[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 105 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7449-S7453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1390, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1390) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Levin/McCain amendment No. 1469, to strike $1,750 million 
     in procurement, Air Force funding for F-22A aircraft 
     procurement, and to restore operation and maintenance, 
     military personnel, and other funding in divisions A and B 
     that was reduced in order to authorize such appropriation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Levin-McCain amendment which is 
before the Senate would strike $1.75 billion in funding for the F-22 
aircraft that is in the committee bill that was adopted on a very close 
vote, and we would also restore some very serious reductions that had 
to be adopted in order to pay for that increase.
  I come to this debate as somebody who supported the F-22 program 
until the numbers were achieved that were needed by the Air Force. This 
debate is not about whether we are going to have the capability of the 
F-22, it is a debate about how many F-22 aircraft we should have and at 
what cost. And we are talking here about whether we should accept the 
recommendations of two Commanders in Chief, two Secretaries of Defense, 
two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff that 187 F-22s is what we need and all we can afford and all we 
should buy.
  Madam President, yesterday we put in the Record two letters, one from 
the

[[Page S7450]]

President of the United States saying he would veto a bill--not 
consider a veto but actually veto a bill--that has more than 187 F-22s 
that are to be provided. We also put a letter from the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Record 
yesterday going through all the reasons they strongly oppose any 
additional F-22s and oppose the committee language which costs $1.75 
billion, taking it away from some very important programs.
  Today, I wish to read briefly and then put in the Record a letter 
that came from the Secretary of the Air Force yesterday afternoon and 
from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force opposing the additional F-22s 
that are in the committee bill. This letter reads in part:

       As we prepared the fiscal year 2010 funding submission, and 
     mindful that the final lot of aircraft is scheduled for 
     completion over the next year, we methodically reviewed this 
     issue from multiple perspectives. These included: emerging 
     joint war-fighting requirements; complementary F-22 and F-35 
     roles in the future security environment; potential 
     advantages of continuing a warm F-22 production line as 
     insurance against possible delays/ failures in the F-35 
     program; potential impacts to the Services and international 
     partners if resources were realigned from the F-35 to the F-
     22; overall tactical aircraft force structure; and funding 
     implications, given that extending F-22 production to 243 
     aircraft would create an unfunded requirement estimated at 
     over $13 billion.

  And then they summarized--this is the Air Force speaking; top 
civilian, top military leader in the U.S. Air Force--as follows:

