This was sent to me today from a reader who thought it may be of interest to those who read my blogs. From Citizens Against Government Waste: 5-2-08 (Found on: http://thefourwindsbar.blogspot.com/2008/05/tell-congress-don’t-blow-tanker-deal-for.html )

Dear Newsmax Reader,

I urgently need you to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators today to set aside political and parochial interests and instead support the interests of taxpayers and our troops! Let me explain. The U.S. Air Force recently announced that it would award the contract for its next generation of aerial refueling tankers to Northrop Grumman Corp. The competitive vetting process used by the Air Force is a vast improvement over the originally proposed tanker lease deal with Boeing Corporation, which was crafted by members of Congress behind closed doors without any competitive review or debate in order to subsidize Boeing's 767 production line as the company's profits sagged in the wake of 9/11. In truth, the tanker lease deal was nothing more than a corporate welfare giveaway to one well-heeled, politically influential company at the expense of American taxpayers. Then-Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) called it the worst pork-barrel handout he had seen in his 22 years on Capitol Hill! The proposed deal also proved to be a prime example of cronyism and corruption. Subsequent federal investigations led to jail terms for Boeing's Chief Financial Officer and the Air Force procurement official who negotiated the deal, the resignation of other top Boeing executives, and a fine of more than $600 million for the company. By contrast, the latest tanker decision was based on an open and transparent bidding process. The Air Force ranked each bid on five criteria and Northrop Grumman won over Boeing on four out of the five and tied in one category. According to published reports, both sides praised the fairness of the competition before the award was announced and agreed that this was the most rigorous acquisition process in the Department of Defense's history. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is now reviewing the contract award, with a ruling on its propriety expected by June 19. Yet, Boeing is again marshalling its congressional allies to try to secure through political favoritism what it couldn't win in a free and fair competition! Help us stop them! Boeing's lobbyists and congressional friends are wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming that, in the name of "patriotism," Congress should overturn the Air Force decision because Northrop's prime subcontractor, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., is a foreign company. The fact is that in today's global economy companies like Boeing sell to European and other foreign governments all the time, their companies sell to us, and most U.S. defense systems, including those built by Boeing, contain foreign-made parts. What's more, despite Boeing's propaganda to the contrary, the Northrop tanker will be assembled by American workers and outfitted with sensitive technology right here at home in Mobile, Alabama. As the Wall Street Journal stated, "What's really going on is a familiar scrum for federal cash, with politicians...using nationalism as cover for their pork-barreling." Among those Boeing allies screaming the loudest about the Air Force decision on Capitol Hill are House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the most notorious backroom dealmakers in Congress whom the public voted the "2007 Porker of the Year" in an online poll, and Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), whose "bona fides" on defense and national security include earmarking $1.7 million in Defense Budget funds to "improve the shelf life of vegetables." While the $35 billion cost to taxpayers of the tanker contract is significant, more is at stake in this battle than dollars and cents. As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics John Young said earlier this month, allowing Congress to preempt the GAO ruling or override the Air Force's decision "would open up slippery slopes and dangerous precedents," where members of Congress will simply select their favored pet contractors, regardless of the cost to taxpayers or the impact on our Armed Forces. Please tell your Representative and Senators today to oppose any congressional intervention that would preempt the GAO review of the tanker contract award or overturn it based on political or parochial motives! Sincerely, Thomas A. SchatzPresident P.S. American servicemen and women are currently flying in tankers that date back to the early years of the Cold War. All the political maneuvering now underway in Congress just delays the Air Force in reequipping our forces with the newest and best technology. I urge you to tell your Representative and Senators to put the interests of taxpayers and American troops ahead of the "special interests" of one politically influential company. *** Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog group with over one million members and supporters nationwide. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. For more information about CAGW, visit our website at www.cagw.org. Help CAGW wage this battle to preserve the integrity of the defense procurement process by making a tax-deductible contribution today. Help us win this battle for taxpayers and our troops by getting as many Americans as possible to tell Congress: Stop meddling in the defense procurement process! Forward this message to your friends and neighbors.

