National Defense Authorizaton Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 22, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are considering legislation that would force the United States to withdraw our troops before we have finished the job in Iraq.

It is ironic. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle fight over judicial nominations, they fight the President while he is trying to protect our country, and they fight each other. Just about the only thing they are unwilling to fight is an actual war.

Let me be clear: We got into the war committed to success, and I am never going to allow us to cut and run.

Let me remind everyone that bin Laden inspired his followers with his view that America was easy to defeat. Let's not do anything to confirm his skewed vision. When we leave Iraq, let's make sure it is stable and secure enough to defend itself.

Last Thursday, we had our first vote on pulling out the troops. We voted on a proposal by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who seeks to require the President to set a date for withdrawal by December 31, 2006. Wisely, my colleagues voted down the proposal by a 93 to 6 vote. Now that is a pretty telling vote in today's partisan atmosphere.

The minority is now seeking a scheduled phaseout withdrawal, which would set an artificial deadline that would only encourage and embolden our Nation's enemies. I am sure this will get more votes than the previous proposal, but it clearly doesn't have the votes to pass, and it shouldn't. The enemy will use this estimate and tell the Iraqi population that the United States is leaving. This could have tremendously harmful repercussions.

The United States clearly has a strategy for meeting this difficult challenge in Iraq. Some of those on the other side insist on focusing on the difficulties, while asserting that we have no strategy.

Our goal is to stay in Iraq as long as necessary, but not one day longer.

Our strategy is to ensure that the Iraqi people have developed a secure constitutional government that embodies a national compact between all Iraqi groups.

And it is training their forces to provide for their own security.

We have made significant progress. The Iraqis have formed a national government, and they are taking more and more responsibility for their security.

In fact, Iraq has nearly 265,000 trained security forces now--including 115,000 for defense--and that is building daily. Our troops are serving with Iraqi units and running joint combat operations.

We also have--in conjunction with Iraqis--put Al-Qaida, the Saddamites and the Sunni insurgents on the defensive. They spend more time running from us than they do attacking us, although we all agree they are still lethal.

I think it is shameful that we are even considering proposals to withdraw our troops before the job is done in Iraq.

We have seen the cost of U.S. withdrawal before, and we should learn from our past history.

If our Nation sets an artificial deadline for the removal of our forces, all our adversaries need to do is husband their resources until we leave and then emerge, possibly destroying all of the accomplishments to date.

That is not a plan for success--that is a plan for failure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia and my colleague from Arizona.

What is the bottom line here? Simply put, Senator CHAMBLISS has offered an amendment that is supported by the ministration that will enable the Air Force to buy 20 F-22s Raptors a year for the next 3 years. By entering into this multiple year contract, the independent Institute for Defense Analysis believes that the American taxpayer will save at least $225 million.

Why are we buying the F-22? Because it is a war-winner. This fighter, which is also a very capable bomber, is now operational with the 1st Fighter Wing. The Raptor is stealthier than the famous F-117 Nighthawk, which dropped the first bombs during the first gulf war. But unlike the Nighthawk, that must fly at night in order to survive in a combat environment, the F-22 brings stealth capability out of the night, enabling operations in high threat areas 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I have been to the Air Force base where I have talked with the pilots and have seen this plane and have seen it fly. It is a marvel.

The Raptor is the world's most lethal and maneuverable fighter aircraft. This is accomplished in no small part by its supercruise engines. Supercruise engines do not need to go to after-burner in order 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. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range.

Another legitimate question is why not just rely on the aircraft we have today? Over the past 30 years, the United States has been able to maintain air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s. During the ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat this fighter.

Obviously, we need the F-22 and we have identified a means to save money while we are buying it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise as an ardent supporter of the F-22A Raptor. I am very pleased that the Armed Services Committee has modified the Department of Defense's budget request and authorized the procurement of 20 F-22s during the next fiscal year.

That being said, I must express my disappointment that the committee did not include in this legislation language authorizing the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a multiyear procurement contract to purchase 20 Raptors a year for the next 3 years. Under such a contract, the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates that we will save the taxpayer at least $225 million. Therefore, I am proud to join Senator CHAMBLISS and cosponsor this important amendment along with Senators INHOFE, LIEBERMAN, BINGAMAN, CORNYN, THUNE, BENNETT, ISAKSON, DOMENICI, BAUCUS, DODD, HUTCHISON, COLLINS, BEN NELSON, FEINSTEIN and STEVENS. Our amendment only strengthens the procurement plan for this vital aircraft.

