Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of a bill to extend the expiring provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. While I support this bill, I continue to have some serious concerns with several aspects of it, not the least of which is the extension for an extraordinary 25 years. The act, originally passed in 1965, was unquestionably needed to bring the promise of the Constitution to many of our citizens who had been shut out of our national political process. The original act, a remedial measure to deal with past discrimination, provided that certain provisions would sunset after 5 years. I have grave concerns that a 25-year extension may well, by itself, doom the act in a future constitutional challenge, given the Supreme Court's jurisprudence concerning the need for narrowly tailored remedial measures to deal with past discrimination. Members of the House raised legitimate concerns last week and advanced positive amendments which I believe would have strengthened this bill and updated it to reflect the reality of profoundly improved race relations which exist today in my home State of Georgia. Let me talk about the positive progress. Today, a higher percentage of Black citizens in Georgia are registered to vote than are White citizens: 66 percent compared to 59 percent. Today, a higher percentage of Black citizens in Georgia turn out the vote than do White citizens: 51 percent compared to 48 percent. The number of Black elected officials in Georgia has climbed steadily, from 30 in 1970 to 249 in 1980, a 730-percent increase, to 582 in 2000. Let me talk about my home county which is in rural Georgia, the very southern part of our State. Our community is a beneficiary of this Voting Rights Act. Over the years, several members of our Black community have been elected to city council, county commission, and school board posts. Men and women such as Wesley Ball, Frank Wilson, Lamont Alderman, Justina Lewis, George Walker, Trudy Hill, Betty Hagin, Luke Strong, Jr., the Rev. Ronald Wilson, Debra Boyd, and Stine George. All of these outstanding men and women have been very professional public servants in representing our school board, our city, as well as our county. I am very proud to live in a city and county that has had individuals such as these as its representatives. Currently, there are nine statewide Black elected officials in Georgia, most of whom, interestingly enough, defeated White opponents, including the current attorney general, three State supreme court justices, including the chief justice, and the State labor commissioner. Today, 4 of Georgia's 13 Members of the U.S. House are Black, two of whom represent majority White districts. One of the continuing concerns about the bill as currently written is it mandates that Georgia continues to be a ``covered jurisdiction.'' That designation requires any election law change, no matter how minor, to be precleared by a Federal bureaucracy. Other States with much less impressive minority progress and less impressive minority participation are not covered, while Georgia is. Many of us share the view that this seems both unfair and unwise. Only a short while ago my colleague from Illinois acknowledged that voting discrimination occurs in noncovered States, yet he and others leave unaddressed the issue of whether the formula adopted in 1964 should be modernized to reflect the reality of 2006, so that appropriate discrimination can be dealt with wherever it exists. Despite these concerns, I will vote in favor of this bill. It is a symbol of progress to so many of our citizens and it has made a difference in the lives of a generation of Georgians, Black and White. I urge my colleagues to join me in support. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will not object, but I say to the Senator from Oregon, if we could have the Senator from Illinois proceed, then the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, proceed, and then the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about stem cell research. This is a very delicate and very tough issue and these are difficult decisions that we will all have to make this week. Some scientists believe that advancement in research requires the creation and development of new embryonic stem cell lines. The truth of the matter is that there are very promising alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, such as stem cells from adult tissue like bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. These cells have repeatedly demonstrated the capability of turning into most tissue types providing the basis for advanced research to find cures for many diseases, including leukemia, Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, sickle cell anemia, heart disease and spinal cord injuries. To date, we have seen promising results coming from the research that has been conducted on these types of cells. Doctors have successfully treated 69 diseases and injuries using adult stem cells such as Lupus, arthritis, liver damage, brain tumors and various forms of cancer. It is vital that we continue to conduct important medical research and continue producing these types of results providing hope for patients and their families. I am very thankful for the accomplishments that have been made in modern medicine, those of which many of us have already enjoyed or perhaps will in the future. However, I see the life changing results that have come from adult stem cell research, and