July 10, 2008 by admin.

By Bryant Jordan, Military.com

On Monday, June 30, 2008, President Bush signed legislation ushering in
a new era in GI Bill benefits. The legislation, which the Senate passed
overwhelmingly, is part of a $162 billion war spending bill.

The new GI Bill was framed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who has long argued
that veterans deserve benefits that match those given to World War II
vets.  Then, returning GIs were covered for the full cost of tuition and
books for whatever college they entered; in addition they were paid a
monthly stipend.

Under the new GI Bill, payment rates will go up, but will be based on
the college or university costs in the service member’s state of
residence. Eligible students also will receive a monthly stipend for
books of up to $1,000 per year and a monthly housing allowance of about
$1,000. The housing stipend will be tied to the Pentagon’s basic
allowance for housing rates.

The new education benefits are forecasted to go into effect in mid-2009
and will be available to all service members and veterans - including
members of the Guard and Reserve - who have served on active duty for at
least 90 consecutive days since Sept. 11, 2001.

The benefits are paid in increments which are determined by the amount
of time served on active duty.

To view a list of FAQs for the new GI Bill, visit:
http://www.gibill2008.org/faq.html.

______________________________

__________________________________________
____________________

VA Seeking OEF/OIF Veterans

Combat veterans are eligible for free medical care from the Veterans
Administration (VA) for most conditions for five years after they
separate from active duty. The VA is reaching out to veterans of
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) who
have been discharged but have not contacted the VA about their benefits.
In addition to health care, other possible benefits include home loan
guarantees, education, training and life insurance. If you are - or if
you know - an OEF-OIF combat veteran who has not contacted the VA to
learn about these benefits, please contact the nearest VA facility or
visit: http://www.oefoif.va.gov/ for more information.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

July 2, 2008 by admin.

 The New GI Bill Signed by the President - Highlights
·      President Bush signed the bill June 30, 2008
·       The new GI Bill assures young veterans a chance at a free four-year public college or university degree, starting August 2009.
·       Spouses and children will see benefits, too. Reservists will see more money for college. Even vets who have served after 9/11 and who got out years ago could get a free college education.
·       Bill was truly a bi-partisan effort. Sen. Jim Webb introduced the historic legislation. House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid did a great job of bringing both parties and Houses together. Republicans improved the Bill by adding the option of being able to transfer benefits to family members.
·        The American Legion is extremely pleased that the president signed a GI Bill worthy of its name.
·       Servicemembers work very hard and make great sacrifices everyday to earn this benefit. The rising costs of college have far outpaced the previous educational benefits available to our military. This GI Bill is much closer to the spirit of the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act. It will make a real difference to many military veterans and their families.
Provisions of the bill
For Active Duty Troops:
·       The bill gets rid of the current enrollment requirements, replacing them with language mandating at least three months’ active duty service in the military since Sept. 11, 2001, for partial GI Bill benefits.
·       Anyone who has served at least three years on active duty since then is eligible for four years of tuition costs at their home state’s universities, plus a monthly stipend for housing and living expenses which averages about $1100 nationwide, depending on where the veteran attends college.
·       Each year, the veterans will also be eligible for $1,200 in tutoring services and $1,000 more to cover books. Altogether, the benefit could top more than $25,000 a year in the most expensive states.
·       If troops or veterans attend state schools that are less expensive, they won’t get to pocket the difference – the benefit only covers what veterans are actually charged by their school. If they decide to go to a private school or out-of-state college, they’ll have to cover the difference between their higher tuition bill and the state-assigned reimbursement figure.
·       The benefit lasts for 15 years now, instead of 10, giving troops extra time after leaving the military to either use their benefit or pass it along.
For Spouses and dependents:
·       Under a provision backed by the Pentagon, troops who served at least 10 years on active duty will be able to transfer their benefit to a spouse or dependent child. Spouses can receive the money even sooner, if their servicemember has served at least six years and agrees to another four-year contract.
·       Families can divide the benefit up however it benefits them most, as long as they don’t exceed those 36 months of college classes. For example, a retired soldier can use two years of benefits to pay for a two-year degree program, then transfer the last two years to a spouse or child.
·       For long-serving servicemembers, the changes mean that their college-age children could get a free college education starting fall 2009, provided they attend a state-backed school.
For Reservists and Veterans:
·       Guardsmen and reservists who served at least three years on active duty in the past seven years automatically qualify for the full tuition benefit just like other troops. Those who served less active time, but at least three months, will receive between 40 and 90 percent of the tuition benefit, based on a sliding scale.
·       More importantly, the benefit can be used within 15 years of their separation from the service, instead of the current requirement that they remain in the Guard or Reserve to receive the money.
·       For those veterans who have already used all of their GI Bill benefits, the changes don’t offer any new money. Many of the most vocal supporters of the bill, veterans upset over how little they received for college, acknowledged the changes will help the next generation of young servicemembers more than themselves.
·       But veterans who have not yet used up their education benefits, or those who never signed up for the GI Bill when they were serving, can take advantage of the new rules.
·       As long as they served at least three years on active duty after Sept. 11, 2001, they’re eligible for the same free tuition.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

