Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Defense Industrial Base topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel hears unified warnings: U.S. defense industrial base atrophied, needs demand signal and regulatory fixes
Summary
Witnesses and members told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. defense industrial base has weakened over decades. They urged clearer long‑term demand, reduced regulatory burdens, and expanded workforce and supply‑chain resiliency to restore surge capacity and deter adversaries.
Chairman Mike Rogers opened the House Armed Services Committee hearing saying the United States must restore the industrial base that supplies the military. "We cannot prevail in any conflict without a ready, strong, and adaptable industrial base," he said, listing consolidation, narrowed supply chains and regulatory burdens as drivers of decline.
Witnesses from industry testified that the problem is longstanding and multifaceted. Eric Fanning, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, said the sector relies on "clear demand signals from Congress and the executive branch, sufficient federal investment, a healthy and resilient supply chain, and a regulatory environment that promotes both innovation and adoption." David Norquist, president and CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association, told the committee Congress and the Pentagon have resourced the industrial base for low‑intensity conflict and that transition is needed to prioritize capacity, speed and resilience.
The hearing highlighted three recurring fixes industry leaders offered: (1) long‑term, predictable buying plans so firms can invest in capacity and workforce; (2) targeted reduction of regulatory burdens that prolong contracting and deter new entrants; and (3) investments in domestic sources for critical materials and in workforce training. Fanning said it now takes "nearly 300 days on average to award prime contracts with estimated sales of more than $100,000,000," and he warned those delays push small suppliers out of the defense market.
Members of the committee pressed witnesses on tradeoffs. Ranking Member Adam Smith emphasized choices: the United States cannot fund every capability simultaneously and must set priorities and coordinate with allies to share burdens. Several members echoed that message and asked whether reforms that accept more programmatic risk could speed delivery to the warfighter.
Witnesses offered concrete levers. Norquist pointed to contract design that pays for spare capacity or allows multiple suppliers, and recommended moving away from strictly "just‑in‑time" inventory approaches for critical items. Fanning urged pilots of faster authorities for specific technology classes to experiment with greater risk tolerance under careful oversight.
The hearing did not produce formal committee action; instead, members and witnesses framed the policy choices Congress will have to make in upcoming annual authorization and appropriations work: whether to provide multi‑year buys and budget stability, where to accept more procurement risk to gain speed, and how to target funds for workforce training and supply‑chain resilience.
As the session closed, witnesses reiterated a common formula: a resilient defense industrial base requires predictable demand, streamlined acquisition practices where appropriate, and investment in people and facilities. The committee record will include witness reports and follow‑up questions to flesh out fundable proposals.
