The Insider

Budget Blues
By John Liang
December 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta this week said he was worried that Americans had lost their trust in the government in the wake of a congressional supercommittee's inability to rein in government spending. In a speech at the National Press Club yesterday, Panetta said: "Today I worry that in many ways we have lost the trust of the American people in that system of government because they are not seeing that dedication, that hard work, that sense of sacrifice that is important to our democracy." Further, according to his prepared remarks:

I've been railing about the threat of budget sequestration.  I know the challenges of the budget.  I've worked with the budget.  I know what budgets are all about.  But when there's a mechanism like sequestration, which is this kind of blind meat-axe approach to putting that in place if you don't do the right thing, there's something wrong.  There's something wrong if you have to fall back on that kind of mechanism.  And I’ve said that if it happens, it could do lasting damage, obviously, to defense policy in this country.  And it will.

But I also have to tell you that sequester is not a good thing for the domestic side of the budget either.  I mean, the fact is, if you want to be secure in this country, it isn't just about national defense.  It isn't just about weapons.  It's also about the quality of life that you have in this country.  And if we are not investing in that quality of life, ultimately that impacts on our ability to have strong national security.

So the failure of the super committee to come together and to make the decisions that should have been made is a failure that can result in damaging this country and damaging that dream that all of us have for a better life for our children.

Having worked on confronting these budget challenges for much of my life, there is no question we have to confront the deficit.  There is no question that we have to provide the kind of compromises that will result in dealing with reducing the deficit and trying to ensure that we have the resources we need in order to invest in the areas that count for the future.  This is a time really for statesmanship and it’s a time not for partisanship, but for statesmanship.  It’s a time for real dedication to what this country needs to do and not just sound bites and politics.  This is a time for very tough choices.

InsideDefense.com reported yesterday from New York that the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal will be cut by at least $40 billion, followed by cuts of roughly $50 billion annually for a decade, to comply with spending caps Congress and the White House agreed to in August:

Michael McCord, the Pentagon's deputy comptroller, also said the White House Office of Management and Budget has issued "pass-back" fiscal guidance to the Defense Department for FY-13, setting the stage for a final round of high-level decisions about which programs and force structure elements will be preserved and which will be cut in the new budget proposal.

"We're getting to that point now where the secretary is making the major funding decisions," McCord said, referring to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in remarks following an address to investors and financial analysts at a conference sponsored by Credit Suisse, an investment bank.

He said the new budget would propose "tailored" force-structure reductions that "will be controversial" and "painful."

In addition, the Pentagon's No. 2 budget official said Panetta has presented President Obama with draft versions of the Pentagon's new strategy guidance that proposes a recalibration of the U.S. military in accordance with plans to cut defense spending by more than $450 billion over the next decade. Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has said the cuts could be about $490 billion.

Fighting Fakes
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

The Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill that would “strengthen protections against a flood of counterfeit electronic parts coming into the defense supply system,” the Senate Armed Services Committee announced in a statement that sums up the new protections this way:

* Prohibits contractors from charging the Defense Department for the cost of fixing the problem when counterfeit parts are discovered.

* Requires the department and its contractors whenever possible to buy electronic parts from original component manufacturers and their authorized dealers or trusted suppliers who meet established standards for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts.

* Requires military officials and contractors who learn of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide written notification to the contracting officer, the Department of Defense Inspector General and to the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program.

* Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a methodology for the enhanced inspection of electronic parts after consulting with the Secretary of Defense as to the sources of counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain.

* Requires large defense contractors to establish systems for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts, and authorizes reductions in contract payments to contractors who fail to do so.

* Requires DOD to adopt policies and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in its direct purchases, and for assessing and acting on reports of counterfeits.

* Adopts provisions of a bill sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI) to toughen criminal sentences for counterfeiting of military goods or services.

* Requires DOD to define the term “counterfeit part,” and at a minimum to include in that definition previously used parts represented as new.

DTAG: Are You It?
By John Liang
November 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM

The Defense Trade Advisory Group is looking for a few good members.

