National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, although I have been an active participant in the Judiciary Committee's Sotomayor confirmation hearings, I have followed with great interest the floor debate on continuing the production of the F-22A Raptor.

Unfortunately, over the years I have heard a number of incorrect assertions made about this aircraft, and I have tried to correct them. But after listening to this week's debate and reading misleading articles, especially in the Washington Post, about the F-22's performance and capabilities, I believe the Raptor's opponents have hit bottom--and have begun to dig.

Therefore, I would like to set the record straight about the F-22 and its extraordinary war-winning capabilities.

Fact No. 1: The F-22 is, and will continue to be, the preeminent fighter/bomber for the next 40 years.

The F-22 is the stealthiest aircraft flying today. Unlike the F-117 Nighthawk and the B-2 bomber the F-22s can be deployed on stealth flight operations not just at night, but 24 hours a day. This one-of-a-kind capability provides our combatant commanders with unprecedented flexibility to engage ground and air targets at a time of their choosing--thus denying any respite to the enemy.

The Raptor is equipped with supercruise engines that are unique because they do not need to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic speeds, thus consuming a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limiting their range.

The F-22 is the deadliest fighter flying today. During a recent military exercise in Alaska, the Raptor dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft.

Further advantage resides in the F-22's radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, the F-22's sensor-fused avionics can detect and engage enemy aircraft and surface threats far before an enemy can hope to engage the F-22. At the same time, its advanced sensors enable the F-22 to be a forward-surveillance platform capable of gathering crucial intelligence on the enemy.

Often overlooked, the F-22 is a very capable bomber. It can carry two GPS-guided, 1,000-pound joint direct attack munition bombs or eight small-diameter bombers.

Fact No. 2: The F-22 is not a Cold War dinosaur. It is designed to meet and eliminate the threats of today and tomorrow.

As the longest-serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know full well the greatest air threat of today and tomorrow is, and will continue to be, the advanced integrated air defense system.

Such a system is composed of two parts. The first component is advanced surface-to-air missile systems such as the Russian-made S-300, which has a range of over 100 miles. The second are highly maneuverable and sophisticated fighters like the Su-30, which have been sold to China and India. Coupled together, these anti-access systems make penetrating hostile airspace extremely difficult, if not deadly, for those aircraft lacking the F-22's advanced stealth technology and sustained supersonic speeds made possible by its supercruise engine. It is also important to remember the mainstays of our aerial fleet, the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, are not stealth aircraft and are not equipped with supercruise engines.

Unfortunately, integrated air defense systems are relatively inexpensive, placing them within the purchasing potential of nations such as Iran with its seeming insistence on developing nuclear weapons.

The advanced integrated air defense system is exactly the threat the F-22 was designed to neutralize. In addition, the F-22 will almost simultaneously be able to turn its attention to other ground targets that threaten the national security of the U.S. and our allies.

In a related argument, some argue the United States should devote more of its military resources toward bolstering its counterinsurgency capabilities.

This is a fair point. Unwisely, the United States did permit its counterinsurgency capabilities to atrophy after the Vietnam war. As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, we continue to pay dearly for that error. However, as we reconstitute our ability to successful prosecute counterinsurgency campaigns, we cannot make a similar mistake and undermine one of the fundamental foundations of our military strength: hegemony in the air.

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this January, ``Our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations, including the type of combat we're facing in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as large scale threats that we face from places like North Korea and Iran.'' I could not agree more, and the aircraft that will enable our Nation to decisively defeat our adversaries in the air is the F-22.

Mr. President, others point out the F-22 has not been 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 Persian Gulf. But according to the July 9, 2008, edition of the widely respected Defense News, the Pentagon overruled those plans, citing concerns about ``strategic dislocation.'' This means the F-22 is hardly a dinosaur. It is a weapon that can change the balance of power in a region and deter our adversaries.

Fact No. 3: 187 F-22s is an insufficient number to meet the minimum requirements of our national military strategy.

Our Nation's military requirements are decided upon in detailed studies of the threats our Nation and its allies confront. These studies also recommend force structures to deter and, if necessary, defeat threats to our national security. Accordingly, the Department of Defense and the Air Force have conducted a number of studies to determine how many F-22s are required to meet our national military strategy.

I am unaware of any comprehensive study that has concluded F-22 production should cease at 187 aircraft. Specifically, unclassified excerpts from the Air Force's sustaining air dominance study stated ``180 F-22s was not enough,'' and the Department of Defense TACAIR optimization study concluded the procurement of additional Raptors ``was the best option.'' On April 16, these conclusions were reinforced by comments made by GEN Norton A. Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, after the F-22 procurement termination was announced. General Schwartz stated, ``243 [Raptors] is the military requirement.''

