actual bankruptcy organization to deal with it. . for a new, for a actual bankruptcy. in the 1920s and 30s and to actually figure out what is the means, the first thing he did was he put the wall street financial interests on public trial and showed and mobilized the people to see what we were up against. what caused the collapse and right now we're in a situation. >> what is the question? >> the question is how are we going to create a new credit system so we can direct credit to the infrastructure projects like nuclear power and mag leff transportation and water systems,ed kind of project that would recreate our real economy. >> it's a very good question and a good one to end on. i think we've lost sight.

two-word answer is cheap energy. cheap energy. i think we've lost sight of how important cheap energy is to good jobs. across tennessee, just as one example, we have a lot of manufacturing jobs and a third of them are auto jobs. say -- they ne i know down look at every cost they have. and if the costs gets too high off they go overseas searching for a lower cost but if electric rates are allow and energy costs are low, we're much more likely to be making cars in tennessee and michigan and ohio engine japan and mexico. a if we invent better ways as we did in nuclear power to have cheap way, think about what it does to alleviate poverty. even in nashville, tennessee, 10% people said they couldn't pay their electric bills in december. and around the world people have

much less money. so i think it is wrong for the united states to embark on an expensive energy policy, which is the house bill. i think it is right to take the republican senate bill which is 100 nuclear plants, electric cars and trucks, offshore drilling and doubling energy r & d for renewable energy. that's the plan for the next 20 years and that would -- that would actually lower utility bills and create jobs. the other plan would create a new utility bill for every american family and run jobs overseas. i thank you for your time. this is the blueprint for 100 new nuclear power plants. i hope it provokes a lot of the same kind of discussion that we had today. and if you're watching this, www.alexander.senate.gov is a way to give me your comments and suggestions. thank you very much for coming. [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate continues debate today on the defense programs bill. some of yesterday's debate included comments on the future of the f-22 fighter plane. you'll hear first from arm services committee leaders, senators john mccain and carl levin who oppose continued funding for the plane. and in a half hour, senators chris dodd and johnny eyes eyes -- >> i'm pleased to bring s1390 the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. to the senate floor. this bill will fully fund the fiscal year 2010 budget request of $680 billion for national security activities in the department of defense and the department of energy.

the senate arms 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'm pleased that s.1390 was presented to the senate on a unanimous, 26-0 to the committee. this stands to the common commitment of all of our members in supporting our men and women in uniform. i particularly want to thank senator mccain our ranking minority member for his strong support throughout the committee process and, of course, for the dedication that he has shown to the 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 two 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's my hope that we'll 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 battlefield and 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% across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed military personnel, and that represents a

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, re-enlistment and continued service by active duty and reserve military personnel. we increased the authorization for the homeowners assistance program by $350 million in order to provide relief for 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 $1100 per month to ensure that service members 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 that they'll continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan. for example, the bill contains provisions that would provide $6.7 billion for the mine resistant protection 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 that they can carry more of the burden 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 would terminate the air force combat search and rescue helicopter program. it will terminate the vh71 presidential helicopter.

it would cancel and restructure the manned ground vehicle portion of the army's future combat systems program. it would stop the growth of the army brigade combat teams, the vcts at 45 instead of 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength. it would end production of the c17 program. it would terminate the multiple kill vehicle program, cancel the kinetic energy intercepter. cancel the second airborne prototype aircraft and would authorize $900 million of additional funding in the budget request to field more theater missile defense systems that terminal high altitude area defense, the thad, and the standard missile 3 intercepters and converting additional aegis ships for missile defense. to defend our forward-deployed forces and allies against the

medium shore and 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 intercepters 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 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 staffs and the combatant commanders agree that their highest priority for the 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. now, i'm 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 is 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

federal agencies, 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 towards auditable financial statements. second, it requires the department of defense to develop a comprehensive plan to address long-standing problems in its inventory management system 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 under the department complies with an

existing statutory requirement to develop information needed to manage its service contractors, plan for its civilian employee work force and identify functions that would be subject to public/private competition and 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 that 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 21st, 2009, speech at the national archives, president obama stated that, quote, military commissions have a history in the united states dating back to george washington and the revolutionary war. they are an appropriate venue, he said, 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. and 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. we 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, closed quote. well, we agree with the president in section 1031 reflects our determination to reform the commissions. in its 2006 decision in the hamden 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, quote, evident, practical need, closed quote. the supreme court said that, quote, uniformity -- the uniformity principle is not an inflexible one. it does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated for use by courts martial but they be tailored that necessitates it, closed quote. that is the standard that the arms 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 use -- 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 in which have led to so much litigation. we would substitute more established procedures based on the uniformed code of military justice, the ucmj with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons. now, even if we're able to enacted 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 that 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, mr. president, 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. and 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 that 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 that 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, stando them and are deeply grateful for their service. so we look forward to working with colleagues to pass this important legislation, and again, i want to thank senator mccain for all he and his staff have done to bring this bill to the floor. and i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >> i'd like to thank chairman levin and i share your gratitude in thanking our subcommittee chairman and ranking members who

contributed so much to writing this bill. they held numerous hearings on many important issues, and i thank them all for their hard work and they were ably assisteñ by our extremely competent committee staff. i bring this bill to the floor era is a tremendous undertaking and it wouldn't be possible without the hard work of#1÷ our outstanding professional staff that ensures the process goes smoothly. i also want to extend my special thanks to chairman levin, whom i have worked with for many years now. i commend him on his leadership, grace, and integrity in shepherding this bill. it's not easy managing the competing interest, views and opinions of 26 senators but chairman levin does an outstanding job at ensuring that we all feel hurt and understood even if we don't always agree. i continue to admire his steadfast dedication to the committee's long tradition of bipartisan cooperation.

chairman levin, you are a friend andib great colleague and i appreciate your support in both regards.ász consistent with the ìc% practice of the arms services committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong women of the united states armed forces. it's for the most part an excellent bill. i believe the committee has made informed decisions regarding the authorization of over $680 billion in base and overseas contingency operating funds for fiscal year 2010. to a great extent it reflects the priorities laid out by the secretary of defense and the administration. it also reflects his decisions to end troubled programs and focus our limited resources on today's threats and the lessons we've learned after more than eight years of war. while the provisions in this bill demonstrate our commitment to provide our soldiers,

sailors, marm, an airmen, and me very best training, equipment, and support, in order to provide them with the very best possible tools to undertake their missions, i believe we can and should improve the bill in certain respects and i will offer amendments during our flute debate to do so. the bill takes care of our men and women the bill takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families. by providing military members with a 3.4% pay raise. it expands care for wounded warriors, supports families and improves military healthcare. it fully funds the growth of the army and marine corps. indeed, it authorizes further growth of the army should that be necessary to sustain our combat operations and further reduce the strain on our forces. the bill retains a balance capability to deter aggression by increasing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance

capabilities, investing in tactical aircraft in ships and accelerating the purchase of mind-resistant all-terrain vehicles for our troops in afghanistan. this bill acknowledges that we have a national security interest ensuring that afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. it support as comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by congress based on identified needs to date and calls on the president to provide our u.s. military commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed. in iraq, the committee ensures that the congress will support the president's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and ensure the safety of our forces.

one of the toughest issues this committee has taken a leading role in, both in past years and in this bill, is detainee policy. since 2005, this committee has developed legislation on detainee matters, sometimes in cooperation with the white house, and sometimes over its strong objections. because it's critical to our national security and the preservation of our democratic principles. this bill makes changes to the military commissions act of 2006. we have all, senator levin, senator graham and others, worked closely together to address some of these difficult issues. now, we haven't resolved all of the challenges that military commissions and other aspects of detainee policy present but i believe we made substantial progress that will strengthen the military commission systems

during appellate review, provide a careful balance between protection of national security and american values and allow the trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair result. the committee also had a healthy debate on the future of missile defense and our strategic deterrence capabilities. i welcome and share president obama's aspirations, hope for a nuclear-free world. however, i believe we must also be prudent and practical in our reductions and remain vigilant about the global proliferation of advanced missile and nuclear technology. while recently much of our national defense posture supports combating terrorists, we cannot grow complacent to the danger that rogue nations like north korea and iran pose to us, whether it's missile launches within range of hawaii or transferring weapons to hezbollah or hamas. we must strengthen our

commitment to enforcing the nonproliferation treaty and the existing inspections regime. we must lead an international effort to interdict and prevent the world's most dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the world's worst actors. i know there are varying views on the future of missile defense and our long-term strategic force posture. and i look forward to those debates. the bipartisan nature of our committee allows for candid discussion, lively debate and at times disagreement. in that spirit, there's some items in the bill that i do not support and were not in the president's budget request, such as continuation of the f-22 aircraft production line, funding for the joint strike alternate engine and earmarks totaling $6.4 billion. i was disappointed that in spite of a veto threat from the white house, our committee chose to

add $1.75 billion for seven f-22 aircraft and $439 million for an alternate engine for the joint strike fighter. neither the president nor the pentagon asked for f-22s or the alternate engine in the budget review request, nor were they part of the services unfunded priority list. secretary gates has consistently opposed a need for additional f-22 aircraft and has indicated on a number of occasions that additional f-22 aircraft are not required to meet potential threats posed by near term adversaries. i strongly support secretary gates' decision to end the f-22 production line at 187 aircraft and his commitment and the president's commitment to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability by

