On Tuesday, June 15, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) held a hearing on comprehensive cyber security legislation, S. 3480, The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which was introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Thomas Carper.  The bill seeks to modernize the government’s ability to safeguard the nation’s cyber networks from attack and establish a public/private partnership to set national cyber security priorities and improve national cyber security defenses.  The HSGAC will mark-up the legislation on Thursday, June 24.   Specifically, key provisions of the bill include: 

White House Office for Cyberspace Policy:  The Act establishes an office in the Executive Office of the President, led by a Senate-confirmed directorto advise the President on all cyber security matters.  The director will lead and harmonize federal efforts to secure cyberspace and will develop a national strategy that incorporates all elements of cyberspace policy, including military, law enforcement, and intelligence.  The Director will also oversee all related federal cyberspace activities to ensureefficiency and coordination. 

National Center for Cyber Security and Communications:  The Act also establishes the National Center for Cyber Security and Communications (NCCC) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to elevate and strengthen the Department’s cyber security capabilities and authorities.  The NCCC will too be led by a Senate-confirmed Director, who reports to the DHS Secretary.  The Director will regularly advise the President regarding the exercise of authorities relating to the security of federal networks.  The NCCC will include the United States Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT), and will lead federal efforts to protect public and private sector cyber and communications networks.  The NCCC will detect, prevent, analyze, and warn of cyber threats to these networks.

Protecting Critical Infrastructure:  The NCCC will work with the private sector to establish risk-based security requirements that strengthen cyber security for the nation’s most critical infrastructure, such as components of the electric grid and telecommunications networks.  These systems, if disrupted, would result in a national or regional catastrophe.

Promoting Cyber Security:  The NCCC will also produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with the private sector, related federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners.  The NCCC will collaborate with the private sector to develop best practices for cyber security.  By developing and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance as resources permit, the NCCC will help improve cyber security across the nation. 

Protecting Against Catastrophic  Attack:  S. 3480 will provide a  framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures, limited in both scope and duration, to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is exploited or is about to be exploited.

Protection of Federal Networks:  The Act will codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish complete situational awareness for federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of federal government systems and networks.  The Act also reforms the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) to transition from paper-based to real-time response to threats against government systems.

Procurement Reform:  The Act will require development of a comprehensive supply chain risk management strategy to address risks and threats to the information technology products and services the federal government relies upon.

Workforce Reform:  The Office of Personal Management will reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained, to ensure that the federal government has the talent necessary to lead the national cyber security effort and protect its own networks.  The Act also provides DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the quick establishment of the NCCC.

Comment (0)

On the same day the House passed its version of the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, the Senate made sure it wasn’t too far behind.  On May 28, the Senate Armed Services Committee marked-up the Senate version of the defense bill, which is expected to reach the Senate floor soon after Congress returns to session.  The bill is nearly identical in cost coming in at $725.9 billion, including $549 billion for the Defense Department and $159 billion for overseas contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Major highlights from the bill include:

 Provides full funding ($3.4 billion) for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) fund that funds the development, testing, production, and sustainment of the MRAP vehicles and new MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (known as the M-ATV).

• Adds $325 million to purchase an additional six F/A-18E/F aircraft to help address a looming shortfall in strike fighter aircraft.
• Provides $184.5 million for the FY 2011 Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded procurement priorities including: Line of Communication Bridge, Light Weight Counter-Mortar Radar, Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver, Tactical Local Area Network, and Forward Entry Device for the artillery tactical data system.
• Provides additional funding for operationally responsive space to meet urgent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) needs of combatant commanders.
• Includes multiple legislative provisions relating to cybersecurity, including requirements to: (1) resolve longstanding policy issues relating to the conduct of military operations in cyberspace; (2) develop a tailored cyber acquisition process; (3) conduct major commercial technology demonstrations; and (4) report annually on losses and damages from cyber attacks and cyberwar “net assessments.”
• Adds funding for various Navy programs to expand the capability of our forces to conduct new missions and survive in higher threat situations, including such programs as Phalanx self defense system, the NULKA decoy system, and the program to expand the capability for our submarines to carry new payloads.

