What's new
What's new

New Buy American provisions for the Pentagon under attack

  • Thread starter D. Thomas
  • Start date
  • Replies 6
  • Views 1,581
D

D. Thomas

Guest
I've highlighted most of the machine tool references, with the most relevant toward the end of the article.

========================
NYTimes
July 23, 2003
Butting Heads With the Pentagon
By LESLIE WAYNE


There is no better friend of the Pentagon than Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. A conservative and a hawk on defense, Mr. Hunter has long been someone the military could count on to push its dream projects through Congress.

So there is considerable dismay, and some outright consternation, over sweeping "buy America" provisions that Mr. Hunter inserted into the House version of legislation authorizing the coming year's Pentagon budget. Countries that failed to help the United States in the Iraq war, he argues, should not enjoy the spoils of American military contracts or put the Pentagon in a position of depending on them for critical components.

That view has set Mr. Hunter on a collision course with his many friends at the Pentagon and among American military contractors that buy everything from microprocessors to jet engines and airplane wings overseas. Mr. Hunter's proposal would cut back sharply on the foreign content allowed in American military goods as well as provide a laundry list of items — from fuses to machine tools to airplane tires — that only American companies could supply.

Opposition to Mr. Hunter's proposal is so fierce that the defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, has said he will recommend that President Bush veto the entire $400 billion 2004 Pentagon budget if Mr. Hunter does not back down. According to a White House statement, Mr. Hunter's proposals are "burdensome, counterproductive and have the potential to degrade U.S. military capabilities."

Such harsh words hardly faze Mr. Hunter, a 12-term California Republican and former Army Ranger, who is joined by other conservative House members and a number of small companies and unions that might benefit. At the moment, for all the power — and fury — of his opponents, Washington analysts say Mr. Hunter will most likely get some of what he wants.

"If the American worker is going to pay for the defense of the free world," Mr. Hunter said in an interview, "he should participate fully in the manufacture of military goods. This is a warning shot, a red flag. We need to have domestic sources for critical military components. No one argues with that. We just differ in the details."

This Washington tale is rich in ironies. An administration that has been criticized for a go-it-alone attitude toward foreign affairs is now promoting more global military trade and claiming, in the White House statement, that Mr. Hunter's efforts would "undermine our efforts to promote cooperation with our allies."

Meanwhile, the military contractors who have lavishly contributed to Mr. Hunter's political campaigns over the years are now finding that they have helped elect someone who is working against their interests — and their ability to buy from cheaper foreign suppliers. Moreover, the White House risks alienating an important constituency by opposing a prominent conservative, especially over an issue freighted with patriotism.

Foreign governments have weighed in as well, especially the British, whose contractors would be lumped in with the rest of the world, despite Britain's stalwart participation in the Iraq war. In a letter to Mr. Rumsfeld, the British defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, called the proposal "potentially very damaging" and said it "would seriously undermine our ability to work together." The Dutch government called it a "great leap backward," while the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson, said it would threaten "political unity."

Yet for all the concern from Britain specifically, Michael Harrison, a spokesman for Mr. Hunter, said "buy America" would help, not hurt, because a stronger United States military meant America would be a better ally to Britain.

As a practical matter, such cross-border programs as the Joint Strike Fighter, a $200 billion joint venture by the United States and Britain to build a new fighter jet and sell it globally, would be jeopardized. Other programs would be equally hard to unscramble — for instance, the Army's new light armored vehicle, the Stryker, designed in Switzerland and being assembled in Canada for an American company. The F-16 fighter jet, made by Lockheed Martin almost exclusively for export, draws parts from dozens of countries.

On Capitol Hill, taking on Mr. Hunter is a delicate matter, especially for military contractors. Besides his pro-military credentials, the committee of which he is chairman controls the Pentagon purse strings and wields enormous power over how billions in military contracts are awarded.

"It's hard to oppose someone you like. That's made it difficult for everyone," said John W. Douglass, chief executive of the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents big contractors. "It's so awkward. We're so torn."

The military industry instead is taking its case to John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some 25 top executives of military contractors — among them Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon — met with Senator Warner last week to lobby in what they felt was a more sympathetic forum.

The version of the Pentagon budget that the Senate passed last Thursday does not include buy-American provisions — in fact, it has language making it easier for American military contractors to buy from six allies: Britain, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

In a statement, Senator Warner said that while the Senate bill recognized that the "overwhelming bulk" of the Pentagon budget would be spent on American-made products, "our forces need the flexibility to procure the best of existing technology and avail themselves of the strength of the global market." The measures are now before a House-Senate conference committee whose members include Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warner.

With little fanfare and no public hearings, the buy-America proposals were inserted into the House version of the Pentagon budget in May.

