The Insider

Study Meeting
By John Liang
December 14, 2010 at 5:05 PM

The Missile Defense Advisory Committee plans to hold a classified meeting in January on the "Fiscal Year 2011 United States Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation Study," according to a  notice posted today in the Federal Register.

The agenda of next month's meeting, set for Jan. 19 and 20, will include "briefings on Technical Ballistic Missile Defense Cooperation; Joint Missile Defense Immersion and Collaboration; Ballistic Missile Defense Situational Awareness Capability; Analysis on Integration of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities; Military-to-Military Engagement; Missile Defense Advisory Committee Executive Session; and Missile Defense Advisory Committee outbrief to the Director, Missile Defense Agency."

Cyber Report
By John Liang
December 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM

The Pentagon recently asked the JASON research group to conduct a study on the theory and practice of cybersecurity, the findings of which were obtained by the Secrecy News blog. According to the report, JASON was asked to "evaluate whether there are underlying fundamental principles that would make it possible to adopt a more scientific approach, identify what is needed in creating a science of cyber-security, and recommend specific ways in which scientific methods can be applied." Further:

The need to secure computational infrastructure has become significant in all areas including those of relevance to the DOD and the intelligence community. Owing to the level of interconnection and interdependency of modern computing systems, the possibility exists that critical functions can be seriously degraded by exploiting security flaws. While the level of effort expended in securing networks and computers is significant, current approaches in this area overly rely on empiricism and are viewed to have had only limited success.

The JASON report "identifies a need to accelerate the transformation of research results into tools that can be readily used by developers. There are some very sophisticated approaches (model checking, type checking etc. as discussed previously) that can be used to assess and reason about the security of current systems, but they are not widely available today in the form of developer tools. There may be an insufficient market for private development of such tools and this may argue for a more activist role on the part of DOD in supporting future development."

Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that the Defense Department must spend far more money defending its networks than hackers do attacking them, a trend that has to be reversed, Inside the Navy reports this week. Further:

"The lines of code to attack any software haven't changed in the last five years, a number of them," Cartwright said during a roundtable discussion hosted by Government Executive. "What changes is, every time we get attacked, we have to spend substantially more than they invest to protect ourselves. We've got to turn that equation around."

He said the Pentagon intends to make it much more difficult to attack its networks in the future.

Cartwright noted that that major military networks were "not designed to be defended," but were made to allow anyone to plug into them virtually anywhere and use them in myriad ways.

"We've got to change that construct to one that gives us a layered defense, gives us a non-homogenous surface, so to speak," the general said. "In other words, it is not the same when you go out. We like to see things like operating systems changed every few hours and be invisible. It makes it extremely difficult."

Research Centers
By John Liang
December 13, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter wants to strengthen ties between the Defense Department and federally funded research and development centers, according to a memo he distributed last week.

"As we implement the secretary's efficiencies, including those that are directed in my memorandum dated September 14, 2010, I believe the single most important enabler of the improvements we seek is to increase the competence, quality and performance of the acquisition workforce," Carter writes. "At the same time, we need to continue to make effective use of the other two important sources of technical, acquisition and logistics expertise available to the Department: DOD's FFRDCs, and industry contractors."

FFRDCs were set up "to provide the department with unique analytical, engineering and research capabilities in many areas where the government cannot attract and retain personnel in sufficient depth and numbers," according to the memo. They are also "free from organizational conflicts of interest and can therefore assist us in ways that industry contractors cannot. Our FFRDCs maintain core competencies in domains that continue to be of great importance to the Department. These are immensely valuable capabilities, and the Department should use all means available to preserve and strengthen them," Carter writes. Consequently:

In recognition of the unique role that FFRDCs play in fulfilling our critical needs, we establish long-term relationships between the Government and the FFRDCs in order to attract and retain high-quality and knowledgeable personnel to the FFRDCs. As a result, we should employ contracting methodologies that provide the strongest long-term strategic relationships with our FFRDCs. We are working with the FFRDC sponsors to identify the most effective contracting strategies to support these long-term strategic relationships consistent with law and regulation. Use of any of these contracting strategies will be supported by vigorous sponsor comprehensive reviews conducted every five years, and a strengthened annual review of each FFRDC, conducted by my office, thereby ensuring that we have robust program management and oversight of these capabilities to ensure they are fulfilling their intended purposes.

