National Defense Week - THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

May 22, 2008 by admin.

National Defense Week
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008
Defense secretary: Navy, Air Force may need to subsidize Army soon  Defense authorization bill mandates Army contracting reforms GAO: Post-government employment of Defense contracting officials could pose conflict of interest From Nextgov.com: Air Force looking to build cyber weapons Pentagon policy bill touts readiness, but defers tough weapons decisions OMB director lambastes war spending bill Administration official calls House defense earmark provision ‘veto bait’ Legislative amendment would suspend competitive sourcing at Defense

Defense secretary: Navy, Air Force may need to subsidize Army soon
By Megan Scully , CongressDaily
Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged Tuesday that the military can manipulate its fiscal 2008 base budget to pay soldiers until late July, but warned that doing so would only provide temporary relief and could have significant consequences for the armed services. Appearing before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Gates said the Pentagon could dip into the Air Force and Navy’s fourth-quarter military personnel accounts to cover troop costs through most of July. “Doing so, however, is a shell game which will disrupt existing programs and push the services’ [operations and maintenance] accounts to the edge of fiscal viability,” Gates told the panel. The heavily deployed Army already has been borrowing from its fourth-quarter accounts to cover war costs. By June 15, the Army would run out of funding to pay soldiers without either an enacted war funding bill or a significant loan from the Navy or Air Force. Around July 5, the Army’s operations and maintenance accounts would run dry, which would result in civilian furloughs and force the Pentagon to limit training and reduce family support activities, Gates said.
Aside from a delayed supplemental spending bill’s impact on the services’ accounts, the military would have to suspend the Commander’s Emergency Response Program if it does not soon receive its requested war funds for this year, Gates said. The program provides commanders in the field with funds to pay for urgent local needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress last year approved $500 million of the total fiscal 2008 $1.7 billion request for the program. The military, meanwhile, cannot reprogram funds to fill that account as they wait for enactment of the supplemental. “Without the balance of $1.2 billion, this vital program will come to a standstill,” Gates said.
Gates, who testified as the Senate was expected to begin floor consideration of the supplemental spending bill, acknowledged Congress may approve the war bill before departing for the weeklong Memorial Day recess. But Gates said he is obligated to devise contingency plans in the event of further delays. If the war spending bill does not make its way through Congress before the recess, the Defense Department will submit reprogramming requests to Congress next Tuesday “to prevent depletion of the Army military personnel account and the Army operations and maintenance account,” according to Gates’ written testimony. On June 9, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England will give the services guidance on furloughing civilian employees.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40054&dcn=e_ndw

Defense authorization bill mandates Army contracting reforms
By Elizabeth Newell
Among the numerous contracting provisions the House Armed Services Committee included in its version of the fiscal 2009 Defense authorization bill are several that would implement recommendations made by a commission on Army procurement reform.
The commission, led by Jacques Gansler, former undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, released a comprehensive report in November 2007 on contracting issues facing the Army. The Armed Services Committee added three provisions to the authorization bill to implement Gansler Commission recommendations.
One provision would set new career paths for military personnel in the acquisition field, including creating general officer positions for Army acquisition employees. Another would provide expedited hiring authority for critical acquisition positions.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40045&dcn=e_ndw

GAO: Post-government employment of Defense contracting officials could pose conflict of interest
By Elizabeth Newell
More than 400 former top Defense Department officials who left government to work for defense contractors may have handled contracts related to their previous jobs, according to a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office. At least nine of those individuals could have worked on the same contracts they oversaw while employed by Defense.
GAO’s study found that in 2006, 52 contractors employed 2,435 former Defense officials who had previously served as generals, admirals, senior executives, program managers, contracting officers or in other acquisition roles that would make them subject to post-government employment restrictions. Approximately 65 percent of those former officials were employed by one of seven contractors: Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC); Northrop Grumman Corp.; Lockheed Martin Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.; L3 Communications Holding Inc.; General Dynamics and Raytheon Co. All but one of those companies, Booz Allen Hamilton, ranked in the top 10 of Government Executive’s Top 200 Contractors list in 2007. Booz Allen Hamilton was 24th on that list.
To study the post-government employment of Defense contracting officials, GAO matched data from the department for all employees who left during a six-year period with data from the Internal Revenue Service and 52 Defense contractors. The watchdog agency used a stratified random sample of information supplied by contractors to estimate that at least 422 former Defense officials could have worked on contracts related to their former agencies while in their private sector positions. The same method was used to estimate that at least nine could have worked on the same contracts “for which they had oversight responsibilities or decision-making authorities while at DOD.”
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40065&dcn=e_ndw

