Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the great work that is done by the Angel Flight organization and, in particular, one of its Georgia members, Mack Secord. In the world of nonprofits, Angel Flight stands out for its determination to bring those in need lifesaving medical care. In a world of dedicated volunteers, Mack Secord stands out for coupling his passion for flying with his passion to help his fellow man. Angel Flight's creed is that the cost of travel should never stand in the way of patients receiving necessary medical care. Through a network of volunteer pilots, Angel Flight specializes in flying those in need to medical facilities at distant locations. In Georgia, we are proud that the DeKalb Peachtree Airport in metro Atlanta is home to Angel Flight, the original volunteer pilot organization serving those who live in or traveling to or through Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and the Carolinas. Since the year 2000, Angel Flight's missions of hope have increased more than 760 percent. Last year, these generous volunteer pilots flew 2,266 missions, serving patients with 167 different medical conditions who ranged in age from newborn to 100 years old. In some of our Nation's most trying hours, the pilots and coordinators of Angel Flight were there. In the aftermath of 9/11, they transported relief workers, firefighters, Red Cross personnel, and FBI agents to New York and Washington when commercial air traffic was grounded. They served as first responders during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, flying 450 relief missions that carried supplies, medical equipment, and volunteers into disaster areas, and reunited families separated by the storms. In recognition of the service of its volunteers, Angel Flight received awards from the Red Cross and the National Aeronautic Association. One of Angel Flight's dedicated volunteers is Mack Secord of Atlanta. Simply put, Mack's life has always been about service. He is one of the original 15 pilots of Angel Flight of Georgia. But before he found his calling transporting adults and children to hospitals, burn centers, and cancer treatment facilities, Mack had another calling: his country. Mack spent 42 years as a pilot in the U.S. Air Force. For 5 of those years, he served as the Air Force's senior spokesman at the Pentagon. Flying and helping others have always been Mack's twin passions. In 1964, while in the Air Force, he participated in a daring humanitarian airlift in the Congo that saved more than 2,000 people who had been taken hostage. For his efforts, Mack and his colleagues received the prestigious Mackay Trophy awarded by the Air Force for the most meritorious flight of the year. Since 1985, Mack has donated his time, his Cessna 180, and the cost of his fuel to Angel Flight. On his first mission, he picked up a little boy in Columbus, GA, who had terrible burns on his face and body from pulling a frying pan off a stove. Mack says he didn't know burn patients require continuing treatment. He said: I realized during the first flight that this was an important service and that I could make a difference. Mack is a one-man cheering section for Angel Flight. He spreads the word to the Lions Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, Rotary Clubs, pilots associations, schools, churches, and anyone who will listen. He jokes that he will give his 20-minute PowerPoint presentation to any group of people who will sit still. This remarkable man also volunteers at the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport USO, works at the Atlanta Community Food Bank, and participates in a program to read to the blind. But his first love is flying. Last August, Mack received the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award from the FAA to commemorate 50 years of flying without accidents, incidents, or violations. In October, Mack was given the first-ever Lifetime Achievement Award from Angel Flight, marking his 23 years of service. Fittingly, it will be renamed the ``Mack Secord Award.'' Just this month, Mack was honored with the National Aeronautical Association's Public Benefit Flying Award for decades of going above and beyond as a volunteer pilot, bringing lifesaving medical care to families in need. This recognition couldn't come to a more deserving organization than Angel Flight, nor to a more deserving individual than Mack Secord. On behalf of those who need help, thanks to Angel Flight, and to Mack Secord, for letting your passion for service take flight and for making hope soar. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have been very fortunate in my life in public service to witness a lot of historical events, but none parallels the tribute that was just paid by one icon of the U.S. Senate to another Member of the U.S. Senate. I rise to pay my respects to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. As one of my colleagues said earlier, it is a little bit ironic, when you come to the Senate you find out that those with whom you have significant political disagreements are folks you get to know well and you have the opportunity to work with. I am sure during my political campaign for the U.S. Senate Ted Kennedy raised me a lot of money by virtue of the fact that I would cite him in my fundraising mailouts because, coming from a very conservative part of the country, it was popular to cite the liberal Members of the Senate and say you needed to be there to counteract them. But when I came to the Senate--and certainly Senator Kennedy and I do come from opposite ends of the political spectrum--I learned very quickly from Senator Kennedy what the Senate is all about. I was here about, gee, it could not have been but a couple of days-- something less than 48 hours--when I was notified that I was going to be on the Judiciary Committee and that I would be the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary and my ranking member would be Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy came to me on the floor, within a few hours of me being notified of that, and he said: Saxby, you and I need to sit down. Let's discuss some immigration issues that we want to accomplish during the next 2 years. I just want to talk with you about it, get your thoughts and give you my thoughts. I said: Well, sure, Ted, that will be great. I will be happy to come to your office and sit down with you. He said no. He said: Saxby, that is not the way the Senate works. You are the chairman. I will come to your office. So the next day, a Senator who had been in office for well over 40 years came to the office of a Member of the Senate who had been here a little over 40 hours and sat down and had a conversation. That was a lesson about the way the Senate works that I will never forget. We began working together on the Immigration Subcommittee, and we worked for about a year--it was in excess of a year, I guess--on an issue we talked about the very first day in my office. It involved the expansion of the L-1/H-1B visas. At that time, our economy was booming and businesses across our country needed access to more employees who had a specialized expertise. We were successful in ultimately striking a compromise. It was difficult for Ted because the leftwing of his party was very much in opposition to what we were doing, and it was somewhat, although a little bit less, difficult for me because the rightwing of my party was in opposition to what we were doing. Ted called me up one day after we had finished our negotiations, and he was laughing, and he said: Saxby, I have to tell you, we have entered into an agreement on this, and I am going to do exactly what I told you I would do, but, boy, am I ever getting beat up by the far left in my party. They are just killing me. He said: It is to the point where I am up for reelection next year, and you may have to come to Massachusetts and campaign for me. We kind of laughed about that. Well, 2 days later, I had been besieged with phone calls from ultraconservative folks from my State, and I called Ted up, and I said: Well, Ted, you will not believe this, but I am getting beat up over that same issue by ultraconservatives in my party. But don't worry, I don't need you to come to Georgia to campaign for me. Well, he laughed about that like I had never heard him laugh. The very last conversation I had with him to any extent was when he was here for President Obama's inauguration, and he reminded me of that story. He never forgot that. I also have a very fond memory of Ted by virtue of the fact that my grandchildren were 8 and 6 years old when I first came to the Senate, and we had this ice cream social out in the park across from the Russell building where his office was and my office is. In fact, his office was directly below mine. I am walking back from the ice cream social with my grandchildren--who were here for that because it happens at the same time as the White House picnic--and Ted is driving off in his car, and he sees me coming across with my grandchildren. He stops the car, gets out, and he says: Saxby, these must be your grandchildren. I said: They are. He said: Well, I want my dogs to see them and them have a chance to meet my dogs. So he got out of the car and got the dogs out, and my grandchildren just loved playing with those dogs. Every year after that--I never called him--he called me because he knew that when the White House picnic was going on, my grandchildren would be here, and he would insist on bringing the dogs up when the grandchildren were here so they would have a chance to play with them. That is just the kind of guy Ted was. It was a much softer side than what we have seen so many times with Ted with his passionate debates and whatnot. Lastly, let me mention another anecdote I will always remember. I was going down to speak to the Hibernian Society in Savannah, which has the second largest St. Patrick's Day parade in the United States. It is a big deal. We have about 1,000 folks who are at the Hibernian Society dinner that I was going to speak to. All you do is you go in and you tell jokes. Well, I needed a bunch of Irish jokes, so I called up Ted and I told him what I was doing, and I said: I know you must have a book of Irish jokes. He said: I do. I am going to send it to you. And he said: I will tell you something else you need to do. I know Savannah is a very conservative part of the world, and you are going to see in these jokes that you will have an opportunity to point out somebody to kind of poke fun at. He said: Every time you have an opportunity in telling these jokes, you use my name. Well, I took him at his word, and I did. And, boy, did I ever get a rousing welcome from all those Irish men in Savannah, GA. So I have very great and fond memories of a man who certainly came from a different part of the country than where I come from, who came from a very different political background than where I come from, and somebody who certainly had much more political experience than I will ever have. But the thing I appreciated in Ted Kennedy was--and I have said this often--he was the best legislator in this body. When Ted Kennedy told you something, you could take it to the bank. You never had to worry about it thereafter. While we disagreed on many things, we agreed on some things and were able to work together in a very unusual way. Even when we disagreed, we were able to walk out of this Chamber and still be friends. To Vicki and Patrick and the children, Ted was a great American, a great guy, and he is going to be missed in this body. He was a true inspiration to a lot of us, and we are going to miss that compromising aspect of Ted Kennedy that will not be here even though someone else will take up the mantle. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is one of those times that none of us in the Senate looks particularly forward to--when we have to come and speak about a dear friend who is leaving the Senate. But I am excited for Mel and Kitty in a number of ways and very appreciative of the great relationship, No. 1, that we have made from a personal and collegial standpoint. I am very appreciative of the great work Mel Martinez has provided to our country over the last several years. Our friend Lamar Alexander, who spoke a little bit earlier, often talks and has got me talking back home, particularly to young people, about what it means to be an American. Mel Martinez has a greater appreciation about what it means to be an American than anyone in this body because of the fact that he is the only immigrant who is a Member of the Senate. I know how hard he worked to become a citizen, and that he has a great appreciation for what it means to be an American. What a great story it is, Mel, of you dodging bullets in Cuba, escaping communism and ultimately coming to the United States, being separated from your parents, being somewhat lost in a strange land you knew something about but did not know any people. As a 16-year-old young man, thrust into that situation, most of us would panic to some extent. Mel never did. And through the raising in orphanages and foster homes, and ultimately being reunited with his parents after his brother Ralph came over here, and being reunited with him before he was reunited with his parents, it is such a great personal story, and such a touching story, No. 1. But all of that served to develop a foundation in Mel Martinez that America has been the beneficiary of, and certainly those of us in this body who have come to know Mel and Kitty are the beneficiaries of. I guess the ironic thing is when you read Mel's book, ``A Sense of Belonging''--which I would commend to everybody who is listening out there today; what a great book; it is a short read, but you will have a lot of fun reading it and it will be of great interest to you--what you realize is when Mel got here, there were several things that allowed him to transition into American society. First of all, he was a bright young man. He did not know the English language when he came here, but he committed to learn it, and he did learn it. Secondly, he was a very affable person back then, just as he is now. He made friends very easily, and that helped him make that transition. Thirdly, he was a good athlete, maybe even a great athlete. In fact, if he could have hit the curve ball he might be representing the Florida Marlins today instead of the State of Florida. But it is a great way to look at the history of America when we look at the history of Mel Martinez and his transition all the way from rural Cuba to the Senate. But I guess the most important thing I could say about him is what has already been alluded to by the assistant majority leader; that is, Mel came to the Senate for all the right reasons. He came into public service for all the right reasons. He is leaving for all the right reasons. I know because of the many conversations he and