something all of us assembled in the audience, this is on the moon, you and neil, the first ones to step out onto the moon, you told us there were a couple of other firsts there as well. would like to tell the people what you told us? [laughter] >> well, i failed my first assignment on the surface of the moon. it was to get down to the bottom and jump back up again. i was overconfident. i had plenty of walking on gemini 12 and i was a little overconfident and i didn't think the lunar gravity was going to be that big and i jumped back up and missed. okay. next time i made it. and why did we do that? well, 'cause we knew we couldn't take the rock boxes and climb up the ladder with them. we had to send the rock boxes up on a clothes line and the same clothes line was used to send a camera down so, obviously, neil

could take my picture when i came down. he's an excellent photographer. that's not what you're talking about, is it? we had great confidence in the inside the space suit plumbing. we had great confidence in the backpack, the many spacecraft on our back that gave us the electricity, the water-cooled underwear. and, of course, the life sustaining oxygen with an emergency -- >> that's not what i'm talking about. >> no. but we had great confidence in the interior pluming. as a matter of fact, we just emptied it all out so that we could throw it out on the surface later on. there was plenty of capacity in the ucd, urine collection device. i just had that moment. you know, i knew when i got to the bottom of the ladder and that was clearly going to be

very easy to walk around the moon. what am i supposed to do for the next 30 seconds while i'm checking civility. maybe we're a little nervous here and there. but what i do is i talk about things that are human. and i talk about how people are compelled and really worried about what they're trying to do. they're not worried. but they're alert what -- >> do you remember what you said? >> i said magnificent desolation. not right away. and i gave it a little bit of thought. the magnificence of mankind, coming down from the trees or wherever we came from and then doing all the things necessary to get steam -- >> he's not going to tell you what he said. >> rockets. >> he's not going to tell you. >> spacecraft and putting -- >> i'll tell you what he said.

>> and it's lonely up there. i peed in my pants. [laughter] >> poor allen shepherd when he sat on that rocket he didn't have a ucd so he was floating on water for a while before his 15 minutes of flight. >> that's great, buzz. what he said to us on friday night was, well, maybe neil was the first one to walk on the moon but -- [laughter] >> he had disputed that fact. he had 20 minutes to set another record. [laughter] >> charles, apollo 16, there were some problems particularly -- bring us up-to-date. remind us what went on as you were just getting -- >> well, apollo 16, like all the other apollo flights, had problems. you know, you look back now 40

years and we had six landings and everybody, well, that's a piece of cake. but it wasn't a piece of cake. i mean, landing on the moon is a really difficult task. and not only are you coming into an area that nobody has ever landed before but you've never seen it in detail before. the photographs we had of our landing sight were 15 meter resolutions and there are a lot of big craters that can put you in trouble that are 30 feet across or 10 feet across. and so we were coming in and we were seeing all of these craters and we had to pick a landing spot. but before that, we were on the backside of the moon with mattingly, and he had to change his orbit in the command module and that required a major engine ignition with what we call the service propulsion system. as he tested it out before the ignition, it was rattling the spacecraft to pieces, he said, and he said i can't burn. well, if your heart can sink in

zero gravity to the bottom of your boots, ours sank to the bottom of our boots because that's an aabortion. -- abort. you come 250 miles. you train two years and 8 miles down there with your landing site and they're about ready to tell you to come home. you can imagine how disappointed we were. the teamwork we exhibited to get them to get apollo back safely and all the other problems came into focus and up to speed and six hours later they said you'll go for landing. so down we went and from then on, it was -- it was fantastic. so our heart went from here to here when we heard jim irwin said you got to go for landing. >> and you were there for a long time. >> we were there for 71 hours and 14 minutes.

nasa put us in for the record stay, so we had the record for the longest stay until the next flight, apollo 17. they actually stayed for 75 hours. >> they did it just for spite. >> they did it for spite. we pleaded for mission -- two hours, guys, two hours more. that's all we want. they said get back in. it's time to go home. >> what do you see the future of manned space flight? >> well, i would like to see us in deep space station. we have an investment in the international space station. we need to use that. we've got -- and there's a lot of ways we can get a return on that investment. going back into deep space, i think, can build the human spirit of exploration. buzz and i have a little disagreement about should we go to the moon with our resources? i agree it should be international.

but a return to the moon, i think, would be also an opportunity to develop some of these systems that we're going to have for a mars stay. he wants to do it in iss, which is not a bad idea. i think back to the moon. whichever way we do it, it will just be a stepping stone out into the distance and i hope that i'm around to see those first footprints on mars. and i think that the technology that we develop for that as a capital expenditure for our country will reap great dividends for us and we'll have a great return on our investment. >> and i agree with you. i hope i'm around to see it. how old are you? no, i'm not going to ask you.; before we get to you we have standing by a question for buzz who as we say might be getting out of here pretty soon. this is from the museum of science in boston, buzz. this question is coming to you

from 8-year-old marcus from massachusetts. take it easy on him, marcus. >> hi, buzz. my name is marcus. i am 8 years old. i would like to go to mars one day and engineer in sciences. what should i study in school. what hobbies are good for an  >> when i was at mit i lived in north too far from where you are. coming from. you need patience. you need to communicate with other people. you need to have, i think, something that separates you from others. you're going to have an evaluation ofpú considerable weaving out of other people that

are trying to do the same thing you'd like to do. of considerable weeding out of other people that are trying to do the same thing you want to do. let me ask you. you say you want to go to mars? >> mark us? marcus? >> yeah? >> how long do you think you'll stay when you get there? >> i don't know. >> oh, i don't know. stay? >> stay? that's a normal answer. there was somebody at some event and he said my son is 8, and he's going to go to mars. i said how long do you think part of the year just to get there why would you want to stay only a couple days? why would we want to invest all that money in sending you there and then bring you back. you're not going to give us all that science or that return. nobody is going to build a 50-person spacecraft to send the first people to the surface of mars.

now there's a critical number of people that need to be there to do the things, to make a sustaining group. it's better than sex. it's maybe 50 or 60 and do you know how long it takes to accumulate 60 people every 26 months you can send another mission to mars. it takes 22, 23 years to accumulate enough people. we need to rethink a good bit about, are we really ready to venture out that far? and what does it really take? i think we're ready to think about that, but we have a pathway that can branch off asteroids and those who justify the investment in habitation for people of a nation that by that

time will have stayed on the moon 50 years ago, you realize that from kitty hawk to tranquility base was 66 years. now let's go 66 years into the future. that's 2035. >> marcus, you'll be -- >> we don't want to be kicking up dust back on the moon. marcus, i think we'll be doing some real man-to-man talking about how long you might want to stay. whether you want to spend the rest of your life on mars or until we come up with warp drive so we can bring you back in a couple days. >> thanks a lot, marcus. and we appreciate the question. just before we get to our next question, it will be for you, charles, before we get there, i want to talk to laura for a moment. this proposed new manned mission that most people are talking about, the one going back to the moon, is this sort of back to the future? tell us what's going on. we're not using the shuttle technology. are we using the apollo

technology this time? >> it looks more similar to apollo than the space shuttle. looks like more like a capsule and we'll send four people in the moon and they'll be riding separately in their descent call sul and right now with an orbiter, an unmanned orbiter we're taking pictures of prospective landing sites. they had poor resolution images when we went there with apollo. we're going to make an incredible map of the moon with lro and you can see some of those first pictures right now. and know exactly the most interesting places to go, the safest places to go and learn to live off the moon when we get there. >> we have a much better maps of mars than we do of the moon. >> that's absolutely true. right now the instruments that are in orbit around the moon, they are going to change. they're going to make our maps of the moon just as good if not better than our maps of mars. >> charles, this question is

coming to you from anna. this is from the museum of natural history in new york. this is for charles. anna? >> having spent 20 hours outside of the lunar module what do you think the possibility of being able to live on the moon? [inaudible] >> i missed that. i'm sorry. >> what do you think is the possibility of living on the moon? what kind of support would be needed to do that for extended periods of time? >> hopefully, we'll establish a base if that's what we decide to do is return to the moon, we'd want to establish a base with what we have in antarctica where we supply modules and i think we can develop technologies that we can use to extract oxygen, hydrogen from the rocks and

utilize the resources there eventually to help us to inhabit this area of moon for a consideration amount of time. i think this is what science wants us to do to go back -- there's a lot to learn about the lunar surface that we just scratched the surface so maybe it's not such a bad idea to look for that. >> thanks so much, anna. i want to attack to you a little bit more because that's one of your specialities searching for water and water in and on various heavenly bodies in the solar system. >> that's right. >> before i get to that, i certainly want to talk to john who gave us heart palpitations not so long ago. i understand that you practiced for all eventualities in trying to repair the hubble. but for heaven's sake no matter what you rehearsed for, what surprises did you find that scared you as much as it scared

us? >> well, as you said our team on st125 atlantis trained for 2 1/2 years. a lot of that training was the nuts and bolts putting things in and out of hubble but much of the training was what to do when things don't go well so we trained hundreds of different scenarios where this wouldn't work quite right and that wouldn't go in. we had 116 tools that we developed just for this mission, over 400 different tools, power drives and wrenches and screwdrivers and things like this. we got out the door with the first space walk and went to the first major task which was to replace an old camera with a brand-new amazing camera that's up on hubble right now, the wide field camera 3. and to remove the old camera we just had one big bolt to turn and that bolt didn't turn. with all the force we could put on it with the initial set of tools and there was a pretty good risk that that bolt would break and that would be the end of this camera. fortunately, just a little bit of extra elbow grease and another tool and we got it.

but, you know, we talk about hard syncing. this was the highest priority mission and that first didn't bolt and my heart was pretty low in my boots and even though we were in weightlessness. i think there's a point in which i say, you know, before we do this game-ending event, you know, let's think about every alternative and we did and we found a way to get around it. >> in fact, we have a question for you this one is coming from the museum of science and industry in chicago. i think we have a moderator there, don't we? >> yes, we do. >> go right ahead. >> okay. >> this is for john. >> i'm sasha blakely from vancouver, canada. i'm 13. my question is, what do you think is the next main technological breakthrough that is essential for the success of the next phase for long term space travel for the moons and mars. >> what's the next technological breakthrough for exploring moon

and mars. i think there's so many challenges that we have to overcome to be able to develop a colony to live on the moon. i think using resources that you find -- every time explorers have gone out in terrestrial -- exploring the earth exploration they have to use resources that they find when they get there. i think utilizing those resources on the moon to generate oxygen that we breathe, going to mars and being able to develop rocket fuel that will allow us to come back so we don't have to take so much rocket fuel to come back. being able to build life support that in a contained environment such as a module that you would live in, able to recycle everything and keep it clean so that you're breathing clean air. those technologies we haven't refined yet. we can do it for short periods of time on the space shuttle. we're learning how to do it for longer periods of time on the space station. as we enter this conversation we

talked about urine collection device. well, we actually are taking urine on the international space station, purifying it. i have an example of it right here. [laughter] >> and the astronauts and cosmonauts aboard the international space station are doing that there. we're not really going to go explore the solar system where we can go to mars in a period of days until we have some new form of propulsion, chemical propulsion can only get us so far. if we really want to explore our future and our future is out there in the cosmos we're going to need a fusion-powered drive or something like that that's technology totally accessible to us that involves an investment and some time and some really creative young engineers and scientists. >> thank you very much for that question. i appreciate it. i did want to get back to the question of water and the solar system. is there empirical evidence that

there is water elsewhere in the solar system? >> yes, and i'm drinking some of it right here. in fact, i spent most of my science career heating up samples of other planets and extracting water from them like mars. we analyzed water molecules on mars. the moon is a big mystery when it comes to water. there are craters near the holes of the moon where it's dark all the time so it's very, very cold and there's some evidence from the spacecraft that have orbited the moon that there could be frozen water trapped in those dark place and again, one of the objectives of going to the moon right now to see if that's really true and if there is water in those dark craters, what a fantastic resource for the people who could go back and to live and work on the moon. and of course water is so critical if you want to think about life on other worlds, liquid water is what you need not frozen waters, places like mars where water is liquid are

