Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - Air Force Strategic Initiatives

Statement

Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - Air Force Strategic Initiatives

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to follow up on Congressman Hayes's questions on Joint Cargo Aircraft. The present arrangement operates under a memorandum of agreement between the Army and the Air Force. Is that correct?

GEN. MOSELEY: Correct.

REP. COURTNEY: Okay. And obviously the Senate passed language which would change that arrangement by statute at a point where it's clear from your testimony; you have not really completed your discussions with General Casey. Is that correct?

GEN. MOSELEY: Sir, we've had several discussions but not come to closure.

I believe what I'm seeing in the proposed language is the notion that the Air Force does intra-theater lift. We spend our lifetime looking at intra-theater lift and delivery people and services, whether it's a C-130 or in this case a C-27 or a C-17. So I believe -- I've not been asked nor have I talked to them, but I believe that's the genesis of the language in the other committee.

REP. COURTNEY: And that's fine and you may be absolutely right that that belongs in the Air Force. The problem I have is that Congress is jumping the gun by inserting language without -- in knowledge anyway -- a public hearing even on this issue. And I think you know that the ripple effect in terms of the disclosure of the language from the Senate has caused great consternation out there, because this program is proceeded under the memorandum of agreement that there's been staffing on the Army side that has not been matched by the Air Force. And there are people who are very concerned about whether or not it's going to push back the planning and the implementation of the JCA program.

Again, this is not about the Air Force, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's about the Congress jumping the gun with a process -- I'm a freshman. I'm brand new. You know, I was in the state legislature, though, for eight years. And it always seemed like, unless there was an emergency, before you act you actually have a hearing and you discuss it and you have a real exchange and dialogue on any issue before you proceed.

GEN. MOSELEY: Sir, can I take a bit of issue with you on the notion that the Air Force has not been involved in this? We've been involved in this at the very beginning in a joint program. And we understand how to field airplanes and buy airplanes and operate airplanes. So the notion that there would be a delay or the notion that it would cost more or the notion that there would be a disruption -- I don't buy that.

But General Casey and I have not had a chance to sit down and have this discussion that you're talking about.

REP. COURTNEY: And to me that really is the bottom line, which is that should happen first before Congress proceeds with changing the status quo. And I appreciate your answers, because that sort of helps frame sort of where we are in the process today right now.

And I just wanted to go back to the point that I was making, because you did respond to it, which is the question of how the JCA program has been proceeding, because the Army -- again, it appears that certainly since the agreement was signed, they have staffed this program to a greater extent than the Air Force right now. Maybe you could help me with that.

GEN. MOSELEY: Well, sir, I would disagree. This is a joint program. We've had people in the program office. We understand how to build and operate and fly airplanes. I would offer to you that I disagree with the notion that there would be any disruption or delay or any impact on the program. I just don't agree with that.

But again, General Casey and I haven't had a chance to talk about this. And sir, this is approaching a roles-and-missions issue about who does airlift.

REP. COURTNEY: It does. And obviously this triggered a great response, pointing out the fact that the Army has been involved in this for a long time; and that it is a change that the Senate has proposed to a course of action that's been existence for an awful long time.

And again, to me this is about the process. And I don't see an emergency here that says that we should go forward without having this thoroughly discussed so that everybody's on the same page and there's a lot of confidence out there, because there's National Guard associations, governors out there that have erupted since the knowledge of this language was disclosed. And I don't think that's fair to them. I just don't think Congress should surprise people who have been acting in reliance on a system and a memorandum of agreement that's been in place for at least a couple of years.

I don't if, Secretary Wynne, you want to respond to that at all.

SEC. WYNNE: Sir, I was just going to say that the Army was very collegial in accepting the requirements that we needed. This is not called the Joint Cargo Aircraft because it is a single up.

REP. COURTNEY: Right. But what the Senate is proposing to do is to take the "joint" out of the program.

SEC. WYNNE: The Senate recalls the -- in years past, because you all are the memory for the Department of Defense, because people like me come and go in the positions that we have in this. It's an honor to serve, but we understand it's a relatively short time.

They remember when the Army refused to take Sherpas and they had to write legislation to force them to take it. That's what they remember.

GEN. MOSELEY: Sir, I would also offer -- we have both been on record -- and I have met with a variety of governors -- to say the United States Air Force is committed to this for homeland security, homeland defense, for a governor's mission, for the National Guard, for the Air National Guard. There's no walking away from this requirement.

REP. COURTNEY: And I appreciate that. What I think is of concern, though, is frankly the way this process has moved. I mean, we have not given the governors a fair chance to come to Washington and actually share what their response is to that. And I'm not saying that they wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

I mean, what we've heard this morning is that you have tremendous stresses and strain -- just like the other branches that we've had hearings on. You know, I would just humbly suggest -- again, somebody who doesn't even come close to your background -- that taking on this issue with the process that's been employed by the Senate is not good for your situation in terms of the huge challenges that face you.

I think we want everybody working together. And the way this process has occurred it really has not created that kind of confidence for a lot of people there who want to be your advocates and cheerleaders.

So with that, I --

GEN. MOSELEY: Congressman, one last offering to you: that airlift and intra-theater airlift is a core competency of the United States Air Force. That's what we do for the combatant commander for the Army, for the Marines, for the Navy, for the Special Ops. So I suspect we're looking now at the beginnings of roles-and-missions discussions. Because of limited resources and limited programs, I suspect that's where this is beginning to swirl. That's the piece that General Casey and I -- that and UAVs and C-27s -- are the things General Casey and I will have a chance, again, to work through.

REP. COURTNEY: And I look forward to that outcome, but it shouldn't happen in a conference committee behind closed doors. And I'll get off my soapbox.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source