[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17508-17512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, 
I am pleased to bring S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010, to the Senate floor. This bill will fully fund 
the year 2010 budget request of $680 billion for national security 
activities in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of setting 
aside partisanship and working together in the interest of the national 
defense. This year follows that tradition. I am pleased that S. 1390 
was reported to the Senate on a unanimous 26-to-nothing vote of the 
committee. This vote stands as a testament to the common commitment of 
all of our Members to supporting our men and women in uniform. I 
particularly thank Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for his 
strong support throughout the committee process and, of course, for the 
dedication he has shown to national defense throughout his Senate 
career.
  Earlier this year, the Armed Services Committee reported out the 
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 with similar bipartisan 
support. In less than 2 months, we were able to get the bill passed by 
the Senate, complete conference with the House, and have the President 
sign it into law. It is my hope that we will be able to move with 
similar dispatch on the bill now before us.
  This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the 
quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support 
and assistance to our troops on the battlefields in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 
21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the 
Department of Defense.
  First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in 
compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains 
provisions that would, first, authorize a 3.4-percent across-the-board 
pay raise for all uniformed military personnel, and that represents 
half a percent more than the budget request and the annual rate of 
inflation. The bill authorizes a 30,000 increase in the Army's Active-
Duty end strength during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 in order to 
increase dwell time and reduce the stress created by repeated 
deployments. The bill authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses 
and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and 
continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel. We 
increase the authorization for the Homeowners' Assistance Program by 
$350 million in order to provide relief to homeowners in the Armed 
Forces who are required to relocate because of base closures or change 
of station orders. And we increase the maximum amount of supplemental 
subsistence allowance from $500 to $1,100 per month to ensure that 
servicemembers and their families do not have to be dependent on food 
stamps.
  The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to 
provide our troops the equipment and support they will continue to need 
as long as they remain on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. For 
example, the bill contains provisions that would provide $6.7 billion 
for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicle fund, including 
an increase of $1.2 billion above the President's budget request for 
MRAP all-terrain vehicles which will be deployed in Afghanistan. The 
bill fully funds the President's budget request for U.S. Special 
Operations Command and adds $131 million for unfunded requirements 
identified by the commander of Special Operations Command. The bill 
provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization to continue the development and deployment of technologies 
to defeat these attacks. And we provide nearly $7.5 billion to train 
and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police so 
they can carry more of the burden of defending their own country 
against the Taliban.
  The bill would also implement most of the budget recommendations made 
by the Secretary of Defense to terminate troubled programs and apply 
the savings to higher priority activities of the Department. For 
example, the bill will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and 
Rescue-X helicopter program, CSAR-X. It will terminate the VH-71 
Presidential helicopter. It would cancel and restructure the manned 
ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat System Program. It 
would stop the growth of the Army brigade combat teams, the BCTs, at 45 
instead of 48, while maintaining the planned increase in end strength. 
It would end production of the C-17 Program. It would terminate the 
Multiple Kill Vehicle Program, cancel the kinetic energy interceptor, 
cancel the second airborne laser prototype aircraft, and it would 
authorize $900 million of additional funding in the budget request to 
field more theater missile defense systems, the Terminal High Altitude 
Area Defense, the THAAD, and the standard missile-3 interceptors, and 
converting additional AEGIS ships for missile defense to defend our 
forward-deployed forces and allies against the many short- and medium-
range missiles held by countries such as North Korea and Iran.
  The bill supports the decision of Secretary Gates to stop deployment 
of the ground-based interceptors at 30 missiles and to focus on 
improving the capability of this system to be more reliable and 
effective than the current system against the limited threat of long-
range missiles.
  The bill also supports the decision to continue production of those 
ground-based interceptors that are on contract and to use them as test 
missiles and as