       We assessed the F-22 decision from all angles, taking into 
     account competing strategic priorities and complementary 
     programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of 
     available resources. We did not and do not recommend F-22s be 
     included in the FY10 defense budget. This is a difficult 
     decision but one with which we are comfortable. Most 
     importantly, in this and other budget decisions, we believe 
     it is important for Air Force leaders to make clear choices, 
     balancing requirements across a range of Air Force 
     contributions to joint capabilities.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the entire letter from the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2009.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Senate considers the FY10 Defense 
     Authorization Bill, we write to reiterate our personal and 
     professional views concerning the future of the F-22 program, 
     and why we recommended to the Secretary of Defense that the 
     Air Force not pursue F-22 production beyond 187 aircraft.
       The F-22 is the most capable fighter in our military 
     inventory and, arguably, the world. Among its principal 
     advantages are stealth and speed; and while optimized for 
     air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability. 
     Requirements for the F-22 have changed significantly over the 
     past 20 years, as DoD has continued to reassess potential 
     threats, scenarios, and force structure--to include the 
     number of major combat operations we might be challenged to 
     conduct and their timing/phasing.
       Broadly speaking. previous assessments have concluded that 
     a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons, 
     and networking capabilities will, over time and within 
     practical limits, enable us to produce needed combat power 
     with fewer platforms. As the overall requirements for fighter 
     inventories have declined. including F-22s, the rising F-22 
     program costs also led to smaller buys. Together these 
     trends, coupled with constrained resources, ultimately led to 
     a DoD-imposed funding cap and a December 2004 approved 
     program of 183 aircraft (later adjusted to 187).
       As we prepared the Fiscal Year 10 funding submission, and 
     mindful that the final lot of aircraft is scheduled for 
     completion over the next year. we methodically reviewed this 
     issue from multiple perspectives. These included: emerging 
     joint warfighting requirements; complementary F-22 and F-35 
     roles in the future security environment; potential 
     advantages of continuing a warm F-22 production line as 
     insurance against possible delays/failures in the F-35 
     program; potential impacts to the Services and international 
     partners if resources were realigned from the F-35 to the F-
     22; overall tactical aircraft force structure; and funding 
     implications, given that extending F-22 production to 243 
     aircraft would create an unfunded requirement estimated at 
     over $13 billion.
       This review concluded with a holistic and balanced set of 
     recommendations for our fighter force: 1) focus procurement 
     on modern 5th generation aircraft rather than less capable F-
     15s and F-16s; 2) given that the F-35 will constitute the 
     majority of the future fighter force, transition as quickly 
     as is prudent to F-35 production; 3) complete F-22 
     procurement at 187 aircraft, while continuing plans for 
     future F-22 upgrades; and 4) accelerate the retirements of 
     the oldest 4th generation aircraft and modify the remaining 
     aircraft with necessary upgrades in capability.
       And finally, while it is tempting to focus only on whether 
     the Air Force would benefit from additional F-22s, which we 
     acknowledge some in the airpower community have advocated, 
     this decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within 
     a fixed Air Force and DoD budget, however large or small, our 
     challenge is to decide among many competing joint warfighting 
     needs; to include intelligence, surveillance and 
     reconnaissance; command and control; and related needs in the 
     space and cyber domains. At the same time. we are working to 
     repair years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, 
     rebuild our acquisition workforce, and taking steps to 
     improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare. 
     Ultimately, buying more F-22s means doing less of something 
     else and we did not recommend displacement of these other 
     priorities to fund additional F-22s.
       In summary, we assessed the F-22 decision from all angles, 
     taking into account competing strategic priorities and 
     complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within 
     the context of available resources. We did not and do not 
     recommend F-22s be included in the FY10 defense budget. This 
     is a difficult decision but one with which we are 
     comfortable. Most importantly, in this and other budget 
     decisions, we believe it is important for Air Force leaders 
     to make clear choices, balancing requirements across orange 
     of Air Force contributions to joint capabilities.
       Make no mistake: air superiority is and remains an 
     essential capability for joint warfighting today and in the 
     future. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military toolbox and 
     will remain in our inventory for decades to come.

     Norton A. Schwartz,
       Chief of Staff.
     Michael B. Donley,
       Secretary of the Air Force.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, at this point, I thank Chairman Levin 
for his important comments, especially about the letters from the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on 
this issue. Let me repeat that this debate is not about depriving, in 
my view, the U.S. Air Force of a much needed part of our arsenal to 
defend this Nation's national security; it is about whether we will 
continue to spend money on the F-22, of which we are already acquiring 
187, and additionally adding the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which 
is very badly needed by the other services as well. I believe the F-35, 
the Joint Strike Fighter, is a very important counterpart to the F-22. 
The F-22 has great capabilities in certain areas, and the Joint Strike 
Fighter does too. So this debate is not just about removing the funds 
for the F-22. What it is about is removing funds for the F-22 and 
moving forward with the Joint Strike Fighter to give the U.S. Air 
Force, Marine Corps, and Navy a balanced inventory that will maintain 
the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as the most powerful projections 
of air power in the world for a long time to come.
  So I emphasize, this is not so much about terminating a program as it 
is ending a much needed program and supplementing it with another. I 
think that sometimes this argument is portrayed simply in the area of 
the F-22 itself. It is not. I know the chairman and I and the majority 
of the committee want a balanced, powerful, capable Air Force, Marine 
Corps, and Navy throughout the 21st century.
  There have been various points raised and arguments made during this 
debate. I would like to respond to several of those arguments that have 
been made so far and probably will be raised again during the rest of 
this debate.
  The first argument addresses the fact that 187 F-22s will not meet 
operational demands at an acceptable level of risk.
  In the view of some Air Force officials, including the Air Combat 
Command general, John Corley, for example, a total of 381 F-22s would 
be sufficient to meet operational demands at a low level of risk and a 
total of 243 to 250 would be sufficient to meet operational demands 
with a moderate level of risk. That is the view of some very credible 
individuals.
  Our response to that is that in December 2004, the Department of 
Defense determined that 183 F-22s was sufficient to meet its military 
requirements. This is back in December of