 For more information, click here  to download the bill summary or visit the defense budget library.

Comment (0)

Before heading home for the Memorial Day holiday and subsequent recess, the House passed H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2011, by a rather narrow margin of 229-186.  The bill provides $726 billion in budget authority for our warfighters, including funding for the following items of interest to the EW community:

• $3.3 billion for 30 F-18 strike fighters and 12 EA-18 Growlers;
• $4.1 billion for 20 Navy/Marine Corps F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
• $56.5 million in R&D and $185.5 million for IED jammers
• $3.5 billion for JIEDDO;
• Directs a report outlining forecast requirements for armed forces sustainment of CREW legacy systems and future CREW system requirements.

During consideration on the House floor, there were 82 amendments offered; many of which were included in noncontroversial en bloc amendments.  One such amendment was offered by Rep. Watson and Rep. Langevin that establishes a new National Office for Cyberspace to manage and coordinate government-wide cybersecurity programs and responsibilities.  Additionally, Rep. Anna Eshoo narrowly succeeded in adding an amendment that requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to cooperate with GAO inquiries that are initiated by Congress.  The amendment passed 218-210. 

Rep.  Patrick Murphy (PA) offered an amendment to establish a process to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”  The amendment passed 234-194.  Finally, the House voted down an amendment to strike funding for the Joint Strike Fighter’s Alternate Engine Program.  The House Armed Services Committee added funding for the program despite strong opposition by the Secretary of Defense.

The AOC will release additional information regarding the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act as the congressional defense budget process continues.  Visit the AOC defense budget library for the most recent material and tables.

Comment (0)

Final Report Language in Spectrum Inventory Act

Below is the final report language that Rep. Joseph Pitts was able to secure in the Energy and Commerce Committee report to H.R. 3125, the Spectrum Inventory Act, which passed the House on Wednesday.  While report language is non-binding, it does provide a foundation for specifying congressional intent and providing oversight as the process develops.

In preparing the spectrum inventory and any recommendations about future spectrum reallocations, the NTIA and the Commission should take into account the critical importance of spectrum to military training and operations, during conflicts and that spectrum is vital to mission effectiveness. The NTIA and the Commission should also recognize that spectrum is fundamental to the range of military operations, and spectrum availability is essential to existing and emerging technologies in electronic warfare, network-centric operations, communications systems, satellite resources, and multi-spectral sensors.

It might not be realistic, but Every Crow should take a few minutes to call or write a letter to Rep. Pitts to thank him for his continuing support for our community.  For those who want to contact him, his address and phone is as follows:

Comment (2)

House Passes Spectrum Inventory

Congress is one step closer toward spectrum inventory and relocation after the House passed H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, yesterday afternoon (April 14).  The bill was considered under “Suspension of the Rules,” which means there were no amendments, a limited time for debate, and a requirement of a 2/3 vote for passage.  This procedure is reserved for noncontroversial bill or those with strong bi-partisan support. 

The bill passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 394-18.  This is no surprise.  What is good, though, is that the EW Working Group, led by Rep. Pitts, and the AOC were able to secure significant improvements to the bill to make it more palatable.  It’s still a bad bill, but certainly not as bad as it was.  Now, attention is turning to a related bill, H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act.  This measure is now the focus of the EW community’s concern.  It’s a bill that will likely ensure mistakes are made faster than they are today.  It moved alongside H.R. 3125 through committee consideration, but it has not yet been brought to the floor.  I would not be surprised to see the bill rolled into H.R. 3125 in conference committee, but there has not been any indication on the way ahead for this bill.

What’s next?  First, the Senate will likely consider its version the inventory bill, S. 649.  Then, there may be a Conference Committee to iron out the differences (the AOC supports the House version over the Senate version).  Of course, this is Congress, which means are many ways a bill can make its way to the President’s desk without adhering closely to “How a Bill Becomes a Law.”

Here is copy of remarks from Rep. Joseph Pitts during consideration of H.R. 3125 yesterday:

·       Mr./Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act.

·       As the founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Electronic Warfare Working Group, I believe that the electromagnetic spectrum is critically important to our current and future military operations.

·       I am pleased to see that the Committee has taken into consideration some concerns raised by the Administration and the electronic warfare community regarding this bill.

·       However, the electromagnetic spectrum is a dynamic and ever-changing environment, and we must ensure that the Armed Forces can manage the utilization of the spectrum and provide long-term strategic planning and program development.

·       While I understand the importance and the potential economic value of spectrum inventory, it is vital that this bill take into account the criticality of the electromagnetic spectrum to military training and operations and the importance of the US military controlling the spectrum in conflict.

·       I will support this bill today, but we must be very vigilant as the inventory is taken.  If mistakes are made, serious negative consequences will ensue.  Consequences that could harm the warfighter and his ability to use the spectrum in training and war.

·       Thank you, Mr./Madam Speaker.  I yield back.

Comment (0)

I just read a very thought provoking statement:  "...everything is
a headline, no one even reads magazine articles in their entirety."
This statement is disturbing to me on a number of different levels.
First, it's somewhat true for me.  I generally read a headline, I read
the first few paragraphs, skim much of the rest of an article and then
the last few paragraphs I read in detail.  I just don't have time to
read everything available that I would like to read.  If the article
is poorly written, has poor grammar or doesn't have any logical flow,
I generally return to the beginning of the article and re-read the
author's name - branding that author with either that style of writing
or a certain perspective.  I generally don't read an article with the
author's history or perspective forming a preconception, I feel it
would unduly bias my conclusions.  That is, IF I am drawn to read the
entire article.
Second, I know that a lot of thought goes into writing an article.  I
recently put fingers to keyboard and wrote a one-pager Op-Ed and
expanded on an outline that's been developing for the past few months.
 I fully intend to expand this further, into a full-length article,
complete with references, citations and all the other proper research.
 When I read the statement in my first paragraph I began to wonder:
"Is it worth my time?"  If most of us only read the headline and
perhaps skim the rest, what is the utility of writing a full-blown
research article?
Third, I think back to when I, a youngish intelligence officer, first
began reading and writing intelligence reports. My boss stated that in
many cases the headline of what we write was even more important than
the actual report, we only had one chance to grab someone's attention
and entice them to read what we had written in its entirety.  In
direct contrast, many of us here read sensationalistic headlines and
have dismissed the article as misleading or sensationalistic.  I have
to wonder how most headlines or subject titles are made?
Fourth, I must admit a certain amount of arrogance.  I read almost all
articles as fully as I have time but generally within the first page
or so I dismiss many as being uninformed, underinformed, misguided or
just a plain whack job.   I also dismiss many as overtly pushing an
agenda.  It is those articles that I mentally categorize as just 'not
worth fully reading', there are too many demands on too little time to
waste fully reading a highly biased or a bad article.
Fifth, I pride myself in being intelligent but when my brain hurts I
stop reading.  Okay, that's an exaggeration, but if I have to suspend
reality to read an article, my brain goes into overload and I
occasionally shut down.  I recently read an article that was so
analytic in its approach that I could not discern what they were
trying to say.  I loved the introduction, loved the point they were
trying to make and loved the conclusion, but the mathematical
gyrations by which they came to their conclusions made my eyes gloss
over.
Are we a 'headline only society'?