Fire Away
By Cid Standifer
December 10, 2010 at 10:35 PM

The Navy successfully broke its previous record for highest-joule projectile shot with the Electromagnetic Rail Gun, part of its vision for future high-tech ship weaponry, at Dahlgren today.

Navy officials are psyched about the rail gun because it would run off electricity instead of explosives, taking up less space on board a ship and taking away the risks that come with carrying volatile materials on a sea-bound vessel. The rail gun would use the pure kinetic energy of a javelin fired from an electrified rail to demolish its target.

The shot today was powered by 33 mega-joules of electricity, breaking the record set on Jan. 31, 2008, when the Navy fired a rail gun at 10 mega-joules.

According to a Navy press release, the rail gun will eventually be able to fire a projectile 200 nautical miles at Mach 7.

Most importantly, the Navy has posted a YouTube movie that includes slow-motion video of the shot.

Done Deal
By John Liang
December 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) today announced she is ready to support the Obama administration in ratifying the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Her support comes in the wake of the administration's addressing of her "concerns about the disparity between Russia's large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons compared to the much smaller number in the United States' arsenal," according to a statement from her office.

Last week, Senator Collins sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for information on the White House's plan to address the difference in the number of tactical nuclear weapons between the two countries. "Independent experts estimate Russia has at least 3,800 of this type of nuclear warheads, and press reports indicate that the Russians have moved some of these weapons closer to their border with Europe," her statement reads. The senator's letter states:

By maintaining a distinction between the threats of nuclear attack that warrant the ratification of a treaty from those nuclear threats that do not simply based up on the distance from which a nuclear attack is launched or the method by which such a weapon is delivered, we preserve an outdated model regarding the nuclear threats facing our country. The characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons, particularly their vulnerability for theft and misuse for nuclear terrorism, make reducing their numbers important now.

In response, Clinton and Gates wrote that "the administration is committed to seeking improved security of, and reductions in, Russian tactical (also known as non-strategic) nuclear weapons."  Further: "We strongly agree with you that the characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons -- particularly their vulnerability to theft, misuse, or acquisition by terrorists -- make reducing their numbers and enhancing their safety and security extremely important."

That appears to have been enough for Collins, who in her statement said:

The New START represents a continued effort to achieve mutual and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.  As the Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I support the President's commitment to reduce not only the number of strategic nuclear weapons through the New START treaty, but also to reduce, in the future, those weapons that are most vulnerable to theft and misuse -- and those are tactical nuclear weapons.

Enterprise Transition Plan
By John Liang
December 9, 2010 at 7:18 PM

The Pentagon recently released a report on its plan to improve its business operations.

Dubbed the "Fiscal Year 2011 Enterprise Transition Plan," the report "focuses specifically on those business systems that are new or being modernized and provides the Department's roadmap accordingly. It identifies the governance and strategic framework DoD uses to manage its investments, describes how those investments are part of the Department's overarching management reform efforts, outlines key improvement initiatives for FY11 and provides specific information regarding each of its business system investments." Further:

The imperative to improve the Department’s business operations has never been greater. Secretary of Defense Gates and Deputy Secretary Lynn have clearly articulated the pressing need for reform, driving action across all business areas such as acquisition and logistics, finance, real property and personnel. The people and processes that make up each of these business areas are supported by the Department’s backbone of business Information Technology (IT). As current technology becomes obsolete, the Department must make targeted investments to modernize its existing business systems or develop and field new ones.

In FY11, the Department expects to spend nearly $7 billion on business systems. Approximately two-thirds of this amount is to sustain existing systems and one-third is for development or modernization efforts.

