[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17598-17622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business to speak about the health care deliberations we are 
undertaking. I know we are under the Defense authorization bill. My 
remarks should not take that long.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as I indicated, I rise today to talk 
about health care reform and the hard truths that have so far been not 
hidden but I do not think have been very much aware to many Americans.
  I was inspired to come to the Senate floor today because we are 
holding hearings in the HELP Committee--and we are holding hearings in 
the Finance Committee--and a series of events in the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee made me recall the observations of a 
well-respected public opinion analyst, pollster Daniel Yankelovich, 
founder of the New York Times/Yankelovich Poll.
  The HELP Committee has been struggling--well, we have been working 
hard; ``struggling'' probably is not the right word; and many thanks to 
the chairman, Chris Dodd, our ranking member, Mike Enzi, and the 
members of the HELP Committee--but we have been going through a 
multiweek markup that I think has been characterized by some very 
wishful thinking on the part of the majority members of that committee; 
namely, the hope or the wish that they can somehow not reveal the very 
real costs and tradeoffs raised by their health care reform bill. I 
think the American people ought to become more and more aware of this.
  The bill the HELP Committee is marking up establishes all sorts of 
new government programs, all sorts of new government mandates and 
controls--all justified by the need to ``rein in health care costs'' 
and ``increase health insurance coverage.'' I know those are two very 
good and noble pursuits, which I support wholeheartedly. As a matter of 
fact, I think Republicans now have about six bills to do the same 
thing. They do not get much attention, but we have six bills.
  But there is a big problem with this bill. It does neither of these 
things, in my opinion. It neither reduces costs, nor does it 
significantly increase coverage. In fact, it significantly increases 
costs for very little gain--``costs,'' c-o-s-t-s. Remember that word. 
But my colleagues on the HELP Committee continue to wish and to hope 
they can obscure this reality through a barrage, really, of speeches 
and rhetoric and what I call misleading figures.
  It has been this behavior that has caused me to recall Mr. 
Yankelovich's observations on something called the evolution of 
opinion. I am going to use that as the basis of my remarks--the 
evolution of opinion. The article was in Fortune magazine, and it 
jogged my memory in this regard. But, in any event, I think it serves 
as an important illustration of the health care reform process so far. 
Mr. Yankelovich observed that the evolution of a person's opinion could 
be traced through a continuum of seven stages. That is a fancy way of 
saying there are steps you go through when you are trying to think 
something through.
  First, we have had daunting awareness: the realization that our 
health care system was not working for every American and needed to be 
addressed. I think everybody understands that.
  The second stage, greater urgency: the economy began to go south and 
people who used to rely on their employer for health insurance began 
losing their jobs.
  Then there is the third stage: reaching for solutions. Our committee 
has held hearings and began to meet with stakeholders. The 
administration met with stakeholders. The stakeholders, I think, 
probably met in good faith. And it has only been recently they have 
discovered they may have signed on to something that is very illusory, 
to say the least.
  Fourth, the stage where many on the HELP Committee and elsewhere have 
arrived at today: the wishful thinking stage, the well-intentioned, 
romantic, simplistic, perhaps naive moment where all one sees are the 
benefits, without considering the consequences--the law of unintended 
effects. For example: the totally misleading claim by the majority that 
the new data from the Congressional Budget Office revealed a much lower 
score for this bill, $597 billion--a lot of money--while still 
expanding health insurance coverage to 97 percent of Americans. This 
claim is the very definition of ``wishful thinking.'' But facts are 
stubborn things. The actual CBO numbers say this bill leaves 34 million 
people still uninsured. That is not 97 percent coverage. In order to 
gain anywhere near 97 percent coverage, we would have to significantly 
expand Medicaid--a very expensive proposition which, according to CBO, 
adds about $500 billion or more to the cost of this bill.
  More wishful thinking: The $597 billion cost was further artificially 
lowered through several budget maneuvers, such as a multiyear phase-in 
and a long-term care insurance program that will increase costs 
significantly outside the 10-year budget window CBO is required to use. 
Here we are passing a long-term insurance bill that goes beyond 10 
years that CBO cannot even score.
  After taking these realities into account, a more accurate 10-year 
score of this bill is closer to $2 trillion. I said that right: not $1 
trillion--$2 trillion.
  This is when we should arrive at the fifth stage of opinion making: 
weighing the choices. Since the true cost of this bill is approximately 
$2 trillion, we

[[Page 17599]]

must own up to the American public about the tradeoffs. We must finally 
understand that the tradeoffs threaten a health care system that polls 
tell us has a 77-percent satisfaction rate.
  This is not to say we should not undertake any reforms, but we need 
to honestly discuss the costs and benefits of reform proposals. And the 
majority's proposal is high on cost and low on benefits.
  The No. 1 tradeoff that Americans need to know is, higher taxes. 
Remember when the President promised: If you make under $250,000, you 
will not see your taxes increased, that you would actually see a tax 
cut. Well, like so many other pledges, those promises had an expiration 
date, and that date is rapidly approaching.
  The bill raises $36 billion in the first 10 years in new taxes on 
individuals who do not purchase health insurance. That is a penalty. It 
raises another $52 billion in new taxes on employers who do not offer 
their employees health insurance.
  As an aside, guess who suffers when the employer's taxes get raised? 
It certainly is not the employer. It is the employee who gets laid off 
or does not get a raise. It is the applicant who does not get hired. 
Even President Obama's own Budget Director admits this fact.
  At least one economic survey estimates that an employer mandate to 
provide health insurance, such as the one in the Kennedy-Dodd bill, 
would put 33 percent of uninsured workers at risk for being laid off--
33 percent of uninsured workers. The study went on to say that 
``workers who would lose their jobs are disproportionately likely to be 
high school dropouts, minority, and female.'' It is a job killer for 
the very people whom the bill ostensibly seeks to help.
  These new taxes do not come close to paying for this bill, and the 
ideas that have been coming out of the Finance Committee, on which I am 
also privileged to serve, the House of Representatives--the so-called 
people's body--and the administration prove that these new taxes will 
be just the first of many.
  One option: a new and higher income tax on taxpayers with earnings in 
the top income tax brackets--there is some press on that as of now--
including small businesses--essentially a small business surtax--to pay 
for government-run health care. Keep in mind that this surtax is in 
addition to the higher income taxes the President is already calling 
for in his budget.
  The President's budget proposal calls for raising the top two 
individual tax rates in 2011. Many small businesses file their tax 
returns as individual returns, and the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, NFIB, estimates that 50 percent of the small 
business owners who employ 20 to 249 workers fall into the top two 
brackets. When these higher income taxes are combined with the proposed 
surtax to pay for the government-run health care, it means that a small 
business could see its tax bills go up by as much as 11 percent--11 
percent--when this health care reform bill finally takes effect--an 
income tax rate increase of about 33 percent over what they pay today.
  But it does not stop there. Under the proposal the House is expected 
to unveil, possibly today, they leave the door open for even more tax 
increases on small businesses. That proposal is expected to allow, in 
2013, for the small business surtax to be raised by several additional 
percentage points if health care costs are higher than expected, which 
is likely.
  These higher income taxes would be a devastating hit on our Nation's 
small businesses--the same small businesses that create roughly 70 
percent of the jobs in this country and are the backbone of our 
economy. We should not be raising taxes on these job creators if we 
want our economy to rebound and grow and expand.
  Small businesses in Kansas tell me they feel they are already 
stretched to the limit, and they worry that to pay the additional taxes 
called for in the President's budget, not to mention an additional 
small business surtax to pay for a government-run health care program, 
they will have to cut back elsewhere--``cut back,'' meaning layoffs; 
cutbacks, meaning really it is the worst thing you could do for the 
economic catalyst of our country, the small business community. Make no 
mistake, these will be difficult choices. They will have to reduce the 
wages and benefits of current employees. They will have to pass their 
costs on to their customers. They will have to lay off workers or not 
hire new employees. None of these are good options for workers, small 
businesses, or our economy.
  But higher taxes are just one of the ways the majority wants to pay 
for this massive expansion of government. The other method? The other 
method will be cuts to Medicare. You heard me right: Medicare, cuts to 
Medicare, cuts to the reimbursements to providers to our senior 
citizens, cuts we have been trying to prevent, where we have added 
money in almost every session we have been in.
  There would be $150 billion from the hospitals. The hospitals have 
agreed to this with their national organizations but funny thing: The 
hospitals from Kansas came back to me and said: Not on your life. For a 
person who has worked hard to prevent cuts in that market basket of 
provider reimbursements to keep our rural health care delivery system 
whole, it comes to me as a great surprise that their national 
organizations would sit down and say: OK, we are going to give up $150 
billion, only to learn a couple days or weeks later that some in the 
House say: That is not enough. So they didn't have a deal--and another 
few hundred billion from the physicians. I haven't heard any agreement 
on that from the physicians.
  Tens of billions from home health care agencies and radiology and 
home oxygen and PhRMA. Let's don't forget PhRMA, who agreed to a 
certain amount of cuts--I think it was $80 billion--but now they have 
learned that figure isn't firm. So whoever else gets strong-armed or 
weak-kneed into making a deal with this administration, you better be 
careful.
  Again, when doctors and hospitals and pharmacists and home health 
agencies get their reimbursements slashed by Medicare or Medicaid, who 
pays the price? It is not the provider, at least not at first. It is 
the people with private insurance who pay a hidden tax to make up the 
difference--some $88.8 billion per year, according to a recent Milliman 
study. Once the provider runs out of private payers to shift this cost 
deficiency onto, who pays? It is the patients who lose access to a 
doctor or a hospital or a pharmacist or a home health agency.
  In addition to cutting Medicare payments, this bill will dump, by 
some estimates, well over a million new people onto a government-run 
health care plan which will never pay providers enough to cover their 
costs, despite any rhetoric otherwise. As this number grows and the 
private market shrinks, the decrease in the number of doctors and 
hospitals and other providers will be inevitable. We see that already. 
We already have rationing. We already have shortages. We already have 
doctors and providers who say: I am sorry, I am not reimbursed to the 
extent I can stay in business and offer you Medicare. So rationing is 
not a scare word, it is something that is happening now. It will simply 
not be possible for them to keep their doors open on the margins that 
the government will pay them. And that is when rationing of health care 
will become a way of life in this country.
  Oh, I can see it now. It will either be by age or by test or by the 
comparative effectiveness research golden ring that CMS--that is 
another acronym--an outfit that works for the Department of Health and 
Human Services. These are the bean counters who look in this way at 
health care and don't look at the real effects, and I see what can 
happen.
  These are the tradeoffs the American people need to know about in 
this bill. Yep, $2 trillion in new spending, higher taxes, job-killing 
employer mandates, and rationed health care. And for what? To overhaul 
a system with which 77 percent of Americans are satisfied.

[[Page 17600]]

  I offered several amendments in the HELP markup just this morning, 
attempting to force the committee to face stage 5--remember my Fortune 
magazine and my stages of evolution of thought--to truly weigh the 
choices, that is the next stage. My amendments would have prevented 
Federal health subsidies from being funded through higher taxes on 
employers, higher taxes on individuals and families or through cuts to 
Medicare. All three were defeated in a party-line vote. I wasn't alone 
in trying to get the committee to weigh the choices in this bill. 
Senator Alexander spoke very credibly as a former State governor about 
the fiscal catastrophe that expanding Medicaid eligibility will cause 
for the States. Again, he was defeated by a party-line vote.
  How can we ignore the very real consequences of raising taxes on 
individuals and employers in a recession--some say the worst recession 
since in the 1930s? How can we deny that further cutting Medicare will 
increase costs for everyone else and possibly eliminate access to 
health care for our seniors? How can we turn a blind eye to all the 
States that are already facing a financial meltdown and force them to 
take on billions of dollars of new Medicaid obligations?
  Some are still stuck in stage 4, still hanging on to their wishful 
thinking.
  Well, I am ready to move on to stage 6, and probably everybody else 
is as well here on the floor. It is called taking a stand. I hope we 
can all take a stand to preserve the system that works well for the 
vast majority of Americans and to consider a more cost-conscious, 
realistic, and patient-friendly approach to greater health care reform.
  By far the most important stage for us is--yes, the final stage--
stage 7: making a responsible judgment. The policies in this bill are 
very expensive, and the American people need to know that someway, 
somehow they will have to pay for them. So we must thoroughly examine 
the cost and the tradeoffs in health care reform. We cannot simply 
engage in wishful thinking. The American people expect us to make 
responsible judgments. There is simply too much at stake.
  I understand the leadership of this body is in a dash, a rush to 
finish the hearings in the HELP Committee to produce a bill, as well as 
to force the Finance Committee to come up with a markup of a bill to 
pay for all this. I don't know how you pay for $2 trillion while the 
Finance Committee is talking about $350 billion and those are very 
controversial. I have a suggestion. I think we ought to put a big 
banner right up here where the President is not, right over there. I 
don't think the President would mind very much, and it could just say, 
``Do No Harm.'' Then maybe we could put something underneath that and 
say: ``Slow Down'' or maybe in the language of my State ``Whoa.'' And 
then put that in the back of the HELP Committee, put in the back of the 
Finance Committee, and let's do the job right.
  Mr. WICKER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks. I think 
it is interesting and perhaps symbolic that his cell phone was ringing 
off the wall or off of his belt when he was beginning to make his 
remarks. I think perhaps that is symbolic of what we are beginning to 
hear in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives from the 
public. It is not just from the rightwing; it is from Main Street 
media. It is from the Washington Post last Friday. It is from liberal 
commentators such as Michael Kensley last Friday who say: Let's slow 
down on this.
  I think what the American people might be saying is that they have 
gone through this hierarchy of decisionmaking and that this is not the 
kind of health care they were promised last year. We were told health 
care would save money for Americans. Now we are hearing it is going to 
cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion, perhaps even $3 trillion. We were told 
that if Americans were satisfied with their insurance, they would be 
able to keep it. Now we are told they would be moved into a public 
plan. We didn't hear about cuts to Medicare when this was being debated 
last year in the Presidential campaign, and we certainly didn't hear 
about higher taxes on middle-income Americans.
  So I was glad to help the Senator from Kansas avoid taking those 
phone calls while he was speaking.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If my distinguished colleague--well, I will take back my 
time and yield back for any comments he may want to make. The person on 
the other end of the phone call, was he for the health care bill or was 
he against it?
  Mr. WICKER. Well, I would not have presumed to answer the Senator's 
phone call. I simply put it back in the cloakroom. But I am hoping it 
is symbolic of the American people--
  Mr. ROBERTS. Whether for or against, I hope the Senator from 
Mississippi would have explained that we both have some real concerns, 
and we hope we can get real health care reform.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I also thank the Senator.
  Let me just give one quick example of what I am talking about with 
regard to Medicare. The President of the Kansas Pharmacists Association 
is from a very small town out West. We conduct a lot of listening 
tours, and we go into the pharmacy. The pharmacists, we ought to give 
them a GS-15 salary because they are the people who deal with Medicare 
Part D. That is the prescription drug program we give to seniors; it is 
very popular.
  Let's say a lady named Mildred came in to see her pharmacist there 
and Mildred talked to Tom, the pharmacist, and said: What is this 
doughnut hole? And Tom says: Well, that is where you have to pay a 
bigger copayment. And she says: Well, can't I get a new kind of program 
or something else that will help me out here? He said: Yes, there are 
47 new programs you can choose from. Mildred, the one that you want is 
right here. She says: Good. Then I am not going to get hurt with the 
cost of the prescriptions I need. He says: But I can't offer it to you? 
Why? Because I only get reimbursed 71 percent.
  That is about the national average. How on Earth can we expect every 
pharmacist all around the country to administer--and they are the ones 
doing the administering; it isn't the Area Agency on Aging or the 1-
800-Medicare. So he had to tell her that the program in Medicare Part D 
that would cover the doughnut hole, he didn't get reimbursed enough and 
couldn't offer it. Well, he helped her out. All pharmacists try to do 
that. That is where we are.
  Or if Mildred goes to the doctor and the doctor says: I am sorry, I 
can't take any more Medicare patients--that is happening. It is real. 
This bill exacerbates that--exacerbates it. That is why I am so upset 
and why I came to the floor today.
  I will go back to the HELP Committee in good faith to work with my 
colleagues and we will try to make it bipartisan. I know on Thursday we 
are supposed to have a markup in the Finance Committee--marching orders 
from the leadership around here, right in the middle of a Defense 
authorization bill. We don't need marching orders. We need to slow 
down. We need to slow down and get this right.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the members of the Armed 
Services Committee for their tireless work on this bill. I thank 
Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for their amendment to strike $1.75 
billion in unnecessary funding for the F-22 aircraft.
  I strongly support those provisions of the Defense authorization bill 
which aim to support critical defense spending priorities such as 
providing fair compensation and health care to members of the Armed 
Forces and their families, enhancing the capability of our troops to 
conduct successful counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, improving our ability to