I am also troubled that this bill does not increase above the 183 currently planned the number of F-22s that the Air Force is authorized to procure. My trepidation that our Nation will not build a sufficient number of aircraft is based on careful study of our Nation's needs and on the advice and counsel of senior Air Force officers who have been unanimous in their expert opinion that if the Air Force is to meet its responsibilities under the National Military Strategy, the Nation requires 381 Raptors.

I have seen first-hand the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft, first at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, where our pilots are learning to fly the Raptor, and second at Langley Air Force, VA, where the first operational F-22s are based. As a result of these meetings with pilots and ground personnel and several other briefings on our future preparations, I have come to the conclusion that purchasing sufficient numbers of Raptors is absolutely vital to our national security.

Over the past 30 years, the United States has been able to maintain air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s. During the ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat this fighter.

Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force developed the F-22. The F-22's combination of stealth, supersonic cruise, advanced maneuverability, and sensor-fused avionics makes this aircraft a powerful deterrent to countries contemplating a challenge to U.S. interests, and defines the essence of a true fifth generation fighter.

So far during the current exercise Northern Edge in Alaska, the F-22A has achieved a kill ratio of 144:0. Not one F-22 has been simulated ``shot down'' while 14 legacy F-15s and F-18s in the exercise have been simulated ``shot down.'' One-hundred-and-forty-four to zero, that is the way American forces should go to war.

The F-22 has the greatest stealth capabilities of any aircraft currently flying or under design. This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the F-117 Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night of the 1991 gulf war. The F-22 brings stealth capability out of the night, enabling operations in high threat areas at the place and time chosen by combatant commanders, 24 hours a day seven days a week.

The Raptor is also equipped with supercruise engines. These engines do not need to go to after-burner in order 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. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range.

The F-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems, both of which boast advanced, highly impressive capabilities against our legacy F-15, F-18, and F-16 aircraft.

Yet, a further advantage resides in the F-22's radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, the sensor-fused avionics of the F-22 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 gathering crucial intelligence on the enemy.

However, one of the most important capabilities of the Raptor is often the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that, since much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during the Cold War, it does not meet the requirements of the future.

I believe this criticism is misplaced. The F-22 is more than just a fighter--it is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is able to carry two 1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs and will undergo an upgrade to carry eight small diameter bombs in the near future. In 2008, the F-22's radar system will be enhanced with advanced air-to-ground modes, enabling the Raptor to hunt independently and destroy targets on the ground.

All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly emerging as the threat of the future--the anti-access integrated air defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface-to-air missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important regions during future conflicts.

It should also be noted that--for a comparably cheap price--an adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20, surface-to-air missile. This system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher than the service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. Surface-to-air missiles, with similar capabilities, have been sold to Iran. The Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters, the SU-30 and 35s, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters.

It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F-15C, our current air superiority fighter, is not as maneuverable as newer Russian aircraft, especially the SU-35. However, the F-22 is designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its stealth capability, the F-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface to air missile systems. Once detected, the F-22 would then be able to drop bombs on those targets. Some correctly state that the B-2 bomber and the F-117 could handle these assignments during night only operations. However, the F-22 offers the additional capability of being able to engage an enemy's air superiority fighters, such as the widely proficient SU-35. Therefore, the Raptor will be able to defeat, almost simultaneously, two very different threats, 24 hours a day, that until now have been handled by two different types of aircraft.

I should like to point out that these potential threats are not just future concerns, but they are here today. For example, over the last 2 years, the Air Force has conducted exercises with the Indian Air Force as part of our effort to strengthen relations with that nation. The Indian Air Force has a number of SU-30 MKKs, an aircraft which is very similar to a version of aircraft sold in large quantities to the People's Republic of China. During these exercises, it has been widely reported in the aviation and defense media that the Indian Air Force's SU-30s won a number of engagements when training against our Air Force's F-15s.

So let me be clear on this point: a developing nation's air force was able to defeat the F-15. This was a stunning event and one that requires our immediate attention.

Now that this fact has been established, the question that we must ask ourselves is: How do we remedy this national security concern? The F-22 provides the answer.

Though the F-22 may be the solution to these problems, if the Nation does not purchase a sufficient number of these aircraft our service members could face unnecessary dangers and risks. Many others and I have come to this conclusion after closely listening to our service members when they have outlined their equipment requirements based upon the national security goals our Government has outlined. What is their professional opinion? That if the Air Force is to succeed in the tasks outlined in our National Defense Strategy, our airmen and women require 381 F-22s, far more then the 184 aircraft currently planned.

However, another important consideration is cost. In a period of runaway procurement costs, we are not only concerned about the effort to procure the correct number of F-22s but to procure them at a reasonable price. That is exactly what this amendment achieves. It authorizes a multiyear procurement plan for the Raptor, in which 20 aircraft a year over 3 years will be purchased. This will result in the taxpayer saving approximately $225 million under the existing plan to purchase 184 aircraft.

Introducing innovative plans to save funds is nothing new to the F-22 program. In fact, since production first began on this aircraft, the ``fly-away'' cost has been reduced by 35 percent. However, we must take advantage of any opportunity that will result in additional savings while increasing our military capabilities. A multiyear F-22 procurement plan achieves that goal.

If this amendment is adopted, the Air Force will be permitted to enter into a multiyear procurement contract. However, some of our colleagues argue that the F-22 does not meet the six-point requirements for multiyear procurement under existing law. I, on the other hand, believe these criteria have been met and the amendment before us should be seen as reinforcing that fact.

Specifically, the first requirement to authorize a multiyear contract under the existing statute is the determination that substantial savings will result from the contract. The Institute for Defense Analysis estimates that a multiyear contract will result in at least $225 million in savings.

The second criterion states there must be a ``minimum need'' for the aircraft. I believe that my address today has shown the urgent need to deploy the Raptor in order to counter the deployment of fourth generation fighters and new antiaccess systems.

As far as a minimum need is concerned, as a result of the Joint Air Dominance Study the Secretary of Defense stated that a minimum requirement for 183 Raptors existed. Under the administration's proposal, which this amendment is based upon, the production rate, procurement rate and the total quantities of the Raptor purchased will be substantially unchanged during the contract period. Remember, the contract calls for the purchase of 20 Raptors a year over the next 3 years.

The third requirement insists that the Raptor be a program with stable funding. The Armed Services Committee has added additional funds for this year and the Department of Defense's future budgets will also contain funding requests since the purchase of F-22s under a multiyear procurement contract was called for in the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Fourth, the aircraft's design must be stable. This is probably the most controversial requirement. Yes, the F-22 has had its problems during the development and production process, but I challenge anyone to identify another strike aircraft that hasn't. Remember, the F-22 is now operational. That means the Raptor will deploy in support of our service members and it has satisfactorily completed the engineering and manufacturing development phase as well as its follow-on operational test and evaluation.

It is important to note that any upgrades to the Raptor will not result in significant structural changes. Some might argue, correctly, that a potential problem with the forward boom frame heat-treating has been identified on up to 91 aircraft. It is important to note that this was not an aircraft design problem, but an issue of a manufacturer not following the prescribed manufacturing process. In reality, testing has so far shown that 92 percent of the suspect frames tested did in fact undergo an adequate manufacturing process. I have been advised that neither a redesign nor a refit are planned or expected. Regardless, the manufacturer has been replaced and all aircraft procured under a multiyear agreement will not have this problem.

Fifth, a program must show that its cost estimates are realistic. The Air Force has gone above and beyond the call of duty in providing the Congress with independent cost analysis. The Institute for Defense Analysis provided an Independent Cost Estimate in 2005 and with a multiyear procurement business case analysis in May of this year.

Finally, the last requirement of a multiyear procurement plan is the determination that the program is important to the national security of the United States. I believe that we have already established conclusively that the Raptor is the answer to the present and future threats posed by antiaccess systems.

Therefore, I believe that the Raptor qualifies for a multiyear procurement contract under the existing statute. However, to ensure there is no doubt on this subject, I strongly recommend this amendment to my colleagues.

Our Nation stands at a crossroads.

In a wide variety of policy arenas, the Senate is being asked to make investments that will reap rewards for our children and our grandchildren.

The F-22 is one of these investments. It will guarantee America's dominance of the skies for the next half century. All that is required is that we make a commitment now to ensure that future. By purchasing adequate numbers of F-22 Raptors we are meeting the threats of today and tomorrow and we are doing so in such a way as to maximize the savings of the American taxpayer.

I thank Senator Chambliss for offering this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join my fellow cosponsors, Senators INHOFE, LIEBERMAN, BINGAMAN, CORNYN, THUNE, BENNETT, ISAKSON, DOMENICI, BAUCUS, DODD, HUTCHISON, COLLINS, BEN NELSON, FEINSTEIN and STEVENS in supporting this amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/