[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3895-H3896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NO FUNDING FOR B-2 BOMBER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to a serious 
issue that is coming before the Congress tomorrow, and that is our 
defense appropriation budget. There is an item in there that I will 
seek to eliminate by virtue of an amendment by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and 
myself, which would be to strike the funding for the B-2 bomber.
  In this time of budgetary constraints, Congress must learn to 
prioritize our defense dollars. As such, Congress should not authorize 
the additional procurement of aircraft we do not need and the Pentagon 
clearly has stated they do not want.
  In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National 
Security on June 11, 1997, Pentagon comptroller, John Hamre, testified 
that while the B-2 is an exceptional aircraft, there is no more money 
for it. The massive deep attack weapons mix study conducted by the 
Pentagon concluded that it would not be cost-effective to buy more B-2 
bombers. According to the Pentagon, the current fleet of 21 B-2 bombers 
is sufficient to meet the two-war scenarios. No money is programmed in 
any budget plan to pay for the outyear costs that will be forced by 
this decision. Other programs given higher priority by the military may 
have to be cut back.
  Finally, the Congressional Budget Office projects that to build and 
operate

[[Page H3896]]

nine additional B-2 bombers over the next 20 years could cost over $27 
billion.

                              {time}  1345

  Let me read a variety of editorials that have appeared in the papers 
around America.
  Stuart News, Port St. Lucie, FL, ``U.S. Must Get Maximum Bang for 
Military Bucks.''

       The cost of these programs is staggering, especially 
     considering the strategic fact that the threats that they are 
     designed to counter do not now exist or, like the B-2 bomber, 
     are designed to attack countries that no longer exist.

  They are urging we look at first providing for military pay, for 
military housing, for the readiness of troops, rather than expensive 
technological equipment that the Air Force and the Pentagon themselves 
do not support.
  The Atlanta Constitution: ``Pentagon is Not a Welfare Agency.''

       There is, however, one notable exception to that trend. 
     Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved a 
     defense budget for 1997 of $245.8 billion, $11 billion more 
     than the Pentagon says it needs, and the Pentagon is not 
     known for underestimating its needs.
       Unfortunately, each additional dollar that we spend on 
     defense is a dollar not available for schools,

for infrastructure, or for deficit reduction.

     While other nations invest their wealth in those areas, we 
     build B-2 bombers.

  ``Don't Sacrifice Military Readiness,'' by the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch.

       Another case is the $2.2 billion for each B-2 bomber, 
     which, again, the Pentagon doesn't want, but which Members of 
     Congress do, to keep weapons contractors and jobs alive in 
     their district. President Clinton himself insists on yet 
     another Seawolf submarine to keep the production lines open 
     to build other submarines in the future. Meanwhile, 
     maintenance on helicopters, tanks, trucks, and warships is 
     being deferred. Military pay raises are paltry, and the 
     quality of housing for men and women in uniform isn't as good 
     as it should be.

  No; because we are spending billions on a B-2 bomber that the 
Pentagon does not want.
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: ``Bring Military Budgets Back to Earth.''

       In fact, Congress in recent years has actually padded the 
     military budget

for projects like the B-2 bomber,

     that are relics from the cold war and pork-barrel goodies for 
     hometown military contractors.

  The evidence against the B-2 is overwhelming. The debate really needs 
to be about helping people in uniform have decent pay so they are not 
on food stamps, living in decent housing, like most Americans would 
like them to live in.
  So we have a choice this week, to support the continued expenditure 
of massive dollars to weapons systems that we no longer need, or we can 
clearly change direction and focus on priorities that would make this 
Nation militarily sound and safe.
  I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to strike the B-2 
bomber from funding, to close the production line, to allow the 
military to continue to have its 20-some B-2 bombers, but clearly 
understand since the end of communism and Soviet dominance in the cold 
war, the need for the B-2 bomber has been significantly reduced. 
Significantly reduced.
  Let us look forward to helping make the military strong by supporting 
their good intentions, and not give them things they have chosen not to 
ask for.

                          ____________________