The DTAG provides the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs "a formal channel for regular consultation and coordination with U.S. private sector defense exporters and defense trade specialists on issues involving U.S. laws, policies, and regulations for munitions exports," according to a recent Federal Register notice.

The pol-mil bureau "is interested in applications from subject matter experts from the United States defense industry, relevant trade and labor associations, academic, and foundation personnel," the Nov. 25 notice states. Further:

The DTAG advises the Bureau on its support for and regulation of defense trade to help ensure that impediments to legitimate exports are reduced while the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States continue to be protected and advanced in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended. Major topics addressed by the DTAG include (a) policy issues on commercial defense trade and technology transfer; (b) regulatory and licensing procedures applicable to defense articles, services, and technical data; (c) technical issues involving the U.S. Munitions List (USML); and (d) questions relating to actions designed to carry out the AECA and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Members are appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs on the basis of individual substantive and technical expertise and qualifications, and must be representatives of United States defense industry, relevant trade and labor associations, academic, and foundation personnel. In accordance with the DTAG Charter, all DTAG members must be U.S. citizens, DTAG members will represent the views of their organizations. All DTAG members shall be aware of the Department of State's mandate that arms transfers must further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. DTAG members also shall be versed in the complexity of commercial defense trade and industrial competitiveness, and all members must be able to advise the Bureau on these matters. While members are expected to use their expertise and provide candid advice, national security and foreign policy interests of the United States shall be the basis for all policy and technical recommendations.

DTAG members' responsibilities include:

Service for a consecutive two-year term which may be renewed or terminated at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs (membership shall automatically terminate for members who fail to attend two consecutive DTAG plenary meetings).

Making recommendations in accordance with the DTAG Charter and the FACA.

Making policy and technical recommendations within the scope of the U.S. commercial export control regime as mandated in the AECA, the ITAR, and appropriate directives.

Please note that DTAG members may not be reimbursed for travel, per diem, and other expenses incurred in connection with their duties as DTAG members. An individual who is currently registered, or was registered at any time during the period of January 1, 2010 to the present, as a Federal lobbyist is not eligible to serve on the DTAG.

How to apply: Applications in response to this notice must contain the following information: (1) Name of applicant; (2) affirmation of U.S. citizenship; (3) organizational affiliation and title, as appropriate; (4) mailing address; (5) work telephone number; (6) email address; (7) resume; (8) summary of qualifications for DTAG membership and (9) confirmation that you have not been registered as a Federal lobbyist at any time from January 1, 2010 to the present.

This information may be provided via two methods:

Emailed to the following address: SlyghPC@state.gov. In the subject field, please write, "DTAG Application."

Send in hardcopy to the following address: Patricia C. Slygh, PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112.

All applications must be postmarked by December 15, 2011.

MALD-J Begins LRIP
By John Liang
November 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

The Air Force has authorized Raytheon to begin low-rate initial production on the jammer variant of the Miniature Air Launched Decoy, the company announced this morning.

The service "also exercised a contract option and awarded Raytheon $5 million to convert Lot 4 MALD production of the baseline to the MALD-J variant," the Raytheon statement reads.

Inside the Air Force reported in September that MALD-J had completed its first simulated operational test over the summer.

Raytheon said that month in a statement that the test was the most complex and rigorous yet conducted with the MALD-J, and it proved that the decoy's electronic attack capabilities were able to "render radar ineffective," ITAF reported at the time. Jeff White, the company's MALD business development manager, said the test took place in late June or early July and lasted several hours. ITAF further reported:

"Multiple MALD-Js in free flight and multiple captive-carry MALD-Js conducted electronic attack missions and demonstrated MALD-J's ability to operate in a dynamic environment with a manned aircraft strike package," the release states.

The successful completion of the test was not announced until this week while Raytheon awaited Air Force approval, and many of the details of the test, such as the location and the number of MALDs involved, are classified. But White stressed that the confirmation that a MALD can act as an electronic attack device in addition to a decoy, and that it was able to coordinate with other manned and unmanned platforms using a popular mission-planning device called the Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS), was a major step for the program.