focusing on the timely delivery of the f-35 joint strike fighter to the air force, navy and marines and i look forward to lively debates to other important issues in the next few days. clear, the reason why senator levin and i supported the stressing and secretary gates' proposal to terminate at 187 the f-22 fighter aircraft is not because we believe we're going to leave the nation undefended. we need the next-general rigs f-35 joint strike fighter. our armed services are counting on them. we want to increase funding for the f-35 joint strike fighter, an aircraft and weapons system that in the view of many experts, including my view, would be far more capable of meeting the emerging threats of the future. so this is not -- this debate, my colleagues -- i want you to

understand -- is not just about cutting a weapon or bringing to an end, frankly, the line of a fighter aircraft; it's bringing to the end the line of one fighter aircraft and moving forward with another generation. for for >> for all three services. a very capable weapon system. one that meets the threats of the 21st century. so i think it's important that we look at the argument that will come forward about jobs created or jobs lost. there will be jobs created, a defense weapons system, the rationale for them, should never be the creation of jobs. it should only be about the best way to defend this nation in a very dangerous world. so it's my understanding and it's the wish of the chairman, i join him at the first amendment for the debate will be the

administration proposal to finish the f-22 aircraft production line, saving some six-point for -- excusing, $1.75 billion. so i look forward to that debate and look forward to my collies coming to the floor that would oppose the amendment. and i hope that my collies understand that we'd like to get this done this week, if possible. one more comment about the f-22 and the alternate engine for the joint strike fighter. the president of the united states, i am told, and the secretary of defense have made it very clear that a veto is very likely if the congress does not act to end the production of the f-22 line. i would strongly recommend that the president of the united states go ahead and veto this bill, if, the athlete who is included. at some point with unemployment

at 9.5% in people not being able to stay in their jobs, with health care being less available and less affordable in america, we cannot afford to spend $1.7 billion additional of taxpayers dollars for a system that can be replaced by a more capable weapon system, and one that can defend our nation with greater efficiency and less cost. so i believe, frankly, that there is more at stake here than just whether we adopt the levin mccain amendment to terminate production of the f-22 as originally scheduled. i think this is a much larger issue. and i hope that my colleagues understand the importance of it, and i hope that if the levin mccain amendment is defeated, which i hope it is not, because i hope that i believe that senator levin and i can make a

convincing argument on behalf of the administration and the secretary of defense, but if it is that they have no doubt, there will be no doubt that the president of the united states would veto this bill. and i say that with great reluctance. i say it was almost a sense of deep regret, because there's so many things in this bill that are important to the defense of our nation. whether it be they care and pay raises and hospitalization and care of our wounded warriors along with many other issues, but at some point this congress and this nation has got to exercise fiscal discipline that an economic crisis we are in today demand. mr. president, again i want to thank the senator levin for the long and close relationship at work we have done together. and sometimes we have had very spirited and very informative

discussions, and i hope i know those hopes will continue as we address this very important legislation before the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> i rise this evening to express my opposition to the levin mccain amendment. to cut short production of the f-22 fighter. understand my position, my position on this with our president, president obama, as were as the chairman, and for those fine public service by harry truman as amount of respect. i work with them on numerous occasions, and look for to doing so again in the future. also i think have a duty to stand up for an airplane built by constituents of mine. i wouldn't make the case, madam president, strickler on a job loss. that's not a legitimate argument to make. through 99 of your colleagues around the country. if we each made that case, where job losses would have occurred, obviously it would lead to

chaos. we couldn't have a situation like that. my argument in support of this f-22 goes far beyond the potential job losses in my state, although that's not insignificant. some 2000 jobs would be lost potentially in connecticut. more important than the job loss, as important as that is, is the potential job loss of the industrial base that is absolutely critical to maintaining the ability to produce the superior engine that we historically have been able to do so. with the division of united technologies corporation in my home state. the work being done by machines and engineers and technicians in my state and others all across the country are not only produce quality work but also make a significant difference in saving lives and giving us the superior ability to deal with potential threats that our nation faces. that's been a hallmark of every generation come before us. not to achieve parity with potential adversaries, but to be in a superior position of potential adversaries. having learned the painful lessons back in the early part

of the last century, but we lacked the capacity, to not only be a parity but superior cost us dearly in the initial years of the conflict of the late 1930s and early 1940s. let me begin with my concerns over this amendment potential impact on our national security. since the advent of modern warfare military strategists have sought the highest ground in the battlefield to gain tactical advantage. neh of the fighter jets, that means commanding the skies. and in the modern era, air superiority has been a cornerstone of american strategy. the f-22 is the reason that we can lay claim to the severe yorty at this critical time. it is a fast, plain, reaching speed of maximum 1.5 in 90 seconds. that is without thrust ms. it is stealthy. also has the ability to engage targets before it can be detected. is equipped with advanced intelligence, and recognizance tools that as an instrument of air superiority the f-22 raptor

is unmatched by any foreign competitor. including the much heralded me 29, russian built in the 29th flown by various militaries around the world. i'm going to point to this particular chart i have here which is rather difficult to read even from where the presiding officer is. at a map obviously of the world and there is a series of color-coded dots on the map. and let me explain what the dots are and then i will explain what we are looking at it and existing technologies and a fourth generation of development of aircraft technology and what is being done on a fifth generation by nation states, particularly the russians and the chinese. the red boxes, if you will, or dots on this thing, they indicate that these countries already operates or has ordered for the generation generation f. there are a number of countries

around the world in this category. the yellow coated areas are expected to order by the year 2010, these fourth generation. you get an idea in the middle east, some of the northern african states, some in the far east as well. the red dots themselves operate or have ordered advanced surface-to-air missiles. again, this is critical technology that has the capacity to take out your aircraft. and in the yellow dots, the round dots, they are offered or considering advanced surface-to-air missiles. so you get some idea of what's occurring here. this overhear their dominance is not guaranteed is the point i wanted to make with this language here. the su toy seven is a very sophisticated aircraft. it has air to air capabilities, a dogfight capability. those planes are operated already by algeria, belarus, china, ethiopia, india, indonesia, as extent, malaysia,

mexico, russia, ukraine, pakistan, venezuela and vietnam. the mig-29 is more air to ground capability. very sophisticated. that it operates include algeria, our media, bangladesh, belorussia, bulgaria, india, iran, as extent, malaysia, miramar, north korea, peru, poland, russia, serbia, slovakia, the sudan, syria, talk minister, ukraine, and human. again, widespread globally, that air to ground capability and air to air capability. today there is a fifth generation being developed that will be highly competitive with the f-22 and the f-35. that fifth generation fighter is currently being developed by russia and china. to challenge the f-22 and the f-35. that gives you some sense of where we are today. these are very sophisticated aircraft operating today, the

surface-to-air noodles are very sophisticated and in countries today that can take out, in fact, our existing technology in many areas. of course, the fifth generation is what we are talking about being ready for the mid part of this entry. our air superiority has gone unnoticed by others in many wa ways, identified by these maps. all the countries in red as i pointed out how that air capability comparable to that mig. that means they are all on par with our current aircraft technology. specifically, the f. 15 and f-16 fighters, known as the fourth fh generation of jets pixar f-15 and f-16 are very confident, very good and they are in a parity. they are not superior. give you some idea of what i mean by the generation, comparison of generations. every pore came out today i think you as today or yesterday that indicated in a matchup of actual dow fights between f-22 and the f-15 i. believe it was,

the f-22 in a comparative battle bbf 15144 to one. 144 to one. did you an idea of how much more superior the f-22 could be in command of the airwaves, of the airspace rather, as opposed to what it's comparable to the f-15 today. so the f-22 is a very important piece of technology when it comes to regaining the superior capabilities that are absolutely essential. according to the air force, that's more, these maps show that 30 nations are at parity with or exceeding the capabilities of the f-15 and f-16. that puts our missions and lives of our pilots at risk. on top of that, russia and china are currently both are developing their own fifth generation of fighter to counter the f-22 and f. 35. and there are 50 nations around the world, madam president marketing these so-called red dots today capable of shooting

down the f-15 strike eagles and that the f-22 would replace. the yellow dots indicate other countries considering the purchase of such weapons, and i pointed them out as well. our current fourth generation wider jets are vulnerable to these threats because they don't have the self technology found in the apt way. regrettably, we entered this danger in operation desert storm 137 of our non-stealthy aircraft were shot down in 40 more were damaged. and in an early stealth fighter, the f-117 as well as f-16 were brought down during the 1999 kosovo operation by rudimentary service there to air missiles. is a risk we shouldn't have to take and don't have to take. these are risk we don't have to force upon our pilots. these are risks that are entirely preventable if we arm ourselves with the next generation. that's why the f-22 is so critically important. if this amendment is being offered to strike and eliminate

the f-22 that we cannot guarantee american continuing their dominance. our allies will not always look like those we faced in afghanistan in 2001. or iraq in 2003. enemies whose air defenses were in tattered. we did not always choose when and where our battles are going to be fought. we must be prepared, madam president and must be maintain our competitive edge for the sake of our national secured in the lives of our troops. madam president if the amendment is approved our f-22 fleet will be limited to 187 aircraft. according to a military officials that's a figure that simply is not enough to address the current capabilities of our military's competitors. i have a letter dated june 9 of this year from general john dorling who is in charge, currently in charge of air combat command for the air force. he reiterated, and michael, i think my colleagues will understand as well when you have someone, a current general

