- 1 day ago
An investigation into the power of the Pentagon as a business and economic force in U.S. economy.
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00This program are adult in nature.
00:02Please use your own judgment about allowing young people to view it.
00:08Major funding for Frontline is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
00:13by this station and other public television stations nationwide,
00:16and by the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies,
00:19for over 100 years providing worldwide business and personal insurance
00:23through independent agents and brokers.
00:25America is re-arming, and word is out.
00:32What's good for the Pentagon is good for America.
00:36We have a view very different from many decision-makers in the last administration
00:41that profit is not a dirty word.
00:44Recession, hell, sell.
00:47Profit's not a dirty word.
00:48It's the backbone of a free enterprise system.
00:50Tonight, on Frontline, the nation's largest employer shaping our industrial future.
00:58Pentagon, Incorporated.
01:00From the network of public television stations,
01:11a presentation of KCTS Seattle,
01:14WNET New York,
01:15WPBT Miami,
01:17WTVS Detroit,
01:19and WGBH Boston.
01:22This is Frontline
01:23with Jessica Savage.
01:26Today, we observe the birthday of our first Commander-in-Chief.
01:32Our present commander marked this holiday weekend
01:34by quoting George Washington on defense.
01:38Quoting Reagan, quoting George Washington,
01:40to be prepared for war is the most effectual means of preserving the peace.
01:44Now, in Washington's time,
01:46that may have meant enough to get through a tough winter at Valley Forge.
01:49This year, President Reagan is asking Congress for $274 billion.
01:53Now, many congressmen argue that more for defense means less for social programs.
02:00Tonight, we won't address that argument.
02:02No matter what the compromise,
02:04we will be spending more on defense.
02:06Tonight, on Frontline, we ask
02:07how we know if we're getting the most for our money,
02:11and do we know how military spending is reshaping jobs and industries,
02:15education, and even whole communities.
02:17As I found in preparing this report, produced by Sherry Jones,
02:22Pentagon is not just Washington.
02:24It's incorporated into every part of our country.
02:28Tonight's report, Pentagon Incorporated.
02:36This truck carries promise.
02:38It carries the promise of more than 10 million contracts worth billions.
02:44As it crisscrosses the country,
02:46this truck is the Pentagon, spreading its wealth.
02:51Heading into places like Indianapolis,
02:53it represents a military budget of $238 billion this year,
02:58and the idea, there's enough in it for everyone.
03:01Here, 1,200 hard-pressed businessmen and women
03:16from all over the state
03:18have come for a look at this Pentagon road show.
03:24Come to hear just what Washington has to offer.
03:28What's the name of it?
03:29Indiana.
03:31Indiana Conference on Federal Procurement and Export Opportunities.
03:37And politicians like Indiana's junior senator, Dan Quayle,
03:40are only too happy to be cooperative.
03:43It's not a bad phrase,
03:44but to say that this is just a fancy name
03:47for doing business with the federal government.
03:50That's good work.
03:51And on behalf of Dick Lugar and myself,
03:53it is my opportunity to welcome you
03:55to the Indiana Federal Procurement Conference,
03:59which I guess is just sort of a fancy phrase of
04:02how do you do business with the government.
04:05We're gratified that in the last couple years in particular
04:08that Indiana has continued to move up the ladder in defense procurement
04:13and defense spending that comes into the state.
04:16The state now ranks 15th.
04:17It's a lesson in building the modern defense consensus,
04:21creating support for a military budget of billions.
04:25You talk not of weapons, but of economics,
04:28and aim at an audience facing hard times.
04:31The unemployment picture isn't too bright.
04:36And you have some pretty large industries throughout the strait,
04:39especially in the northern part of Indiana.
04:42You know, our steel industry is hurting very badly.
04:47A lot of people coming here looking for, you know, for help.
04:51Actually, we're just looking for any business we can get from anywhere.
04:57It's practically a desperation situation.
05:00On behalf of Secretary Weinberg, I want to welcome you to this conference.
05:07Don't be scared off by the size of this group
05:10or the number of counselors in the far rooms.
05:14You have to sort of look at this whole thing, as I often call an elephant.
05:21And you've got to figure out how to eat this elephant.
05:23And you don't eat it all in one gobble.
05:25You know, you take it apart.
05:27You do it by pieces.
05:29And you sort of look around the room and try to determine
05:32who out there, who in that room buys what you produce today.
05:37And for many of you, it will be no one.
05:40But don't walk out yet.
05:41You know, just stop and think.
05:43Now, what are these folks buying that I could produce?
05:48That I could produce?
05:49You need special uniforms for your...
05:53We might help a lot of material, bandoliers, that kind of stuff.
05:57I can make them.
05:58These sales fairs feature corporate contractors
06:01as well as every agency in the government.
06:03The Air Force is over here.
06:05The Navy is here.
06:06The Army is right across...
06:07But you quickly discover it's the military who has the contracts.
06:10The rest are here for show.
06:13Her name is female.
06:17Well, that's all right.
06:18I can call you female as well.
06:19That doesn't make any difference.
06:22Well, I'll give her your name.
06:23Encountering Secretary Lehman is like encountering a sunny day in May.
06:45If optimism can fuel a fleet, Mr. Lehman will have them running at 40 knots in no time.
06:54So here is no time, 40 knots, Secretary of Navy John Lehman.
06:59Thanks, man.
07:00Every billion dollars of this defense spending generates 40,000 jobs in the area of its spending.
07:14For instance, the aircraft carriers in this year's 83 budget, 200 million dollars will go directly into Indiana in just the aircraft carrier program,
07:29which is representative of the broad range of our programs.
07:33This conference has two aspects.
07:36One is industrial companies that were in the forward portion of the conference, in another area of the conference, I should say, and the military portion.
07:47And I would say that all these information sheets or folders or directories or what have you are all from the military side, basically.
07:59And from the industrial side, I can reach in here.
08:09This is what I have from the industrial side.
08:12I'd like to think that I wouldn't politic for that aircraft carrier to be in existence solely for the reasons of my own pocket.
08:20But I doubt that I'm that pure.
08:23We've seen a lot of people that I think within the next year we're probably going to be doing business with them.
08:27At the end of this year, we're not going to have Jimmy Carter's 460-ship Navy.
08:32You're going to have 514 ships in the Navy.
08:37As of last May, you don't have Jimmy Carter's 12 aircraft carriers.
08:42You have 13, and you're going to have 15 by 1989.
08:46We will have 600 ships by 1989.
08:50That's not in the great by-and-by.
08:52It is happening now, which is to the benefit of every one of you, and I strongly exhort you to come and do business with us.
09:06We need you.
09:07Thank you very much.
09:19Even as the road show moves from town to town, using new money to lure new business,
09:24old businesses across the nation try to keep afloat.
09:27Here, in Morton, Pennsylvania, is the kind of company that makes up what the Pentagon calls its mobilization base.
09:35It's Lansdowne Steel and Iron, a company that would be called on to keep the production lines rolling in the event of a next war.
09:45Lansdowne is the Navy's only source of certain artillery shells, a sole supplier.
09:49The company depends on the military.
09:52It answers to the military.
09:53And now the only people left out are the workers.
09:56This is from one of the businesses that are supporting you.
09:59And don't forget this meeting on Sunday now.
10:02You're going to be there.
10:04Good.