[[Page 17601]]

counter nontraditional and asymmetric threats and terminating troubled 
and wasteful military spending programs in favor of those which are 
deemed more efficient and effective.
  Also, I strongly support the recommendation of Secretary Gates that 
we must rebalance the Defense budget in order to institutionalize and 
enhance our capabilities to fight current wars as well as likely future 
threats. As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, the 
military challenges currently before us are unlike conventional wars of 
the past. I am pleased this bill provides the resources necessary to 
protect our troops in counterinsurgency missions by providing 
additional funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or 
MRAPs; U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, as well as supporting 
the vital train and equip mission for Afghan security forces. This 
training is an essential prerequisite for achieving stability and 
security in Afghanistan and succeeding in our ongoing counterinsurgency 
mission.
  These and other provisions of the bill aim to institutionalize many 
of the administration's recommendations regarding future Defense 
priorities based on the conclusion of military officials--including 
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus--that irregular 
warfare is not just a short-term challenge; rather, it is a long-term 
reality that requires realignment of both military strategy and 
spending. As Secretary Gates has said, this rebalancing need not come 
at the expense of conventional weapon programs, which are deeply 
embedded in the Department of Defense, in its bureaucracy, in the 
defense industry, and in the Congress. At the same time, we must move 
away from funding Cold War-era weapons programs with an eye toward the 
future and accept that threat requirements have changed. This requires 
difficult decisions, sacrifice, and change, such as ending the F-22 
production line which the White House and the Department of Defense 
have concluded will save valuable resources that could be more usefully 
employed.
  As President Obama explained yesterday in a letter to the Senate, 
this determination was not made casually. It was the result of several 
analyses conducted by the Department of Defense regarding future U.S. 
military needs and an estimate of likely future capabilities of our 
adversaries.
  The F-22 has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan because it is not 
the most efficient or effective aircraft to meet the current needs of 
the military. Its readiness has been questioned, it has proven too 
costly, and continued production will come at the expense of more 
critical defense priorities. I say critical defense priorities. But 
this debate is really not about the future of the F-22. This is just 
the first test as to whether we are ready to end unnecessary spending 
and rebalance the defense budget to better reflect the reality of 
counterinsurgency missions.
  Today I voice my support for the Levin-McCain amendment which 
terminates procurement of additional F-22 fighter aircraft when the 
current contract ends at 187 jets.
  In December 2004, the Department of Defense concluded that 183 F-22s 
were sufficient to meet our military needs, especially given the future 
role of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is a half generation newer 
aircraft and more capable in a number of areas, including electronic 
warfare and combating enemy air defenses.
  Ending the F-22 production line at 187 meets the needs of our 
military and allows us to purchase equipment deemed more efficient and 
effective. According to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen:

       If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond 
     what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other 
     . . . priorities--and require deferring capabilities in the 
     areas we believe are much more critical for our national 
     defense.

  Some of my colleagues have argued that ending the procurement of F-
22s will have a significant impact in terms of jobs. Of course, I share 
the concern of keeping jobs and am focused, first and foremost, on 
preserving jobs and job creation. At the same time, however, I believe 
job losses incurred in the F-22 line will be offset by an increased F-
35 production. Moreover, I agree with my colleague, Senator McCain, 
that ``in these difficult economic times, we cannot afford business as 
usual. We cannot afford to continue to purchase weapons systems that 
are not absolutely vital . . . '' to our national security interests.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Levin-McCain 
amendment which reaffirms America's commitments to our troops by ending 
wasteful spending and enhancing military readiness. This reflects the 
sound and bipartisan judgment of two U.S. Presidents, two Secretaries 
of Defense, three Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the current 
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. I hope we can pass a 
Defense authorization bill that supports the sound judgment of our 
military leaders and President and avoid wasteful spending of precious 
national resources.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Enslaved African Americans

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senate for 
adopting my resolution that authorizes a marker to be placed in the new 
Capitol Visitor Center. The marker recognizes the role of African 
Americans in the building of this great U.S. Capitol Building.
  I also thank Susan and my legislative director, Jim Stowers, who have 
been tireless in their work and certainly have done an incredible job 
in bringing forth this resolution, along with many others we have been 
working on to try and recognize the tremendous work and labor that was 
put into building this magnificent symbol of our freedom and 
particularly that which was done by the slave labor in this country 
when the Capitol was built. Those two individuals have done a 
remarkable job in working on this resolution. I am very grateful to 
them and all of the work they have put into it.
  I also thank Congressman John Lewis for his unbelievable leadership 
in moving this resolution through the House and for his leadership of 
the Slave Labor Task Force. I had the privilege of serving with 
Congressman Lewis in the House, and upon my election to the Senate, we 
worked together on a number of issues, including funding for the Little 
Rock Central High Visitor Center and the Slave Labor Task Force. It has 
been an honor to work with him on these very important issues. He is a 
tremendous gentleman to work with on all issues, but I have had the 
particular pleasure of being able to work with him on these two. It has 
been a great learning experience for me and certainly an honor.
  The crowning feature of our Nation's Capitol is the majestic statue 
that stands atop its dome. It was designed by an American, Thomas 
Crawford, to represent ``Freedom triumphant in War and Peace.'' It has 
become known simply as the Statue of Freedom to those of us who come in 
and out of the Capitol on a daily basis.
  Thomas Crawford cast the five-piece plaster model of his statue at 
his studio in Rome, Italy. Before it was shipped to the United States 
to be cast, Crawford passed away. Once it arrived in Washington, DC, 
problems soon arose. A workman who assembled the plaster model for all 
to see, just as it is downstairs, soon got into a pay dispute, and when 
it came time to disassemble it and move it to a mill in Maryland where 
it would be cast in bronze, he refused to reveal how it had been taken 
apart. Work on the statue stalled until a man named Philip Reid solved 
the mystery.
  Mr. Reid was an enslaved African American who worked for the owner of 
the foundry selected to cast the bronze statue. Mr. Reid figured out 
how to disassemble the plaster model by attaching an iron hook to the 
statue's head, and he gently lifted the top section until a hairline 
crack appeared. The

[[Page 17602]]

crack indicated where the joint was located. Then he repeated that 
operation until all five sections were visible.
  If you go down to the Capitol Visitor Center, you can see this huge 
plaster cast and you can see how large it is, how cumbersome it is, and 
how difficult it would be to work with even in today's age with the 
tools and all of the mechanics we have. Yet this gentleman on his own 
figured it out with very little other than just a hook to be able to 
pull up and figure out where he would find that path of least 
resistance.
  We know about Philip Reid today because Fisk Mills, the son of the 
foundry owner, told the story to a historian who recorded it in 1869. 
It describes Philip Reid as an ``expert and an admirable workman'' and 
``highly esteemed by all who know him.''
  Philip Reid's story is probably the best known among the enslaved 
African Americans who worked so diligently on our Nation's Capitol. 
Unfortunately, there are many others who worked in obscurity.
  When the Capitol was first being built in the late 1700s and early 
1800s, enslaved African Americans worked in all facets of its 
construction. They worked in carpentry, masonry, carting, rafting, 
roofing, plastering, glazing, painting, and sawing. These slaves were 
rented from their owners by the Federal Government for about $60 a 
year.
  For nearly 200 years, the stories of these slave laborers were mostly 
unknown to the visitors of this great building, our Capitol. Then in 
1999, old pay stubs were discovered that showed slaves were directly 
involved in the construction of the U.S. Capitol.
  To recognize these contributions, I sponsored a resolution in July of 
2000 to establish a special task force to make recommendations to honor 
the slave laborers who worked on the construction of this great 
Capitol.
  The bicameral, bipartisan Slave Labor Task Force brought together 
historians and interested officials to work on this issue. In 2007, the 
task force presented the congressional leadership with our 
recommendations.
  This resolution fulfills one of those recommendations, the resolution 
we passed in the Senate. It authorizes a marker to be placed in 
Emancipation Hall to serve as a formal public recognition of the 
critical role that enslaved African Americans played in the 
construction of the Capitol.
  Much of the original Capitol no longer stands, due to the fires of 
war and renovations to create more space for the ever-growing body. In 
fact, some of the stones that were removed when the Capitol was 
renovated have been stored in Rock Creek Park. It is our hope that 
those very stones that were quarried years and years ago by the slaves 
will be used to make the CVC marker we hope to place in the CVC.
  I also would like to take a moment to remember one of the members of 
the Slave Labor Task Force, Curtis Sykes, who was a native of Little 
Rock, AR, and an original member of Arkansas's Black Advisory 
Committee.
  I asked Mr. Sykes if he would come and serve on this committee. I 
selected him because he was, first and foremost, an educator. During 
his time on the task force, he was focused on the need to ensure that 
as many citizens as possible be made aware of the contribution of 
enslaved African Americans in the building of this great U.S. Capitol.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Sykes passed away before our work was completed. 
Nevertheless, he made important and lasting contributions to our work. 
I know he is looking down with a great sense of pride for what we have 
been able to accomplish.
  The heart of this effort and the mission of the Capitol Visitor 
Center is education. It was at the root of what Mr. Sykes stood for, 
and it certainly has been at the root of what our task force has been 
professing and wanting more than anything to create for the visitors 
who come through our Nation's Capitol. That is why there is no more 
appropriate place for this marker to recognize those who built the 
Capitol than our new Capitol Visitor Center, an education model in 
itself.
  The plaster model of the Statue of Freedom, the same one that was 
separated by Philip Reid, now stands tall in Emancipation Hall of the 
CVC for all visitors to see. Visitors look at the model each and every 
day and can compare it to the actual statue standing atop the Capitol 
dome. I want to make sure every visitor who comes to the CVC, our 
Capitol Visitor Center, knows how that statue got up there and that 
they know the story of Philip Reid and the other enslaved African 
Americans who played such a critical part in the building of this 
Capitol--our symbol of freedom in this Nation.
  In closing, I thank Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member Bennett of 
the Rules Committee for their help and guidance on this resolution. I 
also certainly cannot finish my remarks without offering my tremendous 
thanks to my colleague and friend, Senator Chambliss from Georgia, who, 
along with Senator Schumer, was an original cosponsor of this 
resolution.
  Senator Chambliss has done a tremendous job. He is a delight to work 
with, and I am not only grateful for the hard work he has put in on 
this issue but other issues we have worked on, but without a doubt for 
his friendship in working on so many issues.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for again adopting this 
resolution in the Senate. We look forward to being able to add many 
other of those recommendations of the task force as we move forward and 
as our Capitol Visitor Center continues to grow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to concur with my good 
friend from Arkansas with respect to H. Con. Res. 135, which 
acknowledges the role slave labor played in constructing the U.S. 
Capitol and thank her for her leadership on this issue. Once again, she 
and I had an opportunity to work on an issue that is important to 
America and to Americans.
  Senator Lincoln has been a true champion for the common man, as well 
as for all Americans, on any number of issues. It has been a great 
pleasure to work with her on any number of issues over the years. I do 
thank her for her great leadership on this resolution.
  The story of the very building in which we are standing is a story of 
freedom. It is a story of how people from every corner of the globe 
arrived to have a chance to steer their own lives, shape their own 
destinies, and toil at tasks of their own choosing, not those dictated 
by birth or caste.
  Sadly, however, that shot at freedom was not given to everyone. For 
those who were brought here against their will and forced to toil for 
someone else's gain, freedom was a vague concept--for others but not 
for them. Slavery will forever remain a shameful tarnish on the shining 
city that is America. Unbeknownst to most Americans, slave labor helped 
build our Nation's Capitol. It is one of the saddest ironies of our 
history that the very foundation of this building in which we have 
debated the most fundamental questions of liberty was laid by those in 
shackles. They labored in the heat, cold, and dust of quarries in 
Virginia and Maryland to cut the stone upon which rests this temple of 
liberty.
  We know very little about these workers and artisans, and of the few 
records that were kept at the time, only several first names survived, 
next to those of their owners and sums paid for the grueling labor. 
From 1793 to 1826, up to 800 slaves at one time painted, roofed, sawed, 
glazed, and perfected this building which represents a freedom most of 
them were never to know. They laid the foundation still visible at the 
Capitol's east front. They carved the marble columns that witnessed so 
many of the deliberations on the future of our Nation in the old Senate 
Chamber. They erected and polished the tall marble columns that lend 
Statuary Hall such elegance and grace.
  As the Civil War ripped this Nation asunder over the very issues of 
human liberty, a slave artisan named Philip Reid cast the statue that 
crowns this very building, aptly named ``Freedom.'' I am pleased to 
join with my colleague from Arkansas and my House colleague

[[Page 17603]]

from my home State of Georgia, Congressman John Lewis, in the 
submission of S. Con. Res. 135, which directs the Architect of the 
Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor 
Center acknowledging the role these slave laborers played in the 
construction of this building and to accurately reflect its history. I 
would especially like to thank Congressman Lewis for his work in 
heading the Slave Laborer's Task Force, which recommended that such a 
marker be designated and erected.
  This marker is a small way of showing our gratitude to these 
Americans, but it is a necessary and proper one.