Comment (1)

During the last week of January 2010 I was at the Army War College for a Cyberwarfare Symposium where all the US Combatant Commanders, Service representatives, Joint Staff and  Cyber and/or IO leaders were present.  The publications we were required to read prior to our participation were voluminous, but when we were finished we all had a very good understanding of how a cyberwar will play out from a variety of perspectives.  I came out of this symposium a shaken man; to my core.  In many ways this was good and in many ways I was shaken in a bad way.   I was surrounded by very intelligent, insightful, learned and experienced professionals.  These would be the kind of people I would want on my team if I were to ever pick and choose.   The participants spoke with a surprising amount of candor, revealing capabilities and limitations I had not even considered, and I’ve been working in this field for 15 years and around the military for over 30.  When I finally sat down and considered all the ramifications from written notes, briefing slides and from conversations, it felt like all the tumblers in a lock were finally opening, opening up and revealing its contents to me.

There seem to be a few schools of thought about offensive cyberwarfare:

1.         Official US ‘units’ will perform cyberwarfare

2.         Cyber mercenary or even militia ‘units’ will perform cyberwarfare.

3.         Patriotic hackers who support US objectives will wage cyberwarfare on behalf of the US

My thoughts are very clear on this issue:  Future cyberwarfare will contain all three elements.

In the first case, the lines are fairly clear under United States Code, Title 10 and Title 32, active duty fighters and the national guard will wage a war of sorts via the internet.  During the symposium we had the usual talks about crossing international borders, using civilian networks, and unintended consequences.  In the past 15 years as an insider I have not met even one person in this field who would even remotely consider planning or executing an operation in cyberspace outside the law and this group was certainly no exception.   Their frustration with the speed of the legal system, their pain was obvious in other issues, but their professionalism enabled them to overcome this angst.  Title 18, law enforcement and Title 50, governing intelligence operations, are necessary ‘evils’ but cause the defenders of our networks heartache and worry and make our attackers sit on their hands for inordinate periods of time.  As a planner for one of the US Combatant Commanders stated, “it is easier for me to launch a tomahawk missile downrange and kill someone than it is for me to release one single electron into someone’s computer”.

Cyber mercenary or even militia units were briefly discussed, but they would be highly illegal, even if they were somehow part of a National Guard unit.   I submit, however, that if tensions were to increase, groups of already close-knit computer professionals would form themselves into units of sorts and seek to attack and defend.  I am also certain some would have some sort of a healthy relationship where they could operate outside the law but their actions would not be official in any capacity.  More than likely this is the type of organization we may be seeing inside China, Russia or even Iran, but without better attribution we may never know for sure.

Patriotic hackers operate completely outside the law but it is extremely unlikely anyone will ever be apprehended or prosecuted for performing these acts outside the law.  It is widely acknowledged that the vast majority of the hacking emerging from Russia during the 2008 Russia-Georgia conventional and cyberwars came from patriotic hackers.   Toolkits were made available to those supporting the Russians, so that anyone capable of turning on a computer could act as a proxy for the Russian side, complete with targeting instructions and cyber weapons.  Timelines were issued and the conventional attack was accompanied by an attack intended to create an information vacuum on many official computers, cutting off information to Georgian citizens.  Georgia reacted in many ways, some wrong, some right and showed a surprisingly amount of resiliency and innovation.   At one point they were disconnected from the internet, but then nobody got information.   At one point they blocked all sites with the .ru domain association, but many of their information sources were effectively stifled. The Georgians moved many of their services to servers in the United States, even then the attacks continued, obviously illegal.

Many of these attacks showed elements of pre-planning, code had been written months prior to the conflict.  Attribution was difficult and remains one of the most difficult aspects of cyberwar today; not only which computer was being used to launch botnet attacks against the target, but who controlled the zombie computers and, more importantly, determining which person or organization was responsible.  Many of the attacks used previously unknown vulnerabilities, known as zero day exploits, showing a surprisingly complex form of sophistication, leading many to believe there must have been at least tacit Russian government approval.

The really good news is that those responsible for conducting a cyber war on behalf of the United States are not waiting for congressional approval for a US Cyber Command; they are already planning and rehearsing through a wide variety of situations.

Comment (0)

On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked-up two bills that have significant ramifications for the EW community.  The first measure is H.R. 3125 establishes a radio spectrum inventory, which will inform the FCC and the NTIA on future rounds of spectrum reallocation.  The other bill, H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act, reforms the process of relocating federal government users from spectrum that has been reallocated from federal to non-federal and commercial use.

Taken together (and they very well may be) these bills could disproportionately affect our joint warfighters who rely on the spectrum to train and fight.  Defense Department leaders are taking notice of the importance of controlling the spectrum in combat, but there is a lot of unfulfilled potential when it comes to managing the spectrum and knowing what our forces need to train and fight in 21^st Century combat.  The problem is not that DOD cannot afford to lose spectrum through reallocation (although it would be nice if they could gain through this process), it is that they do not have a well-proven metric to gauge both spectrum utilization and necessity across all military services and systems.  Of course, such a metric is probably impossible.  So the problem is really that there is a good chance that there will be mistakes, and these mistakes will carry dire consequences for our warfighters.

This brings us to the mark-up of the bills on Wednesday.  To be clear, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is listening to the defense community and the Committee made many positive changes to HR 3125 through the legislative process.  The bill is still far from perfect, but it is definitely moving in the right direction.  That right direction is thanks in large part to the efforts of Rep. Joe Pitts, the Chairman of the Electronic Warfare Working Group.  His continued support for the EW community brought about many positive changes and alerted the Committee to the criticality of the spectrum as a global warfighting domain.  Furthermore, he will continue to engage the Committee to add report language reinforcing this position.  These are very important steps as our community struggles to raise awareness outside of itself, especially outside of DOD.

Here is an excerpt from his opening statement:

“ I am pleased to see that the Committee has taken into consideration concerns raised by the Administration and the electronic warfare community regarding public disclosure of national security information, the reallocation process, and to some extent, the amount of spectrum included in the inventory.

“However, the electromagnetic spectrum is a dynamic and ever-changing environment, and we must ensure that the Armed Forces can manage utilization of the spectrum and provide long-term strategic planning and program development.

“ While I understand the importance and the potential economic value of spectrum inventory and reallocation, it is vital that these bills take into account the criticality of the electromagnetic spectrum to military training and operations and the importance of the US military controlling the spectrum in conflict.

“In addition, it is also imperative that it is recognized that the electromagnetic spectrum is recognized as a global warfighting domain that is fundamental to the range of military operations.  Its availability is essential to existing and emerging technologies in electronic warfare, network-centric capabilities, communications systems, satellite resources, and multi-spectral sensors.

“To that end, I would like to thank Chairman Waxman and Chairman Boucher for working with me to include report language in HR 3125 that recognizes the critical importance of adequate spectrum allocations for our armed services. “

So what’s next?  The two bills will proceed to the House floor for consideration in the coming weeks (possibly as early as next week – the week of March 15).  And the bills will pass with broad bipartisan support and they will eventually be signed into law.  But that is only the beginning.  Our community will have to remain engaged throughout, not just the legislative process, but also the implementation process.  Spectrum inventory and relocation promises to be on the front burner for a long time.

Comment (0)

The mid-term elections are still nine months away, but interesting developments are taking center stage.  While it is not practice for AOC to endorse candidates – before or after primaries – there are some interesting races that could impact the support that electronic warfare (EW) receives in Congress.

First and foremost, on Monday (Feb. 15), Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) who was running for reelection announced that he will instead retire.  This creates what will likely be a competitive race for a seat that he held securely for the past two terms.  One potential Democratic candidate, according to the Wall Street Journal, is Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), who currently represents NSWC Crane.  Rep. Ellsworth has been a strong champion of EW and a member of the Congressional EW Working Group (EWWG) during his tenure in the House.  Of course, nothing is set in stone nor guaranteed, but Rep. Ellsworth would make a strong candidate that the EW community could support.

