Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons we have been able to cut the defense budget by $100 billion is because we are getting better and better intelligence. In the gulf war, for example, we were able to use precision-guided munitions and we were able to use the intelligence we had for targeting purposes, and we got a much higher kill rate than we ever got in any other war before. As we move into the future, with the block 30 upgrade on the B-2, we will be able to fuse intelligence right into the cockpit and go after Scud missile launcher and other mobile targets.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in the totality of the defense budget, we are going to be able to come down a little further if we have quality intelligence. I just believe that a 10-percent cut on top of what we have done over the last 4 or 5 years is too severe and I urge that we defeat the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit the following B-2 proclamation for the Record. B-2 Proclamation--July 26, 1996 Whereas, we the National Aerospace and Defense Workforce Coalition recognize that the present and future of America's aerospace and defense industrial base depends on public and private investment in new technologies, as well as education and training programs geared toward the jobs of tomorrow; Whereas, the aerospace industry has provided American workers with economic and social mobility and whose income has added to this country's tax base; Whereas, growth in our nation's technological capabilities rests on ensuring a sufficient and stable defense budget, as well as an industrial climate that promotes a healthy aerospace and defense industry; Whereas, a declining defense budget has undermined our industrial base as well as our manufacturing infrastructure; Whereas, America still maintains superiority in stealth technology that is so essential in preserving our national security; Whereas, the National Aerospace and Defense Workforce Coalition is tired of public policy makers apologizing for supporting programs that provide American jobs while protecting our industrial base and providing for the common defense; Therefore, be it resolved that the preservation of America's economic and national security ultimately rests on our commitment to maintaining an industrial base in the stealth arena. America cannot afford to lose the unique B-2 stealth production team. A low rate of continued production of this aircraft is definitely in the national interest.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a long time member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a person who is extremely knowledgeable about this particular program.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want to speak against the amendment. On January 4, 1995, seven former Secretaries of Defense, Mel Laird, Jim Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Dick Cheney wrote the President of the United States a letter and said in their experience that stopping the B-2 at 20 was a serious mistake in judgment. I think those seven former Secretaries of Defense, six of which were Republicans, and Harold Brown, who was the man who started this program, should be given serious consideration by this Congress. This line is open now. If we could procure the planes now, we can save the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important defense issue that we are going to consider in this decade. The F-117 stealth attack aircraft worked effectively in the gulf. It showed that we could operate autonomously without support aircraft. The B-2 is a bigger and better version of that aircraft.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my classmate and good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Ike Skelton, one of the truly outstanding defense experts in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], one of our leaders. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives and one of the most knowledgeable Members on defense matters in this House.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there have been two major studies, one by Rand and one by Jasper Welch. I even asked Colin Powell, ``What did you recommend to Dick Cheney?'' He answered 50. The numbers in the two studies are somewhere between 40 and 60 B-2's are what are required to give our Nation a deterrent force for the next 30 years. The idea that we are going to rely on planes that are today on the average 35 years old I think is a serious mistake in judgment. Stealth is a revolutionary technology. When combined with precision-guided munitions and its range, it gives us a whole new kind of capability.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to compliment the gentleman for his statement. He has become one of the most knowledgeable Members about the B-2. There is one other item that I would like to mention. B-2's and F- 117's save American lives. When we send a bomber or that F-117 in harm's way, they are going to come back because they are stealthy. Captain O'Grady got shot down in an F-16, and the French Mirage was shot down. Why? Because they are not stealthy airplanes. We in this Congress have a responsibility to put the young men and women serving in our military in the best airplanes we have got.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will take up the Defense appropriations bill, and one of the most important amendments will be on the B-2 bomber. Ever since 1980, when Secretary Harold Brown announced that we would build a stealth bomber, I have felt that this was the most important technological breakthrough in modern military history. In the Gulf war, the F-117, a stealth attack aircraft, was able to penetrate the most difficult targets and knock out surface-to-air missiles and radars without losing pilots and doing it in a matter of hours. Other airplanes that were not stealthy were unable to penetrate without a large number of support aircraft. The B-2 gives us a plane that can carry eight times as much as the F- 117 and five times as far. In a world where we are going to have a smaller U.S. military, having worldwide reach, being able to stop mobile divisions coming from North Korea, say, into South Korea or into the gulf, is a revolutionary capability. Let us continue to support the B-2.