The Insider

By Jordana Mishory
October 14, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The head of the Senate defense authorization panel is rejecting further discretionary cuts to the Defense Department's budget, but supporting proposals to reform the military retirement and health care systems.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is formally joining the chorus of lawmakers and defense officials claiming that the Pentagon's budgets should be left alone by the 12-lawmaker debt reduction supercommittee in its quest to find $1.5 trillion in savings over the next decade. “I am unable to recommend further discretionary cuts to DOD's budget as part of the Joint Select Committee's deficit-reduction proposal, particularly prior to the completion of the strategy-driven review currently being conducted by DOD,” Levin writes in a letter sent today to the supercommittee.

He notes that DOD faces the task of finding $450 billion in savings over the next 10 years “in the midst of multiple wars.”

However, Levin says he would support recommendations to reform the military retirement system and revise the TRICARE health benefit that could come out of an Obama-proposed commission. The president's proposals should be modified slightly, Levin writes. He also calls for expanding the scope of the commission to include all aspects of military compensation.

Today, the House Armed Services Committee also sent a letter to the supercommittee calling for no defense cuts.

If the supercommittee is unable to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings, it triggers a sequestration mechanism, which would cut DOD's budget by nearly $600 billion. Levin called this possibility “disastrous.”

By Dan Dupont
October 14, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The White House today announced plans to send about 100 troops to Africa as part of an effort to support allies battling Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army.

InsideDefense.com first reported U.S. Africa Command's plans to provide security assistance for this effort in late July.

U.S. Africa Command is set to begin a new security assistance program in East Africa that aims to bolster the ability of Uganda's military to fight the Lord's Resistance Army, a rebel group that for more than 20 years has terrorized civilians.

Congress has lifted a hold it placed earlier this month on a Defense Department proposal to begin a new program to provide Ugandan defense forces with counterterrorism training and equipment, according to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. James Gregory.

The project, part of a second batch of so-called Section 1206 security assistance programs drawn up by the Defense and State departments, is designed to "provide communications and intelligence training as well as communications and engineering equipment to improve Uganda's ability to remove LRA leadership and fighters from the battlefield," according to Gregory. The project has a price tag of $4.4 million, he said.

By John Liang
October 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM

The National Reconnaissance Office, the Air Force and NASA have signed an agreement to establish clear criteria for certification of commercial providers of launch vehicles used for National Security Space and civil missions, according to an NRO statement issued this afternoon:

The U.S. government is committed to procuring commercial launch services for its satellite and robotic missions, including Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, or EELV, launches. The new entrant launch vehicle certification strategy is the latest step in a cooperative effort by the Air Force, NASA and NRO to take advantage of new launch capability for the three agencies' missions.

The agencies previously signed a Letter of Intent in October 2010, signaling their collaboration on launch requirements, and a Memorandum of Understanding in March, which outlined their plans for future EELV-class launch vehicle acquisition, including the need for a coordinated strategy for certification of new entrant launch systems.

The basis of the new strategy comes from NASA's existing policy directive for launch vehicle risk mitigation. It also recognizes mission-unique requirements from each of the three agencies may result in different certification approaches to mitigate launch risk. The document provides a common framework and language among the agencies for communicating expectations to new launch service providers.

The risk-based certification framework allows the agencies to consider both the cost and risk tolerance of the payload and their confidence in the launch vehicle. For payloads with higher risk tolerance, the agencies may consider use of launch vehicles with a higher risk category rating and provide an opportunity for new commercial providers to gain experience launching government payloads.

Within a given risk category rating, if new entrants have launch vehicles that have a more robust demonstrated successful flight history, then the government may require less technical evaluation for non-recurring certification of the new launch system. This new strategy further enables competition from emerging, commercially-developed launch capabilities for future Air Force, NASA, and NRO missions.

(UPDATE 4:30 p.m.: Click here to view the text of the agreement.)

See below for some of InsideDefense.com's coverage of related NASA, Air Force and NRO issues:

Bolden: Air Force, NASA Space Policy MOU Will Help Enable Modernization

Making upgrades to the launch systems used by the Air Force and NASA is a top priority now that the two bodies have signed a memorandum of understanding outlining plans for developing a joint space-launch operating policy, according to a top NASA official.

