The Insider

DARPA Funding Dip
By John Liang
September 16, 2011 at 7:20 PM

As InsideDefense.com reports today, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would see its fiscal year 2011 appropriations cut back by nearly $126.6 million if language in the Senate Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill survives conference negotiations with the House version.

According to the Senate committee's report accompanying the just-released FY-12 defense-spending bill, here are the FY-11 appropriations for DARPA:

DARPA Undistributed Rescission.................................................................. 126,589,000

DARPA Defense Research Sciences.............................................................. 1,827,000

DTRA Weapons of Mass Destruction Defeat Technologies.............................. 10,435,000

DARPA Tactical Technology .......................................................................... 10,084,000

DARPA Materials and Biological Technology .................................................. 1,000,000

DARPA Electronics Technology ........................................................................ 500,000

DTRA Counterproliferation Initiatives—Proliferation Prevention and Defeat ...... 11,950,000

DARPA Classified Programs ............................................................................ 4,000,000

DARPA Command, Control and Communications Systems............................... 3,000,000

DARPA Space Programs and Technology ........................................................ 1,000,000

DARPA Advanced Electronics Technologies..................................................... 1,000,000

DARPA Network-Centric Warfare Technology.................................................. 1,000,000

The committee's recommendation is part of an overall $2.7 billion cut of funds previously allocated to Pentagon weapons-modernization accounts, cuts that would be imposed as part of the FY-12 defense-spending bill that trims $9 billion from the Obama administration's request for new weapons spending.

Here is the report language for DARPA's FY-12 budget:

The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes approximately $3,000,000,000 for DARPA. The Committee notes that roughly 50 percent of the budget request is contained in only five Program Elements, of which one is greater than $400,000,000. The Committee is concerned by the level of resources requested in single Program Elements, particularly in light of DARPA's considerable financial flexibility. The Committee believes that transparency would be better served by reducing the size of DARPA's individual Program Elements.

BMD In Poland, Romania
By John Liang
September 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM

This week has been an eventful one for the United States' missile defense efforts in Europe. This morning, the State Department released the following announcement:

The United States and Poland are pleased to jointly announce that the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement of 2008 and its Amending Protocol of 2010 on deployment of the land-based SM-3 system within Poland has entered into force, effective September 15, 2011. The U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system will be located at Redzikowo Base as a part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in the 2018 timeframe. This base represents a significant contribution by our two nations to a future NATO missile defense capability.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi signed an "Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Romania on the Deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System in Romania." According to a department fact sheet:

This Agreement calls for the establishment and operation of a U.S. land-based SM-3 ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Romania. The deployment to Romania is anticipated to occur in the 2015 timeframe as part of the second phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). In addition to deepening the bilateral strategic relationship between our two countries, cooperation in this area will make a substantial contribution to NATO's collective security and will be an integral part of a NATO missile defense capability.

UCP Changes
By John Liang
September 14, 2011 at 7:25 PM

The Defense Department has updated its Unified Command Plan (UCP) to reflect the disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and other changes, according to a DOD statement issued this afternoon.

The UCP is "a strategic document that establishes the missions, responsibilities, and geographic areas of responsibility (AORs) for commanders of combatant commands," the statement reads. President Obama approved the changes on Sept. 12.

"Every two years, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required to review the missions, responsibilities, and geographical boundaries of each combatant command and recommend to the President, through the secretary of defense, any changes that may be necessary," according to the statement. Further:

Significant changes made by UCP 2011 Change 1 include:

- Removing language that refers to U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), which was disestablished on Aug. 31, 2011.

- Removing language for geographic combatant command standing joint force headquarters, which are approved for disestablishment by the end of fiscal 2012.

- Adding responsibility for global standing joint force headquarters to U.S. Transportation Command. These assets will transfer as the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command from USJFCOM.

- Transferring the Joint Warfare Analysis Center missions to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Joint Warfare Analysis Center was previously a subordinate command to USJFCOM.

- Removing language and responsibilities for information operations, military deception, and operations security from USSTRATCOM. These missions will transfer to the Joint Staff.

The UCP 2011 continues to support U.S. defense security commitments around the world while improving military responsiveness to emerging crises.

Fighting FOIA
By John Liang
September 13, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Following a loss in the Supreme Court earlier this year, the Navy is using new arguments to prevent the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding safety procedures for a naval weapons facility, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning.

The Navy is arguing on remand that an exemption protecting certain law enforcement records from mandatory public disclosure applies to the public withholding of safety procedures for a naval weapons facility. Further:

The Navy, in its opening brief in the remanded case Glen Milner v. U.S. Department of the Navy, relies heavily on statements made by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion issued in the March 7 high court ruling in the original case.

