[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 18174-18175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ``A JET EVEN THE MILITARY DOESN'T WANT''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 16, 2009

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Congress is currently 
facing the choice of whether to support or hinder the efforts of 
President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates to bring some sense of 
rationality to the military procurement process. In spite of the 
enormously difficult budget situation we find ourselves in, both short-
term and long-term, this House recently approved legislation 
authorizing the procurement of twelve additional F-22 fighter planes at 
an initial cost of $369 million, which if completed would carry an 
expected final price tag of $2 billion. With President Obama 
threatening a veto should this provision remain in the final version of 
the Defense Authorization bill, this issue will likely require the 
further consideration of all Members in the coming months. In this 
regard, I am submitting into the Record an article written by Lawrence 
Korb and Krisila Benson, published on July 9, 2009 in The Philadelphia 
Inquirer.
  I particularly appreciate the stress that these writers place on two 
key points. First, that these additional fighter planes are entirely 
unwanted by Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, and 
Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz. They are not even on the Air 
Force's list of unfunded requests, described in the article as ``items 
excluded from the budget for which [the Air Force] would nevertheless 
like funding--a wish list of sorts.''
  The other important point, which explains the Department of Defense's 
lack of interest in further planes, is that the F-22 was ``designed to 
fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized,'' and is 
of no help in addressing the air-to-ground challenges we are facing now 
and are likely to face in the future. For example, the F-22 is entirely 
unsuitable for the irregular warfare and counter-insurgency operations 
we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why it has seen no 
action whatsoever in either of these conflicts. Furthermore, with no 
other rival to its air-to-air supremacy either existing or in 
development, there is no serious support for the claim that the 187 F-
22's that have already been approved would be inadequate for any 
reasonable contingency.
  I strongly encourage Members to read this informative article.

                  A Jet Even the Military Doesn't Want

       (By Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson)
       Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 
     Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 
     supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, 
     the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for 
     environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an 
     additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went 
     a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s 
     without clearly identifying the source of funds.
       The F-22 costs nearly $150 million per plane--twice what 
     was projected at the outset of the program. Factoring in 
     development costs, the price tag increases to about $350 
     million per plane for the current fleet of 187.
       It may look as if the House Armed Services Committee has 
     added ``only'' $369 million. But given that it would provide 
     funds for 12 additional F-22s, each with a price tag of $150 
     million (excluding development costs), the real cost to 
     American taxpayers would be about $2 billion.
       The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air 
     Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack 
     capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today's counter-
     insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used 
     in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next-
     generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as 
     Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly 
     useless for irregular warfare.
       The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced 
     fighter plane in the world, and there are no other planes 
     that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat. The 
     United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order--a 
     silver-bullet force that is more than adequate to deal with 
     any likely contingency. In fact, Gates said that even if he 
     had $50 billion more to spend, he would not buy any more F-
     22s.
       The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports 
     continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael 
     Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have 
     publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not 
     in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010 
     (which begins in October). It's not even on the Air Force's 
     list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded 
     from the budget for which it would nevertheless like 
     funding--a wish list of sorts.
       Why are congressional committees willing to override the 
     military and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the F-22? 
     The latest in a string of arguments offered by proponents in 
     Congress is the need to protect our industrial base--as if 
     our technical capacity to develop and produce fighter planes 
     is in immediate, grave danger. This argument overlooks the 
     fact that the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 budget 
     includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--planes better suited 
     for air-to-ground combat.
       Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing 
     manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points 
     out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.
       The F-22 is not an isolated case of unnecessary 
     congressional equipment purchases. Congress has added $2.7 
     billion to the 2009 supplemental budget to buy more C-17 and 
     C-130 aircraft--planes neither requested nor needed by the 
     Defense Department. It also added $600 million to the 2010 
     budget for an unneeded alternate engine for the F-35, which 
     will mean buying 50 fewer aircraft.

[[Page 18175]]

       An administration policy statement issued on June 24 said 
     the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto of a 
     bill containing funding for more F-22s. If the entire 
     Congress approves either of the armed services committees' 
     recommendations on the F-22, President Obama should indeed 
     veto the bill. Only then will Congress get the message that 
     in this era of exploding national debt, we cannot waste 
     billions on unnecessary military equipment.

                          ____________________