I have had about our families what a dedicated husband he is, what a dedicated father he is. He has seen his two older children, Lauren and Jack, come up and become very successful in their own right. Now he has Andrew. Andrew is a 15-year-old young man who is growing up in Orlando and is doing the things all young men do. Unfortunately, his dad is gone during the week and is home during the weekends, and that is the time when young men like to be with their friends. Mel is missing a lot of that. That is the reason he is going back home, and that is the reason all of us can stand here and say: Wow, I wish I had the courage to do that. I had a very similar experience during my days in the House. When I ran for the House in 1994, my son was a senior in high school. He played football on what ultimately became the State championship football team. There was no question from my campaign staff as to where I was going to be on Friday night. I was there to see my son. Mel is missing the experience of seeing Andrew play on Thursday nights because he is here doing what he was elected to do; that is, serve the people of Florida. He is going to now have the opportunity to experience with Andrew the same sorts of things he did with Lauren and Jack. For that, we can say great things about his service to our country, his service as mayor of Orlando or as Secretary of HUD, or his service in the Senate. But his service to his family is ultimately what is important, and, wow, what a public servant he is to his family. So to him and his wife Kitty we say we thank you for the great service you have provided. We thank you for the great friendships you have provided to all of us as Members of this body. Whatever road you ultimately travel down in the days ahead, we know you are going to continue to be a success. We know you are going to continue to serve our country in your own special way. But, most importantly, you are going to serve our God and you are going to serve your family. So, Mel, thanks for everything you have done. Thanks for your friendship. God be with you and Godspeed.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. What is the status, Mr. President?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Georgia, to commemorate the life of a good man and a great American, Frank Norton. Frank's years of service to this country ended recently with his untimely death. But it is fitting we remember Frank on the Senate floor, a place where he served this body, as well as service to our country in years prior to that. Frank died a resident of St. Simons Island, GA, a place he called home, even though he was a native of nearby Waycross, GA. Frank graduated from Emory University in 1966, and it was his intention to go to law school. Unfortunately, the Army intervened. He was drafted, wound up going to Officer Candidate School, and not long after that became an Army Ranger instructor. He then headed to Vietnam. While he was in Vietnam, he served in one of the most dangerous jobs in the Army, which was a Ranger reconnaissance platoon leader. For his service and bravery, Frank earned some nine medals, including the Purple Heart and three Bronze Stars for Valor in combat. Frank went on to serve in assignments at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart, GA, as well as in Korea and Germany. But it is his congressional assignments that some of my colleagues will remember him for. He came to head the Army liaison office in both the House and the Senate. At the time of his retirement in 1993 as a colonel, Frank was the principal Deputy to the Secretary of the Army for U.S. Senate Liaison. He was the only Army officer to serve in that position in both the House and the Senate. But Frank's service to country did not end there. In 1993, my predecessor, Senator Sam Nunn, appointed Frank to serve as a staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was a point in time when this Nation had to go through its first major base closure and realignment process. Frank headed up that process from an Armed Services Committee standpoint and did an outstanding job. After a later career in government relations, Frank devoted his time to his family farm, to charities, and to community service in Waycross, Brunswick, and St. Simons. Frank loved art, the symphony, and classical music, which is hard to believe for a guy who was as robust and personal and such a great retired Army colonel as Frank was. His lovely wife Carol and his young son Lee are going to miss him. Certainly, I am going to miss him. We honor him tonight. I yield for my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and selfless commitment of LT Brian N. Bradshaw to the U.S. Army and to our Nation. Lieutenant Bradshaw died as a result of an improvised explosive device on June 25 in Kheyl, Afghanistan. He was 24 years old. Coincidentally, Lieutenant Bradshaw's life was taken the same day that pop star Michael Jackson died. A Google News search reveals that the number of news stories in the past month filed about Michael Jackson is 142,929, the number filed about Lieutenant Bradshaw? Twenty- six. It is time the American people know a bit more about this young man who sacrificed for his country his life, his family, and all his potential, giving up all he had and all he was going to be. In his youth, Lieutenant Bradshaw served his community in Steilacoom, WA, as a search-and-rescue volunteer, as an altar boy, and as a summer camp counselor. Family and friends describe him as a man with ``a wry sense of humor'' and a deep love for American history. He graduated from Pacific Lutheran University in the spring of 2007 and joined the Army and began service in Afghanistan in March of 2009. As a member of the U.S. Army, Lieutenant Bradshaw served in the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, and was stationed at Fort Richardson, AK. Described as a man who found more meaning in actions than words, it is no surprise that Lieutenant Bradshaw found meaning in his service in Operation Enduring Freedom. In the course of his deployment, he sought to help the less fortunate people of Afghanistan and to improve life for the children there, frequently writing home for packages of gifts to give to local children. Lieutenant Bradshaw found his voice in the honor and patriotism of the Army. With a father who is a retired National Guard helicopter pilot and a mother who is a retired Army nurse, Lieutenant Bradshaw was a man with the military in his blood. Thus, it is only fitting the transfer of his remains on June 25 to Bagram Air Force Base was carried out in a ceremony of honor and patriotism that typifies the ideals of the U.S. Armed Forces. Sent to retrieve Lieutenant Bradshaw's body were members of the Air National Guard from my home State of Georgia. On their sad mission, they landed their C-130 using night-vision goggles in blackout conditions. What appeared to be hundreds of his fellow soldiers in his company stood in formation in the dark as Lieutenant Bradshaw's body was carried aboard the plane. In a letter to Lieutenant Bradshaw's family, CPT James Adair and MSG Paul Riley of the Georgia Air National Guard, who were present at the ceremony, described the experience: Everyone we talked to spoke well of him--his character, his accomplishments and how well they liked him. Before closing up the back of the aircraft, one of Brian's men, with tears running down his face, said, ``That's my platoon leader, please take care of him.'' The world may have been occupied with other things, the media with other stories. But for one brief moment, the war stopped to honor LT Brian Bradshaw. Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Bradshaw, who illustrates the commitment to excellence, honor, and courage that exemplifies our Nation. It is thanks to citizens such as him that America has been and will continue to be a great and free Nation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know elections have consequences. Because of this, I have tried to give deference to the various nominees submitted by President Obama. I have not voted for all of his nominees, but I have voted for some even though I did not necessarily believe they were the best people he might have nominated. The case of a nominee to the Supreme Court is unique. This is not a Cabinet member who will rotate out or leave at the end of the President's term. Supreme Court Justices are there for life and decide cases that will affect present and future generations of Americans. With this in mind, I have reviewed opinions written or concurred in by Judge Sotomayor, reviewed speeches and writings of Judge Sotomayor, talked with lawyers who practice in New York, lawyers who have tried or argued cases before Judge Sotomayor, and others who know her by reputation, and also listened to and reviewed testimony before the Judiciary Committee in her confirmation proceeding. In addition, I spent the better part of an hour in a one-on-one conversation with the judge. Certainly, she has all the education and judicial background to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. Her judicial temperament is not in question. Some lawyers felt she was not qualified for the Supreme Court, and others felt she is. Judge Sotomayor has a very compelling personal story, and being Hispanic and being female and being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court adds more credibility to that saga of living the American dream. As Americans, we should be proud she has been nominated. But the role of the Senate is to give the President advice and consent, and we are required to go beyond the personal side of the nominee. After reviewing the information I have collected over and over again, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. My reasoning is as follows: First, lawyers nominated to the Supreme Court should be in a class by themselves. My only experience as a Member of the Senate with this process is with the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Clearly, they are lawyers who are in a premier class. Lawyers with whom I spoke who know Judge Sotomayor do not put her in that category. Even those who say she should be confirmed do so in a less than enthusiastic way. Second, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and I am concerned about the reasoning of Judge Sotomayor in cases where she has considered this issue. In DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court left unanswered the issue of application of the second amendment to the States. This issue is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year or so. As a member of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor ruled in the negative on this issue in the Maloney case without an explanation, simply citing an old Supreme Court case that is not really directly on point and is certainly outdated. This is too important an issue to give it no more than a cursory review. Third, I am concerned about the apparent leaning of Judge Sotomayor to use foreign law to interpret U.S. laws and our Constitution. In her April 28, 2009, speech to the Puerto Rican ACLU, Judge Sotomayor said that while foreign law should not be used as a precedent, she stated it should be ``considered.'' My question is, Why? Judge Sotomayor's answer in that same speech to that question was to align herself with Justice Ginsburg, who supports the use of foreign law and recently stated that ``foreign opinions . . . can add to the story of knowledge relevant to the solution of a question.'' Judge Sotomayor went on to say that unless American courts are more open to ideas in foreign cases, ``we are going to lose influence in the world.'' From an American jurisprudence standpoint, that line of thinking is certainly scary to me. Lastly, the highly publicized Ricci case is very puzzling. A per curium opinion is unusual for such a complex and precedent-setting case. No analysis for the decision is very troubling to the lawyer in me. In my conversation with Judge Sotomayor, she stated that the Second Circuit panel was simply following precedent and if the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit opinion, it would be establishing a new precedent. The Supreme Court, of course, did reverse the Second Circuit and clearly stated that no precedent was being followed by the lower court. Judge Sotomayor did not adequately explain what precedent she was talking about and, in fact, did not answer this question when directly asked the question by Senator Kyl at her confirmation hearing. Being less than forthcoming in every respect is very disturbing. Mr. President, for all of the above reasons, I will cast a ``no'' vote on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor next week. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, is there a time agreement on the Schumer amendment?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding time on this critically important issue. As we have been here debating on the floor for the last 2 weeks now the respective issues relative to the priorities from a Defense authorization standpoint, we have done everything other than going from increasing pay for our military personnel to the termination of what I argued on the floor last week and this week of the latest, most technologically advanced warfighting machine that has ever been produced by mankind. But the decision was made to terminate the F-22. The F-22, not only from a technology standpoint, was providing valuable test material for the follow-on fighter, but it also is powered by two engines, one engine of which is going to be on the F-35. And here we are now talking about the issue of whether we should continue with a competitive second engine for an airplane that now has an engine that is being flown, has been flown, has been tested by the Air Force on the F-22. It has successfully flown on the F-22 for years now, and also has flown successfully in what limited testing has been done on the F-35. We have put all of our eggs in the F-35 basket now. As I said during the debate on the F-22, I am a big supporter of the F-35. It is a great airplane. I know it is going to succeed. But we are at a point, with respect to the cost of all weapons systems, where we have to look more toward where we are going to be in future years from a cost standpoint and with regard to what we are able to provide our men and women. When you look at items that need to be included in the mix from a competition standpoint, there is nobody who supports competition more than I do. That is the reason I supported the second engine--up to a point in time. But when it came up again last year, it was pretty obvious we were at a point where the engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney--two of which fly on the F-22; only one of which is needed for the F-35--is a good engine. It is doing the job. It has passed the test. So I decided last year we needed to move