places we want to explore initially with robots and initially with humans to try to answer that most fundamental question, are we alone? >> i wonder if that question will come from denver because the question is for you, laurie, this is from the denver museum and nature of science and we're standing by for the question. go right ahead, please. >> we have a question from shelly at the denver museum. >> i've heard the idea the moon was formed from something sitting the earth in the early formation. i'm just wondering if material brought back from the apollo mission has helped to prove that hypothes hypothesis. >> very good question. you heard the big bang of the universe. we call this the big whack. this is the leading theory, the leading hypothesis of the origin of the moon is something called the giant impact hypothesis. where an impact that's about the size of mars, mars is about half the size of the earth hit the

earth very early in its history and the material that was spewed off in that giant impact actually then created together to form our moon. it sounds crazy, i know, but in fact it's the leading theory for the formation of the moon. now, when we went back -- when we went to the moon with apollo, there were actually three leading theories about the origin of the moon and the big goal of apollo was to sort out which one of these three theories was right and the scientists would get together and they would argue and they would fight well, they brought over 800 pounds of rocks from apollo. with we analyzed them we found out none of the three theories was right and the information we measured with the apollo samples and other missions to the moon, the giant impact theory has emerged as the most incredible hypothesis of the origin for the moon. it's not perfect yet, though. we still have some things we need to tweak and understand so going back to the moon, getting more and different rocks, measuring the interior structure of the moon are all things we need to do to really nail down

whether the moon formed in a giant impact. >> thank you very much for that question. i really appreciate it. i have a homelier question about the material on the moon. i wanted to talk to you about it. >> i wanted to ask you a question, what is there about the science on the moon that we really cannot do with robots? and especially some international people who may be there who can help the -- help fix the robots? why is it that the united states has to make that major investment? i talked to charlie before, and we can certainly look at this long duration systems that we are working on. we can look at those at the space station beginning in 2015, 2016 and prolong the life of the space station, which many people would like to, far simpler than we can waiting until 2020, 2025 -- >> oddly enough, that was my question.

>> it's much easier. you know, as a matter of fact, we could put a human at earth/moon l1 much safer than on the surface of the moon and he could control the robots on the surface 'cause that's what we want to do at the moon of mars. it's much more efficient than people that send to mars one day's worth of instructions that are conservative so that if the robot there runs into any trouble, stop, stop. don't do anything. we'll get back to you in a day and tell you what to do. spirit and opportunity have very nicely lived for five years. >> uh-huh. >> instead of 90 days. >> uh-huh. >> but if we had a human being orbiting every seven hours, what could that person do? he could be controlling that robot in real time. >> which would be excellent. >> the moon is automation. mars requires being there.

and the supply chain you set up doesn't let you go there and come back right away. >> laurie, is this a debate. that's what's going on here? >> no. what i was going to say from a science perspective i was going to tell you that we need to unravel these mysteries is we need a network of places around the moon to do like a seismic station like you'd measure earthquakes on earth to study the interior of the moon. you could do that roboticly and you could deploy people. that's a choice we need rocks from a wider variety of terrains on a moon. you discovered the highlands but we've only explored a small part of the moon and to really answer the questions we need to go some other places. you could do that roboticcally the samples is important. >> all we got to do is learn chinese and ask them to find whatever we're looking for. [laughter] >> of course, i agree with you -- >> you don't have to speak on mars you. speak american.

[laughter] >> well, i think our first mars walker could be out here. would she raise her hand whoever she's going to be? [laughter] >> buzz, it's my understanding that the moment has come for you to go to lunch; is that right? >> i think so. just in preparation, i i already had a nice sandwich. >> just in case. >> it's the white house -- >> remember while you're eating that lunch, we all paid for it. i want to think about that. buzz aldrin, everyone. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> he's great. you know, that's great. i had one other question to ask buzz because i was reading an old "life" magazine, i mean, old "life" magazine, i collect them, and there was a story about the lunar landing. i can ask you, charles, buzz was quoted as saying then, 40 years

ago, that the material he brought back up from the moon had a distinctive odor. did you notice that as well? is that true? >> i sure did. it was a real surprise to me that when we got back inside, we had not only the samples but also the dust that we brought back in with us on our moon boots and suits and stuff. i took off my helmet and my gloves and i picked up some and the stuff is as dry as toast, of course, 'cause there's nothing -- no water there that we know -- at least where we landed. but it picked up the oils of your -- of your skin and it felt like graphite and you could smell it and it had a gunpowder smell to it. maybe laurie analyzed them. maybe she could tell you why. i can't tell you why. it did. >> she's shaking her head. i'm not going to laurie.

this is from the st. louis science center. i think we have a moderator. do we hear it now from st. louis? >> this is the st. louis scenes center. a question for you -- i think we have a moderator. can we hear now from st. louis. >> she's been to space camp twice. she's 13 years old and she's from the middle school -- having trouble -- >> my question for -- what was the hardest part physically and emotionally in space travel? >> we're having -- we're having obviously some feedback question. did you hear the question. >> the question was, what was the hardest part emotionally and technically in space travel? for me, i think the hardest part was the landing on the moon as i tried to share with you earlier.

we're coming in an area that was unknown basically at least from a landing standpoint. we could identify stone mountain and smoky mountain and the major craters as we came in from an altitude of about a mile above the surface but as we got closer, we had to maneuver into an area that would allow us to be almost as level as possible so that we could work. the lro has just sent back some photos of our landing spot with a low sun angle and you see this big crater behind our spacecraft. and we didn't even see it, fortunately. fortunately, we got over it by about 3 meters and landed and then looking out to the west, it was just a fantastic scene. but then we came around -- i got out and went around to retrieve the apollo lunar surface experiments package and i looked and i said, john, look at this.

it was a big crater that if we'd landed there, it would have not turned us over but would have been very, very difficult to retrieve the experiments and things out. so it was -- that was the hardest part. emotionally, it wasn't hard to -- i wasn't even trying to control my emotions. i was so excited, like a little kid at christmas, and that's the way john and i trained to have fun, but to do the job and to be animated about it all, and it turned out to be the best for us because we worked together that way better. and so emotionally, it was just a high for 71 hours. >> and anything -- any residue after you got back? we have heard that some including -- buzz has spoken openly about it that there were some emotional after-drafts.

>> not for me. there were -- as a direct -- i don't think anybody as a direct result of moon flight had a physical or a psychological problem. erntd i don't think that anybody as a direct effect of flight had a physical or psychological problem and after you come down from that high and you're, like, now what am i going to do? that's where the things can cause you to go off and buzz has acknowledged that in his book and all of us decided that we needed to do something else.

>> and that's the human spirit, you know, we've got to go explore. >> question coming up now. this time it's from the california academy of sciences. and i believe we have a moderator standing by for the question. >> hello. yes. i was just wondering, experienced surprise you -- scary, humorous or inspiring? >> the question, if i understand correctly, would you describe the adventure that you just gave us a little outline on as more inspiring, more humorous, or more scary? >> it would first, my first choice would be inspiring. not only to us individually but

i think too especially the kids of the world. they dream. when i was a kid 12 years old there wasn't a space program and i didn't go out in the backyard and look up at the heavens and say, mama, i'm going to walk on the moon one day. momma would have dropped the net on me. [laughter] >> and sent me to a psychiatric hospital. but i did have heroes. in the great generation of world war ii. and so now we have that opportunity to inspire the kids of the world to dream and to aim high. the second would be the -- letzig, there was scary, inspiring. -- i think the second chorus would be the humorous part because of john and i had a good time. he is a great humorist.

and my third would be scary. and there was only one moment when i had a scary incident, and it was doing something i shouldn't have been doing. and so, kids, here this. if you always get in trouble when you do something you're not supposed to be doing for you have not practiced for it. so we are going to set the high jump record on the moon. [laughter] >> and my backpack weighed 155 pounds, is what i way back in. so when i jumped i straightened up. my center of gravity went backwards and over i went, like this. [laughter] >> and i had really a moment of fear there because i have fallen on my back in his backpack is not designed for that. fortunately i was able to roll around and break my fall. but let me tell you that ended the moon moon olympics.

[laughter] >> for now. maybe later. >> later. and mission control was very upset, by the way. [laughter] >> they la thought they law somebody. >> i tried the rover. >> the rover, i was really the navigator. john was the driver. [laughter] >> and writing with john, i call him for the older view here here, one of the old race drivers, barney oldfield. i sit here comes the barney oldfield again. he was real flat out on the moon and we set the mood speed record at the time, 11 miles an hour. and we were bouncing like this. i'm glad i had my seatbelt on, boy. because the rover only weighed 80 pounds on the moon. with the spring in us, and it would hit the bumps and the rocks and the little goalies in the small craters. and we just bounced all over. >> this is great stuff. listen, i wanted to give you all

a chance here in the studio audience. this is your big chance. if you would like to have questions. we will ask you to come to that microphone right over there. and while you're making her way i can tell you there was a question from newseum.org via google moderator, and it is, let's see. it's a tossup. is for all of you. so let's start with you, john. how far do you think the united states should go with space exploration. do you set limits, i gather is the question. >> i think there's always limits that you have to second term of fundings. what can you afford? i dedicated my life do it, but it's the most important thing we do, exploration is the most important thing we do. it brings all of the new innovations in technology, you know that make our lives worthwhile. that's what i think. >> let's take it on down. >> i think ratings happen when

we set goals. i think space expiration is one of the things that allow us to do that, to dream beyond what's possible. so we shouldn't think about it in terms of limits. we should think about in terms of striving for that next incredible thing that we can't even imagine that we can do, but we go after. >> in one famous phrase we don't do it because it's easy, we do it because it's hard. >> that's true. and i think the human spirit is that spirit of exploration. that's why i volunteered, because i wanted to be an explorer of the first order. and i think in the future, that spirit is still here with us and will lead us on to more knowledge of the moon and then on to mars. eventually, we will get there. i don't know in my lifetime, but i would encourage everybody that are studying now, the kids, to do their best and to look out into the future.

the mountains we climb will allow you to see farther on with the new technology that we would not imagine. >> i think i hear the voice of the next astronaut. [laughter] >> we have some questioners standing by right now. >> mr. duke, i was wondering, was it more nerve-racking for you to watch the astronaut who landed before you wondering whether or not they would be able to successfully land, and then come back? or was it more nerve-racking actually being the one there that was landing and then coming back? >> probably the latter. sitting in mission control either at satcom or backup, and just monitoring its more nerve-racking to listen to it and to wring your hands because you're not in that dynamic situation. once you're there and you get to do it, you are so focused on the operational side of it, you

don't really -- you don't really have the time to worry about, oh, my lord, what am i going to do if this thing doesn't work or, you know. you wouldn't be there if that work your situation. but listening and watching in mission control easy to get anxious. you want him to succeed so much that you get anxious about it. >> i will say, can i just had? i was in mission control when they're trying to turn that bulk on the hubble mission. i want to, people think that scientists are, you know, we were lactose and not emotional. people were crying because they had devoted 10 years of their life to building this camera that might not get in. it's a nerve-racking. we all were wanting to turn that wrench for your. >> another question. >> my name is mr. hogan. i besides journalists i'm doing it after a dissertation on the radio coverage of the space program. i wanted to ask your reaction to what impact the amazing coverage on television of the apollo

lunar explorations and some of it at cbs news of course produced by robert j. rosser, and anchored so wonderfully and enabling by walter cronkite. i can't bring myself to say the late walter cronkite. we so tragically lost him last friday. but could you talk about the impact of this television coverage on the public? and also those of us who like walter cronkite and probably most people in this room who are space enthusiasts, how can we manage to get those who are inexplicably not, how can we get them to get it, why this is compellingly important for our human species to do, please? >> i would just like to lead off because charlie talked about inspiring, and there is absolutely no question that charlie duke and john-john were my heroes as a kid. i did tell my mom that i want to walk on the moon. while i haven't walked on the moon, going up to trouble three times as an astronomer has been

my holy grail of space. there is no question that inspired the. i grew up in those 1960s when the two major events in my life were the space program and television appearing in american homes. so i think it was that sort of serendipitous conjunction of television and my seeing the very important, very exciting explorers go off and do something truly great. that set me off on a lifetime of discovery. >> so the coverage was intrinsic to your interest. >> yes, sir. >> was that also true, what impact do you think that all of that coverage? >> i think the coverage is very, very important. and the earlier flight, every minute, every second was covered on tv. by the time we flew, hardly any of it was on tv. so that my family, my parents and my wife and kids went to mission control and sat in the visitors viewing room so they could watch us on the moon.

