Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, let me thank Senator Dorgan for his extraordinary work in the area of waste, fraud, and abuse, not just in the area of the Department of Defense but in so many other areas as well. He is surely a foremost leader in this institution in this effort, and the oversight work he has been able to do is surely cutting-edge with the kind of leadership he has undertaken. We appreciate it. We need it. We need more of it. We are grateful for it. Every taxpayer in America ought to be grateful to Senator Dorgan. Mr. President, let me urge Members who are going to be speaking on the F-22 to let us know and come to the floor because we are hopeful to conclude this debate no later than early tomorrow morning and to bring it to a vote. We are making every effort to see if we can agree on that. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope, if our colleagues might have remarks on the pending amendment, they would come over now or give us some indication they might want to speak in the morning because we need to press ahead with this amendment. In the next few minutes, I am going to be making inquiry with the other side of the aisle to see if we cannot reach a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote tomorrow morning. We tried this yesterday without success and earlier today without success, but we are going to try again because it is important we resolve this amendment, dispose of this amendment, so we can go on with other amendments to the bill. I will be making that inquiry of my good friend from Arizona in the next few minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, so far we have been unable to obtain agreement to have a vote tomorrow morning on the Levin-McCain amendment. I am hoping we can achieve such agreement yet tonight; if not, in the clear dawn of tomorrow morning. I am disappointed we have not been able to reach agreement to go to a vote on that amendment, but that is a fact with which we will have to deal. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with each Senator allowed to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2009 at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency: A Cornerstone of America's New Economic Foundation.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 9 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to continue the hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Women Veterans: Bridging the Gaps in Care.'' The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, to the Senate floor. This bill will fully fund the year 2010 budget request of $680 billion for national security activities in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of setting aside partisanship and working together in the interest of the national defense. This year follows that tradition. I am pleased that S. 1390 was reported to the Senate on a unanimous 26-to-nothing vote of the committee. This vote stands as a testament to the common commitment of all of our Members to supporting our men and women in uniform. I particularly thank Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for his strong support throughout the committee process and, of course, for the dedication he has shown to national defense throughout his Senate career. Earlier this year, the Armed Services Committee reported out the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 with similar bipartisan support. In less than 2 months, we were able to get the bill passed by the Senate, complete conference with the House, and have the President sign it into law. It is my hope that we will be able to move with similar dispatch on the bill now before us. This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the Department of Defense. First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains provisions that would, first, authorize a 3.4-percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed military personnel, and that represents half a percent more than the budget request and the annual rate of inflation. The bill authorizes a 30,000 increase in the Army's Active- Duty end strength during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 in order to increase dwell time and reduce the stress created by repeated deployments. The bill authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel. We increase the authorization for the Homeowners' Assistance Program by $350 million in order to provide relief to homeowners in the Armed Forces who are required to relocate because of base closures or change of station orders. And we increase the maximum amount of supplemental subsistence allowance from $500 to $1,100 per month to ensure that servicemembers and their families do not have to be dependent on food stamps. The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support they will continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the bill contains provisions that would provide $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicle fund, including an increase of $1.2 billion above the President's budget request for MRAP all-terrain vehicles which will be deployed in Afghanistan. The bill fully funds the President's budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command and adds $131 million for unfunded requirements identified by the commander of Special Operations Command. The bill provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to continue the development and deployment of technologies to defeat these attacks. And we provide nearly $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police so they can carry more of the burden of defending their own country against the Taliban. The bill would also implement most of the budget recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense to terminate troubled programs and apply the savings to higher priority activities of the Department. For example, the bill will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue-X helicopter program, CSAR-X. It will terminate the VH-71 Presidential helicopter. It would cancel and restructure the manned ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat System Program. It would stop the growth of the Army brigade combat teams, the BCTs, at 45 instead of 48, while maintaining the planned increase in end strength. It would end production of the C- 17 Program. It would terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program, cancel the kinetic energy interceptor, cancel the second airborne laser prototype aircraft, and it would authorize $900 million of additional funding in the budget request to field more theater missile defense systems, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, the THAAD, and the standard missile-3 interceptors, and converting additional AEGIS ships for missile defense to defend our forward-deployed forces and allies against the many short- and medium-range missiles held by countries such as North Korea and Iran. The bill supports the decision of Secretary Gates to stop deployment of the ground-based interceptors at 30 missiles and to focus on improving the capability of this system to be more reliable and