Legislature(2011 - 2012)ANCH LIO Rm 220
06/26/2012 09:00 AM Senate ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Briefing Regarding the Upcoming Base Realignment and Closure Rounds and Possible Relocation of F-16 Aggressor Squadron and Developing Strategies for Retention of Military Installations in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
June 26, 2012
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Joe Paskvan (via teleconference)
Senator Joe Thomas
Senator Charlie Huggins (via teleconference)
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Pete Petersen
PUBLIC MEMBERS
Colonel Tim Jones
Chief Warrant Officer Curt Brownlow - retired
Major General Jake Lestenkof - retired
Lieutenant General Tom Case - retired (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Linda Menard
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative David Guttenberg (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BRIEFING REGARDING THE UPCOMING BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ROUNDS AND POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF F-16 AGGRESSOR SQUADRON AND
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR RETENTION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN
ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
STEVE HYJEK, Partner
Hyjek & Fix
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as a consultant to the Department
of Military & Veterans' Affairs, provided testimony regarding
the upcoming BRAC and a strategic plan.
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB);
Chair, Tiger Team
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
DOUG ISSAACSON, Mayor
City of North Pole
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
JIM DODSON, President/CEO
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation;
Member, AMFAST;
Member, Tiger Team
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:05:43 AM
CO-CHAIR BILL WIELECHOWSKI called the Joint Armed Services
Committee meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives
Saddler, Feige, Hughes, Lynn, and Petersen and Senators
Wielechowski, Davis, Paskvan (via teleconference), Thomas, and
Huggins (via teleconference) were present at the call to order.
Public members in attendance were Colonel Tim Jones, Chief
Warrant Officer Curt Brownlow - retired, Major General Jake
Lestenkof - retired, and Lieutenant General Tom Case - retired
(via teleconference). Also in attendance were Representatives
Thompson and Guttenberg (via teleconference) and Senator Menard.
^Briefing regarding the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure
rounds and possible relocation of F-16 aggressor squadron and
developing strategies for retention of military installations in
Alaska
Briefing regarding the upcoming Base Realignment and Closure
rounds and possible relocation of F-16 aggressor squadron and
developing strategies for retention of military installations in
Alaska
9:06:46 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that this meeting will review
statewide concerns regarding possible base realignment and
closures, relocation of the F-16 Aggressor Squadron, and to
develop strategies for retention of the military installations
in Alaska. He opined that it's imperative for the Alaska State
Legislature to take action to support Alaska's military bases
and personnel for the protection of the nation as well as the
security and economy of the State of Alaska. He reminded the
committee that this session [the committee] provided funding to
hire a consulting group to help the state advocate for Alaska
bases, personnel to the federal government, and to the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) as it continues to review options
for base closures and realignments. The DoD plans to cut $487
billion over the next three years, including moving the F-16
Aggressor Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base to Joint Base
Elmendorf - Richardson (JBER).
9:08:25 AM
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, began by
characterizing Alaska's U.S. military as its most significant
resource. He then informed the committee that the Alaska
Military Force Advocacy and Structure Team (AMFAST) is composed
of probably one of the most unseen but formidable resources in
Alaska, which are the senior level military personnel that
ultimately retire in Alaska and have advised the governor. The
governor, he noted, has acted fairly aggressively on some of the
advice. For instance, one of Alaska's strongest points is its
training through the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC),
which resulted in bringing the bridge across the Tanana River.
The bridge opened up the Strykers, which once completed will
result in a ground force that will be able to maneuver in land
mass larger than Massachusetts. At the same time, the U.S. Air
Force is overhead and the U.S. Navy is offshore. Furthermore,
the area is large enough to do cyber and space [training] as
well. The bridge, he highlighted, was key in bringing together
five major pillars of joint operations, which was due to direct
input by AMFAST. The AMFAST has also suggested efforts to make
life easier for the military through the legislation providing
reciprocity for licensing for military spouses. Additionally,
AMFAST has advocated the advancement of Alaska Aerospace efforts
as well as a greater presence of the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska.
The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to become an ever critical
player as the Arctic expands due to the changing environment.
Still, the military in Alaska face major challenges, including a
BRAC process that may be on the horizon. The governor has
requested [the department] seek professional advice and with the
support of the legislature, AMFAST has gathered some
professional individuals to help make Alaska an easier place for
the U.S. military to do business, which includes driving down
the cost of operations.
9:13:11 AM
STEVE HYJEK, Partner, Hyjek & Fix, informed the committee that
Hyjek & Fix is a small consulting firm in Washington, D.C., that
specializes in installation realignment and the promotion and
enhancement of installations. Hyjek & Fix has been heavily
involved in the military procurement area for DoD, NASA, and the
State Department. In terms of his personal background, Mr.
Hyjek related that he came to Washington, D.C., in 1974 from
Vermont and spent eight years working for U.S. Senator Bob
Stafford. In 1981 Mr. Hyjek worked for the Secretary of the
Army in legislative affairs, which is where he met his current
business partner, Mr. Fix. Mr. Hyjek specified that he worked
specifically with chemical demilitarization, environmental
restoration, and government procurement with the U.S. Congress.
In 1986 Mr. Hyjek joined a small law firm, but in 1989 Hyjek &
Fix was formed. Hyjek & Fix is a small government relations
company of about 10 staff. He highlighted that in 1995 Hyjek &
Fix represented the State of Alaska during that BRAC round,
which was a competitive procurement much like this time. In
1995 Hyjek & Fix was the prime contractor team with Gold &
Leavengood (ph), which worked through a process including the
realignment of Fort Greely and protecting all the installations
in the state. In fact, Hyjek & Fix has participated in every
base closure round since 1988 in some fashion. However, Hyjek &
Fix recognizes the need as a small firm to partner with other
[larger organizations]. In the case of responding to AMFAST's
request for proposals in Alaska, Hyjek & Fix composed a team
including Cassidy & Associates. The team of four will begin
visits to military installations in Alaska in order to compile
information and identify trends, strengths, and challenges in
order to develop a strategic plan that includes items that
communities, the state, and DoD can do.