[[Page 17509]]

spares. By fielding the most modern version of the interceptor, using 
modern silos and conducting operationally realistic testing with the 
additional missiles instead of putting them in silos, the system will 
provide, in Secretary Gates' words, a ``robust capability'' that is 
``fully adequate to protect us against a North Korean threat for a 
number of years.'' According to testimony to the committee, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders agreed that their highest 
priority for the GMD--ground missile defense--system was to have 30 
interceptors with improved reliability, availability, and 
effectiveness. The bill before us again supports Secretary Gates' 
decision to field that improved capability.
  I am disappointed that the committee voted on a very close vote not 
to terminate the F-22 aircraft production program, as requested by the 
Secretary of Defense and as supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I 
plan to join with Senator McCain in seeking to overturn that decision 
during floor consideration of this bill.
  Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help 
improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal 
agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would, first, 
improve Department of Defense financial management by requiring the 
Department to engage in business process reengineering before acquiring 
new information technology systems and to submit regular reports on its 
progress toward auditable financial statements.
  Second, it requires the Department of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive plan to address longstanding problems in its inventory 
management systems which lead it to acquire and store hundreds of 
millions of dollars worth of unneeded items.
  Third, it places a moratorium on public-private competitions under 
OMB circular A-76 until the Department complies with an existing 
statutory requirement to develop information needed to manage its 
service contractors, plan for its civilian employee workforce, and 
identify functions that would be subject to public-private competition.
  Fourth, we would authorize the Secretary to establish a new defense 
civilian leadership program to help recruit, train, and retain highly 
qualified civilian employees to help lead the Department of Defense 
over the next 20 years.
  A very important provision in this bill is section 1031, which would 
address the problems that exist with military commissions. The military 
commissions provisions we have in law today do not provide basic 
guarantees of fairness identified by our Supreme Court. The existing 
provisions place a cloud, therefore, over military commissions and have 
led some to conclude that the use of military commissions can never be 
fair, credible, or consistent with our basic principles of justice.
  Earlier this year, the President stated that military commissions can 
be reformed to meet basic standards of fairness needed for them to play 
a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law of war. In his 
May 21, 2009, speech at the National Archives, President Obama stated 
that:

       Military commissions have a history in the United States 
     dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. 
     They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for 
     violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection 
     of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; 
     they allow for the safety and security of participants; and 
     for the presentation of evidence gathered from the 
     battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in 
     federal courts.

  The President continued:

       . . . Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last 
     seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in 
     line with the rule of law. . . . [W]e will make our military 
     commissions a more credible and effective means of 
     administering justice, and I will work with Congress and 
     members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across 
     the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these 
     commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

  We agree with the President, and section 1031 reflects our 
determination to reform the commissions. In its 2006 decision in the 
Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva 
Conventions requires that the trial of detainees for violations of the 
law of war be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures 
applicable in trials by courts-martial and that any deviation from 
those procedures be justified by ``evident practical need.'' The 
Supreme Court said that the ``uniformity principle is not an inflexible 
one; it does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated 
for use by courts martial. But any departure must be tailored to the 
exigency that necessitates it.'' That is the standard the Armed 
Services Committee has tried to apply in adopting the procedures for 
military commissions that we have included in our bill.
  This new language addresses a long series of problems with the 
procedures currently in law. For example, relative to the admissibility 
of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the 
double standard in existing law under which coerced statements are 
admissible if they were obtained prior to December 30, 2005. They would 
be inadmissible regardless of when the coercion occurred. Relative to 
the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate 
the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden 
on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is 
not reliable and probative. Relative to the issue of access to 
classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill 
would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have 
hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and which 
have led to so much litigation. We would substitute more established 
procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ, 
with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to 
disclose classified information to unauthorized persons.
  Even if we are able to enact new legislation that successfully 
addresses the problems in existing law, we will have a ways to go to 
restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice they 
produce. However, we will not be able to restore confidence in military 
commissions at all unless we first substitute new procedures and 
language to address the problems with the existing statute.
  As of today, we have almost 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines on the ground in Iraq. Over the course of the next fiscal 
year, we will undertake the difficult task of drawing down these Iraqi 
numbers while maintaining security and stability on the ground. At the 
same time, we have increased our forces in Afghanistan, with close to 
60,000 troops engaged in increasingly active combat and combat support 
operations, and more are on the way.
  While there are many issues where there may not be a consensus, we 
all know--and there is a consensus on this--that we must provide our 
troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. 
Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2010 will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. 
It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective 
fighting force in the world. And very importantly, it will send an 
important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and are 
deeply grateful for their service.
  So we look forward to working with colleagues to pass this important 
legislation. Again, I thank Senator McCain for all he and his staff 
have done to bring this bill to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin, and I share his 
gratitude in thanking our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who 
contributed so much to writing this bill. They held numerous hearings 
on many important issues, and I thank them all for their hard work. And 
they were ably assisted by our extremely competent committee staff. 
Bringing this bill to the floor each year is a tremendous undertaking, 
and it would not be possible without the hard work of our outstanding 
professional staff who ensure that the process goes smoothly.