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to address the House of Representatives in this special order on a very important issue that will come before the House tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, when we consider the defense appropriations bill. Since 1980, I have been a strong supporter of the policy of former President Carter and Secretary of Defense Harold Brown in initiating the stealth bomber, the B-2 program. In the gulf war, we saw with vivid evidence the effectiveness of stealth technology when it was decided to use the F-117's against the most heavily defended targets inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The F- 117's, without the requirement for jammers and other support aircraft, were able to go in and attack the most heavily defended targets, using 2,000 pound precision-guided munitions. They were able to knock out those radars and surface to air missiles almost instantly, and come back without out pilots being shot down. I believe that the B-2 bomber is just a bigger and better version of the F-117. It allows us to go five times as far and carry eight times as much conventional munitions and submunitions. With those same 2,000 pounds, it could carry 16, each of which would be independently targetable. I think the most revolutionary thing about stealth technology is its capability against mobile targets. In a B-2 study that was done by Rand back in 1991, a simulation was used of Saddam Hussein's division, moving from Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. The B-2 was loaded up with sensor-fused weapons. Each B-2 could carry about 1,400 of these submunitions that looks like a puck with a parachute on top when dispensed. With Saddam's division coming into Kuwait, three B-2's interdicted it, dropped the sensor-fused weapons, and were able to knock out 46 percent of the mechanized vehicles including tanks in that division. That, Mr. Speaker, is a revolutionary conventional capability. The problem is that every study that has been done on the B-2 indicates that having only 16 of them is simply not enough. The Rand study and the study that was done by Gen. Jasper Welch, stated that somewhere between 40 and 60 are needed. I in fact asked General Powell what he recommended to Dick Cheney, and he said, ``I recommended 50.'' In my judgment, this is the most important defense decision we will be making in this decade. Seven former Secretaries of Defense wrote President Clinton urging him to procure additional B-2's. We have spent $44.4 billion to develop the technology for the B-2 bomber. We are now able to get an additional 20 B-2's for about $15.3 billion. In my mind, that is affordable. If we shut down the line, and if we come back to it in 5 or 10 years and say, ``My gosh, we do not have the bombers we need for the future,'' it will cost $10 billion just to open the line and we get nothing. My judgment is that there is another important issue that has been missed by the press. That is the cost of the munitions on these planes. If we have standoff weapons, which the administration supports, on the B-52's and the B-1-B's, first of all, they have no utility against mobile targets. No. 2, is that they cost $1.2 million per missile, because you have to have long-range missiles. They also cost about $15 to $20 billion for a load of them. The cost of the weapons in the B-2 J-DAMS weapon is $320,000 for 16 of them, and in my judgment, that is a major difference, one-fourth the cost of one cruise missile and a fraction of the cost of a load of missiles. In a few days of a major conflict, you could pay for the B-2 simply by having these less expensive weapons, either the sensor-fused weapon or the J-DAMS. I think that is a major difference. I also believe, if we had enough B-2's, the potential someday for a conventional deterrent. What if we had been able to show Saddam that we had this capability and we could have avoided the gulf war? It cost us $10 billion to move all our forces out to the gulf. Then it cost $60 billion to prosecute the war, $70 billion was expended. The cold war is over, yet we still have threats out there. People say there are no threats. Saddam still exists. We have problems with Iran, we have problems with North Korea. And in each of those scenarios, there could be military divisions coming across the borders into a neighboring country. In my judgment, having this long-range stealth bomber capability that can go in without any other support [[Page H 8555]] aircraft with it, being able to attack mobile targets and also go after Scud launchers, that is a new capability that only the B-2 would have. To me this kind of revolutionary conventional capability is exactly what the country needs. So I hope my colleagues tomorrow will defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to take out the money for the B-2. I believe that this Stealth bomber is exactly what we need for the future, and I urge my colleagues to continue to support this important weapons system as we did on the defense authorization bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is that important fact, and the fact that we have not been able to figure out a way to counter it. This is a game that goes on and on. There is a struggle back and forth. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for coming over here and joining me in an impromptu discussion of the B-2. We are going to be moving on to this issue as we get to the defense appropriations bill. As I have said, I think this is the most important defense issue that most of us will decide while we are in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I have good bipartisan support from my colleagues are we try to oppose those who I think in a very shortsighted way are trying to cut off this program and saying that they are going to save money. I will tell my colleagues this: We are going to save lives and money if we build the B-2. We are going to save money if we do it at the time the line is open. We are going to preserve the [[Page H 8030]] industrial base. The B-2 weapons that are sometimes 40 percent less expensive than the weapon on the B-52's or the B-1's. But most importantly as the F-117 showed us, we can send pilots into the most difficult areas with surface-to-air missiles that are active and survive and that is what this is really all about: Saving lives of American young people who we send in harm's way. To me, as the gentleman said a few minutes ago, how we could in good conscience not want to be able to use that in the early days of any war in the future, because we know we will save lives and we know that we can win the war more rapidly? Stealth can go in and out, in and out, in and out, destroy all those targets and help us win the air war more rapidly, which is crucial to almost any scenario that I can think of in the future.