B-2 Survives Key Test as Senate OKs Defense Bill : Military: Lawmakers, in 50-44 vote, reject bid to halt production of plane at six instead of 75 sought by Bush.

WASHINGTON —  The controversial B-2 Stealth bomber narrowly survived an effort to gun it down Monday as the Senate approved a $268-billion defense spending bill.

An amendment to halt production of the radar-eluding bomber at six planes instead of the 75 sought by President Bush was defeated, 50 to 44. Less than a year ago, opponents of the B-2 were able to muster only 29 votes against further production.

Meanwhile, the B-2, attacked as a costly white elephant whose mission died with the end of the Cold War, reportedly won another key battle to stay alive.

Sources said that Senate and House conferees on a companion military programs bill had agreed to fund two new planes in fiscal 1991 in exchange for cutting funding of the “Star Wars” anti-missile program.

While the Senate has narrowly supported the B-2, the House has passed defense spending and programs bills that would terminate production at 15 planes.

“I think we have a very good chance of passing a conference report with the B-2 in it,” said a key B-2 supporter in the House who asked not to be identified.

Senate approval of the defense spending bill Monday was by a vote of 79 to 16.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, supported the anti-B-2 amendment offered by Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and William S. Cohen (R-Me.). Cranston protested that the bomber, built in Southern California by Los Angeles-based Northrop Corp., is a waste of resources that could be devoted to more deserving programs.

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), who did not vote because he is campaigning for governor in his home state, has strongly supported the B-2 in the past.

The Leahy-Cohen amendment would have permitted completion of only six B-2s, which would be used for flight testing in the development of two new fighter planes using the revolutionary Stealth technology.

The amendment would have canceled $2.75 billion in procurement funds but would have retained all $1.75 billion requested for research, development and testing of the B-2. About $3 billion in previously appropriated, but unused, funds would have gone for termination costs.

In spirited debate on the plane, Leahy declared: “Let’s make the Stealth bomber truly invisible. Let’s make it disappear today.”

He said that “we can cut $35 billion off the deficit by ending this program.”

About $27 billion has been invested in the program to date, mostly on research and development. The Pentagon, which originally proposed building 132 planes at a cost of about $70 billion, now is seeking 75 planes at a cost of $65 billion.

Cohen argued that the plane, which was intended as a deep-penetrating bomber in the event of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, no longer has a mission, despite arguments by proponents that it could be employed in regional conflicts, such as the current Persian Gulf crisis.

He also cited serious management problems at Northrop disclosed in congressional testimony last week.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) pleaded that development be permitted to continue on “a revolutionary plane that is going to change the nature of warfare and in our favor.”

Nunn said that dropping the plane probably would wind up costing the United States much more in the long run. He explained that, while the Soviet Union would have effective air defenses against the existing B-52 or B-1 bombers, the United States would have limited defenses against Soviet bombers.

“It will cost, in my opinion, between $100 billion and $200 billion to build an air defense for this country,” he said.

In other action, the Senate adopted an amendment requiring the withdrawal of 10,000 U.S. troops per year from Japan, unless the Japanese pay all costs of stationing U.S. forces there.

There are now about 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan, with the Japanese picking up about 40% of the $5-billion yearly cost--a far larger share than any other country pays for supporting U.S. deployments.

But the Senate rejected a similar amendment aimed at pulling 80,000 U.S. troops out of Europe instead of the 50,000 required by the bill.

The two amendments, offered by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), reflect a growing congressional move to reduce the U.S. share of the cost of mutual defense efforts. The critics charge that the United States is subsidizing commercial competitors who also are military allies--notably, Germany and Japan.