9:16:37 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI recognized staff from the offices of U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski and U.S. Senator Mark Begich.
9:16:59 AM
MR. HYJEK then began his briefing by relating that he will
review some of the issues outside of Alaska that impact military
installations. He stressed that BRAC is included in his
briefing, although it's not the sole focus of his efforts. The
purpose of this visit, he explained, is to develop an action
plan that will be presented to AMFAST as well as the governor
and the legislature. He then noted that he will use some backup
slides from the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that will
provide a feel for the national budget and personnel impacts
that will trickle down to Alaska. He reiterated that Hyjek &
Fix was competitively selected by an RFP issued by the state and
DMVA is the agency to which the firm reports directly. Mr.
Hyjek then directed attention to slide 3, which summarizes the
team, its roles and responsibilities, and its reporting chains.
On this contract and project, Mr. Hyjek is the primary point of
contact, although he teams with Barry Rhoads, LTC, JA, USAR
(Retired), President, Cassidy & Associates. General Chandler is
an advisor to the team. He reminded the committee that Hyjek &
Fix was selected for the 1995 process when the largest concern
was with regard to the U.S. Army side. If there is a BRAC or
force structure adjustments authorized, the U.S. Navy will be a
bit of a challenge. Still, the team has to be prepared to
address all elements of the military presence in the state with
a holistic strategy including academia, industry, and the state.
He emphasized that at least 20 states have hired consulting
teams or organized military affairs councils to proactively
impact the process in Congress. The 2005 round illustrates that
those who are proactive and have earlier involvement do much
better. He highlighted the change in dynamics between the State
of Alaska, its delegation, the state government, and DoD from
1995-2005, particularly since U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, former
chairman of DoD appropriations, is no longer involved and the
differences between the active and reserve component have to be
addressed. He reminded the committee that in 1995 the U.S. Army
and the Army Guard were "banging heads" while the U.S. Air Force
and Air Force Guard were "very tight." The dynamic has changed
now that the U.S. Army is facing reductions of 80,000 people
between now and 2022 and will eventually result in tensions
[between the U.S. Army and Army Guard]. Since 2005 the U.S.
Army went through a process of growth that it's now undoing. In
fact, last year Congress adopted the Budget Control Act of 2011,
which lead to the force structure adjustments proposed by the
U.S Air Force. Mr. Hyjek emphasized the need to leverage the
president's national military strategy that places an increased
emphasis on the Pacific Rim, which should work to Alaska's
advantage.
9:23:21 AM
MR. HYJEK returned to the Budget Control Act. He reminded the
committee that in the past when the debt ceiling was up for
renewal it was a done deal, but that changed last year. As a
result, Congress made a deal with the administration to adopt
the Budget Control Act, and thus there are some bills to pay.
The Act included the following two primary elements: $1.3
trillion of known cuts, of which a significant portion, $478
billion, was from DoD and [$1.3] trillion in sequestration.
Although the Washington, D.C., Super Committee was created to
solve the aforementioned problems, it did not and thus there is
the potential for an additional $1.2-$1.3 trillion in cuts to
the federal budget effective January 13, 2013. Mr. Hyjek
related his belief that there will be a delay in sequestration
and it won't occur next year. However, today sequestration is
planned and there will be $478 billion in cuts from October 1,
2012 to 2022. If sequestration occurs, that will be over $1
trillion, which is dramatic to the point of no joint strike
fighters, cutting divisions, and cutting carrier groups. The
House Armed Services Committee provided the numbers of cuts that
would result in only the Budget Control Act, which are related
in slides 14-15. He highlighted the loses as follows: U.S.
Army - 80,000 people; U.S. Marine Corp. - 20,000, U.S. Air Force
- 10,000; U.S. Navy - 3,000.
9:26:11 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to whether there are any
estimates regarding the impacts to Alaska.
MR. HYJEK replied no, nothing more than the Air Force's force
structure proposal that is currently in jeopardy in Congress.
The Air Guard piece has been put on hold and the 18th Aggressor
Squadron is in a dynamic situation. In rough terms, Mr. Hyjek
related his understanding that there would be a reduction in
force of about 1,200-1,400 over the next few years. Those
numbers are a mix of active duty, civilians, and Guard
personnel.
9:27:05 AM
MR. HYJEK highlighted that personnel costs are a significant
cost factor within the DoD budget. Therefore, the view was to
address personnel, which is either done via BRAC or force
structure adjustments. He noted that there will also be
significant cuts in modernization and military construction.
Mr. Hyjek then explained that 10 USC 2687 specifies that
anything above 300 people, full-time equivalents or more, can be
considered within the BRAC process. He further explained that
10 USC 993 governs movements of personnel and reductions of
force outside of 10 USC 2687. Those areas not covered by BRAC,
10 USC 2687, view opportunity through force structure
adjustments to begin reducing personnel in hopes of obtaining
BRAC authorization. He reminded the committee that the U.S.
Secretary of Defense has requested two rounds of BRAC, one in
2013 and one in 2015, but he hasn't yet received approval.
Force structure adjustments aren't always bad and can sometimes
be good. For example, the Guard picked up a number of remotely
piloted aircraft (RPA) missions over the last two years because
of the use of more RPAs in theatre. The issue is whether there
is analysis to back up the decisions or are decisions made and
then conduct analysis is developed to justify those decisions.
The aforementioned is the concern the delegation and Congress
has with the Air Force in terms of its proposals within Alaska.
Currently the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees
have "bought back" all the personnel reductions and aircraft
retirements proposed by the U.S. Air Force for fiscal year 2013.
Therefore, $782 million was cut elsewhere in the DoD budget.
Additionally, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee has
stated that there can't be any force structure adjustments until
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) develops a process
for those non-BRAC areas where force structures are occurring.
He noted that the process would be available in March 2013, at
which time [the committee] will consider implementing
legislation.
9:31:57 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to the point at which
something is required under 10 USC 2687, BRAC statute.
MR. HYJEK, reading from 10 USC 2687, said: "The operative
number for a closure of installations is a military installation
of at least 300 personnel that are authorized or employed at the
installation." Therefore, a closure of any installation with
300 personnel or more must be performed under BRAC.
Realignments are reductions of more than 1,000 people of more
than 50 percent in the number of civilian personnel authorized
to be employed. For instance, if there are 300 people [at a
military installation] and 151 will be impacted, BRAC will cover
it. In further response to Co-Chair Wielechowski, Mr. Hyjek
explained that Eielson Air Force Base (Eielson) isn't considered
a realignment rather it's considered a reduction in force and a
relocation, which is found under 10 USC 993. He pointed out
that the planned actions for Eielson fall below 10 USC 933, but
additional people will be impacted during phase 2 such that it
would induce 10 USC 993. The Air Force has split the package so
that the initial action doesn't trigger 10 USC 993 until it has
moved the planes from Eielson to JBER and made personnel
reductions and then there would be a second wave of reductions
because of redundancy due to the co-location of aircraft with
the personnel currently at JBER. Although the Air Force and its
general counsel believe the Air Force is in compliance with the
law, [Alaska's Congressional] delegation disagrees.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to whether anyone has ever
challenged the legality of such actions. He related his
understanding that the changes at Eielson will impact thousands
of people, which would seem to fall under 10 USC 2687.
MR. HYJEK answered that to his knowledge he doesn't know of any
legal challenges. Since the delegation believes the Air Force's
plans for Eielson impinges upon the intent of 10 USC 2687 and 10
USC 993, the legislation adopted in the U.S. Senate Armed
Services Committee would statutorily hold all actions until GAO
reviews the current processes and provides supplemental
processes for consideration by the Armed Services Committee. He
noted that this impacts the U.S. Army, which was planning to
propose significant reductions overseas in fiscal year 2014.
9:35:40 AM
MR. HYJEK explained that the U.S. House Armed Services Committee
did the buyback and the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee did
the buyback as well as the requirement for GAO to develop
processes for things not currently covered by 10 USC 2687 or 10
USC 993. The [processes] are due to the Armed Services
Committee by March 31, 2013. Because of particular Air Force
issues, [the committee] proposed the creation of an eight-member
group to review the roles and the missions of the active
component versus reserve component in terms of reductions. The
proposed commission is part of the package currently before
Congress and will be subject to negotiation before the final DoD
authorization act.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to the limitations of force
structure adjustments.
MR. HYJEK specified that [force structure adjustments] are
[changes that fall] below 1,000 personnel in 10 USC 993 or the
BRAC closure or realignment language mentioned earlier. He
offered to provide the committee an informational document.
9:37:36 AM
MR. HYJEK, returning to his presentation, directed attention to
the last bullet on slide 5 and said that clearly Congress wants
(indisc.) forces from overseas prior to considering significant
reductions in facilities or personnel in the U.S. The
aforementioned could come into play in terms of relocation of
equipment and personnel currently overseas that could make sense
to relocate to Alaska. He offered to discuss the aforementioned
further off the record as it hasn't been vetted with any of the
agencies involved. Moving on to slide 6, he stressed that the
Tiger Team, the Alaska State government, Alaska's Congressional
delegation, and the consultants have impacted the U.S. Air Force
in terms of how it's moving forward and has bought some time to
continue to work the situation with the 18th Aggressor Squadron.
The aforementioned was illustrated when the general officer was
named to the Site Activation Task Force (SATAF), which is
generally not a general officer led activity. The U.S. Air
Force has been pressed with regard to the process. Ultimately,
if the process is done right and appropriate for the government,
that has to be recognized. However, if the process has been
flawed, that's a different matter. Although the recommendation
by USAF can't be [ignored], one can ensure that they follow the
appropriate processes in the future. Therefore, there has been
pressure to include an environmental assessment that includes
public scoping and comment. At this point, Mr. Hyjek wasn't
prepared to recommend a full-blown environmental impact
statement (EIS) because it has to be considered in terms of
future actions. Mr. Hyjek noted that he and General Chandler
have passes to the Pentagon, and therefore have access to talk
with staff. That face-to-face access is very important and
helpful. The U.S. Air Force has indicated that there will be a
cost in the first year, which wasn't in the budget. The only
way to pay for that cost is to do a below threshold
reprogramming. The DoD has the ability to [authorize] a below
threshold reprogramming to a certain level, which they would be
within in this case. The delegation is considering actions with
the Appropriations Committee to identify any funds associated
with the proposed relocation of the 18th Aggressor Squadron as
an item of special interest. If it's designated as an item of
special interest, then it must go to the DoD comptroller and the
committees for consideration. He told the committee that U.S.
Senator Begich has specified nominations that he doesn't intend
to forward until he receives answers to questions he has posed
to USAF.
9:42:44 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked whether Mr. Hyjek sees any potential to
prove that the effects on Eielson are actually a realignment
under 10 USC 2687 and not a reduction under the force structure
adjustment. In other words, how close is the change to Eielson
to realignment such that the action would be in violation of the
BRAC law, he asked.
MR. HYJEK, based on discussions with colleagues, delegation
staff, and USAF staff, opined that the U.S. Air Force has been
careful enough in splitting the package to not violate 10 USC
2687. However, it ultimately may be construed as a pre-BRAC
movement.
SENATOR PASKVAN inquired as to how much more dramatic it would
have to be to classify as realignment or closure.
