+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: USA DoD 2018 BUDGET

  1. #1

    USA DoD 2018 BUDGET

    New thread.............

    Work: Munitions, Strategic Capabilities Office Boosted in FY18 Budget Plan

    By: Aaron Mehta, December 5, 2016

    ABOARD A US AIR FORCE C-40B*—*As Pentagon planners work to develop the fiscal 2018 budget plan, they will focus on increased spending for munitions and growing the prototyping budget for the Strategic Capabilities Office, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work said Sunday.

    Speaking to reporters while returning from the Reagan National Security Forum, held outside Los Angeles, California, Work acknowledged the realities that the budget would be finalized by the team of President-elect Donald Trump but added that he and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter wanted to leave a suggested road map for the new team.

    “We took a careful look at all the different inventory objectives and tried to improve by expanding munition procurements as much as we can,” Work said. “I can’t get into specifics, because it’s the PB18 budget and that is nothing more than a recommendation to the incoming administration. They may tweak it, they could add more money, but the recommendation we are sending forward has a heavy emphasis on improving our munitions position.”

    As the fight against the Islamic State group enters its third year, Pentagon officials are sounding the alarm over the level of munitions available to US forces. It has also become a concern among allies who buy US weapons for their stockpiles.*

    On his way to the Reagan forum, Work stopped off at facilities from both Boeing and Raytheon, the latter of which he called “the best missileers in the world.” Part of that involved touring a Raytheon location that has automated much of the missile assembly process, shaving time and cost off the process involved in getting munitions ready for the US.

    “They have great ideas and it was really good to see they are all in on the third offset [strategy] and, that type of thinking is starting to inform the way they are thinking about improvements to their missiles. So that was really impressive,” Work said of the Raytheon plant.

    Tangential to the question of funding on munitions is the question of improving existing designs, which is a focus for the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO)*—*a group that Work said “did very well” in the proposed FY18 budget.

    A semi-secretive unit started by Carter, the SCO focuses on improving and developing technologies that can be developed for near-term reasons. Led by William Roper, the group has had early successes, including adding an offensive capability for the SM6 weapon and upgrading the Army's Tactical Missile System weapon to allow it to strike moving targets on both land and water.

    The office, which is slated to receive $907 million in the National Defense Authorization*Act, has funded 26 prototyping projects, with six having transitioned so far. That number is expected to grow in the FY18 budget.*

    Work praised how Roper has linked up with the service and combatant command leaders to understand their requirements, which has allowed the SCO head to talk directly with major defense firms and reassure them that if they develop certain technologies, there will be business waiting for them. That is “an important signal to send,” Work noted, adding that firms like Boeing and Raytheon now know to approach Roper directly with new ideas rather than waiting for a formal solicitation.

    “When SCO first started they had about $50 million the first year in projects. They’re upwards of $1 billion now.,” Work said. “When SCO comes in with a proposal, it is very well thought out and usually the majority of them get approved."

    However, the deputy warned against giving SCO too much funding and having it turn from the lean, prototyping cell it is now into a full-fledged acquisition agency.

    “The thing we have to watch is SCO is a relatively small organization; we don’t want it to become a DARPA. We want it to stay a Skunk Works, which is really fast, which gets demonstrations and gets things out really fast,” Work said, referring to a Lockheed Martin program. “So we just go to make sure that we don’t overwhelm SCO.”

  2. #2

    Defense, Navy Secretaries Spar Over Budget

    By: Christopher P. Cavas, December 8, 2016

    WASHINGTON — The terms in office of Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus might be nearing their ends, but the two are exchanging a final series of pot shots as the federal budget preparation season reaches its climax. Carter, in the view of many, is preparing a fiscal 2018 defense budget built around cost restrictions imposed by the Budget Control Act, commonly known as sequestration, while Mabus is defiantly submitting a Navy budget anticipating the lifting of those restrictions as the Trump administration takes over in January.

    The Department of the Navy budget submitted Thursday afternoon to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is reportedly billions more than the marks set by Carter, sources told Defense News. The figures cited range from a $17 billion overage over the course of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), the current year plus the following five years, to as much as $40 billion, depending on how the money is counted.

    Pentagon sources said the Navy objected to OSD directives to cut ships from the shipbuilding program, in part to pay for more submarines, while an OSD source accused the Navy of using “creative interpretation” in following budget rules. The OSD source characterized the $17 billion overage as a Navy refusal to make cuts in that amount across the FYDP.

    Not only that, the OSD source said, but the Navy responded by adding a number of items to its budget, including 58 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters, six P-8A maritime multi-mission aircraft and $14 billion in readiness accounts. About $2.5 billion of the potentially $40 billion shortfall, the OSD source said, is from Marine Corps accounts, while another $3.5 billion is for congressionally directed cruiser modernization.

    Another source reported that the Navy’s Force Structure Assessment (FSA), a monthslong effort to address what forces make up the fleet and how many of each are needed, will expand the fleet size from today’s 308 total ship goal to more than 340 ships, coming very close to the 350-ship level cited as a goal by the Trump camp and by Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Seapower subcommittee and the widespread presumed nominee to succeed Mabus as Navy secretary.

    There is little doubt that the Carter-Mabus standoff is also driven by each man’s personality, with each casting an eye on their legacies.

    As Thursday’s 5 p.m. budget submission approached, Mabus sent a memo to Carter, copied to Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work and numerous Navy and OSD officials, outlining his thinking in submitting a Navy budget that is so out of line with OSD direction. A copy of the memo was obtained by Defense News.

    “You and I both know that this budget is almost totally a symbolic one, given the time this Administration has left in office,” Mabus wrote to Carter. “My budget submission will be the bridge to future budgets that reflect a new Force Structure Assessment.

    “I have no intention of changing course now. If you ultimately decide to submit a budget that takes away the ability of the Navy and Marine Corps to do their job, it will not have my support, and I will make my objections widely known.”

