LASG header
Follow TrishABQ on Twitter Follow us
 
"Forget the Rest" blog

Weapons Master: a Brief Profile of the
Lockheed Martin Corporation

Damon Hill and Greg Mello, December 16, 2005

The “Los Alamos Alliance”

  • Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LockMart”): $35.5 billion (B) in total sales (2004); $25.1 B in federal sales in FY2003 (rank: 1 st); $20.7 B in Department of Defense (DoD) sales in FY2004 (rank: 1 st); $6.0 B in foreign sales; 130,000 employees in 457 U.S. cities and 56 other nations and territories.

  • University of Texas (UT): $9.6 B budget (2006), $9.4 B endowment in 2004 (5 th largest in U.S. ); ranked 3 rd among all U.S. schools in total defense contracts ($121 M, 2001).

  • Flour Corporation (Fluor): $9.4 B in total sales (2004); $1.3 B in federal sales in FY2003 (rank: 23 rd) including Department of Energy (DOE) projects at Hanford WA and Fernald OH; $550 M in DoD sales in FY2004 (rank: 52 nd); 35,000 employees in 25 countries. Ranks 3 rd in total contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan (1/1/02- 6/30/00 4).

  • CH2M Hill Companies : $3.1 B in total sales in 2004; $763 M in federal sales in FY2003 (rank: 41 st), including DOE projects at Rocky Flats CO, Hanford WA, Mound OH, INL, ID, and Savannah River SC; $245 M in DoD sales in FY2004 (rank: 93 rd); 200 offices, 15,000 employees. Ranks 11 th in total contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan (1/1/2002-6/30/2004).

  • Alliance Academic Network (15 UT campuses plus 18 other universities and university systems)

Sources: www.lockheedmartin.com, Flour corporate brochure, CH2M Hill corporate brochure, Univ. of Texas brochure, www.fiatpax.net/univ2001.htm, DoD procurement data, Federal Procurement Data System, and www.publicintegrity.org.

Some time between now and the end of this month, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is expected to announce its choice of contractors to run Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  This background essay concerns the leader of one of the two consortia competing for this job.  It must be considered quite preliminary.  Comments and new information are very welcome. 

Since its inception in 1943 as Site Y of the Manhattan Engineering District, the facility now called Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has been owned by the U.S. government and operated by the University of California (UC) and its subcontractors. 

This kind of ownership and management structure is called “government-owned, contractor operated,” or “GOCO.”  During World War II the GOCO approach provided a way to quickly obtain land using War Department powers while at the same time shielding private companies from liability, an important inducement for them to participate in the mobilization for war. 

Today, World War II is long over but the nuclear GOCO relationships remain, as if these sites were still on a war footing – garrisons, as it were, of the national security state and its corporate partners. 

There are a total of 10 active nuclear weapons sites in the U.S. today, including the two NNSA management centers, one in Washington, DC and nearby Germantown, MD and the other in Albuquerque, NM.  These are shown in Figure 1 along with the approximate domestic deployments of the nuclear weapons themselves (as of 1998).  The federal “landlord” of most of these 10 Department of Energy (DOE) sites is the NNSA, a semi-autonomous subset of the DOE created in 2000. 

The civilian federal government has never fully embraced the nuclear weapons business, for a variety of reasons.  Today, the U.S. nuclear weapons business, with an annual budget of $6.89 billion (B) in fiscal year (FY) 2005, [1] is almost entirely run by private corporations and universities, as shown in Table 1.  Of this total budget, only $257 million (M), or 3.7%, is reserved for federal management, which for NNSA Weapons Activities consists of a total about 2,532 employees in 10 locations, of whom 575 are engaged in transporting nuclear weapons and materials and 100 in environmental operations. [2]   This leaves a total of just 1,857 federal employees administering all aspects of the NNSA nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs.  At Los Alamos, there are roughly 117 federal employees working at the NNSA Los Alamos Site Office (LASO), of whom somewhat less than 100 are involved in various aspects of nuclear weapons program oversight. [3]

It is crystal clear that the U.S. nuclear weapons program, a large and complex undertaking, cannot be safely and properly managed with such a thin veneer of federal oversight, as a variety of auditors and observers have urgently remarked for more than a decade. [4]   History, including recent history, amply supports these concerns.

