Senate Backs Funding of Stealth Bomber, 98-1 : Vote for Production Sets Up Battle in Congress; House Cuts $1.8 Billion From ‘Star Wars’ Budget

The Senate, anticipating a showdown with the House over funding for the stealth bomber, voted overwhelmingly Tuesday night to proceed with production of the expensive, new aircraft as soon as it completes its initial flight tests.

The 98-1 vote was an important victory for President Bush, who has made the bomber the centerpiece of his program to improve the nation’s nuclear strategic defenses. It also set up a classic battle between the two chambers of Congress.

The House is expected today to severely limit production of the bomber in fiscal 1990.

Funding Slashed

And while the Senate was debating the future of the bomber, the House slashed funding for the “Star Wars” nuclear defense system to $3 billion--$1.8 billion less than President Bush had requested. The Senate has not yet acted on “Star Wars” funding for fiscal 1990.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said that the House vote “seriously undermines” the “Star Wars” program. But he quickly added: “I’m confident the Senate will do better.”

The Senate vote for the stealth bomber--also known as the B-2--was seen as a ringing endorsement of the aircraft that will enable Senate negotiators to hold firm on the issue when they meet in conference with House members later this year to hammer out the final version of legislation funding the Pentagon in fiscal 1990.

Technically, there was no need for the Senate to vote for the B-2 since $3.6 billion for the aircraft already is a part of the defense spending bill reported out of the Armed Services Committee. The vote was engineered by committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) as a way to further promote the B-2, which Nunn strongly supports.

Although some senators expressed skepticism about proceeding with the stealth bomber in 1990, only Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) voted against the amendment.

Speaking for the skeptics, Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), a former test pilot and astronaut, explained to his colleagues how the revolutionary boomerang-shaped bomber differs from all previous aircraft--a lecture he admitted was taken directly from “Aerodynamics 101.” And he argued that the Air Force should not commit itself to buying any more of these expensive bombers until the aircraft’s unusual features have been thoroughly tested.

“I think we should ‘fly before buy,’ ” Glenn said--repeating what has lately become the slogan of B-2 critics in Congress.

$22 Billion Invested

In response, Nunn rejected the argument made by many critics that the government could save billions of dollars by halting production of the bomber. He noted that the Pentagon has already invested $22 billion in development of the aircraft, whose total cost is expected to reach $70 billion with the purchase of all 132 bombers sought by the Air Force.

Nunn warned that if Congress kills the bomber on grounds that it is too expensive, the government then would be faced with the need to improve U.S. air defenses to respond to Soviet bombers at a cost far greater than that of the B-2 program.

“Let no one think that by killing the B-2 you’ll get defense costs under control,” he warned. He estimated that any alternative would cost “hundreds of billions of dollars.”

But Nunn also agreed with B-2 opponents such as Glenn who question committing so much money to buy the aircraft when it has only just begun flight testing. “If this bomber cannot be justified on the basis of cost and performance, it should not be bought,” he agreed.

Airworthiness Provision

As a result, the Senate measure stipulates that none of the money authorized for fiscal 1990 can be spent until experts certify that the bomber is airworthy. The provision was altered somewhat to satisfy the objections raised by Glenn.

In addition, no more than 25% of the funding can be expended until Cheney reports to Congress on the results of testing of the B-2’s ability to elude enemy radar. Nor can the future costs of the bombers exceed $295 million each.

The House is expected to place even tighter restrictions on purchasing additional B-2 aircraft, as well as cut the number of bombers purchased in fiscal 1990 from three to two.

On Tuesday, the House voted, 278 to 143, against an effort by Rep. William L. (Bill) Dickinson (R-Ala.) to adhere to the procurement priorities set out in the proposed Pentagon budget that Bush submitted to Congress. It would have restored $500 million that the House Armed Services Committee trimmed from the budget for the B-2.

The Senate also approved an amendment by voice vote requiring the Pentagon to report to Congress by December on alternatives to a B-2 bomber force of 132 aircraft. It was authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who argued that “132 is not magic. We must examine a smaller force.”

(The Washington Post reported in its Wednesday editions that the Justice Department’s government fraud unit in Los Angeles is spearheading a criminal investigation of the way Northrop Corp., maker of the bomber, is billing the government for its work. However, the newspaper said, William F. Fahey, chief of the unit, declined to comment, and a Northrop spokesman said that the company was unaware of such an investigation.

(One government official said that the criminal investigation was inspired in part by what federal attorneys in Los Angeles learned while considering whether to recommend that the Justice Department join a civil suit in which four former and present Northrop employees allege that the company has overcharged the government by $2 billion on the stealth bomber project. The Times could not confirm that a criminal investigation of B-2 billing is under way.)

In each of the past four years, the House has voted to cut funding for “Star Wars,” which is known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Thus it came as no surprise Tuesday when the House adopted an amendment authored by Rep. Charles E. Bennett (D-Fla.) to trim the costs again this year.

The Bennett amendment was adopted after the House rejected alternative funding proposals for “Star Wars” that would have set higher and lower funding levels. The votes were 299 to 117 against an amendment by Rep. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to set funding at $4 billion, and 286 to 137 against another by Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) to cut it to $1.6 billion.

Tied to Arms Control

Opposition to “Star Wars” is based primarily on the assumption of many House members that the United States ultimately will agree to outlaw space-based nuclear defenses in arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. But supporters argued that the program must be fully funded for the United States to negotiate from a position of strength.

When Kyl asserted that Americans currently spend more on pantyhose than on nuclear defenses, Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) sprang to her feet to denounce the weapon. She argued that the Administration has never clearly defined the mission of “Star Wars.”

“Believe me,” she said, “pantyhose is affordable; ‘Star Wars’ is not. Pantyhose has a clear function; ‘Star Wars’ does not. Pantyhose gives us 100% support; ‘Star Wars’ does not. Pantyhose has a mission that does not change every day; ‘Star Wars” mission has changed from a protective shield to military installations defense to accidental launch protection to ‘brilliant pebbles’ to terrorist deterrence. ‘Star Wars” (mission) has changed more times than Imelda Marcos has changed her shoes.”

At the White House, the cut in “Star Wars” funding prompted only a mild response.

“We’re a long way from considering a veto,” said Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater. “We’ve got two houses to go through, so this is too early to talk about veto.”