[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2821-H2822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1100
IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OUR TROOPS INSTEAD OF ENDANGERING THEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there are few things more important for
us to deal with than the health and safety of our men and women in
uniform. For everything they do, for all the courage they've shown and
the sacrifices that they've made, we must be absolutely vigilant about
protecting them from unnecessary risk.
[[Page H2822]]
That's why I was troubled to hear news reports about several of our
most highly trained and skilled Air Force pilots experiencing loss of
oxygen while in the cockpit of the F 22 aircraft. We're talking about
blacking out, losing control of the plane, and suffering memory loss.
In fact, 18 percent of those who flew the F 22 reported an incident
similar to this. In fact, one family blames this mysterious affliction
for a crash that killed their loved one.
We have some of our most fearless pilots afraid and even refusing to
take the controls of the F 22. Two pilots went so far as to appear on
shows like ``60 Minutes'' without permission from their superiors so
that they could expose the problem.
In response, Madam Speaker, I prepared an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act, which the House will debate today. My
amendment would cut off funding for the F 22 until the Pentagon
inspector general completes an investigation on these malfunctions and
finds a solution to protect the safety of our pilots.
Thankfully, my amendment wasn't necessary because, yesterday,
Secretary of Defense Panetta took steps to impose flight restrictions
on the F 22, demanding that the Air Force take stronger safety measures
to protect our troops. Because of the Secretary's response to these
life-and-death concerns, I have withdrawn my amendment, but I will stay
on top of the situation.
The F 22 isn't exactly a ``bargain basement'' item, Madam Speaker.
Throughout the life of the program, it's cost taxpayers $79 billion.
And that's for a plane originally designed to fight the next generation
of Soviet jet, even though the Soviet Union, itself, didn't have a next
generation, and it doesn't even exist any longer. What's more, the F 22
hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It troubles me, Madam Speaker, that we've spent so much on slick,
supposedly state-of-the-art aircraft that are making our Air Force
pilots dangerously sick--at a moment when we could use that money on
programs our servicemembers badly need. For example, veterans groups
are fighting for more resources for mental health treatment, for job
placement, for access to education, for VA home loans, and much more.
Certainly we should invest in improving the lives of our troops instead
of endangering them.
My Republican colleagues are fond of pointing out that we're in a
challenging fiscal environment where every government expenditure
should receive the strictest scrutiny. I just hope that they'll apply
as tough a standard to expensive weapons systems as they do to foreign
humanitarian aid and important domestic safety net programs right here
at home.
As we debate the defense authorization today, we must choose the
defense programs that actually enhance our national security over ones
like the F 22 that are creating more problems than solutions.
Madam Speaker, I believe more strongly than ever that we need to end
the war in Afghanistan, supporting our troops by bringing them home;
but, in the meantime, making sure that the planes they fly and the
equipment they use are as safe as possible is certainly our number one
responsibility. We owe them nothing less.
____________________