticipated budget.
       You can say irrespective of previous administrations, but 
     the fact remains two Presidents, two Secretaries of Defense, 
     and three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
     supported the 183 build when you look at the entire TACAIR 
     inventory of the United States.
       And when you look at potential threats, for example, in 
     2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. . . .

  The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, just a few 
days ago, on July 9, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the 
following:

       I was probably one of the more vocal and ardent supporters 
     for the termination of the F-22 production. The reason's 
     twofold. First, there is a study in the Joint Staff that we 
     just completed and partnered with the Air Force on that, 
     number one, said that proliferating within the United States 
     military fifth-generation fighters to all three services was 
     going to be more significant than having them based solidly 
     in just one service, because of the way we deploy and because 
     of the diversity of our deployments.
       Point number two is, in the production of the F-35 Joint 
     Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the 
     Air Force replacement of their F-16s and F-15s. It is a very 
     capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer--

  He is referring here to the F-35--

       It is 10 years newer in advancement in avionics and 
     capabilities in comparison to the F-22. It is a better, more 
     rounded, capable fighter.

  He goes on relative to point No. 2:

     . . . the second variant is the variant that goes to the 
     Marine Corps. The Marine Corps made a conscious decision to 
     forgo buying the F-18E/F in order to wait for the F-35. So 
     the F-35 variant that has the VSTOL capability, which goes to 
     the Marine Corps, is number two coming off the line. And the 
     third variant coming off the line is the Navy variant, the 
     carrier-suitable variant.
       Another thing that weighed heavily, and certainly my 
     calculus, was the input of the combatant commanders. And one 
     of the highest issues of concern from the combatant 
     commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That 
     electronic warfare is carried on board the F-18. And so 
     looking at the lines we would have in hot production, 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 the F-18 
     Gs which support the electronic-warfare fight.

  General Cartwright concluded:

       So 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 need to ensure that we were capable of continuing to 
     produce aircraft for the electronic-warfare capability. And 
     that was the F-18. In the F-18 we can also produce front-line 
     fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat 
     that we'll face for the next five to 10 years.

  The letter to which I referred from President Obama has now been 
received. I know Senator McCain has received a similar letter. I will 
read the one I have just received:

       Dear Senator Levin: I share with you a deep commitment to 
     protecting our Nation and the men and women who serve it in 
     the Armed Forces. Your leadership on national security is 
     unrivaled, and I value your counsel on these matters.
       It is with this in mind that I am writing to you about S. 
     1390, the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and in 
     particular to convey my strong support for terminating 
     procurement of additional F-22 fighter aircraft when the 
     current multiyear procurement contract ends. As Secretary 
     Gates and the military leadership have determined, we do not 
     need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that 
     supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded 
     by Congress.
       In December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that 
     183 F-22s would be sufficient to meet its military needs. 
     This determination was not made casually. The Department 
     conducted several analyses which support this position based 
     on the length and type of wars that the Department thinks it 
     might have to fight in the future, and an estimate of the 
     future capabilities of likely adversaries. To continue to 
     procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources 
     that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops 
     with the weapons that they actually do need.

  He concludes:

       I urge you to approve our request to end the production of 
     the F-22.

  This is no longer a simple recommendation of the President's staff 
that they would make to the President should we add additional F-
22s. This is now clear. It is crystal clear, and there is no way a 
President of the United States can say more directly than President 
Obama has said this afternoon that he will veto any bill that supports 
acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress. That 
should clear the air on a very important issue, and that is would the 
President veto this bill if it contained the extra F-22s the military 
doesn't want or wouldn't he. That speculation is no longer out there. 
It is now resolved, and it ought to be resolved in our minds, and we 
ought to realize then that those who support the added F-22s are 
supporting a provision which, if it is included, will result in the 
veto of a bill which is critically important to the men and women of 
our military and to their missions and operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.

  Madam President, not only does the amendment which was adopted by the 
committee on a very close vote add planes which our uniform--our 
military--and civilian leaders do not want, and say we do not need, but 
the amendment also pays for these additional F-22s in the following 
ways:
  No. 1, it cuts operation and maintenance. No. 2, it cuts civilian pay 
funds that need to be available. No. 3, it also reduces the balances 
that have to be kept available for military personnel. And No. 4, it 
assumes that there are going to be near-term savings in fiscal year 
2010 from the acquisition reform legislation that we recently adopted 
and the business process reengineering provision that is in the bill 
that was adopted by the Armed Services Committee.
  Each of those places cannot afford those cuts. We are talking here 
about operations and maintenance. This is the readiness accounts of our 
Armed Forces. These are the pay accounts of our Armed Forces. And in 
the case of at least one of the four sources, the assumption is 
unwarranted that we are going to make savings this year from the 
acquisition reform legislation, the very focus of which was to make 
changes in acquisition reform in the short term, which may actually 
cost us money to save money--significant money--in the long term. But 
there is no assessment I know of that says we are going to make savings 
in 2010 from our acquisition reform legislation.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, because she was a strong supporter of 
this acquisition reform, as were all of us on the Armed Services 
Committee, we believed very strongly that we had to make these changes 
in the way in which we acquire equipment and weapons. Senator McCain 
has been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember--change 
these acquisition reform procedures--and I have been involved for about 
as long as I can remember as well in these efforts. The Armed Services 
Committee put a lot of energy in the acquisition reform that we adopted

[[Page S7385]]

unanimously and was ultimately passed and signed by the President. But 
to say we can't make savings this year in no way knocks the importance 
of that acquisition reform or minimizes the importance of that 
acquisition reform. The fact is, as we said at the time, there are 
going to be major savings, we believe, from that reform, but they are 
not going to come in the short term. They are surely not coming in 
2010. Yet the amendment which added the F-22s made an assumption that 
there are going to be savings in 2010 from the acquisition reform 
legislation.
  Let me spend a minute on some of the other sources of funds for the 
F-22, unobligated balances for operations and maintenance--O&M. We 
already reduced by $100 million the funds in those accounts, and we did 
so consistent with the report and assessment of the Government 
Accountability Office. So we acted in a way that would not affect 
readiness, would not affect O&M, and we had the guidance there of the 
Government Accountability Office. But what the amendment did that added 
the F-22s is reduced by $700 million more those O&M accounts.
  The original bill we adopted avoided cutting O&M funds from the Army 
and from the Marines because readiness rates across the board have 
continued to suffer after several years in combat. Yet half of the 
reduction made by the amendment which added the F-22s was assessed 
against O&M Army. It is a dangerous thing to do. It is an unwise thing 
to do.
  We also now face an increase in the price of oil--an increase above 
what the accounts assumed would be the cost of energy. So we have an 
additional challenge to those O&M accounts which would be made far more 
difficult and those reductions far more problematic in that regard as 
well.
  Another source of funds which was used to add the F-22s was in the 
civilian pay accounts. Civilian pay had already been reduced by almost 
$400 million in the Air Force, and we did that consistent with, again, 
the assessments of the Government Accountability Office. Further, 
civilian pay reductions of $150 million to help fund the F-22s can have 
a negative effect on readiness, and we simply cannot take that risk. 
Also, that cut does not take into effect the likely additional civilian 
pay raise that we will have to absorb in these budgets if, as is 
likely, using historical acts, Congress increases the civilian pay 
raise to match the increased military pay raise.
  Deep cuts in funds available for civilian pay will have that effect, 
but also these cuts will undermine the Secretary's efforts and our 
efforts to hire significant numbers of new employees for the 
acquisition workforce, it is going to set back our effort to implement 
acquisition reform, and it is going to cost us a lot more money in the 
long run.
  Another source of the money for the additional F-22s came from the 
military personnel accounts. Our bill already has taken $400 million in 
unobligated balances from the military personnel accounts in order to 
pay for additional personnel pay and benefits, and we did that, again, 
in line with the recommendation of the Government Accountability 
Office. The Department's top line, so called, for military personnel 
was intact until the committee adopted the F-22 increase amendment. And 
if we reduce military personnel accounts for nonpersonnel matters, it 
is going to result in a military personnel authorization that is less 
than was requested, and it is going to hinder the Department's ability 
to execute its military personnel funding in the year 2010. That is 
going to be particularly problematic this year, because the Army and 
Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to the base 
budget. They did that because we urged them to do that.
  So the cost of personnel continues to rise, and yet one of the 
sources of the funding for the F-22 increase came from that very 
military personnel account.
  There is another impact of the amendment--which was barely adopted in 
the Armed Services Committee--and that is it is going to cause the 
Department of Defense to cut back in so-called nondirect pay areas, 
such as bonuses or other personnel support measures, which could have a 
very significant impact--a negative impact--on the long-term management 
of the all-volunteer force. It is very likely that the Department will 
then have to either seek a reprogramming during the next fiscal year to 
cover personnel costs or they may even have to file a supplemental 
request.
  We have worked hard as a Congress to get the administration--any 
administration, as we tried during the Bush years and we try again 
during the Obama years--to make sure that its budget request is solid; 
that it will not require reprogramming; that it will not require a 
supplemental request. With this amendment--which was again adopted by 
just two votes in the Armed Services Committee--we are jeopardizing 
that longstanding effort on the part of Congress to make sure that the 
budget request of the administration in fact is a realistic request 
when it comes to the various accounts. And particularly this year, as 
the Army and Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to 
the base budget, as we have pressed them to do for many years, it is a 
mistake for us to be taking funds from that account.
  I have talked about acquisition reform and the fact that the 
amendment which was adopted in committee assumed savings from 
acquisition reform. I have pointed out, and will not repeat, that while 
the acquisition reform, strongly supported obviously by our committee 
and by the Congress, is likely to result in major savings, it cannot be 
assumed to produce savings in the short term.
  I hope this body is going to adopt the Levin-McCain amendment. Two 
administrations now have made an effort to end the F-22 line. This is 
not a partisan issue. This is a Republican and a Democratic 
administration that have made this effort. Our top civilian leaders and 
our top uniform leaders are unanimous. The Secretary of Defense, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have 
joined in supporting the President's request, just as they did 
President Bush's determination to end the F-22 line. We have to make 
some choices in this budget and in other budgets, and this is a choice 
which our military is urging us to make.
  We all know the effect that this has on jobs in many of our States, 
and that varies from State to State, but probably a majority of our 
States will have some jobs impacted by a termination of the F-22 line. 
But we cannot continue to produce weapon systems forever. They have a 
purpose. They have a mission. And those missions and those purposes can 
be carried out by 187 F-22s. That is not me speaking as Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, that is not Senator McCain speaking as the 
ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, that is both of us 
saying that we must make difficult choices and we have to build the 
systems we need. The F-35 is a system which all of the services 
need. It cuts across the services. It has greater capabilities in 
electronics than does the F-22. It is a half of a generation advance on 
the F-22. This is not to minimize the importance of the F-22. We have 
and will have 187 in our inventory. While not minimizing the importance 
of the F-22, it points out how important it is that we modernize, and 
in order to do that--and that means the F-35--we have to at some point 
say we have enough F-22s. We tried it last year. We could not succeed 
last year. But this year, not only does the President oppose the 
increase, as did President Bush, President Obama has now said in 
writing today that he will veto a bill that contains the unneeded F-
22s.