Besides requiring that some military goods be made only in America, the provisions that Mr. Hunter is championing would raise domestic content requirements for Pentagon purchases to 65 percent from 50 percent — a substantial increase on multibillion-dollar contracts. It would also become more difficult to purchase certain specialty metals — mainly titanium — from foreign suppliers, particularly Russia.

Not everyone opposes Mr. Hunter. The steel industry and the steelworkers union, the machine tool industry, apparel and footwear manufacturers, some electronics makers and American shipbuilders have voiced support. So has the 20-member House defense industrial base caucus, which advocates for small manufacturers.

"I'm really glad to see this attempt by the House Armed Services Committee coming to light," said Timothy G. Rupert, chief executive of RTI International Metals, an Ohio company and one of three domestic titanium suppliers.

In a letter being circulated in Congress, Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America, says, "American steelworkers are also American taxpayers and they do not want their tax dollars going to subsidize the export of their jobs!"

The opponents are equally fervent. "This is incredibly ill conceived," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a conservative research firm in northern Virginia. "The cost of weapons would go up astronomically. No one has a rigorous estimate of what the buy-America provisions could cost taxpayers. But it certainly would be in the many billions of dollars."

The Pentagon is pulling out all the stops. An internal Pentagon analysis said Mr. Hunter's proposal would have "catastrophic effects."

The machine tool provisions alone — replacing foreign with American tooling — would cost $7 billion to $10 billion in the next five years or so, the analysis estimated. Some military production lines would have to be shut down, it said, costing 46,000 jobs until domestic machine tool capacity increased. At one Raytheon plant in Texas, for instance, 95 percent of the machine tools used to assemble missiles are foreign made.

Foreign-content reductions would "jeopardize dozens of programs," according to the Pentagon. For instance, British engines and propellers are used in the C-130J transport.

"The reason we are taking this seriously is because the unintended consequences of this legislation are so egregious, " said Suzanne D. Patrick, deputy under secretary of defense for industrial policy. "Our biggest concern is that the defense industrial base be able to supply quality equipment to our war fighters currently and in the future.

"We're not careening out of control in giving big dollops of defense business to foreign countries," she added. "We do it when there is superior quality, a better price and better delivery terms."

Often, only foreign suppliers produce specialized electronic equipment critical to the military. "It could be a hand-held sensor that is very important," she said, "and the only maker is Japanese or Taiwanese."




[This message has been edited by D. Thomas (edited 07-23-2003).]
 
Wow, that has really rattled some cages.

It just goes to show how much manufacturing we let get away by relaxing the "buy american" provisions.

I'm sure the number one issue is price with the opposing people. The availability and quality issues follow that.

The Stryker armored vehicle should be made here.

The reason so many aircraft parts are made in other countries is due to fact we sweeten the purchase deals for these aircraft by allowing the buyers to manufacture some of the components. That means that just about every country that bought F-16's from us make some of the parts.

This will definately be a story to follow.

Thank you for posting it Don.

Les
 
The Pentagon has to be out of its

Cotton Pickin' -

Pickle Packin' -

Kipper Strippin' -

MIND!

If the USA didn't have the fiercest fighting men of the war, we still would have won WW II simply because we would have displaced the enemy with all the Materiel we landed on the disputed territories!

Enemy Navies couldn't go anywhere because the oceans were jammed tight with all the Ships we launched.

Who did all that, Santa's workshop fairies?????

The only outfit that ever gave the USA a run for its money was the Soviet Union.

All their military equipment was and is Very Good.

All their military equipment is made in State Factories.

Maybe the USA might take heed.

It is somewhat tradtional in the US that necessary armaments were made in Government Arsenals.

The major exception has been aircraft (including missiles) and some tanks.

The sheer size of the effort of WW II was cause for the private sector to produce military arms and ammunition, but in peace time, we should have gone back to the Government Arsenals and Shipyards.

This was what Gen. Eisenhower warned about when he mentioned the Military-Industrial Complex.

Now, our military is at the mercy of private contractors. Private contractors are at the mercy of the Profit Motive and their shareholders.

The situation private industry wise is so bad that te major manufacturers are conglomerating into a small group of huge organizations.

If I was a Pentagon Wonk, I would suggest that the Government take over these few large companies and designate them as "Desingn Bureaus" like the Russians did.

Each would be assigned to produce specific designs and quipments and since they were government bureaus, there would be no question of continuity of talent, labor and materials.

I see first hand the knd of fumble fingered dippy doodle goings on when the military requires the limited production of an existing but somewhat old piece of equipment.

The new guys don't know nothing, the old guys who designed and made the stuff are retired or have been laid off and are flipping burgers in Orlando.

I am 58 years old, I moved out to Cat's Ass, West Virginia to Hide, Play with My Machines and Bother People with my Postings on The Machinist Forum.