"What happens is now you have to plan your MALD mission in the JMPS machine to be compatible with what the strike package is," White said. "[In the mission plan], you've got a section there on what the UAS are doing, you've got a section on the bombers, the tankers, the AWACS, all that stuff, so now we demonstrated against a very high threat -- the airplanes are going to be at A, B, C, D and E and the MALDs are going to be at A, B, C, D and E -- that the jammers are going to turn on to protect. If any of those things doesn't work right, now the airplanes are seen on the bad guy radar, so that had not been demonstrated before."

White declined to state exactly which manned aircraft the MALD-Js were dropped from during the test, but MALDs are only integrated on two Air Force planes, the B-52 bomber and F-16 fighter aircraft.

The MALD-J is expected to enter operational testing in the near future, with a low-rate initial production decision expected in the fall of 2012, White said. That operational test process should be fairly straightforward because of the Air Force's experience using the baseline MALD -- the two devices share a body but have different payloads, meaning that MALD-J operational testing can focus on the payload, according to White. Additionally, an FCA to be conducted later on the jammer variant could be reduced in scope because of the characteristics MALD and MALD-J share, Raytheon spokesman Mike Nachshen wrote in a Sept. 7 email.

Looking further into the future, White said the Air Force has asked Raytheon to look into an enhanced version of the MALD-J, called MALD-J Increment II, which is currently in the study phase. MALD-J Increment II is not yet a program of record.

"The question is, what could you do to MALD to make it more adaptable to future threats?" White said. "So obviously you would want more jamming power out, you would want a better receiver sensitivity, and you'd probably want to protect it against certain other threats like GPS jammers."

More Guarded Optimism
By Jason Sherman
November 29, 2011 at 3:38 AM

The Senate tonight agreed to legislation that would fully vest the National Guard's chief as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a provision that -- if enacted -- could boost the role of the reserve component in Defense Department budget and policy deliberations.

The National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act (S.1025) -- also known as “Guard Empowerment II” -- was added to the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act by a voice vote tonight.

The legislation, which the Pentagon opposes, was sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It would make the National Guard Bureau's four-star general a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; reestablish the three-star billet for the vice chief of the Guard Bureau; and enhance the Guard’s representation at the senior levels of U.S. Northern Command.

In a statement issued after the Senate vote, Leahy said:

These reforms will bolster our national security and facilitate the Guard’s enhanced role in our national defense.  At home and abroad, we are asking the Guard to take on more responsibilities than ever.  The Guard has grown to become a front-line, 21st Century force, but it is trapped in a 20th century Pentagon bureaucracy.  This will help clear away those cobwebs and give the Guard a voice in the Pentagon that befits the scale of its missions here and overseas.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee chairman and former Navy secretary, opposes the move to grant the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He issued his own statement:

After discussions with Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin, I have decided to forego a vote on my amendment that would require an independent study on the advisability of making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  I decided not to seek a vote because the amendment introduced by Senator Leahy has received broad bipartisan support by 70 cosponsors, and I do not wish to jeopardize the prospects for the Senate completing its consideration of the FY-12 National Defense Authorization Act in the very limited time available to us.  However, I continue to believe that it is unwise to add a member to the Joint Chiefs who is not a chief of a branch of the armed forces.

President Obama, while still a candidate, suggested he was in favor of the move.

Missile Defense Meetup
By John Liang
November 23, 2011 at 5:31 PM

The Missile Defense Advisory Committee plans to hold a closed meeting on Dec. 13-14, according to a Federal Register notice published earlier this month.

The meeting's agenda includes the following, the notice states:

Topics tentatively scheduled for classified discussion include, but are not limited to briefings on Updates and Program Changes to the Missile Defense Agency's Program Objective Memorandum 2013 to 2017; Ballistic Missile Defense Strategic Issues and Future Capabilities; Status of Department of Defense Efficiencies; Missile Defense Advisory Committee Executive Session; and Missile Defense Advisory Committee preliminary outbrief to the Director, Missile Defense Agency.

