[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 118-43]
EXAMINING IRREGULARITY IN THE
STRATEGIC BASING PROCESS
FOR U.S. SPACE COMMAND
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 28, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-429 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Eighteenth Congress
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Vice DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
Chair RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
MATT GAETZ, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DON BACON, Nebraska MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JIM BANKS, Indiana VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida SARA JACOBS, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan PATRICK RYAN, New York
RONNY JACKSON, Texas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
PAT FALLON, Texas GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
NANCY MACE, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
NICK LaLOTA, New York STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JIMMY PANETTA, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri MARC VEASEY, Texas
CORY MILLS, Florida
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia
Chris Vieson, Staff Director
Forrest McConnell, Professional Staff Member
Jeanine Wombell, Professional Staff Member
Taylor Burns, Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 4
WITNESSES
Dickinson, GEN James H., USA, Commander, U.S. Space Command...... 8
Kendall, Frank, Secretary of the Air Force, USAF................. 6
Saltzman, Gen B. Chance, USSF, Chief of Space Operations......... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Dickinson, GEN James H....................................... 54
Kendall, Frank............................................... 47
Saltzman, Gen B. Chance...................................... 61
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted during the hearing.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted after the hearing.]
EXAMINING IRREGULARITY IN THE STRATEGIC BASING
PROCESS FOR U.S. SPACE COMMAND
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 28, 2023.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ALABAMA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
Before I offer my opening statement, I want to just
summarize why we are here.
In 2019, the last administration resurrected U.S. Space
Command, which had been for about 20 years in STRATCOM [United
States Strategic Command]. And at that time, it was determined
that this new combatant command, which is separate and apart
from Space Force--I can't overstate that--was going to need a
headquarters. So, in order to ensure for the American people
and the various states that wanted to compete for that
headquarters, a nationwide competition was held, which
Huntsville, Alabama was decided to be the winner.
After that, there were some questions about the competition
raised. So, there was a second nationwide competition that was
held. So, Huntsville was decided to be the winner in that one
again, and Colorado Springs was placed fifth.
There were questions raised by the Colorado delegation
about the administration inappropriately involving itself in
that decision. The Biden administration conducted a Government
Accountability Office [GAO] investigation and an Inspector
General [IG] investigation, found that not to be the case.
The last Secretary of the Air Force certified the decision
that Huntsville was the winner of the first competition and
should be the headquarters. This Secretary of the Air Force
recommended to the President that Huntsville should be the
permanent base.
Then, on July 31st of this year, the President announced
that he had decided to take that decision from the Secretary of
the Air Force, who we had been told for two years had the final
authority on this from the Secretary of Defense and from the
Secretary of the Air Force. And the President decided to give
it to the fifth-place recipient, Colorado Springs.
This is inexplicable, and that is what today is all about.
The one reason the President sided for this decision was
operational readiness. What you will find from today's hearing
is that reason does not exist.
With that, the committee will come to order.
Today, we will examine the striking irregularities in the
Biden administration's handling of U.S. Space Command
Headquarters.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here and for their
service to our Nation.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration has chosen to play
politics with our national security. After a long and
competitive national process, Huntsville, Alabama was selected
as the best location to host the United States Space Command,
or SPACECOM.
Huntsville beat out other states in this order:
Albuquerque, New Mexico came in second. Bellevue, Nebraska came
in third. San Antonio, Texas came in fourth, and in fifth
place, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Huntsville, Alabama was
selected to host SPACECOM permanently.
Since the end of that competition, which was validated both
the GAO and the Biden administration IG, individuals within the
Air Force and the Biden administration have attempted to
circumvent the results and place SPACECOM's permanent base
headquarters in Colorado Springs--in the name of readiness.
Let me be clear. This is not, and has never been, about
readiness. General Saltzman, the general officer with day-to-
day responsibility for readiness of more than 90 percent of our
SPACECOM's assigned forces, says, quote, ``It is my belief the
permanent location of SPACECOM Headquarters will not impact the
readiness of the United States Space Force forces.'' Close
quote.
General Dickinson has stated that Colorado Springs is the,
quote, ``unmatched'', close quote, choice for recruiting
civilians to work in SPACECOM. Yet, he currently employs over
360 contractors to fill civilian staffing shortfalls.