can't help but compare these to the lack of results we have seen from embryonic stem cell research which has not provided the concrete benefits to patients that we have seen otherwise. We should not discount the possibilities surrounding the discoveries that lie ahead within medical research, but, since we have seen results from alternative types of stem cell research, not involving embryonic stem cells, should we spend federal money on researching something that has yielded few positive results? I have seen positive results from the research we have done in the area of adult stem cell research. In fact, an overwhelming proportion of privately funded research is going towards adult stem cell research. This is a strong indication of what researchers think regarding the direction of future stem cell research. Adult stem cells and other similar alternatives have helped thousands of patients throughout the world, while the results of embryonic stem cell research have not helped any one patient yet. I have seen the proven results and lives that have benefited from the research done on adult stem cells. It has been proven that the results of this research have created procedures that have assisted in saving lives, and curing illnesses. Advancements are constantly being made in science, medical research, and technology and so this issue is constantly changing. Just look at how far we have come in the last year on this issue. This debate is not going to be over after this vote, tomorrow but rather the debate is just beginning. However, at this time, I feel that the taxpayer's money should be spent in places where we yield the best results for patients, and currently this is in the area of adult stem cell research. It is my hope, Mr. President, that we continue to see monumental steps made in medical research, stem cell and otherwise, and that we find cures to diseases such as juvenile diabetes, cancer, sickle cell anemia, and Alzheimer's disease. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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 this morning to address America's ongoing efforts in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism. Our Nation continues its steadfast resolve to bring security and prosperity to the Iraqi people, and President Bush is leading that effort with the help of this Congress and the American people. Amidst press reports, which are generally not reflective of the most important things going on in Iraq, I want to review some recent successes that highlight the progress we are making. BG Kurt Cichowski, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans and Assessment of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, recently announced that the Iraqi security forces will assume full control of the southern Muthanna. According to General Cichowski: The transfer of security responsibility from U.S. forces to the Iraqi security forces clearly demonstrates an Iraqi success and signifies a tangible beginning to a new phase in the history of this nation. Muthanna is the first of Iraq's 18 provinces to be fully transferred from coalition to Iraqi security forces control. This latest move is a result of joint evaluation and collaboration between the provincial governor and the coalition ground commander and clearly represents another turning point in our efforts in Iraq. Further, recent successes in joint raid operations dramatically demonstrate the real progress we are making on the ground against the insurgents. This past Friday, joint raids were conducted on a building which had been used as a base of operation by Abu Deraa, a top commander of the Shiite militia. The Department of Defense reported the killing or wounding of between 30 and 40 militia gunmen and the capture of a high-level militia commander. That same day, Iraqi police officers captured yet another top insurgent commander who is believed to have been involved in smuggling weapons, bankrolling terrorists, and launching attacks against American troops. This is the kind of progress we are making on which, for whatever reason, the media chooses not to focus. Only yesterday, Iraqi Ambassador Khalilzad, addressing the Center for Strategic and International Relations here in Washington, spoke with justifiable pride and confidence concerning Iraq's future and its ability to meet the challenges of governing a previously divided nation. Let me quote liberally from some of what the Ambassador said: Today, Sunni Arabs are full participants in the political process, with their representation in the national assembly now proportional to their share of the population . . . they have largely come to see the United States as an honest broker in helping Iraq's communities come together around a process and a plan to stabilize the country. He also noted that: al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakened during the past year . . . which has coincided with the inauguration of Iraq's first ever government of national unity . . . and the recent announcement by Prime Minister Maliki of his government's National Reconciliation and Dialogue Project. The Ambassador also reported that: [A] chasm has been developing between al Qaeda and those Sunni Arabs in Iraq who have been part of the armed opposition. Previously, many Sunni Arab insurgents saw al Qaeda's operations as beneficial for their own cause. Now, the Sunni Arabs increasingly understand that the terrorists are not interested in the future of Iraq and that al