In the 8-1 Milner ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Navy's attempt to use a personnel rules exemption -- Exemption 2 -- to withhold the public release of safety procedures for a naval weapons facility in Washington State. The ruling signaled strong backing by the court for broad public disclosure of information with only narrow, limited exemptions, easing concerns from activists that the court would end up blocking access to environment and other data without good cause (Defense Environment Alert, March 15).

But at the same time, the high court left open the possibility for the Navy to argue on remand to a lower court that the information should be withheld under a different FOIA exemption, Exemption 7.

Specifically, the Navy is now arguing that Exemption 7(F) allows it to withhold the safety procedures from public release. It filed its opening brief Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Truck Stop
By Dan Dupont
September 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, in its mark of the fiscal year 2012 defense bill, has terminated the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, according to the panel's chairman.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) made the announcement in his opening statement at a hearing today. More to come.

AIA and Panetta (Updated)
By Christopher J. Castelli
September 12, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta plans to emphasize the importance of maintaining a healthy industrial base when he meets with the Aerospace Industries Association at the Pentagon Tuesday morning, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today.

It "should be a productive discussion," he said. Little acknowledged the administration's efforts to cut security spending will likely be discussed, but he did not elaborate.

Update (3:50 p.m.): On Monday afternoon, Little commented further on Panetta's upcoming meeting with AIA:

The secretary is looking forward to hearing the views of industry leaders. He believes that a strong and healthy defense industrial base is vital to our national security, and that preserving the department's partnership with industry is a top priority. The secretary will emphasize the need for industry to work with the department to promote the twin imperatives of strong national defense and fiscal discipline. He believes that we can work together effectively to achieve that important outcome.

House Intel
By John Liang
September 9, 2011 at 4:49 PM

House lawmakers today passed the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill by a 384-14 vote. As a committee statement reads:

The passage of the FY-11 Intel Authorization Bill marked the first time since FY-04 a complete Intelligence Authorization Bill was enacted, and today's House passage [of the FY-12 bill] marks a commitment to returning to the normal business of oversight of the Intelligence Community.

The bill "provides oversight and authorization" for the following intelligence activities, according to the statement:

* Global counter-terrorism operations, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden;

* Tactical intelligence support to combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq;

* Cyber defense by the National Security Agency;

* Court-ordered wire taps against terrorists and spies;

* Detecting and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

* Designing, launching and operating of spy satellites;

* Global monitoring of foreign militaries, weapons tests, and arms control treaties;

* Real-time analysis and reporting on events such as the unrest in the Middle East; [and]

* Research and development of new technology to maintain our intelligence agencies' technological edge, including work on code breaking and spy satellites.

In a separate statement, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) lauded the bill's passage:

This important measure ensures the men and women of our intelligence community have the tools, the authorities, and the resources needed to keep America secure, today and in the future. The threats against our nation and the American people haven't ebbed -– rather, as events around the world continue to show, the need for a robust intelligence community that enhances our national security is as critical as ever. I'm hopeful the Senate will quickly pass this measure and send it to the president's desk for his signature.

That presidential signature, however, comes with a caveat. In a Sept. 7 statement of administration policy, the White House announces that if the bill "includes, but does not adequately address, the specific provisions of the Senate classified annex," the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto.

Two Virginias
By Jason Sherman
September 8, 2011 at 8:59 PM

For the first time in more than two decades, the Navy has begun the construction of a second submarine in a single fiscal year.

On Sept. 2, the General Dynamics Electric Boat-Huntington Ingalls industry team building the Navy's new attack submarines began work on SSN 787, the second Virginia-class boat under construction in fiscal year 2011 -- realizing a long-term goal set by service leaders in 2005 to reduce costs in order to double annual production rates, according to the Navy.

Rear Adm. David Johnson, program executive officer for submarines, said in a statement today:

To get to this important point, our Navy/industry shipbuilding team executed a very successful design for affordability program that yielded significant cost savings and has allowed the Navy to increase production in a fiscally-responsible manner. A great deal of our success comes from increasing construction efficiencies; our last two submarines were delivered in 65 months, which is eight months early to their contract delivery date and we are well on our way to getting that number down to 60 months for our two fiscal year 2012 authorized boats.

The SSN 787 is being build under a $14 billion multiyear contract the Navy awarded in December 2009, covering purchases through FY-13.

Capt. Michael Jabaley, the Virginia class program manager recently tapped for promotion in rank, said in a statement, “Building two submarines per year is the most economical way to procure these boats and will help ensure that our submarine force has the platforms it needs to carry out its various missions.”

The plan to build two boats in FY-11 was temporarily put at risk earlier this year when the Pentagon was forced to operate for the first seven months of the fiscal year under a stopgap spending measure, which included a prohibition on increasing production rates for all federal procurement programs.

General Dynamics twice extended pricing terms for the second boat, allowing the Virginia-class production plan to remain largely on track. It has been 22 years since the Navy last built two submarines in a single year, according to a service statement.

'Should Cost'
By John Liang
September 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM

The Pentagon has begun to assess whether its "should-cost" goals are being met. As Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

It is too early to tell whether weapons programs working to implement the Pentagon's should-cost policy -- a key element of the Defense Department's better-buying-power initiative -- are successfully meeting challenging targets for affordability, according to a DOD official.

"What we're seeing with the should-cost policy is the ink is still a little wet," said the acquisition directorate's deputy director of program acquisition and strategic sourcing, Stuart Hazlett. "I think the should-cost is excellent, but as you get into it, the goal for your particular program . . . it's not just are those goals achievable but are they challenging you enough," Hazlett said in a brief interview. "They've got to be stretched goals."

Hazlett said that as DOD director of pricing Shay Assad and his team review data from program officers, they are seeing programs establishing "the right kind of goals." But "the proof is in the pudding," he added. "I've heard senior leaders say, 'We've already got it,' but, OK, then start today or the next."

Earlier this week, Inside the Navy reported that service officials have begun identifying and working toward "should-cost" goals for their programs under a new directive from Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley as the service seeks to squeeze out savings wherever it can. Further:

Stackley, in a July 19 memo titled "Implementation of Should-Cost Management," states that all programs falling under acquisition category (ACAT) I through III should establish a "will-cost" and "should-cost" estimate. The former will be the baseline cost estimate for the program, whereas the latter "will identify specific, discrete and measurable actions or initiatives that achieve savings against the will-cost estimate," the memo states.

ITN interviewed BJ White-Olson, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for management and budget, for that story:

The directive stems from Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter's "better buying power" initiatives unveiled last summer, one of the pillars of which was a target affordability and controlled cost growth push toward will-cost and should-cost management, White-Olson said in an Aug. 31 interview. A subsequent memo late last year provided more specific guidance to the service acquisition executives on how to establish such goals beyond major ACAT I acquisition programs, leading to Stackley's memo.

Individual program managers will be tasked with coming up with should-cost goals based on their knowledge of their programs, and there is no penalty if they fail to meet them.

"There are no targets given to program managers," White-Olson said. "It's up to them to identify where they believe they can drive the savings out."

Asked what the program manager's incentive is to achieve savings, she said she believed program managers would want to exercise due diligence and seek to "get the most value for our dollar and . . . bring the savings back to the department so they can look at other programs."

For more on our past coverage of the "should-cost" issue, check out these stories:

Calming Down Insurgencies
By John Liang
September 7, 2011 at 6:47 PM

The RAND Corp. just released a pair of monographs examining how countries that confront insurgencies transition from a violent to a more stable situation. The first one "examines such transitions as: the military-to-civilian transfer of security and economic operations; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of fighting forces; the building of police and justice functions in a post-conflict environment; and the contribution of international partners."

The second monograph "examines six case studies of insurgencies from around the world to identify the key factors necessary for a successful transition." Specifically:

In some of the cases, such as Iraq's Anbar province and Afghanistan, the United States was (or still is) directly involved in combat operations; in the Philippines and Colombia, it played a supporting role; in others, there was little U.S. involvement of any consequence. The authors review the causes of each insurgency and the key players involved and examine what the government did right -- or wrong -- to bring the insurgency to an end and to transition to stability. They note that in each case, there was a need to understand the participants in the insurgency and the grievances and needs of the local population; to balance security needs with reforms in other areas; and to plan for the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of militias and government and insurgent forces.

Inside the Pentagon reported last month that many Defense Department officials oppose the Defense Science Board's recent call for a new senior post to oversee intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for counterinsurgency operations. Specifically:

Defense officials critical of the idea argue that a new ISR post "isn't the way to go in view of a constrained budget," the source said.

The DSB's report, released in May, outlined ways DOD intelligence could better support counterinsurgency operations. The panel urged the director of national intelligence to assume responsibility for COIN ISR and to create a related national intelligence manager position (ITP, May 20, p1).

Although the Defense Intelligence Agency has since penned a two-page memo to Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter endorsing the panel's findings, roughly 15 to 20 DOD agencies are also "discussing and considering and making their points of view known," the source said.

Two of those agencies are still in the process of being briefed by DOD officials on the national intelligence manager (NIM) recommendation, the source said. All briefings are expected to wrap up by the end of the fall, although they were initially slated to finish by early August, the source said.

After that, it will be up to Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, the source said. He will receive all the recommendations from various agencies and present the findings to the director of national intelligence.

New DIA Strategic Plan
By John Liang
September 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM

The Defense Intelligence Agency recently published a new strategic plan outlining the way it will do its job over the next five years.

"The DIA 2012-2017 Strategy is to strengthen and unite the agency's core defense intelligence capabilities to best support warfighters and policymakers in an era of persistent international conflict and enduring U.S. fiscal challenges," the document states, adding: "The strategy's theme is One Mission - One Team - One Agency. One Mission, cleanly nested in all-source defense intelligence, is accomplished by One Team, operating as an integrated, agile, and results-oriented force within One Agency, performing as a critical member of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and committed to excellence in defense of our Nation."

The agency plans to implement its strategy via four main principles, according to the document:

*    Work together as one team within an operational environment that fosters trust, unity of effort, diversity, integration and transparency, adaptability and mental agility, and close proximity to the customers of DIA's output.

*    Focus DIA on its mission-essential capabilities by pursuing efficiencies at every level, including centralized planning with decentralized implementation, aggressive and adaptive restructuring, and redirecting resources to priority mission areas.

*    Grow stronger by leading or joining U.S. whole-of-government efforts to leverage interagency information, expertise, and capabilities, while strengthening and forging stronger partnerships with academia, the private sector, and international partners.

*    Apply performance management to maximize individual, team, and organizational performance to ensure DIA services and products are timely and relevant to customer needs, and hold the workforce accountable for their actions and job performance based on measurable outcomes.

DIA plans to "fundamentally shift its intelligence operations mindset and business practices from focusing on the last war to preparing for the highly complex and uncertain future" in "tangible ways," according to the document. Further:

DIA's core mission resides in four intelligence competencies: all-source analysis; counterintelligence (CI); human intelligence (HUMINT), and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT). Primarily focused on foreign military and defense-related matters, DIA will:

1.    Provide strategic warning and integrated risk assessment.

2.    Plan and direct defense intelligence activities for all-source analysis; collection management; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; HUMINT; CI; open source intelligence (OSINT); MASINT; technical collection; and international engagement.

3.    Collect information through HUMINT, CI, OSINT, MASINT, and technical means.

4.    Process and exploit information collected through HUMINT, CI, OSINT, MASINT, and technical means.

5.    Produce all-source intelligence analysis from all available collection means.

6.    Integrate and disseminate defense intelligence products and data.

The strategic plan acknowledges that "current and future adversaries will constantly adapt and seek new ways to challenge U.S. national security interests," and "calls for a more flexible, adaptive, and agile operational culture immersed in critical thinking. It further requires that DIA Officers thrive in an integrated and decentralized structure, embrace civilian-military integration and information sharing, be willing to accept risk, and foster proficiency to adapt operations based on a continuous assessment of the situation."

Bob, William and Mary
By Christopher J. Castelli
September 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Turns out former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' next job will be less than three hours away from the Pentagon. Gates has been named the next chancellor of the College of William & Mary, his alma mater. In a statement released today, Gates noted he is "deeply honored" to accept the job.

"The time I spent at William & Mary as an undergraduate student shaped my life and I look forward to working with the students, staff, faculty and the William & Mary community," Gates said.

President Obama congratulated Gates on his new position. "In Bob, one of our nation’s oldest colleges has found one of our nation’s finest public servants," Obama said. "I’m confident that Bob will bring to this new role the same sense of duty and personal integrity that I and other presidents valued during his distinguished career in government. As he did at Texas A&M and the Department of Defense, Bob will again help lead an institution devoted to our nation’s most precious resource -- our young men and women." From 2002 to 2006, Gates was president of Texas A&M University.

JSF Pressure
By John Liang
September 2, 2011 at 5:04 PM

The August congressional recess hasn't stopped lawmakers from pressuring the Defense Department to continue developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, despite program delays and cost increases.

In an Aug. 31 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) calls on Panetta to "fully commit to the expeditious fielding of the F-35 and forego procuring any additional 4th-generation fighter aircraft such as the F-18E/F which will be of limited to no value in any future threat scenario."