effective than the current system against the limited threat of long- range missiles. The bill also supports the decision to continue production of those ground-based interceptors that are on contract and to use them as test missiles and as spares. By fielding the most modern version of the interceptor, using modern silos and conducting operationally realistic testing with the additional missiles instead of putting them in silos, the system will provide, in Secretary Gates' words, a ``robust capability'' that is ``fully adequate to protect us against a North Korean threat for a number of years.'' According to testimony to the committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders agreed that their highest priority for the GMD--ground missile defense--system was to have 30 interceptors with improved reliability, availability, and effectiveness. The bill before us again supports Secretary Gates' decision to field that improved capability. I am disappointed that the committee voted on a very close vote not to terminate the F-22 aircraft production program, as requested by the Secretary of Defense and as supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I plan to join with Senator McCain in seeking to overturn that decision during floor consideration of this bill. Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would, first, improve Department of Defense financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business process reengineering before acquiring new information technology systems and to submit regular reports on its progress toward auditable financial statements. Second, it requires the Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan to address longstanding problems in its inventory management systems which lead it to acquire and store hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unneeded items. Third, it places a moratorium on public-private competitions under OMB circular A-76 until the Department complies with an existing statutory requirement to develop information needed to manage its service contractors, plan for its civilian employee workforce, and identify functions that would be subject to public-private competition. Fourth, we would authorize the Secretary to establish a new defense civilian leadership program to help recruit, train, and retain highly qualified civilian employees to help lead the Department of Defense over the next 20 years. A very important provision in this bill is section 1031, which would address the problems that exist with military commissions. The military commissions provisions we have in law today do not provide basic guarantees of fairness identified by our Supreme Court. The existing provisions place a cloud, therefore, over military commissions and have led some to conclude that the use of military commissions can never be fair, credible, or consistent with our basic principles of justice. Earlier this year, the President stated that military commissions can be reformed to meet basic standards of fairness needed for them to play a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law of war. In his May 21, 2009, speech at the National Archives, President Obama stated that: Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts. The President continued: . . . Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. . . . [W]e will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective. We agree with the President, and section 1031 reflects our determination to reform the commissions. In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the trial of detainees for violations of the law of war be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by courts-martial and that any deviation from those procedures be justified by ``evident practical need.'' The Supreme Court said that the ``uniformity principle is not an inflexible one; it does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated for use by courts martial. But any departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it.'' That is the standard the Armed Services Committee has tried to apply in adopting the procedures for military commissions that we have included in our bill. This new language addresses a long series of problems with the procedures currently in law. For example, relative to the admissibility of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law under which coerced statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to December 30, 2005. They would be inadmissible regardless of when the coercion occurred. Relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probative. Relative to the issue of access to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and which have led to so much litigation. We would substitute more established procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ, with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons. Even if we are able to enact new legislation that successfully addresses the problems in existing law, we will have a ways to go to restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice they produce. However, we will not be able to restore confidence in military commissions at all unless we first substitute new procedures and language to address the problems with the existing statute. As of today, we have almost 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground in Iraq. Over the course of the next fiscal year, we will undertake the difficult task of drawing down these Iraqi numbers while maintaining security and stability on the ground. At the same time, we have increased our forces in Afghanistan, with close to 60,000 troops engaged in increasingly active combat and combat support operations, and more are on the way. While there are many issues where there may not be a consensus, we all know--and there is a consensus on this--that we must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. And very importantly, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and are deeply grateful for their service. So we look forward to working with colleagues to pass this important legislation. Again, I thank Senator McCain for all he and his staff have done to bring this bill to the floor. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator McCain, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is the F-22 amendment, which would delete the $1.75 billion in the bill that was added in a very close vote in the Armed Services Committee, with strong opposition of the administration. I may say that this is not the first administration that has attempted to end the F-22 line. President Bush also attempted to end this line at 183 planes. Unless my friend from Arizona wants to speak, I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 1 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the pending amendment Senator McCain and I have offered would strike the $1.75 billion that was added to the bill by a very close vote in committee to purchase additional F-22 aircraft that the military does not want, that the Secretary of Defense does not want, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all the Joint Chiefs do not want, that President Bush did not want, that the prior Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not want, and they all say the same thing: The expenditure of these funds jeopardizes other programs which are important, and they provide aircraft we do not need. These are fairly powerful statements from our leaders, both civilian and military leaders, in this country. I hope the Senate will heed them and reverse the action that was taken on a very close vote in the Armed Services Committee. We received a few minutes ago a letter from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A letter is on its way also from the President. When I get that letter, I will, of course, read the President's letter. But for the time being, let me start with the letter we have received from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the Secretary of Defense, because it is succinct. It is to the point. It states the case for not adding additional F-22s as well as anything I have seen. Dear Senators Levin and McCain: We are writing to express our strong objection to the provisions in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act allocating $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s. I believe it is critically important to complete the F-22 buy at 187--the program of record since 2005, plus four additional aircraft. There is no doubt that the F-22 is an important capability for our Nation's defense. To meet future scenarios, however, the Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of Unmanned Aerial Systems and the significant number of 5th generation Stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat air portfolio. It is important to note that the F-35 is 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. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program. Furthermore, under this plan, the U.S. by 2020 is projected to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost 1,100 of them will be 5th generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is expected to have only slightly more than half as many manned fighter aircraft by 2010, none of them 5th generation. The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force. If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense priorities--and require deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more critical for our Nation's defense. The letter concludes with the following very pointed paragraph: For all these reasons, we strongly believe that the time has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress sends legislation to the President that requires the acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond Fiscal Year 2009, the Secretary of Defense will strongly recommend he veto it. It is signed by Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen. The determination of the Department of Defense to end the production of the F-22 is not new. Secretary Rumsfeld, President Bush, as well as the current President and Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, are recommending the same thing. We have testimony on the record at the Armed Services Committee from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, both urging us strongly to end the production of the F-22. Let me read, first, Secretary Gates's testimony on May 14 of this year: . . . [T]he fact is that the F-22 is not going to be the only aircraft in the TACAIR arsenal, and it does not include the fact that, for example, we are going to be building, ramping up to 48 Reapers unmanned aerial vehicles in this budget. The F-35, he said, is critically important to take into account. . . . and the fact is that based on the information given to me before these hearings, the first training squadron for the F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base is on track for 2011. The additional money for the F-35 in this budget is to provide for a more robust developmental and test program over the next few years to ensure that the program does stay on the anticipated budget. You can say irrespective of previous administrations, but the fact remains two Presidents, two Secretaries of Defense, and three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have supported the 183 build when you look at the entire TACAIR inventory of the United States. And when you look at potential threats, for example, in 2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. . . . The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, just a few days ago, on July 9, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the following: I was probably one of the more vocal and ardent supporters for the termination of the F-22 production. The reason's twofold. First, there is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force on that, number one, said that proliferating within the United States military fifth-generation fighters to all three services was going to be more significant than having them based solidly in just one service, because of the way we deploy and because of the diversity of our deployments. Point number two is, in the production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the Air Force replacement of their F-16s and F-15s. It is a very capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer-- He is referring here to the F-35-- It is 10 years newer in advancement in avionics and capabilities in comparison to the F-22. It is a better, more rounded, capable fighter. He goes on relative to point No. 2: . . . the second variant is the variant that goes to the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps made a conscious decision to forgo buying the F-18E/F in order to wait for the F-35. So the F-35 variant that has the VSTOL capability, which goes to the Marine Corps, is number two coming off the line. And the third variant coming off the line is the Navy variant, the carrier-suitable variant. Another thing that weighed heavily, and certainly my calculus, was the input of the combatant commanders. And one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried on board the F-18. And so looking at the lines we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth-generation fighters to all of the services; number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot-production line in case there was a problem; and number three was to have that hot-production line producing the F-18 Gs which support the electronic-warfare fight. General Cartwright concluded: So those issues stacked up to a solid position . . . that it was time to terminate the F-22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth-generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth-generation fighters to all of the services. And we need to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic-warfare capability. And that was the F-18. In the F-18 we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capable of addressing any threat that we'll face for the next five to 10 years. The letter to which I referred from President Obama has now been received. I know Senator McCain has received a similar letter. I will read the one I have just received: Dear Senator Levin: I share with you a deep commitment to protecting our Nation and the men and women who serve it in the Armed Forces. Your leadership on national security is unrivaled, and I value your counsel on these matters. It is with this in mind that I am writing to you about S. 1390, the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and in particular to convey my strong support for terminating procurement of additional F-22 fighter aircraft when the current multiyear procurement contract ends. As Secretary Gates and the military leadership have determined, we do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress. In December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that 183 F-22s would be sufficient to meet its military needs. This determination was not made casually. The Department conducted several analyses which support this position based on the length and type of wars that the Department thinks it might have to fight in the future, and an estimate of the future capabilities of likely adversaries. To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops with the weapons that they actually do need. He concludes: I urge you to approve our request to end the production of the F-22. This is no longer a simple recommendation of the President's staff that they would make to the President should we add additional F- 22s. This is now clear. It is crystal clear, and there is no way a President of the United States can say more directly than President Obama has said this afternoon that he will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress. That should clear the air on a very important issue, and that is would the President veto this bill if it contained the extra F-22s the military doesn't want or wouldn't he. That speculation is no longer out there. It is now resolved, and it ought to be resolved in our minds, and we ought to realize then that those who support the added F-22s are supporting a provision which, if it is included, will result in the veto of a bill which is critically important to the men and women of our military and to their missions and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Madam President, not only does the amendment which was adopted by the committee on a very close vote add planes which our uniform--our military--and civilian leaders do not want, and say we do not need, but the amendment also pays for these additional F-22s in the following ways: No. 1, it cuts operation and maintenance. No. 2, it cuts civilian pay funds that need to be available. No. 3, it also reduces the balances that have to be kept available for military personnel. And No. 4, it assumes that there are going to be near-term savings in fiscal year 2010 from the acquisition reform legislation that we recently adopted and the business process reengineering provision that is in the bill that was adopted by the Armed Services Committee. Each of those places cannot afford those cuts. We are talking here about operations and maintenance. This is the readiness accounts of our Armed Forces. These are the pay accounts of our Armed Forces. And in the case of at least one of the four sources, the assumption is unwarranted that we are going to make savings this year from the acquisition reform legislation, the very focus of which was to make changes in acquisition reform in the short term, which may actually cost us money to save money--significant money--in the long term. But there is no assessment I know of that says we are going to make savings in 2010 from our acquisition reform legislation. As the Presiding Officer knows, because she was a strong supporter of this acquisition reform, as were all of us on the Armed Services Committee, we believed very strongly that we had to make these changes in the way in which we acquire equipment and weapons. Senator McCain has been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember--change these acquisition reform procedures--and I have been involved for about as long as I can remember as well in these efforts. The Armed Services Committee put a lot of energy in the acquisition reform that we adopted unanimously and was ultimately passed and signed by the President. But to say we can't make savings this year in no way knocks the importance of that acquisition reform or minimizes the importance of that acquisition reform. The fact is, as we said at the time, there are going to be major savings, we believe, from that reform, but they are not going to come in the short term. They are surely not coming in 2010. Yet the amendment which added the F-22s made an assumption that there are going to be savings in 2010 from the acquisition reform legislation. Let me spend a minute on some of the other sources of funds for the F-22, unobligated balances for operations and maintenance--O&M. We already reduced by $100 million the funds in those accounts, and we did so consistent with the report and assessment of the Government Accountability Office. So we acted in a way that would not affect readiness, would not affect O&M, and we had the guidance there of the Government Accountability Office. But what the amendment did that added the F-22s is reduced by $700 million more those O&M accounts. The original bill we adopted avoided cutting O&M funds from the Army and from the Marines because readiness rates across the board have continued to suffer after several years in combat. Yet half of the reduction made by the amendment which added the F-22s was assessed against O&M Army. It is a dangerous thing to do. It is an unwise thing to do. We also now face an increase in the price of oil--an increase above what the accounts assumed would be the cost of energy. So we have an additional challenge to those O&M accounts which would be made far more difficult and those reductions far more problematic in that regard as well. Another source of funds which was used to add the F-22s was in the civilian pay accounts. Civilian pay had already been reduced by almost $400 million in the Air Force, and we did that consistent with, again, the assessments of the Government Accountability Office. Further, civilian pay reductions of $150 million to help fund the F-22s can have a negative effect on readiness, and we simply cannot take that risk. Also, that cut does not take into effect the likely additional civilian pay raise that we will have to absorb in these budgets if, as is likely, using historical acts, Congress increases the civilian pay raise to match the increased military pay raise. Deep cuts in funds available for civilian pay will have that effect, but also these cuts will undermine the Secretary's efforts and our efforts to hire significant numbers of new employees for the acquisition workforce, it is going to set back our effort to implement acquisition reform, and it is going to cost us a lot more money in the long run. Another source of the money for the additional F-22s came from the military personnel accounts. Our bill already has taken $400 million in unobligated balances from the military personnel accounts in order to pay for additional personnel pay and benefits, and we did that, again, in line with the recommendation of the