and to me, that's okay. it's an evolution of knowledge and experience that we get that sort of fades away into public knowledge but doesn't take away from the importance of what we were doing. you know, lindbergh flew the atlantic. everybody remembers that. nobody can say number two who flew. the first 747. now we have 740 sevens flying back all over the world. thousands of people that make the news. and less one crashes. but anyway, it's what we do doesn't distract from what we accomplished. i didn't say that right. >> i know exactly what you mean. i wanted to ask you this question. does the celebrity, didn't the celebrity of those early astronauts, did that not help to curb the congress and all of the

rest of us to the very expensive task ahead? >> it did and that's why i spend a lot of my time now going around and speaking to groups to try and encourage them, try to rekindle that adventure. because the future is the future. and we need to get excited about it. and invest some of our resources to make that capital investment into the future for a return. >> another question. >> yes. i am director of education for challenger center for space address space center expiration. we have a student from our challenger learning center in richmond, virginia. >> hot, my question is what are some things that we have learned from space exploration that we can use to help our own planet. >> lauri. >> great question. most people don't know this but right now we have about 15 spacecraft orbiting the earth

watching the polls of our planet as it is changing and studying the basic physics that drive our planet and our weather to help us predict better how it's going to be changing in the future. also things we send to other planets, the nist and mars can help us better understand how planets like ours can change and evolve. so from a science perspective we have learned a whole bunch about the history of our planet and how it's going to change in the future. there is technology things that we get from nasa as well that help us. i don't know if either one of you want to talk about some of the spinoff like from the hubble imaging, for example. >> the hubble space telescope helped pioneer the ccd's and cameras. i don't know how many people out there had a digital camera. [laughter] >> there's a little bit of technology in every single one of the scammers that's revolutionized the media and the news because they are ubiquitous. they are everywhere so everyone can take pictures of news as it happens and since then. the technology that is used to make those detectors, the

semiconductor technology, some of the techniques that we have learned on how to build instruments from hubble and the imaging have gone into the manufacturing of those semiconductors. of course, we're all concerned about health care and our own health. and some of the techniques that astronomers have used to see planets and star forming regions, new planetary systems are being formed, baby planets and the stellar nurseries. the technology to identify those spots have also been used in medical imaging to help detect cancer in the human body. so it's really a wide range of things from the heart attack on -- hard track to the soft track. >> thank you for that. >> would it be easier or harder to find astronauts after the incident in a poll of 13? >> for them to come forward you mean? >> yes. >> would they want to be astronauts. >> just as many volunteers after apollo 13 as before?

>> as far as who wanted to go? you bet your we were beating the door down. you know, i'm ready to go. that's just the nature of an explorer. >> apollo 16,. >> and i did go after. we fixed that problem. and then we didn't think it was going to happen again. it hasn't. the challenger explosion, there was the crew that followed on after that, after columbia. and that's the nature of space flight, the risks that we take, and there is not an astronaut there that doesn't understand that risk and is willing to take that risk for the next adventured. >> these are great questions. yes. >> how far are we from achieving earth gravity in space? is earth gravity in space vehicle a prerequisite for traveling to mars? >> what are we talking about? anybody up for that?

>> the question is we are in space where weightless because we're in constant freefall as we orbit the earth or when you're on your way to the moon. when you get on the moon then you have once asked the same poll that we feel here on earth. the great advantage of that is just a joy to float in space. it's truly magical, and it just changes the whole experience of being human. that's the good news. the bad news is that one of the reasons that we stay healthy is because we get up in the morning and when we go out and exercise, we walk around. that makes our muscles and our bones and our heart, our cardiovascular system strong. in weightlessness, our bones and our muscles and our heart don't get enough exercise to our bones get weak in our muscles get weak. so one approach to these long flights to mars, six-month cruise to mars, would be to build some kind of a circular spacecraft that rotates, for instance, so that the acceleration that you feel is the same for some fraction of what you feel on earth. that's one approach.

and that's end engineering problem and that's something we could solve. another approach would be to find weight and machinery to essentially gym equipment that allows you to get enough exercise working against it last in court or spring or other mechanisms to get enough exercise, which you need to do anyway just to keep saying over a six-month. most astronauts like to be gym rats. this is a first job i have gotten paid to go to the gym everyday. and i like that. that's another approach and that's the one we're using on the international space station. that one of the bagels of the international space station is to learn how to keep our body healthy over those long cruises. >> if i understand correctly what the person speaking in my ear told me a moment ago, this program will be repeated on nasa tv immediately after this broadcast is over. and also i think at all the science centers which are hooked up with us as well, i think that's what they said.

>> my name is matthew. one day i hope to be an astronaut. my question is for you, john. what was your reaction when you were the last person to grab onto hubble for the final time? >> for the last moment i grabbed onto hubble, of course, i probably want to come out and try my hands off. seriously, we made hubble brand-new. this was a complete hubble makeover. we put in this new wide field camera with new detectors that were just going to blow everyone away when we see those pictures. we put in a cosmic origins pictograph that's going to really look into the deep physics. breaks up the white, distant galaxies into colors. blossoms or the physics and astral visits, maybe shed light on dark matter. we brought to cameras back to life and we put life extending capability into hubble so that it really is almost a brand-new

telescope. i feel so good about that that when finally i gave hubble a last little hat and salute, i sort of said to myself, you're the man. of course, it's a satellite. [laughter] >> and good luck on the voyages. and i felt not sadness at that but really incredible satisfaction that we have achieved all of those challenges and that we were sending hubble off to what is a brand-new adventure. >> well said. [applause] >> i have a question. is it actually possible to reach absolute zero in space? >> no, it's not. and it turns out that's a really deep question. not a simple question. but it's one that involves physics that is totally outside of our own experiences. it's a very small scale and it really gets down to the question of what is the space time and matter. and although we don't have a

great understanding of that, the real answer is that you can't ever real achieved a steady state of absolute zero. >> nothing comes from nothing. >> but it's still darn cold after. [laughter] >> this question is for john. john, you never spoke about what that second goal was to get the bolt off to get the camera out. could it have been wd-40 by any chance? >> you know, i was thinking about that while we were out there because those bold are lubricated to prevent them from getting stuck like that. the number one rule that i always teach the other spacewalkers, i've been up there three times and i learned from the master, steve smith, on what was the third mission, is number one rule don't break the hubble. [laughter] >> and so when we put a wrench on a bold, we actually have a little device that had springs in it that prevent us from overt working it. so if you go to too much force, suddenly that will slip so that the rich slips instead of

breaking the hubble. and so we had that wrench set in their and actually in this case, google is cranking at it. we can increase the tour kilobit and we did that all the way up to the end of one we could do. and it happens to be 45 pounds or so. and so what we had to do in the end was come and we tried a couple different sockets and ridges. finally we had to take that out of the loop. just pulled out and put that wrench straight on the bolt. that means if you pull too hard the bolt is going to snap off and then that's the end and you can't get the instrument out. so we have to go to that extreme. fortunately, it broke loose, so to speak, came loose. just above where that torque limiter was operating. so we just got lucky. of course, then later on i had a similar one that had been installed with the same tool, and what i want to do at the same thing happened. but this time we knew at least what the procedures would be to get it unstuck. there still that moment when you are about, okay, isn't going to

break? >> align his first do no harm. i have one more philosophical question. i think everyone here dahlias space exploration and the value of that we understand, or we wouldn't be here. but can you talk about in an era of tight budgets the value of a manned space versus more robotic, and unmanned space expiration. >> we had part of that debate appeared earlier when buzz was still here. i don't think you ever got to address. >> let me give a couple quick comments about. i think it's a little bit of a false debate. i think the truth is there's really a need for both. robots can go right now places that humans can't and humans can do things that robots can't, at the moment, or at least much more efficiently. here's an example. if my friend steve squyres who is the lead for the mars rover, like the energizer bunny that

keeps going and going. okay, if you were a joy all it is, in which he is. how long would it take you to do with the rover does any day and what the rover does any day is maybe it drives 50 meters or so. it looks at a rock. at trying to figure out what kind of rocked it is. that's basically what a geologist as to how long would it take a human to do that? it takes the rover a day. he said i time to. i have taken my science team out in the field. 45 seconds. so you can imagine that it's, there's a heck of a lot of efficient you get out of having humans there. in addition, human eyes and hands and ears can give us the observation that frankly we don't yet have the capability to get with robots. there is an incredible amount that robotic expiration does. and most of the mission we do at goddard is amazing, but i think there is absolutely room for humans in that loop as well. >> thank you very much. i just want to let you know we have time for i think, i think a couple more questions. and you're one of them.

>> my name is erica. my little brother hopes to be an astrophysicist when he grows up. when you all were little did you ever dreamed about doing what you are doing now? >> well, i couldn't even pronounce astrophysicist when i was a kid. [laughter] >> and i didn't. but i wanted to follow in the footsteps of my heroes, as i said early, which was the military, those that served in the military in world war ii. so i decided as a junior in high school, a sophomore in my school that i wanted to go to the naval academy. and so i started pointing for the. and i made it there. and when i got to the naval academy, i fell in love with airplanes instead of ships. and so i became a pilot. and so it's just a progression of one sort of step after another, if you will, that leads us to your final, final careers.

and so i just tell everybody dream, whether you want to be a physicist, an engineer, a scientist of some sort, or a medical doctor. all of those disciplines are needed in the space program. and if you desire to be an astronaut or involved in space, you can be just about anything you want to be. >> we have lawyers and businesspeople to at nasa said. so absolutely. >> one more question. >> hello to my mother just called me barney oldfield. but i am looking at all the arguments for continuing space exploration, and we are getting to the end of the shuttle program. of course, budget is one of the big mantras. what do we see in the international community in support either with technology or continuing support with the intellectual science field wrecks. >> and money. >> let me start and then let

lori join in. my belief is that science is international language of peace, quite rightly. i think when we join our scientific endeavors and we join our endeavors of great exploration, that that is a unifying theme amongst peoples on planet earth. and it's been shown time and time again. you know, budgets are tight but i really believe exploration is this a grand adventure that is such an integral part of us being humans that we have to do it. great nations are nations of great explorers. there is no question, when you look at the armada of spacecraft that are around the mid. we had chinese spacecraft explore the moon and indian, united states. each of the spacecraft, they are international, there's international participation, cooperation. so there's no question in my mind that if we don't explore, if we don't lead expiration in this great country, somebody else will.

and i like it that we are the leaders. >> almost every mission we do at nasa is international these days. you can hearken back to the apollo, back when the u.s. and russians were getting along very well. we were exploring together in space. i think again we can be trailblazers ordinations building bridges through space exploration with science, with human spaceflight. and we are doing that today, almost every mission we fly is international. and that's something we are very proud of at nasa. >> amen. i love that. [applause] >> one name was mentioned here earlier today and it turns out that late in life walter cronkite and i became very good friends. and saw one another regularly. one of the things i remember most was a conversation i had with him in a restaurant in new york where he was talking about you.