[[Page 17510]]

  I also extend my special thanks to Chairman Levin, with whom I have 
worked for many years now. I commend him on his leadership, grace, and 
integrity in shepherding this bill. It is not easy managing the 
competing interests, views, and opinions of 26 Senators, but Chairman 
Levin does an outstanding job at ensuring we all feel heard and 
understood, even if we do not always agree. I continue to admire his 
steadfast dedication to the committee's long tradition of bipartisan 
cooperation.
  Chairman Levin, you are a friend and great colleague, and I 
appreciate your support in both regards.
  Consistent with the longstanding, bipartisan practice of the Armed 
Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong 
support for the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is, 
for the most part, an excellent bill, and I believe the committee has 
made informed decisions regarding the authorization of over $680 
billion in base and overseas contingency operations funding for fiscal 
year 2010. To a great extent, it reflects the priorities laid out by 
the Secretary of Defense and the administration. It also reflects his 
decision to end troubled programs and focus our limited resources on 
today's threats and the lessons we have learned after more than 8 years 
of war.
  While the provisions in the bill demonstrate our commitment to 
provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the very best 
available equipment, training, and support in order to provide them 
with the best possible tools to undertake their missions, I believe we 
can and should improve the bill in certain respects, and I will offer 
amendments during our floor debate to do so.
  The bill takes care of our men and women in uniform and their 
families by providing military members with a 3.4-percent pay raise. It 
expands care for wounded warriors, supports families, and improves 
military health care. It fully funds the growth of the Army and Marine 
Corps. Indeed, it authorizes further growth of the Army should that be 
necessary to sustain our combat operations and further reduce the 
strain on our forces.
  The bill retains a balanced capability to deter aggression by 
increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, 
investing in tactical aircraft and ships, and accelerating the purchase 
of mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan.
  This bill acknowledges that the United States has a vital national 
security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again 
become a safe haven for terrorists. It supports a comprehensive 
counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by 
Congress based on identified needs to date and calls on the President 
to provide our U.S. military commanders with the military forces they 
require in order to succeed.
  In Iraq, the committee ensures that the Congress will support the 
President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our 
commanders the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and 
ensure the safety of our forces.
  One of the toughest issues this committee has taken a leading role 
in--both in past years and in this bill--is detainee policy. Since 
2005, this committee has developed legislation on detainee matters--
sometimes in cooperation with the White House and sometimes over its 
strong objections--because it is critical to our national security and 
the preservation of our democratic principles.
  This bill makes changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We 
have all--Senator Levin, Senator Graham, and others--worked closely 
together to address some of these difficult issues.
  We have not resolved all of the challenges military commissions and 
other aspects of detainee policy present, but I believe we have made 
substantial progress that will strengthen the military commissions 
system during appellate review, provide a careful balance between 
protection of national security and American values, and allow the 
trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair 
result.
  The committee also had a healthy debate on the future of missile 
defense and our strategic deterrence capabilities. I welcome and share 