serving as in charge of air combat and command mission to the air force, it disagrees with the secretary of defense in a public way, you get some idea of the depth of the feeling that occurs with a matter like this. let me quote from the letter. at air combat command we have held the need, we have held the need for 381 f. point is in my opinion a fleet of 187 f-22's put execution of our current national security strategy at high risk in the near to midterm. to my knowledge, the general goes on, there are no studies to demonstrate that 187 f. 22 are adequate to support our national military strategy. air combat command analysis done in concert with headquarters air force chose a moderate risk forced can be obtained within f-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft. end of quote. general corley responsible for aircraft readiness of the united states air force says we will

incur moderate risk with even 250 aircraft here and a command needs 381 aircraft to be fully capable. we insist on giving them only 187. madam president, that is deeply troubling. i think we owe it to our troops to give them what they need to protect, of course, our nation as well. but our security also depends on a robust manufacturing base. in the proposed amendment could be devastating to our critical aerospace industrial capabilities. if this amendment would are now talking about passes, the f-22 assembly will halt in 2011. and fighter jet production lines will go cold until the year 2014 when he f. 35 manufacturing begins in earnest. what does this mean for the aerospace industry in this nation? in my home state of connecticut, we are blessed to have a large content of an credibly skilled and aerospace workers who keep our country safe and produce of course magnificent engines. they are highly skilled

engineers, machinists and technicians. on average in their mid-to-late 40s. in age. they may retire obviously. they may back up and relocate. they may leave the trade entirely. but they won't just sit idle for three years in our nation cannot afford to lose them and that's represented by this period here. the idea that you should be letting these people off and expect them to be once again rehired by the time they would be in many cases in the mid '50s, i think is unrealistic. and so that industrial base, that's energy that is critically important is going to be lost. the commission on the future of the u.s. aerospace industry recently recommended, and i quote, madam president, that the nation immediately reverse the decline in both the growth in a scientifically and technologically trained u.s. aerospace workforce, and of quote. andy and i go on further to go, the breakdown of america's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to

continue as a world leader, end of quote. the commission also stated that resolving the crisis would require government industry labor and academia to work together to reverse this trend. my colleagues, i'm afraid, that this amendment does the exact opposite of what we are being warned to try and solve. and that is according to the aerospace industries associati association. the industry faces in pending retirement and a shortage of trained, technical graduates. a situation already expected to worsen within the decade. some companies address this issue by outsourcing work around the globe. in aerospace and defense, however, security requirements dictate that most design work on military systems must be done by u.s. citizens. thus, the need for u.s. develop technical talent, is particularly acute if you want to assure a world class aerospace workforce ready to lead in a global economy of the 21st century. on this chart, this is the f. 22 production, which ended 2011

marked by this point here, madam president. this is the f-35 production which begins in 2014 over here. this gap is hundreds of jobs, many in 2000. it also represents tens of thousands of american jobs across this nation in this particular area. i am just talking about my own state right here and in what happens in connecticut. you can take those numbers, and i can't speak for other places around the nation, but you end up with that kind of loss and that worked already in an economy that's struggling. that's not an argument. which is odd to keep people working on a defense system here. the more important question is natch i got national security. which ought to understand even if you decide, once again ramp-up in this time period here, you lose a workforce here that is critical, it gets harder and harder and harder to do. in fact, the defense department recognizes this gap, years ago.

in 2600 health defense review, published by the military to identify the needs and strategy of our armed forces, they stated that the f-22 production should be extended through fiscal year 2000 with a multiyear contract to ensure the department does not have a gap in a generation stealth capability. that's a direct quote, madam president. from the quadrennial report in 2006. the military identified in 2006 the most recent published report of its type that our nation would suffer loss in aerospace manufacturing capabilities infighter production does not have a seamless transition. yet for some reason we find ourselves in the very position that the military only three years ago realized we should avoid. in addition to our national security and the readiness of our aerospace, production industry, this amendment would have a negative impact of course on jobs. our unemployment rate is 9.5%. we continue to face the worst

economic condition and decade. have taken unprecedented steps to put americans back to work. is why the government has stepped in to save critical manufacturing sectors such as the domestic automobile industry. but this in a minute suggest the same government doesn't believe our tactical air manufacturing sector want similar treatment. in my state with the impact of the recovery act is just beginning to be felt, the success of this amendment would be a devastating blow. and i'm determined to do everything i can to see to it that we can avoid it. i would not want to see america's aerospace workers, the fighters internation, remained unresolved. allow me to introduce to such workers. frank mancini and rocco mondo. to work in middletown connecticut. manufactured engine for the f-22. frank and rocco are both engine test mechanics. in this picture the two of them here are preparing the f-22

engine for testing by attaching instrumentation to collect data as the engine goes through a series of computerized test. the highly advanced nature of the engine requires countless hours of testing and retesting, inspection and reinspection, to ensure that when it is shipped to the assembly plant it operates flawlessly. both of these workers understand that a mistake on their part could cost the lives of our american forces. that is why it's so important that these gentlemen have years of experience to ensure that only the best quality engine are put on these aircraft. these are the same workers that built the f-35 joint strike fighter's engine. but only if the f-22 production is allowed to continue for the next four years. frank is the one in the blue shirt here, madam president. has worked in the middletown plant for 31 years. starting on the assembly line, finally rising to his current job of a test line or the plants most advanced engines, the f-22.

frank is married with two sons, aged 17 and 12, whom he hoped to send off to college. the proposal of the prospect of cutting the f. 22 production makes him worry every day about his son's future. not only about whether he will be able to send them to college but also whether there will be any jobs for the next generation of children in connecticut's aerospace industry. rocco marone, known as the other workers, rocky by his coworkers has worked there for 34 years. like frank, rocky is an engine test mechanic at he trained and worked with younger mechanics and in part his expense on them, both from his time on the assembly line and in working in the test cell. it is workers like these two individuals, these two men at the middletown plant in connecticut, combined at 65 years, taking that knowledge, 65 years that they have acquired here building the finest engines in the world for the last 80 years, the plant has, and it is indecencies and the workers who, by training the next generation, would ensure that the trade

secrets of ancient buildings are never lost. but this amendment puts all of that at risk, madam president. as i mentioned, the f-22 is canceled in 2011 and the numbers we are now talking about, then these two individuals and tens of thousands like them across our country faces a difficult odds. these highly skilled, quality control expert will be left wondering what lies ahead for them, for their families, will they retain their jobs, how many other colleagues will be signing on the unemployment rolls. and whether there are opportunities exist for workers with such highly specialized skill set. and if we live in the f-22 before 2014, will we be wondering, something is well. b. stillman walked out the door and take decade of indictable experience and skills with them. will ever get them back again. madam president, i urge my colleagues who respectfully reject the amendment being offered by the chairmen and ranking member of the armed services committee. again, i have tremendous respect for both of these individuals.

but i think it's important to get not just on a parochial basis. i could not stand here and ask my colleagues merely to vote for this program because jobs in my state. but i also want them to understand what happens to people. this isn't just numbers we talk about here. there are lives. there are skill set. there's a valuable resource that are also at risk when we cast our votes on whether or not to continue this program and allow for that seamless transition that will maintain a superiority, the effectiveness of our aircraft of the 21st century. the chart i showed you earlier here, these nations, around the world, others are not sitting idly by. they are developing the surface-to-air missiles, they are developing the fifth generation of fighters, challenge them, and we find ourselves in a situation today where we might be taking a backseat at a time i think we could at least afford it. this is not an expensive to do this. senator saxby has provided an offset, i know in committee, for the cost of continuing this

program for 2014. and that's an important consideration. again, my respect for the members of the committee not to wrestle with these issues every single day. i want to share with my colleagues on some of this information particularly what it means in a state like mine that has an 80 year history of producing these terrific engines and workers like the two individuals i introduce you to this evening whose talent and abilities we potentially lose as a result of this decision. so it's one of great import. one of significance to our country. one of significance to our national security. one of significance to the people who provide of course this wonderful skill set they give us these remarkable interfere with that, madam president, i yield the floor. >> and, madam president, my colleagues will be speaking on this issue. can i ask, madam president? >> yes, sir. the senator from georgia to mac that i do recognize for up to five minutes and that senator thune be recognized immediately thereafter? >> yes, sir. objection? without objection. >> thank you very much, madam president.

i want the senator from connecticut for just a second, i am rising to affirm everything the senator said. he made an articulate, detailed case for the f-22, in our position to the amendment and i commend him on it. i want to just add three thoughts. three good reasons for the f-22 and not to adopt the measure. number one, and the united states air force wrote the rfc for the weapon system for the 21st century to replace the existing aging aircraft, the f-22 met and exceeded in every single point of the rc number one. number two, for those that say the cost of some $2000 an hour more for maintenance, you know, you have to quantify that. look what you are buying. you are buying stealth technology that exists to nobody in the world. no one in the world. the ability to lead without ever having been seen. most recently in alaska, the f-22 in a mock battle destroyed

144 aircraft before it lost its first. and lastly and most importantly, while it may not be the plane exactly for afghanistan and iraq today, what about north korea? what about iran? what about what happened to us in the balkans in the late 1990s when president clinton deployed our airstrikes to put together what was a terrible situation? we must be prepared for what ever will come in the 21st century. and if there's anything we have learned in the 21st entry, you cannot underestimate what may come. so i want to commend the senator from connecticut on his articulate statements and affirm everything that he said in support of not adopting the amendment and continuing to purchase the f-22 beyond the 187 that is currently being cast out or asked to be capped out and i commend the senator for his remarks. >> that number on the 144 to one, i suspect maybe people won't believe that number. that is a real number.

pilots don't always necessary comment on these matters. but i'm told by those who have been interviewing talking, pilot to fly this plane, the f-22, using superlatives to subscribe the aircraft they never used before, talking to any other aircraft that i mentioned the ability to reach speeds of 90 seconds without her thrusters. they are remarkable. distill the quality of this, the maneuverability, the agility of this aircraft exceeds anything else that exist anywhere in the world. and as i say there is a generation coming along. by nations whom we have pretty good relationships. we have all been around long enough we can never predict without absolute certainty what happened. with the su to a seven and the mig-29 windows are now widely disseminated worldwide. and they pose a parody with the existing aircraft we have. we need to have that superior body and i thank my colleague from georgia.

