August 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Adam Smith
This week we broke a record: In the second quarter of 2020, the U.S. economy fell at an annual rate of 33 percent. As the largest annualized drop in our history, this staggering statistic underscores the breadth and depth of the coronavirus' effect across all industries, including the defense industrial base.
As Congress considers competing proposals for COVID-19 relief, we must ensure that any additional funds provided to the Department of Defense are targeted to protecting jobs and strengthening our industrial base. But we owe it to taxpayers to apply oversight and negotiate on their behalf. We cannot panic and hand out blank checks to defense contractors. To do so would set an irresponsible precedent for years to come.
Congress has acknowledged that our industrial base needs help during this pandemic. In March, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act included a provision, Section 3610, to allow employees of federal contractors with critical skills to remain paid if the federal facilities where they work closed due to the pandemic. This additional flexibility would keep workers ready to return as soon as conditions allowed.
Since then, Section 3610 has taken on a life of its own, with senior administration officials estimating that agencies across the federal government could be on the hook for billions of dollars to carry out this law. With debate on the next coronavirus supplemental bill upon us, the calls for new funding are growing louder. We must explain to American taxpayers and workers what is, and is not, at stake.
The confusion stems from two separate issues: whether to use the generous funding already provided to the Department of Defense to pay contractors for the time they were locked out of their workplaces; and to what extent the pandemic and economic shock will make it more expensive to build weapons and perform research now and in the coming years.
The Department of Defense has unofficially asked Congress for nearly $11 billion in emergency funds to cover these costs for this year alone, split between these two purposes. The lack of detail in this request raises serious questions. For example, why are other federal agencies finding money in their regular budget to pay for their 3610 contractor pay claims, but the Pentagon cannot?
Americans should know that the CARES Act appropriated $10.5 billion for defense needs, with nearly unlimited flexibility for the Department of Defense to reprogram these funds to address urgent priorities. In addition to that infusion of money, the department has numerous other ways to support defense contractors. At the outset of the coronavirus, the department worked with states and localities to deem defense contractors as essential and therefore able to continue working. In April, the department issued a regulatory change on progress payments for existing contracts, increasing the cash flow to the defense industrial base and encouraging major contractors to advance cash to the supply chain, infusing billions of dollars in cash to companies that needed near-term cash flow.
And this brings us to our real problem with the $11 billion set aside for contractor reimbursements in this latest emergency appropriations bill: We do not know what it is for, what problems it will and will not fix, and why other funding and tools are not working. We also suspect that the Pentagon has not done its homework on behalf of American taxpayers before asking for this money. The proposal appears to be based on contractor requests, in the midst of a rapidly changing situation, without asking tough questions about how the funds would be used to prevent American job loss and what the long-term budgeting and recovery strategy may be.
Before Congress provides many billions of dollars to make up for the work that has been lost due to coronavirus closures, we should know which programs have been impacted, how much each program may need to recover and whether taxpayers will be on the hook for more money if the disruptions continue. The Department of Defense, in particular, has a weapons budget that exceeds the highest levels of the Reagan-era defense buildup — even when adjusted for inflation. Given the amount of base and supplemental funds already at the department's disposal, Congress needs more thorough justification for additional spending, both for Section 3610 and for other needs.
Generally speaking, it might make sense to appropriate additional funds to make sure that a shipbuilding program or airplane is completed on time. In other cases, however, taxpayers may reasonably question whether it is worth paying more money in light of other priorities. We have before us a unique opportunity to think strategically about future readiness risks and make the defense industrial base more resilient. Hastily throwing money at the problem is simply not the solution to a complex problem.
We appreciate the hard work of the hundreds of thousands of companies, of all sizes, that make up the defense industrial base. When the Pentagon spends CARES Act dollars, or any appropriations, we depend on senior leaders to negotiate hard with defense companies to get the best deal for the taxpayers. There is nothing wrong with tough negotiating when billions of dollars are at stake; as public servants, it is our duty.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is the Democratic whip and the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
October 1, 2023 | International, Aerospace
The complex simulations at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland were meant to test how well the F-35 would perform in real-world combat scenarios.
January 21, 2024 | International, Land
“Canada has a responsibility to ensure maritime traffic is safe and we are going to continue to make sure we are doing everything we can to keep people safe and counter the escalations of the Houthis in the region, which isn’t good for anyone,” said Trudeau.
October 7, 2019 | International, Land
The sale to Montenegro might be small, but the US push into the Balkans will not make Moscow happy. By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: In a sign the floodgates may be opening for allies to buy the Army's newest tactical vehicle, the US appears to be finalizing a $36 million agreement with Montenegro to sell them dozens of brand-new Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. The tipoff came this morning when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is visiting the country, said the US “offered an agreement to Montenegro for the largest sale of military equipment in the history between our two nations. The United States looks forward to delivering $36 million worth of light tactical vehicles to our NATO ally once this agreement is finalized.” A defense official confirmed the deal is for 67 Oshkosh-made JLTVs. If the deal goes through, Montenegro would become the fourth NATO ally to express interest or actually buy into the program, though so far Lithuania is the only country to receive US approval after the State Department signed off on a $170 million deal with the Baltic nation for 500 JLTVs in August. Mike Ivy, Oshkosh's senior VP for international programs, wouldn't comment on the Montenegro deal, but told me via email the “JLTV was intended from the beginning to be an international program,” pointing out the common systems on the vehicle make it easier for allies to work together in the field. A vastly larger sale is in the works with the UK, which is considering buying 2,747 JLTVs as part of its Multi Role Vehicle-Protected program. British Army officials acknowledged for the first time earlier this month that Oshkosh has been working on a UK variant. In October 2018, Slovenia also signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance for 38 JLTVs, though no deal has been finalized. Montenegro joined NATO in 2017, and is a critical part of the Balkan region's slow turn away from their Russian-dominated past, which Washington and NATO have taken pains to nurture. “It is of strategic importance for Montenegro to have US and EU presence in the Balkans so there would be no space for those countries who do not share the same values,” Montenegro Prime Minister Dusko Markovic said alongside Pompeo Friday. Like so many DoD programs, the JLTV has had an exceptionally long and checkered past. The effort kicked off in 2006, eventually enduring a series of fits and starts before being forced to undergo a full requirements overhaul in 2011 after the Army realized the design would need to change to meet demands beyond those of counterinsurgency warfare. In 2015, Oshkosh was awarded a $6.7 billion contract for the initial 16,901 vehicles. In June the Army declared the JLTV was finally ready for full production, clearing the way for the sale of the truck to allies. Although the program spent 13 years churning through the development cycle, the JLTV has recently come under fire from the Army for being built for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not the potential conflicts of tomorrow against peer adversaries like China and Russia. In April, then-Army Secretary and now Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the JLTV, like the Chinook helicopter, was “designed for a different conflict,” but could still play a role on the battlefield. That shot came around the same time that the service slashed $800 million from its planned JLTV purchases, which translates to at least 1,500 vehicles over the next five years. The cut is only a dent in the massive program's armor, however. The Army has not backed off plans to acquire almost 50,000 JLTVs over the life of the program, which will run into the 2030s. The Marine Corps is also slated to buy about 9,100 JLTVs in the coming years. The Army and Marine Corps are planning to buy four versions of the truck, a general purpose model, a turreted gun truck, a TOW anti-tank missile launcher and a two-door utility variant, basically a militarized pickup truck. https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/a-new-nato-buyer-for-jltv-more-buyers-on-the-way