The Insider

The White House has a nifty new tool for tracking the progress of information technology projects throughout the government.

According to the "IT Dashboard" Web site, the Defense Department has 62 "major investments" slated to consume $9.6 billion this fiscal year.

In a series of simple charts and tables, viewers can quickly see the good, the bad and the ugly in terms of cost and schedule.

Out of DOD's major projects, three are flagged red in the "overall" category, which considers cost, schedule and an as-yet unfilled "agency evaluation" field. Red stands for "significant concerns." The overall red projects are the Cheyenne Mountain Complex/Tactical Warning-Attack Assessment, the Expeditionary Combat Support System and the Net-Centric Enterprise Services programs, according to the site.

The site offers fields to identify the prime contractor for each project. But we found that the information was lacking in most cases when we visited the site this afternoon.

Noteworthy fine print: All information on the "IT Dashboard" is based on figures reported by the agencies themselves.

Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee announced with some fanfare plans to create a National Defense Panel in the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill whose members would critique the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Senators, in their version of the bill so far, made no such requirement.

The issue never even came up during Senate Armed Services Committee deliberations this week, committee spokeswoman Tara Andringa tells us.

"The issue wasn't discussed during markup so we can't speak as to why the committee didn't include it," she wrote in an e-mail. "We can point out, however, that the law already requires the secretary of defense to establish an 'independent panel' to review the QDR's report," she wrote.

Of course, this doesn't mean the National Defense Panel will never become a reality. But it shows that the need for the group is at least debatable among lawmakers.

Among the amendments approved this morning by House lawmakers considering the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill is a provision requiring new reviews about the Pentagon's use of subcontractors.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and blessed by the full House, would require the Defense Department to conduct a study on the total number of subcontractors used on “the last five major weapons systems in which acquisition has been completed” and determine if fewer subcontractors could have been more cost effective.

The DOD report would be due March 1, 2010. Also, the Government Accountability Office would have to complete a review of DOD's study by May 1, 2010.

Marking up the defense authorization bill behind closed doors is not something that has sat well with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). According to an e-mail received yesterday from her spokeswoman:

This may not come as a surprise to some of you, but Sen. Claire McCaskill is causing a ruckus again this year in the Senate Armed Services Committee mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The committee traditionally closes its mark-up of the annual defense policy bill to the public and press, but for the third year in a row, McCaskill is trying to open up committee deliberations to bring new transparency and accountability to the process. In an attempt to keep the mark-up open, McCaskill will continue to object to the motion to close each of the subcommittee and full committee meetings, which requires the consent of a majority of the committee members.

The Armed Services Committee has said that it holds its meeting behind closed doors to enable free discussion of classified information, but the reality is that a large majority of the material included in the legislation is unclassified and that the committee is free to move into a closed, classified setting at any time. Furthermore, the House Armed Services Committee considers the same legislation publically, and the Senate bill is traditionally considered by the full Senate in open session.

The committee began its work on the legislation earlier today, and will continue through Thursday.

Defense secretaries past and present have long complained about the amount of reports Congress requires the Pentagon to submit. This year, for instance, just on missile defense, House authorizers, in their report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, want eight reports from DOD to be submitted within the next year. Inside Missile Defense will be tracking the following:

A report on the U.S.-Israeli Arrow-3 program:

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is currently negotiating a project agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense for the Arrow-3 program. Given the high-risk nature of Arrow-3, the committee understands that the Arrow-3 project agreement will contain clear knowledge points (i.e., technical benchmarks) and a schedule that will govern the development of the program. Future decisions about the program should be based on the Arrow-3 system’s ability to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 15, 2010, that describes the agreed knowledge points and schedule, and assesses whether the Arrow-3 program is meeting the agreed knowledge points and schedule. The committee further directs that the report include a discussion of alternative paths the Department is examining to assist Israel in developing an upper-tier missile defense capability, such as the land-based version of the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3), should the Arrow-3 program fail to meet the agreed knowledge points and schedule.

A report on the recently canceled KEI and MKV programs:

The committee recognizes that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program have completed research and development of certain technologies that could be beneficial to other defense programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2010, on the feasibility of completing development of certain technologies that were in the process of being developed through the KEI and MKV programs and could have additional useful defense applications.

A report on the planned Precision Tracking Space Sensor (PTSS) constellation:

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, providing a description of the PTSS long-lead, risk-reduction activities to include: (1) payload design, prototyping and laboratory characterization; (2) continuing work on consolidated ground processing of overhead sensor feeds; and (3) implementation of the C2BMC interface. On the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Sustainment and Modernization Program:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a sustainment and modernization program to ensure the long-term reliability, availability, maintainability, and supportability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to protect the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks, whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining the Department of Defense’s long-term sustainment and modernization plan for that system.

Missile defense in Europe:

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from acquiring (other than for initial long-lead procurement) or deploying operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense committees a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.

Ascent phase missile defense:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees outlining a strategy for ascent phase missile defense within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis:

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct an assessment of foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis gaps and shortfalls, and prepare a plan to ensure that the appropriate intelligence centers have sufficient analytical capabilities to address such gaps and shortfalls. The committee is aware of certain intelligence gaps and shortfalls in foreign ballistic missile activities, in particular emerging longer-range ballistic missile activities, as noted by the Missile Defense Agency.

This section would also require a report by February 28, 2010, on the results of the assessment, the plan to ensure sufficient analytical capabilities, and a description of the resources required to implement such plan.

A U.S.-Russian joint missile defense data exchange center:

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Government of the Russian Federation, to expand the United States-Russian Federation joint center for the exchange of data from early warning systems for launches of ballistic missiles, as established pursuant to section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), to include the exchange of data on missile defense-related activities.

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on plans for expansion of the joint data exchange center to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

The House Armed Services Committee's fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill aims to make some small, but significant, tweaks to the law governing special operations.

The bill modifies the section of Title 10 spelling out what activities fall under the special operations label and are therefore core missions for U.S. Special Operations Command.

The legislation introduces a couple of newcomers: information operations, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, security force assistance and counterinsurgency operations.

Departing the canon of warfighting areas listed in the statute are "direct action," humanitarian assistance and theater search and rescue.

"Strategic reconnaissance" would get reworded to read "special reconnaissance."

Unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, civil affairs operations, counterterrorism and psychological operations remain on the list.

Get ready for round two of the V-22 hearing involving the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Marine Corps officials.

On May 21, the panel's chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), accused the Pentagon of stonewalling his request for V-22 documents and vented his displeasure by abruptly ending the hearing after mere minutes, telling a three-star Marine general to return in two weeks. The Pentagon denied the accusation, insisting it was diligently working to provide the information.

It took a month to sort things out. But now the committee has rescheduled its V-22 Osprey hearing for the afternoon of Tuesday, June 23. The agenda, according to lawmakers, is the future of the V-22, including "costs, capabilities, and challenges.” Stay tuned.