Government Executive - Authors - Sara Scorcher

Defense companies also worried about nondefense budget cuts

Sara Scorcher, National Journal — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:24:25 -0500

The defense industry’s loud campaign against sequestration has led many observers to believe those companies would be safe if steep cuts to the military budget under sequestration are avoided.

That’s a misperception. The defense industrial base is also concerned about possible cuts to the nondefense budget if the $109 billion in automatic cuts takes effect next year. Even if sequestration is averted, they worry about a fiscal-cliff deal that scales back overall discretionary spending in both defense and nondefense accounts. Now, with just a few days left for Congress and the White House to reach a deficit deal to avert the looming cuts, the defense industry is starting to speak up for the other side of the budget that could get the ax.

“It’s not just the defense industry or private-sector workers who are on the chopping block here, but nondefense programs and workers as well,” Aerospace Industries Association CEO Marion Blakey said in a speech to the National Aeronautic Association on Tuesday.

Take Boeing, for example. Half of its $68 billion in revenues last year came from the defense and space sectors. The other half stemmed from commercial airplanes. “We are concerned about the possibility of deep cuts in other parts of the federal budget besides defense, because of the potential impact they could have on the commercial airplane industry,” Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said.

Cutbacks could mean airlines—and their passengers and shippers—would face consequences, since the government provides crucial support for the aviation business. If air traffic control services were slashed by $800 million under sequestration, as Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., wrote in an October letter, the Federal Aviation Administration would lose 2,200 air traffic controllers, technicians, and support staff, which would likely reduce the number of flights per day. FAA reductions could also prompt cutbacks in safety inspectors and slow the speed of cargo processing operations. While it's a somewhat indirect impact, Neale said, “that concerns us because they’re our customers."

Boeing and other companies are closely eyeing the prospect of delays or cutbacks to the Next Generation Air Transportation System program to modernize the air traffic control system. Many AIA members are already prime or subcontractors in NextGen, Blakey told National Journal, with a direct stake in the roughly $1 billion project—ironically, she noted, just about the same size of the expected cut to FAA’s budget next year if sequestration goes into effect.

Companies with major stakes in the aviation business would not be the only ones affected by nondefense cuts. Even defense giant Lockheed Martin said 82 percent of its sales are derived from U.S. government customers, and it’s not limited to the Pentagon. “We have a business presence in virtually every federal department or agency, including the Social Security Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Aviation Administration, to name a few, and are equally concerned with the effects of across-the-board cuts to nondefense agency programs,” Lockheed spokeswoman Jen Allen said.

As for BAE Systems, its $14 billion in annual revenue from the United States largely stems from what it terms defense contracts. But within that 70 percent faction are classified contracts that include intelligence projects. And BAE does contribute technical or information technology work for other government agencies—like assisting the Federal Emergency Management Agency with disaster claims or the FBI with cybersecurity initiatives. “The challenge,” spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, “is the uncertainty of knowing how and where programs will be cut.”

NASA, too, would also face an 8.2 percent reduction to its roughly $18 billion budget under sequestration, prompting concerns from industry. “Such a deep and reckless cut to these agencies would senselessly jeopardize U.S. space leadership and stifle exactly the kind of investment in innovation that our economy needs,” said a report commissioned by AIA released on Wednesday. “Once these capabilities and jobs are lost, it will be decades to recover them—and may cost more than is saved in the near term.”

Voicing concerns about nondefense reductions may be industry’s last salvo in the grand finale of the fiscal-cliff showdown. With just days to go, and no sign of progress on a deal to avert the looming cuts, it may just be too late to affect the debate.

]]>

Tough questions may signal quicker, quieter end to Afghanistan war

Sara Scorcher, National Journal — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:47:08 -0500

It’s no secret that Congress’s enthusiasm for the long war in Afghanistan has been waning—but you know support is low when even John McCain, one of the Senate’s staunchest defense hawks, is questioning whether the war is still worth fighting.

McCain, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday insisted that the Obama administration should not draw down the 68,000 troops currently in the volatile country and let them fight through 2014. Otherwise, the U.S. should consider ending the war altogether. “If we can’t accomplish the mission, I’m not sure why we should stay,” the Arizona Republican said at the nomination hearing for Gen. Joseph Dunford to become the next commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. Over the last 11 years, McCain added, “We haven’t seen the progress that we had hoped would take place.”