Furthermore, Rep. Mark Kirk (IL-10), a co-chairman of the EWWG, is retiring from the House to run for the U.S. Senate.  Rep. Kirk has also been a champion of EW since he came to Congress.  He was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the Naval Reserve 1989 and flew in an EA-6B Prowler squadron, so he understands the value of EW to our warfighters.  His leadership in the EWWG will be missed, but if elected to the Senate, he would hopefully bring some EW leadership to that chamber.

Another race worth watching is for the first district of New Hampshire, where incumbent Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, another member of the EWWG, is running for re-election.   Her Republican opponent will not be formally chosen until September, but among Republican candidates is Rich Ashooh, a former executive with BAE Systems.  A strong supporter of the EW community, he is well-known within EW circles and a friend of the AOC.

Across the nation, there 36 Senate races and, of course, every member of the House is up for re-election.  To help AOC members identify which House races to follow, clickhere for a list of the 37 members of the EWWG.   Of the current EWWG members, the following are retiring, which means their districts will have open races: Rep. Sestak (PA-07), Rep. John Tanner (TN-08), Rep. Mark Kirk (IL-10), and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (KS-04).  Reps. Sestak, Kirk, and Tiahrt are each running for the Senate.  The remaining EWWG members are incumbents vying for re-election.

AOC members should get involved in the political process and learn about the candidates running to represent them in Congress.   There are many candidates who can be effective leaders in Congress on behalf of the EW community, but they need to hear from you – the voters.  One way to get involved is to participate in the annual AOC Capitol Hill Awareness Day (CHAD), April 13-14.  This is the time each year that AOC members visit the nation’s capital to meet with their congressional representatives.  If your representative or senator is running for re-election and has been a supporter of EW over the years, I strongly encourage you to attend this important event and let them know that you appreciate their leadership and that your vote counts!  More information on the event will be coming soon, but feel free to contact Ken Miller, AOC Director of Government Affairs at kmiller@crows.org if you have any questions.

Comment (0)

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) expressed his strong support for funding in the President's defense budget for EA-18G Growlers.  The budget includes $1.1 billion for 12 Growlers in FY 2011 and $2.4 billion in FY 2012 for 24 Growlers.  Rep. Larsen is an outstanding champion for EW in the House.  The AOC applauds his efforts, especially as they pertain to strengthening Navy EW at NAS Whidbey.  His recent press release is below.  AOC members from his congressional district should contact him and thank him for his support.  You can contact him via his website at www.house.gov/larsen.

Larsen Applauds Funding in Defense Budget for Growlers at NAS Whidbey

Washington, D.C. —  U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (WA-02), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, applauded today’s announcement that the Department of Defense plans to purchase an additional 26 EA-18G Growlers over the next two years to be stationed at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey.  This announcement was included in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Budget.

“Buying more Growlers will strengthen our national security and support jobs at NAS Whidbey and in the surrounding community,” said Larsen, who serves as a co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Electronic Warfare Working Group. “Growler aircraft will provide superior Electronic Warfare capabilities that are urgently needed around the world.”

Until today, the Navy had planned to purchase and operate only 88 EA-18G Growlers to replace the aging EA-6B Prowlers.  Today’s announcement means that the Navy will purchase a total of 114 Growlers and will continue to deploy these Electronic Attack aircraft both on carriers and on land as “expeditionary” squadrons.  The budget proposes purchasing 12 Growlers in Fiscal Year 2011 and 24 Growlers in Fiscal Year 2012; previous Defense budgets had called for purchasing 10 Growlers in Fiscal Year 2011 and 0 Growlers in Fiscal Year 2012.

“I am proud of the men and women of Naval Air Station Whidbey who continue to be our military’s premiere Electronic Warfare experts.  I will continue to support the work they do to keep our country safe,” Larsen concluded.

Comment (0)