                           Amendment No. 1469

  Mr. President, I now wish to move to another issue. It is the issue 
of the McCain-Levin amendment that is before us on the Defense 
authorization bill. In the Defense authorization mark, we filed an 
amendment seeking to add seven F-22s for additional procurement by the 
Air Force. And as a part of that amendment, we provided all the offsets 
necessary within the budget to purchase those seven aircraft. That 
amendment passed in the full committee and now is a permanent part of 
the mark. The amendment by Senators McCain and Levin seeks to strip 
those seven airplanes out of that mark and to deny--to basically shut 
down--the production line for the F-22.
  First, with respect to this debate, let me put it in context and draw 
from a statement by a Washington expert in this area who is known for 
being bipartisan and level-headed, and that is John Hamre, President 
and CEO of CSIS, and a former Pentagon Assistant Secretary under the 
Clinton administration. In an April newsletter, Mr. Hamre stated as 
follows:

       All of the systems proposed for termination by Secretary 
     Gates in his budget have valid missions and real 
     requirements. None of them is a wasteful program. This is a 
     case of priorities. Secretary Gates has decided that these 
     programs don't enjoy the priority of other programs in a 
     constrained budget, but Congress can and should legitimately 
     question spending priorities. Every individual has a unique 
     calculus for prudent risk. Secretary Gates has rendered his 
     judgment. Not only is it appropriate but necessary for 
     Congress to pass final judgment on this question.

  Mr. Hamre goes on to say:

       I admire Secretary Gates, but it is the duty and obligation 
     of Members of Congress to question his recommendations. These 
     recommendations merit serious and dispassionate debate, not 
     sloganeering. Secretary Gates has made a series of 
     recommendations. Only the Congress can decide what to do for 
     the Nation.

  Congress is the branch of government most directly connected to the 
American people. We have a crucial role in the budget process, which we 
should not shy away from. Some will say this is a debate about jobs and 
pork-barrel spending, unnecessary spending and powerful defense 
contractors. Hopefully, Mr. Hamre's statements have at least partially 
dispelled what is truly a myth in this respect.
  Clearly, jobs are at stake--lots of jobs--and good-paying jobs at 
that. About 95,000 jobs are going to be lost if the McCain-Levin 
amendment passes--95,000 good-paying jobs across America. Several 
thousand of those jobs are in my home State.
  But this is not a debate about jobs. This is a debate about the 
security of the United States of America, and I am going to talk in 
greater detail about that in a minute.
  Since the Korean War, our military has been able to maintain what we 
call air dominance and air superiority. And what that means is that our 
Air Force has been able to control the skies, to rid the skies of any 
enemy aircraft. We have been able to control the skies by having the 
capability of taking out any surface-to-air missile that might seek to 
shoot down one of our planes in any conflict with an adversary. Since 
the Korean War, the United States of America has not lost a foot 
soldier to tactical enemy aircraft because of our ability to maintain 
air dominance and air superiority. Well, if we do not have the F-22, 
our ability to maintain air dominance and air superiority is in 
jeopardy.
  Over the years, we have been in conflicts in different parts of the 
world with different adversaries, and there will be additional 
conflicts down the road at some point in time. We hope not, but we know 
one thing, and that is if we have an inventory--the capability of 
taking away the enemy's ability to come after us--then it puts our 
enemy in a difficult position from the standpoint of ever wanting to 
engage us.
  Let me respond now to some comments that Senator McCain made 
yesterday, and which he and others have made often, about the power of 
the military industrial complex. Our industrial complex is powerful, 
but it is not all powerful. If there were not serious national security 
interests at stake here, we wouldn't be having this debate.
  Also, there is absolutely nothing unique about the role of outside 
interests in the case of the F-22. Anyone involved in the current 
debate we are having in this body over health care, and even this 
week's hearings regarding Sotomayor, knows that outside interests, 
including industry, are intimately involved in trying to influence the 
process in regard to those issues. It is simply part of the process in 
a democracy, and there is absolutely nothing unique to it in relation 
to the F-22. We wouldn't be here if there were not serious national 
security issues at stake that are worth debating.
  However, most importantly, this debate is about what kind of military 
we need today and what kind of military these young people who are 
sitting before us today are going to need in the future. It is about 
the balance between needing to maintain both the ability to win current 
wars and guard against future challenges. The United States is a global 
power, with global commitments and responsibilities that exceed Iraq 
and Afghanistan. We are also a nation that has fought and won wars 
through the use of technology and not just a total reliance on 
manpower.
  Lastly, we are a nation for whom the basic war-planning assumption 
for the last 50 years has been that we will control the skies--air 
dominance and air superiority. If that assumption goes away, so does 
one tenet of American military strategy and the planning assumptions 
attached to maintaining air dominance.
  A criticism of the F-22s in the bill is that it is funding something 
DOD does not want. Defense budgets, as enacted into law, always--and I 
emphasize always--contain measures, be they weapons systems or other 
programs, that DOD does and does not want. As John Hamre said, it is 
the job of Congress to assess what DOD requests and to render judgment 
thereon. If we do not do that, we have given up our oversight role with 
which the constitution entrusts us. Congress is the branch of 
government most connected to the American people. It has an important 
role to play, and we should not shirk that role and be afraid to 
challenge DOD's priority, when necessary, and when we know they are 
wrong. This is a debate about military priorities and what kind of 
military we need. We cannot and should not assume that future 
challenges will be like today. In predicting where the next threat will 
come from, the United States of America and our tacticians have a 
perfect record: We have been wrong every single time.
  Jobs are at stake, and a variety of different interests are at stake 
but, most importantly, what is at stake is our national security and 
our ability to execute our global responsibilities. That is what is at 
stake and that is what I am going to focus on in my remarks today.
  I would also like to rebut one point critics make about the F-22 not 
flying in missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator McCain and 
Secretary Gates have made this point often and over and over again. But 
there are numerous and very expensive weapon systems in this budget 
that we are going to be voting on in the next couple weeks that have 
not, and hopefully will not, be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan--the 
Trident missiles, the ballistic missile system, the DDG 1000. There is 
a long list of items that are not going to be used in Iraq and 
Afghanistan that are very expensive and that are contained within this 
authorization bill. That does not mean these systems are not

[[Page 17604]]

needed. It is merely that they are intended to address a different 
threat. To argue against the need for a system because it is not being 
used in the current conflict is shortsighted and betrays a very short-
term perspective on our national security.
  Frankly, if the Pentagon had wanted to use the F-22 in the current 
conflicts, they could have been used. I don't know whether a conscious 
decision was made otherwise, but the conflict in Afghanistan is not 
over, and we are going to be in that area of the world for a long time 
to come. I suspect that before it is over, we will have F-22s flying in 
the region.
  Let me just add that these numerous projects that DOD did not 
request--and there are several DOD projects which DOD did not request--
have drawn little or no attention. For example, $560 million for 
unrequested FA-18s, $1.2 billion for unrequested MRAPs, and significant 
funds to support a pay raise above what was recommended by the 
President. We spent a lot more money on these items than what DOD 
requested. So to come up here and say: Well, DOD didn't request any F-
22s and, therefore, we are to salute and go marching on is something we 
have never done, we did not do in this bill, and we should not have 
done in this bill.
  Let me also address the veto threat regarding the F-22 funding. A 
veto is a serious step and one that should only be taken when the 
welfare of our troops or national security is at stake. After doing 
extensive research of Defense bills as far back as data is available, I 
have been unable to find one single example where a veto has been 
threatened or issued in relation to funding that correctly supports an 
unmet military requirement, as funding for the F-22s in this bill does. 
It is regrettable the administration needs to issue a veto threat for 
funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has 
been consistently confirmed by our uniform military leaders.
  Specifically, in his letter to Senators Levin and McCain, President 
Obama states as follows:

       The Department conducted several analyses which support 
     this position to terminate F-22 production at 187.

  I am not sure who was advising the President on this, but that 
statement is simply not true. Of the countless studies--and I emphasize 
study after study after study--that DOD has done, only one recommended 
187 F-22s, and that study was based on one major contingency operation 
that has not even been factored into our national security strategy.
  There are numerous other studies--again, numerous other studies--
including one commissioned by the DOD itself in 2007, which support 
buying a minimum of 250 F-22s, not 187.
  I would also like to offer a few comments on the letter from 
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Like General Cartwright did at last 
week's hearing, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen talk about the 
importance of UAVs in obviating the need for F-22s. That means taking 
pilots out of the air when it comes to destroying critical adversarial 
weapon systems that are on the ground or in the air trying to take out 
our men and women.
  What they don't note is that of the UAVs we are procuring in this 
budget--and I am a big fan of UAVs; we need them in certain scenarios, 
but of the UAVs we will be procuring in this budget, that we will be 
procuring in additional budgets, virtually none of them will have any 
stealth capability, and they will be useless in a situation that 
requires penetrating denied airspace.
  In other words, if we need to fly a UAV into a country--and there are 
a number of countries in the world today that have the Russian-made SU-
30 surface-to-air missiles--those UAVs get shot down every single time. 
The F-22 is the only weapon system in our inventory that has the 
capability of penetrating that airspace and firing not one shot, not 
two shots, but three shots and getting out of that enemy territory 
before the enemy ever knows the F-22 is in the theater. There is 
nothing in our inventory or on the drawing board that has that kind of 
capability--certainly not the UAVs.
  As they did in hearings before the Armed Services Committee, 
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen also do not address the issue of 
surface-to-air missiles and that the F-22 is more capable against those 
systems.
  Lastly, their letter notes the decision to terminate the F-22 program 
at 187 has been consistent across administrations. Again, let me just 
say it was Secretary Gates himself, as the Secretary of Defense at the 
end of the Bush administration, who decided to procure additional F-
22s. We just procured those four F-22s in the supplemental we passed a 
month ago, or 6 weeks ago--that is additional F-22s beyond the program 
of record--to keep the option for additional F-22 procurement open for 
the next administration. So that has not been a decision of previous 
administrations. It is this administration that is making the decision 
to terminate the best tactical airplane ever conceived in the history 
of the world.
  In relation to the letter sent yesterday from Secretary Gates and 
Admiral Mullen, I would like to quote from a letter I received from 
Rebecca Grant, a military expert who is at the Mitchell Institute for 
Air Power Studies. Here is what she says:

       In the letter of July 13, from Admiral Mullen and Secretary 
     Gates, the characterization of F-35 as a half generation 
     newer aircraft than F-22 and more capable in a number of 
     areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air 
     defenses is incorrect and misleading. Air Force Secretary 
     Donley and General Schwartz have repeatedly stated, ``The F-
     22 is unquestionably the most capable fighter in our military 
     inventory.'' And citing a Washington Post article of April 
     13, 2009:
       The F-22 was designed with twice the fighting speed and 
     altitude of the F-35, to preserve U.S. advantages in the air 
     even if adversaries can test our countermeasures or reach 
     parity with us. If electronic jamming fails, the speed, 
     altitude and maneuverability advantages of the F-22 remain. 
     The F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s have secured the 
     airspace, and does not have the inherent altitude and speed 
     advantages to survive every time against peers with 
     electronic countermeasures. America has no unmanned system 
     programs in production today that can cope with modern air 
     defenses such as those possessed by Iran. The Navy UCASS 
     demonstrator program may produce such a system in several 
     years for carrier-based operations only. However, together, 
     China and Russia have 12 open production lines for fighters 
     and fighter bombers. Only 5 F-35s are flying today. The F-35 
     has completed less than half its testing. Developmental tests 
     will not be complete until 2013. It is impossible to assess 
     the full capabilities of the F-35 until operational test is 
     complete in 2014.

  Let me just add right here, in the history of the United States of 
America, when it comes to tactical aircraft, we have never ever 
purchased a tactical air fighter while it was still in test and 
development stage. We always allow that to be completed because we know 
there are going to be deficiencies.
  Going back to the letter from Ms. Grant:

       The United States Air Force will not have a robust F-35 
     force structure for another 10 years. In addition, the 
     Pentagon removed funding for the F-35 to reach the rate of 
     110 per year as desired by the Air Force. Departing Air Force 
     Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton recently warned of 
     potential cost growth in F-35, upon her departure. Cost 
     growth, or a Nunn-McCurdy breach, could slow down the rate at 
     which the United States Air Force takes delivery of the F-35. 
     The letter misrepresents the position of former Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers.

  I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     From Rebecca Grant, Director, Mitchell Institute for Airpower 
         Studies, Air Force Association.

       In the letter of July 13 from Admiral Mullen and Secretary 
     Gates, the characterization of F-35 as a ``half generation 
     newer aircraft than F-22 and more capable in a number of 
     areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air 
     defenses'' is incorrect and misleading.
       Air Force Secretary Donley and General Schwartz have 
     repeatedly stated: ``The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most 
     capable fighter in our military inventory.'' (Washington 
     Post, April 13, 2009.)
       The F-22 was designed with twice the fighting speed and 
     altitude of F-35 to preserve US advantages in the air even if 
     adversaries contest our electronic countermeasures or reach 
     parity with us.

[[Page 17605]]

