House Votes to Remove F-22 Production Funds

The House voted Thursday to deny production funding for the Air Force’s F-22, the most expensive fighter ever sought by the armed services, in a move that raises broader questions about Congress’ willingness to finance other high-priced weapons on the Pentagon drawing board.

Despite pressure from the White House and the F-22’s congressional advocates, the chamber voted, 379 to 45, for a $266-billion annual defense appropriation that would remove $1.8 billion earlier earmarked to build the first six of the advanced radar-evading aircraft.

Congress rarely challenges military procurement programs that are as far along as the 15-year-old F-22 project. In the last half-century, only one big warplane program, the Navy’s A-12 fighter, has been killed after reaching the production stage, defense analysts said.

But key House appropriators fear that the Air Force’s three planned fighter-plane programs--expected to cost a combined $340 billion over their lifetimes--are simply too costly and possibly not justified by any national security threats.

Seeking to slow the program for reconsideration, the House shifted the $1.8 billion to buy existing F-16 and F-15 fighters and fuel-tanker planes and to fund bonuses for pilots. An additional $1.2 billion would go for continued research and development of the F-22.

It is now up to House and Senate conferees to decide the future of the program. Since the Senate has already voted to purchase the six initial planes, many observers predict the conferees are more likely to cut the initial purchase from six to a smaller number, rather than to scrap the program entirely.

Even so, the House action leaves in question whether the Air Force will get the 339 planes it currently is seeking, and is expected to ignite a new debate about how much weaponry the United States really needs--and at what cost.

The stakes for California are considerable: Lockheed Martin Corp., the principal contractor, has said $575 million of the $1.8 billion previously earmarked for production during fiscal 2000 would go to California subcontractors. Overall, the F-22 program is expected to generate 27,000 jobs in 46 states.

If the program is sharply scaled back, however, that could speed development of another new warplane, the Joint Strike Fighter, which California officials are pressing to have built at the Air Force’s Palmdale facility. That program is slated to build 3,000 planes.

In floor debate, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that first voted to remove the F-22 production funds, promised that House appropriators would make sure that “there is no nation that will threaten us” with fighter planes. He said the panel believes it is necessary to slow the F-22 program because of the huge expense that would be entailed if all three fighter plane programs are developed as currently planned.

Georgia, Texas and Connecticut would receive the largest share of F-22 production work over the full course of the program, and House members from those states rose to defend the plane in an hourlong debate. But F-22 supporter Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) withdrew an amendment to restore the $1.8 billion in funds before the measure came to a vote.

The Pentagon has postponed major weapon procurements in recent years but has been planning to sharply step up the process over the next five years.

In addition to the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, the department is considering procurement of a new version of the F/A-18, the Army’s Comanche helicopter and Crusader artillery system, a new class of submarines, a new aircraft carrier and the Marines’ V-22 Osprey troop-carrying aircraft.

The F-22’s friends and foes alike were stunned by the House’s unexpected about-face on production of the plane. Many say the move augurs a period of uncertainty for big procurement programs.

One reason for the new attitude is a growing realization that the military has other needs besides advanced weaponry.

Personnel in some military specialties are complaining that they are overworked and underpaid. And the Kosovo war made clear that the military also needs less glamorous weapons, such as radar jamming planes, fuel tankers and surveillance drones.

The F-22 fight made for strange bedfellows.

It allied the Clinton White House with some advocates of higher military spending but threw some hawkish Republicans in league with defense doves.

“This has been one of the strangest things we’ve ever seen,” said John Fairbanks, spokesman for Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, a group that wants to increase domestic spending and reduce military outlays.

Some analysts have speculated that the Clinton White House is behind the F-22 program because it hopes that production would help win Georgia for Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.

Originally designed to face a Soviet threat, the F-22 is faster, stealthier and able to destroy enemies from farther away than any existing aircraft, its advocates say. It can cruise at 1.5 times the speed of sound for long periods of time.