Saxby Chambliss

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 yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

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.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate all day with regard to the national defense authorization bill, and, frankly, it is one of the frustrating aspects of serving in this great body, to sit here and debate an issue like we have debated over the last couple of days and to think that you are going to come to the floor of the Senate and to cast a vote on a very important measure that has been characterized by Senator McCain earlier as one of the most important pieces of legislation or amendments that we will have--and I agree with him that is the case--and all of a sudden we are thrown into an entirely different atmosphere with regard to what has taken place on the floor. All of a sudden we are not talking about defense, we are not talking about our troops, we are not talking about the national security of the United States, we are talking about hate crimes. We are in some very difficult times with respect to the national security of our country. While Senator McCain and I disagree on the issue of the F-22 and this amendment, he and I agree strongly--and it is why he is my dear friend and why we agree on most things--about the fact that we ought to be here debating defense issues and voting on defense issues. It truly is frustrating. I know our soldiers in the field can't understand what in the world is going on in the Senate now, when they thought we were going to be debating and voting on amendments that pertained to them--issues such as their pay raise, their quality of life, weapon systems--and all of a sudden we are thrown into doing something else. So I just want to associate myself with the remarks of my friend, Senator McCain, with respect to why we are here. With regard to what Senator Levin said, frankly, Senator Dodd, on the other side of the aisle, who has been working very closely with me on the F-22 amendment, he and I had a meeting with Senator Levin and Senator McCain on Monday, and informally--or actually formally agreed between the four of us--which is an informal agreement--that we would have a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment on Wednesday morning. We thought that was kind of a done deal. Now, all of a sudden we have debated and we have talked about this, we have debated it again, we have talked about the amendment, and now we are thrown into an entirely different scenario on the Senate floor when we have been prepared to vote. I would hope we still have the opportunity to vote in the short term on the issue of the F-22. On that point, just very briefly, Mr. President, I want to state a couple of things with regard to that issue. I made a very long statement yesterday, and I am not going to go back into all the detail with the reference to the why-fors of the F-22 and its value to the national security of the United States, but there have been some comments made on the Senate floor that I think are important to address. One of those comments made by Senator Levin was that I had made a statement that there had never been a study by the Air Force which validated the requirement that 187 aircraft be the top line number for the F-22. What I said was there have been dozens of studies out there over the years on the F-22, and there has only been one study--and it was an internal study at the Department of Defense, without the input of the Air Force--that said 187 is the number. I want to make sure everybody in this body understands every single other study done internally, as well as outside the Pentagon, outside the Air Force, outside the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or inside, has concluded that the requirement for the number of F-22s we need far exceeds the number of 187. The minimum number that has ever been referred to is 243, which is some 56 airplanes more than the 187 we are talking about now. Last week, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, we had GEN James Cartwright, who is a Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman, and I asked General Cartwright if there was any study or any analysis done at the Pentagon that validated the number 187. General Cartwright told me: There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force which validates the number of 187. Well, on Monday afternoon, a reporter asked a Pentagon official, and the top spokesman from the Pentagon, Geoff Morrell, made the statement in response to that reporter's inquiry about that study as follows: Well, it is not so much a study as work products. What I think General Cartwright was referring to is two different work products, one by the Program Analysis and Evaluation shop and one by the Air Force. Not so much a study. So what has happened is there have been discussions within the Pentagon to attempt to validate the number of 187. It is pretty obvious what I said on the floor of the Senate remains true, and that is that of all the dozens of studies that have been done on the F-22 requirement, the minimum number that has ever been validated is 243. The number goes up from there all the way to 781, which I think was our original number. The number of 381 is the number that has been used in most of the recent studies as the number we need. Also, with respect to other statements regarding the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others who are saying that 187 is the number, that is leadership at the Pentagon. The leadership at the Pentagon has the responsibility for sending a budget to the Senate and to the House, but it is our obligation as Members of the Senate and the House to review that budget--sometimes to agree with it; sometimes to disagree with it. We often disagree with it. In this case, a number of us disagree with the number of 187 as being the top line for the F-22. That is not unusual. But with respect to what the leadership at the Pentagon has said, let me go back to a letter I talked about yesterday, and it is a letter that has been received from Rebecca Grant, the Director of the Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. What she says in her letter to me is: In the letter of July 13 from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates, the characterization of F-35 as a ``half-generation newer aircraft than the 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.'' 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 contest our electronic countermeasures or reach parity with us. She also States in that letter: If electronic jamming fails, the speed, altitude and maneuverability advantages of F-22 remain. The F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time against peers with counter electronic measures. Only five F-35s are flying today. The F-35 has completed less than half its testing. Developmental tests will not be completed until 2013. It is impossible to assess the full capabilities of the F-35 until operational test is complete in 2014. The Secretary of Defense and others in the administration are putting all of their tactical air eggs in one basket, Mr. President. That is a very dangerous road down which we should not travel with respect to the national security of the United States and the safety and security of our men and women. Appointment to the HELP Committee

