Government Executive - Authors - Amy Klamper

Army defends plans to centralize National Guard centers

Amy Klamper — Wed, 18 May 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Samuel Skinner, a chief of staff for former President Bush, questioned the Army's plan to "build a world-class training center and hope that the Guard will come."

As part of the 2005 BRAC round, the Pentagon invited state adjutants general to submit recommendations for the locations of these new reserve centers being built on federal and National Guard land.

Craig College, the Army's deputy assistant secretary for infrastructure analysis, said the Army expects that these "centers of excellence" will be larger, unconstrained by encroaching development and technologically advanced over existing reserve and Guard installations.

Other commission members wondered if the plan to close 211 reserve and Guard facilities while building 125 centers, would hurt recruiting and retention because soldiers will have to commute greater distances. Army Secretary Francis Harvey acknowledged that the impact is a concern, particularly at a time when the service is struggling to meet recruitment and retention goals. Harvey and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker emphasized that the plan is backed by many states, and that the consolidated centers would add no more than 50 miles to soldiers' commutes.

The bid to reshape the Army's domestic infrastructure is part of the Defense Department's recommendations released Friday to close or realign more than 800 military installations in the United States. The list includes roughly 400 Army installations, comprised in part of 176 Army Reserve and 387 Army National Guard facilities.

The Army portion of the base-closing recommendations was the topic of today's commission hearing. If the recommendations are implemented, the Army expects to save $7.6 billion over the next several years, followed by $1.5 billion in annual recurring savings over the next two decades. The cost of these closures is estimated at about $12 billion.

Harvey said that while the closing of overseas bases and the return of U.S. troops to domestic installations also will cost money -- roughly $800 million -- the combined effort will generate more than $20 billion in savings. The Army expects to return 47,000 troops, including 11,000 to Fort Bliss, Texas, as part of the global restructuring plan. BRAC commissioners have less than four months to evaluate the Pentagon's recommendations and submit its list to the White House by Sept. 8. The commission continues to await the department's release of thousands of pages of supporting documents detailing the rationale behind its base closure decisions. Members expect to see the documents Friday.

]]>

Rumsfeld expected to restore funding for cargo aircraft

Megan Scully and Amy Klamper — Wed, 11 May 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Although the Pentagon had proposed terminating the C-130J multiyear in its fiscal 2006 budget request, in a Tuesday letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., Rumsfeld outlined the department's intent to complete the multi-year contract.

Sources said the department sees no need to submit a budget amendment to restore the funding in fiscal 2006. Instead, the Pentagon will work with OMB in the fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008 budget requests to find offsets for the C-130J, according to a copy of the letter obtained by CongressDaily.

The letter from Rumsfeld was expected to be discussed during the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee's second day of markup. The panel was continuing work on its $41 billion portion of the fiscal 2006 authorization bill early this afternoon before the full committee begins work on the $419 billion bill.

The subcommittee markup began late Tuesday and was extended to allow further debate on the C-130J and other programs, sources said. Sources speculated that Warner and Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., might question any Pentagon proposal to restore the C-130J funding, particularly if it would mean reducing the $1.1 billion in fiscal 2006 funds proposed to purchase 12 Marine Corps KC-130J tanker aircraft. One source said any proposed decrease in the K-C130J purchase likely would be met with opposition, noting the growing perception among lawmakers of increasingly poor management of Marine Corps programs.

While the Pentagon's decision to terminate the C-130J multiyear contract proposed in the fiscal 2006 budget was based on information available to department planners in December 2004, sources said new information regarding the contract's termination costs has since come to light. C-130J advocates, including Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., say terminating the multiyear program could cost between $1 billion and $2 billion, though critics of the program assert the cost would be less than half a billion dollars. The Lockheed Martin C-130J is assembled in Marietta, Ga.

]]>

As questions surface, Rumsfeld defends pre-war planning

Amy Klamper — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

During a Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing Rumsfeld lashed out at Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., when he raised questions about issues addressed in the report as well as the pre-war prediction of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to execute the war plan as well as any post-war conflict.

"I am tired of Shinseki being bandied about," Rumsfeld said. "We have done what the generals on the ground believed to be the right thing."

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, all the military service chiefs supported the war plan, including Shinseki. Myers said Shinseki only offered his best guess as to the number of troops needed in Iraq after he was pressed by lawmakers. He said Shinseki believed such decisions should be left to the commanders charged with overseeing the contingency plans.

Specter noted that while Congress is supportive of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the recent approval by both chambers of an $81 billion supplemental spending package to pay for the ongoing conflicts, there is "a lot of disquiet out there among the people about what is happening in Iraq, and what is happening with our discretionary budget."

Myers said the department is aggressively pursuing lessons learned from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and working quickly to implement any needed changes. Rumsfeld said the department is anxiously awaiting the supplemental funding and risks running out of money if the legislation is delayed. He noted that by as early as next week some commands might stop hiring, ordering supplies and letting contracts if the funds are not approved, and that the Army has already begun slowing obligations to make funds last in the interim.

]]>

Pentagon acquisition nominee faces tough questions

Amy Klamper — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Krieg, currently the Defense Department's director of program analysis and evaluation, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that, if confirmed, he would work with Congress to reduce acquisition cycle times, control costs and breathe new life into the defense industry, in particular the increasingly anemic U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

"I hope you come up with some innovative program of your own to reach out to this industrial base and engage them," Senate Armed Services Chairman Warner told Krieg, adding that some effort should be made to make defense research and development programs more profitable for industry while shifting some of the government's risk in such efforts to the private sector.

Krieg fielded more pointed questions from Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, regarding acquisition programs specific to their districts.

Collins asked whether Krieg supports the decision of Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's current acquisition chief, to halt the Navy's plan to compete a contract award for its DD(X) next-generation destroyer between the nation's two shipyards in Maine and Mississippi.