Opponents of the Raptor will most likely dispute this, pointing to comments made by General Cartwright during his July 9 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. During his testimony the general stated the decision to terminate production of the F-22 is supported by a ``study in the Joint

staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force.'' However, my staff has inquired about this study and was informed a recently completed comprehensive, analytic study does not exist.

No doubt, the Joint Staff has prepared some justification for F-22 termination.Yet I believe it is only natural to question the objectivity of any assessment which justifies previously reached decisions.

Unfortunately, yesterday, my suspicions about this so-called analysis were proven correct when Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon's press secretary, stated General Cartwright was referring to ``not so much a study [as a] work product.''

Therefore, I believe the Congress should place great significance on the June 9 letter by GEN John Corley, the commander of air combat command, who stated ``at Air Combat Command we have a need for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.''

I believe these are important words from the four-star general who is responsible for the Air Force command which is the primary provider of combat airpower to America's war-fighting commands.

Fact No. 4: The Washington Post article that alleged technical and maintenance difficulties of the F-22 was misleading and inaccurate.

In fact, the Air Force has written two rebuttals to this article. After viewing the first rebuttal, I found it striking the Air Force stated six of the points made in the article were false, four were misleading, and two were not true.

Specifically, the primary assertion made by the Post was the F-22 cost far more per hour to fly than the aircraft it is replacing, the F-15. However, this is misleading. Only when you include all of the one-time costs that are associated with a new military aircraft is this true. A far more accurate measurement is to compare variable flying hours. The F-22 costs $19,750 per hour to fly versus $17,465 for the F-15. The F-15 costs less to fly, but the 1960s-designed F-15 does not have nearly the capabilities of the F-22.

The article asserts the F-22 has only a 55-percent availability rate for ``guarding U.S. airspace.'' This is misleading. Overall, the F-22 boasts a 70-percent availability rate, and that has been increasing every year over the past 4 years.

Finally, the article states the F-22 requires significant maintenance. This is true. But the Post article misses the critical point: the F-22 is a stealth aircraft. Making an aircraft disappear from radar is not accomplished through magic. It is achieved through precise preparation and exacting attention to detail.

I believe we can all agree it is far better to expend man hours to prepare an airplane that will win wars than to buy replacement aircraft after they have been shot down, not to mention the moral cost of not exposing our pilots to unnecessary dangers.

Fact No. 5: The F-22's detractors argue erroneously that the Raptor's role can be filled by the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. But the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter were designed to complement each other, not be substituted for each other. The F-22 is the NASCAR racer of this air-dominance team. Fast and unseen, the Raptor will punch a hole in an enemy's defenses, quickly dispatching any challenger in the air and striking at the most important ground targets. The Joint Strike Fighter is the rugged SUV of the team. Impressive, but not as maneuverable or capable of sustained supersonic speeds, the F-35 will exploit the hole opened by the F-22 and attack additional targets and directly support our ground forces. This is not to say the F-35 is not a highly capable stealthy aircraft. But the F-35's role is to supplement the F-22, not substitute for it. Only by utilizing the strengths of both aircraft do we ensure air dominance for the next 40 years.

Fact No. 6: Our allies recognize the critical capabilities of the F-22 and are eager to purchase the aircraft.

This is one of the most compelling reasons for purchasing additional numbers of F-22s. The Japanese and Australian governments have consistently approached our government about purchasing the Raptor for themselves. If the F-22 is such a boondoggle, why would these nations be willing to spend billions of dollars to purchase them. Australia already plans to purchase up to 100 F-35s. Why does it need the Raptor? Perhaps it is because these nations realize a number of the threats to their security can only be defeated using the F-22 Raptor.

In conclusion, we have an opportunity to ensure this and future generations continue to benefit from one of the foundations of our national security: the ability to defeat any air threat and strike any target anywhere in the world. The world is changing; threats are growing. Today we have an opportunity to ensure those air threats are met.

To be honest with you, our young men and women who fly deserve the very best equipment we can give to them, not equipment that is getting old, outmoded, and cannot do the job.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against the Levin-McCain amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak about the Hatch amendment which will be called up later.

As we have had the debate in this Chamber over hate crimes legislation, one obvious fact is revealed again and again. The proponents of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act have not taken the time to answer what should have been a threshold question: Is it necessary?

Just a few short weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder was gracious enough to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this legislation. During that hearing, I asked him specifically whether there was any evidence of crimes motivated by bias and prejudice that are not being adequately addressed at the State level; whether there was a specific trend indicating that, with regard to hate crimes, justice is not being served in State courts. His answer was not surprising to anyone who has been following this debate for these many years. But if your only knowledge of this issue came from the statements made by the Democrats in support of this legislation, you would probably be very surprised.

