By Kevin Baron
Hoping to fight off cancellation of the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, lobbyists for Lockheed Martin distributed to congressional offices a set of pro-fighter documents that included private letters from Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, and “talking points” that appear to be authored by a top Marine official.
“For the contractor of the F-35B program to circulate military talking points and correspondence on the Hill the day before a vote on their program gives the appearance that the military is working for them,” said Taxpayers for Common Sense’s Laura Peterson. “And that is unseemly, to say the least.”
The documents, obtained by Taxpayers for Common Sense and provided to National Journal Daily, relate to an amendment cosponsored by Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to the House defense authorization bill. The amendment, which was voted down on Thursday, would have cancelled funding for the development of the F-35B, the short-takeoff and vertical-landing, or STOVL, version of the fighter that the Marines covet.
It’s the latest in a series of watchdog allegations that the Marine Corps is too cozy with contractors. Earlier this month, Winslow Wheeler, of the Center for Defense Information and the Project on Government Oversight, questioned the Marine Corps’ role in an eight-page Washington Post advertising supplement paid for by Boeing and Lockheed Martin which touted their products, the V-22 Osprey and the F-35B. The supplement included writings by senior officers, prompting Wheeler to complain: “I don’t suspect there is anything illegal about it, nor any violation of DOD rules and regulations. But it does make me squeamish.”
An e-mail sent on Wednesday to congressional aides with the subject line “WHY STOVL / WHY F-35B?” by Kristine Fauser, Lockheed’s director of legislative affairs, and copied to two colleagues, Greg Walters and Jack Overstreet, urged members to block the amendment. One attachment was a two-page document, marked “unclassified” and titled “talking points.” The original file author is identified as Randy Siders, the Marine Corps’ F-35B program manager.
The talking points included phrases such as “There are no viable alternatives to F-35B” and “The F-35B is far superior to any aircraft flying in the [Navy Department’s] inventory today. It is a total package of capabilities that will revolutionize our expeditionary Marine Air-Ground combat power.”
A Marine Corps spokesman said Siders could not be reached for comment.
The four-page document also answered hypothetical questions about the necessity of the STOVL version, and gave two examples of when STOVL air power was vital in battles, once in Numaniyah, Iraq, and in the Marines’ Afghanistan campaign in Marjah, at the heart of surge fighting against the Taliban.
Two other attachments were letters dated May 16 from Gen. Amos to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., and ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., defending the F-35B.
Letters from Pentagon officials to committee leaders are not publicly available. Amos’s spokesman insisted the commandant’s office does not share “personal correspondence” with anyone other than the intended recipients.
“The commandant’s correspondence between himself and members of Congress is point-to-point,” said Lt. Col. Joseph Plenzler. “We don’t share those with anyone else.”
Plenzler said he was aware of the memo, claiming it was “pretty widely circulated around the Marine Corps.” He was unable to confirm its author, nor how Lockheed may have obtained it or Amos’s letters.
Fauser, a former Senate aide, did not respond to requests for comment.
In an e-mail responding on Fauser’s behalf, Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Jen Allen stated: “We routinely communicate with, and receive information from, members of Congress and our customers who provide oversight to our programs and issues of interest to our business, as well as leaders of congressional districts where Lockheed Martin has a significant business presence.”
Ellison, during debate of his amendment, waved a copy of the memo and said: “I notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were making some very good points and they sound very similar to some points I read today from someone from Lockheed Martin.
“Lockheed Martin is a private contractor, who is making the program, and the talking points that they sent out are very—they’re essentially arguing so they can ensure a commercial success of their particular project which they have a financial interest in.”
Lockheed Used Internal Marine Documents (National Journal)
Sign Up for Updates