[[Page S7451]]

2004. The Department conducted several analyses which affirmed that 
number based on a number of variables, including the lengths and types 
of wars the Department of Defense believes it will have to fight in the 
future and future capabilities of likely adversaries.
  The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff, 
and the Secretary of the Air Force have all stated that 187 F-22s is 
sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined 
with other U.S. military assets, including cyber warfare, strike 
fighter aircraft, long-range standoff precision weapons to counter 
enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from 
potential adversaries.
  We need to look at this in the entirety of its inventory. That means 
cyber warfare, it means long-range standoff precision weapons, it means 
the dramatic increase in capability of unmanned aircraft. Look at the 
role unmanned aircraft have played in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all 
candor, look at the role the F-22 has not played in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It has not been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; whereas, 
our unmanned aircraft, our Predators, have had an incredible effect in 
identifying, locating, and destroying the enemy. I think General 
Petraeus will attest to that in a very persuasive fashion.

  In response to the argument that more F-22s are necessary to close a 
gap in fifth-generation fighters between the United States and China, 
on May 14, Secretary Gates noted, ``[W]hen you look at potential 
threats--for example, in 2020, the United States will have 2,700 
TACAIR. China will have 1,700. But, of ours, 1,000 will be fifth-
generation aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35. And, in 2025, 
that gap gets even bigger. So, the notion that a gap or a United States 
lead over China alone of 1,700 fifth-generation aircraft in 2025 does 
not provide additional fifth-generation aircraft, including F-22s, to 
take on a secondary threat seems to be unrealistic.''
  Secretary Gates summarized his position on the operational need issue 
on June 18, when he said that ``the U.S. military has to have the 
flexibility across the spectrum of conflict to handle the threats of 
the future'' and that ``this will mean a huge investment for the 
future, one that is endangered by continuing the F-22 Raptor program.'' 
He concluded, ``frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not 
buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United 
States, I find complete nonsense.''
  As military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Acquisition GEN Mark D. Shackleford said, ``the capability that we get 
out of the 187 F-22s we believe is more than sufficient for the type of 
threat that the Secretary of Defense is addressing in the future''. 
Whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program, now is 
merely short term and, under the Air Force's Combat Air Force--CAF--
restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current 
fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force for all 
the Services.
  The next argument being made is buying more F-22s could help mitigate 
a projected fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024 that Air 
Force leaders identified in 2008 and a projected gap recently 
identified within the Air National Guard's fighter inventory. Such 
purchases could also hedge the United States against the risk of 
unexpected age-related problems developing in the Air Force's legacy 
force.
  Our response to that is the fighter gap that the Air Force identified 
is questionable, given that it turns on various assumptions regarding 
threats and whether the United States will fight by itself or as part 
of a coalition. In any event, the Air Force has put in place a plan 
that will both mitigate any shortfall in fighter capability and bridge 
the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter 
force. An essential element of that plan--called the Combat Air Force--
CAF--restructure plan--is to stop investing in the F-22 program after 
the current program of record of 187. That plan addresses possible 
shortfalls in fighter capability more cost-effectively than simply 
buying more F-22s. It does so by restructuring the Air Force's current 
fleet of fighters now and directing resulting savings to modifying 
newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, including, 
upgraded F-15s and F-16s, procuring less expensive aircraft, including 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and investing in joint enablers. Under 
the plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that 
can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable 
force.