away from the spending of the money on the second engine, and let's concentrate on providing, obviously, the two engines for the F-22, and the one engine on the F- 35. We have something else thrown into the mix. I did not support Senator Bayh's amendment in committee, for what I still think are all of the right reasons from the standpoint of: Do we need competition for an engine that is successful? For an engine we know is working? For an engine for which we know what the cost is today? Why do we need the second engine? Well, I know detractors have said-- and they have made the argument to me--that: Look, that engine may fail. Something may happen to that engine. I agree for a point in time that could have happened. But we have been at this with respect to the engine that is powering the F-35 for years now, and it is a success. So I reached a point in time last year when I decided we did not need the additional competition from the standpoint of the second engine and, obviously, the committee reached that same result this year. Now we are changing horses a little bit more. Instead of using the discontinuance of the helicopters, the Marine helicopters, we are taking money from six C-130Js to fund the competitive second engine for the F-35, and the competition is going to be between the new engine we have tested and have had in production now for several years against an engine we know to be successful. Well, the issue has gotten even more sensitive to me because I know how critically important the C-130J is to our men and women who are in combat today--not those who might be going into combat and might need this weapon system somewhere down the road. Our men and women in theater today depend every single day on the C-130J, and on the C- 130Hs, even, that are old airplanes, that are in theater, that are flying our men and women. They are looking to get the new C-130Js to help them transport themselves as well as equipment from one part of the theater to the other, from outside the theater into the theater. Our special operations men and women are looking to the C-130J for the gunship operations they carry out. Here we are going to say to those men and women: Well, we think it is more important to have competition for a second engine against an engine we know is successful than it is to provide you with the latest, most technologically advanced airlift capability we can give you. That makes no sense whatsoever to me from a national security standpoint. All of us have been to Iraq and Afghanistan at some point or another. I have been to Iraq eight times. I have been to Afghanistan twice. When we go over there, we fly into either Kuwait or Jordan or some neighboring country. Then we are transported from that country into Iraq or into Afghanistan. What have we flown on? I would say not 99 percent of the time but 100 percent of the time when we are transported into theater, we fly on C-130s. All of us have had the experience of seeing date plates on C-130s we are flying on into theater, where rockets are being fired occasionally at those weapons systems, and we have had some issues relative to that. But the date plates on those airplanes we fly on almost consistently are in the 1960s or 1970s. So today what we are asking our men and women to do is to fly C-130s that are 40 years old, 30 years old, or whatever it may be, that are not equipped with the latest, most technologically advanced weapons systems, and here we are saying to those men and women that we are going to take away from you the entrance of additional C-130Js into theater because we think it is important we have competition for a second engine on the F-35. This makes absolutely no sense from either a fiscal standpoint or a national security standpoint. The C-130J is a great airplane. We have nine of them in this authorization bill. This particular amendment takes six of those nine out of the bill and pays for the funding--the remainder of the funding--on the second engine. That second engine is a great engine. It has performed magnificently. But it is competing with an engine that also is performing magnificently. So to say we now ought to take a weapons system, such as the C-130J that our men and women depend on every single day to fly them around within Afghanistan--because they need these airplanes to land, they need an airplane that can land on a short runway; and the C-130 has that capability to fly our men and women around Iraq, to fly our men and women who carry out special operations and missions and have the gunships--the guns that are mounted on the C-130J to be transformed into a gunship--we are going to take away that capability and that need from our men and women to fund a second engine for an airplane that already has an engine on it, that is performing well, that we know is successful, for which we know how much it costs today. It is not like we are going to see a reduction in price on the engine of the F-35 because we complete the testing and the procurement of an alternative engine. That is not going to happen, and that is not the issue. The issue comes down to the point of are we going to take, in this case, a weapon system away from our men and women to fund a second engine to compete with an engine that is already successful. I would say that, obviously, I felt very strongly and was very emotional about the discontinuance of the F-22 for all of the right reasons, but this is one of those issues that makes even less sense than the discontinuance of the F-22. We need to make sure we spend tax money wisely. We have had the competition on the F-35. It is time we move down the road of building and procuring as many of those as we can. With the ramp-up this bill calls for, under the direction of the chairman, we are going to be buying a lot of F-35s in a short period of time. They have a great engine on them today. It works. It is successful. That is where we need to concentrate. That is where we need to spend our money. We don't need to spend the money on the second engine, nor do we need to take six C-130 airplanes out of this budget to pay for an engine we are probably never going to buy. So I would simply urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Lieberman amendment and to vote against the Bayh second-degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you. I do not object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for amendment No. 1764 offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. With the leadership of Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett, we have crafted one of the most substantive and comprehensive military and overseas voting reforms we have seen in years. This amendment tackles some very tough issues while taking States rights into account. In May of this year, Senator Bennett was consumed with another issue, and he asked me to cochair a hearing with Senator Schumer on military and overseas voting. We heard testimony from numerous witnesses regarding the difficulty of military and overseas voting. This amendment addresses some of those concerns and is a significant step toward ensuring that military and overseas voters are not disenfranchised. The amendment establishes uniform standards for the request and delivery of blank balloting material that takes into account all available technologies. It makes sure all overseas voters have time to vote by requiring States to send out ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before