    Within the Navy department and at OSD, viewpoints are split on Mabus’ course of action. Some view the moves as disrespectful, even insubordinate, of OSD, while others consider preparing a budget based on sequestration restrictions that appear all-but-certain to be removed to be a waste of time.

    Although not speaking directly to the Carter-Mabus rift or the budget imbalance, Adm. Bill Moran, the vice chief of naval operations, might have given some insight into the Navy department’s thinking when he spoke Dec. 6 with a small group of reporters.

    “The reality is that no matter what we put forward today we’re going to redo in February, March and April,” Moran said. “We’re spending frankly less time worrying about what we put in today and trying to anticipate what we might see in February and March and then making sure we’re ready to potentially execute.”

    In the immediate future, Moran said, the Navy doesn’t necessarily need more money for ships, but rather for the “immediate readiness of the fleet. Maintenance and modernization for ships, submarines and aircraft are at the top of our list. In the strike fighter shortfall world, we need to keep buying Super Hornets to offset the delay in F-35 and the material condition of our current fleet.”

    Moran referred to the effects of preparing different budgets for the outgoing and incoming presidential administrations.

    “Our term of art is we’re trying not to kill the villagers,” Moran said, “with the [Navy] staff trying to do two budgets simultaneously with one that’s not going to survive contact with the next administration.”

    Navy sources indicated they expect a return memo from Carter.

    Below is the full text of Mabus’ memo:

    December 8, 2016

    MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    SUBJECT: Department of the Navy’s FY18 Budget Estimate Submission

    Throughout my tenure as Secretary of the Navy, I have worked to ensure the United States Navy and Marine Corps are ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations at sea while also being ever present to keep sea lanes open and respond to natural disasters and provide humanitarian assistance. From air operations in Libya, Operation Tomadachi in Japan, the Ebola crisis in West Africa, earthquake and flood relief in Nepal, New Zealand, Haiti and the Philippines, and the global counter-terrorism fight, the Navy and Marine Corps have always given the President immediate, agile and lethal response options.

    As directed by the current Defense Strategy, I have maintained a maritime force that can accomplish the naval missions of defending the homeland, deterring conflict, defeating aggression, protecting the maritime commons, and providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. I have prioritized missions uniquely performed by naval forces – maritime security; maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; sea-based missile defense; and sea-based strategic deterrence. I have submitted budgets that balance capability, readiness and capacity. I have heard the needs of our Sailors and Marines and budgeted for personnel programs to make them more capable warfighters while also being able to balance the needs of their families with the needs of the nation.

    Maintaining this maritime superiority is critical in a dynamic security environment in which the United States is facing a return to great power competition. Both Russia and China have advanced their military capabilities and capacities to act as global powers and non-state actors and acquired greater access to advanced technologies that power new threats to our armed forces. This national security environment is undeniably more demanding than any we have experienced in the previous two decades, requiring a more capable and ready Marine Corps and a larger Navy Fleet.

    For those reasons, as we look to the end of this Administration, I will not submit a budget for POM18 that reverses the progress we have made over the last seven and one-half years. I will not forward a budget that cuts ships, degrades readiness, and suspends modernization due to the forced cancellation of the maintenance availabilities where modernization occurs. The magnitude of the proposed bill to the Navy will require severe cuts to capability, capacity and readiness and will result in a Navy that cannot support our national strategies. The instruction your office conveyed directed cuts that would reduce the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ essential role as a forward-deployed and forward-stationed force to a fleet confined to its homeports with infrequent overseas deployments.

    In order to build some types of ships, I will not cut other ships, regardless of their function in the fleet. That is not how you maintain a Navy, one of our nation’s most precious assets. Shipbuilding reductions are irreversible and have significant negative impacts on our Navy’s ability to do the work this nation requires of its as well as on our shipyards, our shipbuilders, our foundational industrial base, and their employees and families.

    The lesson is not one that we should have to learn twice. It is illustrative to recall that from 2001 to 2008 only 41 ships were put under contract, which meant that with ship decommissionings, the fleet declined from 316 to 278 ships. Since I became Secretary in 2009, for the exact same number of fiscal years, we have put 86 ships under contract. The efforts of this Administration have assured that the fleet will reach 300 ships by 2019 and 308 ships – our current Force Structure Assessment – by 2021. Our fleet size today is a result of decisions made a decade or more ago and the decision we make today will impact our nation in the 2020s and beyond. This Administration has made good decisions and laid the groundwork for the success of those who will be in our seats in 2021, but more importantly, those decisions have laid the groundwork for the success of our Navy and our country.

    As the world’s only global Navy, the size and composition of our fleet is critical. The United States Navy projects power, reassures allies, deters adversaries and provides humanitarian assistance and disaster relief precisely when and where it is needed. The reason we are able to perform this crucial role, the reason we are the world’s only global Navy, is because of our unique ability to provide presence – to be in the right place not just at the right time, but all the time. The dynamic, specialized requirements of the Navy’s mission demand a properly sized fleet.

    It is equally imperative that you consider the economic effects of cutting ships. Under this Administration we have dramatically driven down the costs of every type of ship and we are rebuilding a balanced, capable fleet after years of decline and neglect. In part, these cost reductions result from the increased certainty and transparency we were able to provide our industrial partners every year through the last fiscal year and in part, the reductions have resulted from the inherent competitiveness of a vibrant industrial base. Cutting ships will not save money since lower production numbers will inevitably lead to higher costs per ship. In the end, this proposal will mean we will get fewer ships for more money – hardly a good financial decision.

    Additionally, fifteen years of war have created ship maintenance and readiness impacts that must be corrected to assure the Navy can uniquely provide presence and timely maritime options for the President. We have made wise budget decisions over the last couple of years, such as increasing the number of shipyard workers, to address these shortfalls. However, the impacts of your proposed budget are so severe on ship depot maintenance and ship and air operations that we may not be able to recover. Therefore, at the same time this budget would cut ships, it would also harm readiness.