>> debate yesterday over the f-22 fighter plane program. that's one issue as the senate convenes now. today's senators resume consideration of defense department programs for fiscal year 2000. with a possible vote on striking the f-22 program in the form of an amendment by senate armed services levin and senator john mccain a senior republican on the panel. now live the senate coverage on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, our help in ages past, and our hope for years to

come, thank you for the demonstrated durability of our governmental institutions and for those who serve you faithfully by preserving our freedoms. bless our senators as they strive to do your will. manifest your presence and power in their daily work so that they will not become weary in doing good. move them toward the deeper dedication and the higher purpose of providing hope for the marginalized in our world. show them what they can do to bring about the moral and spiritual renewal of this

nation, in order to hasten the coming day of justice and peace in our world. we pray in the name of the king of kings. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 14, 2009. to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland w. burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business. senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the final 30 minutes. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the department of defense authorization bill. pending is an amendment dealing with the airplane, the f-22. that amendment has been offered by senators levin and mccain, the two managers of this bill. the president has indicated, if the f-22 language stays in the bill, he will veto the bill. a decision has to be made today as to how we're going to dispose

of this amendment, either by passing it or by moving beyond it in some way. we will recess today from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the wokely policy luncheons. there will be no roll call votes after 2:00 or 2:30 today. mr. president, i think nearly every one of us has gone to the doctor and taken home advice to help us get better or live healthier. maybe at one point in our lives we were told, for example, to exercise more. maybe we were told to cut something out of our diet, lose some weight, add something to it, gain some weight, change your diet in some way. maybe we were prescribed medicine for a short while or a long while. people within the sound of my voice in this senate chamber all have been to doctors and are -- many are taking medicine now.

mr. president, it is not always easy to hear the advice that doctors give or to follow the advice that they give. it's never easy to change your lifestyle, even if you know you'll be better in the long run. you also know that the risk of not following your doctor's orders, the consequences of not taking your medicine, the cost of doing nothing are far greater. you know that if you don't do something this time, the news after your next checkup may be even worse. it'll make more drastic steps to get healthy again. well, mr. president, america has just had its checkup. the progress know pisthe progno. the doctor's orders are very clear. if we don't start taking better caver ourselves, it is only going to get worse. the costs of health care today

are staggering. families in every part of flef, in every state feel this every day. the costs could get much, much higher if we don't act, they'll get much worse. they'll get much higher. i want that stricken from the record, mr. president. costs could get much, much higher. and if we don't act, they will get higher. the average american family today pays twice as much for its health care than it did a decade ago. if we don't act less than a decade from now, those costs will double again. families aren't making more money, but they're paying more trying to get healthy and to stay healthy. if we don't act, less than a decade from now, you'll spend almost half of your family's income on health care. no one can be expected to afford that. no one should have to afford that. after a while, the doctorals of dollars that millions of -- the trillions of dollars that

millions of families spend add up. our country spends more on health care than any other developed nation on the planet. health care costs consume almost 20 cents of every dollar that we spend. that's every dollar spent in america. if we don't act in a generation, we'll consume more than one-third of every dollar. you may be fortunate enough to afford health care this year. but if we don't act, we may not be able to say the same next year. if we don't act, your children very likely won't be able to say the same when they grow up. madam president, last thursday -- mr. president, last thursday i was at an event with senator murray where she just got notice from the state of washington that 135,000 people who are beneficiaries of a health insurance plan in her state just got a notice that the average rate of increase of the 135,000 recipients of health care in that plan will have an increase, on an average, of 17.5%.

staggering. staggering. mr. president, we've all read the charts and seen the numbers repeated by those who oppose fixing our broken health care system. there are charts -- their charts and their conversations all toward maintaining the status quo, keeping things just the way they are. it's as if they haven't bothered to do the math on the costs of doing nothing. health care reform is economic reform. that's why we want to lower skyrocketing costs, bring stability and security back to health care. that's why we're committed to passing a plan that protects what works and fixes what doesn't. i'm encouraged by the cooperation and commitment of several republican senators who are willing to work with us to get that done.

and to get it done before it's too late. i appreciate the tireless work of our finance and "help" committees, democrats and republicans, as they write a prescription for america that will work. i got a call last night about 10:00 from chris dodd indicating the progress that has been made in the "help" committee. republicans have offered hundreds of amendments, hundreds of amendments, and they're working their way through those. and, you know, mr. president, those republican amendments sometimes improve the legislation. for example, senator dodd said -- i was very pleased that they were able to work something out on biogenics. that's prescriptions that physicians get and there's some real activity out there as to how that's going to be treated. an amendment offered by senator hatch was adopted by the committee. so i appreciate the work of our finance and "help" committees as they write a prescription for america that will work. and i still aim to bring the

bill to the floor this month. but it appears somewhat to ignore the doctor's orders. mr. president, i wish i could say they do so at their own peril. yet if a handful of senators stand in the way of the change we so drastically need, you are urgent gently need, they'll -- urgently need, they'll endanger all of us, families of every background, businesses of every size, and our nation's collective future. we've already seen what happens when we do nothing. over the past eight years of inaction, the costs of health care rose to record levels and the number of americans who can't afford insurance did the same. senator patty murray's story is certainly relevant here. 135,000 people in the state of washington, 17.5% increase, on average, of their policies what they have to pay. for the millions of families who

file for foreclosure because they can't afford both their house and their health care, not act something not an option. for the millions of americans who file for bankruptcy because their medical bills grow higher and higher and higher, not acting is not an option. for the millions of americans who skip the doctor visits or treelts they need to stay healthy or who never fill out the prescription their doctor gives them because health care is simply too expensive, not acting is not an osmghts our health care system is not healthy. americans' physical health and america's fiscal health are at risk. not angting is not an option. -- not act something not an option. -- not acting is not an option. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, as both parties work together on reforming health care, americans have been clear about what they

want to see in a result. americans want health care that's more affordable and accessible, but they also want to preserve the choice and the quality that our current system provides. we also know that what americans do not want -- they don't want a government plan that forces them off their current insurance, denies, delays, or rations care, or costs trillions of dollars, only to leave millions of americans with worse health care than they currently have. and americans certainly don't want us to throw together some patchwork plan that nobody has had a chance to look at and then rush it out the door the way the stimulus bill was. just so politicians in washington can say they accomplished something. americans are increasingly concerned about some of the proposals coming out of washington and they're concerned about the cost and who gets stuck with the bill.

and they're concerned for good reason. all the cost estimates we've seen from -- for democratic reform proposals have been truly staggering and most of them only hint at what the true cost of these charges might be. these changes might be. moreover, some estimates claim to cover a 10-year period but actually only cover a six-year period. we also know from hard experience with programs like medicare and medicaid that government-run health plans are likely to cost far more in the long run than original estimates suggest. and we've seen that with the current administration's initial estimates and assurances aren't always on target. earlier this year, the administration predicted the stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8%. it's now approaching 10%. so americans are increasingly concerned about cost. this is whyed coacts of

government-run health care are scrambling for a way to pay for it. but in their rush to find the money, they've come up with some really terrible ideas such as forcing small business owners and seniors to pick up the tab through higher taxes and cuts to medicare. now let me repeat that. the advocates for government-run health care now want small business owners and seniors to pay for their plan through higher taxes and cuts to med kay. this is exactly the wrong -- to medicare. this is exactly the wrong approach. raiding one insolvent government-run program is to create another is not reform. raiding one insolvent government program to create another is not reform. it's using old ideas to solve a problem that calls for fresh thinking. medicare should be strengthened for future generations, not used as a piggy bank to fund more government programs.

and as for tax hikes on small business owners, this is the very last thing we should be doing to the people who created approximately two-thirds of america's jobs over the past decade at a time when the unemployment rate is approaching 10%. according to the president of the national federation of independent business, some proposals currently being considered in congress could kill more than 1.5 million jobs. and there's strong evidence that low-wage workers, minorities and women, would be the hardest hit. in the middle of a recession we should look for ways to create jobs, not destroy them. we should be looking for ways to help workers, not hurt them. now, americans do want health care reform but they don't want so-called reforms that could cost trillions of dollars that could increase insurance premiums or this could cause millions to end up with worse care than they have now.

and they certainly don't want to slap together plan that's paid for on the backs of seniors and small business owners. instead, americans want us to work together on proposals that are likely to garner strong bipartisan support. i've listed many of the proposals repeatedly over the past several weeks such as reforming medical malpractice laws to get rid of junk lawsuits and bring down costs. and encouraging wellness and prevention programs such as those that help people quit smoking and overcome obesity, programs that have been shown to cut costs. these are some of the commonsense ideas americans are looking for in health care reform. now we all know health care reform won't be easy. but it doesn't have to bury our children and grandchildren deeper in debt when so far this year we're already spending an average of $500 million a day in interest on the national debt.