       For example, the Russian-made Gardenia series jammer fits 
     the Su-27 or MiG-29 aircraft and detects radar signal threats 
     and defeats them by processing and returning the same signals 
     with jamming modulation. This jammer has been exported to 
     nations such as Israel which may have modified and improved 
     the jammer. It is made by the Kaluga Scientific Institute of 
     Radio Technology which has other advanced jammers in the 
     works.
       New digital technologies enable advanced SAMs to switch 
     rapidly between different frequencies for jamming which 
     greatly complicates our electronic countermeasures. The 
     advanced SAMs are therefore much more difficult to defeat 
     than the analog SA-6s and SA-2s designed in the 1960s.
       If electronic jamming fails, the speed, altitude and 
     maneuverability advantages of F-22 remain. The F-35 was 
     designed to operate after F-22s secured the airspace and does 
     not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to 
     survive every time against peers with electronic 
     countermeasures.
       America has no unmanned systems programs in production 
     today that can cope with modern air defenses such as those 
     possessed by Iran. (The Navy UCAS demonstrator program may 
     produce such a system in several years for carrier-based 
     operations only.) However, together China and Russia have 12 
     open production lines for fighters and fighter-bombers.
       Only five F-35s are flying today. The F-35 has completed 
     less than half its testing. Developmental test will not be 
     complete until 2013. It is impossible to assess the full 
     capabilities of F-35 until operational test is complete in 
     2014.
       The USAF will not have a robust F-35 force structure for 
     another ten years. In addition, the Pentagon removed funding 
     for the F-35 to reach the rate of 110 per year as desired by 
     the Air Force.
       Departing Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue 
     Payton recently warned of potential cost growth in F-35 upon 
     her departure. Cost growth or a Nunn-McCurdy breach could 
     slow down the rate at which the USAF takes delivery of F-35.
       The letter misrepresents the position of former Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. As I mentioned earlier, we see this debate and vote 
about the need to maintain the ability to win current wars and to guard 
against future challenges. While respecting Secretary Gates and his 
desire to emphasize winning current conflicts, we feel his stance with 
respect to the F-22 does not adequately account for other kinds of 
threats.
  Specifically, I find DOD's assumption that F-22s will only be 
required in one major contingency or theater to be totally unrealistic. 
This is the assumption the 187 number is based on. Given the ability 
and proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missiles which require 
stealth to counter, and numerous hostile nations' desire for these 
SAMs, the likelihood of an adversary outside east Asia requiring these 
systems in the near to midterm is increasingly likely.
  In fact, in the press recently there have been reports about a 
potential adversary seeking to buy the S-30s from Russia. The F-22 is 
the only weapon system America has that is capable of penetrating the 
S-30. There is a follow-on, more sophisticated surface-to-air missile 
being produced by the Russians today. That missile, again, will 
proliferate around the world at some point in time, and the only weapon 
system in the inventory of the United States that has capability of 
penetrating airspace where those weapons exist is the F-22.
  The administration's current plan for F-22 basing would result in no 
F-22s being stationed in Europe or being available to address a crisis 
situation requiring penetrating denied airspace in the Middle East.
  At the press conference announcing his budget recommendations on 
April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates said there was no military requirement--
I emphasize that, ``military requirement''--beyond 187 F-22s, and the 
Air Force agreed.
  On this specific issue, either Secretary Gates misspoke or he was 
given incorrect information. In any case, this statement has been 
repeatedly contradicted by his Air Force leadership.
  The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Schwartz, in February of 
2009, said he suggested he would request some additional 60 F-22s and 
present analysis supporting that number to the Secretary of Defense 
during formulation of the fiscal year 2010 budget. He commented that 
this request was driven by analysis as opposed to some other 
formulation and spoke of 243 as being a moderate-risk number of F-22s.
  On April 16, 2009, after Secretary Gates's budget announcement, while 
speaking at a National Aeronautics Association event, General Schwartz 
stated, regarding the F-22: ``243 is the military requirement.'' He 
commented that 243 would have been a moderate-risk inventory.
  On May 19, 2009, before the House Armed Services Committee, General 
Schwartz testified 243 is the right number of F-22s. Before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee on April 21 of this year, General Schwartz 
said he gauged the risk of a fleet of 187 F-22s as ``moderate to 
high.''
  Mr. President, 187 F-22s puts America in a ``moderate to high'' risk 
category, according to the Chief of Staff of the United States Air 
Force.
  There have been other generals who have made statements with respect 
to the F-22. I commend these gentlemen because they are, frankly, 
putting their military future at risk. I know they probably received 
some harsh phone calls from the leadership. But I know this too. They 
have also received a lot of calls from majors and captains and 
lieutenants and Air Force academy students today, as well as Army foot 
soldiers, just like I have. I know they have gotten those phone calls 
because I have gotten those phone calls thanking me for being willing 
to stand up and say: Mr. Secretary, you are wrong about this, and we 
need more F-22s.
  Air Combat Command holds the need for 381 F-22s to provide air 
superiority to our combatant commanders and protect against potential 
adversaries.
  General Corley, who is the Commander of Air Combat Command, stated 
that a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our national military 
strategy at high risk in the near to midterm. Air Combat Command 
analysis shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet 
of approximately 250 aircraft.
  The F-22 underpins our ability to dissuade and defer. Simply put, 243 
gives us the required global coverage with 180 combat-coded jets versus 
115 to 126 combat-coded jets that we are going to get if we terminate 
this program with 187 F-22s being purchased.
  Mr. President, 180 combat deployed F-22s allows us to quickly win 
major contingencies with a moderate risk. Lower numbers of F-22s would 
sacrifice global coverage during a major contingency, encouraging 
adversaries to take advantage of a diminished ability to ensure air 
sovereignty. Out of dozens of studies conducted by DOD regarding the F-
22, every study except one recommended procuring at least 243 F-22s.
  The one study that did not was conducted by the DOD staff without any 
Air Force input and was based on the assumption that F-22s would only 
be required in one scenario, which, as stated earlier, is an 
unrealistic assumption.
  General Schwartz and Secretary of the Air Force Donley have spoken 
often on this issue in the last several months, including an op-ed they 
put in the paper on April 13. I understand there is another letter 
coming from them. I look forward to reading it, although I am not sure 
it can say anything new.
  In order to better understand his position, I, along with six other 
Senators, sent General Schwartz a letter on May 4 of this year. Let me 
quote from his letter. General Schwartz stated:

       We have been consistent in defining a long-term requirement 
     of 381 F-22s as the low-risk fleet, and 243 as the moderate-
     risk for both warfighting capability and fleet sustainment. 
     The F-22 program of record represents the minimum number for 
     current force planning at higher risk. While 60 more F-22s 
     are desirable, they are simply unaffordable.

  I think these comments from General Schwartz confirm what we all 
already know, that the decision to limit production to 187 is budget 
driven, pure and simple, and 187 is a high-risk fleet and does not meet 
the full military requirement.
  I would simply like to ask my colleagues: Why should the United 
States of America accept a moderate to high-risk situation in our 
ability to carry out the mission of the United States Air Force in the 
first place?

[[Page 17606]]

  Substituting F-22s with other aircraft will not serve the Nation's 
interest. Some have suggested filling the remaining F-22 requirements 
with other aircraft such as the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter. I am a 
big fan of the Joint Strike Fighter. It is going to be a great 
airplane. But as Ms. Grant stated, we have five flying today that are 
being tested. We are simply a long way away from the F-35 reaching a 
full production rate and having the capability for which it was 
designed. That mission that the F-35 is being designed for is entirely 
different from the mission of the F-22.
  The Joint Strike Fighter is designed for multirole strike missions 
and not optimized for the air dominance mission of the F-22. All the 
force structure studies have determined that a complementary mix of F-
22 and F-35s is the best way to balance risk, cost, and capability. The 
F-22 is the only proven fifth-generation fighter in production.
  The Air National Guard is charged with providing homeland air defense 
for the United States and is primarily responsible for executing the 
air sovereignty alert mission. In addition to the over 1,600 Air 
National Guard men and women who carry out this mission on a daily 
basis, the Air National Guard relies on legacy F-15 and F-16 fighter 
aircraft.
  The projected retirements of these legacy aircraft--and we have in 
this budget that we are going to retire 250 F-15 and F-16s. I have no 
reason to think we will not retire at least another 250 next year, and 
this trend is going to continue.
  Those retirements leave the Guard short of the required number of 
aircraft to execute this mission. GAO has commented:

       Unless the Air Force modifies its current fielding 
     schedules or extends the service lives of the F-15s and F-
     16s, it will lack viable aircraft to conduct ASA operations 
     at some of the current ASA sites after fiscal year 2015.

  The F-15 has been a great airplane. The F-16 has been a great 
airplane. It has served us so well over the 30 to almost 40 years we 
have been flying those airplanes. In my home State at Robins Air Force 
Base, we have an Air Force Depot, a maintenance depot for aircraft. 
Last year, an F-15 literally fell out of the sky. It crashed.
  Those airplanes were immediately sent to Robins Air Force Base. A 
number of those airplanes were sent to Robins Air Force Base to be 
checked out. They figured out what the problem was. We have now fixed 
the problem. But that is the kind of aircraft we are putting our brave 
men and women who are flying for the U.S. Air Force in today, and we 
are talking about extending the life of those airplanes for a period of 
time to meet the mission of the National Guard.
  No plan has been developed to fill the shortfall through either 
modernized legacy aircraft or new aircraft procurement if we stop the 
production of F-22s at 187. Some 80 percent of the F-16s will be gone 
in 8 years.
  According to LTG Harry Wyatt, the Director of the Air National Guard, 
the nature of the current and future asymmetric threats to our Nation 
requires a fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to 
address them. The F-22's unique capability in this arena enables it to 
handle a full spectrum of threats that the Air National Guard's current 
legacy systems are not capable of addressing. Basing F-22 and 
eventually F-35s at Air National Guard locations throughout the United 
States, while making them available to rotationally support worldwide 
contingency operations, is the most responsible approach to satisfying 
all our Nation's needs.
  So the F-22 is not just needed to counter international threats, but 
as we look at a map of the United States and we look at our various Air 
National Guard locations around the country, we need the F-22, 
according to the Air National Guard, to supplement the support that is 
going to be required for the mission of the Air National Guard.
  Let me, for 1 minute, talk about another issue that is a part of this 
overall long-term mission of the F-22, and that is foreign military 
sales. The F-22 is such a technologically advanced weapons system that 
a decision was made several years ago that we were not going to share 
this technology with other countries, as we have done with the F-16 and 
the F-15, and heretofore basically all our aircraft.
  That was probably the right decision, to a point. But today, with 
respect to the F-35, we are sharing technology on that airplane, which 
is based upon the technology of the F-22, with the Brits, who are our 
primary partner with respect to the development and the production of 
the F-35.
  So we have made a decision we are going to share the stealthy 
technology primarily that is available on the F-22 and the F-35 with 
the Brits. The F-22 and the F-35 contain a lot of other technologically 
advanced assets. But we now have the opportunity to develop and produce 
a somewhat toned-down version of the F-22 to other countries. For the 
last several years, we have had interest expressed in a very serious 
way from other countries. One of those countries has been to see me, 
about 3 weeks ago, and said they are dead serious about looking it 
purchasing the F-22 as soon as the foreign sales version can be made 
available.
  I happen to know there are other countries that have talked to the 
contractor as well as the Department of Defense about the potential, 
down the road, for the purchase of that airplane. Obviously, the 
contractor cannot get involved in it, but the Department of Defense has 
consistently said: We have made a decision to this point that we are 
not going to share that technology with other countries.
  Well, we live in an entirely different global world today than we did 
10 years or 20 years ago. So it is time we started thinking about the 
potential for foreign sales of the F-22. Japan has been a very trusted 
and reliable ally. They need the best aircraft available to defend 
themselves over the long haul. Because they are an ally of ours in the 
part of the world in which they exist and because that part of the 
world has the potential for the development of future adversaries, it 
is critically important that we continue--and I emphasize that because 
we have sold them tactical aircraft in previous years--it is important 
that we continue to share the latest, most technologically advanced 
weapons systems with friends and allies such as the Japanese.
  Let me read you a statement from former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff GEN Richard Myers regarding the need for an exportable version 
of the F-22. General Myers stated:

       Japan's F-15J force, once top of the line, is now 
     outclassed by the new generation of Chinese fighters such as 
     the SU-30MKK. Moreover, China's air defenses, which include 
     variants of Russian-made long-range SA-10s and SA-20s, which 
     is the S-300 family missiles, can only be penetrated by the 
     fast, high-flying stealthy Raptor or the F-22. Japan's 
     defense ministry has studied the problem closely and has 
     produced a very impressive tactical rationale for buying the 
     F-22 if its sale is approved by the United States Congress.

  Only under the umbrella of air superiority that the Raptor provides 
can U.S. military endeavors succeed.
  Let me quote from another well-recognized individual, retired GEN 
Barry McCaffrey, on the need for adequate numbers of F-22s. This 
statement is about a year and a half old, but it is applicable today.

       There is no single greater priority for the coming 10 years 
     for the U.S. Air Force than funding, deploying, and 
     maintaining 350 F-22 Raptor aircraft to ensure air-to-air 
     total dominance of battlefield airspace in future contested 
     areas.
       The F-22 provides a national strategic stealth technology 
     to conduct--long-range (Cruises at high supersonic speed 
     without afterburner) penetration (at altitudes greater than 
     15 kilometers)--undetected into any nation's airspace at Mach 
     2-plus high speed--and then destroy key targets (aircraft or 
     missiles on the ground, radar, command and control, nuclear 
     stockpiled weapons, key leadership targets, etc)--and then 
     egress with minimal threat from any possible air-to-air or 
     air defense system. It cannot be defeated in air combat by 
     any known current or estimated future enemy aircraft.

  That is coming from a ground soldier, somebody who depends on that F-
22 and, heretofore on the F-15, to maintain air dominance and air 
superiority so the ground troops under his command can have the 
assurance in knowing that they can move freely without the threat of 
enemy aircraft.

[[Page 17607]]

  Without more than 187 aircraft, we are not going to be able to 
guarantee the foot soldier on the ground that capability. The F-22 
Raptor is in production and is operationally deployed around the world. 
Continued F-22 acquisition is low risk, as the aircraft has 
successfully completed its development program and passed a stringent 
set of real-world tests. By all measures, the F-22 is now a model 
program and continues to establish industry benchmarks for an aircraft 
production program.
  The F-22 program is on budget. The contractor team is currently 
delivering 20 F-22s per year under a 3-year multiyear program that was 
approved by Congress 3 years ago. The multiyear contact is firm, fixed 
price, meaning that the U.S. Government is buying a proven capability 
with no risk of cost growth. It is ahead of schedule. In 2008, every F-
22 delivery was ahead of contract schedule.
  This ahead-of-schedule performance continues into 2009. Since early 
2006, every F-22 has been delivered on or ahead of contract schedule. 
The contractor is producing a high-quality aircraft. In military 
aircraft production, the highest standard for quality is zero defect. A 
zero-defect aircraft is evaluated by the customer to be perfect in all 
respects. In 2008, nearly one-half of the F-22 deliveries were 
evaluated to be zero defect--an exceptionally high level of aircraft 
quality.
  Still to this day, no one can say for sure, with any analysis to back 
them up, that 187 F-22s is enough. The F-22 should be viewed in the 
collective as a tool in the toolbox.
  Detractors argue that the F-22 is single-purpose. Throughout history, 
we have been effective in adapting the tools we have to the needs we 
have. All one has to do is to look at what we are doing today with the 
B-52. That airplane is 50 years old--older than that; it may be 60 
years old. There was a point in time when we thought we would retire 
all of the B-52s. It is a bomber. What are we doing with the B-52 
today? Today, the B-52 is flying close air support for our troops in 
Afghanistan. The SSBNs are being used by our special operations men and 
women, and they are doing a very effective job.
  A general once said that the most tragic error a general can make is 
to assume, without much reflection, that wars of the future will look 
much like wars of the past. If we are going to pass a budget and 
develop a weapons system inventory that is based upon the wars of the 
past, then we are headed in the wrong direction. The war we are 
fighting today is entirely different from any conflict in which we have 
ever been engaged. We have been wrong every single time when it comes 
to predicting the next adversary we will have.
  Senator McCain mentioned the July 10 Washington Post article on the 
performance and maintainability of the F-22. Let me say that we know 
nothing appears on the front page of the Washington Post by accident, 
particularly the week before an important vote. I guess I ought to be 
flattered by the attention. But for the record, the same reporter who 
wrote that article on the day of an important hearing in relation to 
the F-22 multiyear contract in 2006 is the same author of the July 10 
article.
  The article in question bore absolutely no relation to the issues at 
stake. Nevertheless, it led to a new study on the savings that would be 
achieved through a multiyear contract, a study which was conducted at 
government expense. Despite the article's obvious attempts to obscure 
the facts and issues in the situation, that new study, done pursuant to 
request of this body, concluded that the multiyear contract would save 
twice as much as the previous study.
  Just briefly in relation to the Washington Post article, by close of 
business the day the article was published, the Air Force had already 
issued a rebuttal. It concluded that of the 23 claims in the article, 
only 4 were true, 4 were misleading, 10 were false, and 5 required 
greater explanation and context beyond what the Post article reported.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Air Force statement in 
rebuttal to the article in the Washington Post be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 17608]]

TS14JY09.001



[[Page 17609]]

TS14JY09.002



[[Page 17610]]

TS14JY09.003



[[Page 17611]]

TS14JY09.004



[[Page 17612]]

TS14JY09.005



[[Page 17613]]