he was talking about space, and he always called it the biggest story that he ever covered, the most important story of these two centuries. he also put it in a way that i hadn't heard it before. he said all of the news i was doing was watergate, there was vietnam. we were downcast. we as a nation. may be the world was downcast. he said i'm not sure there's a word that i'm going to use. he said, but space, space travel and space programs are upcast. [laughter] >> he said you had us. you had us looking up beyond ourselves, our region exceeding our grasp. and that's what we thank all of you for. and thank you for being here today. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is meeting today to continue work on defense department programs and policy for the new budget year. the defense bill authorizes weapons programs, sets military pay raises and troop levels. and include military operations in iraq and afghanistan, as well as other antiterrorist operations. much of it this morning's debate is likely to focus on the f-22 fighter jet. president obama has threatened to veto the bill if it includes the $1.75 billion for seven more aptly to just. the first veto of his presidency. senators leahy and mccain have offered an amendment to remove the money. the senate will vote on that amendment at noon eastern. live coverage now of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will now lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and glory, in the darkness of our limited knowledge, we turn to you whose

dwelling place is light. today, send our lawmakers forthwith your light to do the right as you give them the ability to see it. lord, help them to keep their minds on you so that your peace will provide the production for their confidence. in their dweelings with each other, keep them from unkind words and unkind silences. kindle on the altar of their hearts a devotion to freedom's cause in all the world, as you bring their thoughts and actions into conformity to your will.

lord, lift their hearts in gratitude to you for our heritage in this land of rich resources, high privilege and durable freedom. we pray in your sovereign name. 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 21, 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 burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: the senate will resume consideration of defense authorization bill following leader remarks with two hours of debate prior to the vote on levin-mccain and the first vote will begin shortly after 12:00 and the senate will recess from 12:30 until 215 for the caucus lunches on and then we will be open for amendments. i hope members who have amendments to offer will do so at the earliest possible day.

the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved of the under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of senate bill 1390, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1390 to authorize defense authorization for military activities for the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president --

mr. president, amendment number 1469, the levin-mccain amendment is before us and will be voted on after two hours of debate some time around shortly after noon today. this amendment will strike the $1.75 billion in additional funding for f-22 aircraft in t the -- mr. levin: let me withhold that just for a minute. i call up amendment number 1469. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk:

the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin, for himself and mr. mccain proposes amendment number 1469. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be two hours of debate on the amendment. mr. levin: mr. president, this amendment will strike $1.75 billion in additional funding for f-22 aircraft this was had th -- that was in thecommittee-d

restore cuts made in readiness and personnel accounts and across-the-board cuts made in order to shift funds to support f-22 production. it's appropriate the f-22 issue receive the full consideration by the senate that it has received. the f-22 debate is among the most important debates that we'll have on the d.o.d. authorization bill this year. stating what may be one of the worst kept secrets in washington today, the department of defense budget request called for ending production of several programs including the f-22 program. i suspect that the department of defense will seldom shut down any major acquisition program without a fair amount of controversy and i agree with the senator from georgia that congress should never be a rubber stch for the executive branch. but neither should we object to

terminating production of weapon systems because of parochial reasons. terminating production like closing a base involves economic loss for communities involved. i know that very personally. but we must did so from time to time and make these difficult decisions based on what is best for the nation and what is best for the men and women of the armed forces. because as president obama said the other day, strong support of ending f-22 production "to continue to procure additional f-22's would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops with the weapons they actually do need." the senate has heard from the senior leadership of the defense department both civilian and military that we should end f-22 production. the recommendation is strong and

clear, as strong and clear as i have ever heard. when the comes to ending the production of a weapons system. the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force sent me and senator mccain a letter on this matter. this letter is already part of the record. it says, in part, as follows, and this is the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force that are speaking: "this review concluded with a balanced set of recommendations for our fighter force. one focused procurement on modern fifth generation aircraft rather than less capable f-15's and f-16's. given the f-35 will constitute the majority of future fighter force, transition is prudent to the production. three, complete f-22 procurement aat 187 aircraft while continuig

plans for future f-22 upguides. and, four, accelerate the retirements of the oldest fourth generation aircraft and modify the remaining aircraft with necessary upgrades in capability." they said, in summary, and this is their words, "we assess the f-22 decision from all angles taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of available resources. we did not and do not recommend f-22's be included in the fiscal year 2010 defense budget. this is a difficult decision but one with which we're 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." the senate has also heard from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. if their letter to me and senator mccain on july 13, secretary gates and admiral mullen wrote the following: "there's no doubt that the f-22 is an important capability for our nation's defense to meet future scenarios, however, the department of defense has determined that 187 aircraft are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of unmanned aerial systems and the significant number of fifth generation stealth f-35's coming online in our combat portfolio.

the f-35 is half a generation newer than the f-22 and more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses. to sustain u.s. overall air dominance, the department's plan is to buy roughly 500 of the f-35's and, furthermore, under this plankunderthe us by 2020 io have 2,500 manned fighter aircraft, and almost 1,000 of them will be fifth generation f-35's and f-twoo's. china, by contrast, is expected

to have only slightly more than half as many manned fighter aircraft by 2020, none of them fifth convention. the f-22 program proposed in the president's budget reflects the judgment of two different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, three chair american of the joint chiefs of staff and the current secretary and chive osecretary f the air force. if the air force is forced to buy additional f-22's beyond what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other air force and department of defense priors and require deferring capdeferringcapabilities in aree were more critical for our nation's defense and for all these reasons the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs concludes "we

strongly believe that the time has come to close the f-22 production line. if the congress sends legislation to the president that requires the acquisition of additional f-22 aircraft beyond fiscal year 2009 the secretary of defense will strongly recommend he veto it." you don't get much stronger statements than that from a secretary of defense and a chairman of the joint chiefs. as the secretary of defense just last thursday expanded on those thoughts at the economic club in chicago when he said the following: "supporters of the f-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever-expanding list of potential missions. these range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired

general recommended on tv, using f-22's to go after somali pilots who in many cases are teenagers with ak-47, a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three navy seals." the secretary said in chicago, "these are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion and counting to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed air force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it." the senate has also heard, of course, from president obama as follows. this is what he wrote news december of 2004, "the department of defense determined that 183 f-22's would be sufficient to meet its military needs. this determination was not made

casually. the department conducted several analyses, which support this position, based on the length and type of wars that the department thinks it might have to fight in the future. in an estimate of the future capabilities of likely ad er have series. to continue to procure additional f-22's would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide for troops with the weapons that they actually do need." close quote. so the president, based on his uniform and civilian advisors' recommendations, has now said he will veto this bill if we keep the additional $1.75 billion in the bill to buy the additional seven f-22's that those military leaders, uniformed and civilian, strongly say that we do not need. now, i know that my friend from

georgia has quoted some private-sector individuals, and one senior military official in particular, general john corley, the commander of the air force's air combat command, and i do not take lightly the recommendations and advice of someone with a distinguished career such as general corley. however, general corley's assessment after high military risk if we end the buy of f-22's at 187 is not shared by the most senior leadership of the department that is responsible for viewing the f-22 program and all other department of defense programs from a broader perspective. these same leaders from the previous administration, the previous secretary of defense, the previous chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recommended termination to president bush, and president bush also urged the termination

of this program. as general cartwright said at his confirmation hearing -- or reconfirmation hearing, two weeks ago -- the following: "i was probably one of the more vocal and ardent supporters for the termination of the f-22 production. the reason is twofold. first, there's a study in the joint staff that we just completed and partnered with the air force on that. it said that proliferating within the united states military fifth-generation fighters to all three services was going to be more significant than having them based solidly in just one service. because of the way we deploy and because of the diversity of our deployment." and general cartwright went on to say the following:

"point number two is in the production of the f-35 joint strike fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the air force replacement of their f-16's and f-15's. it is a very capable aircraft. it is ten years" -- it being the f-35 joint strike fighter -- "it is ten years more capable than the f-22. it is a better, more rounded, capable fighter." close quote. well, that f-35 is in production now . in fact there are 30 being paid for and bought and produced in the very budget for the department of defense, which is before this body now. president eisenhower noted that from time to time the military industrial complex will push for more understanmore and more, mos needed. in this case, however -- in this case -- the senior military

leadership is not pushing for more. finally, to quote again from secretary gates' speech last week, quote -- and this was in chicago at the economic club -- "the drim realit grim reality id to the budget, we have entered a zero-sum game. every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more f-22's or anything else, is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars that we are in, to deter potential ad er have series, and to improve capabilities in areas where america is underinvested and potentially vulnerable." secretary gates said, "that is a risk i cannot accept and i will not take." close quote. so, mr. president, the time has

come to end f-22 production at 187 f-22's. that is all we need to buy. that is all we can afford to buy. and that is all we should buy. mr. president, i yield the floor and reserve the balance of our time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, americans are eager for health care reforms that lower costs and increase access. this is why many of us are proposing reforms that should be easy for everyone to agree on, such as reforming our medical

liability laws, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that would encourage people to make healthy choices like quitting smoking and losing weight, and addressing the needs of small business without imposing new taxes that kill jobs. the administration is taking a different approach to health care reform, and the more americans learn about it, the more concerned they become. so it's good that the president plans to spend a lot of his time in the days ahead discussing the administration's plan for reform because people need to know what the administration's plan is. specifically, americans have concern about losing the care they have and spending trillions of dollars for so-called reform that could leave them with worse care than they have now, especially if it's paid for by seniors and small business owners. one thing americans are extremely concerned about is the

prospect that they'll be forced off of their current plan as part of a government takeover of health care. despite repeated assurances from the administration to the contrary, the independent congressional budget office says that just one section of one of the democratic proposals we've seen would force 10 million people off their current health plan. americans do not want a government takeover, and they certainly don't want the government to spend trillions of their tax dollars to pay for it, especially if the care they end up with is worse than the care they already seervetion and especially if the money that's spent on these so-called reforms only adds to the national debt. now, the president has repeatedly promised that his reform would not add to the debt. yet both the house and senate reform bills that we've seen would do just that. this is why even democrats have started to back-pedal away from the administration's plans.

one reason democrats are having second thoughts is because the director of the congressional budget office has sounded the alarm over the administration's claims that its reforms would cut long-term overall health care costs. on the contrary, he said, the administration's reforms would actually lead to an increase in overall costs. concerns like these about cost and debt have been building slowly for weeks. another growing concern, even among democrats, is the impact these higher costs would have on states in the form of higher medicaid costs. at a time of tight budgets, this is something that governors from both political parties aren't very happy about. for example, new mexico governor bill richardson has said -- and i'm quoting him directly -- "i'm personally very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the trillion dollar figures being batted around." end quote.