After the Second World War, Los Alamos’ federal manager first changed from the U.S. Army to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1947, then to the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) in 1974, then to the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977, and then to a semi-autonomous subset of the DOE called the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in 2000.  The constant factor throughout has been the University of California. 

This will now change.  In the coming days, a new GOCO contractor will be selected from two applicants:

  • “Los Alamos National Security,” a consortium consisting of the Bechtel Corporation, UC, the nuclear manufacturing firm BWXT, and Washington Group International (WGI); and the <>

  • “Los Alamos Alliance,” a consortium led by the Lockheed Martin Corporation including the University of Texas (UT), two other engineering and manufacturing firms, the Fluor Corporation (Fluor) and CH2M Hill.  The Los Alamos Alliance has also associated with itself a nation-wide alliance of some 18 other colleges and universities.  

In New Mexico, Lockheed already runs Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), a $2.2 B integrated research and manufacturing complex for nuclear weapons and other military, security, and intelligence programs.  Should Lockheed’s team also be chosen to manage LANL, Lockheed will be involved in managing at least $4.4 B in federal military and nuclear weapons contracts in New Mexico.  This would make Lockheed the largest corporate business in New Mexico in terms of sales.

The world’s largest military contractor

The Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LockMart”) is the world’s largest military contractor.  In 2004 the company had $35.5 B in sales: 58% to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and intelligence agencies; 22% to U.S. the Homeland Security Department and other civil government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels; 17% to international business; and 3% to U.S. commercial firms. The company employs 130,000 people in 939 facilities in 457 cities and 45 states throughout the U.S. with business locations in 56 nations and territories. [5]

Lockheed is not just the largest Pentagon contractor; it is also the largest contractor to the U.S. government as a whole.  In FY2003 Lockheed raked in some $25.1 B in federal sales (an average of $68.7 M per day or $86 per U.S. person), almost 8 times Halliburton’s mere $3.2 B that year. [6]   In FY2004, Lockheed’s income from Pentagon contracts alone was $20.7 B.

The Lockheed Martin Corporation was created in 1995 by the merger of the Lockheed and Martin Marietta companies.  It grew to its present scale in part by acquiring some 18 “heritage” companies since 1987, with much of this merger activity subsidized by the DoD in the 1990s. [7]

Lockheed’s growth during this period was part of a larger pattern of centralization, consolidation, and specialization.  Between 1982 and the end of 2004, some 72 firms coalesced into just five top U.S. defense firms (in declining order of size, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon).  In 1980, about 20% of defense procurement went to the then-largest 5 firms; by 2003, a much larger portion – 35% – of total procurement went to the largest 5 firms. 

At the same time, the defense industry found itself pulling away from the rest of U.S. industry: in 1980, only 29% of defense procurement was given to firms strongly specializing in defense and aerospace.  By 2003, however, fully 63% of all Pentagon procurement went to these specialized firms. [8]

Lockheed Martin is profitable.  Its stock value tripled between 2002 and 2004. [9]   The corporation’s government ties have brought it “massive” government research and export subsidies exempt from challenge under WTO rules. Also, it apparently receives special protection under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).   [10]The company's effective tax rate in 2002 was a rather low 7.7%; that same year, Lockheed Martin CEO Vance Coffman took home $25.5 M in total compensation – $98,000 per working day. [11]

“We never forget who we’re working for” – Lockheed Martin corporate slogan

LockMart enjoys a very close relationship with the United States Government, and has invested in that relationship in many ways, including (but hardly limited to) helping politicians get elected – a modest investment with what appear to be large returns.

In the 2004 election cycle, the company gave $2.28 M in campaign contributions, with 66% going to Republicans and 34% to Democrats.  In the 9 election cycles between 1990 and 2006 (with data incomplete so far for the 2006 cycle), LockMart has spent $13.2 M overall, more than any of its competitors, with 60% of the total going to Republicans and 40% to Democrats. [12]   This spending placed Lockheed 36th on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top hundred political donors in the United States. [13]

LockMart is not just a factor in elections but in lawmaking as well.  According to filings with the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records, Lockheed Martin has spent an average of $6.7 M per year on lobbying since 1998. [14]   In 2003 Lockheed spent $3.3 M on 51 different lobbying firms – in addition to their 26 in-house lobbyists. [15]  It has spent more on lobbying than any of its competitors over the last five years of record. [16]

In New Mexico, Lockheed Martin is a top contributors to three of the state’s five representatives in Congress.  Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM), the fourth largest recipient nationally of Lockheed campaign funds (1990-2004), has received $90,258 from Lockheed—her largest contributor—since first elected in 1998. [17]   In 2003-2004 alone the company gave her $29,000, nearly twice the $15,300 from her second largest contributor, defense contractor Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). [18]   Lockheed also generously supports both of New Mexico’s U.S. Senators.  Since 1989 Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has received $32,499 from Lockheed, second only to the $41,392 he received from LANL. [19]   (Lockheed has managed Sandia National Laboratories since October, 1993, giving LANL 4 more years than Lockheed in this accounting).  During the same 1989-2005 time period, Lockheed has also been the number-two contributor to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), giving him $44,467. [20]

Getting by with a little help from their friends

Lockheed Martin is one of the most politically connected corporations in the world.  The company maintains a revolving door which blurs the line between government officials and its executive officers.  The Ottowa-based Polaris Institute found that in 2003 no less than nine former Lockheed executives and lobbyists were in high posts within the U.S. Government and at least eleven former government officials now worked for Lockheed Martin. [21]   Updating an important portion of their list (while making no effort to expand it), we find the following footsteps through Lockheed’s revolving door.

  • Everet H. Beckner, until this year the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs (February 6, 2002 – April 30, 2005), was immediately before that the Deputy Chief Executive of Atomic Weapons Establishment (UK) for Lockheed Martin.  Prior to this, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs at the Department of Energy from 1991 to 1995 (essentially the same job as NNSA Deputy Administrator). [22] He served at Sandia National Laboratories, now Lockheed, from 1961 to 1990 in a variety of positions, including Vice President for Defense Programs from 1986 to 1990. [23]

  • Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney and current American Enterprise Institute Scholar, served on the Lockheed Martin Board of Directors from 1994 to January 5, 2001, a few days before her husband’s inauguration. [24] Lockheed paid her $120,000 in compensation in 1999 if not also at other times. [25]

  • Gordon England, current Secretary of the Navy (May 24, 2001 – January 2003 and  September 26, 2003 – present), was at the same time appointed to be Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense (May 13, 2005), replacing Paul Wolfowitz. [26] He also served as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security from January 2003 to September 2003 and was the former president of General Dynamics Fort Worth Aircraft Company, which later merged with Lockheed Martin. [27]

  • Stephen J. Hadley, the current National Security Advisor who replaced Condoleezza Rice on January 26, 2005, and former Deputy National Security Advisor (2001-2004), was a partner in the Washington law firm Shea & Gardner, which represents Lockheed Martin. [28]

  • E.C. “Pete” Aldridge Jr., a Lockheed board member since June 26, 2003, is a former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USDATL, May 11, 2001 - May 27, 2003) and a former Secretary of the Air Force (1986-1988). [29]   In his last days at the Pentagon in 2003, Aldridge approved the controversial and costly contracts for Lockheed Martin's F-22 and Boeing's V-22 Osprey, just 30 days before being joining the Lockheed board. [30]   He continues to straddle the public-private divide, having been appointed by Donald Rumsfeld to a blue-ribbon panel to study advanced weapons systems. [31]