  In addition, in the years ahead, the Department of Defense needs to 
focus on improving its capabilities for irregular warfare operations, 
and the F-22 is not a key program for improving those capabilities. 
While the F-22 is an extraordinarily capable ``air superiority'' 
platform, its limited air-to-ground capability makes it less 
appropriate for supporting counterinsurgency operations--so much so 
that, as Secretary Gates has pointed out several times, ``the reality 
is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has 
not performed a single mission in either theater.''
  The next argument is the decision to end the F-22 program is purely 
budget driven.
  Secretary Gates has indicated numerous times that his decision to end 
the program is not resource driven. He announced that decision on April 
6, weeks before his plan was even submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget for vetting. On April 30, Secretary Gates plainly stated, 
``if my top-line were $50 billion higher, I would make the same 
decision [regarding the F-22 program].'' That having been said, given 
the current fiscal crisis, buying more F-22s would likely reduce 
funding for other more critically needed aircraft, such as the F-35, F/
A-18E/F, and EA-18G, which unlike the F-22 are equipped with electronic 
warfare capability--the combatant commanders' number one priority. In 
that sense, continuing to purchase of F-22s could create operational 
risks for the United States military in the near term.
  The next argument is buying more F-22s will ensure the Air National 
Guard gets modernized fighter aircraft sooner.
  Our response is that under the Total Force policy, all the Services, 
including the Air National Guard, will receive Joint Strike Fighters at 
the appropriate time and at the appropriate rate to replace their aging 
F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The only requirement that the Air National 
Guard obtain Joint Strike Fighters ``sooner'' arises from the 
``additional views'' of Senator Chambliss in the report accompanying 
the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill.
  In a letter to Senator Chambliss, the head of the Air National Guard 
LTG Harry M. Wyatt III noted, ``I believe the current and future 
asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise 
missiles, requires a fighter platform'' such as the F-22. However, that 
threat is simply not present today. This is something that is being 
closely looked at now in the on-going QDR debate. When asked about the 
cruise missile threat during our committee hearing recently, Secretary 
Gates correctly noted that the most effective counter to these sorts of 
threats is an aircraft that doesn't have a pilot inside of it.
  The next argument is that large-scale production of F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighters has only recently begun and has not yet increased to planned 
higher annual rates. Until production of the Joint Strike Fighter has 
been successfully demonstrated at those planned higher annual rates, it 
would be imprudent to shut down the F-22 production line, which is the 
only ``hot'' fifth-generation production line.
  Our response is that given how relatively similar the development and 
manufacturing efforts supporting the Joint Strike Fighter are to those 
supporting the F-22, concerns about an overall compromise in the 
industrial base appear to be overstated. In addition, whatever moderate 
risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is operationally 
acceptable: it is short-term in duration and, under the Air Force's 
Combat Air Force--CAF--restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to 
transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-
generation fighter force for all the Services.
  It is true that although ``full-rate production'' of the Joint Strike 
Fighter isn't anticipated until 2015, the program is making very 
meaningful

[[Page S7452]]