His answer was: No. There is not any statistical evidence indicating that the States are not up to the task of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing crimes motivated by bias and prejudice. None. None whatsoever. The Attorney General said quite openly, in fact, that the States were doing a fine job addressing these crimes.

This is not a new revelation. In the years Congress has been debating hate crimes legislation, many of us have been asking similar questions, and we have received similar answers. But in light of the Democratic Attorney General's own testimony regarding the States' laudable efforts to punish hate crimes, it is even more clear that the supporters of this legislation have not answered what would be a threshold question: Is it necessary?

The truth is that the vast majority of States have hate crimes statutes on the books. The acts associated with this legislation--murder, assault, et cetera--are punishable in every jurisdiction in the United States. Under our legal system, defendants will, at times, receive penalties that many believe are not sufficient given the nature of their crimes. In addition, because our criminal justice system is designed to protect defendants and place the heaviest burdens on the government, some guilty parties undoubtedly go unpunished. But I have seen no evidence whatsoever proving that these inevitable occurrences happen more often in cases involving bias-motivated violence and, to date, no such evidence has been provided.

My amendment is similar to legislation I have introduced in the past. Instead of expanding the powers of the Federal Government, it would mandate a study that would provide us with the information we should have before we even consider taking such an approach. Specifically, my alternative would require a study to compare over a 12-month period the investigations, prosecutions, and sentencing in States that have differing laws with regard to hate crimes. In addition, it would require a report on the extent of those crimes throughout the United States and the success rate of State and local officials in combating them.

The amendment would also provide a mechanism for the Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime ``motivated by animus against the victim by reason of the membership of the victim in a particular class or group.''

And it would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to States that lack the necessary resources to prosecute these crimes.

Contrary to what some of my colleagues may believe, Congress does not have the power to act in any manner that it chooses. There are a number of constitutional issues raised by this legislation, including the extent of Congress's power under the commerce clause and prohibitions that could chill free speech in certain sectors of this country. Most apparently, this legislation would impede on grounds that are traditionally left to the States. Worst of all, it would do so when, if the Attorney General is to be believed, the States are by and large doing a fine job at addressing these crimes.

No one in this Chamber wants to see bias-motivated crimes go unpunished. That is not the question we are facing today. The question is whether, given the current state of affairs in most States and the limitations on Congress's power, this measure is appropriate.

It seems to me before we even consider such a broad and sweeping change in the Federal criminal law we should at the very least have enough information before us to determine whether such law is necessary. My amendment would have us get that information and, in addition, establish a role for the Federal Government that is more appropriate respecting the sovereignty of the States and the limits on Federal power established under the Constitution.

It should be noted that this bill that has been called up is named the Matthew Shepard bill. What happened to Mr. Shepard was brutal, heinous, awful, unforgivable. But the fact is, the perpetrators are now spending the rest of their lives in prison because the local judiciary and system tried and convicted them. There is a real question whether we should put into law this hate crimes bill that I believe is going to cause a lot more problems than it will help, especially since there is no basic evidence that the State and local governments are incapable or unable to take care of these types of crimes.

I think there is a lot of beating of the breasts and acting like we are doing something when in fact all we are doing is gumming up the law if we pass this bill, and I think doing so unconstitutionally, in the end, basically is making it possible to bring hate crimes actions all over the country in a multiplicity of ways that will cost the Federal Government untold amounts of money that should not be spent.

All of us are against hate crimes. Every one of us would do everything we possibly can to get rid of them. But until there is evidence that the State and local governments are not doing the job--and that evidence we have asked for, for years now, and they have never been able to produce any. Until that is produced we should not go ahead and pass legislation like this.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the purpose behind this amendment is simple. The proponents of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act have yet to answer what should have been the threshold question: Is it really necessary?

My amendment would mandate a study to determine whether the States are adequately addressing bias-motivated violence. To date, we have seen no evidence that they are not. In fact, we have asked the Attorney General, for years now, to come up with any evidence they can. In the hearing before the Judiciary Committee recently, he specifically stated the States are doing a good job at addressing hate crimes.

It would also authorize the Justice Department to provide limited aid and assistance in State prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes.

In almost every case raised by the proponents of a horrific act of violence motivated by prejudice, the perpetrators have been dealt with adequately at the State level.

In the Matthew Shepard case, the two perpetrators are spending life in prison. In other cases, some have had the death penalty, and others have spent life in prison.

Before we start overriding State efforts, I believe we should at least make an effort to determine whether there is a legitimate Federal role in the prosecution of hate crimes. That is what my amendment would do, and I hope our colleagues will consider voting for it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my amendment does not kill the hate crimes opportunity. It says, let's do a study. Let's know what we are talking about. Let's see if there is a real need for this bill. With all of the constitutional ramifications this bill has, it says: Let's be cautious. Let's just not go pell-mell into the maelstrom without knowing what we are talking about.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source