expanding medicaid might look like an easy way to expand access, but it will actually mean passing spending increases for both federal and state taxpayers. this could be a devastating blow to states like kentucky and many others, which are already struggling to pay the medicaid costs they currently owe. the administration's efforts to pay for its plans aren't the least bit reassuring. the two main groups they're targeting are the last two that should be expected to pay for it -- seniors through medicare cuts and small business owners through higher taxes. to me, it's just common sense that in the middle of a reserks the last thing -- the last thing -- we should be doing is raising taxes on small businesses, yet both bills we've seen would do just that. indeed, under the house bill, taxes on some small businesses would rise as high as roughly 45%. this means that in order to pay for health care reform,

democrats would increase the tax rate on some small businesses to about 30% higher than the rate for big corporations. taxes would go up so much in fact under the house proposal that the average combined federal and state top tax rate for individuals would be about 52%. 52%, mr. president. let's consider that figure for a moment. to repeat, in order to pay for a health care proposal that wouldn't even address all the concerns americans have about access and cost and which might even increase overall health care costs, democrats in the house would raise the average top tax rate in the united states to about 52%. the chart behind me was created by the heritage foundation and appeared last week in the "wall street journal." it shows that the house bill would raise the top u.s. rate

above even france. of the 30 countries that the oecd measures, only bell gum, sweden, and denmark have higher rates, and five u.s. states would have tax rates even higher than both belgium and sweden. the u.s. is in the middle of a recession. we have lost more than 2.5 million jobs since this january. families are losing homes. the last thing they need is a government takeover that kills even more jobs, adds to the ballooning national debt, increases americans' long-term health care costs, and leaves americans paying more for worse care than they now receive. the proposals we've seen aren't just incomplete; they're indefensible. particularly at a time of spiraling debt and ever-increasing job losses. maybe this is why the administration has started to insist on an artificial deadline

for getting its reform proposals through. we certainly don't need to rush and spend $1 troll enact this -- $1 trillion to enact this flawed proposal by the august recess. the american peopled and members of both members in congress are calling on us to slow down and take the time to get it right. health care reform is too important to rush through and get it wrong. we saw what happens when some rushed and spent $1 trillion on an artificial deadline with the stimulus. the american people don't want the same mistake to be made again. instead of setting a three-week deadline on legislation that would end up affecting one-sixth of our economy, the administration should focus on meeting existing deadlines. the midsession review of the administration's earlier predictions about unemployment, economic growth, government spending and the outlook for the federal deficit has traditionally been released in

mid-july. yet now we're hearing the administration may not release its midsession review until august. after congress has adjourned and after the administration's artificial deadline for a senate bill on health care. the administration is also struggling to meet its decision to close guantanamo by january 2010. the administration's task force on detainee policy said it will miss the deadline for making recommendations. it seems premature to announce a closing date for guantanamo without knowing where the detainees may be sent. the most recent delay is even more reason for the administration to show flexibility and reconsider its artificial deadline foreclosing guantanamo. americans want republicans and democrats to enact real health care reform that reduces costs and makes health care more accessible and they don't want a

government takeover of the health care system that costs trillions of dollars, is paid for by seniors and job-killing taxes on small businesses, and that leaves them paying more for worst care than they currently have. before the administration rushes to spend another $1 trillion, it needs to slow down and focus on fixing our economy and dressing the issues -- addressing the issues it is already falling behind on. mr. president, i yield the floor. on

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the levin-mccain amendment on the f-22. i was listening with interest to the chairman speak earlier where he raised several points and i'm going to address specifically as i get into the guts of the argument but i think it is kind of interesting where he gives a list of those individuals in the pentagon and in the white house who are now in opposition to continued production of the f-22. interestingly enough, everybody he talked about from the president to the secretary of defense to the secretary of the

air force, chief of staff of the air force, chairman of the joint chiefs -- every single one of those individuals is political. they're appointed. they're appointed by the president. i'm going to talk about some individuals who are in support of the f-22 that are not appointed. number one, the men and women who fly the f-22. secondly, it's men who have had the courage who wear the uniform of the united states of america in an unparalleled way that i've since who have been willing to stand up to the political leadership and say you guys are wrong. they've been willing to stand up and say that if you cut production of the f22 off at 187 you are going to put this country at a high risk if a national security standpoint. so as we go through the debate

it's going to be interesting to contrast the statements and the letters of every member has received a flurry of over the last self-days. 50eu never seen the white house lobby low-income they've lobbied on this issue. and for a white house that was not spouse supposed to be a lobg white house it has been unparalleled in my now going on 15 years as a member of the united states congress. senator levin talked earlier about the f-35, we're going to ranch up production and buy 30 airplanes, 30, f-35's in this budget. we are paying $200 million a copy. guess what we're buying an f-22 for, today, an airplane that has been through the test phase, an airplane that has proved itself? we're under a multiyear contract that calls for payment to the,

by the air force to the contractor of $140 million a copy. there's going to be a lot of conversation on this floor about the expense, the cost of the f-22 and it is expensive, $140 million a copy is very expensive but to come in here with a straight face and say we're going to save taxpayers money by moving to the f-35 and then turn and and say we're going to pay $200 million a copy in this bill for f-35's? something about that just doesn't add up. well, let me just say, mr. president, that we're in a debate here with the pentagon with respect to budgetary issues submitted by the pentagon to congress. and there are a lot of people who think we ought to just step in line, salute the pentagon, and move ahead and do exactly what the pentagon says with

respect to the purchase of weapon systems. that's not the way the framers of the constitution intended the united states senate and the united states house to work. article one, section 8 of the constitution provides congress with the power to collect taxes, provide for the common defense of the united states, to raise and support armies, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. clearly, we in congress have a role in overseeing the department of defense reviewing budgets and questioning budget and policy recommendations. our interest and involvement in these issues is appropriate and not just based on parochial issues. we are charged with the responsibility of reviewing d.o.d. policies where the fiscal policies or otherwise -- that's simply part of our job, mr. president. i think it's important to note

on several indications in recent year congress has authorized policy or funding initiatives that d.o.d. has strongly opposed and in retrospect congress was right. and d.o.d. was wrong. perhaps the most similar example to the f-22 is the battle over the f-11 that kurd whe 7 that ke air force wanted to quit buying f-117 and my predecessor, senator sam nunn forced the air force to buy more f-117's and part of the argument was that they wanted to shift funding and focus to buying more f-22's. the f-117 was critical to establishing air dominance over iraq in desert storm and we can thank congress for recognizing the need for more f-117's years

ago. there are several other examples such as the goldwater nichols reorganization act of 1987 and the establishment of special operations command in 1987, both of which were strongly opposed by the pentagon. other examples are continuation of the b-22 program and prohibition against retiring b-52's all of which are paying dividends beyond what the military expected including in iraq and afghanistan today. now, i'd like to address a commend that senator levin and others have made regarding previous secretaries of defense and chairman of joint chiefs supporting only 183 or 187 now with the additional four, f-22 we are buying in the supplemental. that number of 183 was originally established not on the basis of any study or

analysis. never a study that came out and said we need 183 and that is what we're basing our decision on but it was based on p.b.d.753, an o.s.d. budget drill, two days before christmas in 2004 in which drill the air force had absolutely no input. the chief of staff nor the secretary was involved. the number of 183 or 187 has always been budget driven and not strictly driven. there have been at least ten studies over the past 10 years and only one, the joint air dominance study done by d.o.d. in 2005 recommended the 183, f-22's our, that study was based only on needing f-22's in a

single threat scenario and also used a fixed budget. now, senator levin mentioned the comments that general cart wright made in the senate armed services committee two weeks ago and he ar he relies on the statt of general cartwright who responded to a question that i asked and my question to general cartwright was, general, you say you support terminating the f-22 program at 187; has there been a study in the air force or outside of the air force, any analysis that recommends we terminate the program at 187? general cartwright's statement to me was, "yes, there's a study going on in the air force right now that says we should terminate the program at 187."

well, unfortunately for general cartwright we now know that no study was done. and it's our understanding that the comment of general cartwright is being corrected for the record and that we're receiving a corrected statement coming to the competen committe. i want to quote from a statement by pentagon spokesman regarding the comments of general cartright can and this comment is in the daily report. it turns out a recent study touted by pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the f-22 fighter isn't will a study at all but a series of briefings by d.o.d.'s program analysis and evaluation

shop and the air force. that word comes from the pentagon's top spokesman, jeff morel, who told the daily report on tuesday that the study, whatever it is, is not so much a study as work products. asked to describe the nature and timing of the study he told the "daily report," what i think general cartwright was referring to is two different work pods, one by the p.a.e. shop and one by the air force and not so much a study. since that time only 183, f-22's have been prorammed in the budget with 2007 the last year. to say previous seconds of defense and chair american of the joint chief -- and chair american of the joint chiefs supported this is misleading since before fiscal year 2010 budget, the budget bill process, a decision on whether to buy

more f-22's would be deferred to future decisionmakers. it is perhaps with this in smiend that secretarmindthat seo request additional f-22's in the supplemental and he did in order to keep the line open and preserve the next administration's option for procurement of the f-22. i know the former president, president bush, did not want to see the program terminated. they can say what they want to on the other side but having had personal conversations i know what his feeling was about this great aircraft. he could have terminated the program. but he did not terminate the program. it's this administration that is seeking to terminate this program. there have been five previous

secretaries of the air force, six previous chiefs of staff of the air force, seven previous secretaries of defense before this one and eight previous commanders of air combat command who have said we need more f-22's. we have supported this program from day one. we continue to reduce the number from the original 781, now down to 187, and the current chief of staff of the air force, whose letteletters have been quoted ie report who said we should keep it at 187, has testified time and time and time again in recent days and recent weeks and who has written me letters stating that the military requirement for f-22's is not 187, it's 243. but, he says, we can't afford

it. therefore, he has to salute his boss. his boss is the political appointee, secretary gates, and the political appointee says we're going to cap it at 187. therefore, that's the direction in which we're going to go and the direction in which you have to salute the flag and move on. i'm going to close my comments at this point in time and turn to my colleague in connecticut. but before i do so, i want to quote somebody who is not political, who is not an appointee, somebody who is a former chief of staff of the air force, and that's general merrill mcpeak, who last week, in an unsolicited statement, came out and said -- and i quote -- "i think" -- when he talked about terminating the f-22's at production rate of 187. "i think it is a real mistake.

the airplane is a game changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or marines killed by enemy aircraft since 1951. it's been half a century or more since enemy aircraft has killed one of our guys." he goes on to say, "the f-22 is at the top end. we have to procure enough of them for our ability to put a lid on, to dictate the ceiling of any conflict. we certainly need some figure well above 200," said general mcpeak. "that worries me because i think it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to expose us in a way this much smaller number does. that's taking too much high-end risk." general mcpeak is a supporter of this administration and as far as we can tell is not a consultant for any major defense

contractor, and for this reason, i think his comments deserve significant attention and credibility. with that, mr. president, i will stop at this point. i'll have more to say later, but i will turn to my colleague from connecticut, senator dodd. who i will say has been a great champion on this issue, a great partner in support of not just the men and women of the air force and our other branches that depend on this weapons system to protect america and to protect our soldiers in the field, but also a great protecter from an economic standpoint. mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, first of all, may i inquire how much time is left for those of us in opposition? the presiding officer: 44 1/2 minutes. mr. dodd: met me ask if i can be recognized for ten minutes, i would say to my colleague from

-- ten minute minutes. i would appreciate that. if i need moshings i'll ask for it. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: let me thank our colleague, senator chambliss, for his eloquent and persuasive argument about why i think this amendment is a dangerous amendment. i have great admiration for carl levin and john mccain, but there are serious problems with this approach that we're taking, both from a national security standpoint as well as from a manufacturing and industrial base standpoint. just to put this in context for our colleagues, we're being asked here to authorize $1.75 billion. that's .2% of the budget buffs of $680 billion. we're told there are at least 25,000 direct jobs and 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at stake. but $1.75 billion, .2% of this budget, which senator chambliss has offset, by the way. is he it is not an expenditure that has not been accounted for.

we're counting for t and we're about to put that many jobs across our country at risk, not because this industry is in trouble, unlike the automobile industry, which we bailed out to the tune of $63 billion, by the way, and understanding the reason that many of us supported it was of course to maintain an industrial base, a manufacturing base. in this case, we lead the world in aerospace. no one even close to the ability of the united states to produce the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. and yet with an industry that's doing relatively well -- although frankly commercial waters have weighed down causing serious problems but that's a result of overall economic problems. because we're unwilling to come up with $1.75 billion, .2%, to put those many jobs at risk, not to mention of course we are retreating on air superiority. one of the critical components of our national security is to maintain superiority, not

parity, superiority. both at sea and in the air. the f-22, by any estimation, is the most superior aircraft in the world, not even close in terms of competitors. and yet with the numbers we have and the numbers we'd be relying on, we leave ourselves way short of the earlier projected numbers. as senator chambliss has pointed out, the testimony over the years of those who advocated this program have been, i think, significant. and in fact the letters most recently received from general corley, who is the head of the combat command offices, headquarter of the combat command offices, langley, june 9, points out in his letter how serious this would be to exposing our nation to national security risks. the head of the air national guard bureau as well, general wyatt, lieutenant general wyatt, makes the same claim.