  • Anthony Principi, former senior vice president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin IMS Integrated Solutions (1995-1996), was until recently the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs (2001- 2004). He is a former Deputy Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs (1989 -1992). [32]

  • Peter Teets was until recently Undersecretary of the Air Force (December 2001 – March 2005). [33]   Prior to this he was the former President and  Chief Operating Officer at Lockheed Martin and Board Member (1997 - October 29, 1999).  He is now a trustee of the Aerospace Corporation. [34] He began his career with Martin Marietta in 1963 and rose though several executive positions, serving as President and Chief Operating Officer of Information and Services Sector (1995-1997) during and after the merger with Lockheed. [35]   He is an outspoken advocate of the weaponization of space. [36]

  • Michael Wynne, the current Secretary for the Air Force (Nov 3, 2005 - present) was the Under Secretary Of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (May 2003 – June 2005), replacing Pete Aldridge (see above) in that position. [37] After 23 years in senior positions with General Dynamics, he spent three years with Lockheed Martin (May 1994 - March 1997), following General Dynamic’s sale of their Space Systems Division to what was then Martin Marietta. [38] He eventually became general manager of Lockheed’s Space Launch Systems segment, “combining the Titan with the Atlas Launch vehicles.” [39]   As USDATL he was, like Pete Aldridge before him, the Chair of the powerful three-person Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), which frames and reports all important nuclear weapons decisions to the President while making most of the actual decisions itself through its standing committees.  The NWC is the highest interagency authority on nuclear weapons policies in the U.S.

  • Bruce P. Jackson, Lockheed Martin’s former Vice President for Planning and Strategy (1993- August 2002), is a board member and a founding signatory of the neoconservative think-tank the Project for a New American Century.  During George W. Bush’s first campaign for the presidency he chaired the foreign policy subcommittee of the Republic Party platform committee. [40]   He also chaired the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq,” a tightly-knit network of conservative ideologues, right-wing foundations, and major defense contractors designed to promote the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. [41]

“Anything you need to kill the enemy, they will sell you.”

“It used to be just an airplane company…Now it’s a warfare company. It’s an integrated solution provider. It’s a
one-stop shop. Anything you need to kill the enemy, they will sell you.” So says John Pike, longtime military analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. [42]

“Much of what Lockheed Martin develops and produces is used to target, guide, fire, or drop large weapons.”

From shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missiles to Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense systems, Lockheed Martin designs and produces the weapons of modern warfare at every level of combat.   Lockheed’s products include advanced radar systems, satellite technology, targeting systems, launch systems, the C-140 transport plane, jet fighters, electromagnetic guns, laser guns, and technology to enhance battlefield communication.   

In October of 2001 the U.S. Government awarded Lockheed a $19.0 B cost-plus-award-fee contract for the Joint Strike Fighter engineering and manufacturing program.  The total program, valued at $200 B, will create the next generation combat jet for the United States Navy, Air Force, and Marines and well as for the United Kingdom’s military. [43]   Lockheed is a prime or secondary contractor for most of the U.S. missile defense programs. [44]   Richard Girard of the Polaris Institute summarizes Lockheed’s prime business lines this way: “much of what Lockheed Martin develops and produces is used to target, guide, fire, or drop large weapons.” [45]

Lockheed’s F-117 Stealth Fighter was used during the first “shock and awe” phase of the Iraq war.  The F-16, while no longer produced for the U.S. military [check], is still sold worldwide, and often paid for directly or indirectly with U.S. aid.  In addition to the 50 or more F-16’s sold to Pakistan, yet to be purchased with $3 B in U.S. aid, Lockheed may soon sell up to 126 of the fighter jets to India at $40 M a piece, thanks to a deal made by President Bush. [46]