MR. HYJEK clarified that it wouldn't be a closure because the
168th Air Refueling Wing will remain as well as the mission
support elements at Eielson. In terms of breaking the threshold
on 10 USC 2687, if all the actions proposed for the 18th
Aggressor Squadron were conducted in a single phase in a single
year, he believed that would constitute a realignment under 10
USC 2687 given the aggregate numbers of people impacted. With
the committee's permission, he offered to check the numbers and
provide the committee with an answer later.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI related his belief that although these
proposed actions may not be a direct violation of the law, the
actions clearly violate the intent of the law.
9:45:43 AM
SENATOR THOMAS read from materials from a Fairbanks meeting, as
follows: "Congress permits the Air Force to undertake its
proposed plans in assuming the final Air Force decisions are to
implement cumulative reductions of military personnel at Eielson
Air Force Base in excess of 1,000 as is currently proposed."
Senator Thomas opined that the reductions are being done in a
piecemeal manner [although the total numbers will be in excess
of the realignment and closure thresholds]. He characterized
the process as disingenuous.
MR. HYJEK said that he couldn't argue with that view.
9:47:20 AM
MR. HYJEK, returning to his presentation, moved on to the U.S.
Army. The U.S. Army (Army) is looking at an 80,000 personnel
reduction between 2014 and 2022. Whether the Army will propose
personnel reductions in fiscal year 2014, which would mean they
would have to be proposed in February in advance of the GAO
recommendations, is unknown. If the Army waits for the GAO
recommendations/rules, they would have to wait until 2015 which
would compress the amount of time to reach the 80,000 personnel
reduction. On the other hand, if the Army goes forward before
the GAO recommendations, it could be challenged in terms of the
proposed reductions without knowing the GAO policies.
Regardless of the military branch, he surmised that [DoD] would
say that it has identified a threshold and hasn't identified
where the reductions would take place and wouldn't do so until
the GAO recommendations are available. He opined that the
department, in a risk reduction effort, would have to propose
the thresholds and wait to see what the process looks like.
Therefore, he suggested that next year would be a significant
personnel focused DoD budget process. The Army has went through
the process of developing an initial draft of a force mixed
design study, which has been submitted to the U.S. Secretary of
the Army for consideration and will eventually be submitted to
the U.S. Secretary of Defense for concurrence. He noted that
the Army has been very methodical in terms of the force mix
based on the requirements and ability to fund the personnel.
Once the force design is developed, one must determine the
reductions and the management details. The initial phase of
reductions in the Army is expected to be overseas reductions.
He predicted that the pressures of the budget will result in
increased tensions between the active and reserve component of
the Army. He then turned to the announcement of the last
element of the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade, which was a
completion of the force structure adjustment that was well in
advance of the Budget Control Act and part of the Army's
retooling of personnel. He emphasized that the aforementioned
wasn't related to the Budget Control Act or anything related to
the 18th Aggressor Squadron. Mr. Hyjek reminded the committee
that there has been testimony by Army leadership before the
Armed Services and Appropriation Committees indicating that they
feel positive about the Army presence in Alaska and at this time
they don't see significant changes in growth or reductions in
Alaska in terms of USARAC. However, that doesn't mean there
won't be some adjustments nor does it mean seeking new missions
in Alaska should be abandoned. Mr. Hyjek clarified that Alaska
doesn't want to be in a defensive posture but rather needs to be
in a calculated offensive posture in order to shrink wisely.
9:52:49 AM
MR. HYJEK then explained the BRAC process. Firstly, BRAC must
be authorized by the U.S. Congress. He noted that the
legislation for the new BRAC round looks very similar to 2002
legislation for the 2005 BRAC. The legislation identifies the
process and basic timelines. He explained that DoD performs
analysis that results in teams of the various services creating
packages and on a date certain DoD identifies its proposed
realignments and closures. The President in conjunction with
Congress identifies eight nominees, including a chairman for a
commission that must be nominated and confirmed by the U.S.
Senate. A professional staff of independent experts is hired
and once the list is identified by the DoD, the commission
reviews all the recommendations substantively to include site
visits as well as regional hearings. He noted that there is
also the opportunity for members of Congress to testify before
the commission, which is generally kept separate from the
regional hearings. Once the commission receives all the
information, it identifies its findings and votes on each action
individually by each installation. Once the commission approves
the final package, it's enrolled into legislation that's
submitted to Congress. Congress has a certain period of time in
which to accept or reject the legislation in toto, after which
the legislation goes to the President who has a certain time to
act. Once it becomes BRAC law, it supersedes anything
previously adopted by Congress and DoD has five years to
implement the BRAC Commission recommendations. He then directed
attention to slide 17 that relates the eight BRAC criteria used
in the last BRAC round and slide 18 that provides a historical
timeline for the 2005 BRAC.
9:56:11 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI remarked that it's important to know what
the state can do. He then inquired as to Mr. Hyjek's sense of
the politics in Washington, D.C., in terms of whether a BRAC
will be authorized.
MR. HYJEK responded that a BRAC will be authorized, the question
is when. There is significant resistance to authorizing a BRAC
in an election year, but the administration is facing $478
billion in cuts. Therefore, Mr. Hyjek opined that a BRAC will
likely be authorized for 2015. However, he expressed concern if
the BRAC is authorized in 2013 for a 2015 execution because it
would use 2012/2013 data. Historically, BRAC's are authorized
by Congress three fiscal years ahead of implementation, which
provides time to BRAC-proof an installation, review strengths
and weaknesses and adjust accordingly, and provides time to
gather knowledge/data and arguments to pose to thwart
realignment or closure. Although Mr. Hyjek related his belief
that a BRAC will be authorized, he acknowledged that it's
possible it could be postponed to 2017. However, it would be
very difficult to reach the $478 billion by 2022 if the BRAC
decision isn't reached until 2015.
9:58:53 AM
MR. HYJEK, continuing his presentation, directed attention to
slide 19 and addressed what Alaska can do. Drawing from his
experience working with various states, he urged Alaska to speak
with one voice and have a state coordinated effort. He recalled
a situation in 1993 in which two installations in the State of
New York "trashed each other in the BRAC process" and as a
result both installations were closed and the assets were moved.