this year we're spending $500 million a day in interest on the national debt. the proposals i've mentioned should be easy for everyone to agree on. they would lead to measurable results and they wouldn't force anyone to lose the care they have, wouldn't force cuts to medicare or foisting higher taxes on small business. americans are concerned about the cost of reform. we should work hard to assure them that we are, as well. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: there will be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for ten minutes with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i rise today to speak about an amendment i filed to the national defense authorization act of 2010. this amendment is to ensure that comprehensive suicide prevention services will be offered to our national guard and reservists as

part of the yellow ribbon reintegration program. i believe the d.c. has desk haf the amendment. too often, we hear about the death of an armed services member from an unnecessary and preventable suicide. suicide has become an increasingly severe problem across our armed forces. for the first time in history, the number of battlefield suicides in early 2009 was higher than the number of combat deaths. now, i'm pleased the defense authorization act that we're considering supports increased efforts to prevent suicide among active duty personnel. however, there is currently no requirement that all national guard members and their communities have access to a comprehensive suicide prevention program. suicide devastates not only military families but also

military communities and fellow soldiers. currently while active duty soldiers receive prevention training programs there are no established programs to train national guard and reservists to prevent suicides when they return to their communities from deployment. and the families of guardsman and reservists don't receive training under the yellow ribbon program to recognize the warning signs of suicide. yet even in the wake of suicides, guard members are often called back to active duty and redeployed into dangerous and intense combat situations. in afghanistan and iraq, we have increasingly relied on our national guard and reserve national guard and reserve and reservist. we see that firsthand in new hampshire. recently, more than 1,100 members of the 197th fires brigade which includes units from berlin, franklin, and

manchester, new hampshire, received notice they can expect to be deployed to the middle east. fortunately, when these soldiers return home from battle they and their communities will have access to comprehensive suicide prevention training because of an initiative of new hampshire national guard and reserve national guard and reserve pilot program called the "connect" program that has gone beyond what is offered through the yellow ribbon program. to date, the connect program, which is administered by the national alliance on mental illness in newspaper num in news provided an interactive community-based suicide prevention training program. through connect, a guard men who returns home from active duty lens how to recognize the warning signs of suicidal behavior, how to respond to someone who shows those signs and where to direct that person

to the services he or she needs. but the program doesn't end with the guard member. it also provides this training to the guard members' community. the guard members' commanding officers are trained to recognize suicidal tendencies in the soldiers they commands. guard families who often have no experience with mental illness and suicide are also provided with that training. this is especially critical because unlike active duty personnel guard members don't see their fellow soldiers every day when they come back from being deployed. instead, they go back to their families and civilian communities which too often simply aren't trained to recognize the warning signs of suicidal behavior. the "connect" program fills a critical gap because it uses interactive training to emphasize that mental health is a community responsibility.

the "connect" program also ensures that community members know how to cope with and respond to a suicide in the guard community. people who know someone who has died by suicide are statistically at an increased risk of taking their own life. the program helps communities reduce that risk and promote healing in response to a suicide. that is an essential element of any suicide prevention program. thanks to their effective work in response to suicides, "connect" has been designated as a national best practice program in suicide prevention and the work with the national guard and reserve national guard and reserve recognized as a model program by the substance abuse services administration in the department of health and human services. but, unfortunately, not all state national guard and reserve

offer such comprehensive suicide programs after deployment. in the army national guard and reserve alone there have been 29 confirmed suicides this year among army guardsman who were not on active duty. mr. president, i rise today because we need to extend these critical services across the country before even more soldiers fall through the cracks. the yellow ribbon reintegration program has been a tremendously important and successful effort to transition back to civilian life. however the guard and reservist suicides have made it clear that yellow ribbon is simply incomplete without an established nationally implemented program that trains guard members, communities, and families to recognize the warning signs of suicide after deployment and to cope with the loss of a loved one.

fortunately for all of us in muw hampshire our national guard and reserve identify that early and created a pilot program to ensure that the new hampshire guard community has the tools they need to prevent suicides when soldiers return from battle. studies of the "connect" program have shown that people who receive this training feel particularly well prepared not only to recognize the warning signs of suicide but also to respond to suicides in their communities. but others across the country may not be so fortunate. that's why this amendment would require the office for reintegration programs to establish a program to provide these guard members and reservists, their families and their communities, with training and suicide prevention and community healing in response to suicide. the principles of the program would be models on the nationally recognized pilot program that has worked so well

in new hampshire. i'm pleased the amendment i'm offering is supported by the national guard and reserve association of the united states. i hope all of my colleagues in the senate will join me in making these critical services a standard part of our outreach to national guard members, to their families, and to their communities across the country. i ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment be included in the record at this point, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'd like to ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: and, we -- i assume the order is to begin the republican 30 minutes of morning business. and i'd like to take the first 20 minutes and be informed when i have one minute left and then senator gregg will take the last 10, and then the democratic time remaining will be reserved for

the democratic side when they want to use it. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. the president has said several times about his -- expressed several times his concern about our nation's debt. we republicans have a great concern about the amount of debt being stacked up in this country. president obama's proposals over the next 10 years will add as much to the national debt as our country -- three times as much to the national debt, almost, as our country spent during world war ii. according to "the washington post." so the president has had a summit on entitlement spending, which is the principal cause of the debt. he has said that we need to pay for programs as we go, and we spend a dollar, we should save a dollar, or tax a dollar. and, more recently, he's said on the health care legislation that has tit has to be paid for.

mr. president, we're rushing down a road to pass a bill without knowing what it costs, which is exactly the opposite of what the president has said. we are talking about health care. i just left the work we're doing in the "help" committee. the finance committee is work ling hard. we had a bipartisan breakfast discussing how we can have a bipartisan health care bill. it costs 16% of our entire national budget. we don't have a bill yet. the "help" committee may have one by the end of the week, which really republicans have had almost no input in. the finance committee is trying to develop a bipartisan bill, but they're not going to begin to write a bill until next week. and then, mr. president, it'll take several weeks to know what it costs. and it will take -- and we need to know, not just so we don't add to the debt but so that we can understand what the various options are and how much they cost.

i mean, we're talking about medicare cuts and spending grand massachusetts medicare money on somebody else. how much does that -- and spending grandma's medicare money on somebody else. how much does that cost? we're talking about taxes to the employer? how much does that cost? we're talking about adding to the debt. we're talking about a surplus in incomes, we're talking about increases in medicare. the last estimate we had from the congressional budget office was, as he said, "back of the envelope." we want a health care i will bill -- we want a health care bill. we want something that americans can afford and after we're through fixing health care, we want to make sure they have a government they can afford and we agree with the president, but we cannot responsibly pass a bill on this floor until we know what it costs. so, why the rush? let's do it right. we're talking about one of the most important pieces of

legislation ever, and we're talking about trillions of dollars. mr. president, on another issue, i made an address yesterday to the national press club about the republican plan for a clean -- for clean energy. we call it a low-cost clean energy plan. it begins with the idea of building 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years, electrifying half our cars and trucks in 20 years, exploring for natural gas, which is low-carbon and oil offshore. we're going to continue to use oil. it might as well be our own. and then finally doubling our research and development budget, as president obama has proposed, so that we can have mini manhattan projects in renewable energy to try to reduce their cost and make them more reliable so they can really contribute to our energy needs. i would like to address a few

remarks today to our low-cost plan for clean, renewable energy and compare it with what is coming over from the harks which is a high-cost plan. our country is at a critical point. the recession is the most severe in decades and unemployment is at 10% with too much national debt and the gathering storm threatens the technological able that has given americans 25% of all the money in the world for just five% of th 5% of the peop. we rely too much on other cups for energy. there is unfinished job of cleaning the air and the global warming of our planet is an urgent concern. it is against this backdrop for the first time ever legislation on climate change and energy is coming from the house. we're working on the same subjects in the house. the decisions we make will affect our well-being for years to come. the house has chosen the

high-cost solution to clean america and climate change. it's economy wide cap-and-trade and renewable energy mandates is job killing $100 billion a year national energy tax that will add a new utility bill to every american family budget. republican united states senators offer a different approach. a low-cost plan for clean energy based upon four steps: 100 new nuclear plants in 20 years. electric cars for conservation. offshore exploration for natural gas and oil. and doubling energy research and development to make renewable energy cost competitive. the republican plan will lower utility bills and create jobs. and -- and -- should put the united states within the goals of the kyoto protocol on global warming by 2030. our plan should not add to the fell budget since ratepayers will pay for building the new

nuclear plants, not the government. federal loan financing for the first nuclear plants is designed not to cost the taxpayers money. and nuclear plants ensure one another -- the taxpayers don't pay. offshore exploration should reduce revenues through royalties and doubling energy research costs $8 billion already in the president's budgets for 2008 and 2009. in furtherance of that republican plan, i have offered my own blueprint as one senator about how to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. i'm looking for support on the republican side, on the democratic side, in and out of congress. for those who are watching and listening, i'd like to have your comments and suggestions at www.alexander.senate.gov, a good time to ask what are we trying

to accomplish with energy and climate change legislation. what kind of america do we want? for the next 20 years? we should want to see an america running on energy that's clean, cheap, reliable and abundant. in order to produce 25% of the world's wealth we consume 25% of the world's energy. we should want an america where we create hundreds of thousands of green jobs but not at the expense of destroying tens of millions of red, white and blue jobs. in other words it doesn't make sense to throw people out of work in the renewable energy sector if we're throwing them -- putting them to work in the renewable energy but throwing them out of work in manufacturing but that is what will happen if the new technologies raise the price of electricity and send manufacturing and energy intensive industries overseas searching for cheap energy. we want clean, new energy