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

  At this point, the first of those copies is expected to be delivered 
on time to Eglin Air Force Base in May 2010, and the first 
operationally capable versions of the fighter are expected to be 
delivered to the Marine Corps in 2012, the Air Force in 2013, and the 
Navy in 2015.
  This is not to say we should take, as I said, our eyes off the 
program. We need to track continuous progress on the F-35 to ensure 
that development costs leading to production remain stable.
  I am persuaded, as I hope the majority of this body will be, that on 
the issue of whether the F-22 program should continue, the President, 
the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the 
Air Force are all correct: Ending the F-22 program now is vital to 
enabling the Department to bridge its current fighter capability to a 
more capable fifth-generation fighter force that is best equipped to 
both meet the needs of our deployed forces today and the emerging 
threats of tomorrow.
  Finally, the chairman and I are not unaware that this will lead to 
the loss of jobs in certain States in certain production facilities 
around the country. We know this is very tough, particularly in times 
of high unemployment across the country. But I would like to make the 
argument, No. 1, that the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, once it gets 
into production, will also be a job creator.
  But I would also point out that the purpose of building weapons is 
not to create jobs. The purpose is simply to defend this Nation's 
national security. We have an obligation to be careful stewards of all 
our taxpayers' dollars but, most importantly, those taxpayers' dollars 
that go to the defense of this Nation should be first and foremost what 
can best defend the Nation's national security in times when we are in 
two wars and facing future threats that are, indeed, formidable in the 
view of most.
  We are not without sympathy for the parts of our country, including 
the State of Georgia, where there are a large number of jobs that are 
at risk. Our sympathy is with them, and we will do everything we can to 
provide job opportunities, including in the defense industries across 
this country. But we cannot argue that we should spend taxpayers' 
dollars for weapons systems simply to create or keep jobs. That is not 
the use of taxpayers' dollars. If we want to do that, then there are 
many other programs we should fully fund to help create jobs and small 
business opportunities across this Nation.
  This issue, I hope, will continue to be debated today and that we 
could resolve it, hopefully, sometime tomorrow morning with a final 
vote.
  I know, from previous experience, there are perhaps 100 or more 
amendments that await the consideration of this body on the Department 
of Defense authorization bill. This is, obviously, a very important 
issue. This issue, perhaps, is maybe even more important than the $1.75 
billion we are talking about. This debate is about whether we are going 
to make the tough decisions to most wisely and most expeditiously 
defend this Nation and spend those dollars wisely.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank Senator McCain for his 
very comprehensive, thorough, and compelling argument relative to the 
F-22.
  This last point about the number of amendments which we expect would 
be, if not offered, at least proposed and considered, we need those 
amendments to come to the floor.
  We have a lot of work ahead of us. I know it is a statement of high 
ambition to suggest that we try to finish the bill this week. But I 
think we are obligated to use the time wisely. There are not going to 
be votes today. We attempted to schedule a vote prior to lunch today, 
but as an accommodation to some Senators, we did not do that. We then 
attempted to schedule a vote for tomorrow morning. That effort did not 
succeed last night. But as Senator McCain said, we are trying to see if 
we can't schedule that today.
  In the meantime, while we are awaiting some other speakers, 
apparently on this amendment, we would welcome those who are 
considering amendments; that they get those to us and our staffs so we 
can begin the arduous work of going through those amendments and 
determining which ones we might be able to accept, which ones we 
cannot, so that those who want to proceed, even if we cannot accept 
those amendments, can then indicate they wish to debate.
  The floor is open now to debate. We await other speakers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Levin-
McCain amendment to strike excessive funding in this bill for the F-22. 
I want to briefly outline why this amendment is in the best interests 
of our national defense and our fiscal future.
  This amendment represents the best of leadership that our Nation has 
to offer. Senator McCain and President Obama have put political parties 
aside and have acted to protect taxpayers at a time when our fiscal 
circumstances require us to make difficult choices. And Chairman Levin 
has supported their efforts. They are willing to make hard choices. 
Congress must follow their wise leadership.
  The media has reported that our budget deficit now exceeds $1 
trillion. We have provided middle class tax cuts, first-time homebuyer 
tax credits and invested resources in order to turn this economy 
around. But we have to reexamine our other spending choices and say no 
to excessive spending. The F-22 embodies spending to an excess, and it 
borrows from key operations and maintenance and personnel accounts to 
do so.
  The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
our Commander-in-Chief have said we do not need any more F-22s. In 
fact, they say that the costs of acquiring and maintaining these 
aircraft, which have ballooned far beyond the Pentagon's original 
estimates, are hindering our ability to make much-needed investments in 
other necessary programs.
  It is not only the Obama administration. President Bush and Secretary 
Rumsfeld also agreed that this is an area where we can show restraint 
and help strained taxpayers. The Levin-McCain amendment is the right 
policy for the country--armed services leadership and Presidents from 
both parties agree.
  We should be listening when the Air Force tells us that the 187 F-22s 
that we have are enough. Our President has shown the wisdom to listen 
to our uniformed leaders. Now only Congress stands in the way of saving 
taxpayers $1.75 billion.
  The F-22 has never supported a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. 
It is time to reassert the actual military priorities of today. It is 
true that the F-22 supports jobs, sprinkled around our nation. But we 
need to focus on weapons programs that create jobs an also serve a 
modern military purpose. As the chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee have said, the F-35 represents the 
future of our fighter fleet. As we look to the future, I simply cannot 
lend my support to this effort to allow unnecessary expansion of a 
program at the expense of the American and Coloradan taxpayer.
  There are far more useful ways to create and maintain jobs that 
actually enhance our military readiness. Phasing out expansion of the 
F-22 fleet will

[[Page S7453]]

allow needed funding to be reallocated to more important, pressing 
needs of our military. Let's pass a Defense authorization bill actually 
contains the requests that our military has made. Madam President, 
$1.75 billion for the F-22 has not been requested, and I agree with 
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, Presidents Obama and Bush.
  I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to show fiscal restraint. 
Support the Levin-McCain amendment. The best way to defend our country 
is to listen to our military when it tells us to change the way we 
invest. Our fiscal health and our national security both depend on it.
  I yield the floor and 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________