Recent headlines have indeed painted a grim picture of current conditions on the ground in Afghanistan: Dozens of green-on-blue attacks carried out by Afghan forces or their imposters have killed 58 NATO troops just this year, including 35 Americans; the Obama administration’s attempts to strike a peace deal with the Taliban are stalled; and violence on the ground, including some spectacular attacks, continues. The war's most destructive single strike on Western materiel took place in September, when militants fought their way into a military base in Helmand province and destroyed six Harrier jets, resulting in a loss of nearly $200 million worth of equipment.

Having already withdrawn the 33,000 “surge” troops this fall, the Obama administration might be swayed by deteriorating conditions on the ground and growing skepticism on Capitol Hill to accelerate the withdrawal of the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops. Public polls already show support for the war dropping steeply among Americans from both parties, with 70 percent of those polled in March saying the U.S. should not be fighting in Afghanistan and roughly the same percentage believing the fighting is going “badly.” If congressional support continues to flag, the end could be nearer. And quieter.

Senators—even Republicans—are not immune to the on-the-ground reality in Afghanistan. Even Dunford’s repeated optimistic sentiments that “we are making progress” in the war effort and “our objectives are achievable” appeared to fall on deaf ears.

“General, twice you have stated this morning that you believe that our objectives in Afghanistan are achievable and of course the primary objective in Afghanistan since 2009 has been to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al-Qaida in the region and prevent its return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine., said, going on to cite national intelligence estimates and other reports that cast doubts on the ability of the Afghan National Security forces to consolidate security gains made in Afghanistan over the past decade. “Given the escalation of insider attacks, the sanctuaries [for militants] that still exist in Pakistan, and the level of corruption in the Afghan government, why do you believe that the objectives are indeed attainable? It seems to me that the intelligence reports — the lack of progress, the surge in insider attacks — paint a very bleak picture.”

Afghan war commander Gen. John Allen, whose nomination to become NATO's supreme allied commander and leader of U.S. forces in Europe was put on hold for an investigation into potentially inappropriate e-mails, has drafted several options for a follow-on force that would remain in Afghanistan after most combat forces withdraw at the end of 2014. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the process of reviewing those options with the White House is expected to be completed within the next few weeks. Meanwhile, Washington and Kabul are beginning negotiations on drafting a new security agreement for the post-2014 time frame.

Dunford said he was not included in the discussions about Allen’s war recommendations. The Marine general, who has never served in Afghanistan, will inherit all the challenges of withdrawing the bulk of U.S. and NATO forces and transitioning security responsibilities to the Afghan government and security forces, whether or not they are fully ready. At least for the United States and NATO, it seems clearer by the day that the long Afghan conflict is entering its final stage.

]]>

FEMA on Isaac evacuations: ‘The time to go is now’

Sara Scorcher, National Journal — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:40:28 -0400

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate said on Monday that if residents impacted by the advance of Tropical Storm Isaac are instructed to leave their homes: “The time to go is now.”

As Isaac targets a roughly 300-mile swath of the Gulf Coast, and Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi governors declared states of emergency, Fugate said residents should not delay until the next forecast to see if the storm turns into a hurricane. “Some of our most devastating flooding has occurred during a tropical storm that never reached hurricane strength,” Fugate said in a conference call. Some areas could receive up to 12 to 18 inches of rain, which could lead to rising water levels in rivers and flash flooding—potentially life-threatening hazards for people driving to their next location.

National Hurricane Center Director Rick Knabb said his team is trying to gauge the potential high and low strength of the hurricane if Isaac takes that course. “We’re forecasting Category 1 as kind of the middle of those possibilities,” Knabb said on the call. But even if Isaac remains a tropical storm at landfall, he warned, its large size could generate storm surge and inland flooding—reaching up to six to 12 feet above ground level along the coast lines of Alabama, Mississippi, and southeast Louisiana.

Monday is the day to prepare, Knabb added. “Wherever people are going to be during the storms they need to be there tonight."

]]>