9:32:17 to 9:32:38( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: would occur at 1:00 a.m. friday morning. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask, mr. president, that following the remarks of senator chambliss, grassley, and adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator mr. chamblnt the presiding officer: the

9:32:39 to 9:33:00( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: senator from georgia. mr. channel lis: mr. presint, i understand we're -- mr. chambliss: mr. president, i understand we're in morning business. i'm going to talk on two different subjects. i'll mak relative to the f-22, which i would ask unanimous consent those commentse inserted in the record regarding -- at the appropriate spot relevant to the debate on the f-22. and my other comments relative to a nominee go at the

9:33:23 to 9:33:43( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: serving in this great body. to sit here and debate an issue like we have debated over the last couple of days and think that you're going to come to the floor of the senate today and to cast a vote on a very important measure that's been characterized by senator mccain earlier as one of the most important pieces of

9:34:07 to 9:34:28( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: we're talking about he crimes. we're in some very difficult times with respect to the national security of our country today, and while senator mccain and i disagree on the issue of the amendment, he and i agree dear friend and why we agree on most things -- about the fact that we ought to be here

9:34:50 to 9:35:10( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: issues l life, and issues like weapons systems and all of a sudden we're thrown into doing something else. so i just want to associate myself with the remarks. of -- of my friend, senator mccain, and why we're here. and with regard to what senator levin said, frankly, senator dodd on the other side of the

9:35:36 to 9:35:56( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: we thought that -- that that was kind of a done deal. and now all of a sudden we've debated and we talked about this, we debated it again, we talked about the amendment and now we're thrown into just an entirely different scenario on the floor. and we've been prepared to vote. i would happy to we still have the opportunity -- and i would hope that we still

9:36:18 to 9:36:41( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: national security of the united states, but there have been some comments made on the floor that i think it's important that i address. one of those comments was by senator levin who said that i made a statement that there had never been a study by the air force which required -- which

9:37:05 to 9:37:25( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: said that 187 is the number. and i want to make sure that everybody in this body understands that every single other state, done internally as well as outside the pentagon, outside the air force, outside the office of the secretar secretary of defense or inside has concluded that the requirements for the

9:37:48 to 9:38:08( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: about now. last week, in a hearing before the senate armed services committee, we had general james cartwright, who is the joint chief of staff and at that hearing, i asked general cartwright -- and i want to make sure i get my language just right -- i asked him if

9:38:31 to 9:38:51( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: well, yesterday, or on monday afternoon, a reporter asked a pentagon official and theop spokesman from the pent gone, jeff morrell, made the statement in response to a reporter's inquiry about that study as follows. he said: "well, it's not so much

9:39:14 to 9:39:34( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the number of 187. it's pretty obvious that what i said on the floor of the senate remains true and that is that of all the dozens of studies that have been done on the f-22 requirement, that's ever been validated is 243. the number goes up from there

9:39:56 to 9:40:16( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: other statements regarding the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs and others w is the number, that's the leadership at the pentagon. the leadership at the pentagon has the responsibility for sending a budget to the senate and to the house. it's our obligation as members

9:40:40 to 9:41:00( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the -- and that's not unusual. but with leadership at the pentagon has said, let me go back to a letter that i talked about yesterday and it's a letter that has been received from rebecca grant, the director of the mitchell institute for airpower studies. what she says in her letter to me is that in the letter of july

9:41:23 to 9:41:43( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: general schwartz has repeatedly stated the f-22 is unquestionably the most capable fighter in our military inventory. the f-22 was designed with twice the fighting speed and altitude of the f-35 to preserve u.s. advantages in the air, even if adversaries can test our electronic countermeasures or reach parity with us. she also united states sen

9:42:07 to 9:42:29( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: only five f-35's are flying today only five. the f-35s has completed less than half its testing. developmental tests will not be complete until 2013. it is impossible to assess the full capabilities of the f-35 until ope complete. the secretary of defense and

9:42:55 to 9:43:15( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: move i want to speak on the nomination of cass sunstein to be the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs within the office of management and budget. i placed a hold on the consideration of profess sunste his hearing in the senate committee on homeland security

9:43:38 to 9:44:00( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: mr. president, it is extremely unusual for this member of the senate to place a hold on anybody. it's just not something that i normally do. professor sunstein has theorized that animals -- he's theorized in writing as well as in speeches that animals should be permitted to bring suit against

9:44:23 to 9:44:43( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: now, that is a very radical and strange position, and it not only got my attention but it got the attention of any number of other folks around the country both within and without the agriculture sector of our country. the devastating effect that this would have on animal agriculture is incalculable. mistreated livestock do not perform well.

9:45:05 to 9:45:26( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: most family farming and ranching operations out of business. professor sunstein also made off-hand remarks during lectures that perhaps hunting ought to be banned. while he offered assurances during his nomination hearing that his personal view supported hunting, i'm not a member of that committee and, thus, was

9:45:49 to 9:46:09( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: american public to ensure that regulators are properly vetted by the united states senate. that is why i held professor sunstein's nomination in order to provide him an opportunity to explain his views on animal rights as well as the second amendment. since his original hearing, professor sunstein has met with people involved in agriculture,

9:46:32 to 9:46:53( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: and some are still decidedly wary of his ideas. i've also had the meet personally with professor sunstein to let him explain how detrimental his theories would be to those who work so hard to

9:47:15 to 9:47:35( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: from the skefrbgt side of the philosophical divide -- the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country. his ability to look at regulatory measures and to provide veryntriguing and he is obviously a very, very competent person when it comes to that side of the business community,

9:47:57 to 9:48:18( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: animals and federal law does not create an individual right to bring lawsuits on behalf of animals against agriculture. he also stated that he believes the second amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. and at this time, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the letter to me from

9:48:41 to 9:49:01( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: would take on hard-working farmers and ranchers in america, i'm not going to keep him from any further consideration, and i intend to lift my hold on professor sunstein. i understand from professor sunstein now that he has a much better understanding of animal agriculture and our country's