Senate Proceeding on Jul 21st, 2009 :: 0:32:15 to 0:47:40
Total video length: 2 hours 40 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:14 Duration: 0:15:25 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:32:15 to 0:47:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Saxby Chambliss

0:32:16 to 0:32:36( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: on 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 going to address specifically as

0:32:37 to 0:32:59( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 pentag who are now continued production of the f-22. interestingly enough, everybody he talked about

0:33:00 to 0:33:22( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 singl one of thos they're appointed. they're appointed by the president. i'm going to talk about some individuals who a

0:33:23 to 0:33:43( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: of the f-22 that are not apinted. number one, the men and women who fly the f-22. secondly, it's men who have had the courage who wea the uniform of the united states of america in an unparalled way that since who have/? been willing to stand up to the political

0:33:44 to 0:34:05( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:34:06 to 0:34:28( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 lobby low-income they've lobbied on this issue. and for a white house that was not spous supposed to be a

0:34:29 to 0:34:50( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: white house it has been unparalleled in my now going on 15 years as a member of the united states congress. senator levin talked e about the f-35, we're going to ranch up production and buy 30 airplanes, 30, f-35's in this budget.

0:34:51 to 0:35:11( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: we are paying 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 i we're under a multiyear contract that calls for payment to the, by the air force to the contractor of copy. there's going to be a lot of

0:35:12 to 0:35:34( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: conversation on this floor about 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

0:35:35 to 0:35:55( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: for f-35's? something about that just doesn't add up. well, let me mr. president, that we're in a debate here with the pentagon with respect to submitted by the pentagon to congress. and there are a lot of people

0:35:56 to 0:36:18( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: who think we ought to just step in line, salute the pentagon, and move ahead and what the pentagon says with respect to the purchase of weapon systems. that's not the way the framers of the constitution united states senate and the united states house to work. article one, section 8 of the constitution p

0:36:19 to 0:36:39( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: with the power to collect taxes, provide for the common defense of the united states, to raise and support rules for the government and regulation of the land and forces. clearly, we in congress have a role in overseeinghe department of defense reviewing budgets and questioning budget

0:36:40 to 0:37:02( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 policies or otherwise -- that's simply part of our job, mr. president.

0:37:03 to 0:37:22( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: i think it's important on several indications in recent year congress has authorized policy or funding initiatives that d.o.d. has strongly opposed and in right. and d.o.d. was wrong. perhaps the most similar example

0:37:29 to 0:37:51( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: to the f-22 is the battle over air force wanted to quit f-117 and my senator sam force to buy more f-117's and part of the argument was that they wanted to shift funding and focus to buying more

0:37:52 to 0:38:14( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the f-117 establishing a dominance over iraq in desert storm and we can thank congress for the ago. there are several other examples reorganization act of 1987 and the

0:38:15 to 0:38:37( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: operations command in of which were strongly by the other examples are continuation of the b-22 program and prohibition against b-52's all of which are paying dividends beyond what the

0:38:38 to 0:38:58( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 fou we are buying in the supplemental.

0:38:59 to 0:39:20( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: that number of 183 was originally established not on the basis of any study or analysis. never a study that said we need 183 and that is what we're basing our decision on but it was based on

0:39:21 to 0:39:43( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:39:44 to 0:40:04( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: not there have been at least ten studies over the past 10 years and only one, the joint air dominance study done by in 2005 recommended the 183, f-22's our, that study was based

0:40:05 to 0:40:26( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:40:27 to 0:40:47( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: and he ar he relies on the statement 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 study in the air force or outside of the air force, any

0:40:48 to 0:41:10( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: analysis that recommends we terminate the program at 187? general cartw 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

0:41:11 to 0:41:31( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:41:32 to 0:41:52( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: coming to the competen committee shortly. i want to quote from a statement by pentagon spokesman regarding the comments of general cartright can and ts comment is in the daily report. it turns out a recent study touted by pentagon leadership as

0:41:53 to 0:42:13( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the justification for terminating the f-22 fighter isn't will 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 d

0:42:14 to 0:42:37( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:42:38 to 0:42:59( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: by a 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

0:43:00 to 0:43:20( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: since before fiscal year 2010 budget, the budget bill process, a decision on whether to b more f-22's would be deferred to future decisionmakers. it is perhaps with this in smiend that secretarmindthat secretary gates decided to request additional f-22's in the

0:43:21 to 0:43:41( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: supplemental and he did in order to keep 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

0:43:42 to 0:44:02( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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. buhe did not terminate the program. it's this administration that is seeking to terminate this program.

0:44:03 to 0:44:24( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: there 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

0:44:25 to 0:44:45( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 in the report who said we should k it at 187, has testified time

0:44:46 to 0:45:06( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 but, he says, we can't afford it. therefore, he has to salute his

0:45:07 to 0:45:27( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 goi the direction in which you have to salute the flag and move on. i'm going to close my comments

0:45:28 to 0:45:50( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: at this point in time and turn to my colleague in connecticut. but before i do 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,

0:45:51 to 0:46:12( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our

0:46:13 to 0:46:34( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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

0:46:35 to 0:46:57( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: 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 way this much smaller number does. that's taking too much high-end risk."

0:46:58 to 0:47:19( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: general mcpeak is a supporter of this administration and as fa 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 haveore to say

0:47:20 to 0:47:42( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: i will turn to my colleague from connecticut, senator dodd. who i will say has been a great champion on this 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 field, but also a great