Posted on 07/28/2006 11:09:39 AM PDT by phantomworker
The Defense Department strongly opposes the Buy American provision contained in both the House and Senate FY '07 defense bills, and warned that if the final bill contains those provisions, the President's advisors would recommend he veto the bill, according to a July 24 letter to lawmakers from Sec. Donald Rumsfeld.
Additionally, Rumsfeld said that while the Pentagon supports the Senate's elimination of the need to maintain 12 aircraft carriers, it opposes plans that would restrict retiring the U-2 spy plane as well as other aircraft platforms.
These issues are several points Rumsfeld raised in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), before lawmakers head to conference to begin ironing out their differences in their respective bills.
"If [the Buy America provisions are] enacted, these sections could jeopardize our military readiness instead of enhancing out ability to get the best capability for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer," Rumsfeld said. "Such provisions could also restrict U.S. suppliers access to foreign markets, decrease competition, increase costs for U.S. taxpayers, and add unnecessary restriction to the procurement process."
DoD also opposed reductions in the missile defense program, which would delay fielding of critical defensive capabilities, Rumsfeld said.
"One proposed reduction that is particularly damaging is the elimination of $56 million in funding for a U.S. missile defense site in Europe, which will cause a 12-18 month delay in deploying a defensive capability for the United States against longer range ballistic missile threats from Iran, as well as protect our European friend and allies, and our U.S. forward deployed forces, from Iranian medium and intermediate range ballistic missile threats," Rumsfeld said.
The Pentagon is pleased that senators are supporting the elimination of requiring the Navy to maintain 12 aircraft carriers, according to Rumsfeld.
The Navy and DoD have wanted to retire one aircraft carrier, most likely the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), bringing the fleet size down to 11.
The Navy had sought to mothball the 45-year-old Kennedy in 2006, however Congress voiced strong opposition to the proposal. In April 2005, the Senate included language in the president's defense supplemental bill prohibiting the Navy from taking the carrier out of active service until after the Quadrennial Defense Review was submitted to Congress. At the time, Rumsfeld had urged lawmakers not to keep such language in the bill (Defense Daily, May 25, 2005).
QDR analysis said 11 carriers are adequate to meet warfighting demands of the future (Defense Daily, Feb. 6).
In February 2006, the Navy restricted fixed-wing aircraft from landing on the Kennedy, a result of decertifying the arresting gear after the discovery of extensive corrosion to the system (Defense Daily, Feb. 21).
Maintaining the Kennedy would cost the Navy $280 million in FY '07 and $2.9 billion through FY '11, Rumsfeld said in his July 24 letter to lawmakers.
Rumsfeld also opposed a requirement to maintain 48 operational submarines.
"The Department opposes other provisions that would keep us from transforming our forces and restrict management of our programs, including restrictions on retiring U-2 (with a cost to maintain over the Future Years Defense Program of $1 billion), KC-135E, C-130E/H, and B-52 (with a cost to maintain over the FYDP of $700 million) aircraft," Rumsfeld said.
The Pentagon also opposed provisions that would hinder programs it needs to meet future challenges in the Global war on Terror, including language in the House bill that would disrupt the acquisition strategy for dual lead ship detail design and construction of DDG-1000, restrictions and funding limitation on, a $326 million reduction in funding for the Future Combat System (FCS) program, funding limitations on the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program, funding cuts to the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program, the Senate's proposed $109 million reduction in funding for the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, and the Senate's proposed $1.2 billion reduction in the Joint Strike Fighter international program, according to Rumsfeld.
General Dynamics [GD] and Northrop Grumman [NOC] are competing to build the Navy's next generation combat ship, DDG- 1000.
Boeing [BA] and SAIC are the prime contractors for the Army's FCS program.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin [LMT] are teamed on the TSAT program.
Lockheed Martin leads a team that includes Northrop Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS, on the JSF Lightning II program.
Rumsfeld also opposed sections 1205-1206 in the House bill (H.R. 5631), which he said, "inappropriately interfere with the President's authority to conduct diplomatic, intelligence, and military activities."
The bill relates to U.S. exchanges with Taiwan officials and field study trips to the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.
"Those provisions not only raise national security concerns, but they also raise Constitutional concerns because they could interfere with the President's constitutional authority with respect to foreign relations, diplomacy, and the recognition of foreign states," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld also opposed section 922 of the House bill that would delay elimination of the chemical weapons stockpile at Newport Chemical Depot. The delay would not only make the stockpile of weapons a potential terrorist target, but would jeopardize the nation's ability to fulfill the deadline set by the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty.
Rumsfeld did support the Senate's expansion of the $200 million global train and equip authorities in section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, and requested that those expansions be made permanent.
However, the DoD opposed the Senate's additional restrictions on existing authority and prefers that the conference include the Administration--requested modifications to increase flexibility to train and equip partner nations operating with, or instead of, U.S. forces for critical counter-terrorism and stabilization operations.
Not sure what are the implications.
And surely the French military would be an effective model to imitate.
Big Smith and Wesson deals are on the table. They make a better product in their new M&P (Military and Police) line of handguns and tactical rifles. AMERICAN MADE BABY!!!
And my hometown police department could whip the French army in 90 minutes.
As miitary members on this forum have pointed out, what sense does it make for a ship to be in Asia and have to wait for an American part to be shipped, rather than use a local Japanese made part?
Let the guys who have been buying continue to provide the best strategic value to the military. American vendors are allowed to bid on every single component made (unless no US vendor makes the component). If they demonstrate a good value proposition, the military will buy American.
Yeah, I think we need a dozen carriers...even the 15 Carrier Battle Groups built be the Regan administration in the 600 ship Navy push.
More than ever we need the ability to project power on the seas, and the ability to project air power worldwide without the political dependencies of land bases. As for their supposed "vulnerability", only developed nation-states have the ability to sink one...and that's a questionable operation for many.
However, such an act would be met with a nuclear deterrent which is unrivaled.
Interesting, thanks.
I say we should sell the aircraft carrier to Israel and use capitol to build another one.
We could name it the John F. Kerry out of respect for his contirbution to the war effort in Vietnam.
Labor unions have made commercial enterprises less and less competitive, so the Democrats want to use legislation to force the DoD to buy expensive union-made products as a sop to their donors.
On a serious note,
Whatever the military is doing, give them whatever they want to be smarte, faster, stronger, better. They are the only truly effective government charter. I think the military should set up a charity fund that Citizens could send contributions to directly. I would gladly send contributions to the military effort as a charitable donation and take the tax deduction for the general federal tax pool.
There are some industries that the US needs to maintain for "The Industrial Base" but frankly they are few. It is true that there are some commodities that are scarce in the US. Fortunately there are usually several sources for us to buy from. The Buy America is strictly a political law, it is not designed to serve our national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.