    You and I both know that this budget is almost totally a symbolic one, given the time this Administration has left in office. The new Administration has stated its direction, it will tailor a budget to its requirements, and Congress is planning to operate under a Continuing Resolution into at least March. The current Administration has provided significant support to building our Navy, and you should not undermine that accomplishment, even symbolically, as a final act. Instead of wasting valuable resources and time in developing a budget that leads to a hollow Navy – as this would certainly do – this budget should make the case as to how to best support the Navy and the nation. Given the global developments since the last Force structure Assessment review in 2014, I know the new FSA that will be delivered soon will clearly show that we need more, not fewer ships to do the tasks the nation expects of its Navy to help maintain peace and prosperity. To say that our Navy fleet should be smaller simply ignores the reality of the global environment in which we operate.

    Therefore, recognizing the growing gap between national security demands and the solutions available to address them, I have directed the Department of the Navy (DON) to submit a budget that can meet the DON’s role in the ten missions in the Defense Strategic Guidance; sustain the momentum to a 308-ship Navy as reflected in our current 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan; and begin to undo the cumulative impacts of underfunding Navy and Marine Corps requirements that result from the limitations imposed by the Budget Control Act and Bipartisan Budget Acts. We have adhered to the FY17 Overseas Contingency Operations rules that were provided to us by OSD in the 2018-2022 Defense Planning Guidance. Finally, my budget submission will be the bridge to future budgets that reflects a new Force Structure Assessment and builds the Navy and Marine Corps the nation needs to maintain American influence, assure allies and partners and protect critical pathways of trade and commerce.

    We have worked extremely hard for almost eight years, and have succeeded in building the best and most formidable Navy the world has ever known. That was the course I and this Administration chose nearly eight years ago, and that is why the Navy is sure to have enough ships to continue in this role, despite a shrinking topline. I have no intention of changing course now. If you ultimately decide to submit a budget that takes away the ability of the Navy and Marine Corps to do their job, it will not have my support, and I will make my objections widely known.

    Ray Mabus

  3. #3

    White House 'skinny budget' faces congressional headwinds

    By: Joe Gould, March 15, 2017

    WASHINGTON — White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is expected to release his 2018 budget blueprint on Thursday, but it is already getting pushback on Capitol Hill.

    Analysts say the so-called "skinny budget" and its inclusion of $603 billion for the Pentagon — a $54 billion defense boost paid for by cutting most non-defense accounts, including foreign aid — is one of many items likely to shift before lawmakers can find their way to a bipartisan deal.

    “I don’t think much of what will be proposed on Thursday will get through as proposed, and a lot of suggestions are going to be dead on arrival when they hit the Congress,” Jim Moran, a former Democratic congressman from Virginia who served for many years on the House Appropriations Committee, told Defense News.

    That’s in part because breaking the firewall between defense and non-defense, as spelled out in the 2011 Budget Control Act, would need Democratic support to reach 60 votes in the Senate.

    With that leverage, Democrats say they will fight for parity between the defense and non-defense sides and block GOP plans to fund President Trump’s border wall — a recipe for a stalemate with conservative lawmakers.

    How does this play out for the Pentagon budget? “I think it gets compromised down to a relatively marginal increase for defense,” Moran said.

    There is also pressure to boost defense, as hawkish lawmakers have criticized the $603 billion top-line for defense as only 3 percent, or $18 billion, above the Obama administration’s plan.

    Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and his House counterpart, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have argued a $640 billion top-line would replenish a military depleted by the Obama presidency—an unlikely prospect by Moran’s reckoning.

    On Tuesday, McCain took a hard line arguing for a defense boost to repair fleet readiness and maintenance, whether or not Mulvaney is on board.

    “I’m not changing,” McCain told reporters. “If they want to ignore the judgement of our military leaders that says our men and women in uniform are at greater risk, that’s their problem.”

    Plans for a $2 billion cut for the Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard have netted criticism from both sides of the aisle. Among them, House Coast Guard and Maritime subcommittee Chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has led efforts against a $1.3 billion cut for the Coast Guard, calling it “nonsensical.”

    A Trump ally on the SASC, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., called the White House blueprint “the beginning of a dialogue where the end result looks very different from the president’s budget and the budgets we’ll move forward here in the Congress.” He signaled a focus on plussing up readiness and modernization.

    “I don’t know that it even scratches the surface if we’re going to continue the operations tempo we’ve had over the last decade or more,” Tillis said. “The question is whether we have a candid discussion about the whole of the budget .... We have to fix mandatory spending problems too.”

    But would lawmakers be willing to brave the political crosscurrents that come with targeting safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

    Congress might be able to skirt the toughest conversations by managing the defense increase through the use of the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which is exempt from budget caps. It’s the sort of move Mulvaney has opposed before, and it would invite Democrats to insist increased defense spending be matched on the domestic side of the budget, as they have in recent budget deals.

    Roger Zakheim, a visiting fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said that "for sure" OCO will end up playing a part in the budget discussions, despite Mulvaney's previous attempts to restrict the use of the funding mechanism. That is largely due to the nature of OCO as a way to get around a confrontation of the fiscal hawks and the defense hawks, he said.

    If Speaker Paul Ryan has to choose between a showdown in his own caucus or telling the defense hawks that "for now can you pick your number of billions and let me throw it into OCO, [Ryan] probably takes that deal,"*Zakheim predicted at an AEI event Tuesday.

    Zakheim's colleague*at AEI, Mackenzie Eaglen, also predicted that F-35 joint strike fighters and F/A-18 Super Hornets will be included in this wave of OCO funding, despite the focus of that funding supposedly being near-term warfighting requirements.

    "It's ironic that as OMB director [Mulvaney] came in, wanted to prioritize disciplined OCO because he'd been so aggressive on the discretionary side and not giving this commensurate increase on non-defense*and defense, [which] will result, I predict, in an OCO that is less disciplined and larger than they're*going to come in with,"*Zakheim said.

    How does a thinner defense budget square with Trump’s campaign promise to rebuild the military? It’s unlikely Thursday’s blueprint will provide details about future defense budgets—which are expected in Trump’s larger budget submission in May.