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I will just say one final thing. One of the other articles General Skantze wrote, one of the big problems has been, ever since the Air Force reorganized and got rid of the Strategic Air Command, there really has not been an advocate for bombers inside the Air Force. They will advocate for the F-22 and the C-17, but nobody stands up for bombers, and I think that is one of the things where the Congress may have to step in. We may have to reconsider that decision and recreate a Strategic Air Command within the Air Force so we have some real attention by the service on this subject. I think we ought to consider that.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I have served for 17 years on defense appropriations subcommittees since the winter of 1979. We build up until 1985, but since 1985, the defense budget has been reduced by $100 billion a year. Today's defense budget would be 350; it is 250 now in fiscal year 1995, so we have made a big cut, 37 percent in real terms. We have a smaller Army, a smaller Navy, a smaller Air Force, Yet, here is a technology, a revolutionary technology that would help us still have an enormously effective and capable military. But we have got to have enough of it so that it can have the sortie rates, in and out, in and out, to do the job. Every expert who has looked at this and said, 20 of these is not enough; we have got to have somewhere between 40 and 60. It is value. Sometimes we forget when it is right in front of us that some things are more important than other things. Some things can do things that no other system can do. And that is why this is so important. The B-2 offers us a revolutionary conventional capability that nobody else has in the world. Think about It. If somebody else had the B-2, we would be in deep trouble. We would be very, very concerned about it. We would be probably cheer if they made a decision to cut it off at 20 and only have a very limited capability. We would be saying, ``Thank God they made that decision, because if they had 50 or 60 of these, and we did not have a way to counter it.'' Think if our adversary, Russia, had developed this stealth technology. We would be deeply concerned. I think sometimes we forget things that are so obvious. They are right in front of us and we still do not see it. It reminds me of the battleship debate where they said that battleships are not vulnerable to air power. Finally, Billy Mitchell flew over one and dropped a bag of flour and everyone had to wake up and say, ``Oh, my God. These things are vulnerable.'' And some day they are going to say the same things about the B-52's, the B-2's and the planes coming off the carriers. They are all vulnerable to these surface-to-air missiles.

Mr. DICKS. Do not be deterred.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman makes a point too. Remember one thing, a plane can be seen. That does not mean you can vector weapons against it. That is the thing that you have to remember about stealth. People say, ``Well, I can see it. It is there on the field.'' But when you have that thing up in the air at 45,000 feet, and it has got that incredible design which is very hard to see, even when you are just a few miles away from it. But it is the fact that the enemy cannot vector weapons with their radars and the systems that they have to have to take a weapon to the plane. That is why it is so revolutionary. So we do not want anybody to be misled, because you can see it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield, I told my friends in the Boeing Co. in the State of Washington that one of my colleagues has suggested a B-3; and they said, ``Congressman, what we would do is, we would build a long-range, subsonic aircraft and it would look a heck of a lot like the B-2. It would be stealthy and we would have the ability to put precision-guided munitions on them.'' We have got the line open and the costs are down where this thing is affordable in terms of the defense budget, and now, not to do enough of it just does not make sense. I always say to my Democratic friends, many of whom are not happy about some of the budget cuts that are being made, if we cut out the B-2, this money is not going to go to HUD or education or the environment; this money is going to go to something that is less important in the defense arena. As I said, I look at the entire defense budget, and except for the men and women serving in the service, I cannot think of one weapons system that has anywhere near potential that this weapons system does. The gentleman has made another important point that General Skantze, who was our former acquisitions person at the Air Force, has made as well, and that is that this plane is the most difficult plane to put together. So we finally figured it out. Mr. Chairman, I think we should stay with it, and I appreciate my colleagues joining me here on the floor in an impromptu session to talk about one of the most important defense decisions this country will make during our time in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. But we do not have them yet. We have six of them now.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's participation in this colloquy, and I also want to yield to my distinguished friend from California [Mr. McKeon], who has been another leader and another worthy proponent of the B-2.