10:04We're all going to be there.
10:05Come on.
10:06We're going to give them a fight.
10:07We want to know what's happening around here.
10:09The Pentagon has told Lansdowne to modernize and awarded $20 million in free equipment as incentive
10:15if the company moves to a new facility.
10:18And don't forget the meeting on Sunday now.
10:20Okay, thanks.
10:21We're going to be there.
10:22People fighting to keep their jobs is a story repeated across the country.
10:27But now there's a twist.
10:29A deep recession, combined with the largest weapons-buying budget ever in peacetime,
10:34gives the Pentagon enormous power to affect lives.
10:37You know, this company's been good to this area.
10:39And the people in this, you know, area's been good to the company.
10:43It just don't make no sense to me.
10:44What we say really won't matter because it's not going to get to them.
10:47They're not going to listen to us.
10:49They're going to move if they want to move.
10:51Whether, you know, we disagree or not.
10:54They blame the problem on the union.
10:55Why don't they take a look at themselves?
10:57And they got a lot of house cleaning to do.
10:59Because that place is downright dirty and disgusting and ridiculous.
11:03And we need the equipment that's out of this world.
11:05You got presses running down here since, you know, it's been built.
11:08Like, all right, the heat treat machine.
11:10It's a World War I model.
11:12You know?
11:13And here we are, you know, three, four generations later running the same machine.
11:17Unfortunately, it's a vicious cycle.
11:19They can't get the contracts until they have the machinery.
11:22And they have to have a facility for the machinery.
11:25We're at the bottom.
11:26We are at the bottom of the line.
11:28We're just, you know.
11:29Someone who agrees with the employees' complaints
11:31is the man who's been brought in to turn the company around.
11:35Lansdowne's new president is David Stevens.
11:37A bank will not talk to us.
11:40And I've talked to many banks.
11:42They will not talk to us.
11:44But what we have is we've got $3 million of equipment assets that we have now.
11:49The government's going to give us $20 million
11:50of the most modern equipment available from a Ford shop.
11:55Lansdowne was basically bankrupt
11:56when the military awarded its $20 million gift.
11:59Now, Stevens is trying to save the company
12:01by using Pentagon money as leverage to bargain with several communities.
12:06And that $20 million asset base for which we don't have to pay
12:11plus the $3 million we have
12:14gives us an effective asset base of $23 million
12:17for which we can produce revenue
12:20and eventually employ 500 people.
12:24But why did a bankrupt company receive such a generous gift?
12:27I don't think that the people who were in decision-making authority
12:34at the various agencies that we dealt with
12:37when we were applying for the modernization grant
12:43really did a very thorough job of looking at the company,
12:47its management, and its facilities, etc.
12:49The top people from a RADCOM,
12:52which is the research and development arm,
12:55facilities arm in Picatinny, New Jersey,
12:57and from the Rock Island facilities people in Illinois,
13:03never really visited the plant.
13:05Had anyone come, the problems would have been obvious.
13:09What is also obvious is that the deterioration here
13:12was allowed by Pentagon practice.
13:15Like 70% of the Pentagon's mobilization base,
13:18Lansdowne didn't have to compete for sole source contracts.
13:21It could fall apart without losing its customer.
13:25But in today's economy, even Lansdowne looks good
13:27from a distance.
13:30It looks great in Hawkins County, Tennessee,
13:33one of the communities bidding for Lansdowne's Pentagon dowry
13:36and its promise of jobs.
13:38Unemployment here is 11%,
13:40and the town is desperate for any work.
13:42I've been to every plant around here,
13:46every store like, you know,
13:49Kmart and big stores like that.
13:50I've been to places like that.
13:51There just ain't no work, no work.
13:54I mean, I just did four years in the service,
13:56and I was around a lot of it.
13:59Billy Austin questions the jobs Lansdowne might bring
14:02because of what he knows of other kinds of military work.
14:05But the way my brother talks and the control levels they have,
14:09I don't think I'd work there.
14:10I mean, I'd rather wax cars
14:14than live to be an old man
14:16and have grandkids, you know.
14:20Well, we're all for it.
14:22We think we've got a lot to offer us for us.
14:24You know, resources, we've got the climate,
14:27we've got the people to do the work here.
14:29We've got, you know, a good workforce here.
14:32All I know is there's been a defense industry
14:34in Hawkins County my whole lifetime,
14:36and it's never really fluctuated that much.
14:39They seem to be basically recession-proof.
14:41The wind is blowing before boom right now.
14:44I believe that we're on a defense budget increase right now,
14:50and I think that we in Hawkins County
14:52would like to get some of that,
14:53and we think we have facilities to provide
14:56what these defense industries need.
14:57What Hawkins County has to offer is here,
15:02a site built with $1 billion of taxpayers' money
15:05and abandoned when the Tennessee Valley Authority
15:08was forced to trim its nuclear plans.
15:11Now, TVA is spending millions more
15:13to find businesses who'll take the sites off their hands.
15:17It's taxpayers' money chasing Lansdowne's taxpayers' money,
15:21as everyone from the state to the county
15:23joins in offering the company a deal.
15:25I went up today with the state of Tennessee
15:27and TVA officials to make their proposals
15:31to the president of Lansdowne.
15:32It's what they could do to do something to come here.
15:36TVA gave their proposal.
15:37They offered them a 10-year lease
15:39at a rate of $1.90 per square foot.
15:44They offered them half a million dollars
15:45of interest-free loan money for three years.
15:48The state told them about the possibilities
15:50of grant monies and or loan
15:53of half a million dollars maximum.
15:56We offer them everything we have to offer them.
15:58Is there any further sweetening of the plot?
16:00Unless we pick up collections.
16:04It's a very severe gamble for communities,
16:08and you really are between a rock and a hard place.
16:12Back in Pennsylvania,
16:13Chris Vandervelde has the job
16:14of keeping Lansdowne in the county
16:16and offers this place,
16:17one of many empty factories in a troubled region.
16:21States used to fight over federal grants.
16:24Today, the coin of the realm is military money.
16:27With the present administration's drive
16:29to put so much money of the federal dollar
16:32out to the economy via the Defense Department,
16:35it's clear that people
16:37who are concerned about an economy in a given region
16:41or about their business in a given area
16:43have to make an effort to go after
16:45some of that defense spending.
16:47And we've been cutting out social programs
16:49and service sector programs
16:51and other things that the federal government
16:52spent money on.
16:54I don't think it was designed
16:55as a public works program,
16:56but in essence,
16:57it is the public works program.
16:59In an economy as flat as ours,
17:01the defense spending has the potential
17:04of being the pump priming
17:05that will turn that economy around
17:07and start it moving again.
17:081940s, 50s, and 60s were beautiful
17:11because there were always conflicts or wars.
17:14That's the way it always will be.
17:17They're sending troops over there.
17:20That's helping us out.
17:21Let them start something.
17:24You'll see.
17:24I'll be able to buy a house.
17:26If we don't make them,
17:27somebody else will eventually.
17:29I don't want to see anybody get hurt by them,
17:30but it's the only thing we've got to do.
17:33I know people who jump at the chance
17:35to go to work anywhere.
17:37They're just so hard up.
17:38They've got a lot of kids.
17:40They've got to raise,
17:40and they don't want to bring them up that way.
17:44I know people who just jump
17:46at the chance to work anywhere.
