January 21, 2024 | International, Aerospace
Turkish navy receives unmanned surface vessel, three crewed ships
TCG Derya is now the second-largest ship in the Turkish navy after the amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu.
May 14, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
A delicate balancing act: The US government must juggle a pandemic and the FY21 budget
By: Robert DuPree
For the past few months, the U.S. federal government has been, quite understandably, totally focused on addressing the enormous health care and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts will necessarily continue to be front and center in the weeks and even months ahead, no matter how rapidly the curve flattens or declines, as different sectors and regions reopen.
But to move the country forward, Congress must prepare to do its regular business for the year, which largely means tackling appropriations bills. Congressional staff have reportedly been doing the prep work to get spending bills ready for whenever the House and Senate can safely convene to work on them (or to do much of this work remotely).
The American people — including federal contractors large and small, and our employees — are relying on Congress to check its partisan impulses and figure out how to do two things at once in the coming months: Continue to combat the COVID-19 crisis, and develop fiscal 2021 funding bills for all federal departments and agencies to meet our nation's needs.
Unfortunately, there are some who are already taking a simplistic view, saying Congress will be so busy dealing with the pandemic that it will have to just give up and pass a continuing resolution to fund the government beyond the election into next year or even for a full year.
On the contrary, the pandemic is exactly why Congress should be doing its work and completing updated appropriations bills on time.
First of all, in these extraordinary times, the country doesn't need appropriations bills which merely extend the decisions made on spending last December, when Congress finally completed action (over two months late) on FY20 appropriations bills. The COVID-19 pandemic was just a blip on the horizon at that time. For FY21, the country needs updated spending legislation that more accurately reflects the greatly changed world we now face. Moreover, departments and agencies also need the flexibility to enter into new contracts to meet new needs, which is generally prohibited unless expressly provided under a continuing resolution.
Further, Congress and the administration must come to grips with the elephant in the room — the strict annual spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended. To mix metaphors, this law is no longer just an elephant, it's an emperor who has no clothes.
Congress has modified the BCA's statutory spending caps a number of times over the past decade (thus, the above caveat “as amended”). Now we're about to face the final year of the law's spending caps, and what do we find? The caps are a joke. The caps were meant to limit discretionary spending each year, but Congress has repeatedly found ways around them. This has usually been done in one of two ways.
The first is by including some amount of normal baseline defense spending under the category of overseas contingency operations, or OCO, which is “wartime” funding; this occurs even when unrelated to America's overseas/wartime military efforts. OCO spending is exempt from the BCA caps, so funding part of the base Defense Department budget this way enables the law's defense-spending cap to be technically met while also understating the Pentagon's non-wartime expenditures.
The second way is by designating certain spending as “emergency” expenditures. Yes, these are almost always for valid, unforeseen emergencies, but it is still spending that would otherwise exceed the discretionary caps. Only Congress can wave a wand and say: “No, it doesn't exceed the cap — it's for an emergency.”
To be honest, the caps painted an unrealistic picture of efforts to control federal spending anyway. By only being applied to discretionary spending, exempting massive entitlement expenditures and interest on the debt, the caps presented a partial picture of true federal-spending restraint to begin with.
And now the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in multiple legislative packages being enacted, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could add over $2.7 trillion to the current year's deficit. But because they are loans or designated as “emergency” spending, they don't violate the caps. They just add to the deficit.
In reality, true federal spending has soared far past the stable level of spending that the caps were purported to achieve when the BCA was first enacted. Yet, the caps are still in place for next year, which will impact the congressional appropriations process by either preventing the spending needed to address current needs, or leading to further contortionist efforts by legislators to circumvent the caps.
So let's quit pretending. Congress and the administration should agree to repeal the final year of the caps as part of the next COVID-19 legislative package so appropriators can be upfront about the spending needed without having to hide so much of that spending behind the “emergency spending” loophole.
Be transparent, and admit the country is, like during World War II, spending a whole lot more than anticipated to meet the crisis.
And most of all, get the job done by acting in a bipartisan fashion to pass appropriations bills by Oct. 1, 2020, that accurately reflect our real needs and expenditures. Admittedly, that may not be easy to do in an election year, but the nation and the federal contracting community are depending on Congress to be able to manage the COVID-19 crisis response, while simultaneously conducting its regular business.
Robert DuPree is manager of government affairs at Telos Corporation. He focuses on political developments in Congress and the executive branch, including the federal budget, appropriations process, national defense and cybersecurity. He previously served as legislative director for a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
On the same subject
-
-
July 10, 2019 | International, Other Defence
New small arms course launches to prepare Army Reserve for combat, increase survivability
By: Kyle Rempfer A new Army Reserve small arms trainer course that teaches gunnery and range operations to soldiers has been launched at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Still in its pilot program phase, the course is intended to field weapons subject matter experts at the unit level and increase weapons proficiency among the Reserve force, according to the 88th Readiness Division. The new course lasts 12 days and prepares troops to train their fellow reservists as well as develop year-round training calendars for their home units. The Army Reserve Small Arms Trainer Course focuses on six common weapons: the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, MK19 grenade launcher, M240B machine gun, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, M4 carbine/M16 rifle and the Beretta M9. The effort is also part of Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Charles Luckey's larger push to make his component a more combat-ready force through efforts like Task Force Cold Steel — a series of mounted and ground crew-served weapons qualification events. “This is about building the most capable combat-ready and lethal federal reserve force in the history of the United States,” Luckey said at a Cold Steel training event in February. “This is about building the capacity, the capability, the bench strength of America's Army Reserve to train itself.” At the new course, instructors will teach preliminary marksmanship instruction on each weapon and their optics, as well as teach maintenance for each system. The course will also teach soldiers how to operate weapons ranges and how to procure ammunition through classroom instruction, simulations training and live-fire qualification. “This course is a true train-the-trainers program,” Master Sgt. Howard Griffith, course manager, said in an Army news article. “We take select soldiers from around the entire Army Reserve and provide them with the knowledge and skills to return to their units and educate their fellow soldiers.” An increase in weapons proficiency correlates with an increase in survivability in combat, which ultimately helps win battles, the news article states. The pilot program was designed by instructors from the Army Reserve Competitive Marksmanship Program and will be taught by instructors from Task Force Cold Steel. The Army National Guard and the active-duty force have had similar weapons proficiency courses for many years, and the Reserve component's own version was overdue. If successful, the long-term desire is to keep the new trainer course permanently at Fort McCoy. The installation has state-of-the-art ranges available for year-round training and is conveniently located in the center of the United States, making it easily accessed by vehicle, rail or air, according to the Army. To learn how your unit can take advantage of the Small Arms Trainer Course, contact Task Force Cold Steel at 608-388-4645 or email usarmy.usarc.84-tng-cmd.list.ocs-fy18-s3@mail.mil. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/09/new-small-arms-course-launches-to-prepare-army-reserve-for-combat-increase-survivability/
-
April 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Global Defense Spending Decline Expected As Nations Deal with Coronavirus
Experts see domestic projects taking priority over national security in the coming years. After five straight years of growth, global defense spending is expected to decline in the coming years as nations deal with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, analysts say. In 2019, global defense spending topped $1.9 trillion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's latest tally. The U.S. represents 38 percent of the world's defense expenditures and with China, the two superpowers account for 52 percent of the world's defense spending. But because of COVID-19, experts anticipate a shift government spending worldwide toward domestic projects and away from weapons and the military. “What we can expect is that spending [is] really going to decrease,” Nan Tian, a defense spending expert with the institute, said Tuesday during a Stimson Center webcast. “We've seen this historically following the [2008 and 2009 financial] crisis where many countries in Europe really started to cut back on military spending.” Even before the coronavirus sent the global economy into a tailspin, U.S. defense spending had been predicted to flatten in the coming years. Now with trillions of dollars being spent on massive coronavirus stimulus packages, flat defense spending levels could wind up being a best-case scenario. “In today's world with [coronavirus], flat defense budget, I think, is what everybody is hoping for because it could go the other direction; it could go negative,” Hawk Carlisle, president and CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association and a retired four-star commander of Air Combat Command and Pacific Air Forces, said in an interview Tuesday. “This is going to be years to climb out of.” One reason for the expected spending dip: the deficit. Regardless of the results of the November presidential and congressional elections, deficit reduction is likely to become a priority. A recent estimate pegs the 2020 deficit at $3.8 trillion. But it is expected that a Trump re-election would keep Republicans in more of a spending mood. “If the presidency goes to a Democrat, then Republicans are going to get more about being fiscal conservatives again sooner,” Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, said during a Monday webcast. “If Trump wins a second term, we probably have another year or two reprieve from that.” Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute is wary that lawmakers eager to reduce federal spending in the wake of coronavirus bailouts could enact a deficit-cutting measure akin to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which capped defense spending annually between 2013 and 2021. “The Budget Control Act by another name ... could come as fast as next [fiscal] year,” she said on the same webcast. While defense and security spending is typically a top priority of Republicans and defense-minded Democrats, stabilizing the U.S. economy and healthcare could become a higher priority regardless of who wins the election and control in Congress. Among voters in both parties, there is wide public support for reducing expensive overseas military interventions. DON'T MISS The Pentagon Will Use AI to Predict Panic Buying, COVID-19 Hotspots How China Sees the World Did the Coronavirus Escape from a Chinese Lab? Here's What the Pentagon Says The 1918 flu and the U.S. military Haircuts in a Time of Coronavirus? “[I]solationism may exert a countervailing force, as there is demand to steer resources away from defense and towards domestic needs (healthcare, education, jobs),” Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, wrote in an April 23 note to investors. “[W]e are seeing that awarding disproportionate resources to military spending may be weakening the resilience of other sectors in our economy,” Mandy Smithberger — director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, part of the Project on Government Oversight — said on the Stimson Center webcast. “I think we are going to be seeing real political debate about how much money should go to military spending, how much we should be prioritizing arms sales and interests of the defense industry,” she said. Unlike the past decade when foreign arms sales, to some extent, were a backstop to weapon makers amid U.S. defense spending declines, this time around will likely be different since the world economy is dealing with coronavirus. Smithberger said low oil prices could weaken the buying power in the region that spends heavily on U.S. weapons. While the U.S. and China remain the top two defense spenders, last year India and Russia jumped ahead of Saudi Arabia, which fell to fifth on the list. Germany climbed from ninth to seventh — jumping ahead of the U.K. and Japan. NATO allies collectively spent just over $1 trillion. All of that spending is likely to drop. https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2020/04/global-defense-spending-decline-expected-nations-deal-coronavirus/164997