More to the Story
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Inside the Pentagon breaks news this morning about Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey's opposition to a congressional proposal for a bipartisan Afghanistan-Pakistan study group. From the story:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey agree that the government should not "divert resources" to establish a bipartisan Afghanistan-Pakistan study group proposed on Capitol Hill, according to a spokesman for Dempsey.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the author of an amendment to the fiscal year 2012 defense-spending bill calling for the creation of the panel, sent several letters to Pentagon leaders in recent months -- including six to Panetta and at least one to Dempsey -- urging them to create the panel before the bill becomes law.

Dempsey's predecessor, Adm. Michael Mullen, also opposed the creation of the bipartisan group, which would be modeled after the 2006 Iraq Study Group (ISG) on which Panetta served.

"I appreciate your continued efforts to establish an outside review of current military strategy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region," Mullen wrote in an Aug. 4, response to Wolf. "However, I continue to think that establishment of such an entity would distract from our current strategy, which is yielding tangible results as stated in our latest periodic review."

Dempsey and Panetta also oppose the proposal, according to Col. Dave Lapan, Dempsey's spokesman. "Gen. Dempsey agrees with Secretary Panetta's recommendation that we not divert resources to establish an Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group at this time," Lapan said via email. Inside the Pentagon previously reported that Wolf had received a lukewarm response from the Pentagon on the creation of the group.

Since publication last night, we've heard a bit more on this. Panetta "communicated his preferences" to the proposal's author, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), on Nov. 3, said Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby today. "I won't discuss the details of that correspondence," Kirby said.

But a defense official joined Dempsey's spokesman in acknowledging the defense secretary's opposition to the proposal. "Secretary Panetta feels confident that, given the security progress we are making in Afghanistan, the success we are having in growing a developing the ANSF, and the ongoing assessments we already do -- and are required to do -- for the Congress, the work of such a group would largely be duplicative," the defense official said.

Mammal Relief
By John Liang
November 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is proposing to relax requirements on the Navy for obtaining regulatory authorizations allowing unintentional harassing or harming of marine mammals due to training activities across 12 of the service's water ranges, Defense Environment Alert reports today. Further:

While the regulator says the change is "technical" in nature, one major environmental group sees it as undermining the regulator's review of Navy impacts and plans to file critical comments on the proposal, according to a source with the group.

At issue is a proposed rule the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Fisheries Service published in the Federal Register Nov. 15, saying it wants to modify regulations it issued between January 2009 and May 2011. These are five-year regulations governing Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) unintentional "takes," or harassing, harming or killing, of marine mammals incidental to Navy training, at 12 ranges. Activities that can cause takes include use of active sonar systems and explosive munitions on the ranges. The proposed rule change also would affect five-year MMPA regulations governing unintentional takings of marine mammals incidental to Air Force space vehicle and test flight activities out of Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, the proposed rule says. Under the existing rules, NOAA Fisheries has to issue "Letters of Authorization" (LOAs) annually allowing for negligible takes of a marine mammal species by the military for specific activities.

But NOAA Fisheries now says it wants to change these rules to respond to Navy requests for flexibility.

"Since the issuance of the rules, the Navy realized that their evolving training programs, which are linked to real world events, necessitate greater flexibility in the types and amounts of sound sources that they use," NOAA Fisheries writes in the proposed rule. As a result, it is proposing to amend its regulations governing the 12 Navy ranges to both allow for more flexibility within the authorizations it grants and to grant LOAs with longer periods of validity than the standard one-year authorization, the agency says. . . .

The changes would affect the Hawaii Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Study Area, Jacksonville Range Complex, Virginia Capes Range Complex, Cherry Point Range Complex, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, Mariana Islands Range Complex, Northwest Training Range Complex, Keyport Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex and Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area, the proposed rule says.