President Obama's aspirations, hope for a nuclear-free world. However, 
I believe we must also be prudent and practical in our reductions and 
remain vigilant about the global proliferation of advance missile and 
nuclear technology. While recently much of our national defense posture 
supports combating terrorists, we cannot grow complacent to the danger 
that rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose to us--whether it 
is missile launches within range of Hawaii or transferring weapons to 
Hezbollah or Hamas.
  We must strengthen our commitment to enforcing the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty and the existing inspections regime. We must lead an 
international effort to interdict and prevent the world's most 
dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the world's worst 
actors. I know there are varying views on the future of missile defense 
and our long-term strategic force posture, and I look forward to those 
debates.
  The bipartisan nature of our committee allows for candid discussion, 
lively debate, and, at times, disagreement. In that spirit, there are 
some items in the bill I do not support and were not in the President's 
budget request, such as continuation of the F-22 aircraft production 
line, funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and 
earmarks totaling approximately $6.4 billion. I was disappointed that, 
in spite of a veto threat from the White House, our committee chose to 
add $1.75 billion for seven F-22 aircraft and at least $439 million for 
an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Neither the President 
nor the Pentagon asked for F-22s or the alternate engine in the budget 
request, nor were they part of the Service's Unfunded Priority List. 
Secretary Gates has consistently opposed the need for additional F-22 
aircraft and has indicated on a number of occasions that additional F-
22 aircraft are not required to meet potential threats posed by near-
term adversaries. I strongly support Secretary Gates' decision to end 
the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and his commitment--and the 
President's commitment--to building a fifth-generation tactical fighter 
capability by focusing on the timely delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter to the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
  I look forward to lively debates on these and other important issues 
over the next few days.
  I want to make very clear to my colleagues, the reason Senator Levin 
and I support the administration's and Secretary Gates' proposal to 
terminate at 187 the F-22 fighter aircraft is not because we believe we 
are going to leave the Nation undefended. We need the next-generation 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our armed services are counting on them. We 
want to increase funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft 
and weapon system that in the view of many experts--including my view--
would be far more capable of meeting the emerging threats of the 
future. So I want my colleagues to understand this debate is not just 
about cutting a weapon system or bringing to an end, frankly, the line 
of a fighter aircraft; it is bringing to the end the line of one 
fighter aircraft and moving forward with another generation-- for all 
three services, a very capable weapons system, one that meets the 
threats of the 21st century.
  So I think it is important that we look at the argument that will 
come forward about jobs created or jobs lost. There will be jobs 
created, but the rationale for defense weapons systems should never be 
the creation of jobs. It should only be about the best way to defend 
this Nation in a very dangerous world.
  So it is my understanding it is the wish of the chairman--and I join 
him--that the first amendment for debate will be the administration 
proposal to finish the F-22 aircraft production line, saving some $1.75 
billion. So I look forward to that debate. I look forward to my 
colleagues coming to the floor who would oppose that amendment. I hope 
my colleagues understand we would like to get this done this week, if 
possible.