Chambliss pressed Krieg to show support for the Air Force F/A-22 stealth fighter and the need to buy more of the aircraft to reduce per unit costs. In its fiscal 2006 budget, the Pentagon proposed a reduction in the quantity of F/A-22 aircraft to be purchased.

Krieg acknowledged that the program has improved over the past 18 months and said he was satisfied with its progress. But he avoided a direct answer to Chambliss' questions, offering to provide a more detailed response for the record.

Chambliss noted that Krieg will have to deal with such fundamental issues in his new post, particularly at a time when key decisions on major weapons systems, such as the F/A-22 and DD(X) must be determined.

"You're the guy that's going to have to deal with this," Chambliss said.

]]>

Deputy Defense nominee fields questions over shipbuilding, acquisition

Amy Klamper — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

During his two-hour confirmation hearing, Navy Secretary Gordon England told Armed Services Committee members he would seek to simplify what he described as an overly complex defense acquisition system.

England said the matter is being evaluated as part of the Pentagon's 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, a comprehensive look at military strategy, requirements, force structure and assets.

"We do have a QDR effort look at the whole acquisition aspect," England told the panel, adding that better oversight of the department's acquisition system would require a clearer understanding of how that system works.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain agreed with England that fixing the department's acquisition mechanism would not be easy but said any new legislation that imposes additional bureaucracies, regulations or other strictures on the system would be counterproductive and likely increase program costs.

McCain was referring, in particular, to the Navy's increasingly anemic shipbuilding budget and the inability of the service to keep pace with rising costs associated with what many see as a lack of competition among the nation's two major shipyards. Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., agreed, asserting that Pentagon leaders must persuade the president of the need to provide sufficient funds for shipbuilding to "turn this curve around."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., questioned the wisdom of the Navy's plan this year to mothball the USS John F. Kennedy and eventually retire the USS Kitty Hawk -- the nation's only two non-nuclear aircraft carriers -- given that Japan may ultimately decide it does not want to port a U.S. nuclear carrier.

England said he could not estimate the cost to pull the JFK out of mothballs if necessary, or the amount of time the Kitty Hawk could remain in service without requiring dry-dock repairs, but promised to answer these questions in writing. Warner and Nelson offered an amendment to the FY05 wartime supplemental before the Senate that would extend the JFK's service.

]]>

Senators aim to derail Pentagon plans to scrap C-130J

Amy Klamper — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Friday that he and fellow Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, along with 12 other senators, plan an amendment to the Pentagon's $80.6 billion emergency spending supplemental package needed to cover the cost of ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment would prohibit funds from being spent to terminate the $4.1 billion C-130J contract with Lockheed Martin Corp., according to a statement released Friday.

Estimates indicate that it would cost $1.6 billion to terminate this program for the Air Force and the Marine Corps, according to Chambliss' statement.

The move is the latest attempt by C-130J advocates in Congress to thwart the Pentagon's plans to halt aircraft production of the plane next year, although some question whether the Pentagon plans to move forward with the cuts in the first place.

During testimony in February, Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper said the costs of canceling the C-130J are expected to be higher than the Pentagon had initially estimated, and Pentagon insiders have hinted that the department likely will offer an amendment to the fiscal 2006 budget request that would restore funds for the C-130J program.

Last week, the Air Force announced a plan for improved oversight of the C-130J contract after service officials came under pressure from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to subject the deal to more traditional acquisition laws and regulations.

]]>

GAO says problems justify rebidding C-130 contract

Amy Klamper — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

In response to bid protests filed last year by losing contractors Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications and BAE Systems, GAO concluded that the award was tainted because Darleen Druyun, who at the time was the Air Force's second-ranking acquisition official, was biased in favor of Boeing, according to GAO testimony before the Senate Armed Services AirLand Subcommittee.

Last year, Druyun was sentenced to nine months in federal prison for violating a conflict of interest statute after admitting to bias in favor of Boeing on various procurements, including the C-130 avionics program, and the now infamous $29 billion deal to lease aerial refueling tankers.

GAO subsequently received protests from other firms challenging Druyun's alleged improper influence on Air Force contracts awarded for the small diameter bomb program and the C-130 avionics modernization upgrade.

The Air Force argued that, notwithstanding Druyun's bias in favor of Boeing, "there is no evidence that Mrs. Druyun influenced the SSET [source selection evaluation team]" and that, overall, "the evaluation process was conducted properly and in accordance with the evaluation criteria."

But GAO's investigation found Druyun was the lead official throughout the procurement, countering the Air Force's assertion that there was no evidence she influenced the source selection evaluation team.

And because of her failure to treat all offers fairly during contract negotiations, GAO rejected the assertion that the evaluation process was conducted properly. Finally, because the record failed to establish that any one of the bid protesters was not prejudiced as a result of the various procurement flaws, GAO sustained the C-130 protests.

The Air Force reported that rebidding the installation phase of the C-130 contract is feasible, but that rebidding the entire contract would not be in the best interests of the taxpayer or consistent with national security concerns.

GAO also recommended the Air Force conduct a competition for the moving target requirement associated with its small diameter bomb program.

]]>

Air Force tells senator it will alter C-130J contract

Amy Klamper — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

During testimony before the subcommittee last week, Air Force officials said the C-130J heavy lift aircraft had been acquired as a commercial item, leaving the government powerless to obtain critical cost and pricing information and assure itself a fair and reasonable price.

Consequently, the Air Force obtained an aircraft that failed to meet contract specifications, and was incapable of performing its intended mission at a dramatically higher cost than expected.

In a meeting Wednesday with McCain, acting Air Force Secretary Michael Dominguez and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper indicated that they shared the senator's concerns about the commercial item procurement strategy and said they would convert the C-130J contract to a traditional military-item procurement.