June 24, 2008 by admin.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, charged Bush administration officials Wednesday with continuing to downplay the mental trauma and brain injuries suffered by veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Filner said an April RAND Corp. study, “Invisible Wounds of War — Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery,” justifies a tenfold jump in the U.S. casualty count versus the figure of 33,000 American dead and wounded used by the Pentagon.
RAND researchers extrapolated from a survey they conducted of 1,965 veterans to conclude that nearly 300,000 service members and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan wars are suffering from post-traumatic stress or major depression. Filner told the pair of researchers, who had summarized their findings for his committee, that their work probably understates the problem.
“I personally think these are low estimates, just from my own studies,” Filner said. “But if you take even the 300,000, [it’s] 10 times the official casualty statistics from the Pentagon. Shouldn’t this 300,000 be included?”
Lisa H. Jaycox, a senior behavioral scientist and clinical psychologist who co-directed the RAND study, embraced Filner’s argument.
“Well, they are [suffering] an injury condition resulting from combat deployment, and so it’s a different kind of casualty,” Jaycox said. “But, yes, they are very important numbers.”
At the same hearing, Michael L. Dominguez, principal deputy under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said RAND had gathered solid data from its survey but then drew the wrong conclusions. The study, Dominguez said, “did not, and cannot, definitively say that there are 300,000 cases of clinically diagnosed cases” of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression among veterans who served in the two theaters of war.
Filner angrily interrupted him, telling Dominguez that RAND didn’t claim to show 300,000 clinically diagnosed cases of PTSD or depression. “It was an extrapolation to the possibility” of 300,000 cases, Filner said.
With over 1.6 million U.S. service members having served in Iraq or Afghanistan, Dominguez said, a finding that 300,000 veterans “have experienced some kind of mental health stress is very consistent with our data. And those people do need to be discovered [and] to get help.”
But, he continued, “many of them will, with very little counseling or assistance, resolve those combat stress issues themselves. A few — a few – will in fact manifest a clinical diagnosis of PTSD and they’ll need much more sustained intervention by medical health care professionals.”
“How many is a few?” Filner snapped.
The results so far, Dominguez said, show “less than one percent will actually have clinical PTSD that will need treatment over…”
“You believe that?” said Filner, cutting him off with sarcasm. “You believe that there are less than one percent of these deployed soldiers will have PTSD as a clinical diagnosis?”
Dominguez was stunned into silence momentarily but finally managed, “So far this is the number that we are seeing.”
“That shows why you don’t do anything,” Filner said, “because you think there’s only a few.”
Another purpose of the three-hour hearing, which included testimony from retired Navy Rear Adm. Patrick W. Dunne, assistant secretary for policy and planning for the Veterans Benefits Administration, was to assess progress by DoD and VA in implementing Wounded Warrior legislation passed in January in response to the Walter Reed scandal last year.
Dominguez and Dunne conceded that some congressional deadlines haven’t been met, including a late April target for establishing a Wounded Warrior Resource Center to give recovering service members, their families and primary caregivers a single point of contact for assistance.
But Dr. Terri L. Tanielian, co-director of the RAND study, acknowledged to Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) that the Wounded Warrior initiatives have set the Departments of Defense and VA “on the right track” for addressing most war-related mental health challenges.
The big hurdle now to proper care for many mentally wounded veterans is clinical capacity nationwide, Tanielian said. The pipeline for training mental healthcare providers in the most effective therapies for PTSD used by VA needs widening, she said, and that requires “transformation and system-level changes across the entire U.S. health care system.”
Filner, meanwhile, wants every servicemember and veteran who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan to receive a mandatory examination, which should include at least an hour with a clinician trained to detect the symptoms of PTSD, depression and even mild cases of traumatic brain injury.
In his tirade at Dominguez and Dunne, Filner said that, between the two of them, “I think there’s been a contest to see who can suck the humanity out of this issue better…I mean, we’re talking about our children! We’re talking about life and death! We’re talking about suicides…homelessness…a lifetime of dealing with brain injuries! And you guys sit there without anything to say. This is absolutely unacceptable.”
He asked Dominguez if he also disagreed with RAND that 320,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a probable traumatic brain injury.
“Again,” said Dominguez, “you don’t have 320,000 brain injuries. You have 320,000 people who have been in or around a concussive event. Again, it’s a spectrum of experience [versus] a spectrum of need that manifests itself. So, no, there is not 320,000 people out there with brain injuries.”
That attitude, Filner charged, encourages clinicians to misdiagnose conditions so veterans are denied the care they need and the compensation they deserve. Dominguez took strong exception to those remarks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