    Mark Cancian, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, estimates it will cost about $80 billion to get the force Trump has described — with a regular Army of 540,000 soldiers, a Navy of 350 ships, a Marine Corps of 36 active-duty infantry battalions, and an Air Force of 1,200 active tactical fighter/attack aircraft, plus enhanced missile defense and cyber capabilities

    If the increase turns out to be $18 billion per year, “you could barely afford the current force and won’t have much of a buildup at all,” Cancian told Defense News.

    At the AEI event, Eaglen put it bluntly, saying the first Trump budget is going to "please no one."

    "It's not going to please fiscal hawks because it's really a status quo, it's not going to please defense hawks because they are going to see it as a flat line year over year," she said. "It's at best an inflation adjusted defense budget. It could possibly be negative real growth, which I think would shock the president, who wants to do different things with that money. I've got news for him: He's not going to be able to do that."

    The State Department is reportedly facing steep cuts, which has sparked concerns from lawmakers and national security veterans about America's ability to promote its values around the world and avert wars, rather than fight them. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., took to the Senate floor to describe foreign aid as a national security imperative.

    "I promise you, it's going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they are even alive today," said Rubio, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member.

    Senators have also warned that plans to kill U.S. subsidies for foreign allies to buy American-made weapons outright and replace them with a loans program would kill defense industry jobs. The idea would not apply to the security aid committed to Israel — which makes up more than half of the $5.7 billion program.

    As a practical matter, Moran predicted powerful appropriators will balk at cuts in their spheres of control—like Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the former House Appropriations Committee chairman and now chairman of its Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The subcommittee’s former chair is Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, who now chairs the Defense Subcommittee.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, earlier this month said deep State Department cuts are “dead on arrival” in Congress.

    “I don’t think these are things the president fully understands—the makeup of the Congress and the internal politics of the Congress,” Moran said. “I would be shocked if those cuts were allowed to take place.”

    — Aaron Mehta in Washington contributed to this report.

  4. #4

    Trump's skinny budget proposes fat defence spending

    16 March, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Leigh Giangreco Washington DC

    US President Donald Trump is hailing his 2018 budget brief as a boost to national defense, but conservative hawks are skeptical his proposed increase to the Defense Department is sufficient to rebuild the military.

    The White House released its fiscal year 2018 “skinny budget” 16 March, a topline overview of the president’s financial plan. Trump unveiled a $54 billion increase to defense spending, made possible by deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and soft power-focused agencies such as the State Department.

    The budget repeals defense sequestration and requests a total of $639 billion for the Defense Department, including $574 billion allocated toward the base budget and $65 billion for overseas contingency operations. The White House claims the base budget number represents a 10% increase from the 2017 level, but Congressional Republicans dispute that figure.

    Trump plans to address the Defense Department’s depleted munitions stocks, as well as deferred maintenance and modernisation. The plan promises to accelerate the US Air Force’s efforts to improve its tactical air fleet’s readiness, investment in training systems and procurement of additional Lockheed Martin F-35s.

    The proposal would also slash funding for independent agencies that support the arts and humanities, but the Trump administration will find the majority of savings in the State Department, where it plans to cut $10 billion or a 28% reduction. Trump also requests siphoning off $2.6 billion or a 31% reduction from the Environmental Protection Agency.

    For Republican Congressional leadership, Trump’s budget does not live up to his bellicose rhetoric. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain criticised Trump in a 16 March statement, calling the $603 billion topline proposal insufficient to rebuild America’s military.

    “Such a budget does not represent a 10% increase as previously described by the White House, but amounts to a mere 3% over President Obama's defense plan, which has left our military underfunded, undersized and unready to meet the threats of today and tomorrow,” says McCain.

    McCain and House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry agree on a $640 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2018 plus sustained increases over the years, he adds.

    Meanwhile, the White House also submitted a supplemental budget to address the DOD’s urgent needs in fiscal year 2017, with $24.9 billion proposed for the department and another $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funding. The 2017 supplemental budget outlines $13.5 billion for procurement and modernisation efforts including additional Boeing AH-64 Apache and Sikorsky UH-60 helicopters for the US Army, Lockheed F-35s, Boeing F/A-18s and other unmanned aircraft. The budget also sets aside $2.1 billion for research and development efforts.

  5. #5

    Trump seeks defense boost for 2018, $30B supplemental for 2017

    By: Joe Gould, March 16, 2017

    WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump announced a $1.1 trillion budget proposal to Congress on Thursday that boosts investments in national security at the expense of environmental protections and foreign aid.

    The budget includes an expected $54 billion defense increase, offset by domestic-side cuts, including a 28 percent cut for the State Department. The broad-brushstrokes plan signaled the White House’s intent to restore a “depleted” military, despite criticism from hawkish lawmakers it is not enough.

    "This is a hard power budget, it is not a soft power budget,” White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney told reporters Wednesday. “And that was done intentionally. That’s what our allies can expect. That’s what our adversaries can expect.”

    The "skinny budget" request includes $639 billion for the Defense Department, including $574 billion in the base budget and $65 billion in the emergency Overseas Contingency Operations account.

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his House counterpart Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have said a $640 billion defense budget is needed and that the administration's numbers mask a less robust increase than they would like.

    "It is clear to virtually everyone that we have cut our military too much and that it has suffered enormous damage," Thornberry said in a statement Thursday morning. "In fact, the more we investigate, the deeper the damage we find. Unfortunately, the Administration’s budget request is not enough to repair that damage and to rebuild the military as the President has discussed."

    Elsewhere in the budget, the request for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development sees a 28 percent reduction that includes the proposed transformation of the foreign military financing program from grants to loans. That excludes the $3.1 billion in security assistance to Israel.

    Congress is unlikely to adopt the budget blueprint as offered, as it includes deep cuts for the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and National Institutes of Health. Democratic lawmakers have warned they will not pass a budget without matching any defense increase on the non-defense side.