Qaeda's leaders see Iraqis as cannon fodder in an effort to instigate a war of civilizations. More and more, Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgents reject the cynical game. Osama bin Laden's specific denunciation of Sunni Arab political leaders, such as Vice President Tareg Hashami, and recently captured documents indicate that al Qaeda's leadership knows that they are losing ground as a result of Iraq's reconciliation process. They know that if reconciliation goes further and begins to hollow out the Sunni Arab armed opposition, it is a mortal threat to their terrorist movement. Let me say about Ambassador Khalilzad, having been to Iraq on four occasions myself, having met with the Ambassador each time I was there, plus having met with him previously when he was in Afghanistan, and on other occasions when he was here, this man is extremely well respected by the Iraqis. He is the right man in the right place to help improve America's image and to continue the dialogue with the Iraqis to make sure that we move that country forward in a democratic process. Some would have us ignore these successes or simply never hear of them. Some would have us abandon these noble efforts and those of well over 100,000 service members working every day to bring about a peaceful Iraq. But the cost of doing so is too high, the consequences too horrible. We simply cannot permit the villainous hand of terrorism to strangle America's resolve and snuff out the coalition and Iraqi successes which are bringing hope to the hopeless and victory to the previously subjugated people of Iraq. Iraq remains absolutely central to the war on terror. On June 7, 2006, American and coalition forces dealt a powerful blow to the terrorists when they killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The elimination of al-Zarqawi, who had claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. citizens since 2002, is a major victory in our global war on terrorism as our counterterrorism forces, together with our intelligence community, demonstrated our tenacity, our capabilities, and our intent to winning this war on terror. While we continue to identify, capture, and kill terrorists and prevent them from turning Iraq's fragile democracy into a lawless training ground from which they can launch attacks against our homeland and against their own peaceful citizens, we must not forget that this is, indeed, a global war on terrorism. Only yesterday did the world witness a tragic terrorist event in the world's largest democracy, India, where seven nearly simultaneous bombings killed more than 100 innocent people and injured hundreds more on the Mumbai commuter rail. This heinous act of terrorism is sadly too familiar. It was just 1 year ago that al-Qaida perpetrated the synchronized bombings in London, killing over 50 people and wounding hundreds more. Terrorists are still seeking to kill Americans with similar attacks on our own soil. Just last week, we learned that the FBI, working together with their counterparts in Lebanon, arrested an individual in a plot to detonate explosives in the Holland Tunnel in New York City. Earlier this month, the FBI arrested seven suspects of an al-Qaida- inspired group in Miami for their efforts to wage jihad against Americans and for plotting to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago, IL. Even in my home State of Georgia, alleged terrorists, again inspired by al-Qaida's violent ideology, in collaboration with their counterparts in Canada, Europe, and South Asia, were planning attacks in the United States. Despite these and other activities to attack our homeland, there has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11. This is due to this administration's policy of taking the fight to the terrorists, denying them sanctuary in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, working closely with our foreign partners, and strengthening our Nation's counterterrorism capabilities. The world changed on September 11, 2001, demonstrating that it is vitally important that the President of the United States has the power and authority to protect the American people from future acts of terrorism. Programs such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program which, based on intelligence leads, carefully targets terrorist communications or financial transactions, are essential tools in the war on terror. If there are people talking or communicating with terrorists, plotting against Americans, or sending money to help al-Qaida, then we need to know about it. We know too well that terrorists are able to sneak into a country and hide among law-abiding citizens. Too often, we have witnessed the horror they cause in places such as Iraq, Tel Aviv, Madrid, London, and unfortunately, in the United States. It is abundantly clear that these types of important programs are necessary to address the previous flaws in our early warning system that allowed at least two of the September 11 murderers to live among us. These vital programs make it more likely that terrorists will be identified and located in time to prevent another disaster. These efforts and capabilities are winning the war on terrorism and keeping Americans safe. Unfortunately, unauthorized disclosures of some of these most sensitive investigations and programs are undermining our abilities and providing vital information to those killers who continuously seek to do us harm. The disclosure of our intelligence operations places