Traditionally, Associated Equipment Distributors (AED) and the broader equipment industry wouldn’t focus much attention on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA sets military and defense priorities and policies, authorizes funding levels, and is one of the few bills that Congress passes year-after-year. Since 1961, Congress has passed an NDAA every year.

AED’s awareness was heightened last year, when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others attempted to include “right to repair” mandates under the guise of military preparedness. While unsuccessful, due in part to the efforts of AED, in the current Congress, right to repair amendments have been attached to both the House and Senate versions of NDAA. AED remains opposed to the current language in both NDAA’s and we encourage equipment dealers to join our efforts.

Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment by Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) prohibiting the Department of Defense from entering into major weapon systems contracts unless, “the contractor agrees in writing to provide fair and reasonable access to all the repair materials, including parts, tools, and information, used by the manufacturer or provider or their authorized repair providers to diagnose, analyze, maintain, or repair the good or service.” The “fair and reasonable” language will be familiar to anyone encountering right to repair legislation at the state level. In fact, the amendment’s definition of “fair and reasonable access” imitates the awful language attempting to impose right to repair mandates on agriculture equipment and other machinery.

While the amendment doesn’t explicitly apply to off-road equipment, it would set a terrible precedent. This is no time to take victory laps or be lulled into complacency. Once the arbitrary “fair and reasonable access” standard for parts, tools and repair information becomes a key element of the procurement policy for one federal agency (in this case the largest in the world), it’s only a matter of time before others, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the various states, have similar requirements. Major weapons systems today can easily become agriculture and construction equipment tomorrow, and stopping this misguided provision should be a principal objective for anyone opposing the proliferation of right to repair mandates.

The Senate NDAA takes a different approach, but ultimately, the results are similar. This language, offered by Sen. Warren, focuses on Instructions for Continued Operation Readiness (ICOR) for “covered defense equipment.” (See Sec. 836:BILLS-119s2296rs.pdf). The definition of “covered defense equipment,” likely does include off-road equipment within its scope. Right to repair under a different name doesn’t make it more palatable. There’s a reason that the same groups, like PIRG, that support broad right to repair mandates for agriculture equipment, are cheering this provision’s inclusion in the Senate’s NDAA (STATEMENT: Senate includes crucial Right to Repair reform In NDAA).

AED remains steadfast in its opposition to the right to repair language found in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate versions, and we’re actively working on Capitol Hill to remove or scale back these provisions as NDAA moves through the legislative process. Remaining neutral in the face of these anti-free market proposals is a slippery slope toward right to repair mandates for the equipment that AED members sell, rent, service, and manufacture.

Daniel B. Fisher is a senior vice president of government & external affairs for Associated Equipment Distributors (AED) based in Washington, D.C.


Related Content:

Click here for more Industry News.