The Clinton Suggestion

"I signed this appropriations bill [containing B-2 bomber funds], and I think it was the right decision. . . . You know I have mixed feelings about the B-2. I think it's a good plane, but I dont think we need as many as the Congress wants to build. And I think if we are going to have limited funds, we should do things that we know we need for our long-term planning--like the C-17, another thing that's of real importance to California that I have supported consistently since 1991, that I really believe in. But I signed the bill. There are going to be more B-2s built. . . . "I think [B-2 supporters in Congress] want to build more than we need, and I think they want to build more than even the Pentagon thinks we need. But there are circumstances under which I could go along with building some more. But it depends on what our overall defense needs are and what the defense budget's going to be--not just this year, but in the outyears, as compared with the other things that we need to do in this country."

President Clinton, in a December 20, 1995, interview with Los Angeles Times reporters in Washington, D. C. The bill to which Clinton refers is the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations Act, which contains $493 million in new B-2 funds.

The Perry Interpretation

"The extra twenty B-2s, which some have proposed that we buy, will cost us about $30 billion over the life cycle of that program. We have to ask ourselves the question, 'What else could you do with that $30 billion?' We have asked ourselves that question. [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology] Dr. [Paul] Kaminski's bomber modernization study looked precisely at that question. His study makes a compelling argument that, first of all, our bombing needs are met by a fleet of bombers--long-range, short-range, tactical, strategic, some of them stealth, some of them not stealth--and they work in harmony with each other. And, if you're putting more money into that bomber force, the highest payoff for the first $10 billion more comes not from buying more B-2s, it comes from buying more advanced precision weapons, which go on all of our bomber force, not just on our B-2s. I found that argument quite compelling. . . .

"We're building B-2s right now. We've only delivered, I think, nine to this point, out of the twenty. We'll be building B-2s for a couple of years to come. I'm not supporting and the President is not supporting funding that $30 billion for the next twenty B-2s. It's nowhere in our program. And, I might say, implicitly it's not in the Congressional Republican program that has the seven-year balanced budget. There's no way of balancing the budget with a $30 billion B-2 program in there, as I see it."

Defense Secretary William J. Perry, responding to questions posed by John A. Tirpak, senior editor of Air Force Magazine, at a January 24, 1996, session of the Defense Writers Group in Washington, D. C.

The White House Leak

"President Clinton has ordered aides to take 'a fresh look' at buying more B-2 bombers, causing fits at the Pentagon, which opposes more of the expensive stealth planes, but the action is certain to boost hopes in California and other key electoral states where the aircraft is made.

"White House officials say the President has not decided to seek more than the twenty bombers already ordered, but his willingness to reconsider the issue comes after three years in which his administration unflinchingly maintained that additional planes were unaffordable and unnecessary."

From the article, "White House May Beef Up Order for B-2 Bombers," published in the February 4, 1996, Washington Post.

The Kaminski Confirmation

"We're in a period where there's been some disagreement between the Congress and the Administration on the B-2, [resulting in] the addition of $493 million. With that new fact, any Administration would come back and look at the issue to try to understand and resolve the basis of the disagreement--so we're involved in discussions to do that. But fundamentally, from my perspective, nothing has changed in the underlying foundation of that [previous bomber] study. . . .

"The underlying rationale of the study that I spoke of--the assumptions made and the conclusions--I've not seen anything that would change that basis. . . .

"Those conclusions were that buying additional B-2s would add value, but that there were more cost-effective things to be done with additional funding. For example, it was more cost-effective to weaponize the B-2s that we had rather than to buy new ones. It was also more cost-effective to provide some of the upgrades that were available to us on the B-1 fleet. . . .

"I think from my perspective [the question of whether to buy more B-2s] has been answered, and I don't see anything at the moment that would change the conclusion. . . .

"Yes, [DoD has been asked to participate in a new White House study]. We've had discussions, and we're providing information back as you would expect."

Under Secretary of Defense Paul G. Kaminski, author of DoD's 1995 study on bomber requirements, at a February 5, 1996, Pentagon press briefing.

The White House Decision

"President Clinton met with [his senior advisors] to discuss the National Security Council review of B-2 bomber acquisition options. . . . The Administration believes that no additional B-2s are required and will not include any money for additional B-2s in its Fiscal Year 1997 budget. The Department of Defense will, however, expand an ongoing study . . . to examine tradeoffs [among] long-range bombers, land- and seabased tactical aircraft, and missiles that are used to strike the enemy's rear area."

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry in a statement issued February 8, 1996.