I understand that the Senators from Texas and California believe that the requirement to ``ensure''--rather than ``promote''-- cost efficiency in the depots might be interpreted in such a way as to require the Department to withdraw depot maintenance workloads from the private sector and perform the work in public depots in order to achieve efficiency because the only way they can operate efficiently is to fully utilize the physical capacity. Could you please explain your interpretation of the language? What do you believe it requires?
Dan Coats: “I understand that the Senators from Texas and California believe that the requirement to ``ensure''--rather than…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the interpretation of language regarding cost efficiency in depot maintenance.
Share
More from Dan Coats
We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime…
Woodward writes that Dan Coats continued to harbor the secret belief, one that had grown rather than lessened, although unsupported by intelligence proof that Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, had something on Trump.
Our democracy's enemies, foreign and domestic, want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent, that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people, that our public discourse has been…
Russia and other foreign countries, including China and Iran, conducted influence activities and messaging campaigns targeted at the United States to promote their strategic interests.