17:49I don't know.
17:50If time's got hard enough,
17:52and if I can't get into college,
17:53I might end up working there.
17:57They just can't say, like,
17:58hey, we're going to up and go,
17:59and that's going to be it.
18:02They've got to give us some notice.
18:03They're playing with our lives.
18:04I mean, they don't have to,
18:07but they're playing with our lives.
18:09They really are.
18:10They're just, you know,
18:12just tearing us apart.
18:13A company can affect the life
18:17of a community, too,
18:19and the smaller and poorer the place,
18:21the larger the impact.
18:23Raynell, West Virginia,
18:24once hosted a military contractor,
18:26a company whose jobs
18:27were at first welcomed,
18:28according to the state senator
18:30who was the landlord.
18:31Everybody around here,
18:32including myself,
18:33was so anxious to try
18:35to continue employment
18:36in this building
18:37and to keep people
18:39working around here,
18:40that we would have
18:41virtually taken anything,
18:42black, white, green, or yellow,
18:45you know.
18:45We would have tried it,
18:47and we was willing
18:48to try with them.
18:52The building housed
18:53not hardware or shells,
18:55but a sewing factory
18:56owned by two New York brothers,
18:58Carl and Howard Thier.
19:00It's visited only occasionally now
19:02by the man who kept
19:03the machines running
19:04when 150 women
19:05sewed military clothing here.
19:07As he and others tell it,
19:09the company's gone
19:10because of how the women
19:11were treated,
19:12low pay and arbitrary firings,
19:14replacing experienced sewers
19:15with beginners
19:16just for the money.
19:18Finally, things got so bad,
19:20many women took a step
19:21they'd never taken before,
19:23called for a union,
19:25and the owners tried
19:26everything in their power
19:27to make sure there'd be
19:28no union as long
19:30as they were here.
19:30I'll tell you what
19:31they done to me
19:32after they found out
19:33that I was for the union.
19:35and they would send me
19:38back repairs
19:39that I had to do
19:40that I know
19:41that they weren't mine.
19:43And they'd done
19:44a lot of the girls that way.
19:47And then they would
19:48give our work
19:50to other girls
19:52and give us something else.
19:53Of course,
19:54they tried to keep us
19:55from making any money.
19:56and they would talk.
20:00We had one bundle.
20:01Woman was awful hateful.
20:03She talked to us
20:04awful hateful.
20:07Would they sort of
20:08threaten you
20:08about your job
20:09and stuff like that?
20:10Well, yeah.
20:10They said if the union went in,
20:12we would be without a job.
20:15They, for instance,
20:15demanded at various times
20:18that we form a committee
20:20and try to get the employees
20:23to withdraw
20:23the union application,
20:25for instance.
20:25Well, that was bordering
20:27on criminal activity,
20:28great friend.
20:29There's laws against that
20:29in this country.
20:32In its moves to escape,
20:34the company was guilty
20:34of 16 different
20:35labor law violations.
20:37But the fears
20:38still couldn't have left
20:39without help
20:40from the Pentagon,
20:41who not only let them
20:42transfer their major contract,
20:44but also gave them
20:45the extra time
20:46to finish it.
20:47By the time a judge ruled
20:49the company's labor practices
20:50illegal,
20:51it was too late.
20:52They left.
20:53Contracts,
20:54jobs,
20:55and all.
20:56Taking them over the mountains
20:57to two communities
20:58hidden in the hollows
20:59of East Tennessee,
21:00to Huntsville,
21:01the hometown
21:02of the majority leader
21:03of the U.S. Senate,
21:04and 40 miles down the road
21:05to Clinton.
21:08They're both
21:08in a right-to-work state
21:09where there'd be
21:10less worry about unions,
21:12places that were happy
21:12to see the two brothers
21:13who came promising jobs.
21:16In Clinton,
21:17county bondholders
21:18were saddled
21:19with a million dollars
21:19in a building
21:20that had sat empty
21:21for three years.
21:22The Theers bought it
21:23for $325,000
21:24and opened Lancer.
21:26They were given
21:27a good deal
21:27in Huntsville, too,
21:29by desperate town leaders
21:30stuck with the building
21:31abandoned by
21:32the last contractor there
21:33who'd skipped town,
21:35leaving a pool
21:35of radioactive
21:36thorium waste behind
21:37for the town
21:38to clean up.
21:40The Theers took the offer,
21:42the companies now
21:42Tenere.
21:44The Pentagon contracts
21:45kept coming.
21:47In the last two years,
21:48Tenere has garnered
21:49$71 million worth,
21:51enough to make
21:52the company far and away
21:53the largest employer
21:54in the town.
21:55But how much of that money
21:57stays in the community?
21:58And given the company's record,
22:00what about the jobs?
22:02Questions were met
22:03with silence.
22:04The owners refused
22:05to talk.
22:06The workers were afraid to.
22:08The doors were closed
22:09until former Tenere employees
22:11explained what was happening.
22:12They've told people
22:13not to talk to you.
22:16And I'd say
22:17that they would get far.
22:18I don't know what you know
22:19that they would,
22:20but it's just common knowledge
22:22that they would.
22:23And I think they know
22:24that these people
22:24have to work
22:25and they know
22:26that they'll take
22:26whatever they do to them
22:27because of their jobs
22:29and because of the fact
22:30that they have to work
22:31and they can't find jobs
22:32anywhere else.
22:33I got three kids.
22:35And their daddy's not working
22:36and I'm not either.
22:37It's rough.
22:40I'd work anywhere right now.
22:41I'd dig ditch
22:42as long as I can pay for it.
22:49Although they are
22:50military contractors
22:51operating with taxpayers' money,
22:53these companies
22:54are no different
22:55than most apparel shops
22:56in the South.
22:57The women,
22:58as here at Lancer and Clinton,
23:00are paid minimum wage
23:01with the promise of more
23:02for every piece they sew
23:03above a daily production level.
23:05The women call that
23:06daily rate their production.
23:08It is their only hope
23:09for making any money at all.
23:11I had to walk like
23:12from here maybe
23:14to outside
23:14to carry my own work.
23:16And I had to put
23:17900 fronts
23:19and bags
23:19of sleeping bags together.
23:22And nobody
23:22that had had on that job
23:24before never got that much.
23:25Nobody never made
23:26the production.
23:28And I asked them,
23:29I said,
23:29would you get me
23:30a bundle person
23:31so they can carry my work?
23:32I said,
23:33I do believe
23:33I can get it then
23:34because I was already
23:35up to seven something.
23:38And he said,
23:38no.
23:40You can carry
23:40your own work
23:41and you can get 900 too.
23:44So they fire me.
23:46That's all.
23:47Just like that?
23:48Yeah.
23:49Even though you're qualified,
23:50you can,
23:50you're an experienced sewer,
23:52you can do more work,
23:53but you're never allowed
23:54to make more
23:55because they keep
23:56hacking the production.
23:58Each time you make it,
23:59they keep hacking it.
24:00Fixing it to where
24:01you can't make anything.
24:02When we were sewing the goose
24:10down in sleeping bags,
24:11you know,
24:12you could see the feathers
24:13flying around in the air.
24:15Like you could be
24:16sitting down
24:16in one end of the factory
24:17and you couldn't hardly
24:18see out the other.