  Our men and women in the military deserve a defense authorization 
bill. This has a pay increase even larger than that requested. It has 
benefits that are essential. It has bonuses and other programs to help 
recruitment and retention. It helps our families. It modernizes our 
weapon systems. At some point, we have to acknowledge that a weapon 
system production, extremely valuable, has come to a logical end and 
that it is time to then pick up its continuity with a different plane, 
a different weapon system which will benefit our military and support 
the men and women in uniform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Levin for his eloquent statement and 
comments concerning this amendment. I thank him for his leadership on 
it.

[[Page S7386]]

  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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

            Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

                         (By R. Jeffrey Smith)

       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.
       The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the 
     principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected 
     shortcomings--such as vulnerability to rain and other 
     abrasion--challenging Air Force and contractor technicians 
     since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, 
     internal documents and a former engineer.
       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.
       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 over whether the program should be halted 
     next year at 187

[[Page S7387]]

     planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's 
     contractors around the country had anticipated.
       ``It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] 
     only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure'' that 
     jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense 
     Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak 
     on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that 
     the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War 
     adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and 
     say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and 
     terrorist threats.
       But other defense officials--reflecting sharp divisions 
     inside the Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the 
     largest arms programs in U.S. history--emphasize the plane's 
     unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that 
     the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the 
     unexpected costs.
       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 key 
     lawmakers--and intense political support from 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 of F-22 spending Monday.
       After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary 
     Robert M. 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 military spending bill if the full Senate retains F-22 
     funding.
       The administration's position is supported by military 
     reform groups that have long criticized what they consider to 
     be poor procurement practices surrounding the F-22, and by 
     former senior Pentagon officials such as Thomas Christie, the 
     top weapons testing expert from 2001 to 2005. Christie says 
     that because of the plane's huge costs, the Air Force lacks 
     money to modernize its other forces adequately and has 
     ``embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament.''
       David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who 
     helps oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that ``I 
     think we've executed very well,'' and attributed its troubles 
     mostly to the challenge of meeting ambitious goals with 
     unstable funding.
       A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has 
     ``unmatched capabilities, sustainability and affordability'' 
     and that any problems are being resolved in close 
     coordination with the Air Force.
       Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term 
     American military dominance of the skies, the F-22 was 
     conceived to win dogfights with advanced Soviet fighters that 
     Russia is still trying to develop.
       Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, director of the Air National 
     Guard, said in a letter this week to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-
     Ga.) that he likes the F-22 because its speed and electronics 
     enable it to handle ``a full spectrum of threats'' that 
     current defensive aircraft ``are not capable of addressing.''
       ``There is really no comparison to the F-22,'' said Air 
     Force Maj. David Skalicky, a 32-year-old former F-15 pilot 
     who now shows off the F-22's impressive maneuverability at 
     air shows. Citing the critical help provided by its computers 
     in flying radical angles of attack and tight turns, he said 
     ``it is one of the easiest planes to fly, from the pilot's 
     perspective.''
       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 
     cancellation-proof.''
       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 subcontractors' 
     '' revenues.
       John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, 
     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'm not proud of it,'' Hamre 
     added in a recent interview.
       When limited production began in 2001, the plane was 
     ``substantially behind its plan to achieve reliability 
     goals,'' the GAO said in a report the following year. 
     Structural problems that turned up in subsequent testing 
     forced retrofits to the frame and changes in the fuel flow. 
     Computer flaws, combined with defective software diagnostics, 
     forced the frequent retesting of millions of lines of code, 
     said two Defense officials with access to internal reports.
       Skin problems--often requiring re-gluing small surfaces 
     that can take more than a day to dry--helped force more 
     frequent and time-consuming repairs, according to the 
     confidential data drawn from tests conducted by the 
     Pentagon's independent Office of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation between 2004 and 2008.
       Over the four-year period, the F-22's average maintenance 
     time per hour of flight grew from 20 hours to 34, with skin 
     repairs accounting for more than half of that time--and more 
     than half the hourly flying costs--last year, according to 
     the test and evaluation office.
       The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 
     2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure 
     was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet 
     average cost of $30,818.
       Darrol Olsen, a specialist in stealth coatings who worked 
     at Lockheed's testing laboratory in Marietta, Ga., from 1995 
     to 1999, said the current troubles are unsurprising. In a 
     lawsuit filed under seal in 2007, he charged the company with 
     violating the False Claims Act for ordering and using 
     coatings that it knew were defective while hiding the 
     failings from the Air Force.
       He has cited a July 1998 report that said test results 
     ``yield the same problems as documented previously'' in the 
     skin's quality and durability, and another in December that 
     year saying, ``Baseline coatings failed.'' A Lockheed 
     briefing that September assured the Air Force that the effort 
     was ``meeting requirements with optimized products.''
       ``When I got into this thing . . . I could not believe the 
     compromises'' made by Lockheed to meet the Air Force's 
     request for quick results, said Olsen, who had a top-secret 
     clearance. ``I suggested we go to the Air Force and tell them 
     we had some difficulties . . . and they would not do that. I 
     was squashed. I knew from the get-go that this material was 
     bad, that this correcting it in the field was never going to 
     work.''
       Olsen, who said Lockheed fired him over a medical leave, 
     heard from colleagues as recently as 2005 that problems 
     persisted with coatings and radar absorbing materials in the 
     plane's skin, including what one described as vulnerability 
     to rain. Invited to join his lawsuit, the Justice Department 
     filed a court notice last month saying it was not doing so 
     ``at this time''--a term that means it is still investigating 
     the matter, according to a department spokesman.
       Ahern said the Pentagon could not comment on the 
     allegations. Lockheed spokeswoman Mary Jo Polidore said that 
     ``the issues raised in the complaint are at least 10 years 
     old,'' and that the plane meets or exceeds requirements 
     established by the Air Force. ``We deny Mr. Olsen's 
     allegations and will vigorously defend this matter.''
       There have been other legal complications. In late 2005, 
     Boeing learned of defects in titanium booms connecting the 
     wings to the plane, which the company, in a subsequent 
     lawsuit against its supplier, said posed the risk of 
     ``catastrophic loss of the aircraft.'' But rather than shut 
     down the production line--an act that would have incurred 
     large Air Force penalties--Boeing reached an accord with the 
     Air Force to resolve the problem through increased 
     inspections over the life of the fleet, with expenses to be 
     mostly paid by the Air Force.
       Sprey said engineers who worked on it told him that because 
     of Lockheed's use of hundreds of subcontractors, quality 
     control was so poor that workers had to create a ``shim 
     line'' at the Georgia plant where they retooled badly 
     designed or poorly manufactured components. ``Each plane 
     wound up with all these hand-fitted parts that caused huge 
     fits in maintenance,'' he said. ``They were not 
     interchangeable.''
       Polidore confirmed that some early parts required 
     modifications but denied that such a shim line existed and 
     said ``our supplier base is the best in the industry.''
       The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy has also 
     caused problems, with a stuck hatch imprisoning a pilot for 
     hours in 2006 and engineers unable to extend the canopy's 
     lifespan beyond about 18 months of flying time. It 
     delaminates, ``loses its strength and finish,'' said an 
     official privy to Air Force data.
       In the interview, Ahern and Air Force Gen. C.D. Moore 
     confirmed that canopy visibility has been declining more 
     rapidly than expected, with brown spots and peeling forcing 
     $120,000 refurbishments at 331 hours of flying time, on 
     average, instead of the stipulated 800 hours.
       There has been some gradual progress. At the plane's first 
     operational flight test in September 2004, it fully met two 
     of 22 key requirements and had a total of 351 deficiencies; 
     in 2006, it fully met five; in 2008, when squadrons were 
     deployed at six U.S. bases, it fully met seven.
       ``It flunked on suitability measures--availability, 
     reliability, and maintenance,'' said Christie about the first 
     of those tests. ``There was no consequence. It did not faze 
     anybody who was in the decision loop'' for approving the 
     plane's full production. This outcome was hardly unique, 
     Christie adds. During his tenure in the job from 2001 to 
     2005, ``16 or 17 major weapons systems flunked'' during 
     initial operational tests, and ``not one was stopped as a 
     result.''
       ``I don't accept that this is still early in the program,'' 
     Christie said, explaining that he does not recall a plane 
     with such a low capability to fulfill its mission due to 
     maintenance problems at this point in its tenure as the F-22. 
     The Pentagon said 64 percent of the fleet is currently 
     ``mission capable.'' After four years of rigorous testing and 
     operations, ``the trends are not good,'' he added.
       Pentagon officials respond that measuring hourly flying 
     costs for aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 
     flying hours is problematic, because sorties become more 
     frequent after that point; Ahern also said some

[[Page S7388]]

     improvements have been made since the 2008 testing, and 
     added: ``We're going to get better.'' He said the F-22s are 
     on track to meet all of what the Air Force calls its KPP--key 
     performance parameters--by next year.
       But last Nov. 20, John J. Young Jr., who was then 
     undersecretary of defense and Ahern's boss, said that 
     officials continue to struggle with the F-22's skin. 
     ``There's clearly work that needs to be done there to make 
     that airplane both capable and affordable to operate,'' he 
     said.
       When Gates decided this spring to spend $785 million on 
     four more planes and then end production of the F-22, he also 
     kept alive an $8 billion improvement effort. It will, among 
     other things, give F-22 pilots the ability to communicate 
     with other types of warplanes; it currently is the only such 
     warplane to lack that capability.
       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 Cmdr. John D.W. Corley to Chambliss that said halting 
     production would put ``execution of our current national 
     military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.'' The 
     right size for the fleet, he said, is 381.
       One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant 
     to replace an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of 
     Los Angeles on March 25, during his review of the program. 
     The Air Force has declined to discuss the cause, but a 
     classified internal accident report completed the following 
     month states that the plane flew into the ground after poorly 
     executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay doors open, 
     according to three government officials familiar with its 
     contents. The Lockheed test pilot died.
       Several sources said the flight was part of a bid to make 
     the F-22 relevant to current conflicts by giving it a 
     capability to conduct precision bombing raids, not just 
     aerial dogfights. The Air Force is still probing who should 
     be held accountable for the accident.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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

[[Page S7389]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for 
his strong and very powerful statement about this amendment. I cannot 
remember a President ever saying in advance that if a specific 
provision in the Defense bill is included, he will veto it. Now, there 
may be such precedent. But this is what the stakes are here now. This 
is whether we are going to be supporting a bill that has essential 
provisions in it for the men and women of the military, including a 
significant pay raise and other important benefits, including support 
for our wounded warriors, including support for weapons systems they 
need.
  I would hope that even those Senators who have indicated they would 
support the additional F-22s might reconsider their position in terms 
of what is involved in this bill for our men and women, given the 
President's statement that he will veto this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Arizona. The answer is, it will 
depend, I guess, on how many people wish to speak either in support of 
our amendment or in opposition to it and how long they want to speak. I 
do not have yet an indication of that.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. LEVIN. I would be a little more optimistic even in the question. 
I am optimistic, and I would hope we would have a vote on this 
amendment by noon tomorrow.
  I understand there will not be votes in the afternoon as previously 
agreed to. I hope prior to noon tomorrow we can have a vote on our 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we encourage colleagues to come to the 
Senate floor so we can debate this important amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. There are two or three things for which we hope our 
colleagues will come to the Chamber: One is to speak on this amendment; 
secondly, to speak generally about the bill. We have a number of 
colleagues on the committee who have worked so hard on this bill who do 
want to speak on it. I hope they will do that this afternoon. Third, we 
can begin to receive amendments that we might want to consider during 
this week. I hope we can finish this bill this week. That may be an 
optimistic goal, but it would be achievable if everybody cooperates and 
brings to us and our staffs amendments they are thinking about 
offering.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S7390]]

  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, as more and more Americans become familiar 
with the details of the Democrats' proposal for a Washington takeover 
of the health care system, the wheels are beginning to fall off, and 
for good reason. It is no longer just the Republicans who are sounding 
the alarm. It is Independents and centrist Democrats who are showing 
genuine concern. We still do not have a good answer about the cost of 
the two major Senate proposals--one from the Finance Committee and the 
other from the HELP Committee--but we do know they will be enormously 
expensive once they are finally scored. There is also the House 
proposal from Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman which is believed to 
cost $1 trillion over a 10-year period.
  One great aspect of a representative democracy is elected officials 
still listen to the people who sent them here. Even Senators with 6-
year terms go back to their respective States often and have their 
fingers on the pulse of public opinion. What they heard over the recent 
Independence Day break was alarm over the amount of money the Federal 
Government is spending in such a short period and over the monstrous 
debt we are incurring. We also heard from the voters. We heard from 
taxpayers that they are concerned over the direction health care 
legislation is heading.
  A recent CNN poll found that a broad majority of Americans have 
concluded that their health care costs would go up, not down, under the 
Democrats' plan. The poll found that 54 percent say their medical 
insurance costs will increase if the Democratic plan is adopted, while 
only 17 percent of Americans believe their costs will decrease. Only 
one out of five said their family would be better off if the Democrats' 
reforms are enacted.
  This lack of enthusiasm for the Democrats' plan is not just driven by 
partisan opposition. A recent Rasmussen survey found skepticism high 
among independent voters, with a plurality, some 39 percent of those 
not affiliated with either party, strongly opposed to the Democrats' 
plan.
  I want health care reform enacted this year. As a matter of fact, I 
wanted health care reform enacted in the last Congress. But I want a 
plan that is closer to President Obama's campaign promise of last year, 
one that allows Americans to keep their insurance plans, if they are 
satisfied with them, and one that actually saves money for the American 
economy.
  Last year candidate Obama stated that the United States is spending 
too much money on medical care. He vowed to put forth a plan to save 
money. I want to see that proposal. I want to see a proposal that would 
save money, not one that would spend another $1, $2, or $3 trillion we 
don't have and for which we will have to borrow from our grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not 
characterize these legitimate concerns as scare tactics. The figures 
that have the Americans frightened were ones published from the 
Congressional Budget Office, not from some right-of-center think tank 
in Washington. In addition, suggestions about how to pay for this 
gigantic scheme for a Federal takeover are just as troubling.
  The Kennedy bill, for example, includes a $58 billion tax on workers 
that would be imposed to create a government insurance program for 
long-term care. The bill also includes an additional $36 billion in 
penalties on individuals for not purchasing a government-approved 
health coverage policy. Another $52 billion would come from new taxes 
on employers. The House is considering a $540 billion proposal to put a 
1- to 3-percent surtax on small businesses. There are also plans to tax 
beverages that contain sugar and proposals to place payroll taxes on 
capital gains earnings.
  All of these tax increases would come during a recession and would 
still not be enough. There would have to be hundreds of billions of 
dollars in cuts to the Medicare Program. In essence, to finance this 
scheme we will have to agree to tax workers and job creators and to cut 
benefits for senior citizens.
  Two opinion pieces from the Washington Post last Friday provide clear 
evidence of honest concerns over the way the Democratic legislation is 
heading. In its own editorial, the Washington Post, hardly a rightwing 
publication, noted discouraging developments on Capitol Hill. Among 
other things, the Washington Post expressed disagreement over the 
Democrats' continued insistence on a public option. The editorial went 
on to say:

       Restructuring the health care system is risky enough that 
     the Democrats would be wise not to try to accomplish it 
     entirely on their own.

  This is sound advice from a leading newspaper that endorsed Senator 
Obama when he was running for President last year.
  In another op-ed on the same topic, columnist Michael Kinsley points 
out:

       People, even liberals, are starting to get unnerved by the 
     cost of all this.