efficient cars but we want then built in michigan, ohio, tennessee, and not in japan and mexico. we should want an america in the next 20 years capable of producing enough of our own energy so we can't be held hostage by some other country. we should want an america in which we're the unquestioned leader in cutting-edge job-creating scientific research. we should want an america producing less carbon. i don't think we ought to be throwing 29 billions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so that is less reliance on fossil fuels and an america with cleaner air where smog and soot in los angeles and the great smokies is a thing of the past and our children are less likely to suffer asthma attacks brought on by breathing pollutants. and finally we should want an america where we're not creating an energy sprawl by occupying vast track lands of farms, deserts, mountaintops, with

energy installations that ruin the scenic landscape. the great american outdoors and a revered part of the american character. we've spent a century preserving it. there's no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. mr. president, none of these goals are met by the house-passed waxman-markey bill. what started as an effort to address global warming by reducing carbon is a contraption of taxes and mandates that will impose a huge and unnecessary burden on the economy. renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass are intriguing and promising as a such employment to america's energy requirements but the waxma waxman-markey bill proves that the government's biggest mistake is taking a good idea and expanding it until it doesn't work anymore. trying to expand the renewable forms of energy to the point where they become our prime source of energy has huge costs

and obvious flaws. what's worse, it creates what some conservationists call renewable energy sprawl where we are asked to sacrifice the american landscape. for example, a big solar power plant in the western desert where they line up mirrors to focus the sun's rays and spread across 30 square miles produces just the same 1,000 megawatts you can get from a single coal or nuclear plant on one skwirm mile and to generate the same with wind you need 270 square miles of 50-story turbines. generating 20% of our nation's electricity from wind would cover an area the size of west virginia. now, to those in the southeast with the wind doesn't blow enough to make electricity they say use biomass sort of a controlled bonfire of wood

products. that's a good idea. it might reduce forest fires and conserve resources but don't expect too much. we need a forest a lot larger than the great smoky mountain natural park on a sustained basis to feed 1,000 megawatt biomass plant. think of the energy used, the carbon produced by the hundreds of trucks that it will take to halhaulthe tough to one plant. we are seeing the problems boone pickens who said wind turbines are too ugly to put on his ranch. last week postponed what was to be america's largest wind farm because of the difficulty of building transmission lines from west virginia to population centers. and the sacramento, california, utility district pulled out of another huge project to bring wind energy from the sierra nevada for the same reason and according to the "wall street journal" officials are worried

the state renewable mandates in california have created a -- quote -- "high risk to the economy" and the state may be short on power in 2011 if problems pile up." and wind and solar energy is only available about a third of the time because today it can't be stored. you use it or lose it. solar's advantage is the sun shines during peek usage hours and the wind blows at night with blownty of unused electricity but to be sure your lights turn on or the factory opens its doors when you go to work you need other power plants to back it up. is this really the picture we want of america 20 years from now? there's a much better option. we should take another hard, long look at nuclear power. it's our best source for large amounts of cheap, reliable clean energy. it provides only 20% of our

nation's electricity but 70% of our carbon-free pollution-free electricity. it is already far and away our best defense against global warming. why not build 100 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years? american utilities built 100 reactors between 1970 and 1990 with that are own ratepayers' money. why can't we do that again? other countries are already forging ahead of us. france gets 80% of electricity in nuclear. and it is among the cheapest electric rates and the lowest carbon emissions in europe. those rates in france. japan is building reactors from start to finish in four years. china is planning 60 new reactors. russia, selling nuclear technology all over the world. india -- we're helping then get ready to build nuclear plants. president obama has said iran

has the right to build nuclear plants for energy yet we haven't built one in 30 years and we indeveloped the technology. why not get back in the game? there is a couple of main things holding us back. first, a failure to appreciate how different nuclear is from other technologies and how the tremendous energy density translates into a vanishingly small environmental foot aren't. environmental -- footprint and, second, exaggerated fear of nuclear technology. nuclear power plants were the result of president eisenhower's atoms for peace program, to take perhaps the goodest invention of the last century and use it to provide low-cost energy to reduce poverty around the world. there is also a misconception that nuclear map plans are uninsurable. there is a federal government

called price anderson but never paid a dime of insurance and today the way it works is every one of the 104 nuclear plants can be assessed $100 million in damages for an accident at another reactor. so that's another factor adding to safety consciousness. and most reactors have revenue of $2 million a day which pays for the $5 billion loan construction costs and still makes low rates possible. for example, when the ten ten we valley restarted the browns ferry they thought it would take 10 years to pay off the construction debt but it took he years. when oil prices were skyrocketing, connecticut's two reactors were making so much money they attorney general proposes putting a windfall profits tax on them. nuclear power is the obvious first step.

to a policy of clean and low-cost energy. 100 new plants in 20 years would double u.s. nuclear production making it about 40% of all electricity production -- in carbon, no pollution. add 10% for sun and wind and other renewable sources and another 10% for hydroelectric, maybe 5% for natural gas and we begin to have a cheap as well as a clean energy policy. step two is to electrify half our cars and trucks. according to estimates by brookings institution scholars there's so much unused electricity at night we can also do this in twpt years without building one new power laboratory if we plug-in vehicles while we sleep. this is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, keep fuel prices low and reduce the one-third of carbon that comes from gasoline

engines. step three is to explore offshore for natural gas which is low-carbon, and oil, using less oil but using our own. the final step, mr. president, is to double funding for energy research and development and launch many manhattan projects like the one we had in world war ii, this time to meet seven grand energy challenges: improving batteries for plug-in hybrid, making solar power costs imocompetitive, safely recycling nuclear fuel, making advanced biofuels, crops we don't eat, cost competitive with gasoline, making more buildings green buildings and providing energy proceed fusion. we can't wait any longer to build our future of clean, reliable and affordable energy. the time has come for action. the only requirement is we open

our minds to the possibilities and potentials of nuclear power. we have a clear choice between a high-cost clean energy plan coming from the house, one that's filled with taxes and mandates and a new utility bill for every american family, one that will drive jobs overseas searching for cheap energy; or, we can enact our own cheap and clean energy policy and lower utility bills and keep jobs here and produce food here at a price that is low so americans can afford to buy it. that's the sensible way to go. nuclear power, electric cars, exploration offshore and doubling research and development. that policy of cheap and clean energy will help family budgets and create jobs. it will also prove to be the fast of the way to increase

american energy independence, clean our air, and reduce global warming. mr. president, i hope those listening will let me know your thoughts about our blueprint for 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years and the way to do that is www.alexander.senate.gov. i thank the senate and i yield the floor.

mr. gregg: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: thank you. we're not in a quorum call, are we? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. gregg: we are not? the presiding officer: correct. mr. gregg: madam president, yesterday was not a great day for our nation. for the first time in our history, the deficit of this nation passed $1 trillion. $1 trillion. that's a number i don't think anybody ever expected to see as a deficit for our country. to try to put it in perspective, as a percentage of our g.d.p., that's about 13%. we have not had that type of a deficit since we were in world war ii. that size of deficit.

and the implications of that deficit are staggering for us as a nation but, more importantly, they represent a clear and present danger to our children and our children's children. and to this nation's fiscal solvency. remember, we're not through the fiscal year yet. it's estimated that this deficit will continue up for the rest of the year. it's estimated that $1.8 trillion will be the deficit we're facing in 2010 and over $1 trillion the next year. these are numbers which are so huge that they're incomprehensible, incomprehensible to myself and to most americans. but they translate into a very significant problem, which is that we will be passing on to our children as a result of all this debt a nation which they cannot afford.

and what's the cause of this debt? what's causing this massive expansion in deficits? well, primarily it's spending. it's not that we're a nation that's undertaxed. it's that we're a nation that is spending simply too much. my colleague on the other side of the iecialg the chairman of the budget committee -- my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the chairman of the budget committee, mr. conrad, is fond of say, the debt is the threat. he's absolutely right. because that is the threat to this nation. i think it's important to put in context, though that this is not a momentary event. we're not running up these deficits just today, but as we look into the out years under the obama budget, the deficits go up astronomically for as far as the eye can see. leading to debt, which is unsustainable. over the next 10 years, the

average deficit of this nation will be $interes $1 trillion. again, let's try to put that in context. that's about 4% to 5% of our gross national product every year. if you were in europe and you wanted to get into the european union, which is a legitimate group of industrialized nations, they have rules for how fiscally solvent you must be as a nation. and one of their rules says that your deficit cannot exceed 3% of your gross national product. and yet under president obama and his proposed budget, our deficit will average 4.5% to 5% of our gross national product for the next ten years, over $1 trail year. and what does this lead to? well it leads to massive expansion in debt, as this chart shows, a debt which will be 85% of our g.d.p.