June 19, 2008 by admin.

1. GAO upholds Boeing protest of tanker award
   From CongressDaily

The Government Accountability Office Wednesday sustained a protest filed by Boeing Co. over the Air Force’s decision to award a lucrative contract for 179 aerial refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman and EADS, the European firm behind Airbus. The GAO’s decision follows its exhaustive, 100-day review of the Air Force’s selection process for the $35 billion program. In a summary of its decision, GAO urged the Air Force to reopen competition for the planes, which the service has said are urgently needed to replace 1950s-era KC-135 tankers. “Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman,” GAO said. It recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing for the cost of the protest. GAO’s decision is non-binding, but it puts intense pressure on the Air Force to comply with its recommendations.GAO cited seven specific reasons for siding with Boeing, including its conclusion that the Air Force did not adequately assess the merits of the proposals in line with the criteria they established for the program. The Air Force also gave added weight to Northrop Grumman’s proposal because it exceeded a key program requirement, despite establishing in its solicitation for the contract that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding” requirements, GAO said. The GAO summary does not specify which of the requirements was at issue, but Boeing Co. has long argued that the Air Force ultimately selected a larger plane, a modified Airbus A330, than it had asked for.Additionally, GAO concluded that the Air Force “conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing” by informing the aerospace giant that it had fully satisfied a requirement on so-called operational utility. The Air Force later determined that Boeing had only partially met the objective and did not advise the firm of the change in its assessment of the proposal. GAO also concluded that the Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs on the two planes was “unreasonable” and that the Boeing offering, adapted from its 767 aircraft, would cost less over its lifetime than the A330. In addition, the Air Force “improperly increased” Boeing’s estimated engineering costs on the program, according to GAO. The GAO’s decision Wednesday delivers a stunning blow to an Air Force already suffering from a string of public embarrassments that led to the firings earlier this month of the service’s top civilian and military leaders. It also amounts to a significant setback for the Air Force’s acquisition office, still recovering from a highly publicized scandal nearly five years ago that led to the cancellation of an overpriced Boeing contract to lease tankers to the service. And it also is likely to delay Air Force plans to replace its aging tanker fleet with newer, more capable aircraft — a top acquisition priority for the service.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40274&dcn=e_ndw

2. IGs face more responsibility, turf wars over war-related spending
   By Dan Friedman, CongressDaily

3.     Through small steps, Congress is mandating a big increase in oversight of war-related spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a surge of oversight personnel in Iraq is prompting turf fights among inspectors general.Though bureaucratic battles among overseers are not new, IG employees and congressional aides said disputes over authority to audit contracts in Iraq have sharpened recently.“IGs are definitely fighting over turf, and who will do which audit,” a former senior oversight official in Iraq said.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40248&dcn=e_ndwReturn to Top 

