Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Saxton Opening Statement for Hearing on Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request for the U.S. Transportation Command
Washington D.C. -- Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), ranking Republican on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, today released the following opening statement for the subcommittee’s hearing to examine the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the United States Transportation Command (TRANSCOM):
“The subcommittee meets today to discuss the posture of the U.S. Transportation Command and to focus on Department of Defense global mobility and aerial refueling programs. Joining us today are General Schwartz, the commander of TRANSCOM; General Lichte, the commander of Air Mobility Command; and the Honorable Sue Payton, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
“It is not often that circumstances permit us to engage the operational commanders and the acquisition officials in the same forum. This is a unique opportunity, and I'd like to thank our Chairman for assembling this panel of witnesses before the subcommittee.
“Global mobility is a key component of our national security. The ability to globally project strategic capabilities and to provide responsive support to U.S. government, multinational and non-governmental logistical requirements is the heart of TRANSCOM's mission. Without this capability the rest of our defense posture, and our ability to provide global humanitarian relief and support to our friends and allies, is largely irrelevant. This simple fact is the reason I have been such a long-standing advocate of the Department's strategic airlift programs, such as the C-17.
“Mr. Chairman, you have often heard me express concerns about the current trends in defense funding levels. All of the Department's sustainment, modernization, and recapitalization programs are severely constrained by a top-line that is inadequate to ensure our military is ready and equipped to support the National Military Strategy.
“Unanticipated cost growth in programs such as the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) and C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) only increase these challenges. I'm very glad to have Ms. Payton with us today to discuss the challenges the Air Force faces in fielding this required capability to the warfighter on-time and on-cost. As I've said, we simply cannot afford to do all the things that we need to do, and there is no longer room in the budget to compensate for poorly defined and poorly managed programs.
“As you all know, Secretary Young recently certified to Congress that the C-5 RERP was essential to national security, that there are no alternatives which provide equal or greater military capability at less cost, and that the modified program cost is reasonable. The modified program includes performing RERP on 52 C-5 B and C aircraft, and only modernizing the avionics on the remaining 59 C-5A aircraft. The total program cost for the restructured C-5 RERP program is projected to be $7.7 billion for 52 aircraft.
“I'd like to bring your attention to the fact that the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study, which was used as the analytical basis for determining the C-5 inventory requirement states that ‘…112 modernized and reliability improved C-5s’ are required to meet the Department’s strategic airlift requirements. It is unclear to me how we are going to be able to meet the stated requirement for strategic airlift if we are going to perform reliability improvements to less than half of the C-5 fleet.
“Reliability equates to availability, and availability renders capacity. This was the original thought behind doing C-5 RERP in lieu of procuring more C-17s. Improving the reliability of the existing C-5 fleet was thought to be a more affordable approach to gaining the needed organic capacity.
“Now we are faced with a dilemma. We are only going to perform reliability enhancements on 52 C-5s—at a cost of $7.7 billion—and at the end of the day we are not going to achieve the minimum organic strategic airlift force structure capacity to support the stated requirement of 33.95 million ton miles per day.
“I noted that Secretary Young, in his testimony before this subcommittee last month, stated that the new tanker, the KC-45, would be used to fill the remainder of the airlift gap. General Schwartz, I hope that you will be able to expand on that statement a bit and explain to us how a tanker—which, as you've said is a tanker first—is going to be used to offset the shortfall in strategic airlift requirements.
“I raise these points because the Department's fiscal year 2009 budget request does not include funding for any C-17s. No funding in the budget request for 2009 means that the C-17 line will shut-down if this body does not take steps to keep it open.
“We now know that the C-5 RERP program will not meet the requirements identified in the 2005 MCS. We must also account for the end-strength increases for the Army and Marine Corps, the mobility requirements of the Army’s Future Combat System, and the fact that we are over-utilizing the current fleet of C-17 aircraft. That said, I'd like to hear from each of our witnesses as to their thoughts on the wisdom of shutting down the C-17 production line at this time.
“Ladies and gentlemen, once again we are faced with tough decisions regarding the global mobility portfolio. We cannot defer these decisions to the next Administration or the next Congress. Your testimony today is critical to helping us make the right decisions for the warfighter and for the American tax-payer. I look forward to an open and meaningful dialog.”
###