NOAA Fisheries has not decided on exactly how often the multi-year LOAs will be issued, although they will not surpass five years, according to NOAA Fisheries. "The ability to issue multi-year LOAs reduces administrative burdens on both [NOAA Fisheries] and the Navy," the proposed rule says. "In addition, multi-year LOAs would avoid situations where the last minute issuance of LOAs necessitated the commitment of extensive resources by the Navy for contingency planning." A NOAA Fisheries source says it can be difficult to get the LOAs issued in time and if there are any delays on NOAA's end, it requires the Navy to revert to expensive contingency plans.

Panetta Reacts To Panel's Failure
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 22, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released a statement Monday night bemoaning the congressional supercommittee's failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement. The panel's inaction faces the department with the prospect of significant cuts that Panetta has said would hollow out the military. But his statement tonight argues Congress "cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass under the Budget Control Act." Here is Panetta's full statement:

The failure of the Congressional Supercommittee to reach an agreement on deficit reduction is a setback for the country's efforts to achieve fiscal responsibility while protecting our national security.  If Congress fails to act over the next year, the Department of Defense will face devastating, automatic, across-the-board cuts that will tear a seam in the nation's defense.

Despite the danger posed by sequestration, I join the President in his call for Congress to avoid an easy way out of this crisis. Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass under the Budget Control Act.

In my four decades involved with public service, I have never been more concerned about the ability of Congress to forge common-sense solutions to the nation's pressing problems. Since becoming Secretary of Defense, I have made it clear that the Department has a responsibility to help the country get its fiscal house in order - and we are doing that. I have been leading a strategy-driven effort to achieve the more than $450 billion in cuts over 10 years required by the Budget Control Act. We will move ahead with that plan.

But as Secretary of Defense, my primary responsibility is to protect the security of the nation. The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned.  If implemented, sequester would also jeopardize our ability to provide our troops and their families with the benefits and the support they have been promised. Our troops deserve better, and our nation demands better.

Key Amendments
By John Liang
November 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM

With more than 275 amendments submitted to the Senate's revised fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, the Council for a Livable World made a list of what the group thinks the key ones that will be considered when the Senate returns next week from the Thanksgiving holiday break:

Amendments pending or submitted

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Iran sanctions: Kirk (R-IL), Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) and others amendment No. 1084 to require the President to impose sanctions  on foreign institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank. Menendez (D-NJ) amendment No. 1292 is similar.

Nuclear weapons triad: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1183 to require the maintenance of all three legs of the nuclear weapons triad, those on land, at sea and in the air. Hoeven (R-ND) , Tester (D-MT), Blunt (R-MO, Enzi (R-WY) and Vitter (R-LA) have a similar amendment No. 1279 supporting the triad and endorsing all three legs of the triad.

Missile defense on the East Coast: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1185 to require a report on stationing missile defense on the East Coast.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Barrasso (R-WY), Enzi (R-WY), Conrad (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) and Tester (D-MT) amendment No. 1307 requiring the U.S. to maintain all 450 ICBM’s in the force with the New START limit of 800 strategic launchers, including 420 on alert or operationally  deployed status, with any reductions to be taken equally from the three ICBM bases.

Sharing missile defense information with Russia:  Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), DeMint (R-SC) and Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1310 barring sharing classified missile defense technology with Russia.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles: Hatch (R-UT) amendment No. 1315 requiring a report on long-term maintenance of a minimal capacity to produce ICBM solid rocket motors.

Chemical weapons: Wyden (D-OR) amendment No. 1160 to close the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot in Oregon.

DEFENSE ISSUES

Adding National Guard to Joint Chiefs of Staff: Leahy (D-VT), Graham (R-SC) and many other Senators' amendment No. 1072 to add the head of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Counterfeit electronic parts: Levin (D-MI) and McCain (R-AZ) amendment No. 1092 providing greater penalties for companies that provide counterfeit electronic  parts for military weapons systems.

Concurrent receipts: Reid (D-NV) amendment No. 1128 permitting payment of both retired pay and veterans' disability compensation with service-connected disabilities rated less than 50%.