24:19They had two commodes
24:20for all of those women
24:22and most of the time
24:23when you used the commode,
24:25you flushed,
24:25it hit,
24:26it would,
24:26the water would back up
24:27and come up
24:27through the water fountain.
24:29It'd come up
24:29into the water fountain
24:30and it would overflow,
24:33run out in the floor
24:34and there was times
24:34when you would go out there
24:35and maybe go a whole day
24:37that you couldn't even
24:38use the bathroom
24:38because it was out of order.
24:39The fears are supposed
24:44to obey all regulations
24:46but the endless contracts
24:48seem to give management
24:49the power to run
24:50their businesses
24:50the way they choose.
24:52In government work,
24:53you're supposed to use
24:54like certain types of thread.
24:57They would put different
24:58types of thread on it
24:59and when Clyde,
25:00he used to be the inspector,
25:01he'd come around
25:02and they've had us
25:03to cut our thread
25:04off the machine
25:05and set it down
25:06on the floor
25:07and just set it
25:09our machines
25:09like where he was working.
25:11When Clyde would come in,
25:12you know,
25:13he'd have to
25:13choose his own box
25:16and when he'd look,
25:18well, he'd get it
25:20and they'd take it
25:20to this little room
25:21and a certain party
25:24would take him
25:25for a coffee break
25:26and they'd just
25:27switch boxes.
25:28I'm sorry,
25:29I have to watch that.
25:31I don't think of that.
25:32They made sure
25:32he got good bags
25:34to inspect.
25:35He just inspects
25:37so many,
25:37I think it was.
25:39So they'd switch boxes?
25:40Yeah.
25:41They'd switch the bags.
25:42It would be the same box
25:43because he'd pick it
25:44like the numbers were on it.
25:45They would just put
25:46different bags
25:46and if the good bags
25:47they would replace it.
25:51So the workers
25:51were being told
25:52to do this?
25:53Yeah.
25:54Around here,
25:55there's just not
25:55all that much work
25:56for women.
25:58And so you either,
25:59if you need to work,
26:00you'll keep your mouth shut
26:01and sit there and work.
26:02Pentagon contracts
26:07for clothing
26:08are awarded here
26:09by one of 5,000 employees.
26:12They choose among
26:13a steady stream
26:14of would-be contractors
26:15who come seeking
26:16their share
26:17of $1.4 billion
26:18in textile orders.
26:20The man who's
26:21repeatedly greeted
26:22the Thier brothers
26:23with contracts
26:23over the years
26:24approving their work
26:25is Bernard Johns.
26:27We asked Johns
26:28about the alleged
26:29tricking of the Pentagon's
26:30inspector at Tenere.
26:33That's a pretty
26:34strong allegation
26:35and in all honesty
26:36I have not heard
26:37any complaints
26:39of that nature
26:39or I haven't received
26:41any information
26:41of that nature
26:42that it's definitely
26:44illegal
26:45under the terms
26:46of the contract.
26:49Clothing and food
26:50and medicine
26:50and a thousand
26:51other items
26:52contracted for the military
26:53end up in one
26:55of the 41 Pentagon
26:56warehouses
26:56across the country
26:57waiting.
27:00Many of the boxes
27:01that arrive here
27:02bear a Thier company
27:03name.
27:05In 1980
27:05the output
27:06of all their factories
27:07made them the military's
27:09second largest
27:09clothing contractor.
27:13By the time
27:14the boxes get here
27:14the goods inside
27:16have passed inspection
27:17at the plant.
27:20Tenere has just
27:20delivered $14 million
27:21worth of sleeping bags
27:23and seeing the boxes
27:25raises inevitable
27:26questions.
27:27What's the quality
27:28of the goods inside?
27:29What has the taxpayer
27:30bought?
27:33A partial answer
27:34comes from a random
27:35inspection here
27:36at the end of the line
27:37and as Bernard Johns
27:39admits
27:3915,000 sleeping bags
27:42from Tenere
27:42more than 20%
27:43of the contract
27:44were rejected
27:45for open scenes.
27:47It's the kind of thing
27:48that can happen
27:49when a woman tries
27:50to sew 900 fronts
27:51and backs
27:52in a day.
27:53But because they
27:56passed the other
27:57inspection
27:58inside the factory
27:59the company
28:00will pay no fine
28:01or penalty
28:01for these bags.
28:03It is not the first
28:04time there's been
28:05a problem
28:05from one of these
28:06companies
28:06as the Pentagon's
28:08own internal papers
28:09prove.
28:09A lot of the documents
28:12that I have seen
28:13the correspondence
28:14from here
28:15cite things like
28:17questionable integrity
28:18borderline performance
28:20at best
28:20no apparent production
28:23controls
28:23and guarantees
28:24does that fit
28:25with your knowledge
28:26of it?
28:28I'd have to say yes
28:30but I'd have to
28:32I guess condition
28:34my answer
28:34by saying that
28:36for firms
28:37that routinely
28:38deal in military
28:40clothing and textile
28:41contracts
28:42it is not
28:44atypical for them
28:45to run into
28:46a cycle
28:48where everything
28:49goes wrong.
28:50They more or less
28:51have peaks and valleys
28:53in their performance
28:54records
28:54because if they run
28:57into a production
28:58problem
28:58on one particular
28:59contract
28:59it may impact
29:00three or four
29:01that are waiting
29:02behind to go
29:03onto that one
29:03particular production
29:04line.
29:06Generally
29:09on an overall
29:11performance basis
29:12I'd have to say
29:13that these companies
29:14that we're discussing
29:16Tenere, Lancer
29:18and Greenberg
29:18have a satisfactory
29:21record of performance.
29:25Requests to interview
29:27the fears
29:27to hear their answers
29:28to the charges
29:29their side of the story
29:30were refused.
29:33The companies
29:34are part of what's
29:35been called
29:35the Pentagon's
29:36here-to-eternity
29:37gravy train.
29:38They have a customer
29:39who at the least
29:40tolerates
29:41and at best
29:42rewards them
29:42for behavior
29:43which could put
29:44a commercial producer
29:45out of business.
29:46It's a customer
29:47who insulates them
29:48too
29:48leaving them free
29:50to wield the power
29:51of their contracts
29:51as they wish.
29:54A few weeks ago
29:55Tenere was awarded
29:56its largest contract
29:57ever
29:58a contract
29:59for 400,000
30:00new sleeping bags
30:01worth 31 million dollars.
30:03The administration
30:10wants a military budget
30:12that totals
30:121.6 trillion dollars
30:14over five years.
30:17Not counting Sundays
30:18that's a billion dollars
30:20a day
30:20pouring into the economy.
30:23Pouring into places
30:24you'd least expect.
30:25It's many millions
30:31of dollars
30:31in contracts
30:32to buy donuts
30:33for army bases.
30:37It's hundreds
30:38of millions
30:39to develop lasers
30:40and robots.
30:44It's even
30:4455 million dollars
30:46in federal penitentiaries
30:47where prisoners
30:48do the military's work.
30:49It's money
31:00that involves
31:01people
31:01in every nook
31:02and cranny
31:03of the economy.
31:03If you count
31:19everyone with a stake
31:20it's a military
31:21industrial complex
31:22that seems
31:23infinitely extendable.
31:24It extends
31:31to industries
31:32like those
31:33along the highway
31:33outside Boston
31:34known as
31:35the economic miracle
31:36of Route 128.