our personnel, sources, and methods at risk. These operations are our first line of national security defense. The Government classifies information regarding our intelligence activities for a reason. When terrorists know how we are tracking them, they change the way they operate, making it harder to catch them. That makes this Nation less safe. Osama bin Laden was clear in his intent to continue to wage Jihad against America and peace-loving people worldwide when he said in his recent videotaped message released on June 30, 2006: We will continue to fight you and your allies everywhere, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan to run down your resources and kill your men until you return defeated to your Nation. As bin Laden makes clear, al-Qaida is still seeking to kill Americans and innocent people worldwide, and they are spreading their message of hate and murder through the media and Internet. But America will not be defeated. This is a war we cannot and will not lose. We must put an end to the unauthorized leaks of sensitive information that aids our enemies in their plans to kill Americans and avoid capture. We must also continue to improve our counterterrorism efforts, finding new ways to disrupt enemy planning, eliminate terrorists from the battlefield, and strengthen collaboration within our intelligence, defense, and homeland security organizations. Our intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and law enforcement organizations across this Nation remain vigilant, and we owe our support and a debt of gratitude to these dedicated men and women who are on the front line of the global war on terror. We are indeed winning, but as it has been pointed out, this is a long war. The President is leading that effort with the help of this Congress, and together we are keeping Americans safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT Pro Tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute to a man who has passionately spent his career in service to the United States and past members of its Armed Forces. Mr. Pete Wheeler has served with the Georgia Department of Veteran Services since 1949 and as chairman of the National Veterans Day Committee since 1954. From the beginning of his work, he has served as a dedicated advocate and friend to veterans and their families. For his nearly 60 years of service, Commissioner Wheeler will be honored by the Veterans Council of the Golden Isles as ``Veteran of the Century.'' Pete was born in Albany, GA, in 1922. At the age of 20, he enlisted in the Army as an infantry soldier just a year prior to his 1943 graduation from the University of Georgia. He married Geraldine Odenweller, and the couple raised three children: Chip, Jane Watkins, and Frances Jones. Pete and Geraldine are now the proud grandparents of six grandchildren. After his graduation from John Marshall Law School in 1948 and his admission to the Georgia State Bar in 1949, Mr. Wheeler began his career with the Georgia Department of Veterans Services. He was appointed the Georgia chairman of the National Veterans Day Committee in 1954 and has served in the office for over 50 years. Commissioner Wheeler has worked on a wide spectrum of Veterans Affairs panels, associations and programs, but in addition to his civilian services, he retired in 1978 as a brigadier general from the Georgia Army National Guard. Among State directors and commissioners, Pete is known as the ``Dean of Veterans'' because of his influential leadership in State and national veterans affairs. He served as president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs from 1964 to 1965. Two years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Mr. Wheeler to the U.S. Veterans Advisory Commission. His national work has continued since then to include serving as chairman of the 1994 World War II Memorial Advisory Board commissioned by President Clinton and President Bush. In addition to Mr. Wheeler's national influence in veterans affairs, Georgia is especially proud of Mr. Wheeler's work as State chairman. During his tenure, Mr. Wheeler worked tirelessly to assist veterans and their families throughout Georgia. He was instrumental in the development of innovative programs such as the ``State Supermarket of Veterans Benefits'', a one-stop information service on veterans' benefits, and the ``Georgia Veterans Bulletin,'' a quarterly publication dedicated to keeping veterans and their families informed of law changes, benefits, and special events. Commissioner Wheeler also worked to found the Annual Service Officer School, an event which brings together veterans' benefit counselors and leaders from the State and National veterans groups and offices for veterans issues. Under Mr. Wheeler's leadership, Georgia is still the only State to provide free nursing home and domiciliary care to its eligible veterans. To honor past veterans, he has also helped to establish two veterans cemeteries, including the Georgia National Cemetery in Cherokee County. Pete Wheeler has lived by his statement that ``there is little that cannot be accomplished if one doesn't care who gets the credit.'' Considering his invaluable contributions to veterans and veterans affairs, it is no wonder that others are quick to pay tribute to Pete for much of what has been accomplished for Georgia veterans. These tributes among many others, illustrate the tremendous impact of Pete Wheeler's work in veterans affairs. His enduring dedication to his fellow