  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Washington Post article is unique in some ways. I 
guess it may be SOP for articles that are somewhat vicious and where 
they contain as many errors as the Air Force has pointed out with the 
facts supporting the errors that were made; that is, the July 10 
Washington Post article was based upon unnamed sources. It was based 
upon a couple of folks who said they were fired either by the 
contractor or by the Air Force. We take that for what it is worth.
  One of the complaints cited in that article was the fact that there 
are problems with the skin on the F-22. Let me back up a minute and 
talk about the sophistication of this airplane. There is a problem with 
the skin. That has been a problem. What we have to remember is that we 
have never had an airplane that could fly with the capability that this 
airplane has, that could fly completely undetected, completely through 
any radar system of the most sophisticated nature of any potential 
adversary in the world. The reason this airplane can do that is because 
it is made of substance and material that is unique and different to 
this airplane, including the skin on the airplane. Are we going to have 
problems with something that is that unique and has never been used 
before on any tactical air fighter? You bet we are.
  The position of the folks who are in support of this amendment is 
that we ought to stop production of the F-22 and buy the F-35 at a 
faster rate. Even if we do that, if we have F-35s flying tomorrow, they 
are going to have exactly the same maintenance issues as the F-22. The 
F-22 is the model upon which the Joint Strike Fighter is based. So 
let's don't kid ourselves. We are not taking an airplane that costs X 
and substituting it with an airplane that costs half or three-quarters 
of X. That is not going to be the case. Mistakes have been made--
surely--but it is the first time we have ever had a weapons system like 
the F-22 manufactured by anybody in the world. From the mistakes we 
have learned. We are going to have a better F-35. But that F-35 is 
going to have the same skin problem. It is going to have the same 
weight problem the F-22 had, the F-15 had, the F-16 had, and probably 
every airplane we have ever developed. It is going to have the same 
maintenance issues we are having with the F-22 today.
  Although the article was wrong in one major area with respect to 
maintenance, the article says the maintenance of the airplane was 
having a success rate of 55 percent. That is wrong. As the Air Force 
points out, between 2004 and today, the successful maintenance rate on 
those airplanes has gone from 64 to 69 percent.
  The future of TACAIR for the United States likely does reside in the 
F-35 and not with the F-22. Even if we keep buying F-22s, it will never 
match the number of F-35s we will eventually buy. Everyone hopes, as I 
do, that the F-35 succeeds. But as the chair and the ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee themselves have stated, there is a good 
deal of risk in the F-35 program, and there is additional risk in what 
we need to put in place today when it comes to the lives of our men and 
women who are fighting our conflicts and who are flying these 
airplanes.
  The history of Defense programs, and aviation programs in particular, 
has been remarkably consistent, particularly when it comes to building 
programs that represent a leap in technology. They cost more. They take 
longer. They have more problems than we expect. GAO has criticized the 
F-35 approach, and they, as well as the leadership of our committee, 
have stated that not performing sufficient development testing before 
we proceed to procurement is one of the primary drivers for cost 
increases and schedule delays in major programs. That is exactly what 
is being proposed with respect to the F-35.
  I am a supporter of the F-35. We are going to build far more of them 
than we are F-22s. But I am not the only observer to state that we 
should think twice about staking the future of our TACAIR fleet on a 
program that has only five test aircraft flying today.
  I wish to talk briefly about the offsets included in our amendment 
which are in the mark used to fund the purchase of these additional 
seven F-22s. Senator Levin talked about the offset at length. I would 
like to respond to some of his comments. Most importantly, there is 
absolutely nothing in the offset we used and nothing that has not been 
used by the Senate Armed Services Committee or the chairman himself in 
previous bills.
  Just last year, Senator Levin reduced military personnel funding by 
$1.1 billion, which is significantly more than what my amendment 
reduced it by. For the MILPERS and O&M reductions in my amendment and 
the markup, in each case the amendment takes either less or 
approximately the same amount as the House Armed Services Committee 
bill did for this year. In every case, the amendment takes less than 
the GAO reported average under-execution/unobligated balances in those 
accounts. This includes the cuts the Senate Armed Services Committee 
already took in their mark.
  The SASC bill itself notes that GAO estimates that DOD has $1.2 
billion in unobligated O&M balances and $588 million under-execution in 
the Air Force civ pay accounts. This is from actual language in the 
Senate report.
  In the civilian personnel area, the GAO reports conclude that more 
funding is available than what my amendment takes. The GAO report takes 
into account the expansion of acquisition personnel who will be hired 
this year.
  Regarding MILPERS, GAO analysis suggests that there is on average $1 
billion available. My amendment leaves a balance of $200 million in 
that account.
  The chairman also commented on the provision in my amendment that 
assumes savings based on acquisition reform legislation authored by 
Senators Levin and McCain. Let me say that my inspiration for this 
particular offset was Senators Levin and McCain. I thought they did a 
great job with that bill. I hope we can continue to improve it because 
it is an area where we have to work harder to avoid wasteful spending.
  The chairman included a nearly identical provision as mine in S. 
1416, which was the Senate version of the fiscal year 2002 Defense 
authorization bill. That bill assumed a savings of $1.6 billion based 
on acquisition reform bills and the SASC bill for that year. However, 
unlike my provision, which assumes savings already in law because of 
passage of the Levin-McCain bill, savings assumed by the chairman were 
based on provisions that were not yet enacted and, based on the 
conference process, may never have been enacted. Based on inflation and 
large increases in the DOD budget since then, that is probably the 
equivalent of $2 to $2.5 billion today. In any case, this is a 
tremendous amount of savings, and my amendment would assume far less. 
The offset is based upon predicted savings in the fiscal year 2010 
budget based on recently passed acquisition reform legislation such as 
the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, Public Law 111-23, also the 
business process reengineering provision in the SASC mark and other 
management efficiencies and business process reforms.
  Senators McCain and Levin and President Obama are correct. Savings 
from this acquisition reform measure could greatly exceed that number, 
because in their press conference after the successful passage of that 
bill, they all three talked about the tremendous savings. I agree with 
them. That is going to happen. That is what we used as part of our 
offset.
  I want to end where I started, by agreeing with John Hamre. John 
Hamre says:

       Congress can and should legitimately question spending 
     priorities.
       Not only is it appropriate but necessary for the Congress 
     to pass final judgment on this question.
       Secretary Gates has rendered his judgment. . . . But it is 
     the duty and obligation of members of Congress to question 
     his recommendations [and his analysis].

  There is absolutely nothing unique or in the least bit wrong about 
what we are doing. Not to do so would be to abdicate the role with 
which the Constitution and the American people have entrusted us. If 
President Obama believes the additional funding for these

[[Page 17614]]

F-22s warrants a veto threat, even though that funding addresses an 
unmet military requirement, then that is his decision. Our job in 
Congress, as John Hamre has indicated, is to look at the facts, weigh 
the risks, and render the judgment. That is our role--our independent 
role--in the process, and we should accept it and use our best judgment 
to decide what is right for the Nation.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to make a 
quick response to the remarks of Senator Chambliss concerning the F-22 
and a couple of remarks about what I understand is going to be next on 
the agenda which will be proposed by the majority leader, which is a 
hate crimes bill, which is very difficult for me to understand.
  Senator Chambliss very appropriately pointed out that many times when 
we put together an authorization bill, we find offsets, as we call 
them--ways of paying for whatever item we want to add in the 
authorization bill. But I think it is important for us to point out 
that the Chambliss amendment during the markup, while putting this bill 
together, provided $1.75 billion for F-22 procurement. It took funds 
from presumed unobligated balances of several accounts. In all candor, 
they were unjustified assumptions.
  The amendment cut $850 million from O&M accounts, which is operations 
and maintenance. That means the operating, the maintenance, the 
equipping, the replacement of very much needed parts and supplies that 
provide for the readiness of our troops, enabling them to stay ready 
for today's conflicts and for tomorrow's challenges. The account also 
covers day-to-day costs of the Department. This includes items such as 
training, maintenance of ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, recruiting, 
education support, procurement of general supplies and equipment, and 
repairs and maintenance of Department of Defense facilities.
  Our military is engaged around the world. It is irresponsible to cut 
the resources they rely on to prepare successfully for their mission to 
protect the United States and its security interests worldwide. We owe 
it to our military to provide them with every resource. Based on 
historical data, the reductions that are in the Chambliss amendment to 
pay for the additional $1.75 billion would affect the following areas: 
Army's training and operating tempo, including training additional 
helicopter crews for irregular warfare missions; Navy's depot 
maintenance for surface ships; Air Force's depot maintenance and 
contractor logistical support for critical aircraft and unmanned 
vehicles; and the special operations command missions support and 
training of its forces.
  Furthermore, a reduction of this magnitude would affect the 
Secretary's initiatives to hire and train additional acquisition 
professionals needed to improve the Department's ability to contract, 
develop, and procure weapon systems and to replace contractors with 
Federal employees, thereby reducing the $1.2 billion in savings that is 
reflected in the budget.
  In addition, these accounts will have to absorb the increased cost of 
fuel that has occurred since the budget was submitted and additional 
civilian pay raises. That assumes the Congress sets the civilian pay 
raises at the same level as the military pay raise of 3.4 percent.
  The other two ``offsets'' are $400 million from military personnel 
funding. Much of the funding in the military personnel accounts is 
entitlement driven. Thus, there is limited flexibility to absorb these 
reductions without affecting the readiness of U.S. forces. These 
reductions will directly translate into cuts to recruiting and 
retention bonuses incentives and other important programs such as 
covering the cost to move members and their families to new 
assignments. It will affect unit readiness by hindering the services' 
ability to meet end strength goals and fully staff operational units 
with critical personnel prior to deployment. If Congress sustains these 
reductions, the services will need to submit a reprogramming action to 
make sure our military forces are fully supported.
  Finally, the Senator from Georgia assumes $500 million in first-year 
savings from the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which he 
referred to in his remarks. I am very proud to have worked under the 
leadership of Senator Levin and together coming up with a very 
important piece of legislation, strongly supported by the President and 
the Secretary of Defense, to reform the way we acquire weapon systems. 
The cost overruns have been outrageous, as we know, throughout the past 
few years. But there is no one--no one in our wildest imagination--who 
believes that in the first year of acquisition reform we will save $500 
million. I would love to see that happen. I would love to see pigs fly. 
But we are not going to save $500 million in the first year of a piece 
of legislation that has not been implemented and would not be for some 
period of time.
  So I am very flattered by the reliance of Senator Chambliss on $500 
million in savings from the legislation we recently passed through the 
Congress and that has been signed by the President of the United 
States, but in all due respect, it is totally unrealistic. So what we 
are really doing is adding $1.75 billion and not accounting for ways to 
reduce spending or impose savings in any other way.
  But I also understand and appreciate the passion, commitment, 
knowledge, and contributions of Senator Chambliss of Georgia. There is 
no more valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We simply 
have an honest disagreement on this issue. I appreciate the many 
qualities of the F-22 aircraft and the enormous contribution it makes 
to our Nation's security, but the fact is, we don't need any more of 
them. That comes from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the 
Air Force, and others involved in these issues for a long period of 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will perhaps come back later to speak on 
the F-22 and the work my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, 
have done. But I want to speak about another amendment I have offered 
that I hope might gain acceptance as we move forward, and that is an 
amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would require 
contracting officials in the Pentagon to take into account evidence of 
bad past performance by a contractor when deciding who should get 
future contracts.
  You might think that contracting officials would already be required 
to take past performance into account. But the fact is, that is not now 
required over in the Pentagon. I want to go through some thoughts with 
you about this issue very quickly.
  I have held 19 hearings on contractor waste, fraud, and abuse. I have 
to say, going back some years now, we have had the greatest amount of 
waste and fraud and abuse by contractors than we have seen in the 
history of this country. Let me give you some examples.
  Shown on this chart is a man named Efraim Diveroli, 22 years old. Oh, 
by the way, he is the CEO of a company. That is right, the president 
and CEO of a company. The company is a shell company his father used to 
have. But he took it over, and he hired a vice president, as a matter 
of fact. The vice president's name is David Packouz, 25 years old, the 
former vice president of the company. He is a massage therapist. So 
this is a company in Miami, FL, that does business out of an unmarked 
door. Through the best evidence, there are only two employees--a 22-
year-old president and a 25-year-old massage therapist who is the vice 
president. Well, guess what. These two guys got $300 million in 
contracts from the U.S. Government. Can you imagine, $300 million in 
contracts from the Pentagon?
  There have been arrests in this case. But the question is, Why? I 
called a three-star general to my office to say: How on Earth could you 
have done that? How could you possibly have done that? Did you not 
check?
  I checked. These guys also had some small contracts with the State 
Department which turned out to be bad contracts. But they could have at 
least

[[Page 17615]]

done a small amount of checking before committing $300 million of the 
American taxpayers' money. What they did for that money was ship a 
bunch of shoddy products over to Afghanistan to the military, bullets 
and guns that were dated from the 1960s. That is one of the reasons 
this company and these fellows ran afoul of the law. But the question 
is, How did all this happen?
  This guy, as shown in this picture, with a striped shirt is named 
Frank Willis. This is he, in the striped shirt. He is holding a Saran-
wrapped pack of money. This is part of a couple million dollars that 
went to a company called Custer Battles. This is he, by the way, in 
Iraq. He said: Our motto was, You bring a bag because we pay cash. He 
is talking about defense contracting.
  Custer Battles is alleged to have taken--they were going to provide 
security for the Baghdad Airport, which had no commercial airplanes 
flying in and out. It was alleged they took the forklift trucks off the 
airport and put them in some sort of machine shed and repainted them 
blue and then sold them to the Coalition Provisional Authority. So you 
bring a bag because we pay cash, it was said.
  Here is what the guy over at the Baghdad Airport said. I am just 
telling you all this because I held 19 hearings. I have done 19 of 
them. Here is what the guy who is the airport director of security said 
in a memo to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Here is what he said 
about Custer Battles, which was given the contract. They got over $100 
million in contracts.

       Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
     uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war 
     profiteers. Other than that they are swell fellows.

  Think of it. So what do we think of these contractors? They got a lot 
of the taxpayers' money.
  This is a picture of Cheryl Harris with her son Ryan Maseth, a Green 
Beret, Special Forces. Ryan, unfortunately, tragically was killed in 
Iraq--no, he was not shot by some insurgent; he was electrocuted in the 
shower. His mother Cheryl was told that they thought maybe he went into 
the shower carrying a radio and therefore was electrocuted. It turns 
out that was not the case at all. The fact is, he took a shower in a 
place where the wiring had been done improperly. Why? Because Kellogg, 
Brown, and Root, which was paid to do the wiring, hired third-country 
nationals in most cases who could not speak English and did not know 
the wiring codes, and they wired up a shower and this poor soldier lost 
his life because he was electrocuted in the shower.
  I held hearings about that. Eric Peters, who was working in Iraq as 
an electrician, said: Third-country nationals performed the majority of 
KBR's electrical work. Most have absolutely no knowledge of the 
National Electric Code or British Standards, and the quality of their 
work reflects that. Much of this work is not clearly inspected by 
licensed electricians. I personally have refused to sign off on work 
they have performed because I knew it was not up to code. That is what 
we paid for, and some soldiers have lost their lives.
  This list goes on and on and on.
  Eric Peters, a brave soul who worked in Iraq to do electrical work, 
worked for KBR. He came back and testified: I concluded that KBR was 
not capable of performing quality, legal, electric installations in 
Iraq. I worried every day that people would be seriously injured or 
killed by this defective work.
  The reason I want to tell you about this is, not only have soldiers 
lost their lives, but the task orders for which that work was done 
resulted in award fees, bonus fees, to the company that did shoddy 
work.
  As a result of my hearing, they sent a task force over to investigate 
all of the buildings in Iraq. The fact is, we have testimony and 
evidence that there was a massive amount of wiring that was done 
improperly that put soldiers at risk. Yet the Pentagon provided award 
fees, which are fees designed only for excellent performance, of $83 
million of the taxpayers' money to a company that did shoddy work; work 
sufficient so we had to come back around and do what is called, I 
believe, a corrective action request order, where you had to go back 
and inspect everything and redo the work. The question is, How is all 
this going on?
  Let me describe the story of Bunny Greenhouse. A lot of people do not 
know Bunny Greenhouse. What an extraordinary person she is. She grew up 
in southern Louisiana in a family who had nothing. Two in their family 
teach college. Her brother is Elvin Hayes, one of the top 50 basketball 
players of all time. Bunny Greenhouse has a couple of master's degrees, 
is very well educated, and rose to become the highest civilian in the 
Corps of Engineers over in the Pentagon. Here is what she testified to 
with respect to some of the contracting that went on. She lost her job 
as a result of having the courage to speak publicly.

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to 
     contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and 
     improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of 
     my professional career.

  For that, she lost her job.
  It is not just KBR. I mentioned Custer Battles, Efraim Diveroli. How 
about Parsons Corporation?
  This, by the way, is a photograph every American should remember when 
you talk about waste and fraud and abuse. This is called ``The Whale.'' 
This picture is a picture of a prison in Iraq that was never completed 
and will never be used. Mr. President, $31 million was paid to the 
Parsons Corporation for building a prison the Iraqis said they did not 
want and would not use. The $31 million was colossally wasted in 
unbelievably bad construction. That is after this same company was 
given a couple hundred million dollars to rehabilitate 140 health 
clinics in Iraq, and we were told later that most of those health 
clinics are imaginary, quote/unquote. They do not exist. Well, the 
money is gone. The $200 million is gone. But the health clinics are 
imaginary.
  Well, the same company was contracted to build the prison in Iraq. It 
is called the Kahn Bani Sa'ad prison, but it is referred to as ``The 
Whale.'' Here is what it looks like, as shown in this picture. We spent 
$40 million. The first $31 million was paid to Parsons. Another $9 
million was paid to an Iraqi contractor. And here it sits in the 
desert, never ever to be used, paid for by the American taxpayer, and 
paid to contractors who did shoddy work and were kicked off the site.
  The question is, What do we do about all that?
  I have proposed an amendment that is pretty simple. It is 
interesting. There is currently no requirement that contracting 
officials over in the DOD have to take into account shoddy work 
practices or shoddy performances by contractors. There is a requirement 
they take into account criminal actions, civil fines, that are leveled 
against contractors. But there is no requirement they must consider bad 
past performance. It is unbelievable, but it is true.
  I offer an amendment that says, Do you know what, the time is past 
when bad performance by big contractors gets you a slap on the wrist 
and a pat on the back and another contract. It is time--long past the 
time--we put an end to this.
  I know my colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, feel strongly 
about this issue as well. I appreciate the work they have done. All of 
us need to do everything we can to assure the American taxpayers they 
are getting their money's worth. Defense is something we invest in for 
this country. It is very important.
  As I conclude, I want to say this: I put together a chart, and I am 
going to speak about it in the next day or two. But it relates to this 
question of the F-22. This chart shows Federal budget deficits. We are 
on an unsustainable path. It is not a Republican path or a Democratic 
path. It is just an unsustainable path that cannot work for this 
country's future.
  Take a look at this chart. Here is the middle of a deep recession, 
$1.9 trillion in deficits, and then it gets a little better, and then 
goes back down.
  We are on an unsustainable path, and it does not matter what you are 
talking about, whether you are talking

[[Page 17616]]

about an airplane or some other area of Federal budget responsibility. 
We finally have to decide: Things have changed. We have to invest in 
things that provide dividends for this country's future. We cannot 
continue to spend money we do not have on things we do not need. That 
is not a sustainable course for this country.
  So I will speak more about these issues, including the F-22, at some 
other point. But let me thank my colleague, Senator Levin, and my 
colleague, Senator McCain as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, let me thank Senator Dorgan 
for his extraordinary work in the area of waste, fraud, and abuse, not 
just in the area of the Department of Defense but in so many other 
areas as well. He is surely a foremost leader in this institution in 
this effort, and the oversight work he has been able to do is surely 
cutting-edge with the kind of leadership he has undertaken. We 
appreciate it. We need it. We need more of it. We are grateful for it. 
Every taxpayer in America ought to be grateful to Senator Dorgan.
  Mr. President, let me urge Members who are going to be speaking on 
the F-22 to let us know and come to the floor because we are hopeful to 
conclude this debate no later than early tomorrow morning and to bring 
it to a vote. We are making every effort to see if we can agree on 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just for a minute, because I know 
colleagues are waiting, it is my understanding that following the 
disposition of this amendment, which we hope would happen tomorrow 
morning, the majority leader will move to take up a hate crimes bill. 
The hate crimes bill is, to say the least, a very controversial piece 
of legislation and may deserve the debate and discussion of the Members 
of this body. But the fact is, it has nothing to do with the Department 
of Defense authorization bill. What the Defense authorization bill has 
a lot to do with is the training, equipping, taking care of 
reenlistment and retention, and all of the things necessary to defend 
our Nation's national security.
  We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and we need to pass this 
legislation. So the majority leader's priority is a hate crimes bill--a 
hate crimes bill which has nothing to do with the Defense 
authorization. I hope if the majority leader does that, it will be the 
last time he will ever complain about an unrelated amendment being 
brought up by this side of the aisle.
  Look, there are important amendments that need to be debated and 
considered on this legislation. This has to do with the defense of this 
Nation. So what are we going to do? We are going to tie up the Senate 
for a number of days. For a number of days we are going to tie up the 
Senate on a totally unrelated, very controversial, very emotional issue 
that has nothing to do with defending this Nation.
  So I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I urge the 
distinguished chairman, I urge the majority leader, let's move forward 
with addressing the defense needs of this country, save the hate crimes 
bill for another day, and do what is necessary for the men and women in 
our military rather than putting an agenda item that has nothing to do 
with defense next before this body.
  I predict again that when this bill comes up, if the hate crimes bill 
is proposed by the majority leader and agreed to by the distinguished 
chairman, it will lead to a great deal of controversy and unnecessary 
debate and discussion on a defense bill. If the majority leader, who 
controls the agenda, wants to bring up a hate crimes bill, I would 
imagine he would be able to bring it up on his own. Instead, he wants 
to stick it on to the bill that the men and women who are serving in 
our military and are in harm's way today are depending on. It is not 
right. It is not the right thing to do.
  I hope the majority leader and the chairman of the committee will 
reconsider their position and wait and bring up a hate crimes bill as a 
separate piece of legislation for deliberation and discussion and vote 
from this body and not tie it to the Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another amendment I 
have filed that is at the desk, but I know there is a pending 
amendment, so I suppose I should ask to speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1528

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment I rise to speak about is 
numbered 1528. I am hopeful before too long it will be the pending 
business. I know it has now, and I believe it will, enjoy broad 
bipartisan support.
  This amendment would increase the authorization for the Active-Duty 
end strength of the U.S. Army over the next 3 years by 30,000 
additional soldiers. I wish to say right at the outset it is an 
authorization; it is not an appropriation. It says within its terms 
that it is contingent on a decision by the Secretary of Defense that he 
chooses to fill these positions, and if he does, then he has two major 
options.
  One is to reprogram from other funds under his control to support 
these additional troops, and the second, of course, is to return to 
Congress for a supplemental appropriation.
  In my opinion, for all we have said and done in expression of our 
concern about the stress the members of the U.S. Army are feeling and 
their families are feeling, based on the fact that they are carrying 
the overwhelming burden of the wars in which we are involved in Iraq 
and Afghanistan--we have done a lot to improve living conditions, to 
offer more support for physical and mental health services, to provide 
better housing for families, but this is about how much time the 
soldiers can be back at their home bases and back with their families. 
I will get to this in detail as we go on.
  Last month, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees voted to 
give the Secretary of Defense the authority to increase the Army's end 
strength by an additional 30,000 soldiers for fiscal years 2011 and 
2012 but not 2010, for reasons that I will describe as somewhat arcane. 
This new authorization will provide the Secretary of Defense with the 
ability to increase the size of the Army to the extent he thinks it is 
necessary for the national defense or for other purposes such as 
reducing the stress to which I have referred on our troops today.
  I was privileged to introduce the amendment along with Senator Thune, 
my ranking member on the Airland Subcommittee, during the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, as well as Senator Graham, to provide this 
authorization, and I am glad to be joined in introducing this amendment 
No. 1528 with my bipartisan group, including the two formerly mentioned 
Senators, and others.
  This amendment would extend this authorization where it logically 
must begin to fiscal year 2010 beginning on October 1 of this year, 
2009. We introduced this amendment because it will provide our soldiers 
with the reinforcements they will need to execute the missions we as a 
nation have sent them on. Indeed, our soldiers will be under even more 
stress in the coming months because of this fact. As we begin the 
responsible strategy for drawdown in Iraq based on the extraordinary 
success of our troops and the Iraqis in turning around the war in Iraq, 
we are also deploying additional soldiers under the direction of our 
Commander in Chief, President Obama, to Afghanistan at an even faster 
pace than they are returning home.
  GEN George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, warned us in the Armed 
Services Committee earlier this year that the effect of these two 
facts--a slow and methodical drawdown in Iraq of our Armed Forces, 
Army, and an increase in deployment to Afghanistan--means that the 
total number of soldiers deployed to combat will be increasing through 
the rest of this calendar year and into the next.

[[Page 17617]]

  As General Casey said to us, this matter of dwell time, which I will 
speak about in more detail in a moment, is a matter of supply and 
demand: How many soldiers do we have, and what is the demand for them 
in the battle zones, the war zones.
  GEN James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
recently confirmed the critical challenges the U.S. Army will face in 
the near term and the importance of increasing Army Active Duty end 
strength. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee just last 
week, General Cartwright said:

       There is that period of 2010 and 2011 in particular where 
     that stress is going to be there. During 2010 because of 
     execution, and in 2011 because [units will be] coming back, 
     refilling and trying to retrofit. You're going to have stress 
     on the Army in a significant way.

  And I add, stress on the Army means stress on the families of those 
who serve us in the Army.
  General Cartwright continued by stating that the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff are working with the Army to find a range for growth that would 
reduce this strain on the service. ``We have looked at this, we have 
worked in a range''--and I add here of increasing Army Active Duty--
``from about 15,000 to 25,000 . . . 30,000 would give us the range in 
which to work to allow us to do that.''
  That is exactly what this amendment would do, give the Secretary of 
Defense, the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of the Army the latitude 
to increase the Army temporarily by as much as 30,000. Why? To increase 
the dwell time. That is the time our troops can spend at home and, 
thereby, reduce the stress in a most significant way imaginable.
  I deeply appreciate that General Cartwright would speak so clearly 
about the Army's requirements of additional soldiers in the coming 
months and how hard he and Secretary Gates are working to support our 
troops. I believe it is our duty to make sure they have all the 
authority required to do so.
  Let me speak more about what dwell time is. Dwell time is time 
soldiers have between Active Duty deployments, time they spend 
recovering and preparing for their next deployment and, most 
significant to our soldiers, I would guess, precious time they can 
spend at home with their families. This dwell time ratio for many of 
our soldiers today is little more than 1 to 1, which means they have 
but 1 year at home for every year they spend in the theater. Everyone 
agrees--everyone agrees--that this dwell time is absolutely 
unacceptable. It may also be unsustainable.
  When General Casey testified before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee earlier this year, he said it is his goal to get to a point 
where we have at least 2 years back home for every year our soldiers 
spend deployed. In fact, he said his ultimate goal at which he believes 
the Army would be most effective would be to have 3 years at home for 
every year in the field.
  General Casey hopes that a responsible drawdown from Iraq will allow 
him to achieve that goal. I share the general's hopes. But, frankly, I 
do not believe we can bet the well-being of our Army on them without 
providing authority to the Army and the Secretary of Defense to expand 
the troops to reach those dwell-time goals of at least 2 to 1 about 
which General Casey talked.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, told our committee 
this year that the ``light at the end of the tunnel'' is still more 
than 2 years away for the Army, and that is only if everything goes 
according to plan in Iraq. I believe that 2 years is too long to wait, 
especially when we can take steps now to turn on the light, if you 
will, to provide our soldiers with the reinforcements and relief they 
need.
  I think it is important for my colleagues to know this amendment has 
the strong support of many of our soldiers and those organizations that 
fight for them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
two letters, one from GEN Gordon Sullivan, president of the Association 
of the U.S. Army, and, second, from ADM Norbert Ryan, writing on behalf 
of the Military Officers Association of America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Association of


                                       the United States Army,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 13, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of the more than 100,000 
     members of the Association of the United States Army, I want 
     to thank you for your floor amendment to S. 1390, the FY 2010 
     Defense Authorization Act, which would provide authority to 
     increase Army active-duty end strengths for fiscal years 2010 
     through 2012.
       As you know, the troop increases in Afghanistan will 
     precede decreases in Iraq, causing the number of deployed 
     soldiers to increase into next year. The Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to Congress that it will be 
     difficult to increase dwell time at home over the next 18 to 
     24 months with our current end strength. Factor in the more 
     than 30,000 soldiers who are on the rolls but not deployable, 
     and it's obvious what a strain that would be to our current 
     troop levels. You get this, and I hope your floor amendment 
     will help your fellow Senators see it, too.
       The Army is in dire need of sufficient troops to increase 
     dwell time for active duty soldiers, increase support for 
     operational missions, and help the Army achieve 
     reorganization objectives. Thanks to your recognition of this 
     gap in end strength planning, we have a chance at giving the 
     Army the resources our Soldiers deserve.
       We say that we want to ease the stress and strain on 
     soldiers and their families, and now is the time to do the 
     one thing that will provide immediate relief. Your actions to 
     make this a reality show that you are a true ally to the 
     Armed Forces. Thank you for introducing the Lieberman 
     Amendment to S. 1390 which will authorize the Army to 
     increase its size now, I hope that your fellow Senators also 
     lend their support to your worthy cause.
           Sincerely,
                                               Gordon R. Sullivan,
     General, USA Retired.
                                  ____

                                                 Military Officers


                                       Association of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2009.
     Hon. Joe Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of the 370,000 members of 
     the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am 
     writing to express MOAA's strong support for your proposed 
     FY2010 Defense Authorization Act amendment that would 
     authorize an additional 30,000 end strength increase for the 
     Army in FY2010.
       Today's combat forces and their families are paying a 
     terrible price in family separation and stress for our past 
     failure to grow our armed forces at a pace sufficient to 
     accommodate the extraordinary wartime deployment requirements 
     of the past seven years.
       For years, we have relied on the patriotism, dedication, 
     and resilience of our men and women in uniform to bear 100% 
     of the nation's wartime sacrifice. But with thousands 
     experiencing their third or fourth combat tour since 2001 and 
     the prospect of a decade of persistent conflict ahead, 
     reasonable leaders must take responsible action to ease the 
     extreme strain our military members and families have been 
     required to absorb for so long.
       Your amendment recognizes that the only way to do so in the 
     face of increasing deployment requirements in the near term 
     is to authorize a substantial increase in Army end strength 
     for FY2010.
       MOAA applauds your strong and persistent leadership in 
     pursuing this important personnel readiness initiative, and 
     we pledge to do all we can to ensure it is sustained in the 
     final defense bill.
           Sincerely and with deep gratitude for your leadership,
                                                     Norbert Ryan.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, General Sullivan is a retired former 
Chief of the U.S. Army, a great American soldier. I quote, briefly, 
from his letter to me about this amendment supporting the amendment:

       As you know, the troop increases in Afghanistan will 
     precede decreases in Iraq, causing the number of deployed 
     soldiers to increase into next year. The Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to Congress that it will be 
     difficult to increase dwell time at home over the next 18 to 
     24 months within our current end strength. Factor in the more 
     than 30,000 soldiers who are on the rolls but not deployable, 
     and it's obvious what a strain that would be to our current 
     troop levels. . . . I hope your floor amendment [and the 
     debate of it] will help your fellow Senators see [that].
       The Army is in dire need of sufficient troops to increase 
     dwell time for active duty soldiers, increase support for 
     operational missions, and help the Army achieve 
     reorganization objectives.


[[Page 17618]]


  He concludes:

       We say that we want to ease the stress and strain on 
     soldiers and their families, and now is the time to do the 
     one thing that will provide immediate relief.

  And that is to increase the authorization of the U.S. Army end 
strength as the number of troops it can have actively deployed by 
30,000 and to fill that 30,000 increase.
  Second, Admiral Ryan, another distinguished servant of the United 
States, a patriot, says:

       On behalf . . . of the Military Officers Association of 
     America . . . Today's combat forces and their families are 
     paying a terrible price.

  This is a very personal letter. I will start again.

       Today's combat forces and their families are paying a 
     terrible price in family separation and stress for our past 
     failure to grow our armed forces at a pace sufficient to 
     accommodate the extraordinary wartime deployment requirements 
     of the past seven years.
       For years, we have relied on the patriotism, dedication, 
     and resilience of our men and women in uniform to bear 100 
     percent of the Nation's wartime sacrifice. But with thousands 
     experiencing their third or fourth combat tour since 2001 and 
     the prospect of a decade of persistent conflict ahead, 
     reasonable leaders must take responsible action to ease the 
     extreme strain our military members and families have been 
     required to absorb for so long.

  And then he says:

       [This] amendment recognizes that the only way to do so in 
     the face of increasing deployment requirements in the near 
     term is to authorize a substantial increase in Army end 
     strength for FY2010.

  That is exactly what this amendment would do. The authority provided 
in the amendment is temporary in nature and will expire in 2012. We 
hope and pray that by that time, we will be able to return the Army end 
strength to 547,000. If Congress increases the end strength of the Army 
now, as this amendment would authorize, we would be able to reevaluate 
that judgment as conditions on the ground and in the world justify.
  I say, in conclusion, again, there is no money attached to this 
amendment. This gives authority to the Defense Department to raise the 
Army end strength, the number of troops on Active Duty by 30,000. If 
Secretary Gates decides, in his judgment, it is necessary to do in our 
national interest, then he will either have to come back and ask us for 
the money to do so or he will reprogram funds that are now under his 
control.
  I ask my colleagues for their support when this amendment comes up, 
and I hope it comes up soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Community College Initiative

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Obama was in Warren, MI, 
today, and a little while ago he made an announcement. He announced a 
new $12 billion national community college initiative. That sounds very 
good at first. As a former Governor and Secretary of Education for the 
United States, I am a big fan of community colleges. I think they are 
our secret weapon for helping men and women in this country go from one 
job to the next and to improve our workforce.
  But I respectfully suggest that what the President, his Education 
Secretary and his economic advisers--and I think his Education 
Secretary may be his very best appointee of all--I say this with 
respect, I think they ought to be asked to stay after school at the 
community college and write on the blackboard 100 times that in a year 
in which we have run the Federal deficit up by another $1.8 trillion, I 
will never again add another penny to entitlement mandatory spending. 
Then I think we in the Congress, as we legislate this year, ought to do 
some truth in lending. To do that, we would have to put a little card 
with every 1 of the 15 million student loans, if the President's 
proposal goes through, and say: The interest you are paying on the 
money you are borrowing is almost all being used to pay for somebody 
else's scholarship in the President's community college initiative.
  I think it is important to say that because, as good as it sounds to 
say: Let's help the community colleges, I am afraid this is a familiar 
refrain we have been hearing from the White House for the last 6 
months. Instead of reducing entitlement spending the President is again 
adding to mandatory spending. Entitlement spending, which is driving up 
our debt to unbelievable numbers, a situation where the President's 
proposal for the next 10 years is more new debt than we spent, three 
times as much money as we spent in World War II. This is one more 
Washington takeover, in addition to banks and insurance companies and 
car companies and maybe health care. It is now the student loans of the 
country.
  It also changes the way we fund higher education, which is usually to 
take almost all our money and give it to students in Pell grants and 
student loans and let them choose the college, rather than to give 
grants the way we do with K-12.
  Let me take a few minutes to explain why I am saying this. The idea 
the President has is to spend $2.5 billion for community college 
facilities, buildings. Every State has community colleges. One of our 
major jobs as governors and state legislators is to fund those 
community colleges. Traditionally, the Federal Government gives 
scholarships, and the Pell grants often pay for almost the entire 
tuition at a community college, making them very important to American 
students. But this moves the Federal Government into construction and 
renovation of community colleges, as well as $9 billion for competitive 
challenge college grants to increase graduation rates and $500 million 
for online curriculum. So the choice is, instead of more money for Pell 
grants and administration of student loans, we are going to spend it on 
direct grants to some community colleges. In other words, we are going 
to start funding higher education, community colleges, in the way we 
fund kindergarten through the 12th grade.
  Despite the fact that higher education is by far the best in the 
world, the most admired system--and one reason is because we don't have 
a lot of Federal direct programs for it; we give the money to students, 
they choose the school--we are going to start doing it more like K-12, 
which is not the most admired system in the world.
  The $12 billion would be paid for out of savings from the regular 
student loan program we have now because under the President's plan all 
new student loans would go through the U.S. Department of Education. So 
let's take that idea first.
  We have about $75 billion in student loans every year. That is a huge 
bank. Fifteen million students borrow money for student loans. Twelve 
million of them borrow through 2,000 different institutions--banks--and 
spend the money at 4,000 institutions of higher education. Three 
million choose to go through the government, where they get a direct 
loan directly from the government.
  I was the Secretary of Education when this program was created. I 
didn't see any reason for the Direct Loan Program because I didn't 
think the U.S. Department of Education ought to be a bank. I thought 
the Secretary of Education ought to be trying to be the educator of the 
year, not the banker of the year. But the argument is, well, we can 
borrow money more cheaply in the government. We can borrow it for a 
quarter of 1 percent and then we can loan it out at 6.8 percent to 
students. Banks can't do that. So we will do it, and we will take it 
over and do it all here. We will do all 15 million loans from the U.S. 
Department of Education. We will be the banker of the year.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government is getting real busy. This is 
becoming the national headquarters for automobiles, where we own 60 
percent of General Motors; we are running a bunch of banks; we run some 
insurance companies; we are talking about a government-run health care 
program; and now we are going to take over and make a huge national 
bank out of the U.S. Department of Education. The reason is because we 
can borrow money more cheaply here.

[[Page 17619]]

  Well, why don't we just abolish all the financial institutions in 
America and say: We can borrow money more cheaply than you can, so you 
go away and we will do it all.
  That is not the American way. In fact, most Americans would like to 
get the government out of the car business, out of the banking 
business, and out of the insurance business. I can guarantee you that 
as soon as 15 million students start lining up outside the U.S. 
Department of Education to get their student loans, instead of going 
through their local banks and dealing with their local universities, 
they are not going to be very happy about this either because they have 
had a choice for nearly 20 years, and they have chosen to go to their 
private lenders.
  So that is the first problem. We are canceling the choice that 12 
million students are exercising this year to get a federally backed 
student loan from a bank even though they could have gotten a student 
loan directly from the government.
  Then we are saying: All right, because we are canceling that, we are 
saving $94 billion and we have money to spend. Well, in the first 
place, that is not right, Mr. President. By my calculation, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office estimate of what it costs to operate 
the current Direct Loan Program, it will cost about $32 billion over 
the next 10 years, at least, to operate the entire student loan program 
out of the U.S. Department of Education.
  My common sense tells me--and I have thought this for years--that 
there is not any way a group of educators in the Department of 
Education--a relatively small department--are going to operate more 
efficiently than banking institutions across America in making loans. 
That is not their business. They know about scholarships and graduation 
rates, not about being bankers. My common sense tells me that, and I 
think it does most Americans. Plus, we have a free market system, or at 
least we did, where we try to get things out of government, not into 
government.
  So that is the proposal. Yet 32 billion of the dollars over the next 
10 years are illusory savings, so we are really adding to the debt. 
Then the President is saying, well, let's take some of that $90 billion 
as mandatory spending. I know this gets a little complicated, but it is 
really not that complicated. He is saying the money we now spend to pay 
the costs to the government of loaning out this $75 billion every year 
is automatic mandatory spending, so let's take it away from how we now 
spend it on the administration with banks, and let's spend it instead 
on mandatory spending for community colleges.
  In other words, he has an opportunity to say let's take away some 
money that is being automatically spent every year and save it. Let's 
save it. Or he could say, let's put it for students. But I think most 
of us would say--and he has said in his summit on entitlement 
spending--that we need to stop adding entitlement spending. But that is 
not what he is doing.
  Indeed, his other proposal--which is not announced today but is the 
rest of his proposal--is to say we have this $94 billion--which I think 
is closer to $60 billion or $50 billion--that we could save, and he is 
going to say we will make Pell grants entitlement spending. Well, Pell 
grants are terrific grants. There are 5 million of them. We appropriate 
them every year for low-income students. There was $19 billion 
appropriated for that purpose last year. The Congress has always been 
enormously generous with that. We appropriate a certain amount. It is 
almost automatic, but it is not automatic.
  In other words, we appropriate what we think we can afford, and then 
we spend it on the students who need it. This proposal to shift Pell 
grants to mandatory says it doesn't matter what we can afford, we are 
just going to do it. Again, it is exactly the kind of thing that most 
economists, most Americans, and the President himself has said we need 
to stop doing. Yet in the full light of day, we are saying and 
announcing that we are going to create a community college program, and 
later a Pell grant program, and we are going to pay for it with 
mandatory automatic entitlement spending.
  While the President says it is $94 billion that could be saved over 
10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said it is $293 billion--
nearly $300 billion--in automatic spending over 10 years that we could 
avoid. Yet the President is saying we should spend it. I am very 
disappointed with that.
  Then here is the last point I would like to emphasize--well, there 
are two points really. The President is saying: I am here today to do a 
favor for you. I am going to spend $12 billion on community colleges. 
But what he doesn't tell you is the people paying for that are the 
people borrowing money to go to college.
  So if you are getting an extra job at night so you can go to college, 
and you are taking out a student loan, the government is going to 
borrow money at a quarter of 1 percent and loan it to you at 6.8 
percent and use the difference for its own purposes. We are making 
money on the backs of students who are borrowing money to go to college 
and then taking credit for spending it for somebody else's scholarship 
or some community college program and we are not telling anyone that. 
So we need a little truth in lending.
  Finally, I am concerned about the changes in direction from the way 
we support higher education. We are very fortunate in America to have 
this terrific higher education system, including our community 
colleges. In a way, we got it by accident because with the GI bill, 
when the veterans came home from World War II, we just gave the money 
to them and they went anywhere they wanted to. That is not the way we 
do with kindergarten through 12. We have all these programs. It is 
command and control, and we support the institution instead of the 
student. We call the argument about that ``vouchers.''
  When we have arguments like that, we get all excited. We did in the 
Appropriations Committee the other day, and the Senator from Illinois 
and I argued--we each got 15 votes--about the DC voucher program: Shall 
we give our money to students and let them choose a school or shall we 
support the school? Well, in higher education, 85 percent of the 
dollars we spend, or some figure about like that, goes to the student, 
who then chooses the school. It may be a community college or a Jewish 
school or an African American school or a Catholic school or a public 
school or a private school or a for-profit school. We don't care, as 
long as it is accredited.
  As a result, we have a higher education system that attracts the best 
foreign students anywhere in the world and gives Americans choices. As 
a result we have almost all the best colleges and universities in the 
world.
  So this proposal is a little shift from that to say the Federal 
Government would take all the money--which I would argue we don't 
have--but this $12 billion we are going to give to grants in higher 
education instead of to students. I would rather give it to students.
  So I applaud the President for his interest in higher education and 
community colleges, but I would suggest to him that we have too much 
debt and too many Washington takeovers, and we shouldn't be funding 
this program on the backs of the students who are borrowing money and 
working an extra job to go to college. I don't think they would 
appreciate knowing that the interest they are paying is mostly going to 
pay for someone else's scholarship. They might ask: Why do I have to do 
that? Why isn't that person in the same shape I am?
  The President was in Warren, MI, in the middle of the auto business, 
and we have some suggestions--or I would have--for other ways to deal 
with the problems we have with the economy today. One would be that 
since we are near the General Motors headquarters, to celebrate their 
emergence from bankruptcy by giving the 60 percent of the stock the 
government owns in General Motors back to the taxpayers who paid taxes 
on April 15; that we should focus on cheap energy so we can 
reindustrialize America, including our automobile industry, by 100 
nuclear powerplants; that we could take the mandatory spending and 
instead of

[[Page 17620]]

spending it, save it and have less debt. That would be a real favor to 
the students.
  To revitalize housing, we could have Senator Isakson's $15,000 tax 
credit to help get the housing market going again. Then in our health 
care debate we could stop talking about more government takeovers and, 
instead, take the available dollars and give the money to low-income 
Americans and let them buy their own insurance, like most of the rest 
of us have.
  So this is a big difference of opinion we have. As noble as the idea 
of supporting community colleges is, this is not the way to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 15 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Another Washington takeover and too much debt. There 
is a better way.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes, to be followed by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, 
who wishes to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1469

