[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 104 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7402-S7405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise this evening to express my 
opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment which would cut short the 
production of the F-22 fighter. I understand my position on this puts 
me at odds with our President, President Obama, as well as the chairman 
and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, both fine 
public servants for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and with 
whom I have worked on numerous occasions, and I look forward to doing 
so in the future once we get beyond this.
  I also think I have a duty to stand up for an airplane built by 
constituents of mine. I wouldn't make the case strictly on job loss in 
an individual State. That is not a legitimate argument to make to 99 of 
my colleagues from around the country. If we made the case that job 
losses would occur in our own respective districts or States, obviously 
it would lead to chaos and we wouldn't have a situation like that.
  My argument in support of this F-22 goes far beyond the potential job 
losses in my State, although that is not insignificant. Some 2,000 jobs 
could be lost potentially in Connecticut. More important than the job 
loss, as important as that is, is the potential loss of the industrial 
base that is absolutely critical to maintaining the ability to produce 
the superior engines that we historically have been able to produce at 
the Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies, a corporation in 
my home State. The work being done by machinists and engineers and 
technicians in my State and others all across the country not only 
produce quality work but also make a significant difference in saving 
lives and in giving us the superior ability to deal with potential 
threats that our Nation faces. That has been a hallmark of every 
generation that has come before us, not to achieve parity with 
potential adversaries but to be in a superior position to potential 
adversaries.
  So let me begin with my concerns over this amendment's potential 
impact on our national security. Since the advent of modern warfare, 
military strategists have sought the highest

[[Page S7403]]

ground on the battlefield to gain technical advantage. In the age of 
the fighter jet, that means commanding the skies. In a modern era, air 
superiority has become a cornerstone of American strategy. The F-22 is 
the reason we can lay claim to this superiority at this critical time. 
It is a fast plane, reaching speeds of mach 1.5 in 90 seconds. That is 
without thrusters. It is stealthy. It also has the ability to engage 
targets before it can be detected. It is highly equipped with advanced 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance tools.
  As an instrument of air superiority, the F-22 Raptor is unmatched by 
any foreign competitor, including the much heralded MiG-29, the 
Russian-built MiG-29 flown by various militaries around the world.
  I am going to point to this particular chart I have, which is rather 
difficult to read even from where the Presiding Officer is, given it is 
a map, obviously, of the world, and there are a series of color-coded 
dots on this map. Let me explain what the dots are, and then I will 
explain what we are looking at in existing technologies in the fourth 
generation of development of aircraft technology and what is being done 
on a fifth generation by nation states, particularly the Russians and 
the Chinese.
  The countries in red on this chart indicate those nations that 
already operate or have ordered fourth generation fighters, and there 
are a number of countries around the world in that category. The yellow 
coded areas are expected to order by the year 2010, these fourth 
generation fighters. You get an idea in the Middle East, some of the 
North African States, and some out in the Far East as well. The red 
dots themselves operate or have ordered advanced surface-to-air 
missiles. Again, this is critical technology that has the capacity to 
take out our aircraft. Then the yellow dots, the round dots, they are 
ordering or are considering advanced surface-to-air missiles.
  So we get some idea of what is occurring.
  This over here: Air dominance is not guaranteed, is the point I 
wanted to make with this chart. According to the information on this 
map sanctioned by the Air Force, there are Russian-made aircraft known 
as SU-27s, which have air-to-air capability, more of the dogfight kind 
of capability. Those planes are operated already by Algeria, Belarus, 
China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, 
Mexico, Russia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. And 
then there is the MiG-29, which is both an air-to-air and an air-to-