    Administration also sent a $30 billion supplemental funding request for the military, and $1.5 billion for a border wall, in the current year. Of the total, roughly $24.9 billion is in Defense Department base-budget programs and $5 billion is in OCO.

    That is a huge wrinkle, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The base-budget funding requires increasing the budget caps for fiscal 2017.

    "Five billion*comes from OCO, but the other $25 billion is in the base budget, which requires increasing the budget caps for fiscal 2017," Harrison said. "That’s unlikely to happen because changing the caps requires 60 votes in the Senate, and this proposal also includes $18 billion in cuts for non-defense in fiscal 2017 and $3 billion for the wall. This means the fiscal 2017 supplemental is unlikely to pass as proposed."

    The request's $24.9 billion in Defense Department base-budget programs include $13.5 billion Army helicopters, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and F/A-18 Super Hornets, tactical missiles, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, and further funding for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

    The administration wants $7.2 billion in operations and maintenance funds, to address readiness shortfalls and to improve cyber and intelligence capabilities.

    There is another $5.1 for the campaign against the Islamic State group and for operations in Afghanistan.

    Of that, the administration wants $1.4 billion to go toward the fight against ISIS, specifically for force protection, precision-guided munitions and countermeasures against the militant group's lethal drone program.

    There is $2 billion for a “flexible fund” to augment U.S. counterterrorism activities and a $626 million fund that consolidates all counter-ISIS train-and-equip programs. The request also includes $1.1 billion for Afghanistan operations.

    Additionally, the request includes $3 billion for Department of Homeland Security border protection and immigration enforcement programs. Of that, half is for the border wall — a provision which Senate Democrats warn they will oppose.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., offered a statement Thursday saying his committee will review requests and aim to "strike a balance that will enable us to fund the federal government responsibly and*address emergency needs, while ensuring this legislation will clear the Congress.”

    "As directed under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse. While the President may offer proposals, Congress must review both requests to assure the wise investment*of taxpayer dollars," he said.

    Email: jgould@defensenews.com

    Twitter: @reporterjoe
    Last edited by buglerbilly; 17-03-17 at 03:43 AM.

  6. #6

    Budget experts wary of Trump military buildup long-term impact

    By: Joe Gould and Aaron Mehta, March 17, 2017

    WASHINGTON – President Trump's proposed 2018 budget is billed as the initial investment on his planned military buildup, but Pentagon officials are worried about the long-term costs, and whether Congress can be counted on to keep paying.

    At a Defense Department press conference after the White House budget blueprint was released Thursday, John Roth, the acting comptroller for the Pentagon, acknowledged the budget office is keeping a nervous eye on the costs for increasing the force, saying they hope to see a “pattern” of growth for future budgets.

    “The answer is, we’re looking, ultimately, for a commitment, particularly from Congress but also from the administration, for long-term growth in defense spending,” Roth told Reporters. “Seventeen is the down payment. [In] FY18, the [administration's planned] top-line is something above FY17, so the trend is good.”

    Pentagon planners are right to be concerned, according to defense budget experts, particularly when it comes to personnel costs.

    Mark Cancian, a retired Marine officer and senior international security adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimates it will cost about $80 billion more than Obama administration's last budget plan to fully realize Trump's planned buildup.

    That plan includes regular a Army of 540,000 soldiers, a Navy of 350 ships, a Marine Corps of 36 active-duty infantry battalions, and an Air Force of 1,200 active tactical fighter/attack aircraft, plus enhanced missile defense and cyber capabilities.

    In manpower alone,*that’s an additional 60,000 active-duty Army personnel, an unspecified number of additional sailors to man the 78 ships and submarines he intends to see built, up to 12,000 more Marines to serve in infantry and tank battalions, and at least another 100 combat aircraft for the Air Force, a requirement that a Heritage Foundation analysis predicts will require 40,000 more airmen to manage.

    Budgeteers have found that every 10,000 people cost the military about $1.2 billion per year in pay and benefits alone.*Training and operations cost even more, as much as $2 billion to $4 billion per year, varying significantly depending on the type of troops.

    That money is not in the president's 2018 budget request. It asks for $603 billion, which is $18 billion more than Obama plans. Future-year top-lines are a detail expected to appear with the full request to Congress in May.

    “We have to see what this buildup looks like,” Cancian said. “If it’s only $18 billion a year every year, that’s barely enough to keep the force we have now.”

    But if the White House did move out with the build-up, it would first need Congress to approve more*money to open the*training and equipment pipeline for all the new trainees. Or as Army Lt. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J8) on the Joint Staff, said at*Thursday's briefing,*“with respect to training, there is physics involved.”

    With such costs in mind, Chief of Staff Mark Milley, for example, has repeatedly warned that a larger Army without adequate training and equipment funding from Congress would create a “hollow force.”

    Speaking at a Association of the U.S. Army breakfast in Washington, D.C., earlier this year, Milley said, “If you increase the end strength, you have to increase the money to go with the end strength to pay for the readiness."

    Cancian said the other services chiefs are likewise worried: “You can see that nervousness out there in the services.”

    “Parsing his statements, I think he would rather stop the Army’s growth at 480,000 or 490,000 and put the rest in readiness and modernization,” Cancian said of Milley.

    Training aside, military pay and benefits that come with added troops would have to be part of federal budgets for years to come, and that would add pressure on other parts of the military's budget, said Todd Harrison, also of CSIS.

    “The trouble when you add force structure is it comes with a long budget tail,” Harrison said. “You’re stuck feeding those mouths for years to come, and it effectively walls off parts of your future budget.”

    According to Harrison, DoD already has more force structure than it can support, yielding what some hawkish lawmakers have argued is a readiness crisis.

    Trump has talked about increasing the capacity of the force, which means more people, training, more day-to-day operations.*Harrison said he could easily see two-thirds of any funding increase being consumed by operations and maintenance and military personnel costs.

    Because O&M costs grow with inflation, Congress must add 3 percent annually just to keep pace. Old equipment gets more expensive to maintain over time, but new, technologically advanced equipment tends to be even more expensive to operate and maintain.