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Administration nominees deserve a fair hearing by the Senate, and Professor Sunstein is no different. While I cannot agree with his ideas, his legal theories, or his views, now that he has been educated about the toll they would take on hard-working farmers and ranchers in America, I am not going to keep him from any further consideration. I intend to lift my hold on Professor Sunstein. I understand from Professor Sunstein now that he has a much better understanding of animal agriculture and our country's sporting tradition. I am optimistic that this open dialog with animal agriculture will continue. I obviously look forward to working with him to ensure he continues to carry out exactly what he stated to me in his letter of July 14. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to speak on the nomination of Cass R. Sunstein to be the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. I placed a hold on the consideration of Professor Sunstein's confirmation after his hearing in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I chose to do this because Professor Sunstein has written, lectured, and made recommendations on animal rights issues that are very troubling to me and to folks who make their living in agriculture and those who enjoy our Nation's great hunting and fishing heritage. Let me just say, Mr. President, it is extremely unusual for this Member of the Senate to place a hold on anybody. It is not something I normally do. Professor Sunstein has theorized that animals--he has theorized in writing as well as in speeches--that animals should be permitted to bring suit against their owners and others with human beings being their representatives. Let me say that again. Professor Sunstein has theorized in writing and in speeches that animals should be permitted to bring lawsuits against their owners and others with human beings as their representatives. That is a very radical and strange position, and it not only got my attention but it got the attention of any number of other folks around the country, both within and without the agricultural sector of our country. The devastating effect this would have on animal agriculture is incalculable. Mistreated livestock do not perform well. American farmers and ranchers work every day to make sure their stock is cared for in a humane manner, and yet they would still face a tremendous threat from frivolous lawsuits under this misguided theory. Even though claims would be baseless, they would still bear the financial costs of reckless litigation. That is a cost that would put most family farming and ranching operations out of business. Professor Sunstein also made offhand remarks during lectures that ``perhaps hunting ought to be banned.'' While he offered assurances during his nomination hearing that his personal view supported hunting, I am not a member of that committee and thus was not able to question Professor Sunstein personally during his confirmation hearing. I greatly enjoy the time I spend hunting with my friends and family, and I was also very disturbed by this statement. The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs must have a firm foundation in common sense, and we owe it to the American public to ensure that regulators are properly vetted by the Senate. That is why I held up Professor Sunstein's nomination in order to provide him an opportunity to explain his views on animal rights as well as the second amendment. Since his original hearing, Professor Sunstein has met with people involved in agriculture, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, the National Pork Producers Council, and the United Egg Producers. He has heard their point of view and exactly how devastating some of his theories would be to the reality of earning a living in rural America. He has satisfied some of them, and some are still decidedly wary of his ideas. I have also had the opportunity to meet personally with Professor Sunstein to let him explain, and me explain to him how detrimental his theories would be to the folks working so hard to feed this country and to hopefully obtain from Professor Sunstein assurances that he does not oppose hunting or the right to bear arms. I tried to figure out what he meant by saying that animals ought to have the right to sue individuals. Let me say, Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country. His ability to look at regulatory measures and to provide cost-benefit analysis is very intriguing. He is obviously a very competent person when it comes to that side of the business community. I have a great appreciation for that. I had a very good meeting with Professor Sunstein yesterday, and after our meeting I received a letter from Professor Sunstein wherein he explained some of his statements and inflammatory ideas. In that letter, he stated that he ``would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals'' and that Federal ``law does not create an individual right to bring lawsuits on behalf of animals against agriculture.'' He also stated that he believes ``the second amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense.'' At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to me from Professor Sunstein dated July 14, 2009, printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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 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 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.

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? 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. 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.

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 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. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to speak this morning for a few minutes about my dear friend, now former Senator, Norm Coleman, from the great State of Minnesota. Norm was a very unique individual in the Senate. He grew up in New York, was educated in Iowa, and wound up living in Minnesota. He was a student leader in undergraduate school as well as in law school, so his leadership qualities were certainly recognized early on. Norm grew up in an era right behind me, which was the era of big rock bands, and Norm was right in with the majority of the crowd of young folks back then and, in fact, was a roadie with a rock band for a while. He spent his 20th birthday at Woodstock. We used to joke about that a lot in some of our conversations. After law school, Norm obviously settled down in the State of Minnesota where he joined the Office of the Attorney General and eventually became the State solicitor general. He prosecuted any number of cases in both of those offices. He became the mayor of St. Paul, MN, in 1993, and, boy, did he ever take over a town that was headed south and bring it back to be a totally revitalized community in a way in which, frankly, I have never seen. When you talk to the people of St. Paul today and you ask them about what Norm Coleman did for the downtown area of St. Paul, a smile immediately comes to the faces of those residents of St. Paul. He created thousands of new jobs and brought in more than $3 billion of new development to the city. The one thing St. Paul residents, as well as Minneapolis residents, will tell you today about Norm Coleman from the standpoint of his legacy as mayor is that he brought the hockey team back to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and that has had a tremendous economic influence on that community. I think it is a real tribute to Norm and his leadership that after being elected as a Democrat in 1993, he became a Republican in 1996, and then ran for reelection as mayor in 1997 as a Republican, and was again elected mayor of St. Paul. Norm ran for Governor of Minnesota in 1998, and as a testament to the character, the integrity, and the dedication as a public servant of Norm Coleman, when he lost that race for Governor, he was still mayor of St. Paul, and the day after that election, he was back in his mayoral office at 8 o'clock in the morning taking care of the business of the people of St. Paul. I was very privileged to know Norm in a way other than just being a colleague. We were very close personal friends. Having been elected together, individuals within classes tend to hang together from time to time, and Norm and I enjoyed many social moments outside of this Chamber, as well as many strong professional moments inside this Chamber. I will have to say that as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, of which Norm was a member, there was no harder working member of that committee for his constituents, no more dedicated individual to agricultural interests in his State than was Norm Coleman. In fact, during the farm bill debate last year, Norm pounded on me every single day during the course of that farm bill debate about some issue that was of particular interest to his State. It may have been talking about some issue relative to ethanol, some issue relative to the issues surrounding corn, wheat, or sugar beets, but whatever it was, Norm was just a hard-working, dedicated man when it came to making sure his constituents' interests were protected in that piece of legislation which was so vitally important to the State he represented. I had the opportunity to travel with Norm many times in the State of Minnesota, and he likewise traveled in my State. I remember very well going to the Minnesota State fair with Norm. While we were there, we visited with some of his corn growers whom I have gotten to know on a personal basis as a result of my relationship with Norm. I will never forget that because coming from a cotton-growing State where we produce a fiber that is used in the manufacture of clothing, the folks in Minnesota have developed a way to produce a piece of cloth from by-products of corn and ethanol production. They gave me a shirt that day. It was a red shirt. They hadn't quite perfected this procedure at that point in time. I had a T-shirt on underneath the shirt I had on, and I immediately took my shirt off and put that red shirt on. It was hot as it could be that day. When we got back to the hotel that night, I took that shirt off, and I had this pink undershirt on as a result of having that shirt on. The corn growers have reminded me of that. We have had a good laugh about that ever since. Norm is just one of those guys who not only was a dedicated professional Member of this body, but he is a good guy. He is one of those individuals who folks on both sides of the aisle had, first of all, respect for as a Member of this body, but also from a personal standpoint Norm was easy to get along with, easy to work with, and he wanted to do what was in the best interests of Americans. I think his work on the Foreign Relations Committee, particularly with respect to his investigation of the fraudulent activities ongoing at the United Nations, is unparalleled with respect to any investigation I have seen take place during my years in the Senate. He uncovered an awful lot of fraud and abuse. As a result of Norm's dedicated work and his dogged determination, some changes have been made. Were Norm to have come back to the Senate, there is no question he would have continued to pursue that issue, and we will continue to receive benefits from Norm's investigative measures that were undertaken at the United Nations. I think Norm's reputation as a fighter and as a strong advocate for Minnesotans is reflective in the way he handled his election. He fought hard in his election. It was very much an uphill battle. A lot of us had tough elections last year, but nobody had a tougher one than Norm on a day-to-day basis. But he wanted to make sure the people who voted for him, the people who supported him and worked hard in his election all across the State of Minnesota had their just due, and he wanted to make sure he could look every Minnesotan in the eye and say: I did everything I could do to make sure this election was fairly conducted and to make sure that every single vote I could possibly get was counted. At the end of the day, when the election was finally decided, once again, in his very professional way, he conceded and decided, as some of us have to do in politics from time to time, that it is time to move on. We are going to miss Norm Coleman in this body. We are going to miss his family. Laurie and my wife are very dear friends. They communicated from time to time both while the two of them were in Washington as well as being in communication back and forth while they were in their respective States. We will miss that personal relationship. His daughter Sarah and his son Jacob are two very fine young people and certainly are reflective of the fact that they have been raised by two very good parents. So to Norm Coleman I simply say we will miss you in the Senate. We are not going to let him go away, though. I still talk to him on a regular basis and will continue to do so and will seek his advice, his counsel on any number of issues because this is a man who has served the public just about all of his adult life. He has done so in a professional way and in a way that all of us wish to emulate. Congratulations to Norm, and good luck on whatever road life now takes him. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and that I be followed by my colleague, Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an academic leader and a true public servant--Dr. Bruce Grube. A decade ago, Dr. Grube took the helm of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, GA. At the end of this month, after 10 years on this job, he will leave Georgia Southern a bigger, better, and considerably richer university, both in terms of its endowment and in its academic achievements, than when he started. His leadership has been robust. During Dr. Grube's tenure as President of Georgia Southern the school's enrollment has risen almost 23 percent. Nearly 18,000 students are proud to call Georgia Southern their academic home. And while freshman SAT scores were rising some 13 percent on his watch, the university was being catapulted into national prominence. During Dr. Grube's time as president, Georgia Southern was designated a Carnegie doctoral/research university, was featured in the U.S. News and World Report's ``Best Colleges'' guide, and was named one of the Nation's ``Top 100 Best Values'' in education by Kiplinger. He also oversaw the creation of two new colleges specializing in information technology and public health, presided over a veritable building boom on campus, and brought Georgia Southern into the Internet age with distance learning courses. Of all his remarkable achievements, perhaps the most significant is that in the decade of Dr. Grube's presidency, the amount of scholarships funded through the Georgia Southern Foundation has doubled. In 1999, the foundation's scholarships totaled $644,000. In 2007, the foundation was able to award $1.3 million to deserving scholars, many of whom may not have been able to start school or complete their degrees without that assistance. And Dr. Grube has led the way in doubling the university's endowment in 9 years' time. In addition, he has overseen Georgia Southern's rise in the world of collegiate athletics. In the past decade, the Eagles' volleyball, softball, baseball, and golf teams have reached their respective NCAA tournaments. Its football team went to the FCS national championships, and its cheerleading squad captured the national title. Georgia Southern and the entire university system will miss Dr. Grube's visionary leadership. Fortunately, this political scientist who got his start in the classroom won't be going far. After a little time off, he will return to Georgia Southern to teach in 2010. Dr. Grube, we certainly wish you and your family the best. Your professional dedication to better education has made Georgia Southern and Georgia a better place in which to live. I am proud to call you my good friend.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes about the Food Safety Rapid Response Act of 2009. I do this in conjunction with my colleague from the State of Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar. I recognize her first for her strong leadership on this legislation. She and I both are a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. On that committee, she has been extremely active, and on this particular issue we have had the opportunity to dialog on any number of occasions. Thanks to her cooperation and her leadership, we have developed and are cosponsoring the Food Safety Rapid Response Act of 2009, which is designed to improve foodborne illness surveillance systems on the Federal, State, and local level, as well as improve communication and coordination among public health and food regulatory agencies. In the wake of the recent salmonella outbreak at the Peanut Corporation of America in my home State of Georgia, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing to review the response from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. The mother of a victim of the outbreak testified at the hearing and shared her personal story and frustrations in dealing with numerous Federal bureaucracies over this issue. This hearing brought to light a clear need to develop a more effective national response to outbreaks of foodborne illness, especially in the area of coordination among public health and food regulatory agencies, to share findings and develop a centralized database. The Food Safety Rapid Response Act of 2009 will expedite much needed improvements to identify and respond to foodborne illnesses throughout the country. Key components of this legislation include the following: First, directing the CDC to enhance the Nation's foodborne disease surveillance system by improving the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data among local, State, and Federal agencies, as well as the food industry; second, directing the CDC to provide support and expertise to State health agencies and laboratories for their investigations of foodborne disease. This includes promoting best practices for food safety investigations. And, third, establishing regional food safety centers of excellence at select public health departments and higher education institutions around the country to provide increased resources, training, and coordination among State and local personnel. Both Senator Klobuchar and I are very proud of the excellent work done at universities in our respective home States in the area of food safety and epidemiology. The University of Georgia is home to the world-class Center for Food Safety which has for more than 17 years assisted the CDC with foodborne disease outbreak investigations. The University of Georgia Center for Food Safety is known for its leadership in developing new methods for detecting, controlling, and eliminating harmful microbes found in foods and is the go-to organization for the CDC, FDA, and the food industry when seeking solutions to difficult food safety issues. The Center for Food Safety frequently provides FDA, CDC, and State health departments advice and assistance in isolating harmful bacteria, such as salmonella and E. coli O157 from foods. I am hopeful the Food Safety Response Act of 2009 will be considered as part of comprehensive food safety legislation in the months ahead. Both Senator Klobuchar and myself are cosponsors of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, a bipartisan measure to enhance current Food and Drug Administration authority to better protect our Nation's food supply. Whether produced domestically or imported, Americans must be able to trust that the food sold in their grocery stores and restaurants is safe and secure. It is critical to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the tools it needs to properly monitor and inspect the food that is consumed in this country. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act affords regulators the authority they need to better identify vulnerabilities in our food supply while maintaining the high level of food safety most Americans enjoy and take for granted. The legislation calls for an increase in the frequency of FDA inspections at all food facilities, grants the FDA expanded access to records and testing results, and authorizes the FDA to order mandatory recalls should a private entity fail to do so voluntarily upon the FDA's request. The Food Safety Modernization Act strikes an appropriate balance for the various roles of Federal regulators, food manufacturers, and our Nation's farmers to ensure that Americans continue to enjoy the safest food supply in the world. America's farmers are committed to providing the safest food possible to their customers and have a decades-long history of implementing food safety improvements to prevent both deliberate and unintentional contamination of agricultural products as they make their way from the farm to the retail store or to a restaurant. However, we must also be realistic in our expectations. Food is grown in dirt, and as a result a zero-risk food supply will be impossible to achieve. It is a goal that we must strive for, while at the same time being ever mindful of the realities of food production and the detrimental consequences of applying unreasonable demands on our producers or our farmers. As the Congress updates our food safety laws, there will be indepth deliberations about specific provisions related to all aspects of food safety, such as product tracing, third-party audits, and facility inspections. As we tackle each of these issues, a few principles must guide our decisions. First, regulation and inspections must be science and risk based. Relying on science- and risk-based analysis will focus our efforts and resources to vulnerable aspects of our food supply instead of developing a regime that only establishes more redtape, burdensome recordkeeping, or Federal intrusion. Second, it is important to provide protections against unreasonable demands for records, as well as provide for protections against unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or confidential business information which the agency gains when reviewing the contents of written food safety plans and other records. Finally, FDA's food safety functions should be funded through Federal appropriations as opposed to registration fees that go into a general fund that may or may not be used to enhance inspections. Costly user fees or flat facility registration fees applicable to all types and sizes of facilities should not be considered. Such fees pose questions of equity, particularly for small businesses that consume a negligible share of FDA resources. An effective public-private partnership is critical to ensuring a safe food supply. The private sector has the responsibility to follow Federal guidelines and ensure the safety of their products. The Federal and State governments have the responsibility to oversee these efforts and take corrective actions when necessary. We need to have the ability to quickly identify gaps in the system and act swiftly to correct them. Both the Food Safety Rapid Response Act and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act are important measures to achieve that goal. Again, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota. It has been a privilege to work with her to this point. I look forward to continuing to move this legislation in a positive direction and in a short timeframe so that we can make sure we are giving all of our oversight personnel and our regulators the proper authority and the resources with which to do their job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the status of the Senate at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, on June 14, we celebrate the 234th birthday of the U.S. Army. For more than two centuries, the Army has fought to preserve the principles of democracy both here in the United States and around the globe. It was 234 years ago today that the U.S. Army was established to defend our Nation. From the Revolutionary War to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, our soldiers have served with honor and a deep commitment to our Nation's core values and beliefs. In 1946, during an Army Day speech in Chicago, GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower said: This day of tribute to the men and women of the United States Army is a day of national rededication to the ideals they served so well. The Army believes in strength without arrogance; in firmness without discourtesy; in loyalty without servility. It lives with pride in its cherished traditions of service to our commander-in-chief and to the people to whom it belongs. This quote is as true today as it was then. Our all-volunteer force has performed superbly during these challenging times and has lived up to and exceeded our greatest expectations. This Army birthday is special because it is also the Year of the Non Commissioned Officer. Since 1775, the Army has set apart its NCOs from other enlisted soldiers by distinctive insignia of grade. Throughout the Army's history, the noncommissioned officer corps has distinguished itself as the world's most accomplished group of military professionals. Historical and daily accounts of life as an NCO are exemplified by acts of courage and a dedication and a willingness to do whatever it takes to complete the mission. I also pay tribute to the families of our Army soldiers who give so much of their lives for our Nation. The important role families play is vital to the Army's success. They have our Nation's deepest appreciation for the support and devotion they provide to our men and women in uniform. Today I wish to celebrate the strength of our Nation and the strength of our Army by saluting our noncommissioned officer corps and the Army's soldiers, families and civilians by wishing them a happy 234th birthday!

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs has been protecting the environment, agricultural workers and the public health by regulating pesticides for many years. These chemicals are commonly used in agriculture, including the production of tobacco leaf. EPA approves the use of all pesticides in the United States under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act--FIFRA. I would ask Senator Harkin if this bill would in any way limit the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pesticides under FIFRA.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to recognize a very special Georgian. Suzanne Yoculan just retired as the coach of the women's gymnastic program at the University of Georgia. Coach Yoculan is a graduate of Penn State University, and she was named head coach of the University of Georgia gymnastics team in 1983. The team, under her leadership, has been nothing short of spectacular. During her 26 years at the helm, Georgia's gymnastics team, or the Gym Dogs, as they are affectionately referred to, have posted a meet record of 831 wins, 117 losses, and 7 ties, for a winning percentage of .870-- pretty spectacular. Let me list the accomplishments the Gym Dogs have achieved under the leadership of Coach Yoculan: Four undefeated seasons: 1993, 1998, 1999, and 2006. Her teams have finished in the top three in the Nation 19 out of the last 21 years. They have also been a part of the Super Six, the final six NCAA teams every year since the format was introduced in 1993, and have never missed the NCAA women's gymnastics competition. She was Southeastern Conference Women's Gymnastics Coach of the Year in 1986, 1987, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2009. She was the NCAA Women's Gymnastics Coach of the Year in 1987, 1993, 1998, 2006, and 2008. Under her leadership, the Gym Dogs won 21 regional NCAA titles, and they won 16 Southeastern Conference championships and 10 NCAA women's championships, including in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Yes, that is right--the last 5 years in a row, under Coach Yoculan's leadership, our Gym Dogs have won the national championship each and every year. This year, in April, the team competed in the NCAA match at the Bob Devaney Center in Lincoln, NE. After a slow start, Coach Yoculan gathered the team in the locker room, gave them a pep talk, and demanded, as she always does, an awful lot from her lady athletes. And did they ever respond in a very positive way. They came down the stretch with several different 10s on various platforms and won the national championship for the fifth consecutive time. Coach Yoculan made this statement after the meet: It is really a magical team that has so much fortitude and just love for the sport and passion, and they never quit. I feel blessed, and I actually lived it every day being around them, and that is the thing I am going to miss the most. Well, those of us who are Bulldogs feel blessed to have had Suzanne Yoculan as our gymnastics coach for the last 26 years. We congratulate her on a very successful career, and certainly we wish her the best in wherever life may take her from here.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, next I rise to speak about the terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay naval facility, or Gitmo. There are over 240 terrorists in U.S. custody at the military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, today. Let me describe some of the individuals who reside at Guantanamo. First, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or KSM, is the self-proclaimed and quite unapologetic mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. KSM admitted he was the planner of 9/11 and other planned, but foiled, attacks against the United States. In his combatant status review board, he admitted that he swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden, was a member of al-Qaida, was the military operational commander for all foreign al-Qaida operations, and much more. KSM and four other detainees who are charged with conspiring to commit terrible 9/11 attacks remain at Guantanamo today. In addition, Gitmo houses Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was responsible for the October 2000 USS Cole bombing which murdered 17 U.S. sailors and injured 37 others. Also residing at Gitmo are Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguards, al-Qaida's terrorist camp trainers, al-Qaida bomb makers, and individuals picked up on the battlefield with weapons trying to kill American soldiers--our young men and women who patriotically serve their country. The detainees at Guantanamo are some of the most senior, hardened, and dangerous al-Qaida figures we have captured. In May, just 3 weeks ago, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to prohibit any of these hardened terrorists from being brought to the United States. Despite this clear objection, the administration transferred one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to New York City yesterday. He is facing charges in the Southern District of New York for his role in the August 7, 1998, bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa. Some of my colleagues in the Senate have touted this as an example of how we can bring criminal charges against the Gitmo detainees and try them in our courts. However, no one has pointed out that Ghailani was indicted on March 12, 2001, a full 6 months prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and after a full investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case against Ghailani was built long before he was transferred to Gitmo in 2006. To imply that other detainees, many of whom the FBI has never investigated or collected evidence against, may similarly be prosecuted in U.S. courts is naive. The President, in announcing the closing of Guantanamo Bay in January of this year, failed to come forward with a plan to tell the American people what he intended to do with the rest of the remaining prisoners being held in that facility. Americans are outraged about the fact that there is now the potential for those individuals to be transferred to the United States and the possibility that some of them may be released into American society. The reaction of the administration to the outcry from the American people and to the outcry from Members of this body has been: Well, we are going to work this out. We are going to get people to take these individuals. Well, needless to say, the previous administration had been trying to get folks to allow the return of their countrymen who are housed at Guantanamo for years, and they were not successful. That is why we still have 241 detainees at Guantanamo. Yesterday, there was an announcement that 17 Uighurs, or Chinese terrorists, are going to be sent to the country of Palau. I doubt there are many Americans who can even tell you where Palau is. It turns out it is a country containing many islands somewhere out in the Pacific, not far from the Philippines. In order to get Palau to take these 17 Uighurs, the Obama administration has committed to paying that country $200 million or, if my calculation is correct, about $11,764,705 per individual. A pretty good payment for taking these prisoners. If that is the standard we are going to be using and the precedent we are now setting, you can figure the numbers to look at how much money it is going to cost us to transfer these remaining prisoners to other countries. Guantanamo is a symbolic issue for many people around the world. I am not one who is going to stand here and say we should not close it. Obviously, there should be some long-range plan to get us out of Guantanamo and to ultimately close it. But without the administration coming forward with a plan, the American people are deservedly outraged at the fact that these individuals may be transferred to criminal facilities in the United States. They, thus, become eligible for all rights of individuals who are housed on U.S. domestic soil, including the right of habeas corpus, and, thus, because not in every case have our soldiers been able to look a guy in the eye who has a rifle in his hand and who is shooting at him, but they are able to disarm him and take the weapon away from him, they don't have the opportunity to gather evidence on the battlefield and to bag up all that evidence and take the time to write down names of witnesses who saw the activity on the battlefield. So there is the potential that some of these individuals might ultimately be successful in a habeas corpus action, be set free by some judge in a U.S. court and, thus, be eligible to be ingratiated into U.S. society. A couple weeks ago, I filed a bill in the Senate which prohibits, No. 1, any detainee at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States. The administration has already breached that, and that is why it is more important than ever we consider this bill. But more importantly, if the President exercises other powers that he has outside of what may be even enacted into law, constitutional powers he may have, and brings these individuals into the United States, my bill will prohibit any opportunity for any of these individuals who are now housed at Guantanamo from ever being released into the society of the United States. I sought to get this bill up as an amendment to the supplemental, but, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle saw it in a different way and would not let my amendment come up. We are going to be back. We are going to have this bill up either as a standalone bill or as an amendment at the next opportunity to make sure we do everything we can as Members of the Senate who voted 90 to 6 to not bring these individuals from Guantanamo to the United States, to again have the opportunity to vote on this issue and to make sure that not only do we not bring them here, but that if by some quirk the President decides we ought to bring them here and does so, then there is never the opportunity for those individuals to be released into the United States, into any of our communities, irrespective of where they may reside. I simply will close tonight and say this is a very serious issue that, in fact, is being considered by the conferees tonight, I understand, on the supplemental that we voted on a couple weeks ago. The language that was agreed to by that 90-to-6 vote may be in jeopardy. Democrats may be trying to pull that particular provision out of the supplemental and to, thereby, not have language in there that would prohibit these individuals from coming into our country. I think that is certainly against the will of the American people, it is certainly against the will of the Senate in a big way, and I think would be a huge mistake. I look forward to continuing the debate on this issue. I look forward to our bill coming up, either in the form of a standalone bill or in the form of an amendment because this is an issue that is not going away until we figure out a way to deal with these individuals who are incarcerated at Guantanamo in a lawful manner as enemy combatants and that we figure out a way to deal with them on a long-term basis that ultimately will allow us to leave Guantanamo and close that facility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we may not like smoking, and we should do everything we can to keep cigarettes away from children. But adults in this country have a choice, and many of them, aware of the inherent dangers, still choose to smoke. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an ineffective program to convince them otherwise, while regulating our farmers out of business, and taking away more of our troops' paychecks, is not good policy. It is more shortsighted government. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Let me be clear from the outset. Thanks to public information campaigns that have been waged for decades, the 45 million Americans who smoke already know that cigarettes are dangerous. If you smoke, chances are you could die from smoking. This legislation does little, if anything, to change that. The proponents of the bill say it is public health legislation that will lower the cost of medical care. That is a very noble goal. Everyone is in favor of saving lives and bringing down health care costs. But this bill will not accomplish that. Instead, it engages in overregulation with no practical effect on smoking rates. The Congressional Budget Office says it would only result in a 2-percent reduction in smoking rates over 10 years and would have a minimal impact on health care savings. Meanwhile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking rates are already declining an average of 2 to 4 percent over that same period of time. So according to the CDC, if we do nothing, we will still have a decline in smoking rates equal to or greater than what CBO says this bill will do. The goal of any Federal tobacco regulation should be to keep children from smoking or using tobacco products and to help adult users stop or, at a very minimum, to use a less harmful product. But the bill does just the opposite. If this bill passes, cigarette manufacturers such as Philip Morris and Reynolds America will be prevented from using the terms ``light'' and ``low tar.'' That means their cigarettes will still be on the market but under different names, not leading to fewer smokers, but leading to consumer confusion. Just as bad is the overregulation that this bill will put on the already beleaguered tobacco farmer, in effect, helping put those who are left out of business. It would allow the FDA to enter just about any tobacco farm in the country. And it would indirectly require tobacco manufacturers to dictate production methods to farmers. It would also require the development of a new, unnecessary regulatory process at the FDA to set pesticide residue tolerances. This would duplicate a process that already exists at the Environmental Protection Agency. It makes no sense to pile these new responsibilities onto the FDA since the agency is barely able to keep up with its present duties. Oddly, under this bill, the FDA--an agency that is designed with ensuring the safety of drugs--would be given regulatory authority over an inherently dangerous product. Again, cigarettes will kill you. We have known that for decades. Even if the FDA managed to cut smoking-related deaths in half, it would still be vested with regulating a product that kills 200,000 people each year. The American Association of Public Health Physicians has said that even if the FDA has the authority to remove some harmful ingredients in cigarettes, changing the chemical nature of tobacco itself or lowering nicotine levels will not measurably reduce tobacco-related illness and death. This bill is slated to spend $5.4 billion taxpayer dollars to provide even more Federal regulation which will have no real effect. About a quarter of that money will be raised off the backs of our men and women in uniform, who will be forced into a mandatory thrift savings plan program to pay for yet another Government program that simply does not work. This legislation mandates TSP participation for new Government and military personnel. This may sound good in theory, but even with an opt-out provision--which the legislation does call for--it is bad policy for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines, who, at junior ranks, frankly, earn very little money and are often under 20 years of age. That is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposes this provision and says if you are going to have any revenue- raising money, it should be an opt-in provision with respect to TSP for our military men and women. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the selfless commitment to the U.S. Army Reserve and to this Nation, of a true American patriot, LTC John H. Burson III, MD. Lieutenant Colonel Burson is a citizen of Carrollton, GA, and earned his bachelor's, medical, doctor of philosophy and doctor of medicine degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University. During his medical career, Dr. Burson pioneered a new health care facility with outpatient surgery in Villa Rica, GA, that served as the forerunner for a new Villa Rica hospital with multiclinic services. Later, he led and personally funded college students to visit various World War II historical sites including an extended tour of Normandy and related battlefields in order to educate America's youth about American history, especially the military. I would like to yield to my friend, Senator Isakson for further remarks.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, what the Senator from Illinois, who is a lawyer, neglects to mention is the fact that all 347 of the current incarcerated people who have been tried for terrorist acts were arrested under U.S. law. They were investigated by the FBI. They were prosecuted because they were arrested and investigated with that end in mind. Not one single one of those 347 individuals was arrested on the battlefield. What the Senator is now proposing is that we take all 240 of the confined detainees at Gitmo and give them all of the rights that are guaranteed to every criminal who is investigated and arrested inside the United States as opposed to being arrested on the battlefield. That has never happened before in the history of the United States, and we have had an awful lot of captives on the battlefield. For there to be any correlation between the 240 detainees at Guantanamo who are the meanest, nastiest killers in the world, getting up every day thinking of ways to kill and harm Americans, and to compare them to the 347 who are now confined after being arrested inside the United States is somewhat ludicrous. Again, I regret the Senator is objecting to my amendment which would keep those 240 individuals at Guantanamo outside the United States and would ensure that forever and ever they could never be released into the United States. I simply regret he sees fit to object to it.