[[Page 17511]]

  One more comment about the F-22 and the alternate engine for the 
Joint Strike Fighter: The President of the United States, I am told, 
and the Secretary of Defense have made it very clear a veto is very 
likely if the Congress does not act to end production of the F-22 line. 
I would strongly recommend the President of the United States go ahead 
and veto this bill if the F-22 is included. At some point, with 
unemployment at 9.5 percent, with people not being able to stay in 
their jobs, with health care being less available and less affordable 
in America, we cannot afford to spend $1.7 billion additional taxpayer 
dollars for a system that can be replaced by a more capable weapons 
system and one that can defend our Nation with greater efficiency and 
less cost.
  So I believe, frankly, there is more at stake than just whether we 
adopt the Levin-McCain amendment to terminate production of the F-22 as 
originally scheduled. I think this is a much larger issue, and I hope 
my colleagues understand the importance of it. I hope, if the Levin-
McCain amendment is defeated--I hope it is not because I believe 
Senator Levin and I can make a convincing argument on behalf of the 
administration and the Secretary of Defense--but if it is, that there 
be no doubt that the President of the United States would veto this 
bill.
  I say that with great reluctance. I say it with almost a sense of 
deep regret because there are so many things in this bill that are 
important to the defense of our Nation, whether it be the care and pay 
raises and hospitalization and care of our wounded warriors, along with 
many other issues. But at some point this Congress and this Nation have 
to exercise the fiscal discipline the economic crisis we are in today 
demands.
  I again wish to thank Senator Levin for the long and close 
relationship and work we have done together. Sometimes we have had very 
spirited but very informative discussions, and I know those will 
continue as we address this very important legislation before the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
material in support of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 8, 2009.
       Dear Senator, The undersigned groups urge you to eliminate 
     funding for seven unneeded F-22 Raptor fighter jets from the 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2010.
       The addition of these F-22s demonstrates not only wasteful 
     spending that serves parochial interests but irresponsible, 
     smoke and mirrors budgeting. Just as our national security 
     strategy is based upon anticipating probable threats, our 
     defense budget must also rely upon realistic sources of 
     future income.
       We are particularly concerned by recent media reports 
     indicating that funding for the F-22 will rely on anticipated 
     savings from defense procurement reform, even though the 
     Congressional Budget Office has said there is no basis for 
     determining these savings. Other sources report that the 
     money will also take hundreds of millions from operations and 
     maintenance accounts, a common budgeting gimmick that 
     directly impacts our soldiers in the field.
       Additionally, we are dismayed by proposals to pay for F-22s 
     by taking $146 million from the Joint Strike Fighter's 
     management reserve fund. This fund, which has historically 
     experienced shortfalls, is needed to address any unexpected 
     issues in the program, and removing money may disrupt the 
     Joint Strike Fighter's development. Both the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force have stressed that 
     the Joint Strike Fighter program is critical to our national 
     security, and both support ending F-22 procurement at 187 
     planes.
       In a June 24 Statement of Administration Policy, the 
     President's advisers said they would be forced to recommend a 
     veto if the National Defense Authorization Act includes 
     advance procurement of the F-22 or spending that would 
     seriously disrupt the Joint Strike Fighter program. 
     Procurement of additional F-22s does not serve our national 
     security needs and jeopardizes the Department of Defense's 
     higher priorities. We ask you to take a stand against 
     wasteful and irresponsible spending and support amendments 
     that will delete this funding from the 2010 defense 
     authorization bill.
     Danielle Brian,
       Project On Government Oversight.
     Ryan Alexander,
       Taxpayers for Common Sense.
                                  ____



                              Project On Government Oversight,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.
     Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg, 
         Washington, DC.
     Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     John McCain,
     Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators, The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) 
     is writing to express our serious concerns about the 
     integrity of the process to add seven unneeded F-22s to the 
     Senate's version of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
     2010.
       Numerous congressional hearings and press reports have 
     demonstrated that Air Force leadership supports Defense 
     Secretary Robert Gates' decision to end production of the F-
     22 at 187 aircraft. But it appears that even after Air Force 
     leadership informed Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) of their 
     support of the Secretary's decision to end production of the 
     F-22, the Senator continued to pursue funding for the 
     program--made in Mariettta, Georgia--by soliciting a request 
     from Air National Guard Director Lieutenant General Harry M. 
     Wyatt III, which the Director not surprisingly provided.
       The Director's request flies directly in the face of the 
     overarching strategic needs expressed by the Secretary of 
     Defense and repeated by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff as recently as this morning.
       Beyond the appalling nature of this solicitation, POGO is 
     concerned by the ``Additional Views of Senator Chambliss'' 
     section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2010 that encourages the Air Force to position F-22s in 
     Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, 
     Alaska, and Hawaii. It appears that the specificity of this 
     request may have been a politically motivated decision to 
     garner support from the Senators and Governors of these 
     states.
       National security spending should be based solely upon 
     strategic needs. Parochial interests have no place in our 
     national defense. Both the Secretary of Defense and Air Force 
     leadership have made it clear that continued procurement of 
     the F-22 does not support our national security. To sell our 
     national security as part of a horse-trade calls the 
     integrity of Congress's procurement process into question.
       We would welcome an opportunity to share our concerns. 
     Sincerely,
     Danielle Brian.
                                  ____


             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 9, 2009]

                  A Jet Even the Military Doesn't Want

                 (By Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson)

       Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 
     Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 
     supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, 
     the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for 
     environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an 
     additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went 
     a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s 
     without clearly identifying the source of funds.
       The F-22 costs nearly $150 million per plane--twice what 
     was projected at the outset of the program. Factoring in 
     development costs, the price tag increases to about $350 
     million per plane for the current fleet of 187.
       It may look as if the House Armed Services Committee has 
     added ``only'' $369 million. But given that it would provide 
     funds for 12 additional F-22s, each with a price tag of $150 
     million (excluding development costs), the real cost to 
     American taxpayers would be about $2 billion.
       The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air 
     Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack 
     capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today's counter-
     insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used 
     in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next-
     generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as 
     Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly 
     useless for irregular warfare.
       The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced 
     fighter plane in the world, and there are no other planes 
     that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat. The 
     United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order--a 
     silver-bullet force that is more than adequate to deal with 
     any likely contingency. In fact, Gates said that even if he 
     had $50 billion more to spend, he would not buy any more F-
     22s.
       The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports 
     continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael 
     Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have 
     publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not 
     in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010 
     (which begins in October). It's not even on the Air

[[Page 17512]]

     Force's list of unfunded requests, which consists of items 
     excluded from the budget for which it would nevertheless like 
     funding--a wish list of sorts.
       Why are congressional committees willing to override the 
     military and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the F-22? 
     The latest in a string of arguments offered by proponents in 
     Congress is the need to protect our industrial base--as if 
     our technical capacity to develop and produce fighter planes 
     is in immediate, grave danger. This argument overlooks the 
     fact that the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 budget 
     includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--planes better suited 
     for air-to-ground combat.
       Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing 
     manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points 
     out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.
       The F-22 is not an isolated case of unnecessary 
     congressional equipment purchases. Congress has added $2.7 
     billion to the 2009 supplemental budget to buy more C-17 and 
     C-130 aircraft--planes neither requested nor needed by the 
     Defense Department. It also added $600 million to the 2010 
     budget for an unneeded alternate engine for the F-35, which 
     will mean buying 50 fewer aircraft.
       An administration policy statement issued on June 24 said 
     the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto of a 
     bill containing funding for more F-22s. If the entire 
     Congress approves either of the armed services committees' 
     recommendations on the F-22, President Obama should indeed 
     veto the bill. Only then will Congress get the message that 
     in this era of exploding national debt, we cannot waste 
     billions on unnecessary military equipment.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1469

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator McCain, I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1469.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike $1,750,000,000 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)

       At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 106. ELIMINATION OF F-22A AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT FUNDING.

       (a) Elimination of Funding.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 103(1) for procurement for the Air 
     Force for aircraft procurement is hereby decreased by 
     $1,750,000,000, with the amount of the decrease to be derived 
     from amounts available for F-22A aircraft procurement.
       (b) Restored Funding.--
       (1) Operation and maintenance, army.--The amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 301(1) for operation and 
     maintenance for the Army is hereby increased by $350,000,000.
       (2) Operation and maintenance, navy.--The amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 301(2) for operation and 
     maintenance for the Navy is hereby increased by $100,000,000.
       (3) Operation and maintenance, air force.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 301(4) for operation 
     and maintenance for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $250,000,000.
       (4) Operation and maintenance, defense-wide.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 301(5) for operation 
     and maintenance for Defense-wide activities is hereby 
     increased by $150,000,000.
       (5) Military personnel.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 421(a)(1) for military personnel is 
     hereby increased by $400,000,000.
       (6) Division a and division b generally.--In addition to 
     the amounts specified in paragraphs (1) through (5), the 
     total amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department 
     of Defense by divisions A and B is hereby increased by 
     $500,000,000.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is the F-22 amendment, which 
would delete the $1.75 billion in the bill that was added in a very 
close vote in the Armed Services Committee, with strong opposition of 
the administration.
  I may say that this is not the first administration that has 
attempted to end the F-22 line. President Bush also attempted to end 
this line at 183 planes.
  Unless my friend from Arizona wants to speak, I will ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate recess until 1 p.m.
  Mr. McCAIN. No, I will not speak.

                          ____________________