Lawmakers worry about weapons makers’ ability to meet demand

WASHINGTON ― Lawmakers voiced worries on Wednesday about the health of the defense-industrial base in a House hearing where trade leaders said spending volatility and red tape make it tough for industry to surge capacity.

Amid broader discussions in the House about potential Pentagon budget cuts , members of the House Armed Services Committee offered a sympathetic forum for the defense sector as important to national security and an economic engine. For their part, leaders with the Aerospace Industries Association, National Defense Industrial Association and Shipbuilders Council of America said industry would respond best to stable demand from government.

“We cannot prevail in any conflict without a ready, strong and adaptable industrial base. Yet the defense-industrial base is experiencing a multitude of challenges,” said the panel’s chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala. “Some of these include inflation, workforce shortages, bureaucratic hurdles and supply chains that remain too dependent on foreign sources of materials.”

Amid calls from industry for the administration to adjust otherwise firm-fixed-price contracts to account for inflation, Rogers said the administration “refuses to use the authorities and resources Congress gave them last year to provide necessary relief.”

Industry representatives at the hearing said the lack of adjustments hurts companies by depressing wages as the sector grapples with worker shortfalls.

The hearing was the second for the committee under the new Republican-led House. It comes amid concerns that Ukraine’s consumption of U.S.-supplied materiel is outstripping the capacity of American defense firms to quickly replenish it ― a negative sign as the U.S seeks to deter China.

Asked about a Center for Strategic and International Studies report last month that found the U.S. defense-industrial base is unprepared for a notional battle with China over Taiwan , Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning said wavering demand stymies efforts to stockpile munitions or surge.

“To have that capability to surge requires a consistent, long-term [government funding] commitment,” Fanning said, adding that some suppliers have become skittish about multiyear contracts, given the specter of inflation eating into profits.

Despite growing U.S. defense spending and demand for arms fueled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the defense industry has signaled it won’t expand capacity without a firmer commitment from the government. The trade group chiefs lamented what they saw as overregulation, inconsistent defense spending and bureaucratic barriers for small business. They said uncertainty about Congress raising the debt limit adds a tricky variable.

“Unfortunately, over the last several years industry has also experienced an unpredictable budget and volatile acquisition environment with repeated shifts in fleet-size [plans] that make [industry’s] CAPEX, or facility, decisions more difficult,” said Matthew Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America. “The most effective mechanism to ensure the industrial base is stable and resilient is through consistent demand and adequate funding.”

The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, argued that, given industry’s reluctance to increase its manufacturing capacity without a sustained commitment from the government, the U.S. will have to target investments to where it needs arms quickly and in large quantities.

“We need to figure out what do we really need in the industrial base. You’re not going to be able to prepare for every conceivable contingency; we just don’t have the resources, and the private sector will not make that investment on a wish and a promise,” said Smith of Washington. “We need to be really strategic about it.”

Both Rogers and Smith voiced concern with the U.S. defense-industrial base’s reliance on China for critical minerals and semiconductors. Smith suggested that deeper industrial ties with allied nations and opportunities for smaller, innovative defense firms offer potential fixes.

Fanning echoed those concerns and suggested the government provide seed funding to take back a share of critical mineral processing, which China dominates. “It’s an issue for the federal government to help create that market, which is not easy to do,” he said.

On Tuesday, the National Defense Industrial Association released its annual report on the state of the U.S. defense-industrial base, which said indicators for industrial base readiness are trending in the wrong direction: The size of America’s defense workforce shrunk to 1.1 million from 3 million in 1985; in five years more than 17,000 companies stopped working in the defense sector; and defense spending as a share of the economy fell 45%.

At the hearing, the association’s president and CEO, David Norquist , said among the hindrances are fixed-price contracts that lock in labor rates and growing lags in the government’s security clearance process for private-sector workers.

He also suggested using immigration policies to grow the country’s pool of science and technology experts.

Last week, the head of Naval Sea Systems Command said its “No. 1 strategic challenge” is hiring and retaining skilled workers, as the Navy and its suppliers have thousands of open jobs at government repair yards and in the private shipbuilding and ship repair sectors.

Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, noted that the Pentagon’s budget plan calls for $1.6 billion in long-term investment in the Columbia-class nuclear submarine’s workforce, supply chain and facilities.

This prompted Paxton to say that sort of demand signal does get “bang for the buck.”

Joe Gould was the senior Pentagon reporter for Defense News, covering the intersection of national security policy, politics and the defense industry. He had previously served as Congress reporter.

