another exquisite contradiction

[Eubulides <paraconsistent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[New York Times]
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."