IMPASSIONED APPEALS BY LEADING DEMOCRATS OPENS CRITICAL NEW STAGE IN FIGHT TO BUILD MORE B-2S
(Washington, D.C.) As the Senate-House
conference committee on the FY1995
Defense authorization bill got underway,
several influential Democratic
congressional leaders — Senators
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and James
Exon of Nebraska and Representative
Norm Dicks of Washington
— delivered impassioned appeals
concerning an item in sharp contention
between the two chambers: a
Senate add-on of $150 million needed to
preserve the option to build additional
B-2 “Stealth” bombers.
The three legislators addressed a Capitol
Hill conference sponsored by the
Washington Strategy Seminar and involving
a large array of present and former
senior civilian and military
policy-makers.
Particularly noteworthy were the
remarks of the distinguished chairman of
the Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, Sen. Inouye. Highlights of
his statement included the following
points:
- “:…A struggle…will be
played out over the next several
weeks — a struggle which
will have a profound impact on
our future and, if history is to
be our guide, on the future of
the world. It is not, I
submit, the future of U.S. air
power alone which is at
stake.” - “We do not have a lot of
time for far-ranging discussions
today. So, I wish to focus my
remarks on what I regard as the
critical element in the future of
our air power. Please do not
misconstrue my position. I
believe the F-22 fighter and the
C-17 are important to the future
of our nation’s air power. I
believe the same is true of the
F-18 E/F program and, indeed, the
CVN-76 carrier. These are all
important to the future of air
power, but these programs are not
presently in danger.” - “Unfortunately, most
regrettably, the same cannot be
said about our future bomber
force structure. It is
in danger. I opposed the
amendment offered by Senator
Levin. That amendment would have
deleted $150 million, which the
bill authorizes for the express
purpose of maintaining the tools
and facilities on the last
American bomber production line.
Had the amendment been adopted, a
key element of the U.S.
industrial base for the
production of modern bomber
aircraft would have been
irretrievably lost.” - “Logic is on our side. We
must make certain that this issue
is decided through logical
analysis through an objective
review of the facts and not the
impulses of uninformed public
opinion or a shortsighted focus
on present costs.” - “Secretary of Defense Perry
testified to the [Senate] Defense
[Appropriations] Subcommittee
earlier this year on the bomber
industrial base. He told.us,
quite frankly, that his budget
did not address this need. He
said : - “I am a strong B-2 supporter
and my colleagues know that. I
recognize that the B-2 is the
best bomber ever produced and, though
it is expensive, I believe we
should purchase more. I am not
blind to the costs, quite the
contrary, I am looking very
closely at the costs — the costs
of not continuing the B-2
bomber.” - “The B-2 bomber is a marvel
of American technology. It has
the capability to take off from
bases in the U.S. and fly
anywhere in the world, penetrate
virtually any airspace, deliver a
devastating blow and return to
the U.S. without stopping. In
this era, when the U.S. is
deploying fewer troops overseas
at fewer locations, the global
reach of the B-2 is essential
to deterrence and to war
fighting.” - “I say the B-2 is essential.
No other weapon can do the job.
With mid-air refueling, the B-lB
and B-52 can fly long ranges, but
they cannot penetrate heavily
defended airspace. Even the F-117
does not have the capability of
the B-2 in that arena.” - “Moreover…we should bear
in mind that the American public
is increasingly reluctant to
support U.S. interests abroad, if
that means intervention and the
possible loss of American life.
It is self-evident that the best
way to protect those who must go
into harm’s way is to provide
them the best equipment to reduce
casualties and deaths.” - “I do not make my argument
on costs alone. The
Bottom-Up Review concluded that
100 bombers are required to
handle one [Major Regional
Conflict]. It also assumed a
force structure of 184 bombers.
However, the Air Force plans to
retain only 107 total bombers in
its inventory, not more than 80
of which are to be ready for
combat. Exactly
how this force structure will
fulfill the requirements for
fighting two nearly simultaneous
major regional contingencies has
not been answered to my
satisfaction by any DoD official.
‘We don’t have anything in
our program to sustain a
bomber industrial base. That
is a weakness of this program
that were presenting to you,
and you may rightly
challenge and criticize..That
assumption.’‘The most logical
way of maintaining a bomber
industrial base is to
continue to build more B-2s.
That’s not only because that
is the best, the most
cost-effective bomber we can
describe to you right now,
but because we could
make a very good use of the
extra B-2s if we had them.’
Sen. Inouye’s comments — and
complementary statements made by Sen.
Exon, the chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee’s Strategic Forces and
Nuclear Deterrence Subcommittee, and Rep.
Dicks, a senior member of the House
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee —
closely track with the findings of a
High-Level Roundtable Discussion recently
sponsored by the Center for Security
Policy. (1)
Participants in the Center’s roundtable
included such prominent Republican
national security figures as former
Defense Secretary Caspar
Weinberger, former Secretary of
the Navy and Defense Department
Comptroller Sean O’Keefe
and former Under Secretaries of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald
Hicks.
The Center is enormously encouraged by
the evidence of an emerging
bipartisan consensus behind preserving
the option for the procurement of more
than 20 B-2 bombers. The
leadership being shown by the foregoing
defense-minded Democratic and Republican
leaders — together with the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee and
the House Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, Sen. Sam Nunn
and Rep. John Murtha,
respectively — argue strongly for
the Clinton Administration to cease its
opposition to this prudent initiative.
Unfortunately, according to the trade
publication Aerospace Daily, as
recently as yesterday, the Defense
Department has reaffirmed its opposition
in a “heartburn letter” sent to
the Senate-House conferees:
“It is not clear how the
Senate proposal [concerning the B-2]
can be executed in light of the
legislative cap imposed on the
program. Without a change in
legislation, the Department would
likely be precluded from spending
these funds and they would eventually
expire.”
The Center for Security Policy
understands that this statement is not
factually correct, based upon the
construction of the Senate’s legislative
language. Even if it were, however, any
changes necessary could be easily
accommodated by the conference committee.
The Center urges the
Administration to support this and
any other steps necessary to
maintain the B-2 production line pending
further decisions and debate on
proceeding with further procurement of
these extraordinary military assets.
– 30 –
1. See the
Center’s press release entitled, The
Case for Continued Production of the B-2
Bomber: Center Roundtable Shows Why U.S.
Can’t Afford to Stop Now, (
June 1994) and its
- Frank Gaffney departs CSP after 36 years - September 27, 2024
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024