Up close and personal: Lockheed, Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib

In the post-9/11 landscape, Lockheed hasn’t missed the chance to diversify into the expanding intelligence and interrogation markets.  In an exclusive to CorpWatch, Pratap Chatterjee raises the question of Lockheed’s involvement in torture. [47]   After buying Affiliated Computer Services’s (ACS) federal contracting units, Lockheed used ACS’s General Services Administration (GSA) contract to employ private interrogators at Guantanamo in November of 2002.  The ACS contract did not even remotely include interrogation.  In July 2004 an alarmed GSA stated its “concerns about Lockheed Martin Corp.’s business practices and ethics” and questioned Lockheed’s eligibility for future contracts. [48] Yet in February 2005 Lockheed bought Sytex, now one of the largest recruiters of private interrogators and a supplier of subcontractors to CACI International.  CACI interrogators were famously at Abu Ghraib at the time of documented torture. [49]   Chatterjee, as of Nov. 4, 2005, did not find a direct link between Lockheed and the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but through Sytex Lockheed is now sending interrogators around the world to prisons known and unknown.

Merchants of Mass Destruction: Lockheed’s nuclear weapons business

Lockheed Martin is the second- or third-largest NNSA contractor (UC is #1, and Lockheed Martin is running second or third, along with BWXT).  In addition to the Nevada Test Site, where Lockheed is a partner with Bechtel, Lockheed manages all the work at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and California. [50]

Lockheed Martin also owns one third of AWE Management, Ltd., the company running the British nuclear weapons program.  In 2002 AWE Management won a ten-year contract, later extended to a 25-year, heavily indemnified contract in 2003 and worth about $8.8 B. [51]

The U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) selected Lockheed Martin to manage the integration, mission support and modernization of its computing infrastructure.  Major contracts included the 6-year, $250 M Computing Environment STRATCOM Architecture (CESAR) program, awarded in 1998.  In 2000, STRATCOM awarded Lockheed a $1.5 B, 15-year contract to “modernize its air, missile and space command and control (C2) systems” for the Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) program. [52]   Lockheed continues to win new contracts and contract extension from STRATCOM. [53]

Lest we forget, Lockheed also makes the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), as well as the F-16 airplane, a delivery system for B61 nuclear bombs, including the B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrating bomb (or “bunker-buster”). 

“Welcome to the Lockheed Martin Partnership for a Safer America[54]   

“Lockheed Martin doesn’t run the United States. But it does help run a breathtakingly big part of it.”

As government services have been privatized, Lockheed Martin has diversified its operations – which, as Tim Weiner of the New York Time observes, now “stretch from the Pentagon to the post office.” [55]   

In addition to making weapons, Lockheed’s vast information technology (IT) systems sort the mail for the U.S. Postal Service, cut social security checks and rebuild the Social Security Administration's IT system, count the census, total taxes, process Medicare and Medicaid applications, administer welfare-to-work programs, and run space flights. 

Lockheed supplies the Internal Revenue Service with an “Integrated Collection System,” automating tax collection and facilitating tracing and collection of unpaid and delinquent returns – all the better, we might suppose, to pay for the company’s expensive military contracts. [56]  Weiner claims that Lockheed writes more computer code than Microsoft.

Lockheed Martin: essential reading

Berrigan, Frida, “Merchant of Death of the Month: Lockheed Martin,” The Nonviolent Activist, July-August 2005, http://www.warresisters.org/nva0705-5.htm.

Chatterjee, Pratap, “Meet the New Interrogators: Lockheed Martin,” Special to CorpWatch, 4 November 2005, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12757.

Girard, Richard, Profile: “Lockheed Martin: The Weapons Manufacturer That Does It All,” Polaris Institute (Canada), October 2004, http://www.polarisinstitute.org/corp_profiles/public
_service_gats_pdfs/lockheed.pdf
.

Hartung, William D., How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration, Nation Books, 2003.

