Lawmakers and industry press for munitions surge planning after wartime shortfalls

Members and witnesses used the hearing to underline a stark lesson from recent conflicts: munitions production can be brittle and slow to ramp. David Norquist told the committee that unstable demand signals and budgetary swings deter firms from opening or maintaining additional production lines. "When the budget gets tight, often the department will ask for amounts only necessary to keep a facility open and running," he said, adding that this pattern discourages companies from investing in second production lines.

Committee members and witnesses described several practical steps to improve surge capacity. Norquist suggested contracting approaches that explicitly value surge capacity — for example, allowing firms to include standby capacity as an allowable cost or pricing element — and recommended moving away from strictly just‑in‑time inventories for critical components. He also pointed to training time and access to capital as constraints: building new lines and training workers takes years.

Witnesses emphasized that stockpiling some final munitions or critical raw materials could mitigate short‑term disruptions, but they cautioned such approaches are costly and must be targeted. Members asked for follow‑up: which munitions require guaranteed floors, and how long it would take to bring new production online.

The hearing produced no binding commitments but added momentum to bipartisan congressional conversations about procurement rules and the potential use of authorities such as the Defense Production Act to accelerate capacity in crises. Industry and members agreed that reforming contracting language and budget stability are immediate levers to reduce the risk of supply shortfalls.