Yesterday, Inside the Pentagon reported that Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn had turned down a plea made by nine senators to reconsider the termination of the second engine for the JSF:

In an Aug. 23 letter, Lynn writes that continuing a competitive acquisition strategy for the fighter's engine does not make sense, even when taking into account General Electric and Rolls Royce's offer to "self-fund" more than $100 million of the development costs for their F136 engine, which the department terminated earlier this year.

Lynn's letter is a response to an Aug. 2 letter sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta by Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Rob Portman (R-OH), John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Scott Brown (R-MA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Dan Coats (R-IN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).

The senators asked Panetta to review the termination decision and to "take no action" on the disposition of government property acquired under the F136 development contract until the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill is "fully debated" and passed by the Congress. But Lynn notes that the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shop concluded that "the potential life-cycle cost savings from a competitive sourcing of engines does not provide a compelling business case for a second JSF engine."

"Given the austere fiscal environment and increasing pressure to cut future defense spending, it is difficult for the Department to justify making such an investment," Lynn writes.

The Pentagon remains unmoved by General Electric and Rolls Royce's proposal to "self-fund" further development of the F136 with more than $100 million of the contractors' own funds in FY-12. The department estimates that it would require $480 million in FY-12 to continue the development of the F136, Lynn notes.

This morning, Inside the Air Force reports that JSF program officials recently began to train both pilots and maintainers using classroom and ground exercises as well as test site visits, paving the way for flight training expected to begin in the next two months:

The F-35 has not yet received its formal airworthiness certification from the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center, a certification that comes with a military flight release, according to Marine Corps Col. Art Tomassetti, the vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, the site of the F-35 training program. That license to fly is expected this month, Tomassetti wrote through an Eglin AFB spokeswoman in an Aug. 30 statement to Inside the Air Force.

Once that and other certifications are granted by the Defense Department over the next two months, pilots in training will be allowed to begin practice flights, Tomassetti said. Those are expected to begin in the fall. In the meantime, the two JSF aircraft that have been at at Eglin since July -- Air Force variants known as AF-8 and AF-9 -- are being used primarily for maintenance training.

"Small group tryouts for government maintenance training started in August," Tomassetti wrote. "A handful of maintainers focused on running through the course material needed to teach fuels and avionics. We are also completing installation in our new facilities, ensuring training, support equipment, Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) and personnel are in place."

Supercommittee Preview
By John Liang
September 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

With Labor Day almost upon us, a congressional "supercommittee" will soon begin the process of cutting billions of dollars in government spending. A sizeable chunk of those cuts will likely impact the defense budget.

In that spirit, five Republican House and Senate lawmakers -- one of whom is on the supercommittee -- will appear at an event next week hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Foreign Policy Initiative and The Heritage Foundation to talk about where some of those defense-spending cuts may be made. The GOP lawmakers are:

Rep. Randy Forbes (VA)

Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)

Rep. Allen West (FL)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC)

Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ)

Kyl's appearance is contingent on the supercommittee's meeting schedule, according to the event announcement.

CTBT Update
By John Liang
September 1, 2011 at 8:04 PM

A State Department official briefed attendees of an international meeting in New York today called the "High Level Workshop Against Nuclear Tests -- From Here to 2015: Meeting the Targets of the NPT Action Plan."

During her briefing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Marcie Ries had the following to say about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, including tidbits about some upcoming studies due out soon:

The United States is committed to pursuing U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to its entry into force at the earliest possible date. Entry into force of the CTBT is an essential step toward the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. While the United States abides by the core prohibition of the CTBT through our nuclear testing moratorium promulgated in 1992, the principal benefit of the Treaty -- that of constraining all states from testing -- still eludes us.

We have begun a deliberate and methodical process of engaging the U.S. Senate and the American public on the importance of the CTBT. Entry into force of the CTBT is an essential step toward the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a vision articulated by the President when he spoke in Prague in 2009. Our recent experience working with the U.S. Senate to gain ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – New START – with the Russian Federation has prepared us for what is expected to be an equally thorough and robust debate over the CTBT. We do not expect it will be easy or happen quickly, but we will work hard to make it happen.

The Administration commissioned a number of reports, including an updated National Intelligence Estimate and an independent National Academy of Sciences report to assess the ability of the United States to monitor compliance with the Treaty and the ability of the United States to maintain, in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal so long as these weapons exist. A public version of the Academy’s report is expected to be released soon. These authoritative reports, together with others, will give the U.S. Senate a wealth of information to assist them in making a determination on the merits of ratification of the CTBT.