Hartung, William D. and Frida Berrigan, “Lockheed Martin and the GOP: Profiteering and Pork Barrel Politics with a Purpose,” Arms Trade Resource Center, 31 July 2000, http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/
lockheedgop.htm
.

St. Clair, Jeffrey, “The Company That Runs the Empire: Lockheed and Loaded,” Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, 22/24 January 2005, http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair01222005.html.

Weiner, Tim, “Lockheed and the Future of Warfare,” The New York Times, 28 November 2004.



In the late 1990s Lockheed Martin Corp. extended its reach into state and local governments, joining in the “gold rush” of child support, human services, and welfare privatization contracts.  Through Lockheed Martin Information Management Systems (IMS), later sold to ACS State & Local Solutions Inc. in 2001, the corporation was awarded millions to design and implement welfare-to-work and welfare-reform programs in California, Maryland, and Florida. [57]  IMS came under fire from two whistleblowers, in Pinellas County Florida, for mismanagement of the $15 M contract.  (It is alleged that Lockheed hired an agitator to harass the whistleblowers; if true this tactic was rather “successful”: one whistleblower committed suicide and the other continues to suffer from an anxiety disorder).  The company also failed to meet its performance goals in its
Baltimore program.  In California, the state and Lockheed mutually agreed to cancel a contract for a computerized child support tracking system after the costs had skyrocketed from $99 M to $277. [58]   We do not know, however, Lockheed’s overall track record in its domestic government contracts.
Whatever that record, Lockheed has
landed numerous contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security for surveillance systems and intelligence-gathering technology.  Lockheed is now be involved in gathering of information on the identities of millions of Americans as well as tourists entering the
country every day. [59]   The FBI employs Lockheed- developed recognition technologies and database-search algorithms that can, it is claimed, match a fingerprint against 420 million other prints in just minutes. [60]   In 2002 Lockheed won an $8 M contract to create a similar system for the Florida Department of Education. [61]   Earlier this year, New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority awarded
Lockheed a three-year $212 M contract to create—and maintain through 2013—a surveillance and security system
for its subway and bus systems, two commuter railroads, and nine bridges and tunnels. [62]   Other Lockheed
“homeland security” products include: AeroText™ information extraction systems, the Integrated Deepwater System (
IDS) Coast Guard modernization program, High Altitude Airship (HHA) telecommunications and/or surveillance platforms, border security technology, and advanced electronic security systems “to secure the homeland from the threat of terrorism.” [63]   Lockheed is currently seeking to be “a” prime contractor in the Department of Homeland Security’s $51 million America’s Shield border control program. [64]

Lockheed Martin systems control 60% of the world’s air traffic control. [65]

Soon to be New Mexico’s largest business?

In addition to managing Sandia National Laboratories since 1993 ($2.2B annually) Lockheed Martin is one of the largest employers in southwest [sic – southeast?] New Mexico. [66] Together with Boeing it owns L&M technologies, a company that provides facility and infrastructure support services to federal government agencies and contractors like Sandia National Laboratories and White Sands Missile Range.  In Albuquerque, Lockheed provides “aircrew training delivery, mission operations and support” at Kirtland Air Force Base, in addition to holding contracts for data storage and other systems. [67]   In 2003 alone, Lockheed had more than $17 M worth of research and development contracts through agencies at Kirtland. [68]

Lockheed Martin is involved in technology transfer and higher education in New Mexico, a fertile subject we cannot expand upon here.  To take just one example, along with White Sands Missile Range it has a partnership with New Mexico State University and its NASA-funded “RioRoboLab.” [69]   The company has given large grants to the University of New Mexico – as well as 30 other universities across the country. [70]   These grants are not just in traditional technology-oriented subjects but also in political science.  The former vice president of SNL for weapons design, Roger Hagengruber, who now teaches political science at UNM, is among many Lockheed “Sandians” who now teach at New Mexico’s institutions of higher learning.  Hagengruber is also a recent former head of UNM ’s Institute for Public Policy, a recipient of large SNL and LANL contracts for many years. 

