DoD working with lawmaker to settle 'Buy American' dispute

The Defense Department is negotiating with House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter to resolve differences in his version of the fiscal 2004 Defense authorization bill, a hotly contested piece of legislation that would reduce the amount of foreign-made parts and components incorporated into U.S. military weapons systems.

A recent Defense Department position paper on the House bill indicates the Pentagon would accept a watered-down version of a number of the "Buy American" provisions, although the department would oppose one key measure to require that U.S. military systems be comprised of at least 65 percent domestic content. The Defense Department's willingness to compromise suggests the "sky is not falling" as a result of Hunter's controversial bill, according to House aides.

Responding to the document, Hunter said much common ground has been achieved. "What we have done is try to meet [the administration's] concerns," Hunter said, adding that he is working closely with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to "maintain critical elements" of the U.S. defense base. "The general proposition that we maintain a strong domestic capability in what we would call essential or critical items is one area that all parties agree on in maintaining a strong national defense," Hunter said.

But critics warn that unless the Bush administration calls for a complete reversal of the language, the United States will be sending the wrong signal to its allies, and jeopardize its credibility as a diplomatic heavyweight. Such a compromise, they said, would foster the perception that the president's "go-it-alone" approach in Iraq is permeating other key policy areas.

Given the administration's decision to invade Iraq without backing from the United Nations, and the current debate over the international body's role in post-conflict reconstruction, such a compromise "would signal to allies that now we want to go it alone on defense procurement as well. It is a total reversal by DoD on the protectionism issue," one defense trade consultant intimately familiar with Hunter's "Buy American" measures said.

The undated position paper is reportedly the work of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who recently joined the chorus of administration officials opposed to Hunter's legislation. But the paper demonstrates a significant shift from previous Defense Department communiques, including a July 8 letter from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recommending that the president veto the Defense bill if it contains Hunter's "Buy American" measures. Pentagon sources said such concessions by DoD would run counter to the hard-line stance of acting Pentagon acquisition chief Michael Wynne, who has reportedly advocated within the department for a united front against Hunter's bill.

One possible compromise included in the position paper would amend Hunter's provision to identify military components that are critical or essential to a weapons system. The position paper indicates that an outside entity-specifically a federally funded research and development center-should determine definitions of essential and critical items. Such entities are sponsored by government agencies, but are privately administered by universities and other not-for-profit organizations.

The paper also recommends significant changes to Hunter's mandate that major Defense programs rely on machine tools produced in the United States, and calls for a study of the issue. One hot-button provision that requires the military to buy materials made of para-aramid fibers and yarns from U.S. manufacturers went unopposed by the Defense Department. Para-aramid fibres are a critical ingredient of Kevlar, a material used to make bullet-resistant helmets and vests. Although such materials have been manufactured in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the measure would make DuPont Co. the military's only supplier of much-needed Kevlar.