4. Veterans groups seek funding in advance
   By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., National Journal

Veterans benefits are one of the most popular causes in Congress. But Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics are routinely buffeted by the annual uncertainties of the increasingly dysfunctional budget process on Capitol Hill. Now veterans advocates have proposed a controversial fix.For years, veterans groups have argued, in vain, for making veterans health care funding automatic, as it is for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. In recent months, however, a coalition led by the 1.4 million-member Disabled American Veterans has switched tactics. Instead of seeking politically unpalatable mandatory funding, the group is proposing that VA health care be funded through an obscure legislative mechanism called “advance appropriations.”In contrast to mandatory or entitlement funding, the advance-appropriations process does let Congress vote on funding levels–but it does so a year in advance of the regular budget cycle. So while Congress debates most programs’ appropriations for fiscal 2009, it is setting aside almost $30 billion worth of advance appropriations for 2010. This money funds an eclectic mix of programs ranging from Section 8 housing subsidies to education grants to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. No matter how delayed or disrupted funding may be for the rest of the federal government, these advance-appropriations programs are guaranteed to get their money on time, at the start of each fiscal year. “The VA has had a hideous problem for a decade” with tardy funding bills, said John M. Bradley, a longtime Hill staffer who is now with the Disabled American Veterans. “Advance appropriations are a very attractive potential vehicle.”Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40258&dcn=e_ndw

5. Gates taps panel to evaluate stewardship of nuclear arsenal
   By Katherine McIntire Peters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday named the eight-member task force he’s tapped to review the department’s management of nuclear weapons and related programs. The panel will be led by James R. Schlesinger, who served as CIA director and Defense secretary under Richard Nixon and then became the first Energy secretary under Jimmy Carter.The panel is to consider the findings and recommendations of a classified investigative report prepared by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald that examined the recently discovered improper shipment of missile components to Taiwan in 2006. That report led to Gates’ unprecedented decision last week to force the resignations of the top two Air Force leaders, Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Mosley.The Donald investigation revealed a “degradation of the authority, standards of excellence and technical competence within the nation’s [intercontinental ballistic missile] force,” Gates said when he announced the resignations June 5.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40240&dcn=e_ndwReturn to Top

6.    

7. Panel votes to crack down on veterans’ grave vandals
   By Michael Posner, CongressDaily

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to impose severe federal penalties for vandals who desecrate graves or steal grave plaques of deceased military veterans.Without discussion, the committee approved the House-passed bill (H.R. 3480) on a voice vote for Senate consideration. The House approved the bill on May 21.Metal grave markers are being stolen from the grave sites of veterans either as an act of vandalism or to get the metal to sell to scrap yards.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40238&dcn=e_ndw

8. Air Force concedes mistakes in tanker cost estimates
   From CongressDaily

The Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co.’s proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision, Reuters reported. News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the GAO prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest. In a 191-page document filed with the GAO, Boeing said mistakes in calculating the life cycle costs of the airplanes raised questions about the thoroughness and credibility of the Air Force’s overall evaluation. But Northrop downplayed the impact of the Air Force error, saying life cycle costs were just one part of the Air Force evaluation. The final decision was based on the capabilities of its KC-30 tanker, not cost alone, Northrop officials said. The Air Force declined comment.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40229&dcn=e_ndw 

9. Positive trends in Iraq belie deeper security challenges, says top military officer
   By Katherine McIntire Peters

A day after meeting at Fort Stewart, Ga., with soldiers from the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division who have recently returned from Iraq, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they described a substantially improved security environment over the course of their yearlong tour. The reduction in violence has allowed the Iraqi government to pass critical laws and take vital security actions that would have been unthinkable a year ago, he said.“The security environment has been set in a very positive way,” Mullen said in a wide-ranging discussion at a Government Executive leadership breakfast on Thursday. “I’m not predicting [anything],” he added. “We’re on a good trend line and I’m hopeful it will continue.”U.S. commanders in Iraq are in the process of reducing forces there from the equivalent of 20 brigades to 15 brigades by the end of July. Mullen was careful to avoid adding fuel to the political fire being exchanged between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, Republican and Democratic contenders for the presidency in 2009, and declined to predict when Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander on the ground in Iraq, would make recommendations regarding additional troop reductions. But if security gains can be sustained through the summer, further reductions may be possible as early as this fall, he said.Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40233&dcn=e_ndw

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

June 12, 2008 by admin.

