[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4137-H4138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               B-2 BOMBER NECESSARY FOR NATION'S DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from

[[Page H4138]]

Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be taking up a very 
important issue, the B-2 bomber, and I want to read a letter that was 
just sent to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] from General 
Brent Scowcroft, who has just done an independent bomber force review:

       You requested my colleagues and I provide your committee 
     with an independent look at the adequacy of the Nation's 
     heavy bomber force. This is an important issue as we move 
     into the new security era and we greatly appreciate the 
     opportunity to offer our counsel to you and your committee.
       In our review, we first examined the planned future of the 
     bomber force, its role in supporting U.S. national security, 
     and the potential offered by the B-2's. We then examined the 
     sources of Pentagon opposition to additional B-2's production 
     and the recent series of studies the Department of Defense 
     has sent to Congress regarding the bomber force.
       We reached two fundamental conclusions. First, long-range 
     air power will be more important than ever in the decades 
     ahead. Consequently, we do not believe that the planned force 
     of 21 B-2's will satisfy foreseeable

  U.S. national security requirements. Second, Pentagon opposition to 
further B-2's production is shortsighted and parochial. It reflects a 
consensus across the services that long-range air power can be safely 
abandoned in the long run--a view with which we strongly disagree.

       Based on these conclusions, we offer a set of legislative 
     recommendations regarding the bomber force.
       The following contains an executive summary and overall 
     report.

  And I would like to just read a few paragraphs from this executive 
summary.

       If this decision (on the B-2's) is allowed to stand, the 
     end result will be a shift to a force structure that relies 
     almost entirely on short-range air power.
       Yet current plans will perpetuate a bomber force which will 
     not contain enough modern survivable bombers to support our 
     national interests around the globe. The need for the prompt, 
     global reach of heavy bombers was starkly demonstrated in the 
     1994 and 1996 Iraq crisis, both of which surprised our 
     military planners and exposed the continuing weakness of our 
     bomber-deficient forces to fast-breaking conflicts located 
     great distances away.
       Investing in the revolutionary B-2's offers the potential 
     for a radical change in the way in which we think about and 
     employ military power--a change which opens the door to a 
     much more affordable and effective military posture.
       We believe that being able to strike the enemy promptly and 
     accurately from a distance is the preferable choice, 
     particularly since it appears the long-range option is 
     cheaper over the long term.
       This is not the way to conduct rational national security 
     decisionmaking. By allowing organizational politics and 
     short-term affordability concerns to dominate the B-2's 
     debate, we will turn our backs on the future. Moreover, we 
     will needlessly risk U.S. national security interests and the 
     lives of thousands of young Americans.
       Additional B-2's are affordable. The Pentagon plans to 
     increase procurement spending approximately 50 percent by 
     2001 and those funds should be spent on the most cost-
     effective systems, such as additional B-2's.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say again today, I think this vote this 
afternoon is critically important. General Scowcroft is a person who I 
have enormous respect for, who was national security adviser to 
President Ford and to President Bush. His group also with General 
Burpee and others have come forward with a devastating criticism of 
this administration's long-range bomber policy.
  I would say of all the weapons we are buying today, none has more 
conventional military potential than the B-2's. When combined with 
smart conventional weapons, like JDAM's at $13,000 per weapon, it gives 
us an ability to attack an enemy who is invading, stop the invasion, 
destroy his army in the field, and also attack his national security 
leadership, and his operational and tactical targets as well. It gives 
the opportunity for simultaneous warfare with a plane that can operate 
autonomously without a huge package of supporting conventional 
aircraft.
  I think this is a crucial issue. I think this administration has made 
a terrible, tragic mistake in not recommending to the Congress to keep 
this program going, especially now with the line open out there in 
Palmdale, CA. We can get these bombers today at the cheapest price 
possible because the line is still open. I believe that buying an 
additional nine B-2's over 6 years is the right thing to do for the 
security of the country. It will give us a force of 30 bombers, three 
squadrons of 10, and I think it will markedly improve our national 
defense capability.

                          ____________________