ground fighter. It is also a Russian-built aircraft, and is capable of 
challenging our current fleet of F-15s and F-16s. The MiG-29 is 
operated by the militaries of Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, 
Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, 
Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, 
Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Again, 
widespread globally, that air-to-ground capability and air-to-air 
capability.
  Today, there is a fifth generation being developed that will be 
highly competitive with the F-22 and the F-35. That fifth generation 
fighter is currently being developed by Russia and China to challenge 
the F-22 and the F-35. So that gives us some sense of where we are 
today. These are very sophisticated aircraft operating today. The 
surface-to-air missiles are very sophisticated and in countries today 
that can take out, in fact, our existing technology in many areas.
  Of course, the fifth generation is what we are talking about being 
ready for the midpart of this century. Our air superiority has not gone 
unnoticed by others in many ways, as identified by this map. All the 
countries in red, as I have pointed out, have an air capability 
comparable to the MiG. That means they are all on a par with our 
current aircraft technology; specifically, the F-15 and F-16 fighters 
known as the fourth generation of jets.
  So our F-15 and F-16 are very competent, very good, and they are on 
parity--they are not superior but on parity--with these aircraft.
  To give my colleagues some idea of what I mean by the comparison of 
generations, an exercise was conducted in January 2007, in which the F-
22 was matched up against the F-15 and F/A-18, to demonstrate how each 
aircraft would fare in actual dogfights with one another. The F-22 in 
comparative battles beat the F-15 and F/A-18, 144 to 0--144 to 0--to 
give my colleagues an idea of how much more superior the F-22 can be in 
command of the airspace as opposed to what is comparable to the F-15 
today. So the F-22 is a very important piece of technology when it 
comes to regaining the superior capabilities that are absolutely 
essential.
  According to the Air Force, what is more, this map shows that 30 
nations are at parity with or exceeding the capabilities of the F-15 
and F-16, and that puts our missions and the lives of our pilots at 
risk. On top of that, Russia and China are currently both developing 
their own fifth generation of fighter to counter the F-22 and the F-35. 
There are a dozen nations around the world, marked by these red dots, 
that are today operating surface-to-air missile launchers capable of 
shooting down the F-15 Strike Eagles that the F-22 would replace.
  The yellow dots indicate other countries considering the purchase of 
such weapons, and I pointed those out as well.
  Our current fourth generation fighter jets are vulnerable to these 
threats because they don't have the stealth technology found in the F-
22. Regrettably, we witnessed this danger during Operation Desert Storm 
when 37 of our nonstealthy aircraft were shot down and 40 more were 
damaged, and an early stealth fighter, the F-117, as well as the F-16, 
were brought down during the 1999 Kosovo operations by rudimentary 
Serbian surface-to-air missiles. These are risks that we shouldn't have 
to take and don't have to take. These are risks we don't have to force 
upon our pilots. These are risks that are entirely preventable if we 
arm ourselves with the next generation, and that is why the F-22 is so 
critically important.
  If this amendment is being offered to strike and eliminate the F-22, 
then we cannot guarantee America's continuing air dominance. Our allies 
will not always look like those we faced in Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq 
in 2003, enemies whose air defenses were in tatters. We do not always 
choose when and where our battles are going to be fought. We must be 
prepared and we must retain our competitive edge for the sake of our 
national security and the lives, obviously, of our troops.
  If the pending amendment is approved, our F-22 fleet will be limited 
to 187 aircraft. According to military officials, such a figure is 
simply not enough to address the current capabilities of our military's 
competitors.
  I have a letter dated June 9 of this year from GEN John Corley who is 
currently in charge of Air Combat Command for the Air Force. In this 
letter he reiterated his perception. I think my colleagues will 
understand as well that when we have a general serving in charge of air 
combat and command missions for the Air Force who disagrees with the 
Secretary of Defense in a public way, we get some idea of the depth of 
feeling that occurs with a matter like this.
  Let me quote:

       At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s. 
     . . . In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of 
     our current national security strategy at high risk in the 
     near to mid term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that 
     demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national 
     military strategy. Air Combat Command analysis, done in 
     concert with Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk 
     force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 
     aircraft.

  General Corley, responsible for the aircraft readiness of the U.S. 
Air Force, says we will incur moderate risk with even 250 aircraft, and 
the command needs 381 aircraft to be fully capable. Yet we insist on 
giving them only 187.
  That is deeply troubling. I think we owe to it our troops to give 
them what they need to protect our Nation as well.
  Our security also depends on a robust manufacturing base, and the 
proposed amendment could be devastating to our critical aerospace 
industrial capabilities.
  If this amendment we are talking about passes, the F-22 assembly will 
halt at 2011, and fighter jet production lines will run down until 
2014, when the F-35 manufacturing begins in earnest.
  What does this mean for the aerospace industry in this Nation?

[[Page S7404]]

  In Connecticut, we are blessed to have a large contingent of skilled 
aerospace workers who keep our country safe and produce, of course, 
magnificent engines. They are highly skilled engineers, machinists, and 
technicians and, on average, they are in their mid to late forties. 
They may retire, obviously, they may pack up and relocate, they may 
leave the trade entirely; but they won't sit idle for 3 years. Our 
Nation cannot afford to lose them.
  That is represented by this area here on the chart. To lay these 
people off and then to once again rehire them--in many cases, they will 
be in their midfifties--is unrealistic. That synergy that is critically 
important is going to be lost.
  The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry recently 
recommended ``that the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and 
promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. 
aerospace workforce . . .'' adding that ``the breakdown of America's 
intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security 
and our capability to continue as a world leader.''
  The Commission also stated that resolving the crisis will require 
government, industry, labor, and academia to work together to reverse 
this trend.
  I am afraid this amendment does the opposite of what we are being 
warned to try to stop. According to the Aerospace Industry Association, 
the industry faces impending retirements and a shortage of trained 
technical graduates, a situation already expected to worsen within the 
decade.
  Some companies address this issue by outsourcing work around the 
globe. In aerospace and defense, however, security requirements dictate 
that most design work on military systems must be done by U.S. 
citizens. Thus, the need for U.S.-developed technical talent is 
particularly acute if we want to ensure a world-class aerospace 
workforce ready to lead in a global economy of the 21st century.
  On this chart, this is the F-22 production, which ends in 2011, 
marked by this point here. This is the F-35 production, which begins in 
2014. This gap represents hundreds of jobs at Pratt & Whitney--as many 
as 2,000 in Connecticut--and it represents tens of thousands of jobs 
across the nation. You can take those numbers--and I cannot speak for 
other places around the Nation, but you end up with that kind of loss 
in an economy that our people are already struggling with. That is not 
the only argument that I make, but we ought to keep people working on a 
new defense system. The most important issue is our national security. 
You ought to understand that even if you decide to ramp up F-35 
production after 2014, because F-22 production will prematurely end 
under this amendment, you will lose a workforce that is critical, and 
it gets harder and harder to reconstitute.
  In fact, the Defense Department recognized this gap years ago. In the 
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the military to identify 
the needs and strategy of our Armed Forces, they stated that F-22 
production should be extended ``through fiscal year 2010 with a 
multiyear acquisition contract, to ensure the Department does not have 
a gap in fifth generation stealth capabilities.''
  That is a direct quote from the Quadrennial Defense review report in 
2006.
  The military identified in 2006, the most recent published report of 
this type, that our Nation would suffer a loss in aerospace 
manufacturing capabilities if fighter production doesn't have a 
seamless transition.
  Yet, for some reason, we find ourselves in the very position the 
military had, only 3 years ago, realized we should avoid.
  In addition to our national security and the readiness of our 
aerospace production industry, this amendment would have a negative 
impact on jobs. Our unemployment rate is at 9.5 percent, and we 
continue to face the worst economic conditions in decades.
  That is why the administration and this Congress have taken 
unprecedented steps to put Americans back to work. It is why the 
government has stepped in to save critical manufacturing sectors, such 
as the domestic automobile industry.
  This amendment suggests that the same government doesn't believe our 
tactical aircraft manufacturing sector warrants similar treatment.
  In my State, where the impact of the Recovery Act is just beginning 
to be felt, the success of this amendment would be a devastating blow. 
I am determined to do everything I can to see that we can avoid it. I 
don't want to see America's aerospace workers--among the finest workers 
in the world--remain under assault.
  Allow me to introduce two such workers, Frank Lentini and Rocco 
Marone. They are workers at the Pratt & Whitney plant in Middletown, 
CT, which manufactures the engine for the F-22. They are both engine 
test mechanics.
  In this picture, the two of them are preparing an F-22 engine for 
testing by attaching instrumentation used to collect data as the engine 
goes through a series of computerized tests. The highly advanced nature 
of this engine requires countless hours of testing and retesting, 
inspection and reinspection, to ensure that when it is shipped to the 
assembly plant, it operates flawlessly.
  These workers understand that a mistake on their part could cost the 
lives of our American forces. That is why it is so important that these 
gentlemen have years of experience to ensure that only the best quality 
engines are put on these aircraft.
  These are the same workers who will build the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter's engine--but only if the F-22 production is allowed to 
continue for the next 4 years.
  Frank, the one in the blue shirt, has worked in the Middletown plant 
for 31 years, starting on the assembly line, finally rising to his 
current job on the test line for the plant's most advanced engine, the 
F-22. He is married, with two sons, ages 17 and 12, whom he hopes to 
send off to college.
  The prospect of cutting the F-22 production makes him worry every day 
about his sons' futures, not only about whether he will be able to send 
them to college but also whether there will be any jobs for the next 
generation of children in Connecticut's aerospace industry.
  Rocco Marone--known as Rocky--has worked at the Pratt & Whitney 
engine facility in Middletown for 34 years. Like Frank, he is an engine 
test mechanic. He trains and works with the younger mechanics and 
imparts his experience to them, both from his time on the assembly line 
and working in the test cell.
  It is workers such as these two men at the Middletown plant in 
Middletown CT--with a combined 65 years, taking that knowledge they 
have acquired and building the finest engines in the world for the past 
80 years--the plant has. It is these seasoned workers who, by training 
the next generation, will ensure that the trade secrets of engine 
building are never lost. This amendment puts all of that at risk.
  As I mentioned, if the F-22 is canceled in 2011 at 187 aircraft--the 
numbers we are now talking about--then these two individuals and tens 
of thousands of others in our country will face very difficult odds. 
These highly skilled, quality control experts will be left wondering 
what lies ahead for them and their families. Will they retain their 
jobs? How many of their colleagues will be signing on to the 
unemployment rolls? What other opportunities exist for workers with 
such highly refined but specialized skill sets?