Air Force, NASA Space Policy MOU Will Not Change Launch Schedule

Air Force officials believe that a recent memorandum of understanding outlining plans to work with NASA to develop a joint space-launch operating policy will not cause any immediate changes to the service's planned launch schedule, according a service spokeswoman.

Carlson: Delta IV Heavy-Lift Capability Expensive; NRO Considering Alternatives

National Reconnaissance Office officials believe the Delta IV heavy-lift capability for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program is expensive, the agency's director says, and are open to considering other options to satisfy the launch requirement the Delta IV is slated to fill.

By Jordana Mishory
October 13, 2011 at 6:58 PM

The House Armed Services Committee plans to send a letter to the supercommittee tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in savings urging the panel to leave the defense budget intact. The letter reiterates the committee's position that any more cuts to the Defense Department would seriously and irreparably impact U.S. national security.

“We believe that additional reductions in the base budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) will compound deep reductions Congress has already imposed and critically compromise national security,” states the letter, signed by committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA).

During a press conference today with 10 other committee members, McKeon said almost all Republicans on the authorization committee had signed the letter, which is still being circulated. A distributed version of the letter has Friday's date on it.

The Budget Control Act of 2011, which formed the supercommittee, called for all congressional committees to submit recommendations to the panel by Friday.

Earlier today, the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), released a supplemental letter stating that further DOD cuts could undermine national security. However, Smith also called for the supercommittee to include “significant revenue increases.”

McKeon said he and his colleagues are opposed to tax increases. Last month, McKeon said at an American Enterprise Institute event that he would rather raise taxes than allow further defense cuts. Today, McKeon said that he believes that's a “false choice.”

“I want to work night and day to make sure we don't have that choice,” McKeon said.

If the supercommittee fails to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings, it triggers a sequestration measure, which would take half of those cuts from the Defense Department. If that happens, McKeon said, "it's all over.”

House authorizers are working to make sure the supercommittee understands the importance of preserving the Pentagon's spending, McKeon said. He recently spoke with Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who is co-chairing the supercommittee. McKeon added that Congress has already stripped nearly $469 billion out of defense coffers over the next decade and should not go any further.

“I personally, and I think many members of the committee, feel that we've gone overboard on the cuts,” McKeon said. “We have made the cuts. Now it's up to the supercommittee to find the rest of the $1.2 trillion out of the other side, the entitlements.”

By Jordana Mishory
October 13, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The House Armed Services Committee's top Democrat is calling for the debt reduction supercommittee to include “significant revenue increases” in its plans to find nearly $1.5 trillion in savings.

In an Oct. 12 letter sent to the 12-member panel, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) states that further reductions to the Defense Department could undermine national security. Instead, the committee should propose legislation that “embraces revenue increases and that avoids precipitous cuts to programs essential to growth -- the engine of our national security," he writes.

“I ask the Joint Select Committee to refrain from making any deficit reduction recommendations that might prematurely force the DOD to make what may prove to be precarious strategic adjustments as a result of additional budgetary constraints,” Smith writes in his letter, which supplements the House authorization committee's recommendations on where to find spending cuts.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 required all committees to submit recommendations by Friday. The House Armed Services Committee plans to hold a press conference at 1 p.m. today to discuss its recommendations. Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) has gone on record, along with his colleagues, to state that DOD's budget should not be cut further. During a speech last month, McKeon said that, if forced to choose, he would vote to raise taxes rather than further cut DOD's budget.

The supercommittee must finalize its bill before Thanksgiving. If it fails to find $1.2 billion in savings, it triggers a sequestration measure to find those savings -- half of which must come from DOD's coffers.

By Christopher J. Castelli
October 13, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said today the Pentagon would accelerate its plans to be ready for a full budget audit from 2017 to 2014. The Defense Department has made “significant progress” toward meeting the congressional deadline for audit-ready financial statements by 2017, he said, focusing first on improving the categories of information that are most relevant to managing the budget, but it must do better.

“Today I am announcing that I have directed the Department to cut in half the time it will take to achieve audit readiness for the Statement of Budgetary Resources, so that by 2014 we will have the ability to conduct a full budget audit,” he said. “This focused approach prioritizes the information that we use in managing the department, and will give our financial managers the key tools they need to track spending, identify waste, and improve the way the Pentagon does business as soon as possible.”

He said he has directed the DOD Comptroller “to revise the current plan within 60 days to meet these new goals, and still achieve the requirement of overall audit readiness by 2017.” This plan will move the department closer to fulfilling its responsibility to be transparent and accountable for how its spend taxpayer dollars, he said.

By John Liang
October 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency appears to be moving closer to finalizing the last two outstanding enforceable agreements governing military cleanups after a years-long fight at one of the remaining sites that has at times drawn high-level attention from both military and EPA officials, Defense Environment Alert reports this week:

The accords, known as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), are long overdue oversight agreements required by Superfund law at federal facility National Priorities List (NPL) sites -- the list of the nation's most hazardous waste sites.

But reaching agreement on the accords has been difficult in part due to a long-running legal dispute over whether EPA enjoyed authority to issue enforceable cleanup orders at federal sites. In a 2008 legal opinion, the Justice Department largely backed EPA's authority to issue the orders -- even under laws other than Superfund and generally supported EPA's ability to add new terms to FFAs under negotiation.

Over the past few weeks, EPA and the military have finalized FFAs at Air Force Plant 44 in Arizona, and Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, leaving Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, and the Army's Redstone Arsenal, AL, as the last two facilities that have not met the legal obligation -- out of a total of 173 federal cleanup sites, an EPA spokeswoman says.

Sources say, however, that officials are now moving closer to signing accords for both of the sites and are working to resolve site-specific issues at the two sites, which are located in EPA Region IV.

Sources say EPA Region IV and Florida are close to an agreement over the FFA at Tyndall.

The dispute at Tyndall has long been contentious, with the Air Force defying an emergency cleanup compliance order EPA made effective in 2008. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson met with Air Force Secretary Michael Donley a year ago over the escalating fight, weeks after EPA's enforcement chief said the agency might take unspecified new action against the Air Force to ensure a safe cleanup at the site. EPA's enforcement office accused the service of attempts to unilaterally move forward on its cleanup plans in defiance of EPA cleanup orders and Superfund law requirements.

A Florida Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman at press time would only say that parties are meeting on the Tyndall FFA through teleconferences. An Air Force spokeswoman, when asked about the progress of Tyndall negotiations, would only say in an email response: "The Air Force, EPA, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection are committed to the process and believe progress will be made." Communications among the parties are considered internal, and, when appropriate, decisions will be made public, she said.

By John Liang
October 11, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee late last month rejected a $170 million appropriations reprogramming request the Navy sought to help pay for a joint initiative with the Energy and Agriculture departments that is aimed at jump-starting biofuels manufacturing, Defense Environment Alert reports this week:

The three departments' top officials publicly announced the biofuels initiative Aug. 16, a project meant to help fulfill goals under President Obama's Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Under the plan, the three departments pledged to invest up to $510 million in the private sector over the next three years to produce advanced drop-in aviation and marine biofuels for the military and commercial transportation, according to a press release from the three departments. The effort was lauded as providing energy independence benefits -- considered key to the military and national security -- and as a way to boost economic prospects in rural communities.

"These efforts will accelerate advanced technologies to produce infrastructure-compatible biofuels that will replace imported crude oil with secure, renewable fuels made here in the U.S.," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in announcing the initiative.

Mainly, the objective "is the construction or retrofit of several domestic commercial or pre-commercial scale advanced drop-in biofuel refineries," the press release says. Each department is to provide $170 million under the project.

But now that effort could be slowed if funding is not provided, one source familiar with the funding issue says. And a biofuels industry source says the Navy's funding is key because it is the impetus for manufacturing the fuel.

The project requires all three departments to move together, the source says, noting that the Navy's funding is "the linchpin" because the Navy is the justification for producing drop-in biofuels.

But this source also notes: "It wasn't so much the money itself, it was the coordination of efforts by these three [departments]." The Agriculture Department was to solve feedstock issues, the Department of Energy (DOE) was to solve technology issues, and the Navy was to create the market pull. The coordinated effort was a way to speed the process of getting biorefineries built, the source says. The idea is to demonstrate viability to private and institutional investors providing financing for additional biorefineries, the source says.

To advance the program, the Navy had asked Congress to transfer existing fiscal year 2011 appropriations into the biorefinery initiative. The Navy's justification for the request came under the Defense Production Act, a law passed in 1950 that authorizes the president to offer incentives to developing or expanding a domestic industry if the product is essential to meeting the U.S. national security strategy, according to an Air Force notice seeking information on advanced drop-in biofuels production.

Such a request from the Defense Department requires approval by the Senate and House Armed Services committees and Senate and House Defense Appropriations subcommittees. But in this case, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) denied the request -- the only one of the three committees to reject it -- sources say.

In an email response dated Sept. 23, a House Armed Services Committee spokesman said the committee was still reviewing the request, and that a decision would be made in the next few days. The spokesman did not reply to subsequent requests for information on the decision. But the source familiar with the funding issue says McKeon rejected the request despite appeals by several House Republicans, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Cochran signed onto a Sept. 7 letter from Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) supporting the funding transfer. Cochran's office did not respond by press time to questions on the issue.

The source says McKeon indicated in a letter that he is not philosophically opposed to biofuels, but wants the president to propose the initiative in the FY13 budget request. That means "we'd lose two years before we could start building biorefineries with the proposed government's 50 percent share," the source says in an e-mail response. Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Navy assistant secretary for energy, installations and environment, said on a Sept. 21 conference call with reporters that while the $510 million investment is not expected "to create an entire biofuels industry," she expected to see private matching investments of at least 50 percent of that, if not significantly greater. She said the Navy sees itself as both an investor and long-term customer -- which she said will help create the industry.

There is an opportunity to try to include the funding in the FY12 Defense appropriations bill, should that eventually pass Congress, according to sources familiar with the issue. The Defense Department is currently operating under a stop-gap spending measure. . . .

A DOD spokeswoman and Navy spokesman did not respond to questions on the reprogramming request by press time.

By John Liang
October 11, 2011 at 3:23 PM

With the rise of former Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter to deputy defense secretary, Carter's second-in-command Frank Kendall sent out a memo last week outlining his top six priorities:

My first priority is supporting forces who are engaged in Overseas Contingency Operations. Rapid acquisition to meet urgent needs, timely and reliable logistics support, effective contingency contracting, and more efficient operational energy solutions are some of the areas we will continue to emphasize as we support our Warfighters.

Second is achieving affordable programs. The Department cannot continue the practice of starting programs that prove to be unaffordable. We will work with the requirements and resource communities to ensure the programs we start have firm cost goals in place, appropriate priorities set, and the necessary trade-offs made to keep our programs within affordable limits.

Third is improving efficiency. This is the essence of the Better Buying Power initiative, which we will continue to refine and build upon. We will continue the never-ending quest to control and reduce our costs while acquiring products and services that provide the highest possible value to our Warfighters.

Fourth is strengthening the industrial base. Industry is our partner in the defense acquisition enterprise; without the industrial base, we could not equip and support our Warfighters. A healthy industrial base means a profitable industrial base, but it also means a lean and efficient base that provides good value for the taxpayers' defense investments and that increases in productivity over time. We will execute contracts with industry that include appropriate incentives and drive fair business deals that protect the taxpayers' interest, while providing industry with reasonable profit opportunities and without putting industry at unacceptable risk. We will ensure critical skills and capabilities in the industrial base are identified and preserved.

Fifth is strengthening our acquisition workforce. We have increased the number of people in the acquisition workforce over the last few years. While some growth may still be possible, we will increasingly turn our attention to improving the capability of the workforce that we have. Every supervisor should consider a stronger workforce to be his or her most important legacy.

Sixth and finally, we must protect the future. We are in this for the long haul, and we must be vigilant to avoid a hollow force as budgets decline. This means making sound investments in the next generation of technologies to maintain our military superiority. It means protecting essential capabilities in the industrial base such as design teams that would take a generation or more to replace. It means retaining a contingency contracting capability that can be expanded when needed. It means developing and nurturing small businesses, maintaining our installations, and ensuring the safety and security of our nuclear deterrent. Most of all, it means maintaining the very best military in the world. We will approach all of the priorities I have articulated with the need to protect the future in mind.

By John Liang
October 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM

An Arizona-based research firm today released an aerospace and defense industry "benchmarking metric" report for 2011.

The report by CAPS Research "contains key supply management performance measures on topics including organizational structure, financial information, and supplier relationships," according to a statement issued this morning. Further:

New this year is a matrix that looks at what is included in each of the participating Aerospace and Defense companies' supply management operating expense as well as a deeper look at spend for direct and indirect goods.  It is interesting to note that less than half of the participants (44%) reported they do not include in their supply management operating expense the costs related to IT infrastructure and desktop support and/or business systems.

This report establishes a composite standard or benchmarking comparison of supply management peer performance in the industry.  To conduct this and all industry benchmarking studies, CAPS Research forms an Industry Advisory Committee of industry executives to determine the specific data to be collected. Three criteria are used: usefulness of the resultant benchmark, availability of needed data within the supply management organization, and comparability of data among companies.

Click here (registration required) to view the report.

The Pentagon itself has been conducting its own industrial base studies for some time now. As InsideDefense.com reports this week:

Early results of a not-yet-complete Pentagon assessment of the defense industrial base reveal "some fragility" among lower-tier companies that -- in select cases -- provide components critical to major weapons, a finding that will influence the Defense Department's investment blueprint, according to a senior DOD official.

Brett Lambert, deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy, said a review directed in March by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn is prompting the Pentagon to "keep a mindful watch" on companies in the lower tiers of the industrial base to ensure the supply of parts and modules necessary to produce new combat systems.

"Early indications are that the defense industrial base is more global, more commercial and more financially complex" than previously understood, Lambert told InsideDefense.com in an Oct. 4 interview. He said information gleaned to date through the new review -- the "Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base" -- suggests there is no "single" defense industrial base and that there is "some fragility in some sub-tiers."

The effort, dubbed S2T2, is intended to eventually yield a new map of the defense industrial base derived from a more comprehensive and "fact-based" approach than prior Pentagon assessments of the private sector enterprise that designs and builds the U.S. military's weapon inventory, he said.

None of the findings of the new review are reflected in the 2011 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report To Congress, a statutorily mandated report the Defense Department delivered to lawmakers on Monday, Lambert said. That report largely restates findings on key sectors of the defense industrial base published in the 2010 report.

Lambert said next year's annual report to Congress, however, will reflect results of the S2T2 effort. Still, he said, the Pentagon has no plans to produce a separate, publicly released report on the findings of the S2T2 assessment, whose insights are ultimately intended to guide investment decisions.

By John Liang
October 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Reps. Bill Shuster (R-PA), Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Bobby Schilling (R-IL) plan to hold a "Defense Business Roundtable" in Moline, IL, tomorrow morning, according to a statement from Schilling's office:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) asked Rep. Shuster and Rep. Larsen to meet with representatives of the defense industry as part of the House Armed Services Committee's oversight responsibilities. The Committee believes it is essential to solicit feedback from industry, especially in light of the current fiscal environment. The roundtable will address regulatory issues faced by the contracting community; what incentives could draw more business into the DoD contracting community; and what structural challenges currently present an obstacle to business growth and innovation.

The Pentagon's industrial policy office this week released its annual industrial capabilities report to Congress. It contains summaries of a host of studies on the industrial base the Defense Department conducted during 2011. Among them:

Pentagon Market For Missiles May Decline, New Report Warns

Contractors who supply missiles and related components to the Defense Department may find themselves with less government business in the future, a just-released report to Congress warns.

Report: DOD Needs To Keep An Eye On 'RadHard' Industrial Base

The Defense Department needs to keep an eye on the radiation-hardened electronics industrial base, according to a just-released Pentagon report to Congress.

DOD Identifies Investment Areas For Nanotechnology Industrial Base

The Defense Department has identified three key investment areas in the nanomanufacturing industrial base, according to the new annual report released this week by the Pentagon's industrial policy shop.

Aside from the summaries, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy told InsideDefense.com in an interview this week that that report largely restates findings on key sectors of the defense industrial base published in the 2010 version. Further, Lambert talked about a separate, ongoing industrial base assessment that was not addressed in the annual report:

Early results of a not-yet-complete Pentagon assessment of the defense industrial base reveal "some fragility" among lower-tier companies that -- in select cases -- provide components critical to major weapons, a finding that will influence the Defense Department's investment blueprint, according to a senior DOD official.

Brett Lambert, deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy, said a review directed in March by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn is prompting the Pentagon to "keep a mindful watch" on companies in the lower tiers of the industrial base to ensure the supply of parts and modules necessary to produce new combat systems.

"Early indications are that the defense industrial base is more global, more commercial and more financially complex" than previously understood, Lambert told InsideDefense.com in an Oct. 4 interview. He said information gleaned to date through the new review -- the "Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base" -- suggests there is no "single" defense industrial base and that there is "some fragility in some sub-tiers."

The effort, dubbed S2T2, is intended to eventually yield a new map of the defense industrial base derived from a more comprehensive and "fact-based" approach than prior Pentagon assessments of the private sector enterprise that designs and builds the U.S. military's weapon inventory, he said.

By John Liang
October 6, 2011 at 6:01 PM

The Defense Science Board plans to meet in closed session later this month, according to a notice published this morning in the Federal Register.

The DSB almost always meets in closed session. In this case, the notice provides few details on what will be discussed during the Oct. 26 and Oct. 27 meetings at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, MD:

At this meeting, the Board will discuss interim finding and recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they may affect the U.S. national defense posture and homeland security.

While no specific studies are mentioned, here are a couple possibilities, culled from InsideDefense.com's recent coverage:

Lynn Directs Defense Science Board To Establish Cloud Task Force

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn has directed the Defense Science Board to establish a Defense Science Board task force examining cybersecurity and reliability in the digital cloud.

The directive in a May 19 memo comes after the Obama administration shifted to a "cloud first" policy as a major tenet in its reform of IT management. Cloud computing is an information technology architecture that allows multiple users in different locations to access information, resources and data through the Internet and is emerging in both the private IT and federal cybersecurity sectors.

The task force, Lynn writes, should focus on identifying research opportunities and should "estimate the level of investment to achieve results consistent with DOD needs."

"Cloud advocates assert that infrastructure incorporating cloud-based technologies and virtualization can deliver both higher reliability and more assured cybersecurity," the memo states.

-- DOCUMENT: DSB Terms Of Reference Memo On 'Resilient Military Systems'

Pentagon Panel Conducting Study On Predicting Violent Behavior

Defense Department advisers are conducting a new review of warning signs to help identify a small fraction of DOD personnel who might commit workplace violence, terrorism, suicide or cybersecurity breaches.

In a May 21 memo to the Defense Science Board, Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter directs the federal advisory board to examine a number of key issues and brief the study's findings and recommendations to DOD homeland defense chief Paul Stockton by June 30.

The charter is nearly identical to one issued last October by Frank Kendall, the department's No. 2 acquisition official, except the new version states former Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency chief Larry Lynn and former DOD General Counsel Judith Miller will chair the review.

The initial charter said Lynn and Ann Skalka of the Fox Chase Institute for Cancer Research would lead the effort. But by February, the board no longer listed Skalka as a co-chair and the task force was still in formation. In an internal bulletin issued last month, DSB chairman and former DOD acquisition chief Paul Kaminski noted the task force "recently convened" with Lynn and Miller in charge.

-- DOCUMENT: DSB Terms Of Reference Memo On 'Predicting Violent Behavior'

By John Liang
October 5, 2011 at 8:31 PM

House Armed Services readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) has begun a campaign to ensure the Pentagon does not suffer any further budget cuts. On a website he created named "Strong Defense, Strong America," he writes:

Some argue that another $600 billion of defense cuts will not hurt America. We can do more with less, they say. Or, we can just do less. They are wrong.

Even before Congress agreed to slash roughly $400 billion in defense spending, our military commanders described our forces as being on the "ragged edge." In unambiguous terms, our military leaders have warned that further cuts to an already tattered force would demand not only fundamental restructuring of our armed services but a vast re-ordering of what it is our nation expects from our military. The country's next chief military officer has called these defense cuts "extraordinarily difficult and very high risk."

What is at risk is a weakening of the pillars of America: trade, jobs, diplomacy, global trust, innovation, and the American way of life. Defense cuts matter. Because a strong defense means a strong America.

Accordingly, the lawmaker has introduced a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that further reductions to core national security funding will cause significant harm to United States interests."

By Thomas Duffy
October 5, 2011 at 6:23 PM

The president of the Defense Acquisition University sent out a memo Monday explaining why some of the university's online courses have been inaccessible for the past few months. The problem is DAU was hacked over the summer and has been slowly restoring access to its courses ever since.

In her memo, Katharina McFarland laid out the problem:

A well-known group of computer hackers gained access to a vendor's system and stole both company information and the source code of the learning management system that DAU uses. While our system itself was not hacked, having source code available publicly made our system potentially vulnerable. We and the United States Cyber Command evaluated the risk level to our system based on the incident that occurred on the vendor's network and made a decision to secure our system.

The intrusion occurred on July 21, 2011, we suspended access to the DAU Virtual campus the next day and have been restoring service in a secure environment incrementally since then. No information was lost or compromised. Student records and progress information are intact, we are working with the vendor to mitigate future risk by implementing new source code, and we are taking steps to restore full access and functionality.

Many of the people working for the government's civilian agencies and defense contractors take online DAU courses. Mcfarland explained that on Set. 19, the university launched a Defense Department Common Access Card version of DAU's Virtual campus so the defense acquisition workforce could once again enroll in and complete courses.

DAU is working to strengthen username/password authentication encryption and policies so non-CAC holders could get back in th system. The target date to complete that is Oct. 31, McFarland wrote.

By John Liang
October 4, 2011 at 9:27 PM

The State Department has approved nearly $75 million in foreign military financing to Lebanon, according to a notice published in this morning's Federal Register by Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides:

Determination Pursuant to Section 2121(h) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Relating to Foreign Military Financing for Lebanon

Pursuant to Section 2121(h) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10) (CR), I hereby determine that provision of $74,850,000 in Foreign Military Financing funds appropriated by the CR for assistance for Lebanon is in the national security interest of the United States.

This determination shall be published in the Federal Register and copies shall be provided to the Congress together with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification.

In related news, InsideDefense.com reported yesterday that the Defense Department had forfeited $84 million in funds authorized in fiscal year 2011 to train and equip foreign forces rather than proceed with assisting select Middle Eastern nations affected by the wave of revolutions across the Arab-speaking world. Moreover:

The decision caps Pentagon spending well below $350 million, the sum Congress authorized in FY-11 for the Defense Department, in coordination with the State Department, to use for two purposes: to enhance partner nations' counterterrorism and stability operations and to bolster foreign maritime security forces for counterterrorism.

"The delta, which is approximately $84 million, can be attributed to the uncertainty created by the Arab Spring this past year," Lt. Col. James Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman, told InsideDefense.com. "Although we cannot provide details on any specific countries to which the funds were originally intended because they have not gone forward to Congress for review, we can say that we continue to monitor the situation throughout the entire region carefully."

The unused FY-11 funds originally authorized for these so-called "Section 1206" projects were reprogrammed to finance other pressing DOD needs, Gregory said.

Yemen, Bahrain and Lebanon, according to a March 3 report by the Congressional Research Service on Section 1206 programs, have been among the largest beneficiaries of Section 1206 grants in prior years. The Yemeni and Bahraini governments have been rocked by uprisings that swept across the region earlier this year, upending the ruling order in Tunisia and Egypt.

Yemen, according to the congressional report, has received $252.5 million in 1206 assistance since 2006; Lebanon has received $128.5 million and Bahrain $50.3 million.