Can I be left alone?

Nope

I gotta design an equipment mount for Lockheed-Martin.

3 weeks ago I sent them the Prototype. I apprenticed as a Scientific Instrument Maker - I work from freehand sketches. Sometimes I just Wing It!

They are on the Phone - they cant get the thing out of Receiving until it is Inspected!

They need Drawings!

Huh??? The lead engineer on the job and I KNOW it is a prototype, the Radio that mounts on it is so Damn Secret that neither of us has even seen one. The deal was, I send up the mount, they try it out and I make the necessary changes.

Soooooo -

I had to sit down at my drafting table and make up a set of installation drawings and tell them it's SO Long and SO Wide and So Deep and has 4 funny looking ATR Retainers on the front.

So There

Now I am expecting The Call - Jimmy such and such has to be moved so and so far. And could you put another Dingus on the back.

I don't mind detail drawings, but SHEESH let us get the design finished first.

If you think this Keystone Kops crazyness is limited to Jimmy Kizale's Bizzare Life -

Think Again!

You ought to see some of the stuff they have asked me to make.

There is a set of cryptographic electric interconnect panels that would take at least 1.5 million dollars to just get the engineering management set up. They are ex rocwell equipments and nobody at Rockwell is left who knows what they even are.

The only experts are the Navy Sailors who work with them.

So the Navy, literally, comes by here and asks, "can you make these?"

Navy!

From Blond Boy, California -

Here!

10 years ago I was repairing printing presses and had a shop going. My friend Bobby who apprenticed with me asked if I could do some prototype work and assembly for the Navy office he was working for.

Then came along the Base realignment and Closure Act.

Bobby's office was transferred to Charlston, Nobody went, they all retired.

Bobby and I are now the Experts of Equipment Mounts!

Con Tin Ui TYYYYYY!

You have to have this stuff in a Stodgy old Government Bureau.

You can't go Closing bases and Moving Engieering Offices.

You can't go re organizing and conglomerating companies and laying off Old Hands.

And then think, well, if we throw enough money at this, we can do it again. Doesn't work that way.

I just shudder to think of how many things that are much more sensitive and complicated than plain old equipment mounts that are in the same messed up, Buggs Bunny State of Affairs.

Now, think of what it would be like if the stuff was sent to F***ing France to be made!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 
We really took it in the shorts here in Calif during the Clinton era.
We lost the most bases and shipyards in the country.
They saw fit to close Long Beach Naval Shipyard which had one of the best records around. They closed the adjoining naval station and Clinton tried to sell the land to The China Shipping Corp.
Fortunately some people were able to block that deal but we still ended up with a huge container terminal where the shipyard and naval station were.
Our glorious Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, were too busy padlocking millions of acres of desert land to stop the closures. Not that they wanted to anyways.
So now we have no bases and we can't go play in the desert. They have also severely restricted where the military can play....er train in the desert. After all, we don't want to hurt a kangaroo rat or desert tortoise while trying to keep our military in top-form.
We also lost most of our aerospace and defense contractors during that period also. Lockheed, General Dynamics, Northrop, Hughes, Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas are either gone or mere shadows of their former presence.

It sounds like Mr. Hunter is trying to stop the bleeding with a real bandage instead of a little band-aid. If the patient keeps resisting he will bleed to death.

Les
 
Les,
I am going to the desert. My son and I have brand spankin new KTM desert bikes and we are going to the desert, regardless of what they say.
Watch the news for me in handcuffs.
Tumbleweed
 
Flatten a kangaroo rat for me Tim.
Playtime in the desert supports a huge number of business in So. Cal.
Just go to the Glamis sand dunes on a holiday like Thanksgiving and you will see tens of millions of dollars worth of RV's, bikes, buggies and accessories. I'm not kidding. I've seen several groups camped with over a million dollars worth of stuff easily. When you have $100,000 to $500,000 RV's and $20,000 to $50,000 sand rails, it adds up fast.
That is all money generally spent locally with the exception of the high dollar fancy coaches. Those are generally made somewhere besides Calif.
Many small shops specialize in building the sand toys or making parts and accessories.

These idiots that want to close the desert to off-road use either don't have a clue or don't care about how many small businesses and people that would be out of work.

They might as well let us play out there now. Probably be houses on the land in 20 years.

Les
 
If memory serves, which it often doesn't anymore, the Navy is finally giving up its island bombing practice range in the Purto Rican islands. Thus the supporting bases are being closed and the associated Navy personnel are being transfered. Many civilians employed by the bases and/or businesses which served the Navy and its personal have lost their jobs as a result. Now the good old USA is supposed to step in with make work to replace these jobs. Why am I not surprised? Charles
 








 
Back
Top