    “An F-35 costs more per flight hour than an F-16, and so we just keep marching along that trend, so we still need more O&M funding year after year,” Harrison said.

  7. #7

    Boeing, Lockheed Aircraft Win Big In Trump’s Budget Plan

    Mar 20, 2017

    Lara Seligman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

    Aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the big winners in President Donald Trump’s initial budget agenda, which sets the stage for a significant boost to defense spending.

    By skirting the Budget Control Act (BCA) both in the fiscal 2018 budget submission and fiscal 2017 supplemental request, the Trump administration has set itself up for a showdown with Congress. But though both proposals face long odds of becoming law unchanged, key investments in military modernization will likely remain intact.

    In the short term, the showdown in Congress could lead to an unprecedented yearlong continuing resolution (CR)—a scenario the Defense Department says would be devastating. The ambitious $30 billion supplemental request is unlikely to pass Congress because the White House chose to rely on funding from the BCA-capped base budget account. Passing the supplemental as proposed would mean eliminating the caps for fiscal 2017, which requires 60 votes in the Senate—an extremely heavy lift.

    What’s in Trump’s Budget Request?
    • The White House rolled out a supplemental request for fiscal 2017 and the “skinny” budget submission for fiscal 2018 March 16
    • Experts contending a government shutdown, long-term CR likely
    • Still, the budget blueprint signals Trump’s intent to invest in the military long-term
    • Investments in aircraft modernization will likely stay intact


    Meanwhile, six months into the fiscal year, Congress has yet to pass a spending bill for 2017. The government is facing a potential shutdown if lawmakers fail to agree on appropriations by April 28, the day the CR runs out. Lawmakers are making progress—the House recently passed a defense appropriations bill and sent it to the Senate. However, the Senate will likely try to lump the supplemental in with an omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, says Mackenzie Eaglen, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute.

    “I think this document has dramatically increased the odds of a shutdown,” Eaglen says. “The knee-jerk reaction is ‘no’ across Washington.”

    The most likely outcome is that Congress moves most of the base budget funding to the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, which is not subject to the BCA caps, Eaglen says.

    Of the $30 billion supplemental, $24.9 billion is in base budget funding, which will largely go toward buying new equipment. Overall, the supplemental would invest $13.5 billion in modernization, including billions for new Boeing and Lockheed aircraft: $2.3 billion for 24 additional Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets; $920 million for six Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft; $703 million for 20 U.S. Army AH-64 Apaches, also built by Boeing; and $596 million for five Lockheed Martin F-35As for the U.S. Air Force. The supplemental also invests in replenishing stocks of tactical missiles and munitions depleted by the ongoing campaign against the so-called Islamic State group (ISIS).

    In another surprise, the proposal includes a significant spike in funds for the Air Force’s next-generation fighter. Although the supplemental as a whole is unlikely to make it into law, the proposed boost to the so-called Penetrating Counterair effort indicates Trump’s Pentagon may be looking to accelerate development of the new air superiority aircraft planned to follow the F-35 and F-22.


    President Trump’s supplemental request for fiscal 2017 includes $2.3 billion to buy 24 more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets. Credit: Lt. Chris Pagenkopf/U.S. Navy

    The supplemental also includes $5.1 billion in the OCO account for war funding: $2 billion to accelerate the broader fight to defeat ISIS; $1.4 billion for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria; $1.1 billion for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan; and $600 million for the counter-ISIS train-and-equip mission.

    John Roth, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller, acknowledges that getting the supplemental through Congress is a hard sell. But he defends the decision to put the modernization funding in the base budget rather than OCO, saying “we put the money where it belonged.”

    “The $25 billion is legitimately base budget kinds of things—training, maintenance, those kinds of things,” Roth said March 16 at the Pentagon. “The $5.1 billion is purely in support of the overseas contingency operations. So we have tried, at least from the get-go, to play that exactly as it is.”

    “Does it create a legislative challenge? Yes it does,” he added.

    All told, if enacted the supplemental would bring defense base funding to $549 billion and OCO funding to $70 billion, for a total of $619 billion in fiscal 2017.

    The fiscal 2018 budget is less urgent, but will present just as much of a problem for Congress. The skeleton budget proposal boosts defense spending by $54 billion by slashing most nondefense accounts by the same amount, including deep cuts to foreign aid. Overall, the request funds Defense at $639 billion, including $574 billion for the base budget and $65 billion for OCO.

    Trump’s budget plan has a very low chance of becoming law as proposed, analysts conclude, because of the deep cuts to nondefense spending. Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners gives the submission 10% odds of passing Congress, and expects the next fiscal year to begin under yet another CR.

    “The main issues [are] how long it then takes Congress to strike a deal on defense and nondefense discretionary spending and how much is borrowed, as we believe midterm elections make it even more difficult for the GOP to agree to higher taxes,” Callan writes.

    Still, the White House defended the budget proposal, saying it begins to rebuild the military by addressing pressing shortfalls, and lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable and more lethal joint force. In particular, it invests in U.S. Army readiness, increases the total number of Navy ships and buys additional F-35s.

    More detailed budget information is expected in May.

    The fiscal 2018 submission is already facing backlash on Capitol Hill. The powerful chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees both slammed the proposal, saying it is not enough to repair and rebuild the military.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) echoed concerns of defense analysts that the budget as proposed cannot pass the Senate. He called for a base defense budget of $640 billion to rebuild the military, restore readiness and modernize U.S. forces.

    “It is absolutely essential that we act urgently to repair and rebuild our military,” says Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). “It is morally wrong to task someone with a mission for which they are not fully prepared and fully supported with the best weapons and equipment this nation can provide. Our committee has found serious shortcomings today, and they will worsen without immediate action.”

  8. #8

    Army Leaders Warn of Armor Upgrade, Air-Defense Cuts with Budget Caps


    Army Leaders told Congress that the return of sequestration will delay efforts to add active protection to the M1 Abrams tank other armored vehicles. Photo: Army.