Sources said the offer is contingent on the administration's anticipated plan to amend its fiscal 2006 defense budget request and reverse its earlier proposal to cancel the C-130J.

If the change is implemented, the C-130J would for the first time be subject to laws and regulations typically used to protect contracts from fraud, waste and abuse.

A congressional aide said the Air Force officials indicated there would be no significant cost increase associated with the contract modification. Sources said McCain was gratified by the Air Force's receptiveness to his concerns regarding the C-130J.

However, they added that McCain is looking forward to seeing how the Air Force implements its stated commitment to ensuring that taxpayer interests are protected.

]]>

Pentagon plans to consolidate forces in Europe take shape

Amy Klamper — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Gen. B.B. Bell, the Army's top commander in Europe, told his command last week that two of the Army's headquarters in Heidelberg -- U.S. Army Europe and Task Force 5 -- will be merged and moved to Wiesbaden under the plan. In addition, Bell indicated that the Army's main operating areas will be reduced from 13 to four and that individual installations across Europe will decrease from 236 to 88.

In the Grafenwohr area, the Expeditionary Training Command will be joined by a Stryker Brigade and additional commands, according to Bell's announcement. Kaiserslautern will become a major service and sustainment hub where theater logistics and medical support are to be concentrated.

Bell also said the command is working with Italy to procure space to station the expanded 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, and that over time the Army's soldier population in the Vicenza area would increase by more than 1,000. In addition, the Army expects to begin moving the 1st Infantry Division from Germany to the United States as early as 2006, with the 1st Armored Division to follow two years later.

Bell indicated in his announcement that these troop moves had not yet been approved and are dependent upon the availability of domestic force structure capacity to receive them.

The Pentagon is in the throes of the first base realignment and closure process in a decade. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has suggested the 2005 BRAC round is expected to eliminate up to 25 percent of excess capacity in domestic bases.

The troop reductions and redeployments are part of the Pentagon's reorganization plan aimed at returning some units to the United States while leaving smaller units in Europe. The United States envisions fewer large, fixed bases like those operated in Germany since World War II, to a larger number of smaller, more efficient installations where troops can be quickly rotated in and out for training or crisis missions.

The Army is working to establish by 2008 a rotational force presence in Eastern Europe, with up to brigade-size rotations of different forces, including heavy, Stryker and airborne, according to Bell's announcement. A small, deployable command post similar to one in Vicenza will provide command and control of this force, he said.

]]>

Puerto Rico seeks to protect its lone military base

Amy Klamper — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The group presented to Pentagon officials a plan to enhance Buchanan's military value, as well as the economic and social benefits it offers to the Defense Department and the 15,000 reserve forces in Puerto Rico.

Eduardo Bhatia, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, said part of the plan would involve selling off a Puerto Rican National Guard property -- worth an estimated $30 million -- and consolidating the Puerto Rico Army National Guard with U.S. Army reservists at Buchanan, an effort they say would create savings for the Army Reserve.

But first, Puerto Rico officials must persuade lawmakers to lift a three-year-old building moratorium on the base to allow for construction, including a $30 million National Guard headquarters at Buchanan funded by the sale of the guard facility.

Although it is unclear whether House and Senate authorizers will remove the ban in defense authorization legislation this year, Bhatia said the Pentagon supports the idea.

"Of all the people we met with, 100 percent in the Pentagon wanted the moratorium lifted," Bhatia said. "It has created a problem in terms of recruiting personnel, for preparing Guard and reservists for work they have to do out in Iraq."

The moratorium was put in place in 2002 as an interim measure that was directly linked to continuing Navy training at Vieques Island. When the Navy closed Roosevelt Roads Naval Station near Vieques last year, taking with it 6,000 jobs and an estimated $300 million annually, the building moratorium on Buchanan remained.

"We are very enthusiastic for the future, but we need to lift this moratorium right away," Bhatia said, adding that the ban is so vaguely worded that officials at Buchanan recently questioned whether it was legal to repaint some buildings.

The U.S. military presence is a divisive issue in Puerto Rico, although the government supports increased investment in the last remaining base.

Puerto Rico Secretary of State Marisara Pont and Economic Development and Commerce Secretary Jorge Silva also were at this week's meetings. Puerto Rico would lose some $200 million in annual revenue if Buchanan is closed. For the time being, the base continues to play a critical role in recruiting and retention, an issue of importance to a military stretched thin with extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The base has the 16th highest overall contribution to the Army National Guard and reserve and the sixth highest per capita contribution of all states and territories.

"It is the place for recruiting a majority of National Guardsmen and reservists who have been fighting in the Gulf," Bhatia said.

Buchanan is also the only active Army post in the Caribbean basin area, boasting the nation's only fully bilingual and bicultural force and playing a major role in the Caribbean and South America. The base supports a total population of 105,000, with at least 23 federal agencies and nearly 2,000 federal dependents attending Buchanan's consolidated school.

]]>

Lawmakers seize on fine print to fend off base closing

Amy Klamper — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Illinois congressional delegation, led by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month highlighting the Guard law in a bid to save installations in their state, including the 183rd Fighter Wing at Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield and the 182nd Airlift Wing in Peoria.

Hastert, along with Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin and GOP Rep. Ray LaHood, pointed out that Title 10 of U.S. code states that Army or Air National Guard units may not be "relocated or withdrawn under this chapter without the consent of the governor of the state."

Congressional sources familiar with the law say the words "under this chapter" give the statute no influence over the BRAC law, which is contained in a separate chapter under Title 10. The letter from the Illinois lawmakers noted the law states, "(N)othing in the BRAC provisions neither amends nor calls for the amending of the above ... provision, which is part of the general and permanent law applicable to the National Guard."