Auditing Pentagon books: Paul (R-KY) amendment No. 1063 to require the Pentagon to have its books ready for an audit by September 30, 2014. Ayotte (R-NH) has a related amendment No. 1066. McCain (D-AZ), Levin (D-MI) and Ayotte (R-NH) have a related amendment No. 1132.

AFRICOM headquarters: Paul (R-KY) amendment No. 1136 to bar placing AFRICOM headquarters outside of continental U.S. Hutchison (R-TX) has a related amendment No. 1232 that is a sense of the Senate resolution.

American bases overseas: Tester (D-MT) and Hutchison (R-TX) amendment No. 1145, their bill S. 1733 to establish a commission to consider closing overseas bases.

Troops in Europe: Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 1182 to limit U.S. combat brigades permanently station in Europe to two, compared to four now, effective January 1, 2016.

B-1 bomber: Hutchison (R-TX), Johnson (D-SD), Thune (R-SD) and Cornyn (R-TX) amendment 1198 to slow the retirement of B-1 bombers.

Cluster munitions: Feinstein (D-CA) and Leahy (D-VT) amendment No. 1252 to bar the use of most cluster munitions.

Reduce the funding: Paul (R-KY) amendment No. 1268 to reduce the topline (non-war) number in the bill by 1% to $559.5 billion. He also has amendment No. 1270 to reduce the bill by 2% to $553.9 billion.

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

Afghanistan: Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), T. Udall (D-NM), Lee (R-UT), Brown (D-OH), Gillilbrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA) and Durbin (D-IL) amendment No. 1174 to urge an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Authorization for the use of military force (AUMF): Paul (R-KY) and Gillibrand (D-NY) amendment No. 1064 to terminate the authorization to use force in Iraq.

Jerusalem as capital of Israel: Heller (R-NV) amendment No. 1137 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to relocate the U.S. Embassy there.

Pakistan: Corker (R-TN) amendments No. 1171 and 1172, barring funds for any Pakistani entity that maintains connections to terrorist organizations and a report on ending assistance for Pakistani support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Taiwan: Cornyn (R-TX), Menendez (D-NJ), Inhofe (R-OK), Lieberman (I-CT), Wyden (D-OR) and Blumenthal (D-CT) amendment No. 1200 requiring the U.S. to sell at least 66 F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan.

Cooperation with Republic of Georgia: McCain (R-AZ) amendment No. 1281 to require a plan for normalizing defense cooperation with the Republic of Georgia, including the sale of weapons.

War Powers Resolution: Thune (R-SD) amendment No. 1282 to repeal the War Powers Resolution.

International entities:  Vitter (R-LA) amendment No. 1284 to bar assistance to international diplomatic entities that appoint Iran to leadership positions.

OTHER AMENDMENTS

Detainees: There are a host of amendments by Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO), Feinstein (D-CA)  and Leahy (D-VT) to delete or modify detainee provisions in the bill agreed upon by Sens. Levin (D-MI) and McCain (R-AZ). The White House has threatened a veto over the Committee-approved measure. Numerous Senators have amendments to from the other direction.

Gay marriage: Wicker (R-MS) amendment No. 1056 to clarify that military chaplains are not required to perform a gay marriage; the House has a similar provision. The House bill also included a provision requiring the Pentagon to observe the Defense of Marriage Act.

Abortion: Shaheen (D-NH) amendments No. 1120 and 1121 on permitting abortions in case of rape or incest to be performed in military hospitals.

AMENDMENTS ALREADY CONSIDERED

Strategic airlift: Sens. Ayotte (R-NH) and Reed (D-RI) amendment No. 1065 to permit the Air Force to reduce the strategic airlift (cargo airplanes) inventory from 316 to 301, which they say will save $1.2 billion and supported by the Air Force, was adopted by voice vote Nov. 17.

Flag Days
By Amanda Palleschi
November 18, 2011 at 10:04 PM

U.S. Cyber Command is gathering 200 "lessons learned" from a recent "Cyber Flag" exercise, Maj. Gen. George Allen, the command's director of plans and policy (J-5), said today. The week-long exercise took place earlier this month at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, according to a spokesman for the base.