31:39They're a miracle
31:39of high tech
31:40hype
31:41and hope
31:41for an electronic
31:43future based
31:43on silicon chips.
31:45But the recession
31:46has hit the electronics
31:47industry too
31:48so that now
31:49when it must develop
31:50the next generation
31:51of computers
31:52and chips
31:52to stay ahead
31:53it's not only
31:54starved for capital
31:55but for the talent
31:56to do so.
31:58For Route 128
31:59extends beyond
32:00the highway
32:00which defines it.
32:02It depends on
32:02universities
32:03to train its
32:03scientists
32:04and engineers.
32:05In all this
32:06the military assumes
32:08an increasing role.
32:09Pentagon support
32:10of university research
32:11grew by 42%
32:13in the last two years.
32:15Electronics
32:15is the fastest
32:16growing item
32:17in the budget.
32:18At MIT
32:19as elsewhere
32:20the graduates
32:20aren't drafted
32:21they're hired.
32:22things are happening
32:24here
32:24both on
32:25and off
32:25the job.
32:40Defense contractors
32:41can swamp the competition
32:42as they court
32:43the university's
32:44young scientists
32:45and engineers.
32:46Military money
32:47lets them pay
32:48what it takes
32:49bidding up the price
32:50for almost everything
32:51including human resources.
32:54Even though
32:54what's advertised
32:55about the jobs
32:56doesn't much resemble
32:57one's notion
32:58of weapons research.
33:03In a climate ideal
33:04for work
33:05and play
33:06the opportunities
33:07for an exciting
33:08and rewarding future
33:10are all around
33:11at TRW.
33:13already
33:18the salaries
33:19of at least
33:19a third
33:20of the nation's
33:20scientists
33:21are paid
33:21by the military.
33:23Representing TRW
33:24incorporated
33:25but
33:25electronics
33:26and defense
33:27is the area
33:27of the company
33:28that we'll be
33:28concentrating on most.
33:30NTRW
33:30is typical.
33:32Military electronics
33:33is what's growing.
33:34That's where they'll put
33:35many of those
33:36they recruit.
33:36kinds of communications
33:37for all services.
33:38Most people have
33:39advanced degrees.
33:39It varies a lot
33:41on the area.
33:42In my department
33:4390% have advanced degrees.
33:46In my position
33:47it's sort of difficult
33:48to find jobs
33:49that aren't really
33:50defense related
33:50because
33:51it's almost
33:54non-existent
33:54at least in computer science
33:56and electrical engineering.
33:57I'd say
33:57out of 10 people
33:58going to work
33:597 would end up
34:01on military projects.
34:0370%
34:03I would guess.
34:04maybe higher.
34:07A lot of people
34:07call it baby killing
34:08around here.
34:09It's looked on
34:10with some
34:11level of dismay.
34:15And originally
34:16I remember
34:17when I was
34:17leaving high school
34:18I was telling
34:18my girlfriend
34:19at that point
34:19that I wasn't
34:20that I would not
34:21do that kind of work
34:24that it
34:24it's not the kind
34:24of thing
34:25I was interested in
34:25because it's
34:26you know
34:27it's end result
34:29is death
34:29and destruction.
34:30If you don't
34:31want to work
34:32on military systems
34:33there are some
34:34commercial ones
34:34available
34:35there are some
34:35NASA projects
34:36available
34:36but they aren't
34:38that exciting
34:38necessarily
34:39that exciting
34:40of work
34:40it's not
34:40that technically
34:41challenging.
34:42You're forced
34:42in certain
34:43circumstances
34:43to make
34:44you know
34:45choices
34:46between
34:46you know
34:47a career
34:48in things
34:50that you're
34:50interested in
34:50and
34:51the applications
34:52to which
34:52those
34:53the work
34:55that you're
34:55doing
34:55is put.
34:59That there's
34:59lots of military
35:00money pouring
35:01into the industry
35:02now
35:02guiding those
35:03individual choices
35:04worries companies
35:05like Analog
35:06that are
35:07dependent on
35:07the commercial
35:08marketplace
35:08to thrive.
35:10Analog's founder
35:11is Ray Stata.
35:12We're in competition
35:13on two fronts.
35:15We're competing
35:15with the Russians
35:16militarily
35:17and we're competing
35:17with the Japanese
35:18in an economic
35:20and commercial sense
35:21but as we're
35:22talking about here
35:23we're using the
35:23same troops
35:24namely our
35:25engineering workforce.
35:26there's only so
35:28many resources
35:28and they're either
35:29going to develop
35:29the computer products
35:30to compete
35:31with the Japanese
35:31or they're going
35:32to develop them
35:32to go into
35:33military applications
35:34and I think
35:35that we're going
35:36to hit that
35:36dilemma
35:37and that trade-off
35:38hit on
35:39over the next
35:40several years.
35:41The problem
35:41is that so many
35:42resources
35:43over the next
35:44five, six,
35:46seven years
35:46are slated
35:47to go into
35:48military procurement,
35:50military R&D,
35:51military personnel
35:52in this country
35:53just at a time
35:55when our economy
35:56is sputtering.
35:57Robert Reich
35:58is a Boston economist
35:59who recognizes
36:00high tech
36:01is crucial
36:01to our industrial future.
36:03We do need
36:04a new burst
36:05of capital.
36:07We do need
36:08to worry
36:09about human capital,
36:10education and training.
36:11We need to worry
36:12about marketing
36:13and competition
36:13if we're going
36:14to regain
36:14our competitive
36:15strengths,
36:16if we're going
36:16to regain
36:16our momentum.
36:18But with all
36:19these resources
36:19going into
36:20military procurings,
36:22and military R&D
36:23and military personnel,
36:25we're simply
36:25not going to have
36:26the resources
36:27we need
36:28to build up
36:28the commercial
36:29side of America.
36:37An integrated circuit
36:39that can operate
36:40at unimaginable speeds
36:41is the key
36:42to automating war.
36:47Automatic electronic war
36:48is one the Pentagon
36:49plans for.
36:52A war with threats
36:54too swift
36:55for human reaction
36:56and control.
36:59The military
37:00wants a highly
37:01sophisticated
37:02computer chip
37:03to keep weapons
37:04firing and orders
37:05flowing even
37:06after a nuclear blast.
37:09A chip so hardened
37:10it will survive
37:11the heat
37:12and radiation.
37:15So they have funded
37:16an ambitious program.
37:17It would direct
37:18the new generation
37:19of computers
37:20and chips
37:20in this country
37:21towards military
37:22rather than
37:23commercial goals.
37:32The military's
37:33program is called
37:34VISIC
37:34V-H-S-I-C
37:36for Very High Speed
37:37Integrated Circuit.
37:39The millions
37:39in capital
37:40offered companies
37:40who sign up
37:41makes for long
37:42discussions
37:42and difficult decisions
37:44even at Analog.
37:45The third largest
37:46customer asked us
37:47what we're doing
37:48about VISIC
37:48and would we like
37:49to do something.
37:50I'd be a little bit
37:51afraid of all
37:52of our military
37:53customers starting
37:54to think twice
37:55about the seriousness
37:56of our dedication
37:57to that segment
37:57of the marketplace
37:58if we weren't
37:59participating
38:00in some form
38:01of the VISIC
38:01program.