veterans has shown through his nearly 60 years of service to the community, the State of Georgia, and the Nation. I am very proud to join the Georgia Department of Veterans' Services and the Veterans' Council of the Golden Isles in honoring Pete Wheeler as one of the century's finest examples of service to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a debate that, frankly, I think we ought to have, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. I share the view of the majority of Georgians that the American flag symbolizes the strong values that our country stands for--freedom, liberty and representative democracy. And most importantly, our American flag represents the generations of men and women who have fought and died defending those values. I have the privilege of representing a proud military state, and nothing makes me more proud when traveling around Georgia than to stand with the folks I represent, face our flag--place my hand over my heart--and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag represents our way of life. It hangs in our classrooms, over our police stations, fire stations, and courthouses. It flies above this historic Capitol. It was borne by troops in battle to protect our liberties and has covered the caskets of fallen soldiers, airmen, and marines who made the ultimate sacrifice for us. It is an emotional symbol to so many of us. I have had the opportunity to travel around the world to represent my state and my country--and the one symbol that everybody in and particularly outside of America looks to when they think about America is that great flag that we have lived under for all these many years. And for anybody to think that they ought to be able to stomp on that flag, or trample that flag or burn that flag or destroy that flag in any way other than a professional way is simply wrong. There are those who say we ought not ``change'' the Constitution. Yet, for 200 years the legislative branch of our governmental had the power under our Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Only in 1989 and 1990 did a divided Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, ``change'' the Constitution to say that Congress no longer had that power. I believe the amendment process, provided for by the Constitution itself, is the lawful means by which the American people may restore common sense when the Supreme Court abandons it. Let me take a moment to say that I understand that a substitute has been filed and that the substitute has in it language to prohibit protests at military funerals. The language is basically the same language as the bill that Senator Bayh and I introduced months ago. I hope we can work together to get this bill passed as a stand-alone bill. We need to ensure that families can bury their servicemembers in the peace and dignity and respect they have earned. I ask that a vote be made against the substitute and for the underlying resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and thank my good friend from Oklahoma for yielding for just a minute. Amendment No. 4365 Mr. President, I would like to address amendment No. 4365, cosponsored by myself, Senator Graham, Senator Clinton, and Senator Burns. This amendment, which I am speaking on today, makes what I believe is a relatively minor but very important adjustment to the Reserve retirement system. My amendment would lower the age at which a reservist can receive their retirement annuity by 3 months--counting down from age 60--for every 90 days a reservist spends on active duty during a fiscal year. This amendment specifically rewards the members of the Guard and Reserve who have been called or ordered for active duty, interrupted their civilian lives for an extended period of time, and in many cases placed themselves in harm's way in defense of their country. Currently, the average reservist, if they collect any retirement pay at all, receives a small fraction of the annuity that an Active Duty member receives. If this amendment becomes law, that percentage will rise slightly. But in no way will this amendment result in a major change with large financial implications. I do not have a formal CBO estimate for the current version. However, based on CBO scoring for an earlier version, I suggest the cost of this amendment will be approximately $300 million over 5 years. There have been several other bills and amendments related to Reserve retirement introduced in Congress, and for the sake of comparison, I believe my amendment provides the right incentives and rewards. It is also the least costly alternative which has been offered so far. I believe this amendment is significant and important because it recognizes the increased contributions our reservists are making, rewards them for their service in the global war on terrorism, and provides reservists in the middle of their careers with an incentive to stay on board. I have received great feedback from the Department of Defense on this amendment because it provides incentives for volunteers, provides motivation for retention, and is relatively low cost. The Reserve Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Naval Reserve Association, the Reserve Enlisted Association, and several other military associations also support the amendment and see it as an important, responsible step forward in support of our reservists. With the coauthorship of my good friends Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Clinton of New York, this amendment