Posted on 05/14/2007 2:59:34 PM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON – Less than a year after losing a bitter fight to tighten "buy American" requirements on purchases of military equipment, Rep. Duncan Hunter and his allies have launched a new attack against activities they see as a threat to national security and defense industry jobs.
Advertisement But like last year, Hunter, R-El Cajon, is facing opposition from the Bush administration, Senate Republicans and leading defense industry officials who argue that the House Armed Services Committee chairman's approach would hurt the companies he wants to help and weaken national defense. Hunter's target this year is "offsets," a factor in nearly every sale of U.S. defense products overseas.
Offsets require the American seller to buy a package of goods and services from the customer nation or to provide other considerations that, on the surface, often exceed the value of the defense products being sold.
Although these side deals typically require U.S. defense companies to make concessions such as transferring sensitive defense technology or assigning subcontracts to the buying country's companies, they often involve somewhat bizarre arrangements.
Past examples include major U.S. aerospace companies buying large quantities of Polish hams, promoting Spanish tourism in the United States and helping to establish a Domino's Pizza franchise in Barcelona, Spain.
Industry and administration officials say offsets are a necessary and often beneficial part of international defense trade.
But Hunter says they result in a transfer of U.S. defense jobs and critical technology to foreign countries and have become "a strategic threat to the U.S. defense industrial base."
What once was a small problem, Hunter said, "has now reached a level that demands that it be brought under control."
In an effort to impose that control, Hunter inserted into his committee's version of the 2005 defense authorization bill a provision called the "Defense Trade Reciprocity Act." The provision effectively would bar the Pentagon from buying products from any nation that requires offsets.
To illustrate the problem, Hunter cited the sale of 48 F-16 fighters to Poland, for which Lockheed Martin charged $3.9 billion but agreed to a bundle of offsets valued at $9.7 billion.
The offsets included the purchase of aircraft parts, material and services from multiple Polish companies, the transfer of technology for manufacturing turbines and support for Polish sales of helicopters in the Americas.
Those deals would shift jobs from U.S. suppliers to Poland and could lead to future competition for U.S. aerospace companies, Hunter said.
But he was particularly disturbed by a provision that required the purchase from a Polish shipyard of the kind of cargo ships that have been built by National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. in San Diego.
"The free-trade mantra is for free and open competition," Hunter said. "Does anyone really think that American shipyards had fair and open competition for the ships included in this deal?"
A recent Commerce Department report said "virtually all" of the U.S. defense trading partners "impose some type of offset requirement." U.S. defense exports in 2000, the most recent year for which figures were available, were $5.7 billion, of which $5.1 billion required offsets, the department reported.
Those exports produced 41,666 U.S. jobs and 9,688 jobs overseas, the report said.
A fact sheet from Hunter called that data "highly suspect."
The American Shipbuilding Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers supported Hunter's offset ban, citing a loss of jobs they attributed partly to increasing foreign competition and offsets.
But the Aerospace Industry Association opposed the proposed offset restrictions.
"We believe such an approach would ultimately reduce U.S. foreign sales and the U.S. jobs and supplier base that benefit from those sales," association President John Douglas said.
Perhaps more powerful opposition came from the Defense Department, which told congressional leaders that the offset ban "would deny U.S. forces access to best-value products available from our allies and trading partners, negatively impacting U.S. and coalition war-fighting capabilities."
International trade experts said the offset issue is not as one-sided as Hunter and his supporters contend.
With the post-Cold War cutback in Pentagon weapons buys, foreign sales are increasingly important to keeping the U.S. producers in business, said Joel Johnson, vice president for international issues at the aerospace association.
He noted that from 1997 to 2003, Lockheed produced 526 F-16s, but the Air Force bought only 31.
Without those foreign sales, "that (production) line would have shut down years ago." The same could be said about the Pratt & Whitney and General Electric plants that produce engines for the F-16s, Johnson said.
Every country that bought F-16s required offsets, he noted.
Johnson said the stated values of offsets are greatly inflated, because "offsets provide the political cover for a government spending taxpayers' dollars for offshore purchases."
Richard Aboulafia, aerospace and defense business analyst for the Teal Group consulting firm, agreed and said the foreign government officials who demand offsets and the U.S. lawmakers who oppose them both are trying to improve their political images.
The two experts also pointed out that although the United States does not seek offsets, it requires that any significant defense system it buys from a foreign producer be assembled in this country.
That requirement "is the ultimate form of offset," Aboulafia said.
Although Hunter's anti-offset language met no opposition in the House, it has run into a stone wall in the Senate, just as his "buy American" provisions did last year.
The Senate actually went the opposite way, adopting an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would allow the Pentagon to waive the existing "buy American" requirements for the closest U.S. allies.
That sets up conditions for a repeat of last year's prolonged battle between the House and the Senate during the negotiations to reconcile the differences in the two versions of the defense bill.
The battle is expected to start next week when Congress returns from recess.
True. Depends on the man.
Kerry, McCain, and Murtha all served. Do I want them as POTUS? Heck no.
Those of us who support Hunter know he's a long shot. So please, save the snide remarks for someone else.
I like Hunter too. I wish he had a shot. But he doesn't.
That's just your opinion. Just remember, Jimmy Carter had the same odds.
It takes more to be electable than just voting for defence appropriations.
That comment alone shows you know very little about Duncan Hunter.
I know there are some Freepers who have convinced themselves that things like "national appeal" and "name recognition" are just shibboleths for compromising RINOs (here defined as "anyone who doesn't think Hunter is going to be the next President of these here Yooooo-nited States).