what does that mean, 58% of our g.d.p.? well, the public debt of a nation is the debt held by othe people -- primarily, americans and other countries. primarily, in our case, china. they're our biggest holder of our debt. and historically, whether a country or individuals aring are willing to buy the debt of a nation depends on whether that nation is seen as being able to pay that debt off or whether the nation has the financial strength to pay that debt off. and there are some rules of thumb here, too. again, in order to get into the european union, you have to have a ratio of less than 60% public debt to your nation's debt. to your nation's g.d.p., gross domestic product. and yet under this proposal from this administration which we're seeing today in action as we pass the trillion dollar deficit line today -- yesterday, that public debt goes well past 65%

very quickly within the next two years, and then it continues to head up to 80%. in other words, our public debt will be so high that we would be considered so irresponsible as a nation fiscally that the european nations, which are industrialized countries, under their rules would not be able to allow us into the european union, not that we wish to seek intrish but clearly that's a standard that -- not that we wish to speak industry, but clearly that's a standard that we should look at. when you look at our debt, it has been between 30% on the one hand 40% of gross national product. when you double that debt as a project of g.d.p., you're putting us on a path, a spiraling path downward into fiscal insolvency and a nation which cannot sustain its own debt. to try to address this in

another way, president obama's proposals for spending will more than double the debt in the next five years and triple it in the next 10 years, and in fact it you take all the debts that he -- and in fact if you take all the debt that's been run up in our nation, from the beginning when george washington was president through george w. bush's term in office, take all of that debt, president obama has proposed and is spending -- this government -- and is spending at a rate that will double that debt. just in four years. -- or five years. five years. it's an inexcusable action to pass this much debt on to our children. this chart, called the wall of debt, puts it in numerical terms. you can see how it goes up and up and up and up.

by the end of this budget, which starts about here, the debt will have increased three times -- three times. from about $6 billion to $16 billion. from about $5.5 billion to $16 billion -- trillion -- i'm sorry. trillion dollars. it's hard to use the term "trillion," but that's what it'll be. well, this isn't tolerable. how do we address this? we need to control spending. and we need, to the stheants we raise taxes, to use those taxes -- and we need, to the extent that we raise taxes, to use those taxes to expan not to expe size of government. yet what are the proposals that we're seeing from this administration and members on the other side of the aisle? we've seen a house of representatives proposal in the area of energy called "the cap-and-trade bill" which should

be more a unanimou accurately ds the "cap-and-tax bill," because we've never seen anything of this size before. every time you hit your light switch, you're going to end up paying a new tax under this bill for the purposes of addressing climate change and energy policy. and yet it doesn't accomplish any of that really. primary polluter in america today is the automobile. and all that the new tax that's being put in place from the house bill does is increase the cost -- or increase the tax on gasoline. it doesn't reduce the mileages. doesn't reduce the pollution. it just increases the tax. and as senator alexander spoke prior to my speaking, in the area of energy production, electrical production,

cap-and-trade simply becomes a windfall, a pure and simple corporate program for a lot of electrical producers. they get this asset, a certificate to be able to sell, which we've seen generates huge amounts of income to them, in exchange for thee rettically reducing the amount -- theoretically reducing the amount of emissions that go into the atmosphere. if you really wanted to address this issue, you don't do it with a massive new tax on american workers, which is then basically given back to industry, which uses it, which gets an advantage from it. rather, you should use the ideas of senator alexander, build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years, move the automobile fleet to at least half electrical by the year 2020, so that you've actually brought

online nonpolluting electrical power and you've put in place automobiles which don't pollute also. but that's not the proposal. the proposal is this massive new tax, not used to reduce the debt or the deficit but basically used in many areas to expand the government, with lots of new programs, but throe also to unde a huge corporate welfare program. the other proposal we've got from the administration that's major public policy is the issue of health care. again, the proposals they're talking about expanding dramatically the size of government. in fact the bill being worked on in the "help" committee by its own scoring is at least $1 trillion unfunded. that adds to the debt. that's going to go on top of this. and to the extent there are new taxes being talked about -- and there are a lot of them,

especially in the house of representatives -- those taxes aren't being used to reduce the debt. they're being used to grow the size of government. to increase the government. and, as a result, the debt doesn't go down. the government's size goes up. when we should be focusing on this debt issue. it is unconscionable that we as one generation would be running up these type of deficits and passing this type of debt on to our children. there may be an excuse for it right during a period of recession. the presiding officer: the snosnowthesenator's time has ex. mr. gregg: i ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: there may be an excuse for it in a recession. and we are in the middle of one. but we are moving out of a recession. there's no excuse for having

deficits that are $1 trillion for the next ten years. there's no excuse for running deficits that are 4% to 5% of g.d.p. and there's absolutely no excuse for putting a debt on our children's back that's 80% of the g.d.p. of this country. because what we're doing is passing on to our children a nation which is -- which fiscal policies are unsustainable and which will basically give them less of a lifestyle than we received from our parents. and no generation should do that to another generation. and yet there are no policy proposals coming forward from this administration which turn this debt line down. none. instead, there are policy proposals which increase the size of government and increase the tax burden of americans, without reducing our debt in any way of any significance. it is an unfortunate situation and a difficult situation, and one which we better start addressing for the sake of this country and our children's future. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and make a

point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: and the pending business, i understand, is d.o.d. authorization. the presiding officer: the senate is still in morning business and the democrats control the remaining time. mr. mccain: when is the time expired? the presiding officer: seven minutes urging. mr. mccain: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, are we still in morning business. the presiding officer: we are still in morning business and the majority has five minutes remaining. mr. levin: madam president, the levin-mccain amendment would strike $1.75 billion in funding for the f-22 aircraft in the committee bill adopted in a very close vote. we also would restore some very serious reductions that had to be adopted in order to pay for that snrmt i com program.

i -- this debate is not about whether or not we will have the capability of the f-22 but a debate about how many f-22 aircraft we should have and at what cost and whether or not we should accept the recommendations of two commanders in chief, two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs much staff, and the joint chiefs of staff that 187 f-22's is what we need and all that we can afford and all that we should buy. now, madam president, yesterday we put in the record two letters, one from the president of the united states saying that he would veto a bill -- not consider veto but actually veto a bill -- that has more than 187 f-22's that are going to be provided. we also put a letter from the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the record yesterday

going through all the reasons why they strongly oppose any additional f-22's and oppose the committee language which cost $1.75, taking it away from some very important programs. today i want to read briefly and then put in the record a letter that came from the secretary of the air force yesterday afternoon and from the chief of staff of the air force opposing the additional f-22's in the committee bill. this letter reads in part that "as we prepared for the fiscal year 2010 funding submission and findful the final lot of aircraft is scheduled for completion over the next year we methodally reviewed the issue from multiple perspectives. these includes a merging joint war-fighting requirements, complementary f-22 and f-35 roles in future security environment, potential

advantages of continuing a worn f-22 production line as insurance against delays in the f-35 program and impacts to the services and national partners if resources were realigned from the f-35 to the f-22, overall tactical aircraft force structure and funding implications given what extending f-22 production to 243 aircraft would create an unfunded requirement estimated at over $13 billion." and then they summarizes: "we assessed the f-22 decision from all angles." this is the air force speaking, top civilian, top military leader in the united states air force. "we assessed the f-22 decision from all angles taking into account competing priorities and complementary programs and alternatives all balanced within the context of available resources. we did in the and do not recommend f-22's be included in

the fiscal year 2010 defense budget. this is a difficult budget but one with which we are comfortable. most importantly in this and other budget decisions we believe it is important for air force leaders to make clear choices balancing requirements across a range of air force contributions to joint capabilities." so i ask unanimous consent, madam president, the entire letter from the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force be made part of record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and then, madam president, i would now need to yield back the remaining morning business time. i do that and then i understand we'll resume consideration of the bill and if that is the action of the presiding officer i would ask, then, unanimous consent that my remarks that i just made be made part -- come after the ending of morning

business. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of senate bill 1390, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1390 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i want to thank chairman levin for his important comments about, and especially the letters from the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force on this issue. let me repeat again that this debate is not about depriving, this my view, the united states air force of a much needed part of our arsenal to defend this nation's national security. it's about who we will continue

to spend money on the f-22 of which we have already -- are acquiring 187 and additionally adding the f-350, the joint strike fighter which is very badly needed by the other services, as well. the f-thrive or th f-35; i beliy important counterpart to the f-22. the f-22 has great capabilities in certain areas and the joints strike fighter does, too. so this debate is not just about removing the funds for the f-22. what it's about is removing funds for the f-22 and moving forward with the joint strike fighter to give the united states air force, marines corps and navy a balanced inventory that will maintain the united states air force, navy, and

marines corps, as the most powerful projection of air power in the world for a long time to come. so i want to emphasize this is not about so much about terminating a program as it is ending a much needed program and supplementing it with another. that's -- i think sometimes this argument is portrayed simply in the area of the f-22 itself. it's not. i know the chairman and i and majority of the committee want a balanced, powerful, capable, united states air force, marines corpmarinecorps and navy througe 21st century. there have been various points raised in this discussion and will continue to be raised and i'd like to respond to several of those arguments that have been made during this debate so far and probably will be raised

again during the rest of this debate. the first argument i want to address is that 187 f-22's will not meet operational demands at an acceptable level of risk. in the view of some air force officials, including air combat command general general john corley a total of 381, f-22's would be sufficient to meet a low level of risk and a total of 243 to 250 would be sufficient to meet operational demands with a moderate level of risk. that is the view of some very credible individuals. our response to that is that in december 2004 the department of defense democratted 183 of the f-22's was sufficient to meet its military requirements. this back in december 2004. the department conducted several

analyses which affirmed that number, based on a number of variables, including the length and time of wars that the department of defense believes it will have to fight in the future and future capabilities of likely adversaries. the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the air force chief of staff and the secretary of the air force have all stated that 187 of the f-22's are sufficient to meet operational requirements particularly when combined with other u.s. military assets including cyber warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range stand off precision weapons to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries. we need to look at this in the entirety of its inventory. that means cyber warfare, it means long-range stand off precision weapons. it means the dramatic increase

in the capability of unmanned aircraft. look at the role that unmanned aircraft have played in iraq and afghanistan and in all candor, look at the role the f-22 has not played in iraq and afghanistan. it has not been deployed to iraq and afghanistan, whereas our unmanned aircraft, our predators, have had an incredible effect in identifying, locating, and destroying the enemy. i think general petraeus will attest to that in a very persuasive fashion. in response to the argument that more f-22's are necessary to close a gap in fifth-generation fighters between the united states and china, on may 14 secretary gates noted -- quote -- "when you look at potential threats, for example, in 2020, the united states will have

