Guardedly Optimistic

The National Governors Association is applauding a Senate Armed Services Committee decision to include language in its fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that would protect the National Guard from what the association sees as “disproportionate and damaging reductions.”

Ever since the Air Force rolled out an FY-13 budget request calling for the retirement of hundreds of aircraft, most of them flown by the Air National Guard, the Council of Governors (COG), the National Governors Association (NGA) and various adjutant generals have protested against the strategy. Congress has pushed back against the Air Force plan, with the Senate Armed Services Committee flexing its muscles this week by recommending the creation of a “National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.”

In a May 25 statement, NGA praised committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) for the move. Levin, during a May 24 press conference on the mark-up, told reporters that the Air Force's drawdown plan for its Guard component was “way out of proportion.”

“The nation's governors are encouraged by the Senate Armed Services Committee's work to protect the Air National Guard from disproportionate and damaging reductions," NGA's statement reads. "Governors are particularly appreciative of the work of Committee Chairman Michigan Sen. Carl Levin and Ranking Member Arizona Sen. John McCain, as well as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin for their efforts to preserve Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircraft and personnel at fiscal year 2012 levels for fiscal year 2013."

In April, NGA sent a strongly worded letter to Levin and McCain, as well as House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA), essentially asking them to sustain FY-12 funding levels for the Air National Guard.

As for the House, authorizers included language in their defense authorization bill that would protect the Guard from the service's force structure strategy. That language would forbid the Air Force from using FY-13 funds to retire, divest, realign or transfer its aircraft.

NGA noted in its statement that both bills, though varying in language, would provide adequate protection against the proposed force structure cuts. “The Senate Committee action follows adoption of similar protections for the Air National Guard that were included in the bill passed by the House last week,” NGA said. “Both bills provide a path to meet fiscal responsibilities while protecting the aircraft and personnel necessary to fulfill the Guard's critical mission at home and abroad.”

The language in the bills “gives governors and the Department of Defense the opportunity to put a process in place for 2014 that recognizes the cost-effectiveness and value of the Guard,” NGA added.

During a May 23 hearing, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) questioned the force structure strategy, asking Air National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt if he was consulted before the Air Force made its final decision on the strategy.

“We were encouraged to make our inputs, and we did so,” Wyatt said. “In fact, we exercised that encouragement rather vociferously inside the Air Force corporate process. We did present the alternatives to the Air Force, alternatives to the [FY-13 president's budget] as it officially came out.”

Wyatt said the Air National Guard's leadership offered several alternatives for meeting the budget and operational demands of the Air Force. Some of those alternatives were accepted, he said, adding that most of them were not.

“I think [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton] Schwartz has accurately described the process when he said that there were very difficult decisions for the Air Force to make,” Wyatt said. “He encouraged open debate. I engaged openly in that debate and made my inputs. But in the end, the final decision is left to he chief and the secretary and many of the recommendations and alternatives that we proposed were not adopted, but we respect the difficult decisions that the chief and the secretary had to make.”