Well, it's apparent how little you think of many of your fellow Freepers. Since you've been here all of 3 months, I'll put it down as ignorance.
So while you sit there and insult us Hunter supporters, we'll continue to donate our time, money and energy towards trying to elect a man who is(IMO) the best person to lead this nation in time of war.
Well said, airborne!!
LOL. First of all, your guy isn’t even in the race. That puts his odds of winning at about 0. Also, what do you think will happen IF Thompson enters the race? The media will attack him just like they do any other candidate, and his poll numbers will drop accordingly. Oh, and did I mention the fact that he has to be one of the most boring speakers I’ve ever heard? The man has no chance of winning the election, so I guess that you aren’t as grounded in reality as you would like to think.
If we really want to elect a conservative Republican in 2008, it is going to take hard work and persistence.
I know full well that nominating Duncan Hunter is a long shot, but after looking at all the choices he is the right man for these troubled times, IMHO.
If he is going to have a chance at winning, it is imperative that he achieves two things.
Money and name recognition.
I’ve sent him 2 donations and plan on sending more.
I also copy many of the stories I read here on FreeRepublic and e-mail them to my family and friends.
Anyone who supports Hunter should be writing and/or calling as many people as possible, and asking them to watch the debates tomorrow night on FOX.
And tell them that if they like what they see and hear, send Duncan Hunter $50 to help him. Send $10! Send something!
Now if you and 10 other Freepers do the same, who knows...
Regardless of what happens, at least I’ll know I did something positive for our country, besides just complaining about things.
Hey, I've been on a few political campaigns myself- I'll give ya odds on this one.
That’s fine. Kinda like the odds of a bald liberal NY mayor getting the nod, or a kerry-esque flip flopping mormon governor, or a backstabbing psycho. The field is ripe for a real conservative.
Good luck my friend.
As for “real conservatives”, we haven’t had one in a LONG time.
2 in my lifetime - Goldwater and Reagan.
No one else comes close.
Except Hunter. Hence the optimism.
The “snide” comment was mine and I’ll stand by it.
My opinion perhaps, but I have just a few campaigns-worth of experience.
Well, if I’m not “grounded in reality”, why even bother talking to me?
Ironic since Patton’s secretary worked for and believed in Duncan Hunter. They have more in common than you’d like to acknowledge!
LOL, Fred still is nowhere near presidential as Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter is the man who will make the best candidate and President. Some of us still believe in actually voting for MORE than the fact someone happens to have been on Law and Order when it got cancelled!!
I agree Thompson is a dull speaker. I don’t think he has much chance of appeal outside Republican circles. He’s not a known actor; it will have to be pointed out to just about everyone and he doesn’t have the admiration factor of a Hunter who has combat experience and a son who serves in the current WOT. Hunter would have broader appeal in a general election rather than this Fred mania. The man doesn’t live up to the hype.
Right, and look how that turned out.
Well, it's apparent how little you think of many of your fellow Freepers. Since you've been here all of 3 months, I'll put it down as ignorance.
3 months? I've been on here since before the 2004 election. It was in February that I changed to a different screen name (was yashcheritsiy before) that was more in line with the rest of my "nom de cyber" on other fora.
So while you sit there and insult us Hunter supporters, we'll continue to donate our time, money and energy towards trying to elect a man who is(IMO) the best person to lead this nation in time of war.
Well, that's fine. It's your choice after all how you spend your money and time. But nevertheless, a certain saying about a fool and his money comes to mind....
Well, Fred has also demonstrated that he can be elected to a statewide office, which is more than Duncan Hunter has been able to do, or even willing to try to do. C'mon, at least lets see him get the backbone up to run in a statewide, even if he would get thrashed because it's left-of-Stalin California.
I can't say how Duncan is as a speaker because, frankly, I've not heard him speak. I tend to keep abreast of politics, so this suggests to me that he's got about zero recognition outside his own campaign and his own district in SoCal. Frankly, the response of most Republicans I talk to, even those who are activist types, when I mention Duncan Hunter to them is "Who?" Guy's got no chance, I'm sorry to say. Let him get some national coverage as Fred's Veep, and let him run again in 2016 without the training wheels. For now, he is "Duncan the Unready".
Patton's secretary worked for Duncan? Oh, that's it, I'm on board now! Where do I sign up? And please, let me empty out my bank account for the Hunter '08 campaign!
President Bush was a long shot at first too.
And if you’ve been here longer than 3 months, I have to figure that your insults are part of your everyday personality.
And as far as my money is concerned, I’d rather spend it on someone who would make a great President than spend it on “more of the same” career politicians.
“Let him get some national coverage as Fred’s Veep, and let him run again in 2016 without the training wheels”
How would putting Duncan Hunter on a losing ticket give him a better chance in 2016? Fred Thompson can’t win, despite the obsession here on FreeRepublic. He’s a random mediocre Senator and actor, with zero enthusiasm in his public speaking. Sure he’d lock up the insomniac vote, but the fact is most Americans don’t want to be put to sleep while listening to their President speak.
At least Hunter has the potential for broad appeal once he moves up to the top tier. He’s the best man to win the general election, especially with the war going on. One of the rats biggest complaints is that people who support the war don’t have to worry about their children fighting, Duncan Hunter’s son has been there twice and is going back for a third tour. That fact alone will cause America to respect him and vote for him. He will get more union support thanks to his efforts to stop China’s cheating on trade.
What does Fred Thompson bring to the table?
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.