The congressional sources agreed that the BRAC law and the law prohibiting the closing of National Guard facilities without a governor's consent are unrelated, leaving all National Guard bases subject to the forthcoming base-closing round.

The Illinois delegation called on Rumsfeld to immediately stop any actions that might violate this law, and other states, including Oklahoma and California, might invoke the law to prevent closures of Guard facilities. But experts say historically Guard bases have been mostly spared from the BRAC ax. In previous rounds, only four Guard bases have been affected, including three that were relocated and one that was closed.

Observers note that the upcoming base closure round poses a stronger likelihood of targeting Guard facilities because of the Pentagon's emphasis this year on the need for military installations that can support joint military operations.

The Defense Department has until May 16 to submit a list of potential closings to the newly appointed BRAC commission, which will have until Sept. 8 to review and potentially challenge the Pentagon's list before forwarding it to the White House.

The president can accept the list and forward it to Congress, where lawmakers will have 45 legislative days to approve or reject the list in its entirety. The Pentagon asserts that four previous BRAC rounds have yielded a net savings of $16.7 billion, and an annual savings since 2001 of nearly $7 billion.

]]>

Bush fills Pentagon's top acquisition post

Amy Klamper — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Wynne's nomination has languished in the Senate Armed Services Committee since November 2003, along with other Pentagon civilian nominations, after Senate Armed Services member John McCain, R-Ariz., objected to their consideration. McCain did so to force the Pentagon to provide information about the Air Force's plan to lease Boeing airliners for use as refueling tankers, a deal McCain has strongly criticized.

Wynne's recess appointment came as a surprise to many on Capitol Hill who for months have anticipated Bush's nomination of Krieg, who currently heads the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation and is a member of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's inner circle.

Recess appointments enable appointees to serve until the end of the next session of Congress or until someone is confirmed by the Senate for the job. So unless the Senate allows Krieg's nomination to languish through the end of next session -- an unlikely scenario, according to one Senate aide -- Wynne will have to forfeit his new job upon Krieg's confirmation. According to one Senate aide, Krieg's effort to ensure the Boeing tanker lease negotiations were conducted in a manner consistent with government accounting practices and subject to appropriate levels of internal oversight "was one of the few positive elements of the original proposal, and his leadership in that regard is duly noted."

The moves also dispelled any confusion over the likelihood that Navy acquisition chief John Young might be named to the post. Late last year the White House floated Young's name for the job, although Armed Services Committee staff members promptly asserted that Young -- despite a distinguished career -- lacks the private sector management experience that by law the job requires. Krieg's name surfaced a short time later. Bush's decision to make the Wynne and Krieg appointments Friday were obscured by his decision to give recess appointments to all nine members of the new Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. That step was taken to get around the opposition of Senate Rules Chairman Lott, who had put a hold on the nomination of former VA Secretary Principi to head the commission and threatened to do the same with the other eight nominees.

]]>

Senator questions Army's 'Future Combat System' process

Amy Klamper — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Instead of developing the program under statutes that have safeguards against waste, fraud and abuse, the Pentagon has develop the Future Combat System under "Other Transaction Authority," which is not subject to similar restrictions.

In a Thursday letter to Army Secretary Francis Harvey, McCain asserted Congress never intended for the Pentagon to rely on OTAs for large acquisition programs, and that OTAs should be used for small research or limited prototype projects, especially those in which the Defense Department seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the costs of regulation and red tape associated with the regular government procurement process. Boeing, a major defense contractor, is the lead company developing the Future Combat System.

Given that the Army's July 2004 decision to restructure the program is expected to delay its implementation in the field by four years and add $6.4 billion to its price tag, McCain said "questions as to whether an OTA was a suitable contract vehicle to use for this program in the first instance and to what extent it should be used going forward must be considered."

McCain cited a March 2002 Pentagon inspector general's report that found OTAs are able to bypass many federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the taxpayer. That report also found that, historically, OTAs have not attracted a significant number of nontraditional defense contractors to do business with the government.

"In fact, 95 percent of federal funding through OTAs was doled out to traditional defense contractors," McCain noted, a trend he termed finds "disturbing." McCain concluded that his concerns "underscore the need to revisit whether an OTA should continue to be used in this program." He called on Harvey to provide by April 8 an estimate of any additional costs the program would incur if the current OTA were converted to a traditional acquisition contract subject to federal acquisition statutes and regulations.

]]>

Sources say senator is blocking base closure nominations

Amy Klamper — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Lott's spokesman could not be reached for comment, but congressional aides said that in addition to holding up Principi's nomination, Lott also intends to place holds on each of the remaining eight BRAC Commission nominees, who have yet to appear before the Armed Services Committee for their confirmation hearings.

According to Senate aides, the committee moved Principi's nomination to the Senate floor March 17 following his March 15 confirmation hearing.

Bush this month tapped Principi to lead the nine-member commission that will evaluate the Pentagon's base closure recommendations this summer. Although the Armed Services Committee was quick to act on Principi's nomination, time is running short for the committee to approve the remaining nominees.

More than two weeks have passed since the White House released its list of candidates to serve on the commission, though sources close to Capitol Hill say the Senate is waiting to act on the remaining nominees until the White House completes its list. Specifically, nominee Claude Kicklighter of Georgia was reportedly a last-minute addition to the list after questions arose over Senate Majority Leader Frist's pick, retired Army Gen. John Coburn of Virginia. Sources say Coburn's nomination might pose a conflict of interest, and it is unclear whether Kicklighter will remain on the list or be replaced.

Congressional sources say Lott's potential to hold up the commission nominees poses a serious risk to the BRAC process. A staunch opponent of BRAC, Lott joined other lawmakers last year in a failed bid to delay the 2005 base closure round by two years with an amendment to the fiscal 2005 defense authorization bill. This year, if he does hold up the remaining nominations, Lott could rob the commission of the little time it will have to review the Pentagon's base closure recommendations. Once the Pentagon's list is submitted to commission members May 16, they will have until Sept. 8 to review the list and propose changes.

]]>

Lobbyists work base-closing issue; effectiveness unclear

Amy Klamper — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

For the past year, delegations have increasingly sought precious face time with Defense Department officials to plead their case, but defense analysts say the impact lobbyists and other base advocates have is unclear.

"Service officials and others in the Defense Department may meet with lobbyists or consultants as a courtesy, but as far as the Pentagon's own decision-making process goes, it is completely closed," said Christopher Hellman, director of the project on military spending oversight at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

That does not stop lobbyists from seeking to influence the nine members of the new BRAC commission that is taking shape in Washington. With the Pentagon's role in the process winding down and commission nominees gearing up to evaluate department recommendations, communities have one last chance to influence the process.

Once the Pentagon's list is submitted to Congress and the commission May 16, members will have less than four months to visit bases and hold regional hearings so local officials and lobbyists can be heard, Hellman said.

"Commissioners make site visits during this process, at which time communities are able to make their case," Hellman said. "You can't preclude anybody from speaking at these things, and that can include lobbyists."

Daniel Else, a defense analyst and base closure expert with the Congressional Research Service, agreed that the BRAC commission likely has more leeway to listen to community issues. "But they're going to be mighty busy," Else said. "They'll have three and a half months of NoDoz and coffee to get through the process, which is going to be out in the open and probably pretty darn visible."

Although lobbyists and others seek to influence commission members, "it's probably going to be setting the framework for them," he said. "And everything they do will have to be justified in their final report."

Else noted that the Pentagon has long encouraged states and communities to invest in local infrastructure and other improvements, rather than using their assets to pay for lobbyists. But "most communities with something to lose want to leave no stone unturned," he said. "If you don't spend the money and your base gets put on the list, then the finger pointing is going to start."

Besides, he added, "who are you going to vote for? The one who tried to do everything possible. And those are the guys who are hiring the lobbyists."

]]>

Seats on base-closing panel no guarantee of success for states

Amy Klamper — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Observers, though, warn that a BRAC commissioner's affiliation with a state or installation does not mean those bases are safe.

Daniel Else, a defense analyst and base closure expert at the Congressional Research Service, points out commissioners are chosen on their independence and qualifications. "They're supposed to be above all of this," Else said.

The Senate is expected to approve nine nominees to the commission, as selected by President Bush and House and Senate leaders, as early as this month. The commission will be headed by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi and will have fewer than four months to evaluate Pentagon recommendations to be submitted May 16.

So far, questions regarding conflicts of interest have been raised against two Bush nominees. Both retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman of Virginia and Philip Coyle of California served on state task forces working to keep installations open during the 2005 BRAC process. The White House has said it might replace one other nominee: retired Army Lt. Gen. Claude Kicklighter, a Georgia native. A possible replacement is Pratt & Whitney Vice President Lloyd (Fig) Newton, a former Air Force general touted by Connecticut politicians, according to New London's The Day, a newspaper published in an area dependent on the Navy's Groton submarine base.

Else notes that commission nominees include former lawmakers and Cabinet members, retired military officers and a Clinton-era Pentagon appointee. Else noted those who served in uniform might be less likely to exhibit loyalty to a state or region and are more apt to uphold the Pentagon plan to change the military, which hinges largely on closing excess bases. Else added, though, that a handful of politicians who might have stronger regional ties are included among BRAC candidates.

Even if commissioners inject personal allegiances into the process, they will have to convince four other panelists to go along, says Christopher Hellman, director of the project on military spending oversight at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

"There could be some deal cutting," Hellman said. "But at the end of the day, five individuals have to be sufficiently comfortable defending this position in public," he said, referring to the simple majority required in order for the commission to remove a base from the Pentagon list.

Else agrees: "The commission process is going to be right out there in the open." Also, Hellman said, "previous BRAC commissions have by and large embraced the Defense Department's base closure recommendations."

]]>

Despite setbacks, Pentagon defends missile defense program

Amy Klamper — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Terry Everett, R-Ala., questioned the December and February tests involving the Pentagon's ground-based midcourse defense program, and the administration's decision to reduce funding for the ballistic missile defense effort by $1 billion in the fiscal 2006 budget request.

Everett said he supports the GMD program but expressed concerned with a system hardware failure during a February test in which a horizontal restraining arm failed to retract before launch.

"I have a real problem that a latch did not fall away -- that seems so elementary," Everett told Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. "This stuff costs an awful lot of money, and we have to have some results."

Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, also questioned the program's recent failures, but emphasized his support for GMD in his opening remarks.

"I think we will eventually prove that this system will be an effective insurance policy against a limited [intercontinental ballistic missile] threat," Reyes said, but later added "We should not pretend that GMD is an all-star system when it is still in development in the minor leagues. You can ruin a ballplayer by rushing him to the big leagues, and you can ruin this system by making it run before it can even prove it can walk."

During questioning, David Duma, the Pentagon's acting director of operational test and evaluation, told Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., that the GMD system is not operationally ready. "We don't have a demonstrated capability from detection to negating the incoming threat," he said. However, Duma said he is encouraged by several developments over past year, including the system's test bed program, which he said has significantly improved the system's testing infrastructure to lead to more operationally realistic testing. He also defended the plan to stand up a limited defensive capability as "a useful way to coordinate system development," despite criticism that the system is not mature enough yet for deployment. But Obering countered critics of the GMD program, asserting that "to say that it doesn't work is a little bit too expansive." Obering defended the system and the department's testing of it and asserted his confidence in the program. But Reyes questioned why Obering appointed an independent review team to assess the most recent test failure in February if he did not see the failure as a serious setback.

"I was trying to convey that it is not, in my opinion, a major issue with respect to overall functionality of the system," Obering said, adding that the independent panel he put in place to review the failure is intended to "overkill this" and to "drive out every bit of concern." Obering added the team's report will be finalized by the end of the month.

]]>

Senator to question Army's acquisition of tech network

Amy Klamper — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

FCS, an Army technology development effort led by the Boeing Co., will be the centerpiece of the Army's transformation. It will be a joint network of computer systems through which a soldier linked via a database and sensors will have access to information providing a more detailed picture of the battlefield.

The administration is asking Congress to approve $3.4 billion for FCS research and development in fiscal 2006, up from the $2.8 billion enacted in fiscal 2005.

Last week, McCain hinted at his displeasure with the program's classification as "commercial," asking Army Secretary Francis Harvey whether it could be purchased commercially. Harvey told McCain it could not but did not explain the reasoning behind the classification.

Under the commercial classification, the Army is exempting numerous contractors involved in the FCS program from statutes designed to protect procurement integrity, according to a congressional aide. Boeing is only one of a few of large defense companies that stand to benefit from the Army's current acquisition approach, a designation known as "other transaction authority" or OTA, designed to bolster participation from smaller, more nontraditional companies that normally do not bid on defense contracts.

A congressional aide said the classification is particularly egregious given that Boeing, a company currently involved in one of the biggest procurement scandals in decades as a result of its failed bid to build a new Air Force refueling tanker, is the prime contractor. Typically, the OTA classification is used for small projects and prototypes through which the Pentagon or the services seek non-traditional defense contractors in the acquisition process. FCS involves numerous companies, but many fall outside the definition of non-traditional.

In addition to Boeing, the aide noted that Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, United Defense, Raytheon, Honeywell, Textron, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, ITT and SAIC are among the top names included in FCS. All of them stand to benefit from the fact that many statutes governing federal procurements that seek to deter waste, fraud and abuse do not apply to projects classified as OTA.

"Stripping these protective statues for FCS is a formula for financial disaster," the aide said.

One Army official said it is unclear why the Army continues to use the OTA designation, initiated during early program development under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

"We're still partnering with DARPA on FCS," the official said. "But McCain's concern with the inapplicability of procurement laws to the program because of its OTA designation could be valid."

]]>

Navy seeks to issue a new order: Abandon shipyards

Amy Klamper — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Last month, Navy leaders pulled the plug on a plan to subsidize the United States' two large shipyards -- Maine's Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. -- through alternating construction of a new class of surface destroyers at each yard.

Instead, the Navy proposed an all-or-nothing approach in a new DD(X) competition, pitting the yards against one another in a move staunchly opposed by Washington's shipbuilding lobby.

"We need two shipyards," said Cynthia Brown, president of the American Shipbuilding Association. "If we lose the two yards, the Department of Defense will say they can't tolerate a sole source [of shipbuilding], and that we must go foreign. So if the American people want to have the ability to defend their own future destiny by building the most capable warships in the world, we'd better keep both shipyards engaged."

But the destroyer competition is only one of several shifts in the Navy's future shipbuilding plans that service leaders, including outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Vernon Clark and Navy Secretary Gordon England, are defending this month on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers from shipbuilding states are coming under a bevy of lobbying activity from shipbuilding advocates. Those advocates have been gearing up to fight the Navy's proposed shipbuilding cuts ever since service leaders last year threatened to scrap their shipbuilding plans through a series of funding cuts that are now fleshed out in President Bush's fiscal 2006 $419.3 billion budget.

One of their biggest arguments is based on Clark's suggestion that the reduction in planned warships is driven by budgetary concerns, not the Navy's true needs. This confirms for them the need for Congress to shift priorities within the Defense budget to preserve the fragile U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. The shipbuilding lobby also warns that the United States does not have enough ships to fight the global war on terrorism, let alone respond to the potential emerging threat of China.

Given the lengthy construction time for naval ships, the United States does not have the luxury of time to rebuild the Navy, Brown says. In addition, the fiscal 2006 budget puts national security and tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs and specialized manufacturing companies across the country at risk, Brown said in a statement on her organization's Web site.

But others assert that many of the problems affecting shipbuilding have little to do with the shipyards' production rates, and concern their inability to be competitive globally. During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last month, Clark said one of the Navy's top priorities should be to help the shipyards compete internationally because keeping them competitive "is vital to our future security."

"That's the bigger issue here: Those shipyards have been protected for so long that they don't even know how to build ships anymore," said one Pentagon official familiar with Navy shipbuilding. "That's the problem when you protect an industry from competition; there is no competition, your workforce atrophies, the technology becomes stagnant and the prices spiral upward."

That is not exactly what lawmakers like Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, want to hear. Instead, their answer to the rising cost of shipbuilding is to offer paying for more large ships on the installment plan, a suggestion that England and other Navy leaders -- and the shipyards -- welcomed.

While many lawmakers have been averse to applying such budget gimmicks to contracts for new ships, current fiscal constraints might leave no alternative.

But while England welcomed the installment suggestion during a Senate Armed Services hearing last week, he was quick to point out that such budget techniques won't necessarily translate into more ships without additional money above and beyond the Navy's current means.

"Alternate funding mechanisms don't really buy us more ships; I think they allow us to buy them better and on a better schedule and better for the industrial base, but they don't provide added funds," England said.

According to Brown, that is why the Navy needs to add more money to its budget. "The issue is there is a big hole in the shipbuilding budget," she said, asserting that Congress needs to restore $874 million in fiscal 2006 alone to get the Navy's shipbuilding plan back on track.

Brown is suggesting using $743 million in proposed 2006 funds budgeted in the Navy Sealift Fund to buy 13 of the maritime pre-positioning ships. "There is no need to purchase these ships at this time," she said, noting that the current pre-positioning fleet has a lot of life left in it.

But others say the Navy is simply headed in a different direction, away from large quantities of large ships. More money and new funding mechanisms are "not going to change the direction of the Navy, or the fact that there are other kinds of ships that we need to be building," the official said.

So while lawmakers might be coming around to the idea of taking a gradual funding approach to building ships like DD(X), "this is not going to mean you build 10 ships per year; it means you build five-and-a-half, instead of five," the Pentagon official said.

]]>

Subcommittee voices dismay over Defense supplemental spending

Amy Klamper — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Hefley told the military's service vice chiefs that more of those costs should be contained in President Bush's $419.3 billion fiscal 2006 baseline budget, where they would face tougher scrutiny from lawmakers.

"My theory has always been that you put in the supplemental things that surprise you," he said during a hearing Wednesday. "It does trouble me that we've adopted this theory of budgeting."

Hefley noted that the Army included $5 billion for so-called "modularity" equipment in the president's $82 billion fiscal 2005 supplemental spending request, including $216 million in military construction money to support the Army's transformation initiative. The Marine Corps requested money in the supplemental for force structure including $250 million in new procurement and $75 million in military construction.

Other potentially non-emergency funding includes $450 million for recruiting and retention and $12 million for tuition assistance, Hefley said.

"Couldn't most of this be anticipated and shouldn't most of this be in the normal budget?" Hefley asked. "The only reason it makes a difference, I suppose, is we scrutinize the regular budget much more closely than we do the supplemental."

Readiness Subcommittee ranking member Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, told Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief, he was disappointed with the president's FY06 baseline budget request because it fails to address the Army's mounting problem with worn out equipment, particularly that returning from heavy use in Iraq.

He noted the Army's funding request fails to keep pace with inflation in this area, and is not "very forward looking." He added that the supplemental budget picks up some of this slack, but said the two budgets combined leave "a lot of maintenance unfunded into the future."

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said he is concerned about the Army's plan to return forces from overseas to staff its new modular units, and questioned whether the Army has adequate funding for the effort. Cody admitted that the planned global posture shift could prove challenging, but not for lack of resources.

"We know we have the capacity, but we will be challenged not so much in the dollars, but in time," Cody said. "We've got the money and the space, but when you include your global rebasing of your Army, that is where we feel the crunch."

]]>

Military weapons vs. benefits issue heats up at hearing

Amy Klamper — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

During a House Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee hearing Wednesday, Kirk questioned Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas' ability to fund increased military health care benefits and other entitlement programs for dependents while simultaneously paying to modernize the military.

Jonas said striking the right balance is a continuing challenge, noting that the Pentagon plans to spend close to $130 billion of its $419.3 billion fiscal 2006 budget request on military personnel and health care.

But subcommittee Democrats seized on Kirk's assertion that military dependent and retiree spending has "no military value," charging that such programs are critical to military recruiting and retention. Subcommittee ranking member Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said potential recruits consider how the military treats active and retired service members before they join.

And while Edwards said Kirk's line of questioning regarding entitlement programs was valid, he strongly disagreed with Kirk's characterization of the debate, asserting that Kirk's comments imply that military retirees are "hurting our nation's defense."

Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., said the idea of separating entitlement programs from the regular military budget, as Kirk suggested, has merit. But he chastised Kirk for suggesting that government benefits for military dependents and retirees do not contribute to the defense of the nation.

"If you have an all-volunteer Army, you must be concerned with the well-being of dependents" and veterans, Boyd said.

But Kirk defended his assertions, noting that because entitlement accounts are funded before procurement programs, dependents and retirees receive their benefits ahead of the active duty military. And given that the Pentagon is under mounting pressure to reign in its massive defense budget, "entitlement spending is going to crowd out pay and equipment with soldiers on the front lines," Kirk said. Young enlisted service members face "increasing competition" to pay for weapons, vehicles and uniforms, he added.

]]>

Lawmakers seek answers on fate of U.S. shipbuilding

Amy Klamper — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., told Navy Secretary Gordon England the service should consider waiting until the department completes its quadrennial defense strategy review later this year before deciding to reduce its aircraft carrier fleet from 12 to 11 ships as proposed in the Pentagon's FY06 defense budget.

England said the Navy's ability to put combat power forward using "better airplanes, better precision weapons and better intelligence" allows the Navy to "mothball" the USS John F. Kennedy and utilize a smaller carrier fleet. Warner noted that the previous defense review in 2001 indicated a need for 12 carriers. England said the decision to reduce the fleet was driven in part by budget constraints.

Warner also questioned England's response to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who pressed England to conduct a study on converting the Kennedy's Florida home port into a nuclear-capable facility. England said he would make a decision on the study in the next week, but Warner maintained such a review should await the outcome of the Pentagon's 2005 round of military base closures.

England said the port study could be conducted independent of the base closure process, but Warner was unconvinced. He stressed it was important to maintain the integrity of the BRAC process. "By golly, I'm going to make sure the steps that both the executive branch and legislative branch follow are consistent with the law," Warner said.

Warner joined Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in questioning the Navy's shipbuilding budget, particularly its plan to reduce the number of ships built each year. Together, the senators sought England's support for using creative budgeting -- including incremental funding, advance procurement and research and development money -- to pay for more ships.

England welcomed the idea, but emphasized that such actions would not necessarily lead to more ships. "At some point we still have to pay the full cost of those ships," he said.

Warner and Collins also questioned the Navy's plan to hold a new competition between two of the nation's largest shipyards to construct its next generation destroyer -- the DD(X). Both Collins and Warner said the plan could shut down one of the two yards, devastating the shipbuilding industrial base.