"We had a force on force. We had all of the services play and integrate. And one of them played a bad guy who actually went after our networks. And then we counter-attacked to see how we could do that," Allen told an audience at a lunch sponsored by the Northern Virginia chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

"We're looking at how we do transitions and ranges," Allen said. "Ranges are built for dropping bombs and doing a lot of tactical things -- how do you take cyber into that? How do you do that and refine it? How do you measure readiness in cyber as a network operator?"

Allen also spoke about building up the cyber workforce across the services, noting that CYBERCOM was working on a 150-page document detailing 43 skills sets the workforce should have. That document is "very much in the early stages," he said.

More GE-AVIC Worries
By John Liang
November 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM

House Armed Services readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) isn't happy with the response he received from the Pentagon regarding the national-security implications of a proposed joint venture between GE and Chinese company AVIC.

In an Oct. 17 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Forbes worried that technology developed for the F-22A and F-35 fighter aircraft could help China develop its own military aviation programs if the proposed joint venture took place. Further:

While I understand the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) and the Bureay of Industry and Security (BIS) have conducted an informal licensing review of the military-origin technology involved in this joint venture, I also understand there has not been a National Security Review of this transaction with the PRC by DTSA and the other appropriate agencies of the federal government. Such a review would focus closely on the enforcement and compliance regime proposed by the joint venture. I urge you to immediately direct such a review to be conducted.

In an Oct. 31 response, Deputy Defense Secretary for Policy Michele Fluornoy wrote that there wasn't much the Pentagon could do:

Under the Export Administration Act, DoD has no statutory authority to administer, enforce or mandate any aspects of the law that govern the export of dual-use commodities. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce (DoC), require DoC to consult with the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense regarding the export of those commodities that are controlled for national security reasons. DoD, through the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA), reviews only those applications referred to it by DoC.

But that wasn't enough for Forbes. In a letter sent today to Panetta, Forbes writes:

I understand that neither GE nor the Department of Commerce have asserted the necessity for an export control license for the joint venture between GE and AVIC and that the Department of Defense may not have independent authority to pose a binding objection or block the transaction. However, this does not abrogate the Department of Defense from advising Congress, U.S. defense contractors, and the general public of the potential national security hazards of such technology transfers.

Hedging Bets
By John Liang
November 17, 2011 at 10:58 PM

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) and four other committee Republicans are calling for a "domestic hedge" against ballistic missile threats.

In a Nov. 17, 2011, letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the lawmakers write:

In 2009, the Administration announced that it would reduce the development of the homeland missile defense system by severely limiting the purchase of ground-based interceptors (GBI) for deployment in the United States and by cancelling the deployment of the Third Site system in the Czech Republic and Poland.  As you know, the only missile defense capability to project the homeland currently in place is the ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD) in Alaska and California, which this Administration and the previous Congress cut by over $1.65 billion.  At the time, this decision was explained on the basis of "new intelligence" that justified de-prioritizing national missile defense in favor of defense against regional missile threats.

With regard to the intelligence, we believe this decision was in error at the time and that new information reaffirms that error.  We further believe it is now critically important that the Administration immediately reprioritize the defense of the homeland.  And we believe your predecessor, Secretary Gates, was of the same view when he announced prior to his departure from office that, "with the continued development of long-range missiles and potentially a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and their continued development of nuclear weapons, North Korea is in the process of becoming a direct threat to the United States."

Almost from the day of the announcement of the Administration’s new architecture for missile defense, the House Armed Services Committee has been pressing the Administration for a "hedging strategy" to be assembled and implemented for the defense of the homeland.    And Administration witnesses have repeatedly promised such a strategy.  For example, Dr. Jim Miller, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, told the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in his March 2, 2011 testimony that, "the Department is in the process of finalizing and refining its hedge strategy." Less than a month later, Dr. Brad Roberts, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, testified that, "[t]he Administration is considering additional steps to strengthen the U.S. hedge posture . . . we are evaluating the deployment timelines associated with fielding additional capabilities."

Despite these commitments, and despite passage by the House of section 233 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress has received no "hedging strategy" from the Department of Defense.  Further, we are hearing from the Department of Defense that the Administration has no plans to restore the buy of GBI interceptors planned by the previous Administration, and may only be prepared to buy new missiles solely for testing purposes.  What's more, we are informed that the Administration may be preparing to walk away from its commitment to develop the SM-3 IIB missile, perhaps by downgrading it to a mere technology risk reduction program.  It would be a double blow to the defense of the homeland if the Administration now walks away from the IIB missile without restoring programs for missile defense of the United States.

Such decisions, which will further compromise the national missile defense of the United States, may be a result of the Administration's decision to build a missile defense system in Europe, with little application for the defense of the United States, as a contribution to NATO; in other words, to build a missile defense shield for Europe at enormous cost to the United States.  Continued short-changing of the missile defense budget may force Congress to make a choice if the missile defense of the homeland continues to be deprioritized by the Administration.

In view of the briefing the subcommittee received this week, we do not believe the United States can afford further delay in the release of the hedging strategy by the Department of Defense.  We urge you to take steps to ensure it is completed and briefed to the Congress before the end of the year.  We further urge you to ensure that when the FY13 budget for the Department of Defense is submitted to the Congress next February, it restores funding to homeland missile defense programs to counter the rising long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States.  The defense of the United States must be the top priority for the Department of Defense.

MEADS Flies
By Jen Judson
November 17, 2011 at 6:54 PM

The Medium Extended Air Defense System completed its first flight test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico today, meeting all test objectives, according to Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Cheryl Amerine.

Lockheed Martin, MEADS' maker, intended to validate the hardware design of the MEADS battle manager, lightweight launcher and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile. The company also hoped to demonstrate the 360-degree capability of the system, Marty Coyne, Lockheed Martin's MEADS business development director, told Inside the Army today.

Before the test, Coyne explained how it would proceed. A launch command would be sent from the MEADS battle manager to the lightweight launcher positioned several kilometers away, Coyne said. An MSE missile would be launched out of the system at a 70-degree angle and would then “literally bend over its back,” Coyne said, to hit a simulated target directly behind the launcher.

Although simulated tests have been performed, Coyne said, this was the first time MEADS launched an MSE missile.

The data collected from the test will be leveraged for future simulations, “and it will help us reduce risk for our follow-on flight test,” Coyne said.

The next test, scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2012, will involve an intercept attempt. It will also introduce MEADS' 360-degree fire control radar tracking system.

The program underwent a critical design review 15 months ago, Coyne said. However, the trinational program remains on very thin ice after the Pentagon decided to terminate U.S. involvement in the effort after the current phase ends.

“MEADS provides more capability at a lower cost to protect our soldiers against a growing air and missile threat. The MEADS lightweight launcher is one of the most advanced mobile launchers in existence today and was designed to be easily adaptable to a variety of vehicles,” NATO MEADS Management Agency General Manager Gregory Kee said in Lockheed Martin statement today.

Black Hawks to Brunei
By Christopher J. Castelli
November 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM

The White House announced this morning that United Technologies subsidiary Sikorsky has been selected by Brunei’s defense ministry to supply 12 Black Hawk S-70i helicopters for the Royal Brunei Armed Forces Support Helicopter Project. The deal is valued at $325 million, with $200 million in U.S. export content supporting an estimated 1,100 U.S jobs, the White House said in a statement.

“The deal also contains options for a second phase that will double the project's size, value, and job creation,” the statement says. “This is one of the largest defense procurements in Brunei's history." Brunei and the Connecticut-based contractor will work to finalize the terms and conditions of the deal.

The announcement, issued during President Obama’s visit to the Asia-Pacific region, also includes export deals for commercial jets and engines worth billions of dollars. Boeing will sell 737s to Indonesia's Lion Air and 777s to Singapore Airlines. And General Electric will sell engines to Garuda Airlines of Indonesia.