    Posted By: Matthew Cox March 17, 2017

    Army leaders said Thursday that if Congress does not end spending caps under sequestration the service will fall behind adversaries in modernization and struggle to meet commitments around the globe.

    The Trump administration has submitted a budget request of $639 billion for defense in fiscal 2018. The White House and the Republican-led Congress has pledged to rebuild the U.S. military, which has struggled from years of cuts from sequestration.

    A bipartisan budget act in 2015 suspended sequestration for two years, but that expires Sept. 30. Repealing sequestration would require Congress to pass further legislation.

    “Army modernization funding declined 74 percent from 2008 thru 2015 as a result of the drawdown from two wars and the imposition of the Budget Control Act caps,” said Rep. Michael Turner R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces. “As a result, tradeoffs and significant funding reductions were made to critical Army modernization programs.”

    Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, deputy chief of staff for Army G-3/5/7 and Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff for Army G-8, testified at the March 16 hearing that the service is behind in many modernization efforts to include air and missile defense, long-range fires, electronic warfare capabilities and active protection systems, or APS, for ground and rotary wing platforms.

    “If the Budget Control Act comes back in 2018, as you know we are on a path to upgrade the Abrams and the Bradley; we would have to stop that upgrade program,” Murray said.

    Striker lethality upgrades, which are equipping the wheeled armored vehicles with 30mm cannons, “would stop,” Murray said. “We would have to stop the APS development.” *

    The fiscal 2017 budget will allow the Army to get to 476,000 in the active component, which Anderson characterized as a “high, significant risk” for the service meet the national defense strategy of defeat or deny adversaries, while doing counter-terrorism operations and defend the homeland.

    “We’ve got to get bigger or we have got to turn the rheostat down on demand,” Anderson said.

    The Army does field the majority of all combatant command missions, so “when you put more things back in Iraq, keep a higher number in Afghanistan, do Syria, do Jordan, do Libya, do Europe, do Korea – the math doesn’t work. You either got to turn something back or you’ve got to grow the capability and capacity to meet the requirements,” Anderson said.

    Rep. Niki Tsongas, a Democrat from Massachusetts, asked for explanation of what the Army did with $500 billion in modernization funding it received between 2003 and 2011.

    “How did the Army use the funding? How much of that equipment do we still have? Did it all simply get consumed in the war? Do you see a present and future use for it?” Tsongas asked.

    Murray said most of that money was “consumed by the counter IED fight,” describing efforts to protect soldiers from improvised explosive devises.

    “It was protection for our soldiers, it was [Mine Resistant, Ambushed Protected vehicles], it was up-armoring Humvees … it was better body armor, helmets – that is where most of that money went,” Murray said.

    “Now are we still using some of that equipment, we absolutely are,” Murray added, pointing out that the Humvees and MRAPs are still in the inventory.

    Over that time period, the Army took risks when it came to maneuverable air defense systems that could keep with brigade combat teams and long range indirect fires,” Murray said.

    “We weren’t facing a resurgent Russia at that time; we made the assumption, and it has proved to be a bad assumption a long time ago, that we didn’t really need to worry about air defense, and we didn’t really need to worry about long-range precision fires because we had the best system in the world and it was called the United States Air Force,” Murray said.

    “With the capabilities we are seeing right now that the Russians have developed and the Chinese are developing, we have to reinvest some effort. “We haven’t really upgraded those systems in a long time.”

    Turner said, “While we cannot repair all of the damage done from sequestration in a single year, we can and should do more than this level of funding would provide,” Turner said.

    After the release of the president’s budget request on Thursday, the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees — Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican — quickly said that the $54 billion in additional defense funding was not enough and would not provide for a quick enough military buildup to deter threats.

    McCain said that the extra money “will not be sufficient to rebuild the military. Such a budget does not represent a 10 percent increase as previously described by the White House, but amounts to a mere 3 percent over” the budget plan that had been proposed by former President Barack Obama.
    — Richard Sisk contributed to this report.

  9. #9

    What Trump’s Budget Plan Is Up Against

    Under Trump, gridlock returns


    Mar 17, 2017

    Jen DiMascio | Aviation Week & Space Technology

    President Donald Trump’s plan to increase the defense budget in fiscal 2017 and 2018 is being pummeled by Republicans and Democrats in*Congress. His budget blueprint would provide $639 billion, $65 billion of which would fund overseas wars.

    The White House asserts that this is “one of the largest one-year [Defense Department] increases in U.S. history.” But his proposal, $54 billion more than 2017, does not provide enough money to accomplish even his own goals. For instance, Trump has pledged to increase the size of the force by 10-15%, notes Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

    The administration is asking for less than half of what is needed. To support that growth, the Pentagon would need another $30 billion or more in 2018 and every year after, O’Hanlon says.

    Trump’s plan amounts to a 3% increase above what President Barack Obama proposed. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) have already counterproposed a $640 billion base budget request, with even more money requested for fighting wars. “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate,” McCain says.


    Credit: Lockheed Martin

    Along with plans for 2018, Trump submitted a supplemental request for 2017 to add $30 billion for defense. That includes $13.5 billion for procurement, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, F/A-18 Super Hornets, Apache helicopters and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense missile interceptors.

    While that proposal is welcome news for the defense industry, getting support from Congress is another matter entirely. The added base-budget funding blows past Budget Control Act spending caps, but only for defense. Overturning the limits will require at least 60 votes in the Senate. “We have a budget deal from December 2015, and they have to go back and basically renegotiate that deal,” says Todd Harrison, a director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t know how they are going to get the Democrats to support any of this.”

    Democrats are seething in the face of reductions to federal funding for education, the environment, health and international diplomacy. Says Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the armed services committee: “The president . . . is just increasing money for the military and cutting money for domestic priorities and hoping that makes him look strong.”