Stumping For A Bill
By John Liang
December 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin spoke on the Senate floor this morning in favor of passing the long-awaited fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Here are some excerpts from an "unofficial" transcript of Levin's remarks released by his office:

. . . It will provide our troops with the equipment and support they need to continue on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability to rapidly acquire and field new capability and respond to urgent needs on the battlefield by expanding the department of defense's authority to waive statutory requirements when needed to save lives on the battlefield. The bill will fund the president's request for $11.6 billion to train the Afghan army and police to prepare them to take over by the July 2011 date established by the president for the beginning of reductions in U.S. forces at that time.

The bill will extend for one more year the authority for the Department of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our troops withdraw -- and to transfer that equipment to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan providing an important tool for our commanders looking to accelerate the growth and capability of these security forces. The bill would promote the Department of Defense's cybersecurity and energy security efforts, two far-reaching initiatives that should strengthen our national defense and our nation.

If we fail to act on this bill, madam president, we will not be able to provide the Department of Defense with critical new authority and extensions of existing authorities that it needs to safeguard our national security. For example, without this bill the Department of Defense will either lose the authority that it requested to support counter-drug activities of foreign governments, use premium pay to encourage civilian employees to accept dangerous assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide assistance to the Yemeni counterterrorism unit. It could have serious consequences for the success or failure of ongoing military operations around the world.

. . . Now, despite the differing views over [the Don't Ask Don't Tell provision] and other provisions where there are differences of opinion, we should not deny the Senate the opportunity to take up this bill, which is so essential for the men and women in the military, because we disagree with some provisions of the bill. These are legitimate issues for debate. And I believe the Senate should debate them. But the only way we can debate and vote on these issues is if the Senate proceeds to the bill. The disputed provisions can be addressed through the amendment process.

. . . We have currently 50,000 U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines on the ground in Iraq and twice that many, roughly, in Afghanistan. While there are some issues on which we may disagree, we all know that we must provide our troops with the support that they need as long as they remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. And, most importantly of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.

Now, Madam President, this bill runs some -- excuse me -- some 850 pages. the House bill -- the counterpart bill -- runs more than 1,000 pages. Even if we get 60 votes today to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and even if we're able to consider amendments and pass this bill in a few days, it will be a possibly insurmountable challenge to work out all of the differences with the House.

Over the last 10 years, Madam President, it has taken an average of 75 days to conference the Defense Authorization Bill with the house after we pass it. If we don't proceed on this bill this week, then invoking cloture sometime next week, even if we can do it, it would be a symbolic victory. And I don't believe that there would be enough time to hammer out a final bill before the end of this session.

I don't believe in symbolic victories. This bill is a victory for the people in uniform. It's essential for the people in uniform. We should not act symbolically in their name and for their sake we should act in reality. But the only way that this will be real and that the repeal of “don't ask, don't” tell, assuming we continue to keep it in the bill, will be real is if we proceed to the bill this week. We cannot and should not delay this vote any longer. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

START The Chorus
By John Liang
December 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Fifteen retired generals and admirals are adding their voices to the chorus calling for swift ratification of the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. In a letter to the Senate released today via the Truman National Security Project, the retired senior officers write:

Russia and the United States possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Yet, due to the START Treaty’s expiration in December 2009, for the first time in 15 years no American is monitoring Russia’s deployed nuclear arsenal and ensuring that those weapons are well-guarded and properly secured. Ensuring American security means passing the treaty needed to put U.S. boots back on the ground. The ratification of the New START Treaty—which would reestablish a tough system for U.S. oversight of Russian strategic nuclear weapons first proposed by President Reagan—is imperative to our national security.

The New START Treaty will empower the United States to confront the threats of today and tomorrow. We cannot afford reckless political delay.

The New START Treaty will allow us to monitor deployed Russian strategic nuclear weapons while maintaining our capabilities and continuing to develop missile defense technology. Without the intelligence provided by START’s inspections program, we leave ourselves blind to possible increases in Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons, and more open to the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear material.

Leaders from both sides of the aisle have joined our military and national security leaders in underscoring the serious threat posed by continued delay. The swift ratification of the New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America’s military leadership, including the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. We, as senior retired military leaders, stand with them.

We call on the Senate to carefully weigh the wisdom and advice of our senior defense leaders, both civilian and military, as well as a knowledgeable, broad, and bipartisan array of national security experts. The Senate must move decisively to ratify the New START treaty before the end of 2010. For the sake of America’s global leadership role and future security, we cannot afford to delay.

Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, US Army (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, US Navy (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Norman Seip, USAF (Ret.)

Major General Roger Blunt, US Army (Ret.)

Major General George Buskirk, US Army (Ret.)

Major General Donald Edwards, US Army (Ret.)

Major General Paul Monroe, US Army (Ret.)

Rear Admiral Stuart Platt, US Navy (Ret.)

Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, USCG/USPHS (Ret.)

Brigadier General John Adams, US Army (Ret.)

Brigadier General Steven Anderson, US Army (Ret.)

Brigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret.)

Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.)

Brigadier General Phil Leventis, USAF (Ret.)

Chairman-Elect Part 2
By John Liang
December 8, 2010 at 6:47 PM

House Republicans today formally elected Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) to become the panel's chairman when Congress reconvenes next year. Among his priorities, according to a statement from his office, are:

  • Ensuring our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training and time they need to successfully complete their missions and return home;
  • Building on the Armed Services Committee’s strong bipartisan tradition of providing our warfighters and their families with the resources and support they need; and
  • Investing in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the United States from tomorrow's threats, while mandating fiscal responsibility, accountability and transparency from the Department of Defense.

For more on McKeon's plans for the next Congress, check out his Nov. 15 speech at the Foreign Policy Initiative's 2010 Leadership Forum.

Chairman-Elect
By John Liang
December 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM

House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Peter King (R-NY) has been elected as chairman of the panel by his Republican colleagues. According to a statement issued this morning, King's priorities for the committee are:

  • Conducting effective oversight of Department of Homeland Security operations and ways to give the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to identify and combat domestic radicalization;
  • Stopping the Obama Administration’s plans to transfer Guantanamo detainees, like admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators, to the U.S. and put them on trial in civilian courts, and holding hearings on the President’s plans to close Guantanamo;
  • Holding hearings on the attack at Fort Hood;
  • Working with the Department of Homeland Security to improve cargo security on passenger planes and on cargo-only planes;
  • Enacting additional border security legislation to curb illegal immigration;
  • Strengthening the Securing the Cities Initiative to protect more Americans from radiological and nuclear devices;
  • Bolstering national cybersecurity by fortifying the defenses of federal networks and promoting partnerships with the private sector to protect against cyberattack;
  • Strengthening communications for our nation’s first responders;
  • Passing a comprehensive Department of Homeland Security authorization bill to provide DHS with necessary guidance, tools, and resources to help protect our homeland from terrorist attack.
LCS Language
By Christopher J. Castelli
December 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Language that would approve the Navy's new dual-buy approach for the Littoral Combat Ship program has been included in the House's draft continuing resolution for funding the government until Sept. 30, 2011.

Section 2314 of the continuing resolution states, "The Secretary of the Navy may award a contract or contracts for up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships subject to the availability of appropriated funds for such purpose."

The House could vote on the continuing resolution today.

It's Academic
By John Liang
December 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM

The Defense Acquisition University has a new president.

According to a Dec. 6 memo by Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall, Katrina McFarland has been selected as the DAU's next head. "She comes with outstanding credentials and a wealth of experience at a very critical time for the department," Kendall writes. "In this capacity, Ms. McFarland will be responsible for continuing and building upon DAU's outstanding reputation as DoD's primary learning institution for the 147,000 members of the Defense Acquisition Workforce while overseeing the development of new curriculum and learning opportunities that facilitate implementation of the Under Secretary of Defense's (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) 'Better Buying Power' initiatives."

McFarland previously worked for the Missile Defense Agency, where she was MDA's director for acquisition. "In this capacity, she functioned as the MDA Acquisition Executive decision authority to define the policies and process activities to execute a single Ballistic Missile Defense System research, development and test program," Kendall's memo states.

Liability Coverage
By John Liang
December 7, 2010 at 6:50 PM

In response to queries from an Oregon congressman, the Defense Department has released documents indicating that more than 120 of its contracts contain indemnification clauses under which the U.S. government would cover liability costs that contractors could incur related to a variety of work, including some environmental services in the United States and in overseas operations, Defense Environment Alert reports this morning.