election day. It utilizes expedited mail delivery services for our uniformed members serving overseas, ensuring a timely delivery of completed ballots. It establishes a requirement for service Secretaries to designate voter registration agencies at military installations to assist with voter registration and aid our voting assistance officers. It lays the groundwork to gather needed information to continue to improve the overseas absentee voting process and will help existing voting oversight organizations gather key voting metrics to help make key decisions ahead of future elections. Not since the passage of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act in 1986 have we proposed such significant legislation designed to help the men and women of the military who time and time again are called upon to defend the rights and freedoms we Americans hold so sacred. Unfortunately, our military is one of the most disenfranchised voting blocks we have. Today we have the opportunity to correct this problem. I am extremely pleased with this legislation and proud to have been a part of the team that put this amendment together. There are 57 other cosponsors which is representative of the strong support for this amendment and significant concern around the country regarding this issue. I thank Senator Schumer and his staff for leading this effort and helping make this legislation become a reality. I thank Senator Ben Nelson, my good friend and colleague, on the Armed Services Committee, for his efforts in this matter. It would not have happened without his strong leadership. I also thank Senator Bennett and his staff for their strong efforts in putting this bill in the proper perspective and making sure that all issues were properly addressed. I also thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership over the years on this issue. Senator Cornyn is not a member of the Rules Committee, but he has been very engaged on this issue over the last several years. His input was valuable. There is no question that his support for the amendment and contributions he and his staff have made to the amendment have made what was a good amendment a much better one. Lastly, I thank the secretary of state of the State of Georgia, Karen Handel, also a very valuable asset to us as we went through the process of putting this bill together. She and her staff responded very timely and were honest in the feedback we got from them. Their contributions helped make sensible changes that make the amendment better. Their partnership on this effort will move us forward in the right direction toward ensuring every overseas voter wishing to vote will be able to do so. Again, to my colleague from New York, it has been a pleasure to work on this. It is one other asset that we can give to our men and women in uniform; that is, to make sure they have the ability to participate in what we all take for granted but a very precious right, that being the right to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise very quickly in support of the Isakson amendment. There is currently a waiver to the Berry amendment in place which allows companies to import the fire-resistant rayon from foreign countries. Let me be very clear. The jobs that go with the manufacture of these uniforms for the Army and Marines are U.S. jobs. All of these uniforms are made in the United States. But this fabric is used by TenCate, Incorporated, to make its Defender M fabric to produce fire-resistant uniforms for both the Army and the Marines. The material is not made in the United States due to EPA standards. This is a classic example of where EPA standards can be too stringent to allow U.S. manufacturers to operate. And, the reason is, it is cost prohibitive to do so. The current waiver, which includes a 5-year sunset clause, was included in the 2008 Defense authorization bill after a tremendous effort by my colleague, Senator Isakson, and obviously is set to expire. The Army's PEO Soldier expressed very strongly that FR rayon is the superior fabric based upon key selection criteria. The criteria were cost, comfort, durability, and length of time before receiving third- degree burns. We have had some very serious situations, obviously, that have occurred with burns in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why the Army and the Marines like this uniform. We buy 115,000 new FR uniforms every month. This uniform is superior because of the fact that we have been able to import this fabric with the Berry amendment waiver. It is, in my opinion, imperative that we continue for the competition. The uniforms are still competitively bid. So it is not like we are taking anybody out of the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Isakson amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1657, as Further Modified

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Army fellow in my office, David Evans, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin- McCain amendment on the F-22. I was listening with interest to the chairman speak a little bit earlier when he raised several points that I am going to address specifically as I get into the guts of the argument. I think it is kind of interesting when he gives a list of those individuals in the Pentagon and in the White House who are now in opposition to continued production of the F-22. Interestingly enough, everybody he talked about--from the President to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--every single one of those individuals is political. They are appointed. They are appointed by the President. I am going to talk about some individuals who are in support of the F-22 who are not appointed. No. 1, they are the men and women who fly the F-22. Secondly, it is men who have had the courage to wear the uniform of the United States of America in an unparalleled way that I have seen since I have been here, who have been willing to stand up to that political leadership and say: You guys are wrong. They have been willing to stand and say that if you cut off production of the F-22 at 187, you are going to put this country at a high risk from a national security standpoint. As we go through the debate, it is going to be interesting to contrast the statements and the letters that every Member has received a flurry of over the last several days. I have never seen the White House lobby such as they have lobbied on this issue. For a White House that was not supposed to be a lobbying White House or in support of lobbyists, it has been unparalleled in my now going on 15 years as a Member of the Congress. Senator Levin spoke earlier about the F-35: We are going to ramp up production. We are going to buy 30 airplanes, 30, in this budget. Well, guess what we are paying for those airplanes. We are paying $200 million a copy. Guess what we are buying an F-22 for today--an airplane that has been through the test phase; an airplane that has proved itself. We are under a multiyear contract that calls for payment by the Air Force to the contractor of $140 million a copy. There is going to be a lot of conversation on this floor about the cost of the F-22, and it is expensive: $140 million a copy is very expensive. But to come in here with a straight face and say we are going to save taxpayers' money by moving to the F-35 and then turn around and say we are going to pay $200 million a copy in this bill for F-35s, something about that doesn't add up. Well, let me just say we are in a debate with the Pentagon with respect to budgetary issues submitted by the Pentagon to Congress. There are a lot of people who think we ought to step in line, salute the Pentagon and move ahead and do exactly what the Pentagon says with respect to the purchase of weapons systems. Well, that is not the way the Framers of the Constitution intended the Senate and the House to work. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to levy and collect taxes, provide for the common defense of the United States, to raise and support armies and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Clearly, we in Congress have a role in overseeing the Department of Defense, reviewing budgets, and questioning budget and policy recommendations. Our interest and involvement in these issues are appropriate and not just based on parochial issues. We are charged with the responsibility of reviewing DOD policies, whether fiscal policies or otherwise. That is simply a part of our job. I think it is important to note that on several occasions in recent years, Congress has authorized policy or funding initiatives that DOD has strongly opposed and, in retrospect, Congress was right and DOD was wrong. Perhaps the most similar example to the F-22 is the battle over the F-117 that occurred many years ago when the Air Force wanted to stop buying F-117s. Thank goodness my predecessor, Senator Sam Nunn, who was then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, forced the Air Force to buy more F-117s. Ironically, part of the Air Force's argument was that they wanted to shift funding and focus to buying more F-22s. The F-117 was critical to establishing air dominance over Iraq in Desert Storm, and we can thank Congress for recognizing the need for more F-117s years ago. There are several other examples, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act of 1986 and the establishment of Special Operations Command in 1987, both of which were strongly opposed by the Pentagon. Other examples are continuation of the V-22 program and prohibition against retiring U-2s and B-52s, all of which are paying dividends beyond what the military expected, including in Iraq and Afghanistan today. I wish to address a comment Senator Levin and others have made regarding previous Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs supporting only 183--or 187 now, with the addition of four F-22s we are buying in the supplemental. First, that number of 183 originally was established not on the basis of any study or analysis--never a study that came out and said we need 183 and we are going to be basing our decision on that--but it was based on PBD 753, which is inside Washington baseball, which was an OSD budget drill 2 days before Christmas in 2004, in which the Air Force had absolutely no input. Neither the Chief of Staff nor the Secretary was involved. A number of ``183'' or ``187'' has always been budget driven and not strategically driven. There have been at least 10 studies done on F-22 numbers over the past 10 years. Of those, only one, the Joint Air Dominance Study done by DOD in 2005, recommended 183 F-22s. However, that study was based on only needing F-22s in a single-threat scenario and which also used a fixed budget. Senator Levin mentioned the comments General Cartwright made in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing 2 weeks ago. And he relies heavily on the statement General Cartwright made. General Cartwright responded to a question I asked, and my question to General Cartwright was: General, you say you support terminating the F-22 program at 187. Has there been any one single study, in the Air Force or outside the Air Force, any analysis done that recommends we terminate the program at 187? General Cartwright's statement to me was: Yes; there is a study going on in the Air Force right now that says we should terminate the program at 187. Well, unfortunately for General Cartwright, we now know no study was done. It is our understanding that the comment of General Cartwright is being corrected for the record and that we are receiving a corrected statement coming to the committee shortly. I wish to quote from a statement by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell that was made last Tuesday with respect to the comments of General Cartwright. This comment is quoted in the Daily Report. It now turns out that a recent study touted by Pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn't a study at all but a series of briefings by DOD's program analysis and evaluation shop in the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon's top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, or whatever it is, is: Not so much a study as work products. Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told the Daily Report: What I think General Cartwright was referring to . . . is two different work products-- One by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force-- and not so much a study. Since PDB 753, only 183 F-22s have been programmed in the budget, with fiscal year 2009 being the last year of funding. To say previous Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs supported this is misleading since, until the fiscal year 2010 budget bill process, a decision on whether to buy more F-22s would be deferred to future decisionmakers. It is perhaps with this in mind that Secretary Gates himself decided last year to request additional F-22s in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, and he did, in order to keep the line open and preserve the next administration's option for procurement of the F-22. I know the former President, President Bush, did not want to see the program terminated. They can say what they want to on the other side, but having had personal conversations, I know what his feeling was about this great aircraft. He could have terminated the program, but he did not terminate the program. It is this administration that is seeking to terminate this program. There have been five previous Secretaries of the Air Force, six previous Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force, seven previous Secretaries of Defense before this one, and eight previous commanders of Air Combat Command who have said we need more F-22s. We have supported this program from day one. We have continued to reduce the number from the original 781, now down to 187. The current Chief of Staff of the Air Force, whose letters have been quoted and inserted in the Record where he says we should cap it at 187, has testified time and time and time again in recent days and in recent weeks and who has written me letters stating that the military requirement for F-22s is not 187, it is 243, but he says we can't afford it. Therefore, he has to salute his boss. His boss is a political appointee--Secretary Gates--and the political appointee says we are going to cap it at 187; therefore, that is the direction in which we are going to go and the direction in which you have to salute the flag and move on. I am going to close my comments at this time and turn to my colleague from Connecticut. Before I do so, I will quote somebody who is not political, somebody who is not an appointee, somebody who is a former Chief of Staff of the Air Force. That is GEN Merrill McPeak, who, last week, in an unsolicited statement, came out and said, when he talked about terminating the F-22 production rate at 187: I think it's a real mistake. . . . The airplane is a game- changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951. . . . It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of our guys. The F-22 is at the top end. We have to procure enough of them for our ability to put a lid on, to dictate the ceiling of any conflict. We certainly need some figure well above 200. That worries me because I think it is pennywise and pound foolish to expose us in a way this much smaller number does. . . . That's taking too much high-end risk. General McPeak is a supporter of this administration and, as far as we can tell, he is not a consultant for any major defense contractor. For this reason, I think his comments deserve significant attention and credibility. I will stop at this point, but I will say more later. I now turn to my colleague, Senator Dodd, who I will say has been a great champion on this issue, a great partner in support of not just the men and women of the Air Force and our other branches that depend on this weapon system to protect America and our soldiers in the field but also a great protector from an economic standpoint.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will be happy to make some comments. Then Senator McCain and Senator Dodd and the Senator from Michigan could close it out. If Senator Inhofe comes in, we will give him a couple of minutes. Madam President, would the Chair notify me when I have used 5 minutes?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I want to make a couple of quick comments relative to some of what has been said. First, with regard to Senator Wyden's comments concerning the National Guard, sure, all of us want to make sure we equip our Guard, our Reserve, as well as our active-duty force with all the needs they have. I would cite him to the letter of General Wyatt, who is the head of the Air Force Guard. General Wyatt says the F-22 is uniquely qualified to fill the needs the Guard has for its national security mission. To even slightly indicate that the Guard has issues with this program is simply not correct. The Guard is on record as being a strong supporter of this program. I have a letter from retired GEN David Bockel, retired from the United States Army. He now is the acting executive director of the Reserve Officers Association. Let me quote part of this: War plans of the United States are predicated upon technological air dominance to provide asymmetric advantage for victory. Military experts believe the current cap of 187 F-22s is an inadequate number of aircraft to ensure no future threat can impede the U.S. air dominance. The minimum number of F-22s required to ensure a strong defense is 250. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of retired General Bockel be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I also have quoted earlier the comments by an active- duty general, a guy I consider a great American hero, not just because he falls in that category of wearing the uniform of the United States, but he is standing up to the personnel at the Pentagon. He is saying: You guys are wrong. For an active-duty general to do that takes significant courage. This is a guy I want in the foxhole with me. That is General Corley, commander of Air Combat Command, who very clearly says in a letter that we have previously entered into the Record that a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our national military strategy at high risk in the near to midterm and that the minimum number of F-22s we need, in his opinion, is 381. I want to also talk for a minute about Senator McCain's comments on the cost. This is an expensive weapons system, but it is also the most sophisticated weapons system ever designed by mankind. Most importantly, it is doing its job. It is doing its job in a very professional way. Instead of costing the $350 million Senator McCain stated in his earlier statements, because of a multiyear procurement contract we entered into between the Pentagon and the Air Force, as approved by this body--and I know Senator McCain objected to that and I understand that--but by a vote of 70 to 28, that multiyear contract was approved by this body as well as by the House. As a result, instead of paying the $350 million per copy he alluded to, we are today, under that multiyear contract, paying $140 million a copy. That is in comparison to the $200 million a copy that will be paid for every single F-35 we are buying in this budget. The figure for 200 F-35s in this budget exceeds $6 billion. There are a number of people who are watching this debate out there today. Certainly those folks at the Pentagon are anxiously awaiting the results of the vote. The White House is anxiously awaiting the results of the vote. The Chinese are anxiously awaiting this vote. Let me tell colleagues why. I want to quote from an article of July 19 from a gentleman named Robert D. Fisher, Jr., who is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. He writes: Though the Chinese government says next to nothing and the U.S. Government says very little, what is known about China's fifth-generation fighter program is disturbing. Both of China's fighter manufacturers, the Shenyang and Chengdu Aircraft corporations, are competing to build a heavy fifth- generation fighter, and there are serious indicators China may be working on a medium-weight fifth-generation fighter similar to the F-35. China can be expected to put a fifth- generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers, and it can be expected to build more than 187. I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, Senator Inhofe indicated a desire to speak. He is tied up in an EPW Committee hearing. He may be able to get here.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is another group watching very anxiously out there. It is a group of men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. Air Force. They are lieutenants, captains, and majors. They are watching this anxiously because they are saying to themselves: I signed up to be a part of a U.S. Air Force that believes in putting men and women in cockpits, men and women who are going to carry the fight to the enemy. What am I hearing from Members of Congress? What am I hearing from the leadership at the Pentagon? That we are going to move away from the most advanced fighter in the world today and move to a smaller fighter? That we are going to move away from fighters maybe even altogether by going to UAVs? Is this the Air Force I signed up for? I can tell my colleagues why they are anxiously awaiting the outcome. They have talked to me time and time again about the fact that they are concerned about their future in the U.S. Air Force. The worst thing we can do is to discourage those brave men and women who want to make a career of the Air Force and want to be wearing the two, three, and four stars one of these days. I assure my colleagues those lieutenants and those captains and those majors are watching what this body does from a policy standpoint today. They know where their leadership at the Pentagon is coming from. They don't like what they are hearing. They are now looking to Congress to fulfill the role that John Hamre, the director of CSIS, has said time and time again, and that is to objectively review the budget the Pentagon sends to the hill. We are in the process of doing that and exercising the type of oversight we should exercise. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Inhofe.