also makes two important changes to the current laws related to TRICARE by allowing small businesses under 20 to participate in the 50-50 cost share in the TRICARE program and changing third tier beneficiaries from paying 85 percent to 75 percent. These are important changes, which benefit our men and women in the Guard and Reserve and further provide for the health care benefits of our servicemembers in a way that is affordable and enhances their service. I commend its inclusion in the bill. It has been a pleasure to work with Senators Graham and Clinton, as well as Senator Burns, on this matter. We have had great cooperation from both the chairman and ranking member. I can't tell them how much we appreciate this. This is the No. 1 issue of the Guard and Reserve this year. It is going to be a great package. I commend Senator Graham for his hard work, Senator Clinton for her hard work, as well as Senator Burns for his hard work on this issue. I appreciate very much the cooperation of the staff, as well as the chairman and ranking member, in making sure that we continue to look after our men and women in the Guard and Reserve who are being called up all the more often than we have ever anticipated and all the more often than what they anticipated. The chairman and ranking member have accepted the amendment, and I am appreciative of that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from Michigan that all of this which he raised has been addressed in the IDA report and has been answered. The criteria set forth in the statute has been validated and verified. I don't know of any technical problems with the airplane today because, as I said earlier, we have 32 at Langley currently. We have other airplanes stationed at a couple of other bases around. They are flying over us as we speak, protecting our Nation's Capitol. They are in rotation to go to Iraq. If there were any deficiencies, obviously, we would not have those airplanes put in that rotation, engaging in what may be combat. I will close by finally saying there has been a lot of conversation about the way the cost of this airplane has increased. I think the mission of the airplane actually has changed over the 19 years since this airplane was first authorized. It was initially an air-to-air airplane. Air-to-ground was added to it, which caused delays. What the Senator from Arizona alluded to, relative to issues of the airplane is exactly correct. But all of those have been addressed. And the cost, the flyaway costs of this airplane for the last three lots have decreased by 16 percent, 11 percent, and 14 percent respectively. So it is an expensive airplane. There is no question about that. But the capability of the airplane is also not questioned. It is a good deal for the taxpayers. It is a good deal for the folks who are going to be called on to fly this airplane in defense of this country. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise today to call up amendment No. 4261 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The business case for the F-22 is clear and was validated during the QDR by the Joint Army Dominance Study. This study included any number of options of tactical air mixes, including various combinations of F-22s, FA-18s, and joint strike fighter and other airborne weapons systems, so we are not proceeding with a random plan but one that has been validated by careful analysis. The business plan was also validated by the IDA study, again the only independent organization that has looked at this multiyear plan. There are six criteria for meeting a multiyear contract. The independent IDA business case analysis judges the F-22 program according to each of these six criteria. I mention this because there is a GAO study that came out, coincidentally, this week relative to the multiyear procurement of the F-22. It is critical of the multiyear contract. The GAO study, though, contains, frankly, false factual information. For example, in the GAO study they talk about the cost of the airplane actually increasing under the multiyear contract. But what they fail to take into consideration is that originally, before the reprogramming to do 20 airplanes this year and 20 in the next budget and 20 in the next budget, the Air Force was going to ask for 29 planes in the next budget and 27 in the following budget. If you build 29 versus 20, it is going to be cheaper. But that is the factual information that the GAO plugged into their numbers--29 instead of 20. That is why there is a higher price cost that the GAO came up with. Second, the GAO report talks about the fact that under the Air Force proposal, there is not enough funding in the budget to pay for these airplanes. We are going to have to use what is called incremental funding. That was talked about early on in the process but abandoned. Here we are in the end of June of this year. The reprogramming took place the end of last year and the early part of this year. The facts were known at that time. GAO ignored those facts. Second, the incremental funding issue that was talked about early on was abandoned early in the year. GAO ignored that and included those false facts in its report. So the GAO study, frankly, is not correct because it is not based on the actual, as we say in the law--the facts in evidence. There is one other issue relative to the GAO that I am going to conclude with and that is this. It gives a list of the factors that it took into consideration in doing its report. There