From Nextgov.com: Air Force looking to build cyber weapons
By Bob Brewin
The Air Force issued a proposal on Monday asking the technology industry to help it develop the ability to hack into an enemy’s computer systems and to conduct offensive cyber warfare, such as shutting down systems, according to internal and public documents.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40020&dcn=e_ndw
 

Pentagon policy bill touts readiness, but defers tough weapons decisions
By Megan Scully, CongressDaily
The fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill assembled by the House Armed Services Committee last week addresses growing concerns within Congress that greater priority should be given to improving the readiness of U.S. military forces.
“This bill continues the committee’s commitment to restoring the readiness of our military as its first priority,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said as his panel began to mark up the bill. “The committee has a responsibility to help ensure that our fighting force is ready not only for today’s fights, but also for unexpected conflicts they may face in the future.”
But several veteran defense analysts observed that Skelton’s committee did not aggressively reorder the Pentagon’s budget priorities, nor did it scale back major defense procurement programs, some of which were conceived before the end of the Cold War.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40040&dcn=e_ndw
 

OMB director lambastes war spending bill
By Keith Koffler, CongressDaily
Office of Management and Budget Director James Nussle Wednesday denounced the supplemental spending bills emerging from the House and Senate, saying that President Bush will reject them and that the Defense Department will soon have to take drastic measures to address the absence of needed funding. But Nussle, who spoke at the White House, did not rule out Bush allowing at least some domestic spending in the measure, saying that the president’s top priorities are ensuring that the legislation does not exceed his $108 billion cap and that it does not include provisions that tie the hands of military leaders. Such provisions, he suggested, would surely result in a veto.
Nussle made clear Bush’s unhappiness with the domestic spending on the bill, accusing Democrats of holding the troops hostage over the party’s domestic agenda. He noted that expanded unemployment benefits are provided under the legislation even though the unemployment rate is below 5 percent. He charged that if Congress was really interested in more domestic spending it would try to speed the appropriations process instead of stalling it, alleging that lawmakers have decided to “punt” on the regular order spending bills until next year in the hope of getting a better deal with a Democratic president.
Nussle said that if the funding is not provided by June 15, the Defense Department will run out of money to pay troops, including those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The delay will also result in the Defense Department having to play a “shell game” by redirecting money from other programs to meet critical needs. Furlough notices will have to begin going out for civilian employees in June.Nussle also accused Democrats of ignoring bipartisan veterans’ benefits legislation and of “air-dropping” into the supplemental a bill that had not been considered.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40063&dcn=e_ndw

Administration official calls House defense earmark provision ‘veto bait’
From CongressDaily
Office of Management and Budget Director James Nussle Wednesday suggested that a provision in the House’s fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill that shields the measure from a recent executive order on earmarks would almost certainly provoke a veto threat. “The Democrats have dropped veto bait into the defense authorization bill by inserting the earmark provision,” Nussle said. Specifically, the provision protects the Pentagon policy bill from an executive order signed by President Bush in February ordering executive branch agencies not to “commit, obligate or expend” funds for earmarks in report language as well as for any purpose the agencies deem not to have merit. The provision has riled anti-earmarks forces in the House, who view it as an end-run around efforts to increase the transparency of earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has authored an amendment that would overturn the language in the bill, one of more than 100 amendments the House Rules Committee will consider this afternoon. Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee say the provision is not intended to protect illegitimate earmarks. They say it reflects the panel’s long-standing practice of providing detailed funding allocations, including earmarks, in the committee’s report on the bill instead of the bill text. Doing so, aides say, gives the Defense Department more flexibility to reprogram funds. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the administration’s concerns would be noted, but pointed out the provision “had unanimous, bipartisan support in the Armed Services Committee.”
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40064&dcn=e_ndw
Quote of the Week:

“We must put our defense bureaucracies on a war footing with a wartime sense of urgency.”
– Defense Secretary Robert Gates in prepared remarks on Thursday at a ceremony in which he was receiving an award for his wartime leadership from the Business Executives for National Security.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »