The Insider

By Cid Standifer
February 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM

The Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator failed to get its wheels off the ground at Edwards Air Force Base Thursday.

Doug Abbotts, a spokesman for Naval Air Systems Command, said that a mechanical issue foiled the attempt. He said the window provided for each attempt at Edwards in California is short because the test base is so busy, so the next try was scheduled for mid-afternoon today, Pacific time.

“When you have the least amount of little tweaking that you need to do and you miss that window, then you reschedule for the next day,” he added. “That's just kind of the way it works.”

A mechanical issue with the aircraft's braking system, combined with weather issues, prevented the demonstrator from flying as scheduled back in December as well, according to Rear Adm. Matt Klunder, director of the Navy's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Capabilities Division, who spoke at a conference in DC on Thursday morning.

Abbots said NAVAIR will send out an announcement if this afternoon's attempt is successful. “We're confident that those things are fixed, and today it may fly,” he added.

By John Liang
February 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM

With the government spending more than $500 billion per year on contracts for goods and services -- a large chunk of which comes from the Pentagon -- the Office of Management and Budget has launched a "myth-busting" campaign to improve communication between federal acquisition officials and industry contractors.

In a 13-page Feb. 2 memo to senior governmental acquisition and procurement officials, Daniel Gordon, OMB's administrator for federal procurement policy, writes:

Access to current market information is critical for agency program managers as they define requirements and for contracting officers as they develop acquisition strategies, seek opportunities for small businesses, and negotiate contract terms. Our industry partners are often the best source of this information, so productive interactions between federal agencies and our industry partners should be encouraged to ensure that the government clearly understands the marketplace and can award a contract or order for an effective solution at a reasonable price. Early, frequent, and constructive engagement with industry is especially important for complex, high-risk procurements, including (but not limited to) those for large information technology (IT) projects. This is why increasing communication, in the form of a "myth-busters" educational campaign, is one of the key tenets of the Office of Management and Budget's 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT Management.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) authorizes a broad range of opportunities for vendor communication, but agencies often do not take full advantage of these existing flexibilities. Some agency officials may be reluctant to engage in these exchanges out of fear of protests or fear of binding the agency in an unauthorized manner; others may be unaware of effective strategies that can help the acquisition workforce and industry make the best use of their time and resources. Similarly, industry may be concerned that talking with an agency may create a conflict of interest that will preclude them from competing on future requirements, or industry may be apprehensive about engaging in meaningful conversations in the presence of other vendors.

Consequently, Gordon's memo has three purposes:

1) identify common misconceptions about vendor engagement that may be unnecessarily hindering agencies' appropriate use of the existing flexibilities, and provide facts and strategies to help acquisition professionals benefit from industry’s knowledge and insight;

2) direct agencies to remove unnecessary barriers to reasonable communication and develop vendor communications plans, consistent with existing law and regulation, that promote responsible and constructive exchanges; and

3) outline steps for continued engagement with agencies and industry to increase awareness and education.

That said, Gordon writes:

Nothing in this memorandum should be read to alter, or authorize violations of, applicable ethics rules, procurement integrity requirements, or other statutes or regulations that govern communication and information sharing. However, all methods of communication that are not prohibited, either by those rules or otherwise, should be considered, if they would be helpful. In addition, contracting officers, program managers, and other acquisition officials should continue to exercise appropriate discretion to balance the practical limitations of frequent vendor engagement, including the demand such engagement places on the time of the acquisition workforce, with the need to better understand the market and make decisions in the best interest of the government.

While agencies do not have the resources, and are not required, to meet with every vendor at every step of the acquisition process, information gathered from industry sources plays an invaluable role in the acquisition process. For this reason, agencies must develop practices that will ensure early, frequent, and constructive communication during key phases of the process. The federal government’s ability to achieve successful program outcomes, effectively and efficiently, depends upon agencies establishing effective strategies for industry engagement and supporting those strategies with senior-level commitment.

By Christopher J. Castelli
February 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM

The House Appropriations Committee plans to slash the Pentagon's fiscal year 2011 budget request by $13.2 billion, according to a chart on spending limits and cuts issued today by the committee. This is a 2 percent cut relative to the Defense Department's FY-11 request, but a 2 percent increase to what was enacted in FY-10, a committee spokeswoman confirmed.

In a related statement, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), the panel's chairman said he is instructing each of the 12 appropriations subcommittees to produce specific, substantive and comprehensive spending cuts.

"We are going go line by line to weed out and eliminate unnecessary, wasteful, or excess spending -- and produce legislation that will represent the largest series of spending reductions in the history of Congress," he said. "These cuts will not be easy, they will be broad and deep, they will affect every Congressional district, but they are necessary and long overdue."

Asked whether House appropriators have decided which specific programs they want to cut, committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said "The legislation is being crafted; no final decisions have been made."

Under the current time line for floor consideration, details on House appropriators' proposed cuts to specific defense programs should be made  public sometime late next week, Hing said.

Rogers issued the statement after the House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced plans to cut $74 billion compared to the president’s FY-11 request.

By John Liang
February 3, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Stephanie O'Sullivan, President Obama's choice to become the principal deputy director of national intelligence, is testifying today before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding her nomination. Here's an excerpt from her prepared statement:

Given the threats and challenges facing the Intelligence Community, it has never been more important for the DNI to exercise strong and effective leadership. As a nation, we are facing a daunting number of threats ranging from terrorism, to the development and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to cyber security. In the face of these competing imperatives, the ability of the DNI to adjudicate and set priorities is essential.

DNI leadership is also needed to address the management challenges faced by the Intelligence Community. The DNI's leadership will be required in defining a path forward for information sharing that recognizes, and appropriately balances, the inherent risks without jeopardizing the gains we have achieved through deeper integration. DNI leadership on efficiency and effectiveness initiatives will be key to optimizing the Intelligence Community's budget and resources in the face of inevitable constraints. Finally the DNI has one additional leadership duty, to lead the men and women of the Intelligence Community. Working with our Congressional oversight committees, the DNI must both support their efforts to protect our country and challenge them to give their best.

By Cid Standifer
February 3, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The Navy's much-delayed, Northrop Grumman-built X-47B unmanned combat air system demonstrator (UCAS-D) will undergo its first flight test this afternoon, a service official announced this morning.

Rear Adm. Matt Klunder, director of the Navy's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Capabilities Division, told attendees of an unmanned systems conference in Washington that the UCAS-D would fly at 5 p.m. local time today out of Edwards Air Force Base, CA.

The UCAS' previous December flight test was pushed back due to bad weather and program officials' desire to take a closer look at the vehicle's braking system, according to Klunder.

The most recent delay has not been the first, as Inside the Navy reported last August:

Last November, Naval Air Systems Command announced that first flight would be delayed until early 2010. Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, UCAS program manager, said in an Aug. 2 interview that a review of the program was conducted in the spring and "we came out with a new schedule in late April to early May."

The new schedule calls for flight tests to begin in December, which would push back at-sea trials on an aircraft carrier from 2012 to the summer of 2013, he said.

"I think it's safe to say that when you put it on contract in August of 2007 and we're going to fly in November of 2009, that's a pretty aggressive schedule," he said. "I don't think we understood how complex that was going to be. So we know a lot more. This is a demonstration; this is all about learning and learning lessons that we can apply to future acquisition programs.

"I believe now we have a schedule that is much more executable for getting us out to 2013," he added.

The $1.5 billion program, started in 2007, is a six-year effort aimed at demonstrating that an unmanned aircraft about the size of an F/A-18 Hornet can be integrated on a carrier flight deck and can be refueled in the air, Penfield said.

By John Liang
February 2, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Following a long, drawn-out debate and passage in the Senate, President Obama this morning signed the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty into law.

"With the Senate having approved the treaty with a strong bipartisan vote late last year, today's signing marks a final step in the process," a White House public affairs blog entry states.

Both houses of Russia's parliament ratified the New START Treaty last week, but as Inside Missile Defense reported recently, implementing the pact could prove difficult, according to a nonproliferation policy expert:

"The Russian parliament's resolution on ratification of New START, which was deliberately shaped to balance and counter its counterpart adopted by the U.S. Senate, suggests that implementation of New START will not be a trivial task," Nikolai Sokov, an analyst with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, writes in a Jan. 25 analysis of the Russian parliament's deliberations. "In effect, the treaty did not resolve the most important controversies that exist between the two countries -- missile defense, long-range conventional weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, elements of the verification regime (especially the exchange of telemetry). Each side will carefully monitor what the other will be doing throughout the duration of the treaty. The Bilateral Implementation Commission will not be simply a technical body facilitating the implementation of the treaty -- it will have to engage in full-scale negotiations on issues of substance with parties often pursuing opposite positions."

Further, "the next stage of nuclear arms reduction talks is already shaping as a challenging and controversial endeavor as well, because it will have to address many of the outstanding issues, on which New START has temporized or which were 'swept under the carpet,' according to Sokov. "In addition, new talks will probably have to tackle the issue of 'third parties' -- nuclear weapons states that have traditionally remained outside the process, most significantly China and, to a smaller extent, Great Britain and France. Even before they sit down to these new talks, however, negotiators may have their work cut out for them."

By John Liang
February 2, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The Pentagon recently completed a report to Congress that concludes the Defense Department "paid $285 billion over a three-year span to hundreds of military contractors that defrauded the Pentagon during the same period," according to a statement by the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sanders, who requested the report, further says:

"With the country running a $14 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money," said Sanders (I-Vt.). "The sad truth is that virtually all of the major defense contractors in this country for years have been engaged in systemic fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money."

The preliminary report detailed how the Pentagon spent $270 billion from 2007 to 2009 on 91 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million. Another $682 million went to 30 contractors convicted of hard-core criminal fraud in the same three-year period. Billions more went to firms that had been suspended or debarred by the Pentagon for misusing taxpayer dollars.

A Sanders provision in a defense spending bill required the report and directed the Department of Defense to recommend ways to punish fraudulent contractors. The Pentagon brass saw no need for any changes. "The department believes that existing remedies with respect to contractor wrongdoing are sufficient," the Report to Congress on Contractor Fraud concluded.

"It is clear that DOD's current approach is not working and we need far more vigorous enforcement to protect taxpayers from massive fraud," Sanders said.

Under a separate Sanders provision in another law signed by President Obama, a government-wide federal contractor fraud database will be accessible to the public by April 15.  Until now, access to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System was limited to federal acquisition officials and certain members of Congress.

Sanders' office also released a "staff analysis" of the DOD report.

Eliminating fraud is something all the services have striven to do. As reported last December, each year the Army asks its headquarters staff, its major commands and what are known as direct reporting units to deliver a report card on their individual programs aimed at detecting and correcting instances of waste, fraud and abuse. The report card, called the "Annual Statement of Assurance," is sent to the Army secretary. Further:

"On Dec. 16, the assistant secretary of the Army for financial management and comptroller sent out a 40-page memo that provides guidance for the fiscal year 2011 statement," reported. "According to the memo, the statements are due to the Army comptroller's office by May 16, 2011, for everyone but the headquarters staff. That staff has until May 31 to submit its report card."

The Army's acquisition shop has one specific task for FY-11, according to the comptroller:

In May 2008, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in [Office of Management and Budget] published guidelines for Federal Agencies to use in conducting internal control reviews of their acquisition functions. The DOD is required to integrate the internal control review of acquisition with the existing internal control assessment and annual Statement of Assurance reporting processes, beginning with the Fiscal Year 2009 cycle. Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics -- has developed a template that provides focus areas ("cornerstones") and related questions that should be addressed when reviewing the acquisition processes. The execution of this requirement has been included by OSD as a validation requirement during Fiscal Year 2011.

By John Liang
February 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn last fall published an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which he described the Pentagon's new five-pillar cybersecurity strategy. Those pillars include:

* Recognizing cyberspace as a new domain of warfare

* Ensuring defenses are active

* Protecting critical infrastructure

* Engaging in cyber defense with our national security partners as a shared activity

* Leveraging the U.S. technological base to retain our technological edge

To that end, the Pentagon's industrial policy office recently released briefing slides that show how the Defense Department plans to implement the fifth pillar. As a note on the office's website states:

The critical message is that our economic security is part of our national security. The risk of compromise to the information technology industrial base supply chain is very real and the DoD's cyber security strategy depends on the U.S. commercial IT sector remaining the world's leader. This requires continuing investments in science, technology and education at all levels.

By Thomas Duffy
February 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will give his first view of the world to Congress next week when he appears before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Clapper will present the committee with his worldwide threat assessment Feb. 10. Clapper was sworn in as the fourth DNI on August 9, 2010.

Tomorrow, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will consider the nomination of Stephanie O'Sullivan to be Clapper's No. 2 official. President Obama sent O'Sullivan's nomination to be the principal deputy DNI to Congress on Jan. 5. O'Sullivan previously held the position of associate deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. She was appointed to that job in December 2009.

By Jason Sherman
February 1, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Northrop Grumman today issued a press release touting a successful critical design review of the Long Endurance Multi Intelligence Vehicle, the hybrid airship it is tricking out with sensors for the Army. In December, Inside the Army's Debbie Siegelbaum reported that the LEMV program -- which aims to build three airships with 21-day persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities -- cleared that hurdle in mid-November.

Alan Metzger, Northrop Grumman vice president and integrated program team leader of LEMV and airship programs, reiterated in today's statement much of what he told ITA last month about LEMV, an airship longer than a football field and higher than a seven-story building:

There are three upcoming major milestones in the next 10 months. We'll have hull inflation in the spring and first flight of the airship test article by mid-to-late summer. Upon completion of the development ground and flight testing phase, we expect to transition to a government facility and conduct our final acceptance long endurance flight just before year's end. In early 2012, LEMV will participate in an Army Joint Military Utility Assessment in an operational environment. As you can imagine, it's a very aggressive schedule to deliver from concept-to-combat in this time period.

By John Liang
February 1, 2011 at 9:38 PM

The date is set. The Obama administration will submit its fiscal year 2012 budget request on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14.

Officials in the Pentagon as well as the Office of Management and Budget confirmed the date to today.

As always, stay tuned to Defense Budget Alert for all DOD spending news, including:

Analysts: Debt Limit Impasse Unlikely To Dramatically Affect DOD Funding

Defense Leaders Stress 'Conditions-Based' Nature Of Planned Army Cuts

Deputy SECDEF Promises More Basic R&D Funding In FY-12 Budget

McKeon Challenges Proposed Pentagon Budget Cuts

By Dan Dupont
February 1, 2011 at 9:11 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee has just announced a couple of key hearings coming soon. On Thursday, Feb. 17, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen will discuss the fiscal year 2012 defense budget request (that's three days after it's likely to be unveiled, by the way).

And on Feb. 15, the committee will take up the nominations of Michael Vickers as under secretary for intelligence and Jo Ann Rooney as principal deputy under secretary for personnel and readiness.

By John Liang
February 1, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) today announced that his panel would implement a two-year moratorium on earmarks.

According to a committee statement, Inouye says:

I continue to support the Constitutional right of members of Congress to direct investments to their states and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process that we have established.

However, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.

The Appropriations Committee will thoroughly review its earmark policy to ensure that every member has a precise definition of what constitutes an earmark. To that end, we will send each member a letter with the interpretation of Rule XLIV (44) that will be used by the Committee. If any member submits a request that is an earmark as defined by that rule, we will respectfully return the request.

Next year, when the consequences of this decision are fully understood by the members of this body, we will most certainly revisit this issue and explore ways to improve the earmarking process.  At the appropriate time, I will once again urge the Senate to consider a transparent and fair earmark process that protects our rights as legislators to answer the petitions of our constituents, regardless of what the President or some Federal bureaucrat thinks is right.

By Cid Standifer
February 1, 2011 at 7:25 PM

A long-delayed request for proposals for the Ship-to-Shore Connector, successor top the air-cushioned landing craft, is imminent, according to a notice on Federal Business Opportunities.

The RFP was not posted by the January deadline previously announced by Naval Sea Systems Command. The notice posted on FedBizOpps on Jan. 31 said the RFP is expected out this month. “Due to unforeseen events, NAVSEA now intends to issue the subject solicitation in February 2011,” the post states. “All other information contained in the pre-solicitation synopsis, as updated by the 22 DEC 2010 Modification Notice, remains unchanged.”

In December, a FedBizOpps post said the RFP would drop in January. Before that, it was scheduled to be released in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. The document was originally slated to be out by the end of FY-10.

At a conference in October, Capt. Walt Towns, head of the Navy's amphibious warfare directorate, said the SSC could still be fielded on time if the RFP were released by the end of 2010.

Initial operational capability for the SSC is slated for FY-19, and the Navy plans to completely replace the LCAC by 2030.

By John Liang
February 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM

The newly appointed ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee plans to try to advance amendments to expand the scope of the Sikes Act -- a natural resources law that applies to the military -- as part of the next defense authorization bill, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning. Specifically:

The effort could extend coverage of the Sikes Act to include state-owned National Guard installations -- something the Defense Department had sought in the last Congress -- and could expand an invasive species management pilot program used by the military in Guam to all U.S. military installations.

Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), who on Jan. 19 was named ranking member of the Armed Services readiness subcommittee, introduced a stand-alone bill -- H.R. 5284 -- last year that would have amended the Sikes Act, extending its provisions to state-owned National Guard facilities and expanding the invasive species management program. While that bill did not pass despite efforts by DOD to include the Guard measures in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, Bordallo intends to address the substance of H.R. 5284 in the context of the FY-12 defense authorization bill, the congressional staffer says.

Bordallo's 2010 bill specifically would have extended Sikes Act provisions to state-owned Guard installations, applying the same requirements to these installations to develop and implement integrated natural resources management plans (INRMPs) that are already required at federally owned military bases.

DOD had proposed similar language to Congress last April as part of the FY-11 defense authorization bill, which would have given nearly four dozen Army National Guard bases the ability to substitute military-derived, legally binding INRMPs for Endangered Species Act (ESA) critical habitat designations should those lands be deemed key to an endangered species. Such INRMPs must be deemed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to give a benefit to the species if used as a substitute for an ESA critical habitat designation.

Currently, military installations with significant natural resources must implement INRMPs that protect species, wetlands and other resources. Congress granted DOD the INRMP substitution ability for its federally owned bases many years ago, after the department argued that environmental requirements like critical habitat designations were placing too many hurdles on the military's ability to train. But a DOD analysis last year found that Guard bases did not meet the statutory definition of a "military installation."

DOD suggested technical changes to Bordallo's bill late last Congress -- too late to try to get them into the defense authorization bill -- which was passed in late December, according to the congressional staffer. In addition to the Armed Services Committee, the measure also falls under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee, which sponsored a hearing on Bordallo's bill last May, the source notes.

DOD Environmental Management Director Maureen Sullivan testified before the House Natural Resources insular affairs, oceans and wildlife subcommittee last May in support of Bordallo's Guard provisions. In written testimony, she said the ability to develop Guard INRMPs would allow for "more efficient and effective natural resources management" at these bases. In addition, without the amendment, Guard bases could not compete on a level playing field for funds, according to a DOD source.

Bordallo's 2010 bill would also have expanded an invasive species management program for Guam to include all U.S. military bases, according to Bordallo's floor statement last May. DOD expressed concerns with the bill's initial wording, with Sullivan warning that having a statutory requirement to address invasive species "in the INRMP may overburden the process. This would impede the development of INRMPs that would otherwise have substantial beneficial impact," she testified.

The DOD source said a slight tweak was needed to the language, but added that the amendment is nonetheless important because invasive species control currently is not considered a "must-fund" item under the military's budgeting process. The amendment would be helpful in order to avoid mission impacts, the source said, citing the example of the yellow star thistle, an invasive plant that has blanketed 23,000 acres of land on Ft. Hunter Liggett, CA, making some lands unusable for military training.

In her Jan. 19 press release announcing her appointment as ranking member on the readiness subcommittee, Bordallo says she would continue her focus on overseeing the military's massive buildup on Guam, noting the readiness panel's jurisdiction over infrastructure and environmental issues regarding the buildup. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) is the new chairman of the readiness subcommittee.

The Congressional Research Service published a report last October outlining the major issues of moving thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Here's a taste:

In 2006, the United States and Japan agreed on a "Roadmap" to strengthen their alliance, including a buildup on Guam to cost $10.3 billion, with Japan contributing 60 percent. Primary goals were to start the related construction on Guam by 2010 and to complete relocation of about 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. In Tokyo on February 17, 2009, the Secretary of State signed the bilateral “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents From Okinawa to Guam” that reaffirmed the "Roadmap" of May 1, 2006. The two governments agreed that of the estimated $10.27 billion cost of the facilities and infrastructure development for the relocation, Japan will provide $6.09 billion, including up to $2.8 billion in direct cash contributions (in FY2008 dollars). The United States committed to fund $3.18 billion plus about $1 billion for a road.

However, in September 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) became the ruling party. This political change raised uncertainty as Japan sought to re-negotiate the agreement, even while the United States sought its implementation. The dispute over the location on Okinawa of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) to replace the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma raised implications for the relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam. In January 2010, Japan promised to decide by May on the location of the FRF. Then, North Korea’s attack on South Korea’s naval ship (Cheonan) in March, and China’s deployment of its Navy near Okinawa which confronted Japan’s forces in April, catalyzed Japan to resolve the dispute in favor of deterrence. On May 28, the Secretaries of Defense and State and their counterparts in Japan issued a “2+2” Joint Statement, in which they reaffirmed commitment to implement the 2006 Roadmap and the 2009 Agreement. In July, the Navy issued the final Environmental Impact Statement on the buildup on Guam, while planning to start construction by the end of FY2010. The Navy estimated that Guam’s population would increase by a total of 30,190, including 8,552 Marines.

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (enacted as P.L. 111-84 on October 28, 2009) authorized the first substantial incremental funding for the relocation of about 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam, but conditioned upon the Defense Department’s submission to Congress of a Guam Master Plan. Among a number of provisions related to Guam in the legislation and conference report, Congress designated the Deputy Secretary of Defense to lead a Guam Executive Council and coordinate interagency efforts related to Guam. Congress also required a report on training, readiness, and movement requirements for Marine Forces Pacific, with a sense of Congress that expansion of Marine Corps training should not impact the implementation of the U.S.-Japan agreement on relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Congress authorized a total amount (including for Defense-wide, Army, Navy, and Air Force) of almost $733 million.