www.jpfo.org www.frontpagemag.com www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ www.NoIndoctrination.org www.vDare.com www.newsmax.com www.WorldNetDaily.com www.fumento.com www.MichaelSavage.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Uproar over tanker contract continues as lawmakers clash
By David Hess, CongressDaily
Threatening to derail the Air Force's selection of a foreign-designed air tanker to refuel military warplanes, a group of lawmakers led a Capitol Hill rally of American aerospace workers Thursday and pledged to shoot down the deal.
As the senators and representatives lined up at a news conference with Boeing Co. union leaders and engineers across the street from the Capitol, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., took the Senate floor to stoutly defend the Air Force's choice of a tanker that would be built by a consortium of Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS, a European consortium whose Airbus airframe would serve as the tanker's skeleton.
While it remains unclear exactly how the huge contract for the 179 tankers could be repudiated, Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., whose district embraces thousands of Boeing workers, said the upcoming Defense appropriations process could provide the opportunity.
Full story: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39808&dcn=e_gvet

Uproar over tanker contract continues as lawmakers clash
By David Hess CongressDaily April 18, 2008

Threatening to derail the Air Force's selection of a foreign-designed air tanker to refuel military warplanes, a group of lawmakers led a Capitol Hill rally of American aerospace workers Thursday and pledged to shoot down the deal.
As the senators and representatives lined up at a news conference with Boeing Co. union leaders and engineers across the street from the Capitol, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., took the Senate floor to stoutly defend the Air Force's choice of a tanker that would be built by a consortium of Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS, a European consortium whose Airbus airframe would serve as the tanker's skeleton.
While it remains unclear exactly how the huge contract for the 179 tankers could be repudiated, Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., whose district embraces thousands of Boeing workers, said the upcoming Defense appropriations process could provide the opportunity.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who led the protest, said the bipartisan opposition to the deal is weighing all of the options to short-circuit the Air Force's decision. One risky approach might be an attempt to abrogate any contracts between the Pentagon and Northrop Grumman-EADS -- an option that could send the dispute into U.S. courts and drag out the actual building of the plane by years.
Boeing is now seeking to overturn to contract through the formal protest it filed with GAO, which must issue a ruling by June 19.
At the rally, Murray and Dicks were joined by several other lawmakers whose states and districts could be harmed by Boeing's loss of the work. Others on hand to rail against the Air Force decision were Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Reps. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.; Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and Dave Reichert, R-Wash.
The protestors accused the Air Force of stacking the deck against Boeing and, as Dicks complained, "doing tricky things" to justify the award to Northrop-EADS. "They bent over backward to make sure Boeing didn't get it," he fumed.
Opponents of the contract argued that U.S. security is undermined when contracts for American weapons systems and technology are granted to foreign companies, and contended that defense dollars should not be spent abroad. "We need to keep our taxpayers' dollars here at home to help our country's economy," Murray said.
The construction of the planes could cost up to $40 billion over a decade. Boeing workers have said the loss of the contract could end thousands of jobs in Washington, Kansas and other states.
As the protest of the contract continued, Wicker was on the Senate floor extolling its virtues. Northrop Grumman's proposal, he maintained, represented "a better product and better value for the taxpayer." He noted that assembly of the plane, from major parts manufactured in Europe, would take place in Alabama and parts for it would be made in 49 U.S. states, including along the Gulf Coast in his home state.
He took issue with Boeing's estimate of job losses, insisting that the Northrop Grumman tanker deal "will create 48,000 direct and indirect jobs across our country," and complained that opponents have spread misinformation about the economic impact of the project.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Nick Schwellenbach, 202-347-1122

Pentagon IG: Joint Strike Fighter Classified Information "May Have Been Compromised"
Due to Lax Contractor Oversight by Pentagon Agency

Washington, D.C. - "The advanced aviation and weapons technology for the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] program may have been compromised by unauthorized access at facilities and in computers at BAE Systems, and incomplete contractor oversight may have increased the risk of unintended or deliberate release of information to foreign competitors," states a previously unreleased March 2008 Pentagon watchdog report obtained by the Project On Government Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act (page 12). DOD IG Report: http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/dod-ig-report-20080306.pdf
The Defense Department Inspector General (DoD IG) report examines the Defense Security Service's (DSS) lack of oversight of foreign-owned BAE Systems’ work on the Joint Strike Fighter, the world's most expensive fighter program that utilizes highly classified U.S. technology. The DoD IG found that DSS was deferential to BAE by refusing the U.S. government access to information as required by a security agreement. This access is necessary to determine the security of U.S. government classified information. In addition, DSS often did not analyze BAE reports that had been made available to them.
“How can the Pentagon security agency allow BAE, its contractor, to deny access to these security records? This is government information and BAE is stiff-arming the Pentagon. Systemic problems at DSS mean we cannot be sure if contractors are protecting classified information as well as they should,” stated Nick Schwellenbach, POGO, National Security Investigator.
According to the report's summary (pages 14-15):
DSS did not properly monitor BAE Systems' submission of its security reports and appropriately evaluate BAE Systems security. DSS was unable to verify whether BAE Systems submitted the required security audit reports for 2001 through 2003.

BAE Systems stated that all information contained in the internal audits was privileged and not available to the Government, despite the requirement in the SSA [Special Security Agreement] that the contractor submits those reports to DoD for review and appropriate action. DSS did not challenge BAE Systems' claim that the internal audits are privileged and not subject to Government review. Rather than treating contractors' audit reports as useful tools to complement the industrial security assessments, DSS classifies all contractor reports as "routine correspondence" and destroys them after two years. DSS also authorizes the contractor to destroy any of its reports older than two years.

DSS has the authority and responsibility to enforce compliance with the National Industrial Security Program. DSS should use its oversight authority to make the contractor comply with security requirements. DSS cannot fulfill its responsibilities to "review and take appropriate action" over contractors if it does not receive those reports or analyze the reports it does receive. DSS needs to obtain and review copies of all independent annual audit reports, internal audit reports, and Government Security Committee annual reports from the contractor and use that information to monitor the contractor's compliance with the SSA.
DSS's systemic problems have been cited in two reports in 2004 and 2005 by the Government Accountability Office on the systemic inability of DSS to oversee contractors. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on April 16, 2008, on DSS and the National Industrial Security Program, DSS Director Kathleen Watson admitted that when she began as director two years ago, DSS was "broken across the board."
###
For additional information:
2004 GAO Report, "Industrial Security: DOD Cannot Provide Adequate Assurances That Its Oversight Ensures the Protection of Classified Information," link: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/details.php?rptno=GAO-04-332

2005 GAO Report, "Industrial Security: DOD Cannot Ensure Its Oversight of Contractors under Foreign Influence Is Sufficient," link: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/details.php?rptno=GAO-05-681

April 16, 2008, House Armed Services Committee Hearing, "National Industrial Security Program: Addressing the Implications of Globalization and Foreign Ownership for the Defense Industrial Base," webcast link: http://armedservices.edgeboss.net/wmedia/armedservices/fc041608.wvx

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an independent nonprofit which investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.