    Privatize Me

    Trump has made one thing clear about U.S. air traffic control (ATC): He wants to take it out of government hands. “The president’s 2018 budget initiates a multiyear reauthorization proposal to shift the air traffic control function of the Federal Aviation Administration to an independent, nongovernmental organization, making the system more efficient and innovative while maintaining safety,” states the outline. “This would benefit the flying public and taxpayers overall.”

    The proposal was music to the ears of ATC privatization proponents. “This budget takes the next step in what our committee produced last year—separating the air traffic control function from the federal government and establishing an independent, not-for-profit organization to provide this service,” says House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.).

    But skeptics were just as vocal. “For the last two years, opponents of this shortsighted plan have raised serious concerns about whether ATC privatization would guarantee safety, protect national security, expedite new technology, and keep our aviation system solvent,” says Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the transportation panel, who adds that Shuster’s ATC proposal failed to generate enough support in 2016 to pass.

    Leveling Off

    The Trump administration’s budget outline contains more specific details regarding its space plans than for other departments. The administration would provide $19.1 billion for the space agency, prioritizing deep-space missions and gutting the previous administration’s plan to capture an asteroid. The budget proposal cuts just 0.8% from the amount provided by the fiscal 2017 continuing resolution.

    Trump’s document envisions new opportunities for government-industry collaboration on the International Space Station, deep-space habitation and exploration. It would also support the purchase of data from private companies that operate small-satellite constellations and look to industry to commercialize new technologies to be used in space. The administration’s budget proposal would still prioritize deep-space human spaceflight, providing $3.7 billion for the Orion crew vehicle, the Space Launch System and its associated ground system.

    In addition to scrapping Obama’s Asteroid Redirect Mission, Trump would cut Obama-era funding for aeronautics research, a Europa lander, four Earth science programs and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar satellite program in favor of expanding the use of commercially provided data. The Aerospace Industries Association says those cuts “risk our access to key information that is used across government agencies for national security, public safety and community planning applications.”

  10. #10

    Democrats hammer Trump budget plan with DoD efficiency study

    By: Joe Gould, March 21, 2017

    WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday*used a Pentagon efficiency study that claimed $125 billion in unrealized savings to attack President Trump’s plan to fund a defense hike with domestic cuts.

    U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, was among House Democrats who questioned the wisdom of Trump’s planned $54 billion defense add when, according to the Defense Business Board study, there is huge waste in DoD’s back-office bureaucracy.

    “He proposes boosting defense spending by billions of dollars,” Cummings said of Trump, “and he proposes funding this increase by slashing dozens of critical programs that promote our national security and our nation’s most vulnerable communities—the elderly, children, and the rural working class.”

    The comments came at a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing, where Democrats decried the Trump “America First” budget’s deep cuts to the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, foreign aid and social programs. The budget outline released earlier this month is seen as untenable in Congress and the prelude to a government shutdown—if lawmakers cannot reach a bipartisan deal.

    “They should know our national security is paramount, but the Trump administration fails to recognize how these draconian cuts make us less safe,” said Florida Rep. Val Demings, the ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs.

    At the hearing — which heard from DoD Acting Deputy Chief Management Officer David Tillotson III, and several architects of the study — several Republicans teed off on Pentagon waste without criticizing the Trump budget request. Some noted that the savings could fund more troops, ships and planes.

    Though the perception that DoD suppressed the study fueled the hearing, Tillotson pushed back, saying it was “discussed at the highest levels,” and his office is seeking $7.9 billion in efficiencies based on its analytics.

    “I think the one thing I would take unequivocal issue with is that the report was in any way suppressed,” Tillotson said. “It was actively discussed within the department at the time and it has formed the basis of discussion since that time.”

    The DBB, a civilian advisory panel of business leaders established to provide senior defense leaders with independent management advice, produced this efficiency report among others.

    After a year of study, the DBB issued its conclusion there was $125 billion in unrealized savings over five years. It claimed that by renegotiating contracts with vendors, offering early retirements and retraining employees to be more efficient, the building could save about $125 billion between fiscal 2016 and 2020, or about $25 billion a year.

    Those savings could then be pumped back into the force, the board claimed, and would equal the funding it takes to field 50 Army brigades, 10 Navy carrier strike groups or 83 Air Force F-35 fighter wings.

    At the hearing, Tillotson conceded that efficiency and audit efforts are an internal struggle, and that there*is more for to do, particularly in service contract reviews. But he also*pointedly noted DoD needs base closures, a move Congress resists.

    “Efficiencies means we take a look at moving money from activities into new activities,” Tillotson said, adding: *“It’s intriguing to me that when we opt to let a leased contract for a building lapse … that we spend three trips to a state delegation to explain why we can’t close that contract.”

    In December 2016, the Washington Post reported the study was covered up and ignored—a charge lawmakers explored at the hearing. Amid lawmaker questions, former DBB chairman Bobby Stein said*that his successor as chairman, Michael Bayer, and then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter “did not want to continue” the study after his departure.

    Yet DBB member Kenny Klepper, who worked with Stein on the study, said senior military leadership was “extremely supportive” of the work, but did not welcome its timing. (DBB released its findings a week before the 2016 budget request was due to be unveiled.)

    On Tuesday, lawmakers vented frustration that the Pentagon had spent $9 million on the study with so little to show for it.

    In one tense exchange, committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, lashed out at Tillotson over whether the subcontractor studying DoD inefficiency for the DBB — McKinsey & Company — was required to produce a report. Tillotson, earlier in the hearing, had brandished DBB’s findings to suggest they had not been squelched.

    “We paid $9 million in taxpayer’s [dollars] to get a report,” Chaffetz said. “You started flailing around, saying here it is, it’s printed. This is a slide deck, it’s not a report.”

    McKinsey was contracted to produce research, which DBB used for its report—and that was not realized beyond a slide deck. Tillotson began to explain, but Chaffetz cut him off and the two talked over one another.

    “This is why we’re having this hearing," Chaffetz stormed. "This is why you’re overseeing a department in chaos."

    Email:jgould@defensenews.com

    Twitter: @reporterjoe

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts