[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 102 (Monday, July 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8798-S8799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE F-15 AND ISRAEL

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the F-15, the 
world's dominant air superiority fighter. The future of this fighter, 
perhaps the most successful in the history of U.S. aviation warfare, is 
in jeopardy. While both the Senate and the House have taken steps to 
save the F-15, the Administration has resisted efforts to preserve a 
plan that is critical for our national security.
  I was heartened by the recent action of the House Appropriations 
Committee to follow the Senate's lead and provide additional funding 
for the F-15. Last month, Senator Bond and I successfully added an 
amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill to provide $220 million 
for four F-15s. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee provided 
$440 million to purchase eight F-15 fighters.
  While securing domestic dollars is essential to keep the F-15 alive, 
foreign sales are just as important for the long-term health of the 
program. Hence, my disappointment that the Israeli Government had 
selected the F-16 to fill their latest Air Force needs goes without 
saying. As Angelo Codevilla writes today in the Wall Street Journal--
and I will ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks--the F-15 gives Israel critical 
long-range strike capability to counter regional threats. As one who is 
keenly interested in the security of Israel, it was my hope that the 
new Barak Government would select the F-15 to enhance its long-range 
deterrent capability.
  Mr. Codevilla also implies that the Administration was pushing Israel 
to buy the F-16, a less capable plane that would not defend Israel as 
well--particularly against the threat posed by missiles from Iran, 
Iraq, and Syria. While Israel must make its own decisions with regard 
to its security, I sincerely hope the Administration was not pushing 
our ally to purchase a less capable plane just so that Syria or Iran 
would not be offended. Lasting peace in the Middle East will be based 
on a sustainable settlement that can be defended through strength, not 
by pushing Israel to take steps which limit its ability to defend 
itself.
  Mr. President, sustaining the F-15 is essential for U.S. airpower as 
we enter the 21st century. Preserving the F-15 is also essential to my 
home state of Missouri. The 7,000 Missourians who build the F-15 are a 
national security asset. Both houses of Congress have sent clear 
signals to the Administration that this plane should be saved. It is 
time for the President to start listening and take steps immediately to 
ensure funding for the F-15 is included in the defense budget.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 19, 1999]

           Clinton's Dreams of Peace Ignore Mideast Realities

                        (By Angelo M. Codevilla)

       What exactly does President Clinton expect from Israel's 
     new prime minister, Ehud Barak? At a joint news conference 
     last week, Mr. Clinton declared that he wants Mr. Barak ``to 
     widen the circle of peace to include Syria and Lebanon and to 
     revitalize talks among Israel and the Arab world and to solve 
     regional problems.'' Mr. Barak spoke more cautiously, 
     declaring his commitment to ``change and renewal'' but also 
     his uneasiness at Americans who have acted ``as a kind of 
     policeman, judge and arbitrator at the same time.''
       Mr. Barak may be indebted to Mr. Clinton for undermining 
     his predecessor, but he also

[[Page S8799]]

     is a serious military man. Israeli officials are sure to 
     spend the aftermath of Mr. Barak's visit sorting out the vast 
     differences between the assumptions of the Clinton game plan 
     and Israel's military realities.
       The military threat to Israel used to consist of the massed 
     armies of its immediate neighbors. But today's most ominous 
     threat is weapons of mass destruction carried by missiles 
     from Iraq, Iran, Syria and perhaps Libya. Israel's foes 
     believe they could break Israeli military power in the 
     opening minutes of a war by launching ballistic missile 
     strikes with chemical or biological weapons against 
     mobilization centers and weapons-storage areas. These 
     countries have made an enormous investment in new missiles, 
     most stored in deep tunnels, highly fortified bunkers or 
     mobile launchers.
       Gen. Eitan Ben Eliahu of the Israeli Air Force has 
     estimated that Syria alone already has some 1,000 ballistic 
     missiles, and that within a few years most will have long 
     ranges. Syria does not need long-range missiles to hit 
     Israel, but with longer ranges, each missile fired from Syria 
     would develop enough re-entry speed to negate Israel's 
     budding antimissile system, the Arrow. Already Iran's Shahib 
     3 missiles--developed with Russian, Chinese and North Korean 
     help--stress the Arrow; the forthcoming Shahib 4's will 
     overwhelm it.
       To keep up with the increasing capability of enemy 
     missiles, Israel's Arrow needs to be connected to the 
     projected U.S. space-based fire-control system. But the 
     Clinton administration doesn't want this system for the U.S., 
     much less for Israel, for fear of violating the 1973 U.S.-
     Soviet Antiballistic Missile Treaty. To handle the 
     overwhelming number of enemy missiles, Israel would need a 
     U.S. orbital antimissile device. But the administration has 
     delayed tests of a space-based laser that had been set for 
     2001. So Mr. Barak won't get any missile defense out of Mr. 
     Clinton.
       The Israeli Air Force has some pretty sophisticated plans 
     for the nearly impossible job of striking enemy missiles 
     before they are launched. But these plans require lots of 
     deep-strike F-15 I aircraft. Israel has only 25; it has been 
     negotiating for 15 more. Washington would rather see Israel 
     buy more F-16's, which can't help Israel with its missile 
     problem. The F-16's are less threatening to Syria, which the 
     administration sees as the key to peace.
       Instead of military help, the Clinton administration will 
     give Mr. Barak generous instructions in its own conception of 
     peace in the Middle East. Yet Mr. Barak will be compelled to 
     note that Mr. Clinton's view of the world clashes with the 
     one that Israel has been developing for some time, regardless 
     of its dealings with the Palestinians.
       Following the traditional maxim that foreign policy 
     proceeds from the nature of the regime, Israel has sought 
     alliances with Turkey and Jordan, because their regimes are 
     stable, and because their friendship is secured in part by 
     their enmity with Syria. Israel has talked about cooperation 
     on missile defense with both Ankara and Amman, which see 
     themselves as part of the West against Russian-supported 
     forces in the region. Another main reason why Turkey and 
     Jordan are interested in the alliance is Israel's deep-strike 
     capability against Iran and Iraq.
       Israel has been wary of Egypt, and even more of Saudi 
     Arabia, because although the governments in these countries 
     U.S. allies, instability would vitiate any deal with them. As 
     for Syria, much as Israel would like a deal with it, its 
     enmity is mitigated only by its instability.
       The Clinton administration is trying to transcend 
     traditional alliances. In the Wilsonian tradition, it seeks a 
     settlement including all and directed against none. It 
     believes that the path to peace includes exchanging military 
     advantages for goodwill, ``guaranteed'' by some sort of 
     international contact group. Thus the Clinton administration 
     would bless the only deal Syria would accept--Israel's 
     surrender of the Golan Heights--and call it peace.
       Some Israelis would be happy with this, because it would 
     carry the implicit assurance that the U.S. would assume 
     responsibility for Israel's borders. It should be crystal 
     clear, however, that Washington has neither the interest nor 
     the capacity to hold Syria to any deal, much less to fight 
     for Israel.
       Here then is the choice Mr. Barak must mull on his way 
     home: He can trust the Clinton team and move his country 
     toward a deal with its enemies that violates normal rules of 
     military prudence. Or he can seek the military means of being 
     useful to his Turkish and Jordanian friends while being 
     fearsome to states that are enemies of America and Israel 
     alike.

                          ____________________