Government Accountability Office. The Department's top line, so called, for military personnel was intact until the committee adopted the F-22 increase amendment. And if we reduce military personnel accounts for nonpersonnel matters, it is going to result in a military personnel authorization that is less than was requested, and it is going to hinder the Department's ability to execute its military personnel funding in the year 2010. That is going to be particularly problematic this year, because the Army and Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to the base budget. They did that because we urged them to do that. So the cost of personnel continues to rise, and yet one of the sources of the funding for the F-22 increase came from that very military personnel account. There is another impact of the amendment--which was barely adopted in the Armed Services Committee--and that is it is going to cause the Department of Defense to cut back in so-called nondirect pay areas, such as bonuses or other personnel support measures, which could have a very significant impact--a negative impact--on the long-term management of the all-volunteer force. It is very likely that the Department will then have to either seek a reprogramming during the next fiscal year to cover personnel costs or they may even have to file a supplemental request. We have worked hard as a Congress to get the administration--any administration, as we tried during the Bush years and we try again during the Obama years--to make sure that its budget request is solid; that it will not require reprogramming; that it will not require a supplemental request. With this amendment--which was again adopted by just two votes in the Armed Services Committee--we are jeopardizing that longstanding effort on the part of Congress to make sure that the budget request of the administration in fact is a realistic request when it comes to the various accounts. And particularly this year, as the Army and Marine Corps have moved their increased end strengths to the base budget, as we have pressed them to do for many years, it is a mistake for us to be taking funds from that account. I have talked about acquisition reform and the fact that the amendment which was adopted in committee assumed savings from acquisition reform. I have pointed out, and will not repeat, that while the acquisition reform, strongly supported obviously by our committee and by the Congress, is likely to result in major savings, it cannot be assumed to produce savings in the short term. I hope this body is going to adopt the Levin-McCain amendment. Two administrations now have made an effort to end the F-22 line. This is not a partisan issue. This is a Republican and a Democratic administration that have made this effort. Our top civilian leaders and our top uniform leaders are unanimous. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have joined in supporting the President's request, just as they did President Bush's determination to end the F-22 line. We have to make some choices in this budget and in other budgets, and this is a choice which our military is urging us to make. We all know the effect that this has on jobs in many of our States, and that varies from State to State, but probably a majority of our States will have some jobs impacted by a termination of the F-22 line. But we cannot continue to produce weapon systems forever. They have a purpose. They have a mission. And those missions and those purposes can be carried out by 187 F-22s. That is not me speaking as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that is not Senator McCain speaking as the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, that is both of us saying that we must make difficult choices and we have to build the systems we need. The F-35 is a system which all of the services need. It cuts across the services. It has greater capabilities in electronics than does the F-22. It is a half of a generation advance on the F-22. This is not to minimize the importance of the F-22. We have and will have 187 in our inventory. While not minimizing the importance of the F-22, it points out how important it is that we modernize, and in order to do that--and that means the F-35--we have to at some point say we have enough F-22s. We tried it last year. We could not succeed last year. But this year, not only does the President oppose the increase, as did President Bush, President Obama has now said in writing today that he will veto a bill that contains the unneeded F- 22s. Our men and women in the military deserve a defense authorization bill. This has a pay increase even larger than that requested. It has benefits that are essential. It has bonuses and other programs to help recruitment and retention. It helps our families. It modernizes our weapon systems. At some point, we have to acknowledge that a weapon system production, extremely valuable, has come to a logical end and that it is time to then pick up its continuity with a different plane, a different weapon system which will benefit our military and support the men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for his strong and very powerful statement about this amendment. I cannot remember a President ever saying in advance that if a specific provision in the Defense bill is included, he will veto it. Now, there may be such precedent. But this is what the stakes are here now. This is whether we are going to be supporting a bill that has essential provisions in it for the men and women of the military, including a significant pay raise and other important benefits, including support for our wounded warriors, including support for weapons systems they need. I would hope that even those Senators who have indicated they would support the additional F-22s might reconsider their position in terms of what is involved in this bill for our men and women, given the President's statement that he will veto this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Arizona. The answer is, it will depend, I guess, on how many people wish to speak either in support of our amendment or in opposition to it and how long they want to speak. I do not have yet an indication of that.

Mr. LEVIN. I would be a little more optimistic even in the question. I am optimistic, and I would hope we would have a vote on this amendment by noon tomorrow. I understand there will not be votes in the afternoon as previously agreed to. I hope prior to noon tomorrow we can have a vote on our amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. There are two or three things for which we hope our colleagues will come to the Chamber: One is to speak on this amendment; secondly, to speak generally about the bill. We have a number of colleagues on the committee who have worked so hard on this bill who do want to speak on it. I hope they will do that this afternoon. Third, we can begin to receive amendments that we might want to consider during this week. I hope we can finish this bill this week. That may be an optimistic goal, but it would be achievable if everybody cooperates and brings to us and our staffs amendments they are thinking about offering.