38:02Bringing more
38:02electronic sophistication
38:04into these weapons
38:05is creating
38:06ripe opportunities
38:07for the application
38:08of our kind
38:09of technology.
38:10We have to have
38:11special classification
38:13or secret areas
38:14and that sort
38:14of thing.
38:15But what's classified
38:16the amount
38:16of rigmarole
38:17we have to go
38:18through is unbelievable
38:18and it's not clear
38:20it's ever worth it.
38:21Their dilemma lies
38:22in the difference
38:22between military
38:23and commercial work.
38:25The Pentagon
38:25imposes strict secrecy
38:27on research
38:28from the campus
38:28to the company lab
38:30and requires
38:31specialized systems
38:32too elaborate
38:33for commercial production.
38:34Relative to all
38:35the other things
38:36we're working on
38:36do we want
38:37to do it like that
38:38or do we want
38:38to develop
38:39fundamental technology
38:40for the commercial
38:40marketplace
38:41and if the military
38:42uses it that's fine.
38:44It's not just
38:44a difference in goals
38:45but a different
38:46way of doing business.
38:48Military products
38:49don't have to compete
38:50in price
38:50so there are no
38:51incentives for a company
38:52to remain efficient
38:53to turn discoveries
38:55into commercially
38:55viable products.
38:57That's perhaps
38:57the biggest concern
38:59for a company
38:59engaged in global
39:01economic competition.
39:02What they're really
39:03saying is that
39:04we can't afford
39:04to do this ourselves
39:05by the government
39:06and we want
39:07your precious resources
39:08and your management
39:09to do it.
39:09We don't have any
39:10people who work
39:11for us to do it.
39:12That's right.
39:12And the government
39:13is looking for us
39:13to divert a larger
39:15proportion of our
39:16resources to their
39:17kinds of problems
39:18as opposed to those
39:20areas that in the
39:20short term serve
39:21the commercial base.
39:22The reality companies
39:24like Analog Face
39:25is a serious
39:26competitive threat
39:27from the Japanese
39:28because Japan's
39:29government is
39:30subsidizing its next
39:31step in electronics.
39:33Japan funnels money
39:35to high tech
39:36to high tech
39:36through its
39:36ministry of trade
39:37and aims for
39:38commercial domination.
39:40We funnel just
39:41as much money
39:42through the Pentagon
39:42and aim for
39:43military might.
39:45It's a choice
39:46that leaves those
39:47who stay out of
39:47VISIC like Analog
39:49short of capital.
39:50We've seen it
39:51happen with the
39:52hi-fi equipment
39:53with the pocket
39:55calculators.
39:57We've seen that
39:58the Japanese can
39:59in fact be very
40:00competitive in the
40:00world markets
40:01where they can
40:02take business
40:03away from us
40:04and certainly
40:06this will happen
40:08if we don't even
40:09have any products
40:10to compete with.
40:11It takes engineers
40:12to develop products
40:13and if the engineers
40:14aren't working
40:14on those products
40:15and the Japanese
40:16are, well then
40:17it's predictable
40:17that they will be
40:19selling the computers
40:20to our companies
40:21rather than
40:21our selling the
40:22computers to
40:23their companies.
40:24The real growth
40:25in the future
40:26is not going to be
40:26in military sales.
40:28It's going to be
40:29in commercial sales.
40:30Those are the
40:31markets in the
40:32world that we
40:33need to be
40:33concerned about
40:34and those are
40:34the markets
40:35that will make
40:36or break
40:36our national
40:37economy.
40:38In 1983,
40:40the military
40:40is our fastest
40:41growing manufacturing
40:42sector and
40:44inside the Pentagon
40:45there is concern
40:46over our
40:46industrial capabilities.
40:48A concern
40:49addressed at a
40:50recent meeting
40:50of military brass
40:52and prime
40:52contractors called
40:53the Manufacturing
40:54Technology Advisory
40:55Group.
40:56The meeting
40:57was opened
40:57by Air Force
40:58General Bernard
40:59Weiss.
41:00I believe
41:00that one
41:01of the most
41:01important factors
41:02that have allowed
41:04the Japanese
41:04to achieve
41:05the productivity
41:06and quality
41:07increases that
41:07they've had
41:08is the MDI,
41:10the Ministry
41:11of Industry
41:12and Trade.
41:13To me,
41:14I look upon
41:15all of us
41:15here today
41:16and your
41:16organizations
41:17that you work
41:18for as the MDI
41:20that will take
41:21the United States
41:22out of the
41:23position it's in
41:24today in productivity
41:25and quality
41:25and move it
41:26back to being
41:27preeminent in
41:28this world
41:28that we live
41:29in.
41:31If one
41:32expected at this
41:33meeting of
41:33military men
41:34to hear talk
41:35of weapons
41:36and the
41:36Soviet threat,
41:37what was
41:38overheard instead
41:39was talk of
41:40economic planning
41:40and the
41:41Japanese,
41:42a central fact
41:44about our
41:44modern Pentagon
41:45Incorporated
41:46becomes clear.
41:47Together,
41:48these men
41:48view themselves
41:49as our equivalent
41:50of Japan's
41:51MDI,
41:52setting the
41:52direction for
41:53our industrial
41:53future.
41:55They make up
41:56an economic
41:57apparatus every
41:58bit as rich
41:59and elaborate
41:59as MDI,
42:00but it is the
42:01military here
42:02controlling the
42:02money,
42:03and the goals
42:04are set by
42:04military men.
42:06General Scance
42:06is a command
42:07pilot.
42:08He wears a
42:09senior missile
42:10man badge.
42:11He has a
42:12distinguished
42:12service medal,
42:14the Legion of
42:15Merit,
42:15and many other
42:16noteworthy awards.
42:18He has a
42:18very, very
42:19charming wife,
42:20and if you
42:20ever met
42:20her,
42:21Pat,
42:21and she
42:21can't be
42:22with us
42:22today,
42:22from Birmingham,
42:24Alabama,
42:24lovely three
42:25children,
42:26I can't
42:27introduce a
42:28man who
42:28is more
42:29an advocate
42:29of manufacturing
42:31technology
42:31and tech
42:33mod and
42:33business
42:34relationships
42:34than the
42:35man I'm
42:36about to
42:36introduce,
42:37General
42:37Larry Scance.
42:38Larry?
42:42All the
42:43armed services
42:43are here,
42:44but the
42:45Air Force
42:45has taken
42:45the lead.
42:47The head
42:47of its
42:47manufacturing
42:48command,
42:49General Scance,
42:49faces an
42:50audience of
42:51contractors,
42:52Westinghouse
42:53and Rockwell,
42:54Boeing and
42:54Alcoa,
42:55General Electric,
42:56Grumman,
42:56Goodyear,
42:57telling them
42:58what their
42:58factories will
42:59look like.
43:00Since our
43:00warfighting
43:01equipment comes
43:02from the
43:02industrial base,
43:03the condition
43:04within that
43:05base must be
43:06addressed and
43:07corrected.
43:08We now have
43:09an effort
43:10underway to
43:11provide a
43:11planning system
43:12that will
43:12guide our
43:13industrial base
43:14investments and
43:15will eventually
43:15integrate technology
43:17opportunity and
43:19business investment
43:20planning.
43:21It is a
43:22top-down
43:22approach we
43:23call industrial
43:24base planning.