Therefore, there doesn't need to be any competition within the
state and the state needs to speak with one voice even when the
proposal for the 18th Aggressor Squadron has the ability to pit
friends and neighbors against one another.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI mentioned that the legislature passed a
resolution opposing the proposal for [the 18th Aggressor
Squadron at] Eielson, which illustrates speaking with one voice.
He opined that the state understands that everyone will suffer
is Eielson is lost.
MR. HYJEK said that it's also important for communities to
become engaged in an organized manner. For example, the
benefits of the Tiger Team at Eielson are apparent. He told the
committee that in some states with a single overarching council,
[the adjutant general] TAG is often a member as are
representatives from various communities who meet quarterly to
update, identify issues, and ensure there is a homogeneous view
going forward. Other states have military affairs councils in
each community that receive state funding to go to Washington,
D.C., and speak with one voice. Other states have a high level
state commission that meets in a group of officials from the
state administration with an advisor, a non-voting member, from
each community. The point, he emphasized, is that communities
need to feel ownership and membership [in the process].
10:03:17 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to what state has used the best
approach with BRAC.
MR. HYJEK answered that in terms of numbers, the State of Kansas
was the most effective in the last round because it gained the
First Infantry Division from Europe and gained 18,000 full-time
equivalents in BRAC 2005 and didn't lose anything. The most
military friendly state, which has afforded it the ability to
avoid being on the defensive side, is the State of Texas. Mr.
Hyjek acknowledged that Alaska is a very military friendly
state, but pointed out that DoD would say that Texas does all it
can to support its installations.
10:05:23 AM
MR. HYJEK, returning to his presentation, encouraged use of a
strategy that feeds into the strategic plan rather than having
independent actions. Therefore, in some states with a BRAC
Commission the TAG and the lieutenant governor are involved in
order to ensure the same strategic plan is being promoted by the
state. He noted that he is on day one of five-day trip from
which he ultimately hopes to develop recommendations that he can
present with the strategic plan in July or August. He
emphasized that the military has related that it's more inclined
to stay in states that do things for the military. For example,
windmill turbine power generation poses an encroachment issue
for military installations. Some states have already taken the
initiative to identify legislative and regulatory guidelines
ensuring that no wind power turbines will be located on a site
that will pose a future or current encroachment problem. He
pointed to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona as an example because
they spent three years developing a managed growth campaign to
control land development and control compatible development such
that there was noise abatement and attainment. Therefore, when
Luke Air Force Base went from the F-16 to the F-35, the prior
state measures resulted in zero people impacted by noise. Mr.
Hyjek opined that he needed to become an energy expert in Alaska
because from a BRAC perspective energy and base operation
support costs aren't a positive for Alaska. He stressed the
need to develop ideas that can be executed and supported in
Alaska that will dramatically impact the base operation support
costs, which includes energy. He reviewed a situation in which
economic power rates were offered to military installations in
New York where the air base's utility costs decreased by 25
percent or more. He mentioned the military bill of rights in
various states that offer military families support, which he
will review as well as creative actions that can be taken for
transportation.
10:13:05 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN inquired as to the highest risks to Alaska's
military facilities in addition to the current reduction
activity at Eielson Air Force Base in comparison to other
military jurisdictions.
MR. HYJEK, drawing from his review of the 2005 BRAC data, the
Grow the Force data, and a force structure assessment that
reviewed installations, stated that Alaska's largest issues are
costs. For example, one Alaska installation ranked high in
terms of mission performance in the 2005 BRAC data, but ranked
97th out of 100 in cost. Again, under the Budget Control Act
environment cost will be a huge driver. Furthermore, the last
BRAC was a force realignment effort to move pieces in the Air
Force and it focused on the Guard and the Reserve components.
In the Army the focus was to bring people home from overseas and
doing so under the underlying BRAC process. This BRAC, he
emphasized, focuses on active duty installations as they provide
the largest payback in the face of the budget cut. He opined
that the reserve component is probably less threatened than the
active component in comparison to last time. Although it's not
a concern for Alaska, industrial operations test facilities are
an area that will be under scrutiny in future BRACs. Mr. Hyjek
acknowledged Alaska's huge strategic importance, but expressed
the need to develop a campaign that clarifies Alaska's strategic
importance and benefits. The cold training Alaska offers is
important as well.
10:17:19 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to how the weighting of the
criteria is developed, particularly in terms of the recent focus
on the Pacific theatre.
MR. HYJEK directed attention to the criteria located on slide
17, of which the top four are military value criteria. The
weight on paper, he emphasized, is on military value in DoD
rules and BRAC legislation. The last four criteria are "tie
breakers". However, as he stated earlier, what really occurs is
a review of the last list and a review of the major quantitative
metrics to determine on [what facilities] to focus. Take the
example of Army maneuver bases. Training maneuver acreage is
important and those bases in the top six of maneuver acreage
won't be considered. The bottom five [in training maneuver
acreage] are then reviewed and the bean counters enter the
process and determine the first list of what [facilities] should
be considered [in a BRAC]. By the point the process reaches the
senior adult leadership review in DoD, it can be difficult to
turn around.
10:19:40 AM
MR. HYJEK, in response to Co-Chair Saddler, confirmed that the
process will be the same as 2005. Those who form the various
service BRAC teams will first review the past process, then
review the weak links in major categories and focus on those.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if the lack of updated information is a
common avenue of appeal or challenge.
MR. HYJEK confirmed that flawed data is generally one of the
largest issues used in the appeal process for the BRAC process.
He clarified that his concern is if a BRAC is authorized in a
tight timeframe for the BRAC execution, the data used will be
prior to the legislative authorization. Therefore, if the state
doesn't think ahead, it won't have the ability to impact the
data and would be in a more negative position.
10:21:45 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there is a last minute suite of
acts states typically do when [a BRAC seems imminent].
