From: Dutch Rauch To: Subject: RE: F-22 News Article Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:35 AM Thanks to Bill FYI > F-22 woes create odd blend of opponents > By Michael D. Towle > Star-Telegram Washington Bureau > > WASHINGTON -- It used to be easy to tell the hawks from the doves on Capitol > Hill, but the dogfight over Lockheed Martin's prized F-22 Raptor has left even > veteran budget watchers wondering where the battle lines are drawn. > > In September, a House- Senate conference committee must decide whether to > spend $1.8 billion for production of the first six Raptors. But traditional > political allies are now pitted against each other, and former enemies have > joined hands in a rare congressional battle over whether to kill a major > weapons program. > > "These are uncharted waters," said Liesl Heeter, a defense budget analyst at > the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank. > "It makes it hard to tell what will happen." > > The House action last week to cut $1.8 billion in production funding for the > first fighters was rare for a Pentagon project with initial deliveries just a > few years away. > > Pentagon budget watchers say it reflected concerns among lawmakers over the > $70 billion F-22 program and its growing list of technical, budget and > scheduling problems. > > The last time a major Pentagon program was canceled was in January 1991, when > the Pentagon halted work on the A-12, a carrier-based aircraft that had also > incurred cost overruns and technical problems. That move caused what was then > General Dynamics, now Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, to lay off > 3,500 workers in Fort Worth. > > The conference committee members, who will include Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, > R- Texas, must iron out a compromise between a House plan that would spend > only $1.2 billion to continue development of the F-22, or a Senate plan that > would allocate $3 billion for production and development. > > "I think the money will be there for the F-22," said Hutchison, a member of > the Senate Appropriations committee and its subcommittee that crafts the > Senate's Pentagon spending bill. > > "The Air Force says it is their highest priority," she said. "I don't think we > can take precipitous moves like this. The F- 22 has shown itself to be worthy > of the next generation of fighters." > > Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the committee's chairman, agrees, as does Sen. > John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. > > "Everyone said the B-2 was too expensive, but the B-2 was an incredible > performer in the Kosovo situation," Hutchison said. "It paid for itself time > and time again." > > House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Irving, said he also expects the > conference committee to find a way to keep the program on track. > > "The F-22 is a better-than- average fighter with a better- than-average > fighting chance," he said. "The Air Force is fighting for the aircraft. It's > an unqualified priority on their part. They are making an enormous effort." > > Armey is joined in that opinion by Rep. Martin Frost, D- Dallas, the > third-ranking Democrat in the House, whose job it is, as chairman of the > Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to unseat him. > > "Clearly, the F-22, long- term, is of critical importance," said Frost, who > recently discussed F-22 issues with President Clinton. > > At stake is the Air Force's 21st-century strategy, which was to combine the > supercharged and highly capable F- 22 with the emerging joint strike fighter, > an aircraft now in development that is expected to replace the F-16 as the Air > Force's primary air-to-ground workhorse. > > But also on the line are the political fortunes of several powerful House > members, many of them hawkish Republicans, who are being applauded by dovelike > Democrats for going after a big- dollar weapons programs. > > Those lawmakers want more money spent on personnel by the Air Force and less > on high- cost aircraft, an argument often framed as "boys vs. toys." > > Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Appropriations > subcommittee that first proposed killing initial production funds for the > F-22, said the committee wants the Air Force to look closely at its priorities > and determine whether the F-22 is taking up too much room. > > "The Air Force has such tremendous needs in so many other areas -- air > tankers, airlift transports, aerial reconnaissance -- that we believe it is > imperative for the Air Force to reassess its priorities," said Lewis, who is > among the most hawkish of Republicans. > > In his camp is Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., a liberal Democrat who for years has > complained about Pentagon budget excess. > > The Air Force is "in the same boat as a lot of American families," Obey said. > "They may want to buy a Cadillac or a Mercedes, but in the end they may have > to compromise and buy a Chevy or a Ford." > > To bolster their cause, Lewis and his supporters produced a defense bill that > gives something back to each district that would take a hit from the > cancellation of initial F-22 production. > > For example, the bill added five Fort Worth-made F-16s to the 10 the Clinton > administration had asked for. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, admits she would > like to keep the additional F-16s as well as produce the first six Raptors. > > "I think we can do what is right for the Air Force now and what is right for > the future," she said. > > Lewis' move could make it more difficult for negotiators in conference, > observers said, because lawmakers will then have to considering cutting the > funding added for the F-16, F-15 and KC-130J air tanker planes that were not > in the Clinton administration's proposed budget. > > "One of the things that's going to make compromise difficult is that when you > move funding elsewhere you start splitting your allies up," said Heeter, the > budget analyst. > > Some resolutions being discussed, according to sources on Capitol Hill, > include retaining the $1.8 billion in production money while lowering the > overall F-22 purchase from the 339 now planned. > > Another idea tossed out frequently would include forgoing production funding > in 2000 but including advanced money for the purchase of the six to eight > Raptors in 2001. > > A third proposal would "fence" funding for the program, which means the > production funding would be included in the budget, but Lockheed Martin and > the Air Force would have to meet strict guidelines for production and > evaluation. > > Michael D. Towle, (202) 383-6104 > > Send your comments to mtowle@krwashington.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send this page to a friend > From:To: > For home delivery of the Star-Telegram, dial (817) DEL-IVER. > (c) 1999 Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas -- Terms and Conditions > Serving the online community since 1982! > > > > > Lee Begin >