Mr. DICKS. I agree with the gentleman. There are ways to save money in a $250 billion budget if you want to set priorities. When you look at all the things we are procuring, there is going to be a list of what is important, what is crucial, and what is kind of nice to have. I have got to tell you, when you have got something that has the potential capabilities that the B-2 has, you have got to make room for it. It does not make any sense to protect a lot of purchases of other things that cannot project power around the world like the B-2 can in our future. I just hope that we can continue to make this battle on the floor with our colleagues here in the House. I happen to think that this is one of those watershed moments, one of those times when either the Congress is going to have truly profiles in courage, standing up to this administration and saying, ``Wait a minute, this is a mistake.'' The same Congress, by the way, that supported the F-117, the stealth attack aircraft. In the first 10 days of the Gulf war, I think I have the numbers right, the stealth fighter flew 2.5 percent of the sorties but knocked out 32 percent of the hardest targets, because it was stealthy. What did that mean? That allowed us to win the air war more quickly and cap Iraq so they could not even get a plane up. That saved a lot of American lives. If we did not have that stealthy airplane to lead the attack and to knock out those surface-to-air missiles, knock out those radars, we would have lost a lot more of our pilots and they would have been there and Saddam would have had them to play politics with as the gentleman has suggested. But because we had stealth, we were able to win that war more rapidly. Then we could bring to bear the B-52's with their dumb bombs, not very accurate but they pounced away on the Republican Guards and allowed us to win the war quite easily. But stealth, the F-117, was at the forefront. Here you have got the B-2 which can carry 8 times what the F-117 can carry and it can carry it 6 times as far and with one refueling go a third of the way around the earth and be able to have it not only against fixed targets as we proved with the F-117 but by putting that sensor-fused weapon on there, those 1,400 little bomblets over that Iraqi division, 3 of them knocked out 46 percent of the mechanized vehicles as that division moves in the field, that is a revolutionary capability, and there is nothing in the Pentagon's budget that can do anything like that. How can you say we are not going to fund this when it has that kind of capability and we are going to fund a lot of other things that have no comparable worth or value and just do it because, ``Well, we just can't make any hard decisions. We can't make tradeoffs. We can't do roles and missions. We can't do the job we were sent over there to do.'' That is what it says to me. It is never easy to have to make tradeoffs. But in this case, I think the potential is so great that without those tradeoffs, we are really doing a disservice to the American people. I hope that Congress stays with this, makes the point, so that we can show the American people why we feel so passionately about this subject.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the other point is the gentleman made a very major point here. We have spent all this money to get us where we are, and what are we talking about, by the Air Force's own numbers, $15.3 billion, to build 20 more of these airplanes. That is a much lower price than we purchased the first 20. It is about a half to a third of the cost. The gentleman and I have been around quite a while, and at some point, they will say, ``Oh my gosh, we made a terrible mistake, we should have built this.'' Then we will have to reopen the line. The Air Force tells me it is $6 billion to $10 billion to get the line up if we wait 5 years. For that, we get nothing. It seems to me while the line is open out in California, we should continue at a low rate to purchase these bombers. It will keep the industrial base alive, keep it there in place, and it will allow us to have the most modern technology for our young men and women to fly and use if we have another major problem. The world is not any safer. I think the world was safer during the cold war, if you want to know the truth. Now you have all kinds of problems around the world. It is a combination of saving money in the weapons that are used, the JDAM's weapon for $20,000 apiece versus the standoff cruise missile for $1.2 million apiece. They cannot have any capability against mobile targets. That is the other problem, Mr. Speaker, with saying we will take the B-52's and the B-1's, and load them with standoff cruise missiles. Those standoff cruise missiles only go to a fixed point and they cannot be effective against the mobile issues. We have not only the division coming in either in South Korea or in Iraq or Iran, but you have this problem with the scud launchers. That was a major problem in the gulf war. We could not find those scud launchers. Again, with better intelligence and with stealth, we can put the B-2 or the F-117's in against those mobile targets. This is, in my judgment, a revolutionary capability. To not get enough of it while the line is open just defies common sense. When I look at the entire budget, and some people say look at our aircraft carriers, and I am as strong a supporter as the gentleman is of our aircraft carriers, unfortunately a decision was made to stop building the stealthy long-range attack aircraft coming off our aircraft carriers. The aircraft today coming off those carriers are not stealthy and have limited range, so we cannot rely on them either. The B-1's cannot penetrate, the B-52's cannot penetrate, the planes coming off the carriers cannot penetrate. The only thing we have are the F-117's and the B-2's, In my mind, why would I not go out and reshuffle my defense dollars and buy the most incredible capability, the capability for the next 30 years, that can deal with the radars? To me, this does not make any sense. I am hard pressed to come up with a rationale, especially when the B-2 has this potential against mobile targets. That is what bothers me the most. None of these other weapons, Mr. Speaker, have the capability to go against these mobile targets before we have complete air cover and air cap because of the surface-to-air missiles that go along with the division. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. That is right.