Lockheed founded Technology Ventures Corporation (TVC) in Albuquerque in October 1993 to “commercialize technologies from the national laboratories, primarily Sandia, and regional research universities.”  Whatever its actual accomplishments in this area over the years, TVC President Sherman McCorkle was most recently a highly-visible spokesperson in the successful effort by Albuquerque living wage opponents to defeat the Albuquerque living wage initiative in the summer and early fall of 2005. 

Endnotes:


[1] This figure of $6.89 B includes a pro-rata share ($257 M) of NNSA administration.  In November of 2005, the Energy and Water appropriations conference committee reported out a FY2006 weapons activities budget of $6.67 B, again including our pro-rata estimate of administrative costs.  If the current (2004-2005) annual inflation rate of 5% (Consumer Price Index, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm) continues, this has an effective buying power of about $6.34 B in today’s dollars, an estimated annual real decline of about 8%.  FY2006 energy and water appropriations can now be found by searching at http://appropriations.house.gov.

[2] See DOE, FY2006 Congressional Budget Request Volume 1, National Nuclear Security Administration, p. 34, at http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/06budget/Start.htm.

[3] LASO organization chart, http://www.doeal.gov/LASO/.  Figure cited does not include 14 contract personnel.

[4] These observers include, variously: the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), which has been communicating its strong concerns about the adequacy of DOE staffing since at least 1993 (see for example DNFSB Recommendation 93-3, at http://www.dnfsb.gov); the DOE itself; the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water; the DOE Inspector General (see for example the July 2001 audit, Recruitment and Retention of Scientific and Technical Personnel at http://www.ig.doe.gov/).  Recently the DNFSB has strongly questioned the wisdom of allowing LANL to keep its nuclear facilities operating while LASO is in “strategic pause” prior to the new contract (Letter for DNFSB Chair Eggenburger to Linton Brooks, NNSA, of November 29, 2005).

[6] 2003 is the most recent year data is available from Federal Procurement Data System, (http://www.fpdsng.com/downloads/FPR_Reports/FPR2003a.pdf ).

[7] Brosnan, James, “Giant military contractor brings story of success to Albuquerque,” The Albuquerque Tribune, 28 April 2005. 

[8] Chao, “Alternative Futures for the Defense Industry,” conference presentation of 4/21/05, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, http://www.diig-csis.org/uploads/event-documents/5920050509114613.pdf.

[9] Center for Corporate Policy, “Ten Worst War Profiteers of 2004,” (http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/topten2004list.htm).

[10] Girard, Richard, “Profile: Lockheed Martin Corporation: The Weapons Manufacturer That Does it All,” Polaris Institute, Canada, October 2004, p.24, (www.polarisinstitute.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/lockheed.pdf).

[11] Arms Trade Resource Center, Current Updates, 16 May 2003, (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/051603.html).

[13] Center for Responsive Politics, (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A).

[15] Girard, R., p.24.

[16] St. Clair, Jeffrey, “The Company That Runs the Empire: Lockheed and Loaded,” Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, 22/24 January 2005, (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair01222005.html).

[21] Girard, R., iv.

[25] Arms Trade Resource Center, “Current Updates,” 31 July 2000, (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/july31.htm).

[26] U.S. Department of Defense Press Release, 25 May 2005 (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/england_bio.html).

[27] International Relations Center, (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1144).

[28] Girard, R., p. 19.

[29] Merle, Renae, “Lockheed Adds Director Fresh from Pentagon,” Washington Post, 27 June 2003 and

(http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf03/may/ald-m-j03.pdf)

[30] International Relations Center, (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1002).

[31] Center for Corporate Policy, “Ten Worst War Profiteers of 2004,” (http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/topten2004list.htm).

[32] The White House, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/principi-bio.html).