43:26We plan to
43:26maximize application
43:28of mechanization
43:29and automation,
43:30and we plan a
43:31paper-free factory
43:32with planning,
43:33scheduling,
43:33and control by
43:35the latest
43:35computer hardware
43:36and software
43:37techniques.
43:38We thus expect
43:39the factory that
43:40can perform at
43:41least one full
43:42shift per day
43:43unmanned.
43:50A workerless
43:51factory raises
43:52questions about
43:53the future of
43:53work in this
43:54country.
43:58It means taking
43:59into account much
44:00more than costs
44:01and benefits on
44:02any one factory
44:02floor.
44:05But though there
44:06was much talk
44:07of the technicalities,
44:09there was little
44:10said of such
44:10social complexity
44:11among all the
44:12men gathered here.
44:19At most of
44:20these meetings,
44:21the social
44:22questions are
44:22ignored, and
44:24even the dollar
44:24value attached
44:27to the social
44:28question is
44:28ignored.
44:31Ryan Moriarty
44:32directs industrial
44:33automation experiments
44:34at a Massachusetts
44:35research lab, a
44:37lab with 90%
44:38funding from the
44:39Pentagon.
44:40He was one of
44:40the few who
44:41questioned the
44:42larger implications
44:43of his work.
44:44I guess we're
44:45basically engineers,
44:46and as engineers,
44:47we deal with
44:48engineering problems.
44:49We're not social
44:50scientists, and we
44:51don't see ourselves
44:52like that.
44:53And we're probably
44:53very uncomfortable
44:54in dealing with
44:55social issues, in
44:57dealing with the
44:57idea of workers
44:58being displaced.
44:59We don't like to
45:00think about families
45:01on welfare, that
45:02kind of thing.
45:03The factory worker, as
45:06we know it, in our
45:08highly automated,
45:10highly sophisticated
45:12production lines, won't
45:14be there anymore.
45:15You can't have a
45:17first-rate defense if
45:19you've got a second-rate
45:20economy.
45:21The thing that you
45:22have to start doing as
45:23you define better the
45:24factory of the future
45:25is taking children out
45:27of high school and
45:28ensuring that they
45:29move into the skill
45:29areas that support the
45:31factory of the future.
45:32If we're going to
45:32plan to be highly
45:34productive, that is
45:35the goal that we
45:36should seek.
45:38And it, in my
45:40opinion, is a
45:40concern that only the
45:42Defense Department is
45:43basically into
45:45increasing productivity.
45:47The issue is
45:48critical.
45:49The issue is, are we
45:50willing to accept the
45:51erosion of the United
45:53States as a world
45:54economic power, or are
45:55we going to support the
45:56United States to be a
45:57major world power in
45:59year 2000 and beyond?
46:02It's a question of
46:08who controls the
46:09resources, who makes
46:11the decisions, and how
46:15we ought to measure who
46:16gains and who loses.
46:19every dollar that goes to
46:25the Pentagon, 238 billion
46:27for this year alone, must
46:29be approved here by those
46:30who represent us all.
46:32But as is often the case
46:34on Capitol Hill, when the
46:35key Senate committee meets
46:36to consider this year's
46:37military budget, it is the
46:39powerful who are heeded,
46:41the Pentagon, its
46:42contractors, and the
46:44lobbyists.
46:44The budget to be
46:47considered here represents
46:48thousands of deals and
46:49decisions, deals and
46:51decisions made before
46:52they're ever presented to
46:53the Congress.
46:55Decisions to buy one and a
46:57half billion dollars in
46:58clothing, to increase
46:59money for Visek, and to
47:00develop robots, to spend
47:0229 billion in high tech.
47:04You will hear no mention
47:06of those decisions here.
47:08It is also a budget that
47:10will make down payments on
47:11scores of weapon systems,
47:12on the theory that once
47:14underway, any weapon is
47:15virtually impossible to
47:17stop.
47:18When yet another
47:19congressional district has
47:20a stake in a military
47:21contract, so does its
47:23congressmen.
47:24So, even though this is
47:26supposedly a meeting to
47:27cut eight billion off what
47:28the Pentagon wants, you
47:29will hear little of
47:30cutting either.
47:31Instead, you hear motion
47:32after motion to put
47:34money back for a
47:35particular item contracted
47:36in the state of a
47:37particular senator.
47:39Senator, you want to
47:39make a vote for your
47:40score that could be
47:41$113 million and make
47:44it the authorized level?
47:45I would like to bring
47:46it back to the
47:46U.S.
47:46court.
47:47That would make it
47:4927 aircraft rather than
47:5124.
47:53They buy weapons that
47:54placate corporate
47:54contractors and their
47:56grassroots dependencies.
47:58Pork barrel politics
48:00plays into the Pentagon's
48:01hands.
48:02As a shifting coalition of
48:03congressmen and
48:03constituencies put one
48:05weapon after another over
48:06the top.
48:07And make a note that
48:08we've got to find $113
48:10million.
48:11It's rarely a debate of
48:12liberal versus conservative
48:13or guns versus butter.
48:15Instead, it's guns versus
48:17guns.
48:17In whose district?
48:20When Weicker of
48:20Connecticut gets what he
48:21wants, there's no need to
48:23stay around.
48:24It has a much greater lift
48:26capacity.
48:27It will lift 24...
48:29Johnston of Louisiana
48:30pushes for a helicopter
48:31advertised in its promotional
48:33brochure as perfect for the
48:35offshore oil industry, like
48:37the one in his state.
48:38You're on JVX, right?
48:39Yeah.
48:40And all I want to do is go
48:41off to the front.
48:41You're on JVX, right?
48:41But the helicopter's funding is
48:51already taken care of, even
48:53though Johnston missed it.
48:55That's in there.
48:56Okay.
48:56Mr. Chairman...
48:58Across the Capitol, in the
49:00House, pork-barrel politics is
49:02carried to its extreme.
49:04The proposed amendment directs
49:06the Pentagon to spend money for
49:08items like clothing in
49:09communities with the highest
49:10unemployment.
49:12Though couched in terms of
49:13national defense, it's a fight
49:15between Frostbelt and Sunbelt.
49:17Who gets the dollars the
49:18government spends?
49:19We can never have a truly strong
49:21defense if significant areas of
49:23the country are afflicted with
49:25idle workers and machinery.
49:28It's a debate that accepts the
49:29notion of the military budget as
49:31our most important economic tool,
49:34a notion upheld by many who are
49:36otherwise known as critics of the
49:37Pentagon.
49:39I think that we're going to see a
49:42change in this Congress if we're
49:43not going to spread the defense
49:44spending around this country.
49:46Detroit, Michigan, they have the
49:50experience, they have the know-how.
49:52In the Second World War, all of you
49:54know that Detroit was called the
49:56arsenal of democracy.
49:57If we allow the automotive
49:59industries and related industries,
50:01whether they be metal, rubber, and
50:02countless other industries, to go
50:04under, we're going to weaken this
50:06country industrially, and if we do
50:07that, therefore, we've weakened this
50:08country militarily.
50:10If we are going to make a social
50:12program out of military purchases,
50:15we should transfer it out of the
50:17defense budget and put it into the
50:19social welfare budget.
50:21Our own Secretary of the Navy told
50:24the Maryland delegation that if we
50:26don't support this defense budget,
50:29then my shipyard workers better learn
50:31to whistle Dixie because that's the
50:33only place the contracts are big.