  He cites two risks for health care reform. One is that it would not 
pass and an opportunity will be lost. The second is that if it passes, 
it would not work. I ask my colleagues: If we pass a $1 trillion or $3 
trillion plan that does not work, how will we ever reverse that 
mistake? How will we ever get the genie back in the bottle?
  Mr. Kinsley rightly urges the President to slow things down on health 
care reform in order to get it right. Then Mr. Kinsley goes on to 
suggest that the President not try for a total overhaul of health care 
but, instead, seek smaller successes or low-hanging fruit. He advocates 
medical malpractice reform, outcomes research, and eliminating 
paperwork and waste as a starting position. I believe such an approach 
is sound and could be on the President's desk by the end of September.
  When Michael Kinsley and the Washington Post editorial board begin 
asking advocates of an enormous Washington takeover to pause and 
reflect, it is time for all Americans--from the left, from the right, 
and from the political center--to sit up and take notice.
  The good news from these developments is this: We now have a better 
opportunity for health care reform that does not break the bank. I hope 
the congressional leadership will go back to the drawing board and 
write a targeted bill that addresses the real problems, such as 
coverage for the uninsured.
  Congress should listen to Michael Kinsley. Congress should listen to 
the Washington Post editorial board and the growing chorus of concerns 
and develop a plan that makes health care more portable, more 
affordable, and more accessible.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week and again this morning, my 
good friend, the majority leader, came to the floor and said he wants 
to work with Republicans on health care reform. I welcome his comments. 
As a step in that direction, I would point out one of the major 
concerns Americans have about health care reform is the pricetag.
  Last week, we learned the Federal deficit is now more than $1 
trillion so far this year for the first time in our Nation's history. 
To give people an idea of how dramatically the Federal deficit has 
grown in just the last several months, I would note the current deficit 
for this year is $800 billion more than it was at this point last 
year--$800 billion more than at this point last year. So the need for 
fiscal discipline could not be greater than at the current moment. Yet 
all the Democratic proposals we are hearing on health care would only 
increase our Nation's already staggering debt without even addressing 
the full extent of the problems we all agree should be addressed as 
part of a comprehensive reform. Americans do, indeed, want health care 
reform, but they don't want to see their

[[Page S7391]]

children and their grandchildren buried deeper and deeper in debt 
without even solving the problem.
  Every proposal we have seen would cost a fortune by any standard. 
Even worse, some of these estimates are totally misleading. In some 
cases 10-year estimates are based on proposals that wouldn't even go 
into effect for 4 years. In other words, what is being sold as a 10-
year cost would actually cost that much over 6 years.
  We also know from our experience with Medicare that cost estimates on 
health care often prove to be wildly inaccurate. When Medicare Part A 
was enacted in 1965, it was projected that in 1990 it would spend $9.1 
billion on hospital services and related administration. As it turned 
out, spending in 1990 totaled almost $67 billion, more than seven times 
the original prediction.
  Today, Medicare is already paying out more than it is taking in and 
will soon go bankrupt. So if history is any guide, the actual cost of 
reform could be far greater than the estimates we are getting now--
estimates that are already giving Americans serious sticker shock.
  Also troubling are some of the proposals we have heard to pay for 
these so-called reforms. The advocates of government-run health care 
have been searching frantically for a way to cover costs, and they seem 
to have settled on two groups: the elderly and small business owners in 
the form of Medicare cuts and higher taxes.
  As for Medicare, it is my view any savings from Medicare should be 
used to strengthen and protect Medicare, not fund another government-
run system that is all but certain to have the same fiscal problems 
down the road Medicare does. Raiding one insolvent government-run 
program to create another is not reform; it is using an outdated model 
to solve a problem that will require a fresh approach and new ideas.
  As for higher taxes, advocates of the government takeover of health 
care have set their sights on small business owners to help pay for the 
proposals. It should go without saying that this is precisely the wrong 
approach in the middle of a recession. Small businesses are the engine 
of our economy, and they have created approximately two-thirds of all 
new jobs in the last decade. At a time when the unemployment rate is 
approaching 10 percent, we need to help small businesses not hurt them. 
Yet according to news reports, Democrats in Congress are considering 
doing just that.
  In recent congressional testimony, the President of the National 
Federation of Independent Business said some of these proposals could 
destroy more than 1.5 million jobs. Aside from killing jobs, these so-
called reforms could actually cause millions to end up with worse care 
than they already have, and they could come at a higher cost to 
individuals and families in the form of higher premiums.
  Some have also proposed raising income taxes and limiting tax 
deductions for charitable giving. Others are reportedly considering an 
increase on the employee Medicare tax which would take money out of the 
paychecks of American workers, a new national sales tax, and taxes on 
soda and juice boxes. These proposals would hit low-income Americans 
especially hard. All of these are bad ideas, but it is unlikely they 
would cover the long-term cost of the proposal we have seen so far in 
any event. The rest would simply be added to the national debt.
  In his comments last week, the majority leader said health care 
reform is not a partisan issue. That is why some of us have for weeks 
put forward ideas that should be pretty easy for everybody to support, 
such as reforming medical malpractice laws to get rid of junk lawsuits, 
encouraging wellness and prevention programs such as the programs that 
help people quit smoking or overcome obesity that have been shown to 
cut costs, and increasing competition in the private market.
  Americans would like for the two parties to work together to reform 
health care--to cut costs without sacrificing the things Americans like 
about our current health care system. Embracing the ideas I have 
mentioned and finding responsible ways to pay for health care reform is 
an obvious and commonsense place to start.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this week, the Health, Education, Labor, 
Pension Committee is planning to finish marking up our health care 
reform legislation. A vital part of this legislation is ensuring that 
Americans have access to affordable generic versions of brandname 
biologic drugs. These medicines are crucial to those suffering from 
Parkinson's, from multiple sclerosis, from arthritis, from diabetes, 
from cancer, and from all kinds of debilitating and deadly diseases. 
Yet for countless Americans, these drugs are simply too expensive.
  More than 190,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in 
American women in 2009. To treat these cases using the biologic drug 
Herceptin costs approximately $48,000 a year. That is almost $1,000 a 
week to treat breast cancer with this drug. Each year, more than 1.3 
million Americans are afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis. To treat 
these cases using the brandname biologic drug Remicade costs more than 
$20,000 a year. And here is another number. Between 350,000 and 500,000 
people in the United States suffer from multiple sclerosis. To treat 
these cases using brandname biologic drugs, either Avonex or Betaseron, 
costs more than $24,000 a year.
  To put these numbers in perspective, the average annual household 
income in my State of Ohio--whether you live in Dayton, in Cleveland, 
in Akron, Cincinnati, or Youngstown--is $46,000. For far too long, 
Ohioans such as Jerrold, from Miami County, have had to choose between 
paying for their medication or their mortgage.
  Jerrold, who served in the Marines, had to retire early because he 
was experiencing severe seizures. Soon after, his wife had to retire 
early because she was diagnosed with leukemia and was battling other 
medical problems. Between the expensive medications needed to treat 
their conditions, Jerrold and his wife were forced to put their house 
up for sale. Jerrold wrote to me saying he didn't expect his golden 
years would be losing his home because of unaffordable health care 
costs.
  Health care reform must include an FDA approval process for generic 
biologics comparable to the process that ensures access to traditional 
generic drugs. Remember that only 15 years ago the most effective, best 
known cancer drug was a chemical drug, with ingredients that were not 
considered live ingredients, but was a chemical drug known as Taxol. 
Taxol cost about $4,000 a year. We thought that was outrageously 
expensive. But because of Hatch-Waxman, because of the generic approval 
process, because we can bring generic drugs to market, we have been 
able to get those costs under control.
  But $4,000 for a drug for cancer only 15 years ago--Taxol--today, a 
drug for cancer costs upwards of $40,000, and there is no Hatch-Waxman, 
there is no generic process, there is no road to keep those prices in 
check. The companies that make those drugs can charge whatever they 
want.

  Absent that generic process, there is no free market exerting 
downward pressure on biologic prices, so prices remain high for 
families such as Kimberly's, also from Miami County. Kimberly wrote to 
me explaining how her brother depends on Remicade infusions every 6 to 
8 weeks to treat ulcerative colitis. The annual cost of Remicade can 
top $31,000 a year. Again, there is no competition, there is no generic 
equivalent allowed to be developed under U.S. law. Kimberly is worried 
if her parents lose their insurance her brother will no longer be able 
to get his infusions and his conditions would not be covered by a new 
insurer.
  Biotechnology is a high-risk and high-cost business, but we cannot 
give companies open-ended protection from generic competition. With no 
protection from generics, pharmaceutical companies have enjoyed profits 
of the tens of billions of dollars after they recoup their R&D costs.

[[Page S7392]]