chief of staff schwartz before he changed his mind a week earlier advocated the f-22 as well, the importance of it. so, mr. president, from both a manufacturing perspective, a job loss -- in a time when unemployment rates are skyrocketing, this body is about to lay off anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 people. at a time when unemployment rates are going up hereto -- upe because $1.75 billion we've decided is too expensive. we put that many jobs at risk, not because the industry is failing, not because it is a bad piece of aircraft, but because the secretary of defense and the administration have decided this program isn't worthy of our support. so explain to those 90,000 people, once they lose their jobs and get laid off -- and they will; somewhere in that range, 25,000 to 90,000 -- why it was we decided today because of .2% of the budget here, we

decided to move in a different direction, put aside, if you will, the $63 billion we spent to develop this aircraft and what's at stake. so i raise these concerns expressed earlier by our military commanders -- as i mentioned, general john corley, lieutenant general wyatt, air national guard. 1,000 jobs are now gone as well because commercial orders are down. so anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 in my state. but i could not ask in good conscience, no matter how much i care about the people in my state, to desands up and opposeo stand up and support this amendment. i raise concerns about what this amendment would do to our global competitiveness. i raise concerns over the

industry's ability to build the less sophisticated f-356789 and it is a lot less f-35. one engine, not two. it is not as stealthy, even as remotely as sphelty as the f-22 -- even as remotely as stealthy as the f-22. i revisit these critically important arguments. let's be clear on the context on which we are having this debate. if proponents of this amendment suggest their saving taxpayers valuable resources in terminating the f-22, and they claim that such cost savings are well worth the risk, that general corley and general wyatt have warned us about, this amendment is valued at $1.75 billion. that's.2% of the total authorization. since the planes are offset, there are no real savings in this amendment. this amendment will come at enormous cost to our security

and our economy. we're in the midst of a national manufacturing crisis. everyone has talked about it. that's why we voted so much support for the automobile industry only a few weeks ago in this body. according to the federal reserve, july 15, 2009, industrial production and capacity utilization report of about four days ago, manufacturing production has declined 15.5% nationwide between june of 2008 and june of 2009. let me repeat that. over 15% decline in our manufacturing sector. and this quarter's manufacturing production is the lowest in 27 years, mr. president. which was the previous low point in production since 1967 when the fed started to keep track of this data. we in congress have tried to respond to this crisis, asked the emergency economic stablization act designed to relieve credit markets, get banks lending again. we passed the american

reinvestment recovery act to stimulate the economy, boost demand in sectors, put people back to work. we provided $63 billion to chrysler and general motors to keep their production lines running, companies that were brought to their knees at least in part by their dismal business planning and severe mismanage of their companies over the years. additionally the government has acquired unprecedented equity stakes in these companies, 8% of chrysler we own and a whoppining 60% of general motors. i've not opposed these efforts. as chairman of the banking committee, i worked with my colleagues who represent those states to provide federal assistance through the legislative process. but we took this step because we were responding to a national manufacturing crisis. we did it because w we were responding to the warning about the auto industry's collapse, particularly in the midwestern states that depend on the auto business. i'd like to discuss another critically important

manufacturing base and its economic impact -- the aerospace industry. my state ranks sixth in total aerospace employment. in 2008, according to the connecticut department of labor, aerospace employed 36,000 residents in my state t any talk of reducing jet production has an affect on the people i represent. but i would not be arguing this case if it were strictly a parochial matter. i don't think any of us have a right to do that. the truth is, halting production on this fighter will have consequences for our industry's ability to continue to build aircraft for our military. and i want to lay out the argument for you. the the expertise cannot be -- the expertise cannot be duplicated overnight. the manufacturers and engineers and machinists are highly trained skill people. i'm concerned that their skill sets are being taken for granted without consideration for the peculiarity of jet engine

construction and that doesn't hurt just these workers and their families it hurts all of us. according to defense contract management agency, there is a 20 to 24-month lag between payment for and production of jet engines. so the number of planes ordered in any one given year does not correspond with the delivery time of those engines. under secretary of defense gates' plan in calendar year 2010, pratt & whitney is expected to make 19f-3 f-35 engines. in calendar year 2011, pratt and whitney will be conducting 11 f-22, 35 f-35 engines for a total of 43. the presiding officer: the senator has used his ten minutes. mr. dodd: i ask for additional time. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. dodd: in 2012 there will only be 41 f-35 engines built. the problem is more acute when you compare overall military engines being built in calendar years 2010 versus 2011 and 2012. pratt and behigh whitney has ane drop of 33% in work volume. whad what will happen? what will happen, mr. president, is the same thing that is occurring in manufacturing states all across the country -- clayoffs, thousands and thousands of people, not just in my state but all across the country. in the eaives military aircraft work orders -- in the absence of military aircraft work orders, the companies are forced to tell the allegiance of highly engines, machinists, workers like pratt & whitney mechanics that they aren't needed right now. they need to retrain. they need to retrain, find another vocation. then just three years later after these workers have settled into new jobs, the dment of

defense and our -- the department of defense and our allies will try to ramp up production. f-356789 they won't be able to. thethey'll be left scratching tr heads, why can't industry meet our production needs right now? they'll be asking the same thing right here on the floor. to assume that thousands of workers across the nation who work on the f-22 will stand idly by until 2014 when we begin to build the f-35 joint strike fighter is naive at best. the defense department recognized this point in its 2006 quadrennial defense review published by the military to identify the needs and stralt e needs and strategy of our armed forces. it should be extended "through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to assure that the department does not have a gap in fifth-generation stealth capabilities." at the same time, the f-35 was

scheduled to begin construction in 2010. since then it has been pushed back to 2014 and there are some rumors that this date may be pushed even further back. this means the military identified only three years ago -- 36 months ago -- the most recent published report of this type that our nation would suffer a loss in aerospace manufacturing capability, if fighter production does not have a seamless transition. the response was to ensure we keep willing f-22's until the f-35 reached full production yet when that scnl was pushed back four years we did not extend the f-22 production to stable use our base. that's why we have a job loss i mentioned now we are in the very situation the department of defense was trying to avoid 36 months ago as we face looming job losses across our nation. commercial orders are down. losing the people on that basis. and now because of the vote we may take in a few minutes.

thus, a degree good dangerous or national responsibility requires. i am sure we have viable competitive capacity in the years ahead and let me point out as i did the other day, again, superiority is critical. right now there are 40 nations that have surface-to-air missiles -- rather the su-27, a sophisticated aircraft, the mig 29, competing with the f-15 and f-16. 40 nations have that capability. i had a chart that showed yellow dots and red dots all over the map that indicate advanced surface-to-air missile capability with orders made or they are verdict acquired. our f-15's and f-16's are vulnerable to the missiles. the f-22 has -- literally can

avoid the kind of detection these surface-to-air missiles provide. so we now have the capacity to be able to respond. now we may not as longs you are dealing with iraq or afghanistan, that is one thing but we have to prepare for situations a lot more dangerous. the chinese and the russians are aggressively pursuing a fifth generation aircraft to compete with the f-22 and if we don't, and to say the f-35 or the f-22 are virtually alike is a mistake. that's not the case. there is a difference. so from a national security standpoint, as well, there was a reason request subsequen generay and others made a case on this and a reason we invested $65 billion to develop the aircraft. there's a reason why the quad democrat and republican am reporquad democratandthe reportr

colleagues in the midst of this understand what is at stake where as man jobs could be lost with critical technology that hangs in the balance. it is one thing if we argue that the plane was in longer needed or not going to do the job many thought it would do, it wasn't as sophisticated as we hoped it would be, then you might decide dropping this, giving up jobs may make sense but to give up an aircraft of this sophistication and this capability and simultaneously in an economic situation such as we're in to lose somewhere between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs on this decision, for $1.75 in this budget, .2% out of a $680 billion authorization bill is shortsighted and i hope our colleagues would listen to the arguments and debate and understand there's a reason, an

inability to reach a compromise to go forward with production, reduce the costs the proponents argue for in the amendment and move forward together. but to make this decision that we're -- we make make is a good danger to our nation. i appreciate my colleague giving me an opportunity to respond and i thank senator chambliss for his work on making the case to our colleagues, democrats and republicans, this ought not be an issue that divides along those lines. we need to understand what is at stake for our nation in terms of the manufacturing base in this country as well as the national security needs that have been identified. with that, madam president, i submit the two letters from general corley and general wyatt. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: i yield the floor. mr. levin: i yield to give the figures relative to f-35 production which the pentagon

has given us. let me give you the figures from the pentagon, there are 30, in this year's budget. next year's budget, they stimulus plan 70, f-35 and if in 119, f-35 different if the numbers my friend from connecticut came. i am not sure of his source and perhaps he can give us that at a particular time but at this point i yield five minutes to the senator from delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: i want to respond, the defense contracting management age. that's where the numbers come from. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president today i speak in long support of the levin-mccain amendment which strips $1.75 in spending for additional f-22's fighter scwets the military does in the want and does not need. this is a cold war system in a

post-9/11 war underperforming and overpriced. this weakens our ability to keep our nation safe. the white house and pentagon agree that continuing the f-22 production line decreases military readiness by wasting resources much more usefully employed and this is not a partisan issue. presidents obama and defense, defense secretary gates and rumsfeld, and the secretary and chief of staff of the air force all agree that f-22 is not the most efficient or effective war plane to meet current and future defense needs. the f-22 has not flown over iraq or afghanistan because did is not the best weapon to meet the challenges we are currently facing. this was designed to counter soviet fighters at the end of the cold war and continued purchase deprives the military of $1.75 billion for things as protecting our troops and defeat insurgencies.

with ongoing wars in iraq and afghanistan we cannot disregard the views of the military. in these tough economic times we cannot afor afford to adopt this irresponsible approach to spending. the stakes are too high. what more evidence do we need? the f-22 prepares for wars of the past, the wars we have won. today we must look forward and make tough decisions for the future. we must heed ated vice of sent gates -- heed advice of secretary gates and enhance our capabilities against current and future threats including preparing for a wide spectrum of conflict and continuing to engage in counterinsurgency. mr. president, this debate is not just about f-22's, but changing the way we do business, accepting this rebalancing and ending unnecessary waste and matching national security interests with commensurate levels of funding. the f-22 is the first test of our willingness to make the

tough choices necessary to truly prioritize defense spending. the secretary gates said last week "the grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero sum game. every defense dollar diverted to fund unneeded capacity whether for more f-22's or else is a dollar that cannot take care of our people to win the wars we're in and defer adversaries and improve capabilities in areas where american is underinvested, and this is a risk i cannot accept and will not take." mr. president, i want to align myself with the remarks of secretary gates and reiterate this is a risk anyone of us should be willing to take. many of my colleagues have spoken of the sacrifice this is regarding jobs and i share that concern especially this tough times. this makes our decision hard and no one wants to do anything to hinder job creation and growth but with this economic

constraints in mind we must consider the implication of spending $2 billion on a defense program that our military leaders have said it does not need. building more f-22 and not allowing for smart or efficient growth of job growth, and more likely there will be increased production of the f-35 more capable war plane. american workers are needed for this and other defense priorities. jobs should follow. opposed to dictate our defense needs. to those concerned of cuts, i point out the budget proposed by the president and secretary gates represents an increase, not a decrease, in defense spending and this is not just an increase for the sake of spending, rather, it is a budget that recognizes over the last two decades the nature of conflict in war is fundamentally changed and it recognizes we must continue to build the capacity to confront a wide spectrum of challenges, conventional and unconventional. regular and irregular.

