ALEXANDRA, Va. – The benefits of free trade are apparent to most Americans. We receive cheaper and better appliances, cars, and food while other nations love to watch Britney Spears and eat McDonald’s hamburgers.

Unfortunately, many in Congress fail to realize that the U.S. military benefits from free trade in much the same way as the American people do by gaining access to higher quality goods, innovative technologies, and less costly procurement options. Some lawmakers are currently pushing “Buy American” restrictions in a pending defense bill, which would burden the military with several domestic-purchase requirements.

Congress may not understand how trade improves America’s military readiness, but those who are charged with defending us do. The Pentagon has expressed its strong opposition to “Buy American,” and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently pointed out that, if passed, these provisions “will force the Pentagon to back out of existing contracts and disrupt relations with key allies including $4.5 billion in contributions from our allies to the joint strike fighter.”

Strangely enough, while Congress frequently protects struggling industries like steel against foreign competition, the U.S. defense industry is the best in the world, selling six times as much to Europe as the Pentagon buys there. The U.S. aerospace industry alone exports 40 percent of its products, and in 2002 delivered a $30 billion export surplus, the largest of any sector of the U.S. economy. Contrary to Congress’ perception that foreign components cost American jobs, integration with foreign markets actually creates and stabilizes jobs at home.

Now, “Buy American” advocates are arguing that we can no longer trust foreign nations to supply military components because so many of them oppose our military policies. This argument was not borne out during the conflict in Iraq, however. According to the authoritative Defense News, in spite of its government’s opposition to American war efforts, a French company continued supplying the Pentagon with special filters necessary to keep American helicopters aloft in desert conditions. Elsewhere the military experienced no major procurement problems.

The growing importance of high-tech goods is an additional factor that “Buy American” simply ignores. Many components like flat panel displays, hard drives, CD-Rom or DVD drives, motherboards and keyboards are simply not available domestically. Instead, these consumer components are supplied more cheaply and to higher quality specifications from abroad. And, since they are frequently installed in a variety of common consumer electronics, the chances of an embargo or shortage are negligible.

Ultimately, “Buy American” provisions will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and harm our military’s readiness. As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said recently, “by forcing the Pentagon to purchase domestic products, the ‘Buy American’ provision could produce a damaging reduction in the Department of Defense supplier base and cost the Department and its U.S. contractors billions of dollars to replace foreign-made machine tools.”

There is an additional, “hidden” cost at work too. “Buy American” provisions would require companies to comply with a substantial data gathering exercise, merely for the right to bid on a program. Compliance and certification requirements would expose bidders to significant liabilities, even in cases where a contract is awarded to another bidder. Commercial companies would not be attracted to bid for defense contracts in this environment.

These additional compliance and paper-work costs would of course eventually be borne by taxpayers, who would lose again when the Pentagon is forced to buy components from one or two protected, domestic producers given near-monopoly status under federal law.

If Congress wants to harm our nation’s military preparedness, then limiting the Pentagon’s ability to acquire top-of-the-line products at reasonable prices is an effective way to do so. If, on the other hand, Congress’s goal is to give our military men and women the tools to defend America in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, it should allow the military to purchase the best products at the best prices available – just like American consumers would do.

—

ABOUT THE WRITER

Paul Gessing is director of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, www.ntu.org. Readers may write to him at NTU, 108 N. Alfred St., Alexandria, Va. 22314.

This essay is available to Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service subscribers. Knight Ridder/Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Knight Ridder/Tribune or its editors.

—

(c) 2003, National Taxpayers Union

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services

AP-NY-08-05-03 1007EDT