By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Someone furtively shoots secret surveillance photos as a well-connected political lobbyist arrives for a meeting.
Inside, a mole takes notes and snaps quickly with a cellphone camera.
A third person drops documents and photos at a newspaper office.
No, it's not a John le Carré spy novel. It's election time at the Machinists union, representing 25,000 Boeing workers in the Puget Sound area and 2,500 more in Portland and Wichita, Kan.
This month's contentious internal elections precede crucial contract negotiations that open May 9.
The president of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 751, Tom Wroblewski, is the successor to the leadership that in 2005 staged a monthlong Boeing strike.
Ronnie Behnke, a 30-year veteran machine-parts inspector in Auburn, leads an opposition slate called the Unity Coalition that seeks a less acrimonious relationship with Boeing.
Primary-like local lodge elections begin today and continues through May 14. Behnke hopes to challenge Wroblewski in the final June districtwide election.
Claims of election-law violations are routine in union contests. This time, supporters of the incumbent union leadership resorted to cloak-and-dagger tactics in an attempt to prove a violation by the other side.
The evening of April 22, their surreptitious efforts climaxed at a union council meeting where the mole came out from undercover and denounced the Unity slate for receiving guidance from Linda Lanham, a longtime Machinists union lobbyist who jumped ship in January 2006 to lead the state's aerospace-industry organization, the Aerospace Futures Alliance (AFA).
Boeing provides about half of the AFA's funding.
Son on ticket
Lanham's son, Rick Humiston, is a union steward who is running on the Unity ticket. Lanham admits to attending Unity Coalition strategy meetings but insists, "I'm just supporting my son."
Union leaders don't buy that and bitterly object to Lanham's involvement in an internal union election.
"She's a corporate lobbyist," Wroblewski said. "It's totally inappropriate."
Lanham spent 26 years as the IAM's political director, becoming the powerful union's voice in Olympia and gaining the ear of the state's political elite.
But as AFA director, Lanham successfully lobbied in Olympia this year to kill legislation driven by the Machinists that would have limited anti-organizing activities by employers.
The union leadership sees her now as an opponent.
"We're appalled we have to go down to Olympia to fight against Linda Lanham," said Larry Brown, her successor as IAM political director.
"I cannot imagine that a majority of our members would want a group of candidates directed by ... an industry lobbyist, to be running their union."
In an interview, Lanham said she would like the Machinists union to join AFA to help promote jobs here, and she dismissed the idea she is working on Boeing's behalf.
Lanham said she attended meetings of the Unity candidates but does not direct their strategy.
"If they ask me, I tell them what I think," she said.
Behnke said she leads the opposition group, not Lanham.
"If I ask her, she'll help me," Behnke said. "I bounce ideas off her. She's a good political strategist."
"Neanderthal stance"
One of those ideas, Behnke said, is changing what she described as the incumbent leadership's confrontational, "Neanderthal" stance toward Boeing.
"Threatening the company, in my opinion, is not a very smart business move," Behnke said.
At last week's meeting of the union's district council at its South Park headquarters, Matt Moeller, a jet-engine inspector and union steward who was on the Unity Coalition ticket, asked to speak to the audience of about 150 Machinists.
Moeller rose and nervously read a statement revealing himself as a spy.
He said he had joined Behnke's ticket only to investigate the extent of Lanham's rumored involvement in the union election.
Moeller said that at three Unity candidate meetings he attended in March and April, Lanham took a leading role in discussions of the group's election strategy, and urged them to be less confrontational with Boeing.
Snapping photos
As evidence, he snapped a cellphone photo of Behnke and Lanham sitting alone together at the front of the room, addressing the gathering.
Moeller's revelation was greeted with raucous cheers and a standing ovation from supporters of the current leadership.
His erstwhile colleagues on the Unity slate were totally blind-sided, Behnke said.
In an interview the next day, Moeller said it had been difficult to stay undercover. Some Machinist friends of his from high school cold-shouldered him as a turncoat. And he didn't feel good about the spying.
"It's shady, I know," he said. "I didn't like doing that."
Nevertheless, he said, he carried out the undercover effort because he thought Lanham was attempting to influence the election in a year of sensitive contract negotiations.
In an interview, Lanham called that idea "ridiculous."
"The only reason I'm doing this is because my son is running," Lanham said. "The rest is just garbage."
Behnke called Moeller's subterfuge "sad."
"It's a diversionary tactic by [the incumbent leadership] to try to sway this election."
Moeller was not alone in spying on the Unity group.
Ed Lutgen, a union official who heads the steward program, took some 300 surreptitious photos of Lanham and others arriving at Unity Coalition meetings.
Another IAM staffer, union organizer Jesse Cote, who is a friend of Lutgen, also participated in the surveillance.
The morning before Moeller's announcement at the council meeting, Cote delivered to a reporter some of Lutgen's photos as well as an excerpt from federal labor law that bars officials of any "employer or association of employers" from providing "money or any other thing of value" to union members.
"I don't want a corporate entity involved with our union politics," Cote said. "They have no place there."
When informed of the surveillance by Cote and Lutgen, Behnke was incensed.
"Who do they think they are, the CIA?" she said. "That's pathetic."
The federal agency charged with ensuring that union elections comply with labor law is the Office of Labor Management Standards.
Dennis Eckert, acting regional director of the agency, confirmed that employers and their agents are barred from supporting candidates in a union election, either with money, resources or even work on company time.
He declined to comment on Lanham's involvement with the Machinists slate.
Eckert's predecessor, John Heaney, did offer an assessment. Heaney retired from the agency two months ago and now works with a company called BallotPoint that helps unions ensure compliance with labor laws.
"If she is advising them as an individual citizen, she certainly can do that," Heaney said.
"If she's advising them in her capacity as a representative of an employer, that certainly raises some questions."
Heaney said it would be a violation of the law if Lanham were using her AFA position to mold "a union that would be more palatable to Boeing."
The key, he said, would be whether she used any AFA resources. Lanham insisted she's been careful not to do so.
Union officials Cote and Lutgen said they, too, were careful to do what they did on their own time and not use union resources, which would also be illegal under federal labor law.
Both of them, as well as Moeller, insist they acted without direction from union leaders.
Boeing in a statement said the company is "neutral" in the union's election.
"We'll respect the choice of our employees and work with whomever they choose to represent them," spokesman Tim Healy said.
Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@seattletimes.com