  I say absolutely they should recoup their R&D costs. They should have 
a generous profit for the risks they undertook and the investment they 
made and even for the opportunity costs of their investment. But when 
you look at the kind of returns they are making, the number of years 
they can continue to charge these high prices, what good is it to 
develop these wonderful drugs, these wonderful biologic drugs, if 
people such as Kimberly and Jerrold and others can't afford them?
  If you divide the total R&D budget of a typical biotech by the number 
of biotechs that actually make it to market--the number of biologics 
that make it to market, the R&D cost per successful drug is about $1.2 
billion. That counts all the drugs including the ones that do not make 
it to market, including the ones that are failures, including the ones 
where the research is dead end--$1.2 billion.
  The top biologic companies are able to make up their costs in as 
little as a year and a half and go on to make profits worth billions, 
year after year--after decade, for that matter--because there is no 
generic path. There is no path to follow in biologics.
  Why should there be--under the proposals of some people in this 
body--why should there be a 13-year monopoly period, as some of my 
colleagues want? That is a good question. President Obama has said 7 
years is enough and the FTC has directly stated that 12 years or more 
of exclusivity would--counterintuitively, perhaps--actually harm new 
innovation by discouraging biotechs from searching for new sources of 
revenue. Why should they, when they are raking in dollars from their 
current monopolies, giving them exclusivity for far more years than 
either the FTC or the President or the AARP or the bipartisan 
legislation sponsored by Senators Martinez, Vitter, Schumer and me--why 
should these companies, with that kind of long exclusivity period, even 
bother to do innovation? That is what the FTC says. That is clearly 
true.
  AARP says 12 years, much less 13 years, is too long. Insurance 
companies say it, patient advocates say it, disease groups say it, 
major consumer groups say it--that 12 years is much too long. The only 
group advocating for 12 years or greater is, no surprise, the drug 
industry.
  With their army of lobbyists and their deep pockets that produce 
spectacular campaign contributions, the drug industry is all over 
Capitol Hill, trying to convince Members of Congress that drug 
companies are different from other companies. The drug companies want 
us to believe that they deserve something special, they deserve 
decades-long monopolies for their products. No one else has that in the 
entire consumer market, even if those monopolies leave patients without 
access to the lifesaving medicines.
  I might add that much of the research that these companies have done, 
much of the research they build upon, is taxpayer funded through the 
National Institutes of Health.
  I know in the State of the Presiding Officer, as in mine, there are 
all kinds of NIH dollars spent by startup companies, by universities, 
by people developing spectacular drugs. That is a good thing. But, 
understand, taxpayer money goes into a lot of this at the beginning. 
Taxpayers at least deserve competitive prices after the product has 
been developed.
  A biotech industry group called the Biotech Industry Association, a 
lobbying group, spent nearly $2 million in the first quarter alone 
lobbying on this issue that prevents generic drugs from making their 
way to people in Gallipolis and Zanesville and Springfield and Xenia 
and Findlay and Lima, OH. The drug industry is a profit-making 
enterprise, of course. It is going to lobby Congress to do whatever is 
in the drug industry's best interests, of course. There is no reason to 
believe it would selflessly advocate for patients. It never has, it 
never will. It is all about the bottom line, which it should be. It is 
their responsibility to argue for the bottom line. It is their 
responsibility to maximize profits. But it is our responsibility in 
this institution--in the House of Representatives, in the Senate--it is 
our responsibility to bring in competition to restrain costs so that 
through competition--not through rules but through competition--
American consumers have the opportunity to buy these drugs that our tax 
dollars helped to develop.
  I want to tell you about a letter I received recently from one of my 
constituents. A registered nurse from Cleveland, Mary, wrote to me that 
she works with families who often must decide between visiting a doctor 
and buying their child's medication to manage seizures or other 
diseases. Mary is a nurse, as I said. Mary writes that drug costs keep 
many parents from doing what they know is right. Safe and effective 
generic biologic drugs will bring billions of dollars of savings to 
consumers, the health care community, and to our economy.
  It will help Ohioans such as Brynna, from Cleveland, who wrote to me 
how, after being diagnosed with a rare immunological disorder, she lost 
her job and lost her insurance.
  After receiving Social Security disability, Brynna had to rely on 
sample medications from her doctor--a doctor who obviously cared about 
her patient because Brynna cannot afford the expensive medications she 
needs to stay healthy and stay strong.
  Get this. Brynna juggles her medications depending on which part of 
her immune system is the weakest and what she can afford.
  Why should that happen? That only happens because this institution 
has abdicated its responsibility. The drug industry, of course, is 
going to maximize its profits. It is up to us--100 Members of the 
Senate, 435 Members of the House of Representatives and President Obama 
to inject competition, to allow competition so these prices come down.
  Of course it would be irresponsible not to pursue a safe and 
efficient path to generic versions of name-brand biologic drugs. It 
would be irresponsible to pursue a pathway that gives biologic 
manufacturers more than a decade of monopoly rights over a market that 
provides lifesaving products to American patients.
  That is how high the stakes are. Every year we give to highly 
profitable drug companies inflates taxpayer costs for health care, 
causes businesses struggling with paying for health care for their 
employees more onerous, burdensome costs, and prevents Americans from 
obtaining medicines that can treat disabling and life-threatening 
conditions.
  We must not kowtow to the drug industry. We can and we must stand up 
for patients. We must and we have an opportunity to do what is right on 
the follow-on biologics issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 1390.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, moments ago I left the Judiciary Committee 
hearing room where we are considering the nomination of Judge Sotomayor 
to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. In considering this 
historic and well-qualified nominee, many Americans may believe our 
country has completely turned the corner in terms of equality and civil 
rights. While I certainly hope Judge Sotomayor's nomination will unite 
us as a nation, I am aware that there is a lot more that still has to 
be done to protect the civil rights of all Americans.
  I plan to offer the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2009 as an amendment to the pending National Defense authorization 
bill. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and a number of other 
bipartisan cosponsors for their support. This measure has long been a 
priority bill for Senator Ted Kennedy. I commend him for his steadfast 
leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate 
crime laws.
  The amendment I will offer aims to address the serious and growing 
problem of hate crimes. We all saw the recent event at the Holocaust 
Museum here in Washington which made it clear that these vicious crimes 
continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan legislation is carefully 
designed to help law enforcement most effectively respond to this 
problem. It has been stalled for far too long. The time to act is now.
  The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has been pending for 
more than a decade and has actually

[[Page S7393]]

passed the Senate several times. Despite its long history in the 
Senate, and despite the fact that it is cosponsored by both Democratic 
and Republican Senators, it continues to draw the same tired, old 
attacks. Less than 2 years ago the Senate passed a hate crimes bill as 
an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. It also passed the 
Senate in 2004, in 2000, and 1999.
  Last month, at the request of the ranking Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Sessions, and all Republican members of the 
committee, I chaired a hearing on this bill to assure that this 
legislation has been adequately discussed and considered, and to allow 
an opportunity to explore the minor changes that were made to the bill 
in this Congress.
  It is no doubt a testament to the urgency of this legislation that 
the Attorney General of the United States returned to the Judiciary 
Committee to testify in support of the bill. I say it reflects the 
urgency of it because the Attorney General had been before the 
committee less than a week before in an oversight hearing. Normally we 
would not see him before the committee for another 6 to 10 months. Yet, 
he came back within 6 days so he could testify in support of this 
important legislation. I commend Attorney General Holder for that. We 
have also heard from State and local law enforcement organizations, all 
supportive of the measure, and our committee record includes support 
letters from dozens of leaders of the faith community and the civil 
rights community.
  I agreed with Senator Sessions when he commented at the end of the 
hearing that it was a good hearing with a good exchange of views. We 
have now had more than enough process and consideration of this bill, 
and it is time to bring it to another Senate vote.
  The hate crimes amendment will improve existing law by making it 
easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes of 
racial, ethnic, or religious violence. Victims will no longer have to 
engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to 
be protected under Federal law. It also focuses the attention and 
resources of the Federal Government on the problem of crimes committed 
against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability, which is a long overdue protection. In 
addition, the hate crimes amendment will provide assistance and 
resources to State and local and tribal law enforcement to address hate 
crimes.
  Last Congress this legislation was attached to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill and had the bipartisan support of 60 
Senators, and I expect we will have even more support today.
  President Obama supports the immediate passage of hate crime 
legislation. In his first few months in office, he has acted to ensure 
that Federal benefits are awarded more equitably, regardless of sexual 
orientation. He has shown through his selection of a nominee for the 
Supreme Court that he understands the greatest talent and experience 
and the highest devotion to law exists across lines of gender and 
ethnicity. Unlike in previous years, our bipartisan hate crimes bill 
does not face a veto threat because we have a President who understands 
that crimes motivated by bias are particularly pernicious crimes that 
affect more than just their victims and those victims' families.
  I know. In a previous career, I prosecuted crimes that were committed 
based solely or primarily on bias against the victims. It is a hateful, 
terrible thing. It is hateful to the victim, to the victim's family, 
the victim's friends.
  Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the 
victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual 
orientation. If you feel somebody with whom you share that connection 
may have been the victim of a hate crime, you may fear that you will be 
next.
  For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and 
punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting Federal laws to 
protect the civil rights of all of our citizens. The Matthew Shepard 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 continues that great and honorable 
tradition. That is why so many law enforcement--State and local, 
Federal--support this legislation. Adoption of this amendment will 
show, once again, that America values tolerance and protects all of its 
people. I urge the opponents of this measure to consider the message it 
sends when, year after year, we have been prevented from enacting this 
broadly supported legislation. The victims of hate deserve better, and 
those who fear they may be the next victim of a hate crime deserve 
better. So I hope all Senators will join me in support of this 
important amendment.
  At the appropriate point, I will call up the amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letters in support of this amendment from 
the Human Rights Campaign dated July 14, 2009, and the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights dated July 9, 2009, be printed in the 
Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters for 
the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Human Rights Campaign,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2009.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign and 
     our more than 750,000 members and supporters nationwide, we 
     are writing today to urge you to support the Leahy/Collins/
     Kennedy/Snowe Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1391) and to reject any secondary 
     amendments. These will be key votes for the Human Rights 
     Campaign.
       The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has strong 
     bipartisan support. On April 29, 2009 the House of 
     Representatives passed a virtually identical bill (H.R. 1913) 
     by a vote of 249-175. The Senate has previously supported 
     substantially similar legislation on four separate occasions 
     by wide bipartisan margins, most recently as an amendment to 
     the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization bill by a vote 
     of 60 to 39. In addition to public opinion polling that 
     consistently finds an overwhelming majority of Americans in 
     support of such legislation, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act has the support of more than 300 law 
     enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations.
       Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began 
     collecting hate crimes statistics in 1991, reported bias-
     motivated crimes based on sexual orientation more than 
     tripled; yet the federal government has no jurisdiction to 
     assist states and localities in dealing with even the most 
     violent hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
     transgender Americans. The FBI's 2007 Uniform Crime Reports--
     the most recent year for which we have statistics--showed 
     that reported violent crimes based on sexual orientation 
     constituted 16.6 percent of all hate crimes in 2007, with 
     1,265 reported for the year.
       By passing this common sense anti-hate crime measure, we 
     would bring our nation's laws into the 21st century. The 
     Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a logical 
     extension of existing federal law. Since 1969, 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 245 has permitted federal prosecution of a hate crime if 
     the crime was motivated by bias based on race, religion, 
     national origin, or color, and because the victim was 
     exercising a ``federally protected right'' (e.g. voting, 
     attending school, etc.). After forty years, it has become 
     clear that the statute needs to be amended.
       This bill adds actual or perceived sexual orientation, 
     gender, disability and gender-identity to the list of covered 
     categories and removes the federally protected activity 
     requirement, thus bringing a much needed comprehensiveness to 
     federal law. Removing the outdated intent requirement, would 
     untie the federal government's hands and allow them to 
     partner with state and local officials in combating serious 
     hate crimes that involve death and bodily injury.
       We urge you to vote for this historic piece of legislation. 
     For more information, please contact Allison Herwitt, 
     Legislative Director, or David Stacy, Senior Public Policy 
     Advocate. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Joe Solmonese,
     President.
                                  ____

         Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on 
     Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and most 
     diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than 200 
     member organizations, we thank you for your support and 
     leadership of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     (S. 909) (HCPA) and applaud your commitment to pass it before 
     the August recess.
       LCCR appreciates your continued support for this bill, and 
     we are grateful for Senator Levin's willingness to allow an 
     attempt to attach HCPA to the Department of Defense (DOD) 
     Authorization, and for Senator Leahy's leadership in offering 
     the amendment on

[[Page S7394]]

     the Senate floor. As you know, due to pressure from outside 
     of the Senate, we have tried but failed to find an 
     appropriate vehicle on which to attach the HCPA. We recognize 
     and appreciate that the DOD Authorization bill is the best 
     and only option to ensure passage before the August recess.
       We know that you understand well the importance of S. 909. 
     The testimony of Attorney General Holder at the Senate 
     Judiciary Hearing on June 25th, indicating the 
     administration's strong support for this bill, is an 
     encouraging reminder that after eleven years of efforts, we 
     will finally be able to pass the law necessary to protect 
     victims of violent, bias-motivated attacks. The HCPA would 
     enhance the federal response to hate crime violence by 
     covering all violent crimes based on race, color, religion, 
     or national origin. In addition, the HCPA would permit 
     federal involvement in the prosecution of bias-motivated 
     crimes based on the victim's gender, gender identity, sexual 
     orientation, or disability. This expansion is critical in 
     order to protect Americans from this most egregious form of 
     discrimination.
       While LCCR recognizes that bigotry cannot be legislated out 
     of existence, a forceful, moral response to hate violence is 
     required of us all. This legislation passed the House of 
     Representatives with a strong bipartisan majority (249-175) 
     and has the support of more than 300 law enforcement, civil 
     rights, civic, and religious organizations. We know that you 
     strongly believe, as we do, that Congress must do everything 
     possible to empower the federal government to assist in local 
     hate crime prosecutions and, where appropriate, expand 
     existing federal authority to permit a wider range of 
     investigations and prosecutions. We sincerely appreciate your 
     efforts and leadership in making this happen.
       Please contact Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, Lisa Bornstein, 
     LCCR Senior Counsel, or Nancy Zirkin with any questions. 
     Thank you again for your support and leadership.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       President & CEO.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Executive Vice President.
                                  ____


                          Support Letter List

       9to5 Bay Area (CA); 9to5 Colorado; 9to5 Milwaukee; 9to5 
     National Association of Working Women; A. Philip Randolph 
     Institute; AAMR--American Association on Mental Retardation; 
     AAPD--American Association of People with Disabilities; 
     ACLU--American Civil Liberties Union; AFL-CIO Department of 
     Civil, Human and Women's Rights; African American Ministers 
     in Action; African-American Women's Clergy Association; 
     Agudath Israel; AIDS National Interfaith Network; Alexander 
     Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG 
     Bell); Alliance for Rehabilitation Counseling; Alliance of 
     Baptists; American Association for Affirmative Action; 
     American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD); 
     American Association of University Women; American 
     Association on Health and Disability.
       American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 
     Disabilities (AAIDD); American Citizens for Justice; American 
     Conference of Cantors; American Council of the Blind; 
     American Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy 
     Association; American Diabetes Association; American Ethical 
     Union, Washington Office; American Federation of Government 
     Employees; American Federation of Musicians; American 
     Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-
     CIO; American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; American 
     Foundation for the Blind; American Islamic Congress; American 
     Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; American Medical 
     Association; American Medical Rehabilitation Providers 
     Association (AMRPA); American Music Therapy Association; 
     American Network of Community Options and Resources (ANCOR).
       American Nurses Association; American Occupational Therapy 
     Association (AOTA); American Psychological Association; 
     American Rehabilitation Association; American Speech-Language 
     Hearing Association; American Therapeutic Recreation 
     Association; American Veterans Committee; American-Arab Anti-
     Discrimination Committee; American-Arab Discrimination 
     Committee; Americans for Democratic Action; Amputee Coalition 
     of America; AMRPA--American Rehabilitation Providers 
     Association; ANCOR--American Network of Community Options and 
     Resources; Anti-Defamation League; AOTA--American 
     Occupational Therapy Association; Aplastic Anemia Foundation 
     of America, Inc.; Arab American Institute; Arab-American 
     Anti-Discrimination Committee; Asian American Justice Center; 
     Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
       Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance; 
     Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Association for 
     Gender Equity Leadership in Education; ATAP--Association 
     of Assistive Technology Act Programs; Atlanta 9 to 5; 
     AUCD--Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
     Autism Society of America; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; 
     AYUDA; B'Nai Brith International; Bazelon Center for 
     Mental Health Law; Bi-Net; Brain Injury Association of 
     America; Break the Cycle; Buddhist Peace Fellowship; 
     Business and Professional Women, USA; Catholics for Free 
     Choice; CCASA--Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault; 
     Center for Community Change.
       Center for Democratic Renewal; Center for the Study of Hate 
     & Extremism; Center for Women Policy Studies; Central 
     Conference of American Rabbis; Chinese American Citizens 
     Alliance; Christian Church Capital Area; Church Women United; 
     Coalition of Black Trade Unionists; Coalition of Labor Union 
     Women; Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Congress 
     of National Black Churches; Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities; Consortium of Developmental Disabilities 
     Councils; COPAA--Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; 
     Council for Learning Disabilities; Council of State 
     Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; Cuban American 
     National Council; Cuban American National Council; 
     Democrats.com; Disability Policy Collaboration.
       Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Disabled 
     Action Committee; Disciples Justice Action Network; Disciples 
     of Christ Advocacy Washington Network; Easter Seals; Epilepsy 
     Foundation; Equal Partners in Faith; Equal Rights Advocates, 
     Inc.; Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for 
     Government Affairs; Fair Employment Council of Greater 
     Washington; Faith Trust Institute; Family Equality Council; 
     Family Pride Coalition; Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association; Federally Employed Women; Feminist Majority; 
     Friends Committee on National Legislation; Gay, Lesbian, and 
     Straight Education Network; Gender Public Advocacy Coalition 
     (GenderPAC); GenderWatchers.
       General Board of Church & Society of the United Methodist 
     Church; General Federation of Women's Clubs; Goodwill 
     Industries International, Inc.; Hadassah, the Women's Zionist 
     Organization of America; Helen Keller National Center; Higher 
     Education Consortium for Special Education; Hindu American 
     Foundation; Hispanic American Police Command Officers 
     Association; Hispanic National Law Enforcement 
     Association; Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights First; 
     Interfaith Alliance; Interfaith Coalition; International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police; International Association 
     of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists; International Association 
     of Jewish Vocational Services; International Brotherhood 
     of Police Officers; International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Dyslexia Association; 
     International Federation of Black Pride.
       International Union of United Aerospace and Agricultural 
     Implements; Islamic Society of North America; JAC--Joint 
     Action Committee; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish 
     Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish War Veterans of the USA; 
     Jewish Women International; Justice for All; Labor Council 
     for Latin American Advancement; Latino/a, Lesbian, Gay, 
     Bisexual & Transgender Organization; Lawyers' Committee for 
     Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference of Civil 
     Rights; League of Women Voters; LEAP--Leadership Education 
     for Asian Pacifics, Inc.; Learning Disabilities Association 
     of America; Legal Momentum; LGBT Community Centers; Log Cabin 
     Republicans.
       Los Angeles 9 to 5; LULAC--League of United Latin American 
     Citizens; Major Cities Chiefs Association; MALDEF--Mexican 
     American Legal Defense & Education Fund; MANA--A National 
     Latina Organization; Maryland State Department of Education; 
     Matthew Shepard Foundation; Mental Health America; Methodist 
     Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community 
     Churches; Moderator's Global Justice Team of Metropolitan 
     Community Churches; Muslim Advocates; Muslim Public Affairs 
     Council; NA'AMAT; NA'AMAT USA; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund, Inc.; NACDD--National Association of 
     Councils on Developmental Disabilities; NAKASEC--National 
     Korean American Service & Education Consortium, Inc; NALEO--
     National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials.
       NAMI--National Alliance on Mental Illness; National 
     Abortion Federation; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters 
     of the Good Shepherd; National Alliance of Faith and Justice; 
     National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees; National 
     Asian Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian 
     Pacific American Women's Forum; National Asian Peace Officers 
     Association; National Association for Multicultural 
     Education; National Association for the Education and 
     Advancement of Cambodian, Laotian and Vietnamese 
     Americans; National Association of Collegiate Women 
     Athletics Administrators; National Association of 
     Commissions for Women; National Association of County 
     Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors; 
     National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and 
     Transgender Community Centers (on House Vote); National 
     Association of People with AIDS; National Association of 
     Private Schools for Exceptional Children; National 
     Association of Rehabilitation Research and Training 
     Centers; National Association of School Psychologists; 
     National Association of Social Workers; National 
     Association of State Head Injury Administrators.
       National Association of the Deaf; National Black Justice 
     Coalition; National Black Police Association; National Black 
     Women's Health Project; National Center for Learning 
     Disabilities; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National 
     Center for Transgender Equality; National Center for Victims 
     of Crime; National Center for Women & Policing; National 
     Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Coalition 
     Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition for Asian