50:35I think what we're talking about is
50:36equity, fairness, saving our
50:39industrial base, sharing the wealth
50:41of one of the largest public works
50:42programs that this country is
50:43embarking upon, that of national
50:45defense.
50:45The Congress examines barely 15% of
50:54the items proposed in any one
50:56Pentagon budget, and argues about
50:58even less.
50:59In fact, the budget considered today
51:02is not just money for one year, but
51:05obligations for years to come,
51:07obligations that will put 40% of the
51:09military spending beyond congressional
51:11control.
51:12The Senator's amendment passes 8 to 7.
51:14Do you want to talk on the MX?
51:16Have y'all got that information?
51:17Wait a minute, I didn't vote myself.
51:18It's 8 to 8.
51:23Their choreography of cooperation
51:25makes for uncritical funding of
51:27virtually every weapon or program
51:29proposed.
51:30And when there is a criticism that too
51:32much cutting is going on, the
51:34chairman makes clear what budget
51:36cutting is all about.
51:37Again, we were cutting increase rate
51:40of growth.
51:41The attack helicopter, the increase
51:43over 82, all of these figures
51:45increase over 82.
51:46Attack helicopters up 322.6 million.
51:50The Patriots up 17.3 million.
51:52There are some questions that should
51:54be asked.
51:55Do we want the Pentagon to be our
51:57national public works program?
51:59Two missiles, 176.5 million.
52:01Should the Pentagon be our central
52:03economic planner?
52:04Do we or the Congress have a way
52:07of choosing?
52:08Do we any longer have a choice?
52:10The AV-8B is 204 million.
52:12The F-18 fighters, 407 million.
52:15Increased over 82.
52:17The East-2C is 82 million.
52:20Aircraft modifications for the Navy,
52:22260 million.
52:23The Phoenix missile, 51 million.
52:25The missile mods for the Navy,
52:26453 million.
52:28The two carriers, an increase in the Navy
52:30of 6.8 billion.
52:33613 million for the KC tanker.
52:36Aircraft modifications for the airport,
52:38333 million.
52:39MX funding is up to 447 million.
52:43Political assistance is up to 41 million.
52:45We end this report with questions.
52:55And we end this report in Congress,
52:57where those questions about the Pentagon's
52:59role in our society finally must be addressed.
53:02For instance, only a few weeks ago,
53:04a heated exchange between Defense Secretary
53:06Casper Weinberger and Senator Donald Riegel
53:09from Michigan.
53:10By your really fanatical insistence
53:13on defense increases that are larger than needed,
53:17larger than we can afford,
53:19I believe that you're damaging
53:21our national security.
53:22Well, Senator, I have to say I think...
53:24I thank your pardon, sir.
53:25I did not interrupt you.
53:27I did not interrupt you.
53:28And when I finish, when I finish,
53:30I have the floor.
53:31I want to tell you that I think
53:32everything you've said is both insulting and wrong.
53:34I wonder if your people in Michigan
53:36with whom you've talked know that
53:37if you're going to impose the kinds of cuts
53:39you're talking about,
53:41you will lose something in the neighborhood
53:42of 154,000 jobs in your state.
53:45And I wonder how that's...
53:46How was Defense Secretary Weinberger's challenge answered?
53:49Senator Riegel is in our Washington studios.
53:52Senator, how did you answer Secretary Weinberger
53:54about tying jobs to cuts in defense?
53:57Well, first of all, in the state of Michigan today,
53:59we have over 750,000 people
54:01who are unemployed looking for work.
54:03So defense spending as such
54:05is not the answer in our state
54:07or in any of the 50 states.
54:09As a matter of fact,
54:09if you look at a study of how jobs are created,
54:13defense spending actually creates fewer jobs
54:15than almost any other way you can spend money,
54:17including leaving the money in the private economy
54:20where it's available for just its normal uses.
54:23But Pentagon sources tell us
54:24that for every $1 billion cut in defense,
54:2735,000 jobs are lost.
54:29That seems to be a powerful argument.
54:31Well, not really,
54:32because you're taking that billion dollars
54:34out of other uses.
54:35For example, the private sector today,
54:37interest rates are very high, as you know,
54:39and that's caused a lot of the unemployment.
54:41So there are enormous distortions in the economy today
54:44because of the rapid buildup
54:46in defense spending increases.
54:48And it's not so much a matter
54:49of not having some level of increase,
54:52but this administration wants to increase
54:53at about 9, 10 percent
54:55in terms of real growth in defense spending,
54:57and that is really more than we need
54:59and more than we can afford.
55:01Can we really decrease
55:01the general overall economic dependence
55:04on military spending?
55:05Yes, and I think we should.
55:07As a matter of fact,
55:08President Eisenhower,
55:09who was probably one of our outstanding military leaders
55:11in this century warned against
55:13the military-industrial complex
55:15and about it becoming so dominant
55:17in terms of its effect on our economy
55:19that it could distort and hurt us in other ways.
55:22And I think that's now beginning to happen.
55:24We need a strong defense,
55:25but this group is going overboard,
55:27and we're going to have to scale down
55:29those increases to a more reasonable level
55:31so that the economy as a whole is more healthy,
55:34and that's very badly needed.
55:36And this is going to be talked about
55:37more in Congress, I'm sure.
55:38Well, yes, it is,
55:40although I think you'll find
55:41that there will be some, in effect,
55:43threats made by Secretary Weinberger
55:44to maybe withdraw contracts
55:46from a certain area, a certain state,
55:48if people are not willing
55:49to just blindly accept
55:50these massive increases.
55:52I hope that Congress will have
55:53the strength to stand up to that.
55:55Senator Regal, thank you very much.
55:57And that is our report for this week.
55:59Next week, on Frontline,
56:01the debate which is uniquely
56:03the American debate, guns.
56:05Do they stand for the best
56:07or the worst of our society?
56:08This man made a choice.
56:14He's a crime victim.
56:16He's taking a gun course.
56:18This is his stress level,
56:20his reflexes.
56:23But is he catering to fear?
56:26Are these people contributing
56:27to more violence?
56:29Or do they represent
56:30what America is all about?
56:33What is your opinion on guns?
56:35Watch this program.
56:36It may change your mind.
56:38Gunfight, USA.
56:40It is next week on Frontline.
56:43I'm Jessica Savage.
56:44I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:47I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:49I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:50I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:51I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:52I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:53I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:54I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:55I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:56I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:57I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:58I'll see you next week on Frontline.
56:59I'll see you next week on Frontline.
57:00I'll see you next week on Frontline.
57:01I'll see you next week on Frontline.
57:02I'll see you next week on Frontline.
57:03¶¶
57:33For a transcript of this program, please send $4 to Frontline, Box 322, Boston, Massachusetts, 02134.
57:49Frontline is produced for the Documentary Consortium by WGBH Boston, which is solely responsible for its content.
57:56Major funding for Frontline was provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
58:00By this station and other public television stations nationwide, and by the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.
58:07For over 100 years, providing worldwide business and personal insurance through independent agents and brokers.
Recommended
12:03
55:47
57:34
1:58:14
56:48
58:06
3:17
0:44
57:52
57:53
56:46
58:46
0:35
45:23
46:04
52:15
55:45
1:00:34
Be the first to comment