and better prepared for future in which we will continue to engage in counter insurgency. today, we must do what is america's best interests. today we must focus on weapon systems that offer maximum versatility and prepare the military against the wide of the range of threats. today, we must plan for our current and future counterinsurgency needs shaping our experiences in afghanistan and iraq. in this card i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the levin-mccain amendment and adopt a better approach for defense spending. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: i would like the time charged equally on both sides. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. chambliss: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i would yield five minutes to -- the presiding officer: the national is in a quorum call. mr. chambliss: skilled that it be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i would yield five minutes to the senator from washington, senator murray. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i thank the senator for yielding time on this important debate. madam president, as we consider the future of the f-22 program, it's really important for us to remember the most fundamental goal we have for our defense industry and the way that we have met that goal for many decades, and that goal is to give our men and women in uniform technology and equipment that is far superior to our enemy so they can protect themselves and defend our nation. it's been our mission from the time of the wright brothers to the days of rosy the riveter to the era of stealth technology. but maintaining that superiority has depended on an important partnership and that is a partnership between the pentagon, who determines the needs of our war fighters, and industry, who do the research and design and build the next

generation of military equipment that meet those needs. it's a partnership that is vital to our military strength, to our economy, and to the health of our domestic industrial base. unfortunately, it's also a partnership that is being weakened by amendments like the one that we're considering today. madam president, instead of treating military procurement like the partnership that it is, this amendment envisions it as a one-way street. this amendment cancels a vital military program without adequate thought of the men and women we rely on to design and build the equipment that our war fighters depend on. without any consideration of the fact that if we end the f-22 program, we are cutting a link in technology that we will not be able to repair overnight. as many of you know, this is not the first time i've come to the floor to talk about the erosion of our nation's industrial base.

it likely won't be the last. and that's because protecting our domestic base isn't about just one company or one program or one state or one industry; this is about our nation's economic stability, it's about our future military capability, and it is about the ability to retain skilled, family-wage jobs in communities throughout the country. now, just last week the aerospace industry's association issued a major report that finds the pentagon failed to consider industrial effects when choosing strategies. that report urged the pentagon to take into account the impact decisions like the one to stop production of the f-22 take on our manufacturing base. that report also noted that our manufacturing base was not taken into account in past quadrennial defense reviews, and that when

secretary gates unveiled his program cuts in april, he specifically said that defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions. madam president, as our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges -- safeguarding our country in dangerous world and rebuilding a faltering economy -- ignoring the needs of our industrial base shouldn't be an option. whether it is the scientists who are designing the next generation of military satellites or whether it's the engineers who are improving our radar systems or the machinists assembling our warplanes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest strategic assets. what if they all of a sudden weren't available? what if we made budgetary and policy decisions that didn't take into account the needs of making sure we have a strong workforce, domestic workforce here in our country?

well, actually, that's not impossible or even unthinkable. it is actually happening today. and we need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments like the one we're considering today because once we give up on producing this technology, once we say that certain research and development is no longer needed, we lose that -- we lose it -- and we cannot just rebuild it overnight. so today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military across the globe, we have to also remember the partnership that we have built with our industrial base because unless we begin to consider the needs of that partnership, we're not only to continue to lose some of our best-paying american jobs, we're going to lose the backbone of our military might. supporting continued f-22 production will help defend against potential threats, it will protect family-wage jobs, and, most importantly, madam president, it will preserve our

domestic base. that's important because we don't know what conflict will come in the future. we don't know what our challenges will be 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years from now. if we lose our engineer or our production base here and we face a challenge in the future and go back to rebuild that, it will never happen. we will be at a disadvantage in whatever future conflict we might face. so, madam president, i urge our colleagues to think about the long-term impacts of this decision. i oppose the amendment, and i look forward to further debate. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. levin: madam president, how much time remains on our side? the presiding officer: the proponents have 35 1/2 minutes. the opponents have 18 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i would yield the senator from arizona so much time as he requires.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank you. and i again want to thank my friend, the distinguished chairman, for proposing this amendment and ... excuse me, i want to thank the distinguished chairman for being the sponsor of this amendment and it is a privilege to work with him on this, as well as many other issues. this amendment is probably the most impactful amendment that i have seen in this body on almost any issue, much less the issue of defense. and it really boils down to whether we're going to continue business as usual of once a weapons system gets into full production, it never dies, or

whether we're going to take the necessary steps to really reform the acquisition process in this country. the f-22 in itself is $1.75 billion. that's an impressive number anyplace outside of the beltway. but, more importantly than that, it is a signal that we're not going to continue to build weapons systems that are plagued with cost overruns, which outlive their requirements for defending this nation, and, very frankly, starts to gain control of the acquisition process, which is completely out of control. there is -- the government accountability office recently

proposed -- concluded that there were over $295 billion in cost overruns in the last several years. $295 billion in cost overruns. now, recently a close friend of mine and a great leader and former secretary of the navy, wrote an article in the "wall street journal" and he stated -- quote -- "when john mccain was shot down over ha hanoi 1967 hes flying an amendment of-4 sky hawk. that jet costs $860,000. " by the way, i didn't know of that cost to the taxpayers that i had caused. but the jet cost $860,000. "inflation has risen by 700% since then. so mr. mccain's a-4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars.

applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 navy f-18 fighter should be $18 million. instead, we're paying about $90 million for each new fighter. as a result, the navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. this is disarmament without a treaty. the situation is worse," he goes on to write. "the situation is worse in the air force." then-secretary of the navy lehman says, "in 1983 i was in the pentagon meeting that launched the f-22 raptor. the plan was to buy 648 jets, beginning in 1996, for $60 million each. " that was 1983 dollars. "now they cost $350 million apiece, and the obama budget caps the program at 187 jets."

then he adds, "at least they're safe from cyber attack since no one in china knows how to program the 83 vintage i.b.m. software that runs them." and then goes on to cite other problems, including navy shipbuilding fiascoes, et cetera, et cetera. "the army's future combat system, which was meant to reequip the entire army, and has had 400% cost overrun and the new air force weather satellite with a similar cost overrun." so, it's out of control, i say to my colleagues. i will match my commitment to equipping the men and women of the military with anyone in this body, but it's got to stop, and this vote -- this vote on the f-22 will determine whether it's business as usual with earmarking, pork-barreling billions of dollars, which has bred corruption. we have former members of the united states congress residing

in federal prison -- or whether we're tabooing finally get it under control. and -- or whether we're going to finally get it under control. and who better, frankly, to be a spokesperson than our secretary of defense. i havi know of no one who i adme more than secretary gates. he gave a very important speech yesterday at the on july 16 at the economic club of chicago, a remarkable speech. i would hope that all of my colleagues would have the chance to read it. and he goes -- part of it he about the problems that we're having in defense spending, "first there is the congress, which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about protecting jobs in certain states and congressional districts. there is the defense and aerospace industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of these programs. and there is the institutional

military itself, within the pentagon, and as expressed through an influencal network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are quoted as experts in the news media. as a result," secretary gates goes on to say, "many past attempts by my predecessor to end failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside. nonetheless, i determined in a triumph of hope over experience and the president agreed --" and i want to emphasize my strong support and appreciation for the president's stand on this issue. "the president agreed that given the urgency of the wars we're in the daunting global security we will inhant for decades to cornlings an our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual." and then later on he talks about the f-22.

"air superiority and missile defense, two areas where the budget has attracted the most crit cinches provide case stiewdz. let me start with the controversy over the f-22 fighter jet. we had to consider when preparing for future potential state-on-state conflict what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected dlets to u.s. air supremacy. for example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence reconnaissance and et cetera. the president's budget would buy 48 of the most advanced u.a.v.'s. we also took in consideration of the newest manned aircraft program, the felt f-35 joint stryker. the f-35 is 12015 years newer than the f-22" and he goes an to say about how important the f-35 is and then saying, "the f-22 is

clearly a capability we do need. a niche silver-bullet solution for one or two scenarios, the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. the f- -22 does not make much sense in the system of conflict. would you ask yourselves, colleagues, why the f-22 has infer flown over iraq or afghanistan? it has been in production for nearly five years. it's never blown over iraq or afghanistan -- never flown over iraq or afghanistan. i emphasize it is important. we are building 187 of them but the question is whether we continue to build more. whether we continue to build more. or, the f-35, which goes to the marine corp, the navy, and the air force, is the weapon system we need to balance our entire capability of manned aircraft and i ask my colleagues, since

the f-22 was on the drawing boards and moved into production, look at the advancement in unmanned aerial vehicles. i say that as an old pilot. unmannedded aerial vehicles performing in magnificent job both in iraq and afghanistan. they have been a critical element, sometimes on the battlefields. and this president's budget understands that and gives extreme priority to that. so as we go on in light of these factors, secretary gates goes on to say "and with the support of the air force leadership i concluded 183 programs of record since 2005 plus for more added in fiscal year 2009 supplemental was a sufficient number of f-22's and recommended it as such to the president. the action from parts of washington has been predictable for many of the reasons i

described above, most substantive criticism is completing the f-22 program means we risk the future of u.s. air novembercy t supremecy and y to access the capabilities of other cups now or in the pipeline. the fact is, the fact is that in the view of the president of the united states, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the chief of staff of the air force and most any objective observer of the military scene believe the f-22 is important. we need to have what we have. but it's now time to move on to the f-35, and so this amendment, this amendment really means, are we going to look at the real and

compelling needs we have to have in order to win the war in afghanistan, continue our success in iraq and put our funds into that kind of equipment and weapon systems? or are we going to continue -- and i want to say i'm in good sympathy with the senator from georgia and other senator whose have come to the floor. i understand the sincerity of their views and respect them. i also point out, though, to argue that we should build weapon systems in the name of jobs is not -- not -- what we should be about. we should be about procuring and building the best weapon systems to ensure our national security and we can best equip the men and women in harm's way all around the world today. so i understand the economic impact particularly in these hard times.

my sympathy goes out to the communities dependent on the contracts for the f-22 aircraft. all i can say to them is, we will do everything we can to help you and families and make the adjustments. there will be -- we continue to increase spending on defense. we hope we will be able to provide you with the necessary jobs and manufacturing that with be devoted to what we have asserted as our national defense weapon systems procurement priorities. so i say with sympathy to my colleagues who are deeply concerned about the loss of jobs in these difficult economic times, but this is not the way to provide jobs. our obligation is to defend this nation. so, madam president, i think this amendment is overdue and i think it will be a significant, a very significant amendment, as

i said before, whether we will get our priorities straight and listened to our esteemed secretary of defense, president and chairman of the joint chief of staff and other military leaders in whose hands we entrust to make the tough decision. the final decision is here in congress but i don't think we should dismiss the arguments that have been made by, i think, one of the finest men to everybody serve this country and that's secretary of defense gates. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. who yields time to the senator? the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: how were time do you need? mr. hatch: probably seven

minutes. mr. chambliss: happy to yield seven minutes to the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i'll try to conserve if i can. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i think a good deal of senator gates myself. during the july 16 address the secretary of defense, rob gates, said the military needed maximum versatility to bring to bear in a wide range of armed conflicts. in january he argued that "our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations including type of combat we face in iraq and afghanistan and large-scale threats we face from places like north korea and iran." i cannot agree more with secretary gates. however, just as our nation disregarded the hard-earned lessons of fighting counterinsurgency prayings aftes after vietnam we are limiting our capability to defeat the air threat of today and tomorrow, the integritied air defense system. this advanced system is compared

of extended range russian surface-to-air missiles as the s-300 and advance fighters which have been sold to large numbers to china and india. together the systems make penetrating hostile area space difficult if not deadly for aircraft lacking the f two's f-s advanced technology for speed. this capabilities enable the raptor to have the capability to conduct stealth operation at any time of day or night and secretary gates argued for stopping production after only 187 are build because we are not faced with the "near peer adversary" for the foreseeable future. i hope he is right but i believe this statement misses a critical point. advanced integrated air defense systems are inexpensive and affordable by nations such as iran with insistence on developing nuclear weapons.

