As I noted in an earlier post Sen. Durbin (D,IL) introduced S 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014. The bill was reported favorably by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
As expected, there was no specific mention of cybersecurity programs in the actual bill, spending levels still have not reached that kind of level. The Committee Report does, however, contain a number of cybersecurity related line items.
Under the Air Force RDT&E spending (pg 166) the following line items are listed:
169 Cyber Command Activities 68,099,000 38,099,000
170 AF Offensive Cyberspace Operations 14,047,000 14,047,000
171 AF Defensive Cyberspace Operations 5,853,000 5,853,000
191 Cyber Security Initiative 2,048,000 2,048,000
192 DOD Cyber Crime Center 288,000 288,000
The $30 million reduction for Cyber Command Activities was recommended by the Committee. They suggested that this could be achieved by improving “fund management” and “forward financing” (pg 169) without adversely impacting program performance.
Under DOD wide RDT&E spending (pgs 173 – 176) the following cyber items are listed:
045 Cyber Security Advanced Research 19,668,000 19,668,000
116 Cyber Security Initiative 946,000 946,000
220 Cyber Security Initiative 3,658,000 3,658,000
221 Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 9,752,000 9,752,000
There is no explanation given why there are three different line items for “Cyber Security Initiative”. It could be three different programs or a single program with three different funding sources. It would also help if these spending items were all grouped together, it would make cyber program tracking much easier.
No Program Comments
There are no program comments on cyber-programs in the Committee Report, a departure from the practice of recent years. What is surprising is the lack of reports about cyber issues; these have become a fixture of DOD appropriations bills. It is hard to tell if this is because the Committee is completely satisfied with current program performance (unlikely) or that cybersecurity matters have fallen below the observational threshold. A more likely possibility is that, because of the NSA monitoring controversy, the Committee is trying to avoid any discussion of cybersecurity, hoping that the bill won’t stir up any NSA discussion; a highly unlikely outcome.