Whistleblower Questions Construction Safety
at Las Vegas International McCarran Airport

An inspector turned whistleblower says deadlines and
dollars is resulting in unsafe concrete being used on runway

By Darcy Spears

May 1, 2008

It is not your everyday construction project.

"Not a curb, not a sidewalk, not a slab on grade, this is a runway tarmac. This is heavy equipment on it and people," explained John Zedler.

They are not building a runway, but it has to be as safe and as strong for planes to taxi and park.

"This is very serious. This is an airport. You got people all over the world coming to Las Vegas," said John.

John Zedler knows concrete.

"From my notes, maybe 10% of it was right and 90% of it was wrong," explained John.

He is a licensed, certified concrete inspector who worked for Western Technologies on two airport construction sites.

Concrete has to meet specifications including numeric field tests to ensure it is strong enough, hard enough and structurally sound.

"The reason why we have those specifications is because you could get structural fractures, movement and a lot of other things," said John.

Each cement truck contains about 10 yards of concrete and according to John's field journal, load after load was failing the tests.

Even so, he says contractors knowingly poured about 8 football fields worth of unsafe concrete at McCarran International Airport.

"I would call out the actual number. The gentleman writing down the field notes on the paperwork would actually change it to make it pass," said John.

If they have to pull concrete out and do it again, it costs a ton of time and time, as they say, is money.

Contact 13 obtained John's field notes and the reports Western Technologies gave to the Department of Aviation.

Time after time, the paperwork does not match up.

In some cases, the failing number is scratched out and a passing one is written over it.

"It is not right. I told my supervisor. I told my company. I have even spoke with the other contractors and sub-contractors out there," said John.

But he says they just blew it off and started taking work away from him.

Because of that, he secretly recorded a meeting with Western Tech officials and Contact 13 got a copy of that tape.

"It is serious on our part. We take quality very seriously and airport jobs are very important to us," said Paul Davis.

Davis asked John for his field journal to match against the test results in Western Tech's file, the one's John says have been doctored.

"I hope you can figure out a way to work with us," said Paul.

"Oh yeah, I was just saying that when I get a number, I write it down and I do not change it. I do not fudge numbers," said John.

They seem very concerned, but what is it really about?

"I appreciate you coming in and if I sound stern it is just because," said Paul.

John responded, "Oh, I understand I mean you guys have been out here for how long, what, 12 years?"

Paul said, "Well, yeah."

John then added, "And this is your client and you guys are trying to get the next bid? Yeah, I am sorry. I do not fudge numbers and it upsets me."

Paul said, "We do not tolerate it at all."

"When I try to tell somebody what is going on I get accused of being cocky," said John.

The day after John turned over his field notes, he was fired.

They gave him a final check for one penny.

"After I was fired, they also made a false police report to the local police department," said John.

The report accused John of making threats on the job site.

