I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will provide the funding necessary to maintain a strong and reliable B-1 bomber fleet. Over the past week, the B-1 bombers, crews, and support staff of the 28th Bomb Wing have begun to return to Ellsworth Air Force Base from their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As they did in Kosovo and Afghanistan, the B-1 bombers performed superbly in the war in Iraq. They have once again demonstrated that they are the backbone of America's bomber fleet. The B-1's unique ability to linger over the battlefield and provide responsive firepower at the time and place required by military commanders was an integral part of our victory in Iraq. Although B-1s flew fewer than 2 percent of the combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom, they dropped more than half the satellite guided Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, (JDAMs). The B-1s were tasked against the full spectrum of potential targets in Iraq, including command and control facilities, bunkers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and surface-to-air missile sites. They also provided close air support for U.S. forces engaged in the field. The bombers and crews accomplished all of this while maintaining over an 80 percent mission capable rate. This record of success proves B-1 is a vital, versatile, and potent component of our military force structure.
Dusty Johnson: “I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will provide…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting the Daschle-Johnson amendment for B-1 bomber funding during the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill debate.
Share
More from Dusty Johnson
I don't really know yet, but I do know that I'm surely not ready to retire. I'm 50, but I feel like a real young 50, and I'm still filled with plenty of piss and vinegar. Let's go get it done.
I have to dispute that because even the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, which has endorsed my bill, says that the bill does not single out favored political functions over its favored ones. You understand, under…
Again, I am trying to keep this--let's not argue. OK? Let's focus on areas of agreement. So reduction in force, again, I think we probably have a philosophical disagreement there. I am not associating myself with anybody else's remarks…
In general, I don’t think the House is going to love this version compared to what we passed, but at some point we’ll figure out a way to get to yes, collectively.