Air Force concedes mistakes in tanker cost estimates
CongressDaily June 12, 2008
The Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co.’s proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision, Reuters reported.
News of Air Force errors in calculating the life cycle costs of the competing bids, which were also confirmed by Northrop, comes as the GAO prepares to rule by June 19 on the Boeing protest.
In a 191-page document filed with the GAO, Boeing said mistakes in calculating the life cycle costs of the airplanes raised questions about the thoroughness and credibility of the Air Force’s overall evaluation.
But Northrop downplayed the impact of the Air Force error, saying life cycle costs were just one part of the Air Force evaluation. The final decision was based on the capabilities of its KC-30 tanker, not cost alone, Northrop officials said.
The Air Force declined comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

June 8, 2008 by admin.

More than 1.5 million men and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, many are coming home and finding it difficult, if not impossible, to pay for college. Help open the doors to higher education for America’s newest generation of veterans. Join us in our fight for a new GI Bill in 2008.

Mr. President,

Troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve strong education benefits that make college tuition affordable.

I support the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S. 22 and H.R. 5740), and urge you to sign it into law immediately.

I am a veteran of OIF (Iraq)

I am a veteran of OEF (Afghanistan)

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

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 »

May 15, 2008 by admin.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

March 20, 2008 by admin.

General: Army reliance on National Guard won’t diminish
By Megan Scully CongressDaily March 19, 2008

Despite efforts to increase the size of the active-duty Army to ease the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army officer predicted Wednesday that the military’s heavy reliance on the Army National Guard and Reserve will continue for “another generation.”
A larger force will mean significantly more time at home between overseas missions for all active and reserve combat units, but the Army’s reserve component will continue to function as an operational force for the foreseeable future, Gen. Charles Campbell, who heads U.S. Army Forces Command, said during a breakfast with reporters.
Although it is growing by 65,000 troops, the active-duty Army still is not large enough to handle what is expected to be an era of persistent conflict without its reserve, Campbell said. “To meet that demand, we are going to have to continue to be reliant on our reserve component,” he said. “That’s a reality. It’s been a reality that’s been true now for seven years and it’s likely to be true for another generation.”
The Army recently deployed five National Guard brigades to Iraq and expects to deploy seven more for overseas missions in the next rotation, said Campbell, whose command is responsible for training, equipping and deploying units mobilized for combat operations. The Army hopes to soon give reservists at least four years at home between deployments — a schedule that still would allow the Army to deploy five or six National Guard combat brigades each year.
The Army, Campbell said, has a few options to meet operational demands without repeatedly tapping its reserve forces for deployments, but none are affordable nor politically feasible. The active-duty Army would have to expand to 800,000 soldiers — 253,000 more than its current end-strength goal — to meet overseas demands on its own.
“I’m not suggesting that a large Army is not desirable,” Campbell said. “But I think there is a reality associated with whether or not you can recruit and sustain that large of an Army given today’s demographics. And then there’s the issue of affordability.” The other option, Campbell said, is reinstating the draft — a tremendously unpopular solution within the Army’s own ranks and the general public.
“If you don’t reinstate the draft and you don’t grow the Army to 800,000, what are your alternatives?” Campbell said. “Well, your alternative [is to] create predictable access to properly ready formations in the Guard and Reserve.”
Over the next two years, the Army Guard will receive $17 billion in new gear to replenish stateside equipment coffers that have diminished since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
Billions of dollars more are expected to flow to Guard and Reserve units over the next several years, marking an unprecedented investment in these forces. With that investment, Campbell said, comes an expectation that those units will be ready for deployments.
“There has been a historical theme that as the federal government has infused more resources into the citizen soldier formation … that there is a commensurate expectation of greater access and utilization,” Campbell said. “I think that’s a fair expectation.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »