[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9945-S9946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         OUR NATION'S DEFENSES

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to call to your attention an 
editorial which was in yesterday morning's Washington Post by Charles 
Krauthammer.
  I think he best characterizes where we are today in terms of our 
Nation's defense--in this editorial--more than anything I have read 
recently. He talks about the problems that we have in our defense 
system.
  I think several of us have been disturbed that this administration 
has stripped our defenses down to the bone. We are operating now on a 
budget that is about what it was in 1980 when we could not afford spare 
parts. There are several of us who believe that we could not fight two 
regional wars right now. We could not fight the Persian Gulf war as we 
did.
  This Nation has to rebuild its defense system. Charles Krauthammer 
states three incontrovertible facts.
  The first is, America is coming home. He points out that we are 
bringing from overseas our bases back to the mainland of the United 
States. In 1960, we had 90 bases around the world. Today we have 17.
  His second incontrovertible fact is that America cannot endure 
casualties. If you look at what is happening on CNN with the coverage 
on all of these humanitarian missions that are going on right now all 
over the world, we have more troops in more parts of the world right 
now on missions that have nothing to do with our Nation's security. We 
saw Captain O'Grady and how the entire Nation was watching him and 
hoping and praying for him. This is a concern that the entire Nation 
has; that we have a very low tolerance of casualties. Yet we look at 
Somalia. We had 18 Rangers that were killed there. And I have a great 
fear for what can happen in Bosnia.
  The third fact is that America's next war will be a surprise. I think 
we all understand this. Certainly, Pearl Harbor was a surprise. The 
invasion of South Korea was a surprise. The Falklands war was a 
surprise. The next war will be a surprise, too.
  To meet this criterion, what weapon, according to Charles 
Krauthammer, is the best one to do that? He says clearly it is to 
expand the B-2 bomber program--the B-2 bomber program--because, No. 1, 
it has the range; No. 2, it is invisible; and, No. 3, it is immediate. 
If you look at the Persian Gulf war, the F-117's, they had the 
invisible characteristics of a stealth fighter. Over 2 percent, I 
think, of the missions were flown by the F-117, and they got 40 percent 
of their targets. 

[[Page S9946]]

  So, Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that seven of the 
currently living former Secretaries of Defense agree with Charles 
Krauthammer that we need to expand the B-2 program, and I believe it, 
too.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial by Charles 
Krauthammer be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 13, 1995]

                    The B-2 and the ``Cheap Hawks''

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

       We hear endless blather about how new and complicated the 
     post-Cold War world is. Hence the endless confusion about 
     what weapons to build, forces to deploy, contingency to 
     anticipate. But there are three simple, glaringly obvious 
     facts about this new era:
       (1) America is coming home. The day of the overseas base is 
     over. In 1960, the United States had 90 major Air Force bases 
     overseas. Today, we have 17. Decolonization is one reason. 
     Newly emerging countries like the Philippines do not want the 
     kind of Big Brother domination that comes with facilities 
     like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay. The other reason has to do 
     with us: With the Soviets gone, we do not want the huge 
     expenses of maintaining a far-flung, global military 
     establishment.
       (2) America cannot endure casualties. It is inconceivable 
     that the United States, or any other Western country, could 
     ever fight a war of attrition like Korea or Vietnam. One 
     reason is the CNN effect. TV brings home the reality of 
     battle with a graphic immediacy unprecedented in human 
     history. The other reason, as strategist Edward Luttwak has 
     pointed out, is demographic: Advanced industrial countries 
     have very small families, and small families are less willing 
     than the large families of the past to risk their only 
     children in combat.
       (3) America's next war will be a surprise. Nothing new 
     here. Our last one was too. Who expected Saddam to invade 
     Kuwait? And even after he did, who really expected the United 
     States to send a half-million man expeditionary force to roll 
     him back? Then again who predicted Pearl Harbor, the invasion 
     of South Korea, the Falklands War?
       What kind of weapon, then, is needed by a country that is 
     losing its foreign bases, is allergic to casualties and will 
     have little time to mobilize for tomorrow's unexpected 
     provocation?
       Answer: A weapon that can be deployed at very long 
     distances from secure American bases, is invulnerable to 
     enemy counterattack and is deployable instantly. You would 
     want, in other words, the B-2 stealth bomber.
       We have it. Yet, amazingly, Congress may be on the verge of 
     killing it. After more than $20 billion in development 
     costs--costs irrecoverable whether we build another B-2 or 
     not--the B-2 is facing a series of crucial votes in Congress 
     that could dismantle its assembly lines once and for all.
       The B-2 is not a partisan project. Its development was 
     begun under Jimmy Carter. And, as an urgent letter to 
     President Clinton makes clear, it is today supported by seven 
     secretaries of defense representing every administration 
     going back to 1969.
       They support it because it is the perfect weapon for the 
     post-Cold War world. It has a range of about 7,000 miles. It 
     can be launched instantly--no need to beg foreign dictators 
     for base rights; no need for weeks of advance warning, 
     mobilization and forward deployment of troops. And because it 
     is invisible to enemy detection, its two pilots are virtually 
     invulnerable.
       This is especially important in view of the B-2's very high 
     cost, perhaps three-quarters to a billion dollars a copy. The 
     cost is, of course, what has turned swing Republican votes--
     the so-called ``cheap hawks''--against the B-2.
       But the dollar cost of a weapon is too narrow a calculation 
     of its utility. The more important calculation is cost in 
     American lives. The reasons are not sentimental but 
     practical. Weapons cheap in dollars but costly in lives are, 
     in the current and coming environment, literally useless: We 
     will not use them. A country that so values the life of every 
     Capt. O'Grady is a country that cannot keep blindly relying 
     on non-stealthy aircraft over enemy territory.
       Stealth planes are not just invulnerable themselves. 
     Because they do not need escort, they spare the lives of the 
     pilots of the fighters and radar suppression planes that 
     ordinarily accompany bombers. Moreover, if the B-2 is killed, 
     we are stuck with our fleet of B-52's of 1950s origin. 
     According to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, 
     the Clinton administration assumes the United States will 
     rely on B-52s until the year 2030--when they will be 65 years 
     old!
       In the Persian Gulf War, the stealthy F-117 fighter flew 
     only 2 percent of the missions but hit 40 percent of the 
     targets. It was, in effect, about 30 times as productive as 
     non-stealthy planes. The F-117, however, has a short range 
     and thus must be deployed from forward bases. The B-2 can 
     take off from home. Moreover, the B-2 carries about eight 
     times the payload of the F-117. Which means that one B-2 can 
     strike, without escort and with impunity, as many targets as 
     vast fleets of conventional aircraft. Factor in these costs, 
     and the B-2 becomes cost-effective even in dollar terms.
       The final truth of the post-Cold War world is that someday 
     someone is going to attack some safe haven we feel compelled 
     to defend, or invade a country whose security is important to 
     us, or build an underground nuclear bomb factory that 
     threatens to kill millions of Americans. We are going to want 
     a way to attack instantly, massively and invisibly. We have 
     the weapon to do it, a weapon that no one else has and that 
     no one can stop. Except a ``cheap hawk,'' shortsighted 
     Republican Congress.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________