Congress Archives

When you lobby for an Air Force base, you end up with airplanes, a fact that the New Mexico congressional delegation has forgotten since 2005 when it pushed the Pentagon to keep Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis open when facing an early BRAC decision to close it.

New Mexico's Congress folks -- some of whom are no longer in office -- joined with Gov. Bill Richardson in 2005 to pledge a "unified assault" against any plans to close Cannon, which employed 2,800 people in Clovis, population 32,000, near the Texas border.

Then congressman and now Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said the decision to close Clovis as wrongheaded and vowed "to leave no stone unturned to ensure that Cannon remains a vital component of our defense infrastructure." He followed this up with remarks on the House floor in May 2005 extolling the blessings of unrestricted air space in New Mexico for training.

The Pentagon decided to keep Cannon open, but without an air wing until the Air Force decided to move the 27th Special Operations Wing -- which flies a special ops version of the C-130 cargo aircraft, such as the AC-130 "Spectre" gunship and the CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft -- there in October 2007.

In September, Cannon announced (surprise) that it planned to fly those aircraft around northeast New Mexico and southern Colorado.

Cannon officials said they planned a total of 688 training flights annually in airspace that covers 600,000 square miles, and vowed the flights would "avoid airfields, towns, noise-sensitive areas, and wilderness areas."

Despite the limited flights, reaction from the local portions of the citizenry, especially in the way cool New Mexico cities Santa Fe and Taos, was swift and angry. The city council in my home town, Las Vegas, N.M., passed a resolution against the flights.

Udall, while saying he still supported the Cannon mission, pushed the Air Force in September to extend the public comment period. He didn't mention the marvelous unrestricted airspace he touted in 2005. Richardson, not a shy guy, hasn't said a word in defense of Cannon.

Some of the criticisms of the Cannon flights border on the ludicrous, considering everything else that goes on in New Mexico. Activists in Taos expressed concern the flights would aggravate the PTSD of combat veterans - although as a Marine combat Vietnam veteran, I find myself aggravated annually by the fusillades of fireworks that start in mid June and end in mid July, ostensibly to celebrate the 4th.

Also, I'm still awaiting my invitation to personally discuss PTSD with Taos activists over a cup of chai and a plate of gluten free cookies.

Other folks worried about the effect of the flights on wildlife. I guess that's the wildlife that's not been driven out of the forests and mountains by fleets of all terrain vehicles, which probably generate more noise than a C-130 flying between 2,000 and 3,000 feet.

The Albuquerque Journal and my local paper, the Las Vegas Optic, also seem to have their own case of amnesia because neither has presented the 2005 background on why (surprise) the Air Force has airplanes at Cannon and now wants to fly them.

My prediction: The activists will win, and in the next BRAC round all military bases in New Mexico will be closed.

This is one of those, "Where's the Beef?" bits . . .

The Veterans Affairs Department issued a press release on Thursday that said the department will test a new system in its Providence, R.I., regional office in November for paperless processing of veterans disability claims. Those claims are expected to top 1.2 million this year, the first time in history VA has faced more than a million claims. In the release, departmental Secretary Eric Shinseki said the Providence test "marks a major milestone in VA's move to paperless processing."

But on closer examination, it appears to be part of a claims automation plan detailed last month at a House VA Committee hearing. At that hearing, Michael Walcoff, VA acting undersecretary for benefits, highlighted various components of the overall VA claims automation plan, with the first field deployment planned for November, and the start of deployment of a nationwide paperless claims processing system in fiscal 2012.

Thursday's press release lacks details on what kind of systems will be installed in Providence and how they will speed up processing. Based on Walcoff's July testimony, the system will include one of those voguish "IT dashboards" that will allow claims examiners to eyeball relevant information about an individual claim, and hence speed processing.

But Joseph Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, told the House hearing in July he was concerned VA did not plan to add rules-based processing used by the insurance industry to speed processing until years after the deployment of the Veterans Benefit Management System.

He urged VA to reassess its stance on rules-based processing while the automation project is still in early development.

I'd sure like to find out where VA stands on rules-based processing today.

The "removal" of Teresa "Teri" Takai, California's chief information officer, from her planned nomination hearing on Monday to become the assistant secretary of Defense for networks and information integration and Defense CIO was no accident.

Tara Andringa, press secretary for the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., wrote in an e-mail to me that Defense scotched Takai's appearance pending an overall review of the Pentagon's management structure.

Andringa said the panel received the statement below from Defense on why it removed Takai from yesterday's hearing:

In light of the secretary's initiative to reduce overhead and achieve efficiencies, the department is in the process of reviewing the entire organizational structure. While we are examining any number of options and avenues for the best way forward, we wanted to maintain some flexibility. Therefore, we determined that it was best not to go forward with this confirmation hearing until this internal review was completed.

John Grimes, the most recent ASD/NII who resigned in April 2009, told me that this definitely shows top Pentagon management may follow through with recommendations made last month by the Defense Business Board to eliminate the NII organization -- a move he views as a serious mistake.

Although Defense can eliminate NII, it cannot do away with the CIO job, which is mandated by the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act. But I wonder how long Takai wants to be on hold before Defense makes up its mind on NII.

The Senate Armed Services Committee was supposed to hold a hearing on Tuesday on the nomination of Teresa "Teri" Takai, the chief information officer from California, as the assistant secretary of Defense for networks and information integration - a.k.a. the Defense CIO. But the committee inexplicably delayed it.

In a cryptic note posted on its website, the panel said the notice for the hearing tomorrow "is amended to show the removal of Teresa M. Takai to be assistant secretary of Defense for networks and information integration from the panel of nominees," who are slated to testify.

I asked the committee for an explanation, but have not heard back. A Pentagon spokeswoman told me that Takai's nomination has not been pulled.

Whatever the reason, the postponed confirmation hearing definitely means that ASD/NII will continue to remain leaderless at a time its very existence is threatened. The Defense Business Board called for its elimination in a report released last month.

The good news is the committee will hear from Dr. Jonathan Woodson, an Army Reserve one star nominated in April to become the Defense top doc, replacing Dr. S. Ward Casscells, who resigned as assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs in April 2009.

Despite reports by National Public Radio, Army Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, who quietly left her position as director of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury on Monday, did, indeed, make the Thursday opening of a $56 million center focused on treatment of post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

But the same could not be said for any member of the House or Senate, none of whom could brave the close to 100 degree heat to make the eight-mile trip from the Capitol to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., where the opening of the National Intrepid Center of Excellence was held.

My spies at the Intrepid ceremony carefully eyeballed the audience and reported they could not see any senator or representative sitting with the VIPs in a nicely shaded and fan-cooled tent.

The White House evidently had other priorities yesterday too, the Washington Post reported.

Arnold Fisher, chairman of the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which ponied up the money for the facility, criticized the lack of White House representation at the ceremony. "These are the very people who decide your fate. . . . We are all here, but where are they?"

Sutton, who, among other things, exchanged hugs with Dr. S. Ward Casscells, former assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, understands a simple fact lost on all the pols: Showing up means far more to the troops than hollow words of support.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., floated what he considers a nifty idea to finance a nationwide public safety broadband network at a hearing on Thursday of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet: auction off a mess of spectrum to raise the billions of dollars need to finance the building and operating of the broadband network.

But part of the spectrum Waxman wants to sell -- the 1675-1710 Megahertz band -- supports operation of systems equal in importance to cop and fire comms, the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help forecast the weather and track oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico.

Last time I checked it was real hard to retune the frequency of a satellite 22,000 miles in space.

In December 2009, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughhead put out a directive establishing nifty new camouflage uniforms for Navy SEAL and other Naval special warfare folks -- but not mere mortals engaged in the ground combat theaters of operations.

The Senate, in it's report on the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill, said it "believes that the most advanced technologies and materials should be made available to all military personnel serving in the theater of operations."

And those SEAL camos are really advanced , according to the Roughead directive, consisting of:

Two unique four-shaded digital camouflage profiles (desert and woodland) developed by Naval Special Warfare (NSW) under the authority and guidance of U.S. Special Operations Command for NSW and Maritime Special Operations Forces. The tactical advantage provided by NWU Type II (Desert) and Type III (woodland) digital patterns will increase probability of mission success and survivability in combat and irregular warfare operations due to the reduced visual signature in these operational environments.

I think every sailor -- no matter his or her specialty -- should be able to reduce their digital signatures just like the SEALS.

The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to make it easier to transfer medical information from the Defense Department to the Veterans Affairs Department without the need for prior authorization from a service member.

The committee said in its version of the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill that it plans to accomplish this by aligning Defense regulations with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act to permit the interdepartmental release of such information without going through a lot of hoops to get the OK from everyone who leaves the service.

I can (sort of) understand the need for the change to ensure a continuum of care. But how hard would it be to have someone check a box when being discharged authorizing that release?

My health care information belongs to me - and only I should have the right to authorize its release.

The Veterans Affairs Department briefs Congress monthly on data breaches, and yesterday Roger Baker, chief information officer at VA, held the first of what he said will be similar monthly data breach briefings for the press.

Baker emphasized in the press call on Thursday the "information" tag in his title, and said that he has responsibility for the protection of all forms of veteran information, digital and paper.

He said despite the theft of an unencrypted laptop from a contractor last month, the VA experiences more paper than digital information breaches.

Baker categorized these as "onsies and twosies" such as when VA mail order pharmacies misdirect prescriptions. He said he would like to see no such errors, but with 7.5 million prescriptions mailed a month, some will end up in the wrong place.

But the VA's "mis-mails" only four or five of those prescriptions a month, a statically small error rate, he added.

Baker also said he decided to hold the monthly press call on data breaches as part of an overall transparency effort and so the media can deal with facts rather than rumor or supposition.

I also know Baker is smart enough to have figured out that congressional staffers talk to reporters every now and then.

Congress -- an outfit which consists of 535 folks in search of a sound bite and 24,000 staffers who support that goal -- wants access to the Defense Department's classified network, or also known as the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet).

Giving thousands access to the network could result in leaks that make the Gulf oil spill look like a drip. But it could happen due to language buried on page 372 of the 637-page report on the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill approved by the House Armed Services Committee.

The language would require the Defense Secretary to provide SIPERNet access to each congressional committee through a secure link on CAPNet, the fiber-optic network that serves the House and Senate.

The link, the bill says, would support "appropriate" classified communications between the Hill and the Pentagon. But I'm more than a bit concerned it will lead to decidedly inappropriate leaks of classified and sensitive information.

I can understand a need (maybe) for SIPRNet access by the Defense or Intelligence committees, but why (oh why) would the Standards of Official Conduct or Small Business committees need a connection to Defense's secret network, used to run wars, among other things.