Back to news

June 20, 2019 | International, Other Defence

House passes $983 billion spending package 226-203, bucking White House

By:

WASHINGTON ― The Democratic-controlled House passed a $985 billion appropriations package for fiscal 2020 that aims to fund national security at $17 billion less than the White House requested, end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months, pull military support in Yemen and defund the W76-2 nuclear warhead.

The vote was 225-203, with seven Democrats voting with the Republican minority. Zero Republicans voted for the bill.

It's a salvo from Democrats in FY20 budget negotiations with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, and the White House has threatened that President Donald Trump would veto the massive bill. Beyond the above provisions and others, the administration strongly objected to language meant to block Pentagon funds being applied to a wall on the southern border.

The threat foreshadows pushback from the Senate and the White House, in part because both advocated for a $750 billion national defense budget, while the House-passed bill is consistent with a $733 billion national defense budget. (The House bill would fund the Pentagon alone at $8 billion less than the White House request.)

The four-bill “minibus” contained the two largest of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill and the Defense bill. For the defense, it totaled $645.1 billion in base-defense funding, and $68.1 billion in the budget-cap-exempt wartime funding account.

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., emphasized the package's investments outside the Pentagon, including a 4 percent increase in State Department funding.

“This bill rejects the administration's unacceptable budget request and irresponsible policies and, rather, strives to uphold many bipartisan congressional priorities,” Lowey said when the bill was introduced. “America's foreign policy is strongest when diplomacy, development and defense are well-funded and equally prioritized, as many of today's global challenges cannot be addressed by military intervention alone.”

Republicans have opposed the minibus as an empty exercise because Congress lacks a bipartisan deal to ease spending caps and avoid across-the-board sequestration cuts. Nor does the bill contain border wall funding sought by conservative Republicans.

“Moving these bills as-is is a wasted opportunity because the bills are far from what the president has requested and will support,” said the House Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.

“Defense spending does not meet the request while nondefense spending greatly exceeds the request in current levels. This could lead to a veto and another government shutdown, something both [parties] agree would be devastating ― in addition to these funding concerns.”

The White House issued a veto threat last week that spelled out its objections to provisions in the bill that would end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months and pull military support in Yemen―and because the House parked less defense spending in the budget-cap skirting war fund.

The language surrounding the authorization for the use of military force, Granger said, could jeopardize the Pentagon's ability to conduct military operations worldwide. “It's a bad policy that will force the DoD to unwind counterterrorism operations overseas if the Congress and the president cannot agree on a new authorization,” she said.

To avoid another government shutdown, 12 appropriations bills must pass Congress and get the president's signature by Oct. 1. Negotiations between the White House and lead lawmakers on a deal to ease budget caps has been ongoing, according to a statement last week by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.. (The Senate Appropriations Committee hasn't yet moved any of its bills.)

Another likely sticking point in budget talks with the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House is the minibus' bill's prohibition on the Defense Department spending funds to implement its policy on open transgender service. The vote to approve an amendment that contained the prohibition broke mostly along party lines, 234-183.

The amendment targets a March 12 memo that would largely bar transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another gender, and require most individuals to serve in their birth sex.

The House defeated Republican amendments that would have added back $19.6 million for the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched nuclear warhead and would have added back $96 million for “conventional missile systems” in the range of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. However, it also defeated a Democratic amendment that would have barred funding for research on the Long Range Standoff weapon.

The bill was passed out of committee with language to restrict the Pentagon's authority to transfer money between accounts to $1.5 billion ― a response from Democrats to the administration's use of defense funds for Trump's proposed border wall.

Next week, the House is expected to take up a separate minibus that contains the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which was at the heart of last year's 35-day government shutdown.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/06/19/house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house/

On the same subject

  • DoD IG: Military networks are exposed to ‘unnecessary’ cyber risks

    December 19, 2018 | International, C4ISR

    DoD IG: Military networks are exposed to ‘unnecessary’ cyber risks

    By: Mark Pomerleau The military services are exposing networks to “unnecessary cybersecurity risks” thanks in part to a lack of visibility over software application inventories, according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report. The IG investigated whether DoD components rationalized their software applications by identifying and eliminating any duplicative or obsolete applications. Rationalizing software applications seeks to improve enterprise IT by identifying all software applications on the network; determining if existing applications are needed, duplicative or obsolete; and determining if applications already existing within the network prior to purchasing new ones. The audit — which focused on Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force commands and divisions — found that the groups examined did not consistently perform this rationalization process. By not having visibility into software application inventories, these organizations were unable to identify the extent of existing vulnerabilities within their applications, the report found. Moreover, such a process could lead to cost savings associated with eliminating duplicative and obsolete applications. Fleet Forces Command was the only command the IG reviewed that had a process in place for eliminating duplicative or obsolete applications. The Air Force did not have a process in place to prevent duplication when purchasing new applications. The report placed blame on the DoD chief information officer for not implementing a solution for software rationalization in response to Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act requirements. The IG made three recommendations for the CIO, who did not provide a response to draft recommendations: Develop an enterprisewide process for conduction software application rationalization throughout DoD; Establish guidance requiring DoD components to conduct rationalization and require DoD component CIOs to develop implementation guidance outlining responsibilities for rationalization. Such a policy should also require components on at least an annual basis to validate the accuracy of their owned and in use software applications inventory; and Conduct periodic review to ensure components are regularly validating the accuracy of their inventory and they are eliminating duplicative and obsolete applications. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/12/18/dod-ig-military-networks-are-exposed-to-unnecessary-cyber-risks

  • GAO Chides DoD For Absence Of Cybersecurity Requirements

    June 8, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

    GAO Chides DoD For Absence Of Cybersecurity Requirements

    Overall, costs of major DoD acquisition programs have grown by 54 percent over their lifetimes and schedule delays average two years, GAO's annual report finds. By THERESA HITCHENS WASHINGTON: Five years after the Pentagon demanded every weapon system include the requirement that it be able to fight through Russian and Chinese cyber attacks expected on future battlefields, DoD “does not often include cybersecurity” in key performance parameters (KPP) for major programs, says GAO in its annual defense acquisition review. Of the three services, the Air Force is the worst at fulfilling two of the three best cybersecurity practices, the report says. The congressional watchdog found “inconsistent implementation of leading software practices and cybersecurity measures” among high-dollar “major defense acquisition programs” (MDAPs) — 85 programs worth $1.80 trillion at the end of 2019. “This included longer-than-expected delivery times for software and delays completing cybersecurity assessments— outcomes disruptive to DOD's efforts to keep pace with warfighters' needs for enhanced, software-dependent capabilities and protect weapon systems from increasingly sophisticated cybersecurity threats,” GAO said in the June 3 report. Cybersecurity KPPs Left Out The GAO report explains that KPP “are considered the most critical requirements by the sponsor military organization, while key system attributes (KSA) and other performance attributes are considered essential for an effective military capability.” In 2015, DOD modified its main requirements policy—the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Manual (JCIDS) rules on “survivability” requirements to include the ability to operate in a “degraded cyber environment.” Yet, GAO found that, at the end of 2019, 25 of the 42 major acquisition programs reviewed regarding cybersecurity practices failed to include cybersecurity as a parameter in their KPPs; “even more programs reported that their KSAs did not address cybersecurity.” GAO has targeted cybersecurity, software development and DoD-wide information technology (IT) improvement programs in its recent annual reviews because DoD weapon systems “are more networked than ever before — a change that while providing benefits for the warfighter also “has come at a cost” because “more weapon components can now be attacked using cybersecurity capabilities,” GAO explains. “Further, networks can be used as a pathway to attack other systems.” The watchdog has found consistently that failing to bake in cybersecurity requirements to system design and development ends up costing more money and time when program offices struggle to re-engineer systems once they hit production. This is a problem that affects most types of software development; and similarly trying to upgrade or replace software to improve cybersecurity often proves impossible. The 2019 report thus “looked at DOD's progress with developing: (1) strategies that help ensure that programs are planning for and documenting cybersecurity risk management efforts (cybersecurity strategies), (2) evaluations that allow testers to identify systems' weaknesses that are susceptible to cybersecurity attacks and that could potentially jeopardize mission execution (cybersecurity vulnerability evaluations), and (3) assessments that evaluate the ability of a unit equipped with a system to support assigned missions (cybersecurity assessments).” Most of the 38 MDAPs reviewed reported creation of cybersecurity strategies. However, of the 19 major programs that require cybersecurity vulnerability evaluations — under regulations set by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord — 11 have not completed them or failed to do so on time. Another three said they didn't have a schedule yet for doing so; and one — an unnamed Air Force program — told GAO it actually didn't know if it had undertaken the required evaluation. Indeed, the Air Force had the worst record on the evaluations, with none of its six programs having completed the evaluation processes. Of the 42 programs, 14 told GAO they had not finished their cybersecurity assessments. GAO also “found variation among the military departments in the rates they had completed these assessments. Specifically, among the three military departments, the Army reported the best rate for programs conducting cybersecurity assessments, while the Air Force had the lowest rate.” IT and Software Problems Plague Programs “Over the years, weapon acquisition program officials, through their responses to our questionnaires, have consistently acknowledged software development as a risk item in their efforts to develop and field capabilities to the warfighter, and this year is no different,” GAO reported somewhat wryly. GAO found that more than a quarter of the 42 MDAPs reviewed reported cost growth from software changes but admitted that “details are limited” in DoD reporting. Part of that uncertainty might be due to the fact that GAO found a number of major programs are transitioning to commercial approaches to software development, such as “agile development” that involves introducing incremental improvements over time. However, GAO found, “deliveries often lag behind industry standards.” Indeed, Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper told a webinar yesterday sponsored by Dcode, a tech innovation hub connecting commercial industry to government agencies, that while the Air Force can't go back and re-do old programs, “every new contract we do has to include DevSecOps.” “We are all in,” he added, “it's going to change the world.” DevSecOps stands for “development, security and operations,” and is a framework and tools for “designing in” software and cybersecurity. Roper long has been a key champion within DoD for moving to commercial practices and has repeatedly said he wants the Air Force to become a “software company.” GAO said that officials from 26 of the MDAPs regarding software development reported that software concerns had created risks at some point during their program's history. The biggest problem faced was — you guessed it — changes necessitated to ensure cybersecurity. The second biggest program was that the software development simply was “more difficult than expected.” Hardware design changes also played a big role in creating software problems, requiring subsequent changes in software configurations. Interestingly, while often bemoaned as a cause for program delays, requirements changes came in at the low of end of the reported issues troubling software development. Of the 15 major DoD IT programs reviewed, worth $15.1 million, 10 had delays in their original baseline schedules. But on the bright side, 11 showed decreased life cycle cost estimates. Further, all 15 have cybersecurity strategies as required by DoD regulations, and most reported having undertaken in 2019 at least one operational cybersecurity test. That said, “less than half reported conducting developmental cybersecurity testing,” GAO found. And according to DoD's own “Cybersecurity Testing and Evaluation Guidebook,” GAO scolds, “not conducting developmental cybersecurity testing puts programs at an increased risk of cost and schedule growth and poor program performance. Cost and Schedule Growth Stabilizes As it does every year, GAO also reviewed all 85 MDAPs for cost and schedule growth, and on that front the news is good: GAO found that the programs DoD Overview “have generally stabilized non-quantity related — (i.e. meaning not related to buy more stuff) — cost growth and schedule growth.” “Between 2018 and 2019, total acquisition cost estimates for DoD's 85 current MDAPs grew by a combined $64 billion (a 4 percent increase), growth that was driven by decisions to increase planned quantities of some weapon systems,” GAO found. “For example, DoD more than doubled in the past year the total number of missiles it plans to acquire through the Air Force's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile program.” And some programs actually lowered their year-average costs. GAO found that 55 MDAPs (more than half) “had lower average procurement unit costs since last year. Examples of programs with lower unit costs include the Navy's Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (16 percent decrease) and the Air Force's F-22 Increment 3.2B Modernization (15 percent decrease).” “Also between 2018 and 2019, capability delivery schedules for MDAPs increased, on average, by just over 1 month (a 1 percent increase),” GAO said. However, the report cautioned that cost/schedule performance looks “less encouraging as measured against their original approved program baselines.” The report found that the major acquisition programs “have accumulated over $628 billion (or 54%) in total cost growth since program start, most of which is unrelated to the increase in quantities purchased. Additionally, over the same time period, time required to deliver initial capabilities has increased by 30%, resulting in an average delay of more than two years. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/major-dod-acquisition-programs-flounder-on-cybersecurity-gao

  • Lockheed creates new job to push sales in Central, Eastern Europe

    May 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed creates new job to push sales in Central, Eastern Europe

    By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Lockheed Martin has appointed Dennis Goege to the newly created job of vice president for operations in Central and Eastern Europe, according to a company statement. The move comes in response to what Lockheed foresees to be a “growing presence” in the region. Based at the company's office in Berlin, Germany, Goege is responsible for business in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia and the Baltics. Goege previously worked for the German Aerospace Center, or DLR, based in Cologne, Germany, where he oversaw defense and security research programs. According to the Lockheed announcement, he also “acted as an advisor” to the Germany Defence Ministry and the Munich Security Conference. The new job consolidates a smattering of director-level country leads, overseen by Jonathan Hoyle, vice president and chief executive for Europe. “I am pleased to welcome Dennis in his new role as vice president to support our organization of Lockheed Martin in Europe,” Hoyle was quoted as saying in the statement. “This new post has been created in response to significant business growth in Central and European markets and to set out a path for building on business opportunities in the region.” Goege's portfolio includes a few high-profile programs and prospects in Germany alone. Lockheed is going against Boeing in a bid to deliver a new heavy-transport helicopter to the Bundeswehr — Germany's military. A move by the German government to request a final offer is expected late this year or early next. In addition, the TLVS missile defense program has been languishing in uncertainty for months. Lockheed, in concert with local contractor MBDA, and the German government have so far failed to agree on a price and risk structure for an eventual contract. The Defence Ministry has yet to announce whether the contractor will be invited to submit a new offer. Lockheed also has not given up on selling F-35 fighter jets to the German Air Force should another opening present itself, though the aircraft is formally out of the race with Berlin's recent pick of Eurofighters and F-18s to replace the aging Tornado fleet by 2030. Switzerland is in the market for new fighter jets, too, and the F-35 is still in the running. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/06/lockheed-creates-new-vp-job-to-push-sales-in-central-eastern-europe/

All news