August 2, 1976
Page 24993
Mr. HATHAWAY. I have one final question I would like to address to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. It is my understanding that there is included in the pending appropriation legislation a sum of $15.1 million for the procurement of armor tank machine guns to replace the M-219. Given the pending lawsuit and the protest to GAO mentioned in the above opinion, I would like to ask the Senator to elaborate on the committee's intention in approving such funds.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I would be happy to. I believe I can best explain the committee's intention by reference to our report on page 180:
Armor machine gun.— The Committee recommends the budget request of $15.1 million for the procurement of armor machine guns to replace the M-219. The Army has determined to purchase the MAG58 gun which is manufactured in Belgium. The United States competitive manufacturer filed suit on alleged violations of procurement laws and regulations. The District Court of D.C. issued an injunction on July 2, 1976 enjoining the Army from entering into final agreement with the foreign firm pending resolution of a protest which the U.S. source has filed with the Comptroller General. The Committee points out that the recommended funds are not contemplated for any particular gun and are to be obligated pursuant to resolution of the dispute.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I appreciate the Chairman's attention in this matter, and I hope this information is helpful to the Senate as a whole in terms of its scrutiny of this amendment and in terms of its consideration in the future of continuing efforts at standardization and cooperation with NATO nations.
In closing I would like to emphasize that in no way am I an opponent of standardization or its objectives of cost saving. I emphasize, however, that this policy ought not to be subverted into becoming a blank check to ignore the legitimate concerns of all American manufacturers who ask simply that they be given a chance to compete and that the competition be a fair one. I hope that my amendment, and the discussion we have had today, will insure this goal.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman McCLELLAN for his attention and cooperation in this matter which has been of concern to me and my colleagues from Maine for so many months. I am hopeful that the court action and General Accounting Office review now under way will result in a fair and equitable resolution of this matter shortly. The attention of the committee has been most helpful in assuring that precipitous action is not taken pending the outcome of those actions.
The amendment, which Senator HATHAWAY and I have introduced, deals with only one particular part of the procurement regulations relating to the controversial purchase of machine guns from the Belgian manufacturer and is directed toward assuring that any waiver of the specialty metals restrictions which the President proposes must be consistent with requirements for congressional notification and review provided in the Arms Export Control Act, Foreign Military Sales, and the appropriation authorization legislation. A provision in the Foreign Military Sales Act, which I cosponsored with Senator HATHAWAY, provides that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on International Relations will be able to obtain detailed information regarding any proposed arms sale agreement and, if appropriate, report a concurrent resolution of disapproval to the Senate and House, respectively.
This particular matter has been of great concern to me because a Maine firm, Maremont Corp. of Saco, is the domestic producer of armor machine guns and that firm and its employees will suffer if the Army makes good on former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger's promise to give "favorable consideration" to the foreign manufacturer. The entire Maine delegation has been working to assure that this does not occur and are parties to the civil action which Senator HATHAWAY described earlier.
There has been considerable discussion of standardization in the Congress in recent months directed in general toward the benefits and cost savings which such a policy can produce.
I welcome the effort to achieve cost savings in our defense efforts through standardization of interoperable weapons, but it is imperative as we consider that policy that the means does not overtake the goal. Standardization is not a goal in and of itself but is a policy directed toward achieving cost savings and combat efficiency in particular weapons systems among our NATO allies. It is perhaps best served in the development of high technology weapons system where duplicative costs associated with research and manufacturing startups can be avoided and in areas such as ammunition production where standardization can result in simplified battlefield logistics. We should understand, however, that the empty term "standardization" does not in and of itself serve in any way as justification for procurement of a foreign competitor over a domestic weapon. I believe that this was made clear in the conference report accompanying the authorizing legislation but it is appropriate that these concerns again be laid on the record.
I thank the chairman again for his assistance in this matter and look forward to his further cooperation.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment insures that the clause permitting the Defense Department to procure specialty metals from foreign sources does not override existing legislation requiring theDefense Department to report international agreements on reciprocal weapons purchases. Am I correct?
Mr. HATHAWAY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Is that all the amendment does and is intended to do?
Mr. HATHAWAY. The Senator is correct.