But England said the previous plan, which had the two yards alternately building the ships, would have been more costly than forcing the two yards to compete outright at the risk of going under.

"I believe we are on the right path in terms of competition," England said. "I don't have the authority to just subsidize" the two shipyards, he added. "But I do have the authority to compete the programs."

England said if the Navy could afford to build more than one ship per year it would make sense to have more than one large shipyard. But because the Navy is transforming to a lighter, leaner, faster and more agile force, the need for large and expensive ships will gradually lessen.

"Frankly, the Navy is changing and the industrial base will need to change with the Navy," England said.

]]>

Former Boeing CFO might face prison in procurement scandal

Amy Klamper — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0500

CongressDaily.

According to the document, Justice argued alternatives to imprisonment would do little to deter "such illegal conduct in the future by companies and their senior management."

Prosecutors noted in the filing that steep fines would have "little real impact" on Sears' financial resources and that home confinement "would be no real punishment given his residence," which the document said is valued at nearly $5 million.

Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison last October for her role. Both Druyun and Sears admitted to violating conflict-of-interest laws by discussing the prospect of Druyun's employment at Boeing, a major Air Force contractor, while she was still overseeing about $30 billion in Air Force contracts.

The document, filed in federal district court, also raised the question of whether Boeing's senior executives could have done more to probe the Sears-Druyun relationship before she was hired.

"The senior management of Boeing did not confront the obvious legal and ethical issues presented by these employment negotiations," the document states.

]]>

Energy secretary defends request for nuclear 'bunker buster' study

Amy Klamper — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0500

"This is a matter of carrying out a study," Bodman said, adding it was "merely a matter of trying to respond to what we perceive to be the wishes of this Congress."

During the hearing, Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., questioned the department's funding request for two nuclear weapons studies, an issue that last year divided House and Senate lawmakers along party lines.

Congress rebuffed the administration's request by removing funds for a study of the RNEP from the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill, but funds for the department's Reliable Replacement Warhead program were approved.

This year, the administration is seeking to revive the RNEP study with $8.5 million. In addition, the administration seeks to continue the Reliable Replacement Warhead program with $9 million.

Warner said he supports both programs, but Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., questioned whether there is a legitimate military requirement for the RNEP. "It appears DOE and DOD are moving ahead to develop those requirements," Reed said, questioning why the fiscal 2005 request included money over a five-year period for the RNEP, but in the 2006 budget the funding profile ends with $14 million in 2007.

Bodman suggested the study could be completed by 2007, leaving DOE to return for additional funding and authority.

In his opening statement, Bodman discussed legislation enacted last year in the 2005 defense authorization bill that allows waste at nuclear weapons plants in South Carolina and Idaho to remain in underground tanks rather than be removed and sent to a more secure disposal site.

Bodman thanked the committee, particularly Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for supporting the legislation. Critics, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said it would potentially allow radioactive waste to be reclassified as low-level waste.

Last week Cantwell joined Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in decrying almost $300 million in proposed cuts in nuclear waste cleanup at the Hanford nuclear reservation in their home state.

Cuts in the department's environmental programs as outlined in President Bush's 2006 budget total $548 million, an amount Bodman could not explain during the hearing.

When Warner asked how DOE plans to implement last year's authorizing legislation, Bodman said it has been slow to convert the waste classification into specific rules and regulations that could be used in cleanup.

He assured the panel the department is pursuing "a more aggressive approach to this so that we can get on with it," and he expects to review a department proposal soon.

]]>

Rumsfeld defends supplemental, proposed program cuts

Amy Klamper — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Armed Services member Joel Hefley, R-Colo., told Rumsfeld he is concerned with the administration's practice of "putting repeated expenses" related to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in annual supplemental appropriations.

"There are certain aspects of the war effort that we pretty much know," Hefley said. "We spend $4.1 billion a month on [operations and maintenance] in Iraq and we can predict that almost every month."

Hefley said what disturbed him is that committee members assert they will "scrub the supplemental" only to decide that if the troops need something, it should be provided.

"I wonder if that's the purpose of doing the supplemental," he asked.

Rumsfeld said the decision to rely on supplemental spending is made jointly between the Defense Department, OMB and Congress.

"I am no expert on this subject," he said, although he defended the Army's plan to fund some transformation efforts through the supplemental, including $5 billion for equipment in support of the Army's "modularity" initiative. "When you come back to reset the force ... you reset the force the way it ought to be," he said, adding that the department does not want to replenish its inventory with antiquated weaponry. "The question is, is that a replenishment and a reset that goes in a supplemental, or is it something else? Is it an improvement? Well, it's both," Rumsfeld said.

Hefley said Congress has some responsibility to give guidance in what members would or would not accept in a supplemental. House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., agreed, noting that "Army modularity is one of the areas we need to look at because that is to some degree a predictable thing."

Other lawmakers took issue with proposed cuts in several big-ticket weapons programs, including the C-130J transport plane, F/A-22 fighter and the Navy's plan to reduce its aircraft carrier fleet. Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., emphasized the need for the C-130J, noting the Air Force's recent decision to ground a number of older models because of structural faults. Hayes stressed that older C-130 planes are between 31-43 years old, and that any "hand-wringing bed wetters" seeking to delay or terminate the current C-130J program need to understand that.

Rumsfeld said the administration "may come back with an amendment to the budget with respect to the C-130s." Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., also expressed concern with the proposed budget cuts that could affect the F/A-22 and the nation's carrier fleet. Rumsfeld remarked that "resources are finite" despite the fact that the Pentagon's budget increased 4.8 percent over last year. And he noted the fighter is an "enormously expensive aircraft" at $257 million apiece.

]]>