U.S. Congress to Air Force: Hold on to Your Restructuring Plans Before Implementation
Capitalizing on Competition: The U.S. Air Force's bold strategy to tailor its operations for major power conflicts is stirring controversy in Congress, as lawmakers seek clarity on the plan before execution. The recently passed 2024 budget bill, including provisions from both the House and Senate, signals congressional concerns and demands a six-month review of the Air Force's decision-making process.
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and his team presented a comprehensive 24-point transformation plan in February, prompting excitement around the proposed overhaul. The changes include the formation of a new Integrated Capabilities Command, a Space Futures Command for the Space Force, the reintroduction of warrant officers, and a new deployment rotation model, to name a few.
However, the plan's vagueness and lack of detailed justification, comprehensive implementation plan, and budgetary information have set off alarm bells in Congress. The bill directs that any 2024 funding allocated for these changes be designated a "congressional special interest item" for review. Additionally, Congress demands a review of the decision-making process within six months.
By labeling these items as "special interest," Congress is asserting its authority to oversee significant changes. Per the Congressional Research Service, any modifications costing over $10 million must be reviewed and approved by specific committees, including the House and Senate's Armed Services committees and the House and Senate Appropriations committees. As of now, the extent of the Air Force's requested reprogramming in fiscal 2024 remains uncertain, but it's anticipated that most reprogramming will take place in the fiscal 2025 budget, due to the scope of the changes and the time needed for finalization.
The bill requires the Air Force to provide details on the changes at least 30 days before implementation. These details include:
- Key differences from the status quo
- Phase-wise implementation plans and costs
- New offices, commands, or centers to be established
- Implications for military and civilian personnel by location
- The impact of these decisions on various programs
An Air Force official acknowledged that not all these details are yet finalized but assured that Congress will be kept informed during the planning process.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin acknowledged the need for a collaborative approach between the Air Force and Congress. "The way we engage Congress, the stakeholders, and our Air Force internally to accomplish this in a financially prudent manner is crucial," he said. Allvin added that although some costs are inevitable, the Air Force aims to minimize expenses, including relocation costs for Airmen and Guardians.
Congressional skepticism stems from potential job losses in member districts, according to Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and defense budget analyst. Politicians are wary of changes that could adversely affect their constituents. Retired Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, former head of Air Force Futures, agrees that concerns over job losses are understandable but emphasizes the importance of allaying these fears.
Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, is concerned that excessive congressional oversight could slow down essential changes and potentially introduce extra costs. "The reorganization is a major positive step, and the Air Force is taking responsible action by implementing it," Deptula said. "However, micromanagement from Congress could hinder the execution of needed changes."
The bill mandates the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a 180-day review of the proposed organizational changes and the decision-making process behind them. Key aspects the GAO will examine include factors considered in the reorganization, feedback from combatant commanders, analysis on key decision areas, the business case analysis, estimated costs, implementation time, criteria for success, and alignment with recent acquisition reform efforts.
According to Harrison, congressional officials will need to collaborate with the GAO to provide the necessary information and frame the GAO report favorably. However, any findings from GAO that indicate flaws in the decision-making process could serve as ammunition for critics seeking to obstruct the reform process. Harrison cautions that excessive congressional oversight could stifle necessary changes and even add costs.
Deptula argues that Congress should focus on securing the necessary resources to enhance readiness and modernization within the Department of the Air Force, rather than micromanaging organizational changes. He also points out that inadequate funding due to budget caps and multiple continuing resolutions over the past three decades has hampered the Air Force's competitive edge, emphasizing the importance of adequate funding for the common defense.
- The air force's bold strategy, aimed at major power conflicts, is creating a stir in Congress, with lawmakers demanding clarity and a six-month review of the strategy's decision-making process.
- The U.S. Air Force's transformation plan, comprising 24 points, includes the formation of a new Integrated Capabilities Command, a Space Futures Command for the Space Force, and a new deployment rotation model, among other changes.
- The lack of detail in the Air Force's transformation plan, including comprehensive implementation plans, budgetary information, and impact assessments, has raised concerns in Congress, leading to the labeling of certain items as "congressional special interest items" for review.
- Any modifications costing over $10 million must be reviewed and approved by specific committees in Congress, including the House and Senate's Armed Services committees and the House and Senate Appropriations committees.
- The Air Force will be required to provide details on the changes at least 30 days before implementation, including key differences from the status quo, phase-wise implementation plans and costs, and implications for military and civilian personnel.
- Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, warns that excessive congressional oversight could hinder the execution of needed changes, slowing down essential reforms and potentially adding costs. Instead, Congress should focus on securing necessary resources for readiness and modernization within the Department of the Air Force, says Deptula.