华盛顿——周三，在众议院的一次听证会上，议员们对国防工业基础的健康状况表示担忧。贸易领导人表示，支出波动和繁文缛节使得工业界难以大幅提高产能。

在众议院就五角大楼预算削减问题展开广泛讨论之际，众议院军事委员会成员为国防部门提供了一个表示支持的平台，认为其对国家安全和经济发展至关重要。与此同时，美国航空航天工业协会、国防工业协会和美国造船商协会的领导人表示，只有政府提供稳定的需求，才能更好地推动行业发展。

“如果没有一个随时可用、实力雄厚且适应性强的工业基础，我们就无法在任何冲突中取得胜利。然而，国防工业基础正面临诸多挑战，”该委员会主席、阿拉巴马州共和党众议员迈克·罗杰斯表示，“其中包括通货膨胀、劳动力短缺、官僚主义障碍以及仍然过度依赖外国材料来源的供应链。”

面对业界呼吁政府调整原本固定价格合同以应对通货膨胀的呼声，罗杰斯表示，政府“拒绝利用国会去年赋予他们的权力和资源来提供必要的救济”。

听证会上的行业代表表示，由于该行业正努力应对劳动力短缺问题，缺乏调整会压低工资，从而损害公司的利益。

这是共和党新一届众议院领导下的该委员会举行的第二次听证会。此次听证会召开之际，人们担忧乌克兰对美国供应物资的消耗速度超过了美国国防公司快速补充的能力——这对试图遏制中国的美国来说是一个不利信号。

上个月，战略与国际研究中心发布报告称，美国国防工业基础尚未做好与中国就台湾问题发生假想冲突的准备。对此，美国航空航天工业协会主席兼首席执行官埃里克·范宁表示，需求的摇摆不定阻碍了储备弹药或增产的努力。

“要具备这种快速扩张的能力，需要持续的、长期的（政府资金）投入，”范宁说，并补充道，考虑到通货膨胀会侵蚀利润，一些供应商对多年合同变得犹豫不决。

尽管美国国防开支不断增长，且俄罗斯入侵乌克兰刺激了武器需求，但国防工业已表示，如果没有政府更坚定的承诺，他们不会扩大产能。行业协会负责人抱怨他们所认为的过度监管、国防开支不稳定以及小企业面临的官僚主义障碍。他们表示，国会是否会提高债务上限也增加了一个棘手的变数。

“不幸的是，过去几年，造船业也经历了预算不稳定和采购环境动荡，船队规模计划不断调整，这使得行业的资本支出或设施决策更加困难，”美国造船商协会主席马修·帕克斯顿表示。“确保工业基础稳定和韧性的最有效机制是持续的需求和充足的资金。”

该委员会的首席民主党议员亚当·史密斯认为，鉴于工业界在没有政府持续承诺的情况下不愿增加生产能力，美国将不得不把投资重点放在需要快速大量获得武器的地方。

“我们需要弄清楚工业基础真正需要什么。你不可能为所有可能发生的突发事件做好准备；我们没有足够的资源，而且私营部门也不会仅仅凭一厢情愿和承诺就进行投资，”来自华盛顿的史密斯说。“我们需要制定切实可行的战略。”

罗杰斯和史密斯都对美国国防工业基础在关键矿产和半导体方面对中国的依赖表示担忧。史密斯认为，与盟国建立更紧密的产业联系，以及为规模较小、具有创新精神的国防企业提供更多机会，或许能解决这个问题。

范宁也表达了同样的担忧，并建议政府提供启动资金，以收回中国主导的关键矿产加工市场份额。“帮助建立这个市场是联邦政府的责任，但这并非易事，”他说。

周二，美国国防工业协会发布了关于美国国防工业基础状况的年度报告，报告称，工业基础准备情况的指标正朝着错误的方向发展：美国国防劳动力规模从 1985 年的 300 万人缩减至 110 万人；五年内，超过 17000 家公司停止在国防领域开展业务；国防开支占经济总量的比例下降了 45%。

在听证会上，该协会主席兼首席执行官大卫·诺奎斯特表示，阻碍因素包括锁定劳动力价格的固定价格合同，以及政府对私营部门工人进行安全审查程序的日益滞后。

他还建议利用移民政策来扩大该国的科技专家队伍。

上周，海军海上系统司令部负责人表示，其“首要战略挑战”是招聘和留住技术工人，因为海军及其供应商在政府维修厂和私营造船及船舶维修部门有数千个空缺职位。

康涅狄格州众议员乔·考特尼是海权和投射力量小组委员会的首席民主党议员，他指出，五角大楼的预算计划要求对哥伦比亚级核潜艇的人员、供应链和设施进行 16 亿美元的长期投资。

这促使帕克斯顿表示，这种需求信号确实“物有所值”。

乔·古尔德是《防务新闻》的资深五角大楼记者，负责报道国家安全政策、政治和国防工业的交汇点。他此前曾担任国会记者。