2,700tac air, tactical aircraft. china will have 1,700. but ours 1,000 will be a fifth-generation aircraft including the f-22 and the f-35, and in 2025, that gap gets even bigger. so the negs a gap or united states lead over china alone of 1,700 fifth-generation aircraft in 2025 does not provide additional fifth-generation aircraft, including f-22's, to take on a secondary threat seems to be unrealistic." secretary gates summarized his position on the operational need issue on june 18 when he said, and i quote, "the u.s. military has to have the flexibility across the spectrum of conflict to handle the threats of the future and that this will mean a huge investment for the future, one that is endangered by

continuing the f-22 rap tear program." he concluded, "frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more f-22's imperils the national security of the united states, i find complete nonsense." that's the statement of the secretary of defense. "the notion that not buying 60 more f-22's imperils the national security of the united states i find complete nonsense." as military deputy to the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, general mark d. shackle ford said, "the capability that we get out of 187 f-22's we believe is more than sufficient for the type of threat that the secretary of defense is addressing in the future. whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the f-22 program now is merely short term and under the air force's combat air force

restructure plan necessary for the air force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter service for all the services." the next argument that's made is buying more f-22's could help mitigate a projected fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024, that air force leaders identified in 2008 and a projected gap recently identified within the air national guard's fighter inventory. such purchases could also hedge the united states against the risk of unexpected age-related problems developing in the air force's legacy force. our response to that is, the fighter gap that the air force identified is questionable, give than it turns on various assumptions regarding threats and whether the united states will fight by itself or as part of a coalition. in any event, the air force has

put in place a plan that will both mitigate any shortfall in fighter capability and bridge the current fleet a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force. an essential of that plan, called the combat air force restructure plan, is to stop investing in the f-22 program after the current program of record of 187. that plan addresses possible shortfalls in fighter capability more cost effectively than simply buying more f-22's. it does so by restructuring the air force's current fleet of fighters now and directing resulting savings by modifying neuroor more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, including upgraded f-15*s and f-16's, procuring less expensive aircraft including the f-35 giant strike fighter. under the plan, those

investments will have create a more capable fleet that can bridge th the to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force. in addition, in the years ahead, the department of defense needs to focus on improving its capabilities for irregular warfare operations and the f-22 is not a key program for improving those capabilities. while the f-22 is an extraordinarily capable air-superiority plan form its limited air-to-ground capability makes it less appropriate for supporting counterinsurgency operationoperations so much so t secretary gates has pointed out several times the reality is, we are fighting two wars -- in iraq and afghanistan -- and the f-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater. the next argument is that decision to end the f-22 program

is purely budget-driven. secretary gates has indicated numerous times that his decision to end the program is not resource-driven. he announced that decision on april 6, weeks before his plan was even submitted to the office of management and budget for vetting. on april 30, secretary gates plainly stated, "if my top line were $50 billion higher, i would make the same decision regarding the f-22 program." that having been said, given the current fiscal crisis, buying more f-22's would likely reduce funding for other, more critically needed aircraft, such as the f-35, fa-18e & f and other planes equipped with electronic warfare capability and that capability is the

combatant commander's number-one priority. in that sense, continuing to purchase of f-22's could create operational risk for the u.s. military in the near-term. the next argument is that buying more f-22's will ensure the air national guard gets modernized fighter aircraft sooner. our response is that under the total force policy, all the services, including the air national guard, will receive joint strike fighters at the appropriate time and at the appropriate rate to replace their aging f-15 and f-16 aircraft. the only requirement that the air national guard obtain joint strike fighters sooner arises from the -- quote -- "additional views of senator chambliss in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill." in a letter to senator chambliss, the head of the air national guard, lieutenant general harry m.wyatt iii noted,

"i believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation particularly from seaborne cruise missiles requires a fighter platform such as the f-22. however, that threat is simply not present today. this is something that's being closely looked at now in the ongoing quarterly defense review debate. when asked about the cruise missile threat during our committee hearing recently, secretary gates correctly noted that the most effective counter to these sorts of threats is an aircraft that doesn't have a pilot inside of it. the next argument that is made is large-scale production of f-35 joint strike fighters have only recently begun and have not yet increased to planned higher annual rates. until production, the argument goes, of the joint strike fighter has been successfully demonstrated, that those planned higher annual rates, it would be imprudent to shut down the f-22

production line which is the only "hot" fifth-generation production line. ow response is that give -- our response is that given how relatively similar the manufacturing efforts supporting the joint strike fighter are to those supporting the f-22, concerns about an overall compromise in the industrial base appears to be overstated. in addition, whatever moderate risk may afries endin -- arise m ending the f-22 program is acceptable. it is short term in duration and under the air force's combat air force restructure plan necessary for the air force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable, fifth-generation fighter force for all the services. it is true that full-rate production of the joint strike fighter isn't anticipated until 2015. the program is making very meaningful progress, but maturation in the technical,

software, and testing aspects of the program are on track to plan exceeding legacy standards including those for the f-22. all 19 systems development and demonstration aircraft will roll out by the end of the year in major assembly on the 14 aircraft comprising the earlier low-rate initial production lots have begun. i can assure the members of this body that senator levin and i and our capable staffs will be keeping a very, very close eye on the joint strike fighter production. it is vital that that aircraft be -- meet its cost estimates and meet its time schedules. at this point, the first of those copies are expected to be delivered on time to fo eglin ar force base in 2010 and the first

capable fighter versions are expects to be delivered to the marine corps in 2012 and the navy in 2015. this is not to say that we should take, as i said, our eyes off the program. we need to track continuous progress on the program to ensure that costs remain stable. i am persuaded, as i hope a majority of this body will be, that on the issue of whether or not the f-22 program should continue, the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman and vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the air force chief of staff, and the secretary of air force are all correct. ending the f-22 program now is vital to enabling the department to bridge its current fighter capability to a more capable fifth-generation fighter force that is best equipped to both meet the needs of our deployed forces today and the emerging threats of tomorrow.

madam president, finally, the chairman and i are not unaware of the fact that this will lead to the loss of jobs in certain states and certain production facilities around the country. we know this is very tough, particularly in times of high unemployment across the country. but i'd like to make the argument, one that the f-35, the joint strike fighter, once it gets into production will also be a job creator. but i would also point out that the purpose of building weapons is not to create jobs. the purpose is simply to defend this nation's national security. now, we have an obligation to be careful stewards of all of our taxpayers' dollars. but most importantly, those taxpayers' dollars that go to defense of this nation should be first and foremost what can best defend the nation's national

security in times when we are in two wars and facing future threats that are indeed formidable in the view of most. so we are not without sympathy for the parts of our country, including the state of georgia, where there are a large number of jobs that are at risk. our sympathy is with them, and we will do everything that we can to provide job opportunities, including in the defense industries across this country. but we cannot argue that we should spend taxpayers' dollars for weapons systems simply to create or keep jobs. that's not our -- the use of taxpayers' dollars. if we want to do that then there are many other programs that we should fully fund to help create jobs and small business opportunities across this nation. madam president, this issue i hope will continue to be debated

today and that we could resolve it hopefully sometime tomorrow morning with a final vote. i know from previous experience that there are perhap perhaps 1r more amendments that await the consideration of this body on the defense authorization bill. this is obviously a very important issue and this issue is perhaps even more important than the $1.75 billion we're talking about. this debate is about whether we're going to make the tough decisions to most wisely and most expeditiously defend this nation and spend those dollars wisely. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, first let me thank senator mccain for comprehensive, thorough is compelling assessment of the arguments relative to the f-22.

the last point about the number of amendments which we expect would be, if not offered, at least proposed and considered, we need those amendments to come to the floor. we have a lot of work ahead of us. i know it's a statement of high ambition to suggest we try to finish the bill this week but i think we are obligated to use time wisely here. there are not going to be votes today. we attempted to schedule a vote prior to lunch but there's an accommodation to senators and we did not do that. we then attempted to schedule a vote for tomorrow morning. that effort did not succeed last night but as senator mccain said we're trying to see if we can't schedule that today. in the meantime, while we're waiting some other speakers apparently on this amendment we would welcome those who are considering amendments that they get those to us and our staffs

so we can begin the arduous work of going through the amendments and determining which ones we might be able to accept and which ones we cannot so those that want to proceed, can indicate if they wish to debate. the floor is open now to debate. we await other speakers. with that, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i he nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent also that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: i rise to speak in support of the levin-mccain amendment to strike excessive funding for the f-22 and outline why this amendment is in the best interests of our national defense and our fiscal future. i thank the chairman for his leadership here. this amendment, in my view, republics the best of leadership that our nation has to offer. senator mccain and president obama have put political parties aside and hav