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
support for the Levin-McCain amendment to strike $1.75 billion added to 
the bill that is on the Senate floor to purchase additional F-22 
aircraft that have not been requested by the Pentagon.
  I believe this amendment presents us with an important choice of what 
our national security priorities will be going forward: Will we 
continue to pour billions and billions of dollars into weapon systems 
despite the fact they are not requested and despite cost overruns and 
program delays, or will we make the hard choices necessary to ensure 
that our troops in the field have what they need to fight present and 
future conflicts?
  I believe the choice is clear. I am aware this means, for some States 
that are making this plane or have subcontracts--and we have some in 
our own State--that this means jobs. But if we don't move forward to 
what we really need to produce for our troops today, we are never going 
to be able to do the best for our troops and do the best for our 
country.
  By the way, as we move forward, that means jobs. I was just up in 
northern Minnesota visiting a little company that has no contacts with 
the military, no political connections to get contracts, and they had 
been in a very open, transparent process because they make an 
incredibly light backpack that is good for the troops, good for their 
back, and they got the contract. This is a new era, and part of this 
new era is transparency. Part of the new era means we actually will 
look at what our military needs.
  No one can dispute that the F-22 possesses unique flying and combat 
capabilities or that it will serve an important role in protecting our 
Nation in the future. The question is not whether we should keep the F-
22 in service, the question is whether we should purchase additional 
planes at the expense of more urgent needs for our troops.
  Our Armed Forces are currently fighting in two major conflicts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. After more than 7 years in Afghanistan and more 
than 6 years in Iraq, the F-22 has not been used in combat. It has not 
flown over those countries. Over the course of these conflicts, we have 
seen the tragic consequences when our troops don't have the equipment 
and resources they need, such as enhanced body armor or vehicles to 
protect them from IEDs. We have seen what happens when we don't give 
our troops what they need. We cannot continue on this course. We must 
focus our defense resources on the personnel, equipment, and systems 
necessary to respond quickly to unconventional and evolving conflicts 
while maintaining the ability to counter conventional foes.
  For years, Members on both sides of the aisle have come to the Senate 
Floor to denounce wasteful spending in our defense budget and called on 
the Pentagon to be more responsible in its budgetary and procurement 
policies. Hearing this call, our military leaders have produced a plan 
this year to address wasteful and unnecessary defense spending so we 
can ensure that we are providing our Armed Forces the tools they need 
to keep America safe and strong while also ensuring that taxpayer 
dollars are used responsibly.
  We have a major debt in this country. Some of it is because of 
mistakes made in the past. With this economy, there is enough blame to 
go around everywhere. We have a major debt, a major deficit, and we 
have troops who need to get the equipment they deserve. What is the 
answer, put $1.75 billion into some planes the Pentagon says they do 
not need? I don't think that is the answer.
  It should be noted that the limit on the number of F-22s that the 
Levin-McCain amendment would restore is supported by the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and both the current and the 
immediate past Presidents of the United States.
  I believe Senators Levin and McCain should be commended for their 
dedication to improving our defense posture and budget and for putting 
their own political interests aside--their own jobs, in their own 
States.
  Earlier this spring, I was traveling with Senator McCain in Vietnam 
when the Pentagon's proposed reductions, including the F-22s, were 
announced. I discussed with him at length what this would mean, the 
difficult decisions that Members are going to have in their own States. 
But I also talked to him about what the troops need. Right now the 
troops and their commanders are telling us they do not need these 
planes, so it is a testament to the service of Senator McCain to our 
Nation and the work Senator Levin has done for years that they are 
leading the fight to defend the recommendations of our military and 
civilian leaders. I am proud to join them.
  This amendment presents us with an opportunity. We can begin making 
decisions based on security interests and fiscal responsibility and cut 
$1.75 billion for additional F-22 aircraft that our military commanders 
say they do not need or we continue on a course that cannot be 
sustained. I urge my colleagues to do what is in this Nation's best 
long-term interest, in the best interests of our troops, and to vote 
for the Levin-McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Minnesota 
for yielding me this time and, second, I wish to talk today about 
waste. We are all concerned about waste. I have an amendment which I 
understand I cannot call up because the parliamentary situation is such 
that the floor leaders did not wish to have another amendment brought 
up.
  This sign here, which is a type of sign that is proliferating across 
our Nation everywhere, reflects waste. It is totally inexcusable. It is 
a political advertisement for money that is being spent as a result of 
the stimulus package. That is all it is. The sign says: ``Project 
Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Completion August 
2009.''
  That is a political statement, the purpose of which is to promote 
spending on the stimulus package. I did not vote for the stimulus 
package. I thought a program which is going to spend almost 50 percent 
of the money after the year 2011 made little sense and was not stimulus 
at all. But I certainly would not have expected that as a result of 
this program we would be funding these signs all over America to 
promote this program.
  These signs are not cheap, by the way. In New Hampshire we get them 
for less than most places. They cost about $300 a sign. But in Georgia 
they cost $1,700 a sign; in Pennsylvania they cost $2,000 a sign; in 
New Jersey they are costing $3,000 per sign. Literally, there are 
20,000 projects going on--most of them paving projects across this 
country, paving projects most of which may have occurred anyway, but in 
any event they are paving projects. If you start multiplying the number 
of

[[Page 17621]]

signs going up, and each one of these projects require having two or 
three signs put up, you are talking very significant dollars, you are 
talking tens of millions of dollars for self-promotion of these 
programs.
  Ironically, these signs are actually required before people can get 
the funds. We had a gentleman in one of our towns in New Hampshire, I 
think it was Derry, who said, before he would be released the dollars 
to do the project in his town that the town had applied for and it had 
approved, they had to agree to put up this sign. He didn't want to put 
up the sign. He thought it was a waste of money, but he was required to 
put up this sign.
  Why are we doing this? The American people are sort of tired of us 
wasting dollars. They are especially tired of us wasting dollars trying 
to blow our own horn around here. If the administration believed these 
signs promoting the stimulus package were so valuable, let them spend 
campaign funds--because that is what they are, they are campaign 
signs--to put them up. But instead we are putting these signs up.
  What these signs should say if we are going to put them up is: 
Project funded by the future generations of American taxpayers--and 
they add to the debt of our children. That should be added under here, 
``add to the debt of our children.''
  The signs have no value at all, none, other than self-promotion of 
these projects.
  Maybe some of the projects are legitimate. I think probably most of 
them are legitimate. To the extent they are done within this period of 
recession, I support them. The problem I had with the stimulus package 
was so much of the money was being spent outside the period when we 
know the recession will be over. But even if the projects are 
legitimate, which most of them I am sure are--although some have been 
questioned, such as the crossing path for turtles. That received a fair 
amount of press. I have to say I didn't understand why we had to build 
an underpass for turtles, but I don't live in whatever State that was 
in. But as a very practical matter, the underpass for turtles had a 
sign which said the project is being built at the expense of the 
American taxpayers, promoting the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act.
  This is foolish. This is the type of thing that drives taxpayers 
crazy, and it should. It is so inexcusable. People get outraged by us 
doing things such as this and by the Government doing things such as 
this. You drive by this sign and, if you have a chainsaw in the back of 
your truck, you want to cut them down. Of course, they put them up in 
steel so you have to have a blowtorch, but in any event they should not 
be out there, and they certainly should not be out there costing $300 
to $3,000 per sign. That money, at the minimum--first, it should not 
have been spent. But if it is going to be spent, it should have been 
actually spent on the project itself or other projects which were 
deserving. But certainly there was no reason to spend it to promote the 
project through these signs.
  I will have an amendment which says, essentially, no more signs, no 
more wasting taxpayers' dollars on signs that cost $3,000 promoting 
projects for the purposes of political aggrandizement. I hope to be 
able to call it up as we move forward on the Defense bill. I recognize 
it is not immediately a defense issue, but unfortunately this is the 
only authorizing bill floating around the body. These signs are going 
up like weeds across the Nation. Every time they go up, they cost our 
children a few thousand dollars on the national debt. So if we are 
going to stop that type of profligate spending, we have to act now. 
Therefore, I am going to call up this amendment when the proper time 
occurs on the floor.
  I yield the floor and 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope, if our colleagues might have 
remarks on the pending amendment, they would come over now or give us 
some indication they might want to speak in the morning because we need 
to press ahead with this amendment. In the next few minutes, I am going 
to be making inquiry with the other side of the aisle to see if we 
cannot reach a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote tomorrow 
morning. We tried this yesterday without success and earlier today 
without success, but we are going to try again because it is important 
we resolve this amendment, dispose of this amendment, so we can go on 
with other amendments to the bill. I will be making that inquiry of my 
good friend from Arizona in the next few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my 
opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment that would cut off production 
of the F-22 fleet and would hurt hard-working families in the aerospace 
industry across our country.
  I know many of my colleagues have come to the floor to echo their 
opposition to this amendment, and I have listened to them speak very 
convincingly about how it would limit our continued air superiority in 
the skies across the globe. I have listened to them talk about how 
allowing our air superiority to slip would mean we could lose our 
ability to safeguard our Nation in the years ahead. They have also 
noted that prominent military officials have been clear that cutting 
off production of the F-22 would put our Nation's defense at high to 
moderate risk.
  While I agree with my colleagues on all of these points, today I want 
to discuss on the floor, this afternoon, another negative consequence 
of this amendment that would harm our security, our economy, and our 
ability to respond quickly to threats in the future--a consequence that 
will hit home for so many in States such as Georgia, Connecticut, 
Texas, California, and Washington, where every day we are fighting 
rising unemployment. It is another area in which our country has had 
clear superiority but where today, because of actions like this 
amendment, we are slipping into deep trouble.
  Today, I want to discuss how this amendment will erode the health and 
long-term needs of our Nation's industrial base. As many here in this 
body know, this is not the first time I have sounded the alarm about 
our disappearing industrial base. This effort to prematurely cut 
production of the F-22 is simply the latest in a series of decisions 
that fail to take into account the men and women who work every day to 
provide for their families by building the equipment that protects our 
country. But, as I have said all along, protecting our domestic base is 
not just about one company or one program or one State or one industry. 
This is about our Nation's economic stability. It is about our future 
military capability and the ability to retain skilled family-wage jobs 
in communities throughout our country.
  Just a few months ago, we passed a long overdue bill in the Senate 
that reforms many of the Pentagon's procurement practices. In that 
bill, I worked with Chairman Levin and others to successfully add an 
amendment that draws the attention of the Pentagon leadership to 
consider the effects of their decisions on our industrial base and its 
ability to meet our national security objectives. I worked to include 
that provision because I believe it is time to start a serious 
conversation about the future of the men and women who produce our 
tanks, our boats, and our planes, the skilled workers our military 
depends on. It is a workforce that is disappearing before our eyes.
  Providing the equipment our warfighters need is a partnership. It is 
a partnership that requires the Pentagon to be actively engaged with 
the manufacturers that supply the systems and parts that make up our 
aircraft and defense systems. It is a partnership that requires the 
Pentagon to take into account how our workforce and

[[Page 17622]]

manufacturing capability will be affected when they cancel vital 
programs.
  Unfortunately, today military procurement is a one-way street. In 
fact, just yesterday, the Aerospace Industries Association issued a 
major report. I have it here in my hand today. This report finds that 
the Pentagon has failed to consider industrial efforts when choosing 
strategies.
  Much like my amendment to the procurement reform bill, this report 
urges the Pentagon to take into account the impact decisions, like the 
one to stop production of the F-22, take on our manufacturing base. 
This report--and I urge my colleagues to take a look at it if you have 
not seen it--notes that our manufacturing base was not taken into 
account in past Quadrennial Defense Reviews and that when Secretary 
Gates unveiled his program cuts in April, he specifically said that 
defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions.
  Well, as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated 
challenges--safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and 
rebuilding our faltering economy--ignoring the needs of our industrial 
base should not be an option. Whether it is the scientists who are 
designing the next generation of military satellites or the engineers 
who are improving our radar systems or the machinists who assemble our 
warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest 
strategic assets. What if they were not available? What if we made 
budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future 
needs of our domestic workforce? Well, that is not impossible. It is 
not even unthinkable. It is actually happening today.
  We need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments such as the 
one that has been offered here today because once our plants shut down 
and once our skilled workers have moved on to other fields and once 
that basic infrastructure is gone, we are not going to be able to 
rebuild it overnight. Building an F-22 is not something you learn in 
school. It takes years of on-the-job experience. Ask any one of the 
workers from Forth Worth to Baltimore who are responsible for the 
intricate radar systems or the high-tech engine parts or the complex 
stealth technology. We have machinists today in this country who have 
past experience and know-how down the ranks for 50 years. We have 
engineers who know our mission and who know the needs of our soldiers 
and sailors and airmen and marines. We have a reputation for delivering 
for our military. It took us a long time to build this industrial base 
to the point where we have workers who can make fifth-generation air 
fighter planes. What we have left we have to work to keep because once 
our plants shut down, those industries are gone, and we not only lose 
the jobs but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide 
our military with the equipment to defend our Nation and project our 
might worldwide.
  So today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our 
military across the globe, we cannot forget the needs of our industrial 
base, because unless we begin to address this issue now and really 
think about it, we are not only going to lose some of our best-paying 
American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our military might.
  At a time when we are looking to create jobs and build the economy, 
eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of 
American jobs that are tied to the F-22 production does not make sense 
to me. Supporting continued F-22 production will help defend against 
potential threats, and, of course, it will protect family-wage jobs, 
and, importantly, it will preserve our domestic base.
  So I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment that has been 
offered.
  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. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Act

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the National 
Defense authorization bill that is pending before the Senate in 
reference to an amendment that would be on that bill.
  More than a decade ago, on a cold night in Wyoming, a young man was 
assaulted and killed simply for being who he was. The brutality of that 
murder shocked the Nation. But even more shocking was the motive for 
the crime. Matthew Shepard was targeted and killed that night for 
nothing more than his sexual orientation.
  The fact that the vicious attack could occur at all is hard to 
believe. But the fact that it was done out of blind hatred is simply 
too much to bear. So we must make sure Matthew Shepard's death was not 
in vain.
  We must shape a positive legacy from the ashes of this terrible 
tragedy. I believe this is the next chapter in the struggle against 
hatred and in the favor of equal rights. As we have been called to do 
throughout our history, I believe it is time to take action once again.
  I rise today in support of the legislation inspired by Matthew's 
tragic story. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local 
Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act. If it becomes law, the 
Matthew Shepard Act will add ``sexual orientation'' to the definition 
of hate crimes under Federal law, giving law enforcement officials the 
tools they need to bring all violent criminals to justice.
  Many States already have hate crimes legislation on the books. I am 
proud to say my home State of Illinois is among them. But we need to 
make sure violent criminals face the same penalties in Washington as 
they do in Illinois and across the Nation.
  Hate crimes are assaults against individuals, but they tragically 
target an entire group of people. Matthew Shepard was not just a young 
gay man, he was a very young gay man. Colleagues, it is time to take a 
stand. It is time for the Senate to help end the hatred, to reaffirm 
our commitment to an America that is as free and as equal as our 
founders intended for it to be, to make sure that no American lives in 
fear because of who they are.
  As a former attorney general of Illinois, I have been fighting hate 
crimes for many years. Since the very beginning of my career, I have 
spoken out against injustice and worked hard to end discrimination. So 
I understand how important the Matthew Shepherd Act will be as we seek 
to bring criminals to justice for their actions.
  But some have expressed concern about this measure. I have heard from 
Illinois residents who worry that this may prevent them or their 
religious leaders from expressing their faith. As a deeply religious 
American myself, I would oppose any bill that restricts our freedom of 
speech or our freedom of religion.
  So let me assure my constituents and my colleagues that the Matthew 
Shepard Act applies to violent crimes, not religious speech. It will 
help us end murder and assault, but it will not affect the sermons 
people will hear every Sunday or the ability to preach the things they 
believe.
  A decade has passed since Matthew Shepard's tragic death. We must not 
let another year go by without the Matthew Shepard Act as the law of 
the land.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation. Hopefully, we will be able to have hate crimes as a crime 
on the books in the Nation as well as in our States.
  I yield the floor, and 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. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________