Further:

The release of information from a DOD data call in response to the congressional inquiry reveals indemnification clauses for a range of work, including for firms operating hazardous material facilities in the United States and to recover potential radioactive materials during the Iraq invasion, in addition to coverage for the makers of anthrax and smallpox vaccines, according to a Dec. 2 press release from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the congressman who months ago launched an inquiry into DOD's indemnification contract clauses. In the United States, indemnification clauses have been included in contracts to cover chemical weapons storage and destruction activities, according to the documents.

The probe has been driven by Blumenauer's concern that a defense firm -- Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) -- could invoke an indemnification clause to require the federal government to absorb the cost of legal claims being made by former National Guard members for exposures to chemical hazards at an Iraq water treatment plant the company oversaw (Defense Environment Alert, Sept. 27). The lawmaker has pressed the Pentagon to declassify the indemnification clause in this contract, which is known as the Restore Iraqi Oil contract, but DOD continues to refuse to do that, he says in the press release. Blumenauer adds that he remains concerned that contracts associated with the Iraq war effort have looser standards of indemnity protection than other DOD contracts.

In response to Blumenauer's inquiry, DOD's acquisition office launched a data call to the military services and other defense agencies to identify indemnification clauses in contracts, any lawsuits that had been filed regarding the contractor's actions, and the amount of money the federal government has paid out in response to the indemnity provisions, according to a Nov. 24 letter from DOD Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Frank Kendall. . . .

While the DOD contract summaries "appear to show a diligent, responsible process for work carried out in the United States that protects taxpayers from liability in cases of contractor negligence," it indicates much looser standards for the work done in Iraq, Blumenauer's press release says.

While Blumenauer called the documents release a victory for transparency, he warned that the "documents suggest that contracts associated with our Iraq war efforts may not contain sufficient taxpayer protections in cases of contractor negligence."

"I remain concerned that KBR's contract may be much more loosely drawn, removing incentives for the contractor to behave responsibly and exposing taxpayers to enormous liability and our troops to harm. Why is the Pentagon shielding this contract and protecting KBR?"

Blumenauer vowed to continue to seek declassification.

KBR has previously defended its work done at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in Iraq, with a spokeswoman saying that "the record is clear that the Army was to provide a site free of all environmental and war hazards. Once the presence of sodium dichromate was found [at Qarmat Ali], the Army was notified and was fully informed."

Up North
By Sebastian Sprenger
December 7, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Officials at the Defense Department and NASA are planning a new collaboration aimed at disseminating environmental data about the Arctic region. The proposed "Arctic Cooperative Environment" joint capability technology demonstration comes embedded in a project called "Partnering Earth Observations for People Living Environmentally," or PEOPLE. Broadly speaking, that effort aims to improve the international sharing of earth observation data, thus enabling partner nations to react to anticipate environmental change, natural disaster and associated humanitarian crises.

As for the Arctic-specific thrust, the goal is to provide the kind of situational awareness up north that is called for in a series of high-level policy documents, like the Quadrennial Defense Review or the Navy's roadmap for operations in the Arctic, according to a briefing from last June that was presented at a U.S. European and African commands science conference. The two commands are co-sponsors of the JCTD, which has yet to be formally blessed by senior Defense Department leaders.

What complicates the PEOPLE/ACE project and other proposed fiscal year 2011 JCTDs is the fact that Congress has yet to pass a defense spending bill. Until that happens, no project is formally approved, a defense official stressed last week.

But ACE passed a key hurdle in July, when Pentagon officials approved it at a so-called JCTD candidate review board, according to Marty Kress, whose Von Braun Center for Science and Innovation in Huntsville, AL, helped put the project together.

The comprehensive June briefing envisions an "open-source web-based Arctic region [and] national decision-support system with integrated data from existing remote sensing, buoy, and in-situ data (e.g. sea ice flow, permafrost melt)."

The document characterizes the project as a "true multi-agency, multi-national, building partnership" effort, with collaboration from Arctic stakeholders Russia and Canada. Beside the goal of tracking environmental conditions, the PEOPLE effort also would enable "expeditionary deployment planning," the briefing states.