MR. HYJEK answered that most often the governor steps forward to
work the BRAC. Often states facing base realignment and closure
put forth a significant chunk of funding on the table to address
weak links, such as an infrastructure gap or encroachment issue.
Although economic impacts can be a factor in keeping facilities
open, the next BRAC will face a lot of pressure to ignore those
waving flags and raising the economic impacts of realignment or
closure and rather focus on why they shouldn't agree with the
DoD experts who have identified particular installations.
10:23:07 AM
GENERAL LESTENKOFF recalled that during the 2005 BRAC, the Air
Force used the criteria that Air units shouldn't be located on a
single base. Part of the aforementioned guidance moved the [Air
Force] from Kulis Air National Guard to Elmendorf Air Force
Base. There is an Air National Guard wing at Eielson, which
would be the sole occupant of that base. He asked if any
thought has been given to that.
MR. HYJEK pointed out that the 18th Aggressor Squadron is still
at Eielson and he will operate on that assumption until
something changes. If that changes, adjustments will be made in
the future. He related that he is reviewing options not in the
U.S. as well as existing and future missions that could locate
at Eielson, with or without the presence of the 18th Aggressor
Squadron. He emphasized that he will be in a calculated
offensive mode and maintain the position of negotiating from
strength not weakness. In terms of joint basing and independent
wings, there seems to have been a mixed message from 2005.
Although some efficiencies were gained, Mr. Hyjek wasn't sure
they would be the main topic in the next round.
GENERAL LETENKOFF inquired as to the percentage of base costs
from Eielson that are being borne by the National Guard.
MR. HYJEK responded that he didn't know, but added that he will
be traveling there soon and receive a briefing.
10:26:14 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there are any other bases in
Alaska [besides Eielson] that would potentially face risk.
MR. HYJEK answered that at this time, he couldn't identify any
risks that would be posed to any other installation in Alaska.
10:26:53 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether Mr. Hyjek has the assets,
assistance, and information to do his job well in Alaska.
MR. HYJEK began by saying that the TAG and its staff have been
very supportive. However, since it's the early days of the
process and he expressed the need to wait until the end of the
week in terms of the data. He highlighted that the level of
information he foresees and the level of people he plans to meet
don't seem to match some of the other states with which he has
and continues to work, which could be driven by schedule and
other concerns. Therefore, he expressed the desire to reserve
judgment until a later date.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI inquired as to the timeline for issuing
the report.
MR. HYJEK informed the committee that next week or the week
after that he will provide to the TAG, and perhaps the committee
in an appropriately confidential manner, a "hot wash" of his
visit. The aforementioned will serve as the basis for the
preparation of a strategic plan. That strategic plan will first
be a draft with AMFAST. He noted that he provides each
installation with its portion of the strategic plan for review
prior to the report being published. He expressed hope that a
strategic plan would be available between the end of July and
mid-August.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI offered the committee's support.
10:29:50 AM
MR. HYJEK, concluding his presentation, reiterated the need for
the state to be active, visible, support military affairs
councils in communities. Mr. Hyjek characterized Hyjek & Fix as
a force multiplier that is relatively effective so long as
there's a collaborative effort with the installation commanders
and command groups as well as the MAGCOMs, and the state to do
its job. Going forward, he stressed the need to address base
operation support (BOS) cost and inform others of the strategic
importance of Alaska. Hyjek & Fix will seek the legislature,
the governor, and local community leaders to actively engage
with the Pentagon and other agencies. He expressed the need to
include the Division of Homeland Security (DHS) and not lose the
U.S. Coast Guard in the shuffle. Although DHS isn't part of the
BRAC, it is tangentially because anything that impacts an
installation where it's co-located would impact it. He related
hope that he can develop ideas for the legislature and that
Congress will resume focus on the rights and responsibilities of
congressionally directed spending. There are, he believes,
actions next year that will allow him to obtain congressionally
directed spending, which could be beneficial in Alaska to
identify key areas to pull forward a project identified in a
future year's DoD plan for construction. Mr. Hyjek informed the
committee that although he is objective oriented and committed
to winning, it requires everyone pulling in the same direction
to accomplish that. In conclusion, he continued to encourage
the state to speak with one voice and be proactive.
10:33:33 AM
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS thanked the committee for its support in
getting one voice heard.
10:34:07 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB); Chair,
Tiger Team, began by providing the committee a handout. He then
informed the committee that he has made a funding request to the
FNSB Assembly, which is providing about $100,000 and an
additional $40,000 to hire consultants. The public private
Solutions Group was selected because during the 2005 BRAC they
delved into the Air Force's projected savings of the proposal to
move Eielson. [Solutions Group] found the [projected savings]
inaccurate and the 2005 BRAC then used the numbers from
Fairbanks and pushed back on the move. He noted that Fairbanks
is a member of the Association of Defense Communities as is the
State of Alaska. The Tiger Team, he explained, has questioned
the cost savings the Air Force has been putting forward for the
F-16 move, particularly since the Air Force's numbers [in terms
of cost savings] and personnel have been a moving target. He
questioned why the Aggressor Squadron would move from Eielson if
the Asian-Pacific connection is the focus. Moreover, the Air
Force says that the proposed move will cost $5.6 million in
2013, the first year. In short, Mayor Hopkins characterized the
proposal as a 2005 BRAC redo, as is illustrated by some of the
information he provided to the committee. As the Tiger Team has
met, he related that he has been concerned with the push back
against the relocation and the strategy to move forward with
strengthening Eielson in the Fairbanks community. During his
meetings with Undersecretary Terry Yonkers Deputy Assistant
Secretary Kathleen Ferguson of the Air Force for Installations,
Environment and Logistics, Mayor Hopkins learned that community
partnerships and training grounds are important in terms of the
infrastructure improvements in JPARC. He recalled that there
was also discussion of the unmanned aerial vehicles at Eielson.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Ferguson was pleased that following
the 2005 BRAC Fairbanks performed a joint land use study from
which a technical team and a policy team were established in
2009 to implement the approximately 109 actions called for in
the joint land use study to protect against encroachment on the
military bases in Fairbanks. There was also discussion of the
cost of energy at the bases in Fairbanks. He remarked that it's
interesting to review the cost of British thermal units (Btus)
in Alaska versus areas where there is the need to cool
facilities. With regard to the mention of local economic
development dollars, he highlighted that Fairbanks has both an
areawide and non-areawide mill rate for economic development.
He then mentioned the JPARC value for multi-force training
space.
10:41:22 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS pointed out that currently the proposed Eielson
squadron relocation provides no financial support for military
families. He questioned why there is no financial support,
particularly in light of the Housing Assistance Act. Upon
discussions with the military to determine how Eielson military
families receive the benefit, he learned that it's an Army
program for which the funding runs out September 2012. Because
this relocation isn't a BRAC issue, the base commander of
Eielson would have to request the funds. However, upon further
scrutiny one finds that the funds are allocated on a first come,
first served basis. The ability for Alaska military families to
obtain help when they have to relocate is very important. He
then turned attention to the Red Flag Alaska training exercises,
which are proposed for next year. There is only two years'
worth of training support in the forward budget, and thus he
asked General Schwartz what would happen in the third year to
which he didn't receive answer. Therefore, Mayor Hopkins
expressed suspicion and concern regarding [the continuation] of
Red Flag training in Alaska.
10:44:15 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS then turned his attention to the short-term
aspects of what can be done to support Eielson Air Force Base.
One option would be to form an organization called "Military
Communities of the Arctic" or "Military Communities of Alaska."
The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) implementation is about halfway
complete and the next items to be implemented by the military
and the community require more funding. Although the second
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), DoD, grant applied for was
turned down because there wasn't enough done, they were
encouraged to reapply later. Therefore, [Fairbanks] will have
to reach into its own pocket. He expressed interest in any
possible capital match to work on the implementation of JLUS.
10:46:34 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS identified another short-term action as the
passage of HB 316 regarding military facility zones. With
regard to the issue of active association with the Air National
Guard and Eielson, it wasn't achieved. However, he related his
understanding that if there was an increase of the Air National
Guard tails and an active mission of about 172 Air Force
personnel, the installation could meet a larger number of
deterred or unable to meet missions for the Air National Guard
out of Eielson. The 168th, he related, turns away about two-
thirds of its requested missions, and thus four more tails and
an active association would provide more opportunities. He
reminded committee members that there is a 24-million gallon jet
fuel storage depot at Eielson. The other issue that's been
discussed is if the Marines are relocated at the beach head in
Hawaii and work with the Navy, the Army Stryker Brigade could be
relocated from Hawaii to Alaska.
10:49:20 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS moved on to longer term issues of concern,
including Alaska being placed in NORCOM and separated from
Pacific Command. He highlighted that from Eielson there could
be military involvement in the Arctic development, including
forward basing of logistical support for fixed-wing Coast Guard
at Eielson as there are lots of hangars. Another aspect the
Fairbanks community and the state are working on is the gas
distribution network in Fairbanks that could be brought to
Eielson. An equalizing of the cost of energy at military bases
may result in a lower cost of heat and power at bases. He
related that when speaking with Pentagon staff, he understood
that the state could provide funds to upgrade the infrastructure
in JPARC such as putting the roads in for Stryker movements. He
indicated that there's also a funding issue with phase 2 of the
railroad that would take the tracks from North Pole to the
bridge. Mayor Hopkins then echoed an earlier comment that the
best defense is better than the best offense. Keeping that in
mind, he highlighted communities such as San Antonio, Texas, and
Monterey, California, that entered into agreements and
partnerships with the military bases as BRAC actions were
happening. In some of those cases, the BRAC actions were pushed
back because there were cost savings for the bases. He then
informed the committee that he, Mayor Cleworth, and Mayor
Issaacson have sent letters to General McLeod and the Secretary
of the Air Force pushing back on how the Air Force has said it
will perform [the relocation] and the timeline for the draft EIS
comments regarding the expansion of JPARC. The three mayors
felt that the F-16 move to Anchorage would impact the social
economic or environmental justice issue. Since [that impact]
wasn't mentioned in the draft EIS, a 60-day extension was
requested and granted. Therefore, they have until July 9th to
submit comments. Although he didn't recall anyone taking legal
actions, the Tiger Team is discussing that option.
10:55:59 AM
GENERAL LESTENKOFF asked if Mayor Hopkins has noticed any
dismantling of buildings or other such activity on the bases.
MAYOR HOPKINS answered yes, adding that there is a 2012 proposal
to dismantle a number of older buildings on Eielson. He related
his understanding that the aforementioned proposal is part of
Military Construction (MILCON) not part of the Air Force
restructuring of Eielson. Although the F-16 facilities are
proposed to be a cost savings in the report, they are worth
around $200 million in structures. In discussions between the
Tiger Team and DoD it was discovered that those buildings could
be used for enhanced contracting such that the state [takes over
the facilities] in the short term until there are missions
available that would use them. He opined that to tear down the
buildings would be the wrong thing to do, even though it may
cost a bit to maintain the buildings. As an example, the F-15
facilities at JBER weren't torn down and he believes that's
where the [F-16] facilities may move. In response to a
question, Mayor Hopkins said he has spoken with General Post and
Colonel Shell who are following orders. He related his
understanding that the second SATAF visit in fiscal year 2014 is
likely when they will evaluate and determine whether to tear
down the facilities.
10:58:52 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS, in conclusion, thanked Alaska's Congressional
delegation for its work on this restructuring as it's what will
stop the action while the state and local communities will have
to work together to increase missions at Eielson Air Force Base.
In response to Co-Chair Saddler, Mayor Hopkins agreed to provide
the committee information regarding the composition and process
of the Tiger Team.