[33] “Air Force Picks Teets,” Washington Technology, Vol. 16, No. 19, 7 January 2002 (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/16_19/datastream/17628-1.html).

[34] The Aerospace Corporation, “The Aerospace Corporation Announces Election of Peter B. Teets to Board,” 9 June 2005, (http://www.aero.org/news/newsitems/teets6-9-05.html).

[35] International Foreign Relations Center, (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1361).

[36] Michelle Ciarrocca and William D. Hartung. "Axis Of Influence: Behind the Bush Administration's Missile Defense Revival." World Policy Institute Special Report, July 2002, (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/axisofinfluence.html).

[37] Tyson, Ann Scott, “Michael Wynne, Air Force Secretary,” Washington Post, 22 November 2005, see also Program Manager, Defense Acquisition University,  May/June 2002, (http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf03/may/ald-m-j03.pdf).

[39] Girard, R., p. 20.

[40] Project for the New American Century, (www.newamericancentury.org/brucejacksonbio.htm).

[41] Hartung, William and Michelle Ciarrocca, “News Release, Behind the War Lobby,” Institute for Public Accuracy, http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=583, 26 November, 2002.  See also Nimmo, Kurt, “The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: PR Spinning the Bush Doctrine, Counterpunch, 19 November 2002, (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1119.html).

[42] Weiner, Tim, “Lockheed and the Future of Warfare,” The New York Times, 28 November 2004.

[43] Girard, R. p.18.

[44] Brosnan, J. 28 April 2005.

[45] Girard, R, p. 6.

[46] Wayne, Leslie. “Connecting to India Through Pakistan,” The New York Times, 16 April 2005.

[47] Chatterjee, Pratap, “Meet the New Interrogators: Lockheed Martin,” Special to CorpWatch, 4 November 2005, (http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?id=12757).

[48] Harris, Shane, “GSA queries Lockheed Martin on interrogation contracts,” Government Executive Magazine, 29 July 2004, (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0704/0702904h1.htm).

[49] Chatterjee, 4 November 2005.

[51] McDonald, Di, Sian Jones, and Rebecca Johnson, “In The News (or Should Be) Who is Britain’s Nuclear Weapons Infrastructure Being Upgraded?”, Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 76, March/April 2004.

[53] Tiboni, Frank, “Air Force activates Cheyenne System,” Federal Computer Week, 27 October 2004, (www.fcw.com) and Tiboni, Frank, “Lockheed Martin lands $44 million Stratcom contract,” Federal Computer Week, 11 October 2005, (www.fcw.com).

[55] Weiner, Tim, “Lockheed and the Future of Warfare,” The New York Times, 28 November 2004.

[57] Girard, R., p.9.

[58] Berkowitz, Bill, “Whistleblower’s suicide blamed on Lockheed Martin,” WorkingForChange, 27 January 2003, (www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14402 ).

[59] Girard, R. p. 7.

[61] Brown, Justine, “Let your fingers do the talking,” Government Technology, May 2003 (http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=48262&issue=5:2003).

[62] Chan, Sewell and Shadi Rahimi, “Lockheed Martin is Hired to Bolster Transit Security in NY,” The New York Times, 23 August 2005.

[64] Lipowicz, Alice, “Contractors stand at the ready,” Washington Technology, Vol. 20 No. 23, 25 November 2005, (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/20_23/cover-stories/27430-1.html).

[65] Brosnan, J. 28 April 2005.

[66] Economic Research & Analysis Bureau, New Mexico Department of Labor. [inadequate]

[68] Brosnan, J. 28 April 2005.

[69] Duncan, Argen, “NMSU developing pilotless ‘copter,” NMSU Engineering News Release, 31 August 2005, (http://engr.nmsu.edu/news_publications/news_copter.htm).

 


^ back to top

2901 Summit Place NE Albuquerque, NM 87106, Phone: 505-265-1200

home page calendar contact contribute