history provides ample examples of the effective use of integrated air defense systems by nations that lack resources to be considered near peer adversary of the united states. as retired lieutenant michaeld unn noted, north vietnam defended their territory with what at the time was an advanced air defense system which comprised of surface-to-air missiles and fewer than 200 fighters able to shoot down 2,448 american aircraft. the 1973 war between israel and egypt is another example. the egyptians, learning from the recent get, built integrated air defense umbrella where the forces are able to initially make significant territorial gains while the israeli air force faced serious losses. only when the egyptians advanced beyond the range of their surface-to-air missiles umbrella was the israeli air force able to find or inflict a significant employee.

a blow -- and then the night hark to the serbs ans who did not have the latest system and despite the examples some argue additional f-22's are not necessary because stealthy jet powered unmanned aerial vehicles are still under development will place an increasingly vital role in destroying critical ground targets. this is true for threats on the ground but i am unaware of plans to deploy a u.a.v. that dog fights exiting or next generation russian and chinese jet fighters which will be hunting the u.a.v. and could have the next generation to fight with soon. the russian government is working on a new aircraft to counter the f-22 which is being developed jointly with the indian government. additional media sources cite

china's development of a twin engine aircraft nope as th airce j-12 which can defeat the advanced aircraft. f-35 is capable aircraft but designed to complement the f-22 not replace it. the f-35 is neither as capable or as stlty a stealthy at the fd be updaded to use the super cruise engines needed in today's operations. the f-22 is the nascar racer of this air dominance team. fast and not seen it punches a hole in the enemy's defenses dispatching any challenger in the air and striking the important ground targets and the joint fight certificat fighter o

be maneuvered. the f-35 is still a highly capable stealthy aircraft but the role is to supplement the f f-22 not substitute. only by iewg by using both airco we ensure dominance. if it is a boondoggle why does japan and australia want to spend billions on the aircraft? why will australia purchase 100 of the f-35 but remain interested in the f-22? perhaps it is because australia understands the russians and chinese are developing even more sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems and stealth fighters, threats the f-22 is designed and equipped to destroy. madam president, others point out the f-22 is not deployed in

support of our operations in iraq and afghanistan. this is true. however, there were recent plans to deploy the f-22 to the portiopersian gulf but accordino the widely respected "defense news," the pentagon overruled the plans over concerns of "strategic dislocation." this means the f-22 is hardly a dinosaur. it is a weapon that can change the balance of power to a region and deter adversaries. in conclusion, i am reminded of a point made in a book on the battle of britain, observing that "even though the two british prime ministers before churchill pursued a policy of appeasement they committed the government to develop and procure the three pieces of equipment, the hurricane fighter and radar which were to ensure that nation's survival during the battle of britain." i hope the senate profits from the lessons of history and vote

against the levin-mccain amendment and i compliment my colleague from georgia for leading the fight on this issue. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from michigan. mr. levin: how much time remains for the proponents? the presiding officer: 21 minutes. mr. levin: senator wyden, how much time did you need? mr. wyden: ten would be plenty. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i rise to support the levin-mccain amendment. it seems to me buying more f-22's at this point would meet the very definition of government waste. what you have is a situation where the pentagon which suffice it to say hasn't exactly been shy over the years in terms of calling for additional weapons,

they are on record as saying this is unnecessary. further, i have been out talking with members of the guard at home and trying to get their sense of what is needed in a dangerous time and they have never once mentioned something like this. they talked for example about body armour and boots. they don't talk about more f-22's. when the congress is now having a debate about trying to find additional money for health care, for example, to go out and spend close to $2 billion to buy seven more f-22 fighters that the air force says it doesn't want, i think just defies commonsense. my home state, for example, would be able tloveto be able tl

workers that have been laid off. we could be restoring infrastructure and developing renewable energy. again in high home state, we've had budget shortfalls. we've seen reductions in essential services, law enforcement just being one. the debate in my view isn't about necessary steps to ensuring a strong national defense. the question is about whether the united states congress wants to spend close to $2 billion to pay for more fighter jets that the air force doesn't want. i think it's also important to remember that the f-22 is not being purchased for wars that the united states is currently fighting. certainly the taliban and iraqi gentes do not havurgents doinsur

force. i strongly meeive that the pentagon ought to be able to prepare for such possibilities. it is the pentagon who is telling us that we don't need these additional f-22's. i think it's also important to note that the pentagon has purchased 187 f-22's. so there is not debate about whether the united states ought to have fighters in our arsenal. the debate is really whether or not the air force needs 194 of them instead of 187. we have a very good secretary of defense, robert gates, and robert gates has said that 187 are sufficient to combat current and future threats. he's the one who said that more are not needed. he's the one who said -- and i quote -- "we must break the old habit of layering layer upon layer of cost, complexity and delay systems that are so

expensive and elaborate that only a small number can be built and are then useable only in a narrow range of low-probability scenarios." madam president, i think secretary gates has hit the nail just about as perfectly on the head as you can. he and our country want the strongest defense possible, but there are ways to make better use of that $1.75 billion an thn on seven more f-2 2's. let me close by saying that i serve on the senate select committee on intelligence. i know that there are threats to our forces every single day. there is no question -- i see my friend from georgia, who serves on the intelligence committee. he feels very strongly about this as well. we need to make sure that we are protecting our troops in harm's way.

but we have a variety of choices. we have a variety of choices in order to secure the protection of our troops. and i intend to work with chairman levin, secretary gates, the distinguished senator from arizona, and the president to ensure that we replace the current f-15 with more capable and safer fighters. last month i visited with some of the 3,000 members of the oregon national guard's 41st brigade combat team as they trained for their current deployment to iraq. not a one of the soldiers told me that their big concern was whether the air force would have 194 f-22's instead of 187 of them. they talked to me instead about the best vehicles. they talked to me about the best medical care, if they're injured. they talked about the best body armor and not a one of them mentioned the f-22.

madam president, i am not voting against the f-22. i am voting for the soasmght i am voting for the taxpayer -- i am voting for the soldier. i am voting for the taxpayer. they both deserve our government's greatest protection at this critical in the meanti r history. i urge the senate to vote for the levin-mccain amendment. and with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? cham madam president, how much time is remaining on both sides? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia has 11 minutes. the senator michigan has 15 minutes. mr. levin: i'm not sure how many other senators -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. chambliss: i thank you. madam president, i don't know how many senators want to speak. whether or not the opponents

have speakers on their side le left ... mr. chambliss: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: senator inhofe had indicated a desire to come speak. he is tied up in an e.p.w. committee hearing. he may able to get here. we of course whriek to -- mr. levin: we of course would like to finish, so we'd like to be at the end of the line here, senator mccain and i. mr. chambliss: i will be happy to go ahead and make some comments. and then senator mccain and senator dodd and you can close it out. if senator inhofe comes in, we'll give him a couple minutes. is that satisfactory? mr. levin: okay. mr. chambliss: madam president, would you notify me when i have used six minutes, please. the presiding officer: the

chair will notify. mr. chambliss: excuse me. five minutes. i'm sorry. and i would like to ask unanimous consent for the army fellow in my office, david evans to have floor privileges during the consideration of this bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, i want to make just a couple of quick comments relative to some things that have been said up here. first of all, with regard to senator wyden's comments concerning the national guard, sure, all -- all of us want to make sure that we equip our guard, our reserve as well u as our active duty force with all of the needs that they have. but i would simply cite him to the letter of general wyatt, who is the head of the army guard -- excuse me, air force guard. and general wyatt says that the f-22 is uniquely qualified to fill the needs that the guard has for its national security missions. so to even slightly indicate

that the guard has issues with this program is simply not correct because the guard is on record as being a strong support -- a strong supporter of this program. i have a letter here from retired general david bakle, retired from the united states army. he now is the executive director -- acting executive director of the reserve officers association. alet me quote part of this. "war plans of the united states are predicated to provide asymmetric victory. the current cap of 187 f-22's is an inadequate number of aircraft to ensure no future threat can impede the u.s. air dominance. the minimum number of f-22's to ensure a strong defense is 250." i would ask unanimous consent that the letter of retired general bakle be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam chairman,

i also have quoted earlier the comments by an active duty general, a guy that i consider a great american hero, not just because he falls in that category of wearing the uniform of the united states of america, but he is standing up to the personnel at the pentagon and he's say, you guys are wrong. and for a general -- active duty general to do that, it takes significant courage. and this is a guy i want in the foxhole with me, and that's general corley, who is commander of air combat command, who very clearly says in a letter that we have previously entered into the record that a fleet of 187 f-22's puts execution of our national military strategy at high risk in the near- to midterm and that the minimum number of f-22's that we need in miss opinion, is 3881. i want -- is 381.

i want to also, madam president, talk for a minute about senator mccain's comments on the cost. and this is an expensive weapons system. but it's also the most sophisticated weapons system ever designed by mankind. and most importantly, it's doing its job. and it's doing its job in a very professional. instetted of costing $-- instead of costing $350 million that senator mccain stated in his earlier statements because of a multiyear procurement contract that we entered into between the pentagon and the air force, as approved by this body -- and i know senator mccain objected to that and i understand that by a vote of 70-28, that multiyear contract was approved by that body as well as by the house. and as a result of that instead of paying that $350 million per copy he alewded to, we are paying $140 million a copy. and that's in comparison to the

$200 million a copy that's going to be paid for every single f-35 that we're buying in this budget, because the figure for 200 f-35's this in budget exceeds $6 billion. now, madam president, there are a number of people who are watching this debate out there today. certainly those folks at the pentagon are anxiously awaiting the results of the voavment the white house is anxiously awaiting the results of the vote. the chinese are really anxiously awaiting this vote. let me tell you why. there's been -- and i want to quote from an article of july 19 from a gentleman named robert d. fisher jr. who is a senior fellow with the international assessment of strategies center. he says in here that "though the chinese government says next to nothing and the u.s. government says very little, what is known about china's fifth-generation fighter program is disturbing. both of china's fighter

manufacturers, the shin jiang and shin yin duvment are competing to build a heavy fifth-generation fighter and there are serious indicators china may be working on a medium-weight fifth-generation fighter similar to the f-35. china can be expected to put a fifth-generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers and it can be expected to build more than 187." madam president, skilled that that article be entered in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, let me close by saying this. there's another group that watching very aing u anxiously t there. it is the men and women of the united states air force. they're lieutenants, they're captz, and they're majors. they are watching this anxiously because they are saying to themselves, i signed up to be a part of a united states air force that believes in putting men and women in cockpits, men

and women who are going to carry the fight to the enemy. and what am i hearing from members of congress? and what am i hearing from the leadership at the pentagon? that we're going to move away from the most advanced fighter in the world today understand move too-to-a smaller -- and move to a smaller fighter. that we're going to moveway from fighters and maybe altogether by going to u.a. v. is this the air force i signed up for? well, i can tell you why they're anxiously awaiting the outcome of this, because they've talked to me time and time again about the fact that they're concerned about their future in the united states air force. now, the worst thing we can do is to discourage those brave men and women who want to make a career of the air force and want to be wearing those two, three, and four stars one of these days. but i assure, those lieutenants and those captains and those majors are watching what this body does from a policy standpoint today. they know where their leadership

at the pentagon is coming from. and they don't like whatter i wd they don't like what they're hearing. they are look fog congress to fulfill the role what the director of the csis has said time and time again, and that is to objectively review the budget that the pentagon sends to the hill and we're in the process of doing that and exercising the type of oversight that we should exercise. with that, madam president, i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and i would yield to senator inhofe two minutes. two minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i know we're almost -- almost everything that has bee can be s been said. having served on the armed services committee for quite some time and have watched this through -- the thing that is kind of worryso many to me is when we