11:00:21 AM
DOUG ISSAACSON, Mayor, City of North Pole, began by pointing out
that North Pole is centered in the eye of the storm as it's in
the middle of Fort Wainwright and Eielson, has the refinery that
supplies the fuel, and electric generation that is strategic for
the area. Mayor Issaacson recalled that Co-Chair Wielechowski's
press release states that the military accounts for 13 percent
of Alaska's economy and added that 51 percent of the payroll in
the Interior can be attributed to the government. Eielson
equals one-third of the economic impact in the FNSB. The loss
of people from the proposal may equal two to three times the
population of North Pole, and therefore it's critical for
housing, employment, and ancillary effects on area businesses.
MAYOR ISSAACSON suggested the following five actions to
consider. First, the long-term effectiveness of Eielson might
rely on the restructuring of the BLS to be primarily civilian
employees. In 2005 the personnel floor was 1,061 positions
whereas now the discussion is only 500 or so in military
personnel and 200-300 civilian personnel, but the numbers are
changing. He questioned whether personnel savings to the
military could better be accomplished by restructuring the non-
mission essential activities such that those positions are
filled by primarily permanent civilian employees because it
would stabilize the area and the base. [The North Pole area]
has much civilian manpower that is military knowledgeable in
most if not all categories. Mayor Issaacson said he was
grateful that the consultants are very proficient in speaking
the military jargon as well as understanding the military
mindset, both of which are critical in determining where the
savings really are. He told the committee that during a Tiger
Team meeting he posed a second action in which the state pays
the personnel costs, $227 million, which would save billions in
negative economic impact. The Air Force responded to U.S.
Senator Begich as follows: "The basing of the Aggressors is a
long-term strategic issue, and therefore one that cannot be
addressed on a yearly or even a (indisc.) basis even if Alaska
was willing to provide funding to support." However, he
suggested that [the state paying personnel costs] could still be
worth pursuing. A third action, as the Tiger Team was told, is
for the state to aggressively enter into the dialogue regarding
the demolition or repurposing of $200-$400 million worth of
buildings of which at least $200 million is in quality
condition. As mentioned by Mayor Hopkins, The F-16 move to JBER
is only possible because the F-15 structures weren't demolished.
These buildings could be repurposed, even for civilian purposes.
Mayor Issaacson also thanked the legislature for passing HB 316.
He noted that a January visit to Eielson highlighted that there
has been much civilian industrial development since he was
stationed there in the 1970s. If the state aggressively enters
the dialogue, the state may be able to utilize the buildings and
create some private enterprise associated unit type activity on
the base. As pointed out earlier, although the associated units
with the 168th were perceived as a done deal, they could be used
to strengthen the mission at Eielson and encourage new missions
to be added when available in the future. Mayor Issaacson
informed the committee that Eielson has approximately 900 new
houses that would be underutilized and the state being part of
the dialogue might result in the [base] housing being more
effectively utilized. With regard to the joint land use study,
he suggested that the legislature could review the study on a
statewide basis as it's a key study requested of communities if
they want to back proof themselves. Fourth, Mayor Issaacson
explained that Fort Wainwright is able to sell and purchase at
the same price to the electric grid, Eielson has a higher cost
in its sell back to the grid than it purchases. Therefore, it
should be reviewed. Last, he suggested reviving the pursuit of
the gas/coal-to-liquids team that existed in Alaska until 2010.
Mayor Issaacson concluded by relating that he concurred with
Mayor Hopkins' comments.
11:10:39 AM
JIM DODSON, President/CEO, Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation; Member, AMFAST; Member, Tiger Team, informed the
committee that he was chair of the effort to overturn the 2005
BRAC recommendation to close. He then suggested the committee
expand its mission to consider future opportunities and threats
to the military industry in Alaska as the state learns to deal
with and address the value of military beyond [the era of]
former U.S. Senator Stevens. With regard to the value of the
military in Alaska, Mr. Dodson informed the committee that 16
percent of Alaska's economy is military, 17 percent of Alaska's
payroll is military, and 32 percent of Fairbanks' payroll is
military. The military has a huge impact [on the state] and
should be addressed as would any other industry in the state.
The AMFAST recommendations are a comprehensive outline in terms
of how the state should proceed while recognizing the need for
professionals to develop a strategic plan to address Alaska's
military industry. As the process moves forward in developing
[a strategic] plan, this committee will be asked for continual
funding as it will be a multi-year process. He echoed the need
for those involved to speak with one voice, which requires an
engagement plan. Mr. Dodson opined that while it's important to
talk about Eielson, it's important to note that AMFAST
recommended hiring Hyjek & Fix prior to the announcement of the
Eielson restructuring. While Eielson needs to be addressed, one
must remember that Alaska's entire military must be addressed as
well. In conclusion, Mr. Dodson encouraged the committee to
work closer with AMFAST as it has a similar mission as that of
the committee in that both address threats to the military
industry in the state as well as address the military complex as
a valued industry in the state that the state must learn to
leverage opportunities such as strategic location, training
grounds, and other assets.
11:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired as to who are the best people in
the military industry with which to discuss this.
MR. DODSON recalled that Mr. Hyjek discussed where decisions are
made within DoD and the various branches services. He noted
that decisions aren't always made for strategic reasons, in
fact, sometimes they're made for political and financial
reasons. He recalled, in relation to why Eielson was in the
2005 BRAC that the previous chief of staff of the Air Force
relayed that there are colonels in the Pentagon who believe
Alaska is off the coast of California because that's where they
saw it on a map. Therefore, as mentioned by Mr. Hyjek, the plan
is to develop a picture of Alaska's value to the military and
present it to the appropriate people in the various branches of
service and DoD.
11:17:46 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI, upon determining there were no further
questions, informed the committee that the discussion would be
continued once the report is received.
11:18:04 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Armed Services Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:18 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|