  If we end the F-22 before 2014, we will all be wondering something as 
well: When these gentlemen walk out the door, and take decades of 
experience and skills with them, will we ever get them back again?
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment being offered by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I have 
tremendous respect for both these individuals, but I think it is 
important not just on a parochial basis--I couldn't stand here and ask 
my colleagues merely to vote for this program because of jobs in my 
State. I also want them to understand what happens to people. This 
isn't just numbers we are talk about. There are lives, skill sets, and 
there is a valuable resource at risk when we cast our votes on whether 
to continue this program and allow for that seamless transition that 
will maintain the superiority and effectiveness necessary for our 
aircraft in the 21st century.
  On the chart I showed you of these nations around the world--others 
are not sitting idly by. They are developing surface-to-air missiles 
and the

[[Page S7405]]

fifth generation of fighters to challenge us. We find ourselves in a 
situation where we might be taking a backseat at a time when I think we 
can least afford it. This is not inexpensive to do this. Senator 
Chambliss provided an offset in committee for the cost of continuing 
this program until 2014. That is an important consideration.
  I respect the members of the committee who wrestle with these issues. 
I wished to share with my colleagues this information, and particularly 
what it means in a State such as mine that has an 80-year history of 
producing these terrific engines, and workers such as the two 
individuals I have introduced to you this evening, whose talents and 
abilities we will potentially lose as a result of this decision. It is 
one of great importance to our country, to our national security, and 
to the people who provide the wonderful skill sets that give us these 
remarkable engines.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 5 minutes and that Senator Thune be recognized 
immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise to affirm everything the Senator 
from Connecticut said. He made an articulate, detailed case for the F-
22, in opposition to the amendment. I commend him.
  I wish to add three thoughts, three good reasons, for the F-22 and 
not to adopt the amendment: No. 1, when the U.S. Air Force wrote the 
RFP for the weapon system of the 21st century to replace three 
existing, aging aircraft, the F-22 met and exceeded every single part 
of the RFP. No. 2, for those who say the cost is some $2,000 an hour 
more for maintenance, you have to quantify that. Look what you are 
buying. You are buying stealth technology that exists nowhere else in 
the world and the ability to deliver munitions and leave without ever 
having been seen. Most recently, in Alaska, the F-22, in a mock battle, 
destroyed 144 aircraft before it lost its first one.
  Lastly, and most importantly, while it may not be the plane exactly 
for Afghanistan and Iraq today, what about North Korea? What about 
Iran? What about what happened to us in the Balkans in the late 1990s, 
when President Clinton deployed our air strength to put together what 
was a terrible situation? We must be prepared for whatever will come in 
the 21st century. If there is anything we have learned, you cannot 
underestimate what may come. I commend the Senator for his articulate 
statement and affirm everything he said in support of not adopting the 
amendment and to continue to purchase the F-22 beyond the 187 currently 
being capped--or asked to be capped at. I commend the Senator for his 
remarks.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. That number of 144, I suspect people 
won't believe that number, but that is a real number. Pilots don't 
always necessarily comment on these matters. I am told by those who 
have been interviewed, pilots who fly the F-22 use superlatives to 
describe that aircraft they have never used about any other aircraft, 
including the ability to reach the speed of Mach 1.5 in 90 seconds, the 
stealthy quality, the maneuverability, and the agility exceeds anything 
else that exists anywhere else in the world.
  There is a generation coming along in nations with whom we have 
pretty good relationships, but we can never predict what is going to 
happen. We have seen what happened with the SU-27 and the MiG 29, where 
those are widely disseminated worldwide now. They pose a parity with 
the aircraft we have. We need to have that superior quality.
  I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank, first of all, my friend from South 
Dakota for yielding to me for just a moment. He was to be next 
recognized. This will take just a moment.
  We have been attempting to work out a unanimous consent agreement so 
we could first vote tomorrow. That was not convenient for a number of 
Senators. We then tried to work out a unanimous consent agreement for 
first thing on Wednesday morning to vote on the Levin-McCain amendment. 
We have so far been unsuccessful in getting that agreement. We will 
continue to work tomorrow to see if we cannot get such an agreement. In 
the meantime, that is where it stands.
  Again, I thank my friend from South Dakota for yielding.

                          ____________________