[[Page S7395]]

     American Community Development; National Coalition of Anti-
     Violence Programs; National Coalition of Public Safety 
     Officers; National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness; National 
     Congress of American Indians; National Congress of Black 
     Women; National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; 
     National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of Women's Organizations; National Council 
     on Independent Living; National District Attorneys 
     Association; National Down Syndrome Congress; National 
     Fragile X Foundation; National Latino Police Officers 
     Association; National Organization for Women; National 
     Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; National 
     Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives; 
     National Partnership for Women & Families; National 
     Rehabilitation Association; National Women's Conference; 
     National Women's Conference Committee; National Women's Law 
     Center; NCAVP: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs; 
     NCCJ--National Conference for Community and Justice; NCR--
     National Respite Coalition; NDRN--National Disability Rights 
     Network; NDSS--National Down Syndrome Society; NETWORK: A 
     National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
       NISH; North American Federation of Temple Youth; Northwest 
     Women's Law Center; NSSTA--National Structured Settlement 
     Trade Association; NWC--National Women's Committee; 
     Organization of Chinese Americans; Police Executive Research 
     Forum; Police Foundation; Presbyterian Church (USA), 
     Washington Office; PVA--Paralyzed Veterans of America; 
     Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center; Religious 
     Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing; 
     Research Institute for Independent Living; SAALT--South 
     Asian Americans Leading Together; Sargent Shriver National 
     Center on Poverty Law; School Social Work Association of 
     America; SCORE--Sikh Council on Religion and Education; 
     Spina Bifida Association; Catholic University of America; 
     TASH; The Anti-defamation League; The Arc of the United 
     States; The Episcopal Church; The Indian American Center 
     for Political Awareness.
       The Latino Coalition; The McAuley Institute; The Women's 
     Institute for Freedom of the Press; Third Way, Religious 
     Leaders; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Union for Reform Judaism; 
     Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalist 
     Association of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; United 
     Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United 
     Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; United 
     Methodist Church, General Commission on Religion and Race; 
     UNITED SIKHS; United Spinal Association; United Synagogue of 
     Conservative Judaism; Washington Teachers Union; WID--World 
     Institute on Disability; Women Employed; Women of Reform 
     Judaism; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual; 
     Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.; WREI--Women's Research 
     & Education Institute; YWCA USA.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 1390. 
But before I do, let me thank Senator Leahy for his leadership in 
introducing this anti-hate crime amendment. I am honored to be one of 
its cosponsors. I hope the Senate works its will and, in the interests 
of justice, adopts the amendment in due course.
  As I said, I rise to support S. 1390, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, the matter before the Senate 
today and this week. I wish to begin by commending Chairman Levin, the 
chairman of our Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCain, 
the ranking Republican member, for their leadership and for the 
bipartisan example they have set in drafting and reporting out this 
bill.
  This bill will keep our Nation safe and provide our troops with the 
support they deserve, and that is exactly what it ought to do. The bill 
will establish new programs to support the fiscal and mental well-being 
of our troops and their families. It will provide our fighting men and 
women a 3.4-percent increase in compensation. The fact is, nothing is 
more important than taking care of this extraordinary, gifted, brave 
generation of men and women who have volunteered to defend our country 
at a time of war.
  I am also very pleased this bill will authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to grow the size of the Army in 2011 and 2012, a period when 
our soldiers will still be under stress, real stress, as the Army 
shifts its focus from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but the 
overall level of deployment will probably rise. There is so much we can 
do to reduce the stress on those who serve us in the military and on 
their families. One critical thing we can do is to simply increase the 
number of men and women in uniform, particularly in the Army, because 
the more supply there is of troops, no matter what the demand, the 
amount of time every soldier can look forward to being back at base, 
back with families, not deployed in a battle zone, will decrease the 
stress they are under.
  The additional troops--``end strength,'' as it is called in the 
vocabulary of this legislation--that are provided for in 2011 and 2012 
will ease the strain on our soldiers who have already been asked to do 
so much on our behalf. I intend to work with my colleagues in the 
Senate this week to amend this bill to extend the application of the 
method to increase end strength from 547,000 to 577,000 so it can begin 
in the next fiscal year, the year 2010, because that is probably when 
it will be most needed, as we are reducing our presence in Iraq but in 
a slightly more accelerated way increasing our presence in Afghanistan.
  Let me focus, if I may, on the parts of this legislation that have 
come out of our Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, a subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing.
  I wish to start by thanking Senator John Thune for his service as 
ranking member of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to work with 
Senator Thune on behalf of our Army and Air Force and all involved in 
air and land programs. We work closely together in a completely 
bipartisan manner to carry out our responsibilities concerning the 
matters in the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.
  The Airland Subcommittee has broad responsibility for policy 
oversight over substantial parts of the Army and Air Force budgets but 
also, to a lesser extent, to a real extent, the Navy and the Marine 
Corps. So the subcommittee's portion of this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act is a large one. Our goal was direct: to promote and 
improve the current and, as best we can, the future readiness of our 
ground and air forces, while at the same time ensuring the most 
efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars.
  This year, the portion of the budget request falling under the 
Airland Subcommittee's jurisdiction included a total of $71.1 billion. 
That is made up of $55.4 billion in procurement and $15.7 billion in 
all-important research and development. As it stands right now, the 
full committee's recommendation is a net addition to the President's 
budget request of $2.9 billion to support activities under the Airland 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  In the past, the Armed Services Committee and the Senate have 
supported stability and funding levels as requested for Army readiness 
and modernization programs. This has been particularly true for the 
Army's Future Combat Systems, which has been the major modernization 
program of the Army.
  However, the Army was forced to make some tough decisions in these 
tough budget times and decided in April to restructure the Future 
Combat Systems Program, including termination of the manned ground 
vehicle portion of that program. The Department has reoriented the Army 
modernization plans that have been in place for the last 6 years. That 
is the necessity the Army felt both for budgetary reasons and I believe 
for reasons of effectiveness. So the bill before us today supports the 
Department's decision, the Army's decision, with respect to the 
restructuring of the Future Combat Systems Program and recommends full 
funding for the ``spin out'' portions, the network portions of that 
program that will be carried forward.
  This is a remarkable application of modern technology to the 
battlefield. The history of warfare shows, generally speaking, that any 
developments, any technological advances that have occurred over 
history, from the first fires that were made, to the wheel, and on to 
the railroad, et cetera, have found their way--obviously the ability to 
fly--into military use. And so it is with the remarkable capability to 
communicate with one another, to use telecommunications, and the 
computer particularly, that has found its way into applications in 
combat which greatly expand the capabilities of our solders, each and 
every one of them, to see the battlefield beyond what they can see with 
their eyes and to conduct the most effective warfare on our behalf.
  The bill also requires and recommends full funding for a new ground

[[Page S7396]]

