[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1939-1940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SETTING BACK AMERICA'S DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in Washington, officials commonly use 
studies and reports to legitimize various policies, and often the 
guidelines by which these studies are established can force a 
researcher into predetermined results. Traditionally, the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, or QDR, has been above this type of sincere process, as 
it is a serious exercise intended to produce a Pentagon strategic 
blueprint for defending our Nation from future threats. This year, 
however, I fear that the new QDR guidelines will overtly deemphasize 
conventional threats, which would result in long-term setbacks for our 
national defense.
  I recognize the need to focus greater attention on the current 
asymmetric threat of terrorism and the need to drastically rein in 
Federal spending this year to decrease the budget deficit. However, it 
should not come at the expense of our ability to defeat well-
established threats in the future.
  Released on Monday, the Pentagon's 2006 budget would cut off the 
procurement of the F/A-22 Raptor after 2008. With these cuts, several 
high-tech sectors within our Nation's defense industrial base would be 
crippled, costing America good-paying jobs, future innovation and, most 
important, critical military capabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, under the proposed budget, the Pentagon would buy just 
179 F/A-22 Raptors, well short of the original 381 proposed by the Air 
Force. In exchange for nominal short-term savings, the move would 
significantly increase the cost of each aircraft at a time when 
production would otherwise be affordable through economy of scale. 
Investing nearly $30 billion in research and development in the world's 
best fighter jet and then buying less than what the Air Force needs to 
guarantee future air dominance just does not make sense.

                              {time}  1745

  It is as if we discovered the cure for cancer and then we skimped on 
the lifesaving drugs.
  Remarkably, the proposed cuts appear to have been made against the 
advice of the war planners, because Pentagon bureaucrats are ignoring 
the Air Force wartime requirement of the 381 F/A-22s, a number that the 
Secretary

[[Page 1940]]

accepted in the last QDR. The Pentagon arrived at these pre-9/11 force 
levels because the F/A-22 offers unique capabilities against growing 
threats in the western Pacific and elsewhere. Also, a recent military 
exercise between the United States and Air Force fighter pilots from 
India, called COPE India, proved beyond a doubt that the new foreign-
made fighters now outmatch our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s.
  Furthermore, these bureaucrats are ignoring the impact that the 
proposed F/A-22 cuts will have on future domestic high technology 
production and design capacity. The American aerospace industry stands 
to lose more than 40,000 jobs nationwide, with some 160 suppliers in 43 
States. This dismantling of our home-grown technology base would come 
just when subsidized foreign competitors are jockeying to displace 
United States manufacturing. Once lost, these hard-acquired skills will 
not easily return to our workforce; and, in some cases, they will never 
return.
  In the end, at stake are vital national interests: American 
technology know-how, our global positions in the aerospace industry, 
and, most importantly, the safety of our men and women serving 
overseas. We must focus our armed services on more than just the 
asymmetries of a global war on terrorism. We cannot ignore, Mr. 
Speaker, a rising China, nuclear Iran, increasingly unstable North 
Korea, and other unconventional military threats that may need to be 
faced by the capabilities found in the F/A-22.
  It is the job of any administration to produce an annual budget that 
satisfies the Nation's immediate needs like the war in Iraq. But we in 
Congress also have a leadership responsibility to prevent rash and 
unwise decisions destined to actually increase spending and cripple our 
ability to effectively defend against future threats.

                          ____________________