Police quickly closed the case for insufficient evidence.

John was the only one who would put his money where his mouth is and go on camera for the story.

"It makes me wonder what has been going on over the past years, you know? It just makes me nervous," said John.

After the fifth phone call to Western Technologies the company sent a written statement saying John Zedler's allegations are false.

But they have a company that manages all airport construction.

The company, Bechtel, admits some concrete was poured after failing safety tests.

But they say that does not matter because follow-up tests show the concrete is structurally sound.

The Department of Aviation, who everybody works for, says the same.

They are all relying on data supplied by Western Technologies, the very same company accused of fudging the numbers in the first place.

John says he has learned one thing from all this, honesty can be a liability in the fast-paced world of construction.

"I am pretty sure I am gonna be blackballed or blacklisted because they do not want somebody out there that is gonna be considered a liability because they are out there to make a buck," said John.

Action News asked a McCarran spokesperson if the Department of Aviation would be willing to bring in an independent expert to ensure their test results are accurate.

They would not, but the Federal Aviation Administration might.

The FAA has opened a case under the Whistleblower Protection Program and will be investigating the safety issues John Zedler raised.

Stay tuned to Action News as we monitor developing news around the Valley.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8259753

'Incomplete' Oversight May Have Allowed Leaks, Report Says
By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008; D01
The technology going into the U.S. military's newest fighter plane may have been compromised by unauthorized access to facilities and computers that belong to BAE Systems, one the aircraft's builders, according to a report from the Pentagon's inspector general made public yesterday.
The report did not identify specific leaks, but it said "incomplete" Pentagon oversight may have increased "the risk of unintended or deliberate release of information to foreign competitors."
BAE, based in Farnborough, England, is one of two main subcontractors working on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and is building some of the plane's electronic and weapons systems and parts of its body. Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin is the lead contractor on the roughly $300 billion program, which is being developed by the United States and eight foreign partners, including Britain. Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles is the project's other main subcontractor.
In working on major aircraft, contractors have to share sensitive and classified information, and the government has safeguards in place for the use of it.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the inspector general's report, which was done to ensure that controls over classified technology and information on the F-35 were adequate and were being followed by the Defense Department. The report, which was completed in March, looked at selected data that related to the F-35 and found that the "government and its contractors appropriately controlled the export of classified [Joint Strike Fighter] technology to foreign companies."
But the report criticized the Defense Department, saying it "did not always employ sufficient controls to evaluate potential unauthorized access to classified U.S. technology" on the F-35 program. The department's Defense Security Service, which is supposed to help oversee the program, didn't monitor BAE or evaluate its security systems, according to the report.
The DSS also couldn't verify whether BAE had submitted required security audit reports for 2001 to 2003, the report said. As a result, the Defense Department's "advanced aviation and weapons technology in the [Joint Strike Fighter] program may have been compromised by unauthorized access at facilities and in computers at BAE Systems," according to the 55-page report, which had 16 pages blacked out.
In addition, the report said, BAE maintained that information in its internal audits was "privileged and not available" to the government, although there was a "special security agreement" that the contractor was to submit such reports to the Defense Department for review. The DSS did not question BAE's assertion that the reports were off-limits to the government.
"This is government information, and BAE is stiff-arming the Pentagon," said Nick Schwellenbach, national security investigator for POGO. "DSS failed in its oversight role to ensure that security improved. It is unknown if classified information was compromised, but it may have been, and if it was, weak Pentagon oversight was a contributing factor."
Greg Caires, a spokesman for BAE, said the report "explicitly found no instances of unauthorized access to classified or export control information on the [Joint Strike Fighter] program." He continued: "We strongly disagree with the IG's suggestion that nonetheless, such information may have been compromised in some unidentified way by unauthorized access at BAE Systems."
Cheryl Amerine, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman, said, "The F-35 program, along with the Joint Strike Fighter program office, has put stringent measures in place with our partner companies and global supply chain to keep program information safe."
The F-35 program is one of the most highly audited programs on record," Amerine said, "and we know of no sensitive information that has been compromised as a result of findings in the referenced report."