Delayed START?
By John Liang
December 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Sixteen House Republicans are calling on the Senate to delay a vote to ratify the follow-on START Treaty. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (CA), strategic forces subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Turner (OH) and Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Mac Thornberry (TX), Todd Akin (MO), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John Kline (MN), Mike Rogers (AL), Trent Franks (AR), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Doug Lamborn (CO), Rob Wittman (VA), Duncan Hunter (CA), John Fleming (LA) and Mike Coffman (CO) write that they are "troubled by the administration's push to ratify the New START Treaty amid outstanding concerns regarding Russian intentions, missile defense limitations, and nuclear modernization.

"Given the security implications associated with this treaty and the importance of such a treaty enjoying bipartisan support, we believe the Senate should not be rushed in its deliberations," the letter continues. "Therefore, we urge the Senate not to vote on the New START Treaty in the lame duck congressional session and certainly not until these important security issues are resolved." Further:

There remains a significant divide between Russia and the U.S. on whether New START affects our ability to deploy missiles defenses, particularly long-range missile defenses in Europe. Despite testimony from Administration officials that New START does not limit U.S. missile defenses, Moscow seems to believe it will. Russian officials have declared they would withdraw from the treaty if U.S. missile defense systems are upgraded quantitatively or qualitatively.

Russia also warns that it will build up offensive forces should its 'terms' for a missile defense agreement not be met; all while the Administration seeks to reduce our nuclear forces. We have no insight on what these terms are, nor do we know the exact nature and scope of the missile defense negotiations reportedly occurring between Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher and her Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

We reject the notion that Russia can set terms for our missile defenses.  Iranian and North Korean missile and nuclear programs continue unabated as highlighted by recent events.  Given these threats, upgrades to our homeland missile defense capabilities and funding for missile defenses in Europe will remain top priorities for the House Armed Services Committee.

However, our principal concern is that the Administration might cede to Russian demands and allow Moscow to shape U.S. missile defense plans in exchange for its adherence to New START. This concern is exacerbated by a lack of transparency by the Administration in providing information on the nature of these secretive missile defense discussions. One way to alleviate this concern is for the Administration to provide Congress with the treaty negotiating record -- which Senators have requested on numerous occasions -- so that members can see firsthand how missile defense was discussed within the context of the treaty, as well as documents related to the Tauscher-Ryabkov discussions. In the meantime, we think it unwise to vote on New START until the Congress gains this additional insight and better understands how the impasse on missile defense will affect our long-term security.

We are also deeply concerned about the state of our nation's nuclear enterprise, and whether the Administration will remain committed to nuclear modernization and our nation’s nuclear triad. Reversing the erosion of our nation's nuclear infrastructure -- which the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Posture Commission called 'decrepit' -- will require a comprehensive plan and long-term political and financial support from the Administration and both chambers of Congress.

Our committee recently received an updated '1251 Report' on nuclear modernization.  The report provides glimpses of the Administration’s revised funding requirements based on its Nuclear Posture Review released last spring. However, it is unclear exactly how these additional funds contribute to modernization. For example, over one-third of these funds appear to go towards employee pension plans -- not modernization of the infrastructure or stockpile. Members of the House have yet to be briefed on the updated 1251 Report, and therefore we cannot assess the adequacy of these revised plans and funding requirements. We would hope the Senate would allow for the same due diligence in its oversight of this matter prior to a vote on New START.

As members of the House we will not have the opportunity to vote on the New START Treaty. However, the outcome of the treaty will undoubtedly impact national security policy and investment decisions within our jurisdiction as authorizers of the annual defense bill, and we will be responsible for overseeing its implementation. Because of these roles, we feel compelled to express our concerns.

We are in complete agreement with Senator Kerry who recently told the press, 'The American people want to see Republicans and Democrats working together on behalf of national security.' We believe bipartisanship is possible with good faith and sufficient cooperation among both political parties and the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. The security concerns associated with the New START Treaty are significant and must be addressed. This requires thorough and thoughtful deliberation.  The American people expect this of their government and we owe them nothing less.