is one glaring factual statement, one factual provision that is left out of consideration by the GAO. That is talking to pilots that fly this airplane. I have talked to several of those guys. We had a red flag operation that was done several weeks ago by the Air Force. In talking to a couple of those pilots afterward, it was unbelievable what they had to say about flying the F-22. One of them said this: In the United States Air Force, we don't look to win 51-49. We look to win 100-nothing, and that is what the Raptor gives us. The Raptor is the follow-on for the F-15 and F-16. It is the fifth- generation fighter. It is going to allow us to continue air superiority and air dominance against any potential threat that might be forthcoming. I urge my colleagues to support the multiyear proposal that is included in the President's budget, that is included in the authorization bill that comes to the Senate from the House, that will go into conference. We will save the taxpayer a minimum of $225 million over the next 3 years. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me say, it is very difficult, any time you have to oppose your subcommittee chairman--and in this case the full committee chairman--on an issue, particularly two Senators whom I hold in such high esteem. But we do have a disagreement in a very professional way on this issue. At the end of the day, all of us intend to do what is in the best interests of the men and women who fight for America. The F-22A Raptor is the U.S. Air Force's top priority for providing a joint force with air dominance, operational access, homeland and cruise missile defense for the next 20-plus years. The F-22A is a first-of-a- kind multimission fighter aircraft that combines Stealth, supercruise, advanced maneuverability, and integrated avionics to make it the world's most capable combat aircraft. This amendment authorizes a 3-year multiyear procurement contract for the F-22. This is not about spending money, it is about saving money, and it is about good acquisition practices and policy. This amendment will save approximately $235 million as a minimum amount, allowing DOD to use this money for other priorities or allow us, the Congress, to return these dollars to the taxpayers. An independent study, commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, is the only independent study yet to be done for the F-22 multiyear contract. In that study, the Institute for Defense Analysis, or IDA, concluded that the proposed F-22A multiyear contract, first of all, meets all the criteria provided in the law and does, in fact, save the taxpayer a minimum of $235 million over the next 3 years. The study was not completed in time for the Senate Armed Services Committee markup back in early May, which is why it was not included in the Senate bill at that time, or at least we didn't have an amendment at that time. However, the study was submitted to the Armed Services Committee on the 16th of May. Since I have been on this committee, we have been talking about the need to conduct acquisitions better, cheaper, and more efficiently. This amendment does exactly that. We know we are going to buy 60 F-22s over the next 3 years. That is the current plan. The DOD budget provides for the funding, and I have heard no one in Congress question the need for the airplane. As a matter of fact, this airplane today is flying in rotation around the country and soon will be flying around the world as it is scheduled to go into rotation to Iraq shortly. As we are sitting here today, I suspect there is an F-22 flying over Washington, DC, protecting the skies over our Nation's Capital. The only question is how are we going to buy these airplanes? Are we going to buy them with 3 1-year contracts and pay more money, or are we going to buy them with a 3-year multiyear contract and save a quarter of a billion dollars? We need to have a high standard for what qualifies for a multiyear contract. As a matter of comparison, the F-414 engine for the F-18 saved 2.8 percent and $51 million. The multiyear contract for two previous F-16 multiyears saved $246 million and $262 million respectively. By comparison, the proposed F-22A multiyear contract saves 2.6 percent and a minimum of $235 million. The point is that the F-22 multiyear is in the same category in terms of percent savings and total savings of multiyear contracts that this body has previously approved. Also, the per-plane savings on the F-22 multiyear will be identical to the per-plane savings on the F/A-18 multiyear, that being $3.8 million per plane. That is why the authors of the independent business case analysis at IDA judge this multiyear to have significant savings, and I agree with them. Much has been made over the old criteria for multiyear savings, which was a minimum of 10 percent. But, frankly, that was changed early on in law and now, instead of 10 percent the statute does say, ``substantial savings.'' The 2005 QDR, which was provided to Congress in concert with the fiscal year 2007 budget request, restructures the F-22A program to extend production through the fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth-generation Stealth capabilities. To obtain a more favorable cost, DOD's strategy requested authority for a 3-year multiyear procurement contract to buy 60 F-22s, 20 in each of the years 2007 through 2009. This strategy was outlined in a letter from Undersecretary of Defense Ken Krieg in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 13, 2006. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print that letter in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the only thing I would say is I have several folks who want to speak on it. If we could get an hour equally divided, my guess is we won't use it.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight in opposition to this amendment. As I have thought about this over the last several days, I believe it is critically important that we bring this issue up for debate. The Senator from Massachusetts, frankly, is to be commended for doing so. We could have eased through this bill without having this debate and the American people would not have had the opportunity to hear where we are, what is going on, and in particular why those of us who think it is important that we move ahead continue to do so. First of all, when the President spoke to a joint session of Congress following September 11, he said we were going to be engaging in an entirely different form of military conflict than we had ever been engaged in before, and it was going to be a war on terror which was going to be a long and enduring war. He has been exactly right. We ultimately moved into Afghanistan, and liberated the people of Afghanistan. We took out hundreds if not thousands of terrorists in that country, and ultimately the decision was made to liberate the people of Iraq, and we have done that. It is about this conflict that, in the minds of a lot of Americans, the question is still being asked, How much longer is this going to go on? I remind the folks of America that the President did say it is going to be a long and enduring war. That is the case. The reason it is going to be a long and enduring war is because this is an unconventional war in every sense of the word. It would be nice if we had tanks on the battlefield or artillery being fired at an enemy over the hill. But we are never going to see that in this war on terrorism. It is being fought in the back alleys of Baghdad and Mosul and Tikrit, in towns that were foreign to anybody in America before we moved into Iraq and made the march to Baghdad. That is the kind of war which is going to continue to be fought. The people of Iraq know that well. They have suffered as much if not more than any country in that region that has had a conflict like this. I say that because we all remember Desert Storm and what happened in Kuwait. We all remember what has been happening daily in that part of the world, whether it is Jordan or whether it is Israel or Egypt or some other part of that region of the world. The people of Iraq have truly suffered. They understand that America has made a sacrifice, and they understand that, were it not for the American soldier coming in to liberate them, they would not be in the condition they are today, which frankly is a pretty positive condition--both economically as well as otherwise. Are there bad things happening? Sure. There are going to continue to be bad things happening. The one thing about war is there is nothing pleasant about it. There is nothing good about war. But at the end of the day, America has always stood tall in military conflicts. America has carried the day. America has always achieved victory, and victory means a democratic form of government in Iraq being formed. It means a unified government, which we have seen taking place in Iraq recently. It means taking out the bad guys, from a leadership standpoint all the way down. That is happening in Iraq every single day. Recently, we saw the takeout of their leader, Zarqawi. That happened in a short period of time. But were it not for the first American soldier to set foot in Iraq and start the motion in process, that would not have happened the way it did 2 weeks ago. It will happen again. Whoever is next in line will ultimately be brought to justice or have justice physically brought to them at the hands of the American soldier. We are in a situation today where we are discussing whether we ought to pull our troops out of there--whether we talk about next week, next month, or next year. In my opinion, that sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people. It sends the wrong message to the terrorists. And it sends the wrong message to the world. It is a different message from what the American military and America itself has ever sent to any enemy with which we have been engaged in combat. We are having successes today, successes that are brought about because of sacrifices--in a lot of cases the ultimate sacrifice. That has always been the American way. While we grieve for those families who have made that ultimate sacrifice, they are going to be satisfied only when their ultimate sacrifice is rewarded with full and complete victory in the war on terror. I believe it is important that we have this debate. It is important that the American people understand we truly are winning this war and that the wins are not measured by victories on the battlefield every day, but the victory is being measured by winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The victory is being measured by the folks who are achieving success inside Iraq, from a military standpoint, from a governmental standpoint, and from an economic standpoint. I urge my colleagues to look at these motions very carefully, both of them, and that we defeat both motions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Beth Sanford, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of this bill.