Low-Key California Congressman Wages High-Stakes Battle Over F-22

Behind closed doors at the U.S. Capitol, negotiators for the House and Senate neared a decision Wednesday night that may determine the fate of the Air Force’s most coveted new weapons program, the profitability of the nation’s biggest defense contractor and potential future jobs for tens of thousands of workers.

As they attempt to resolve the impasse, key players in the negotiation also are pondering a puzzling question: Why has Rep. Jerry Lewis done this?

Lewis (R-Redlands), chairman of the House Defense appropriations subcommittee and one of the House negotiators, threw the defense establishment into turmoil in July by challenging plans to begin procurement of the F-22 Raptor, a $200-million-per-copy jet fighter designed to maintain U.S. air superiority well into the next century.

Lewis, a low-key moderate and longtime advocate of greater defense spending, is demanding that the $65-billion program be rethought, pitting himself against the Pentagon, Lockheed-Martin and many of his party’s most influential members.

The drama suggests that even today, one determined lawmaker with tactical skill and a few key allies can buck the military-industrial establishment and stand in the way of a multibillion-dollar procurement juggernaut. And even if Lewis is forced to retreat somewhat, his concerns could affect the future scope--and scrutiny--of one of the biggest acquisition programs ever.

Four weeks into talks with Senate budget negotiators, Lewis repeatedly has declined to back down. Observers are debating whether he is motivated by a grudge against the Air Force and Lockheed, a desire for greater recognition or simply what he views as the merits of his position.

Lewis did not respond to requests for an interview and his aides insisted that the 11-term congressman is only concerned about the nation’s purse strings.

The stakes could not be higher.

For Lewis, a victory would enhance his clout as chairman of the influential Defense subcommittee and extend a legislative comeback. In 1992, Lewis lost a bid to join the House GOP leadership because he was viewed as “a bit too mellow--not a hard-edged conservative,” noted Barbara Sinclair, a UCLA political scientist.

For the Pentagon, the battle puts at risk a plane it considers critical to future U.S. air dominance. In planning since 1981, the F-22 is designed to have an advanced radar-evading, or stealth capability, along with the ability to destroy enemy planes from huge distances before its presence can be detected.

F-22 advocates have built support for the program by spreading the business around to 46 states, including California, where $520 million in research and development work is already underway.

The Air Force’s carefully laid plans were upended when Lewis’ subcommittee voted in July to remove the entire $1.8 billion in procurement funding contained in a fiscal 2000 defense spending bill. That funding would have paid for the acquisition of six planes.

Lewis expressed concern that the Pentagon was proposing to spend a combined total of $329 billion on three different fighter programs. He argued that the Balkan war had just demonstrated that the existing F-15 remains more than capable of doing the job, while other military needs--such as incentives to retain pilots--have become more urgent.

Lewis’ move jolted the Air Force, especially since the F-22 has the support of every living former Defense secretary as well as the current civilian and military leadership.

Rarely has a congressional panel ever seriously threatened to halt a defense program that has come so close to the production stage.

Lewis got points for tactical acumen in the way he mounted his challenge.

To blunt an anticipated counterattack from the F-22’s congressional supporters, Lewis and his subcommittee allies gave no advance warning--even to their staffs--that they planned to excise the $1.8 billion in procurement money. And to win allies, they increased spending on defense projects that pleased members, including F-15s, F-16s and C-130 transport planes.

The full House went along with Lewis’ subcommittee, approving a defense spending bill with no F-22 funds. The Senate version of the bill contained the full $1.8 billion. Through much of August and September, the Air Force and Lockheed mounted a vigorous lobbying effort, meeting with influential members of Congress and arguing their case in the press and on the speaking circuit. They contended that any delay or further shrinkage of the planned fleet of 339 F-22s risks killing the program by raising per-plane costs and violating commitments to contractors.

All this has spurred intense speculation about Lewis’ agenda. Some observers said that his aggressive stance is out of character for a lawmaker who has most often been a conciliator, suggesting that the plan may have been hatched and promoted by a senior aide.

Others contended that Lewis is acting out of exasperation with the Air Force, which he accused this summer of spending money on some programs without congressional consent. Yet another theory holds that Lewis is unhappy about the treatment of a small Illinois defense contractor, Recon Optical Inc., which has been unable to beat out Lockheed in a competition to sell reconnaissance cameras for fighter planes.

Lewis’ staff and House allies insisted that none of these explanations is correct and that the congressman is only watching spending as he did when he oversaw the appropriations panel in charge of housing and veteran programs.

It remains unclear what kind of compromise will emerge from the conference committee negotiations. The negotiators were reported nearing agreement Wednesday, with the deal said by Associated Press to include $1 billion to build six of the fighters for test purposes but barring production of the final version until 2001. Lewis has said he is willing to go that far, arguing that the normal procurement process would continue to be delayed.

John Isaacs, president of Council for a Livable World, an arms control group in Washington, said that, if Lewis accepts a “fig leaf” compromise, “it will definitely hurt him” in future tangles over defense programs. But if he succeeds in forcing a pause, Isaacs said, “he has proved he can overcome powerful odds.”