combat vehicle research and development program, as the Secretary of 
Defense agreed the Army needs.
  In addition, this bill will direct the Department to establish a 
development program for a next-generation, self-propelled howitzer to 
take advantage of technologies already matured as part of the Future 
Combat System non-line of sight cannon program.
  In other words, what we are trying to do, in the aftermath of 
Secretary Gates' decision to terminate the series of programs under the 
Future Combat Systems Program, is to harvest technological advances 
that were made as part of those now terminated programs.
  To support our forces in Afghanistan, this bill also recommends a 
large sum for an important purpose, $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected vehicle fund, which is an increase of $1.2 billion 
above the President's budget request for what is normally known as the 
MRAP--in this case, the MRAP all-terrain vehicles, a later version of 
the MRAPs, a more agile version of the MRAPs that have done so much to 
protect the lives and well-being of our soldiers in Iraq from the 
impact of IEDs and of bombs our enemies have set off. These MRAP ATVs 
will now be of tremendous assistance to the growing number of troops we 
are sending to Afghanistan. This is a version of the MRAP made 
particularly for our troops now fighting for us in Afghanistan.
  In addition, in response to the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded 
priorities list, the bill also recommends adding $179 million to 
procure additional Force XXI Battlefield Command Brigade and Below 
systems to enhance the operational effectiveness of small units 
fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  When it comes to air power, the bill also recommends an additional 
$560 million to buy FA-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2010 as originally 
planned in the program of record, rather than the nine aircraft 
requested by the President's budget. Our subcommittee believes these 
added aircraft are a sensible investment to make against a looming 
dangerous shortfall in our Nation's tactical aviation aircraft 
inventory. In other words, the new generation of tactical airfighters 
coming on will not be there early enough to help the Navy overcome the 
running out of the lifespan of the series of tactical aircraft they 
have now. That will put them way below what the Navy believes it needs 
in the years ahead.
  The subcommittee has also recommended an additional $1.75 billion to 
buy seven F-22A Raptor aircraft rather than terminating the production 
program as requested by the Department. This was a judgment made by the 
full committee when it received our subcommittee report. Although this 
was a hard decision, the continued production of the Raptor will 
guarantee that we have balanced combat air forces in the future and 
support the transition between F-22A and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
programs.
  The bill also includes an additional $20.4 million to support 12 
additional Blackhawk A-to-L model conversions to accelerate 
modernization of the Army's Active and Reserve component fleets.
  In the area of efficiencies, the bill recommends making adjustments 
or reductions as follows: a decrease of $209.5 million for the C-130 
Avionics Modernization Program because of the delays in beginning the 
production program and a decrease of $90 million for the CSAR-X, the 
search and rescue helicopter program, because of the availability of 
prior year funds to cover fiscal year 2010 requirements.
  There is one provision of this bill about which I myself have grave 
reservations. The full committee overturned the recommendation of our 
subcommittee that concerns the development of the alternate engine for 
the Joint Strike Fighter, a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. 
President Obama, as President Bush before him, concluded, after the 
competition was held, the one engine met the needs of our military for 
the Joint Strike Fighter Program without the additional cost required 
for a second engine development program.
  The full committee overturned the judgment of the subcommittee and 
provided $439 million in the coming fiscal year for the second engine. 
The President, incidentally, has singled out that engine as an example 
of one that he says ``do[es] nothing to keep us safe'' and has said if 
the second engine is included in the bill, he will consider vetoing the 
bill. I intend to work with my colleagues this week to hopefully remove 
the funding for the alternative engine and restore it to where it was 
intended, which was to fund the development of the Joint Strike Fighter 
and to pay for 10 UH-1Y helicopters, familiarly known as Hueys, that 
were cut to pay for this program that otherwise would go to the 
Marines. Both the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Vice Chairman 
of Joint Chiefs of Staff have described this as critical for our 
Marines fighting in Afghanistan. They need those 10 Hueys.
  Despite that one reservation, the legislation and funding in the bill 
would end the Airland Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Indeed, the bill in 
general strongly supports our Armed Forces in a time of war and 
supports the flexibility the Department, under Secretary Gates, has 
requested as it charts a path to military modernization. I praised 
Chairman Levin in his absence. I don't want to miss the opportunity to 
praise him in his presence, along with Senator McCain, for the 
leadership both have brought to this committee and the extraordinary 
example of bipartisanship in the interest of national security that 
they together have demonstrated through their work on the committee.
  There will be a lot of amendments and some will be controversial. But 
when it is all over and we come to adoption of the legislation, I hope, 
with confidence, that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
give the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 the 
resounding bipartisan support it and our military deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me thank Senator Lieberman for all 
the work he has done on our committee, for coming to the Chamber and 
setting out the parts of the bill he not only strongly supports but had 
a great deal of effort he put forth, with colleagues on the committee, 
to make happen. We are grateful for that. He also indicated where the 
differences are so we can begin to focus on some of the amendments we 
will need to consider this week. I hope other colleagues will follow 
his lead and come to the floor to indicate where they may be wanting to 
offer amendments so we can make progress. We are waiting for those 
notifications, and we very much appreciate it.
  I thank him.
  I see Senator Nelson on the Senate floor. I know he will be 
recognized next. Senator Nelson has a very important subcommittee into 
which he has put a huge amount of time. He is an invaluable member of 
our committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I am happy to be here to 
support our committee work product. We had a full complement of 
hearings and briefings for the Members in a very complicated area: the 
strategic defense systems of our national defense policy. I have the 
privilege of chairing the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I wish to give 
a few examples.
  On the whole question of missile defense, which has been so 
controversial over the course of the last two and half decades, we had 
a good bit of consensus when we got down to the end. It is funded at 
the amount of the budget request by the President. We did a little bit 
of rearranging from what the President had recommended but stuck 
basically with the theory that we will have 44 ground-based 
interceptors, and 30 of them will be in the actual silos so that they 
will be reliable, available, and effective.
  This has been a system where we are absolutely insisting that there 
is robust testing, testing not only of a missile that would be fired at 
an incoming threat but that there would be a volley of them, that there 
would be a missile that would shoot at a target. It would assess that 
target, and it would shoot a second missile at that target to make 
sure, if that were an inbound ICBM coming into the United States, that 
we would be sure we could hit it before it ever reached its target in 
the United States.

[[Page S7397]]

  Part of this was, we adopted an amendment that would be part of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review 
which are now both underway. It would give a detailed assessment of the 
ground-based midcourse defense system. That report would also require a 
detailed plan for how the Department of Defense is going to sustain the 
planned ground-based missile deployment capability. The Department 
would provide that assessment and the plan to Congress with the 
submission of next year's budget.
  At the end of the day, what we are looking for is that we have a 
missile defense system that works and that we know it works in case 
some rogue state, such as North Korea or Iran, were to try to pull off 
an attack on the United States so we could knock that attack down.
  We have a lot of other systems in place besides the ground-based 
interceptors. For example, we have our Aegis system of ships. We have 
the standard missile 3 that is land based that, on a lot of these 
threats coming, as I suggested, if it were from Iran or North Korea, we 
could get them in the boost phase of their threatening missile. But 
this missile defense system we are talking about, the ground-based 
interceptors in the silos in Alaska and California right now, this 
would get them in midcourse so that when an ICBM would be launched 
against us, if we did not get it in its initial phase, the boost phase, 
we would get it in its midcourse phase before it comes in to its 
terminal phase. The terminal phase would be the last part coming into 
the target.
  We are going to have a layered system that is going to give us a lot 
of capability to protect ourselves in the future from anybody who wants 
to try to threaten us with an ICBM. That is a part of what we have 
done.
  The Secretary of Defense has said he wants 44 of these missiles. We 
are planning for that. But at any one time, 30 of them would be in the 
silos in the ground, ready to go, knowing that if the balloon went up 
and that we had to strike, we would strike with accuracy and with 
redundancy in order to knock those threats out of the sky before they 
ever got to us.
  In other strategic systems, we want to look at the bombers. We want 
to make sure we have the future technologies that, if it is the 
decision of the United States Government to develop a future bomber, in 
addition to what we have now, which is the B-52s, the B-1s, and the B-
2s, we would have that capability by developing the technologies.
  Part of our strategic systems are also our space systems; that is, 
the satellites in orbit that watch and listen in order to protect our 
national security. We have funded something called operationally 
responsive space. It includes funds for a new satellite which was not 
in the Air Force budget. It was on what they called their unfunded 
priority list. Our recommendation is to develop that satellite, an ORS-
1 satellite.
  Then we are looking to the future to go out for competition on 
developing a next generation kind of satellite that would be a very 
small satellite that would be to observe but would be a lot more 
economical and quicker to launch. We want the Air Force to have space 
situational awareness information at all times, including from our 
commercial operators. We have a lot of commercial satellites up there. 
They take a lot of pictures. That is of a value to us in the 
government, to utilize those pictures in addition to the others we 
receive.
  We also have added funding to look at a new low cost imaging 
satellite for future application. In our Strategic Force Subcommittee 
we also deal in intelligence. We have asked the Department of Defense 
to look at some of these commercial imaging satellites to utilize that 
information, maybe even a new kind of commercial imaging satellite that 
would be capable and would give us information on how to disseminate 
that information.
  We also, being concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, have 
requested a report on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 
materials. The Department of Energy is a part of our Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee. That is the part that is involved in weapons activity. We 
decided to increase their budget by $106 million to a total of $6.4 
billion. It is focused on making sure that the stockpile we have is 
effective and that it is safe and that we continue the process, under 
the treaties, of dismantling.
  There is a provision that directs the Department of Energy to carry 
out a stockpile life extension program, to do what I had said, which is 
to modernize and maintain the stockpile and to make it even safer, and 
to do all of that without testing. We have added additional funds for 
nuclear weapons laboratories to provide technical support and analysis 
to the intelligence community.
  So there is another issue; that is, what we are going to do with some 
of the pensions at the Department of Energy contractor-operated sites. 
There is another real issue which we have addressed, which is what are 
we going to do with some of this nuclear waste--the waste from the 
weapons processing plants? And how do you go about making sure that 
waste is safe? And, ultimately, how is it disposed of?
  So the Strategic Forces Subcommittee was quite active. It has been my 
privilege to work with the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin. 
What could have been a very contentious part of the Defense 
authorization bill ended up being where we got very wide and very 
considerable bipartisan support. It is my privilege to have been a part 
of that process.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, when the Senator from Florida says the 
subcommittee has been active, it is a true understatement. It has been 
extremely active. It has been very creative. It has operated on a 
bipartisan basis under Senator Nelson's leadership. It is a very 
challenging position he holds as that subcommittee chair because of the 
subject matter, and I wish to thank him and commend him for all the 
great work he does.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________