Secretary Kendall's remarks highlight another issue that
this administration's paper-thin readiness argument does not
meet. According to the Air Force documentation, transmitted to
the committee just two days ago, Colorado Springs is projected
to cost $426 million more than Huntsville, Alabama for the
headquarters operations over the next 15 years. That is $426
million, at least, of weapons procurement, research and
development, or maintenance for the rest of the Department of
Defense (DOD) that this administration has decided to spend on
their political manipulation. Hundreds of millions of dollars
in readiness lost--just so the President can try to endear
himself to a purple state prior to next year's election.
These most recent developments are just the latest in a
string of delays and funny math--fuzzy math--with one goal:
whitewash the administration's decision to disregard the
outcome of a competitive and deliberate selection process that
Huntsville, Alabama won.
The Alabama delegation and its members of this committee
have conducted a long-term, bipartisan oversight of the
SPACECOM basing process. What we found has been alarming.
Not only has the Biden administration dumped millions into
Colorado to make it look competitive, using, quote,
``provisional headquarters,'' they appear to have spent even
more to legitimize those efforts.
This year, I have demanded documentation and copies of DOD
records to account for what has played out in the Pentagon and
in Colorado Springs. They show that SPACECOM has already spent
$127 million in Colorado, including tens of millions to put up
to 800 of our most critical space warfighting decisionmakers in
an abandoned, 41-year-old factory--not on a military base, but
nine and a half miles away from the base; not in a secure area,
in an industrial building next to a middle school, around the
corner from an apartment complex, and across the street from
the neighborhood. And 90 percent of what is done in that
building is classified. This leased space had no proper fence,
obsolete security systems, inadequate facilities to handle the
highly classified systems our space capabilities rely on.
Documents obtained by this committee show that Colorado
Springs is out of space and out of infrastructure, despite the
spending spree. Sensitive equipment is running in buildings
without proper backup power, and there already is a massive
office space shortfall on the bases in the Colorado Springs
area.
Despite these facts, on July 31st, President Biden decided
that SPACECOM should no longer move to Huntsville, Alabama and
would remain in its temporary location in Colorado Springs. The
limited documentation provided to the committee doesn't shed
much light on why the President picked the location with 30
percent higher construction cost factors to build an enormous,
new headquarters building there, but I think the members of
this committee know why.
This administration has conveniently ignored the fact that
the units providing nearly all of SPACECOM's operational forces
are not and were never planned to move, regardless of the
SPACECOM Headquarters. There are Space Force personnel in
Colorado Springs that are not part of SPACECOM.
They also ignore the fact that SPACECOM's functions have
already moved once--from Nebraska to Colorado, when
responsibilities were split out of STRATCOM--without problem.
There is no justification for these actions except political
considerations. It is indefensible to turn the fifth-place
finisher into the winner of a basing competition.
Finally, there is an elephant in the room. The Chinese
aren't sitting still. This committee has heard time and again
that President Xi wants a military ready to forcibly overthrow
the government of Taiwan by 2027.
Secretary Kendall and Secretary Dickinson are sure to raise
this point as a reason to, quote, ``stay the course'' in
Colorado. This is a rhetorical game.
If there is a war in 2027, General Dickinson's successor
will likely fight it from the same headquarters he has today.
Those headquarters are leased for the next eight years. They
were stood up to make sure that, during the construction
process of a permanent headquarters, there would be no
diminution of readiness or operations.
This provisional headquarters is, and will remain, fully
capable for the next eight years under existing leases.
Everyone in this room knows that. The construction of a new,
permanent headquarters in Alabama will have no impact on the
provisional headquarters' operational readiness.
We had a nationwide competition to determine the best site
for the permanent SPACECOM Headquarters. Both the Air Force
Secretary--both the last Air Force Secretary and the current
Air Force Secretary have concurred with and supported the
competition results that Huntsville, Alabama is the best
location for this permanent headquarters.
We need to demonstrate to the American people that
preparedness, and not politics, determines important
investments like this, and call for this competition result to
be honored.
With that, I yield to my friend and colleague from
Washington State, the ranking member, for any opening statement
he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry, my chair is falling apart on me here. Just three
points on this--as soon as I figure out how to get myself set
up here.
First--and I think the chairman illustrated this--this has
been a horrible process. And one of the things that I think
everyone on this committee--and Congress, for that matter--is
owed is an explanation for that; how exactly we bollocksed up a
decision to build a command headquarters. We are not talking
about a multibillion weapons system here. As I understand, we
are talking about building a building and locating, roughly,
1400 people.
And the process has been, through two administrations, I
will emphasize, just horribly messed up. And we need to hear
more about how that happened and how to make sure that it never
happens again.
Second, the most important thing going forward is that we
stop the bleeding here at some point and get forward actually
working on what it is we are supposed to work on in terms of
defending the Nation, instead of arguing endlessly about where
to locate one--well, I guess it is probably more than one--
building. But, anyway, it is one, just one building.
But the third thing, where I disagree with the chairman, I
do not believe that either President Trump or President Biden
made this decision based on politics. It is an unfortunate
charge that both sides have thrown out there when the decision
didn't go the way they wanted it to. I mean, I know a little
bit about politics, and I just really can't imagine that some
sort of election is going to be determined based on where one
1400-person building is located, whether it is in Alabama or
Colorado. So, I don't think politics had anything to do with
this.
In fact, I think there were just two basic competing
problems here. And, yes, Huntsville, Alabama won the
competition. But, as I looked through the RFP [request for
proposal] on that, it seemed to simply come down to, where is
the cheapest place to build a building? Okay? And it is cheaper
to build a building in Huntsville, Alabama than it is in
Colorado Springs, or, apparently, in five or six other places.
Is that really the only determining factor in where the
best place to put SPACECOM is? I wouldn't think so. I would
think that there would be other concerns, other things to think
about.
But the way it was structured, it, basically, said, where's
the cheapest place to build a building? I don't even know why
you had the competition at that point. Anyone could have told
you within, like, 30 seconds Huntsville is going to be cheaper
than Colorado Springs. So, it is cheaper, yes. Is it better?
And this is where the other side of it--it is not just
politics. The people at SPACECOM don't want to move. Okay? They
are in Colorado Springs. They have been there; they set it up.
And they don't want to move. I don't know exactly why. I don't
think it has much to do with preferring Colorado Springs over
Huntsville, Alabama. Moving is a pain, and if you don't have to
do it, you would rather not. At the end of the day, I think
that is what it comes down to.
And President Trump never, as he was sort of walking out of
office, made this decision. Okay? It definitely should have
been left to the next administration, so that we didn't get
into this back-and-forth thing. Again, it was thoroughly
investigated. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that
President Trump made that decision based on politics. But
whatever that decision was, it, certainly, shouldn't have
happened at the absolute last minute of his administration.
But President Biden did not decide what he decided because
of politics. He decided it because of the assessment that,
since you have the Space Command folks, the people who are
actually doing the job, wanting to stay in Colorado, that that
was a balancing factor. That was why.
But why we couldn't have simply decided this--I mean, just
one final point. You know, the studies that looked into, well,
was the Trump administration's decision within the rules,
basically, the GAO, the IG looked into it. The determination on
that came out over a year ago, and we waited a year to make the
decision, just sort of twisting in the wind. I don't see why,
if we were going to do it, we couldn't have done it a hell of a
lot sooner than that.
So, the decision making process has been terrible. I
believe that the quicker we can get through this, the better
off we are all going to be.
And lastly, I hope that people won't say, ``Oh, it's
politics on this side; it's politics on that side.'' No, it was
cheaper to build it in Alabama, but folks wanted to stay in
Colorado. You know, which one weighs more? You know, one group
of people decided one way; one group of people decided the
other way, and then, there was a spectacular amount of
unacceptable indecision in simply going, ``This is what we're
doing,'' that made it all the more worse.
So, I look forward to the hearing, to get some greater
explanation and what I may be missing in that analysis, and
hopefully, getting to some reasonable answers and moving on
with the mission.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the ranking member.
Now, I would like to introduce our witnesses.
We have the Honorable Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air
Force; General James Dickinson, U.S. Commander of Space
Command; General Chance Saltzman, the Chief of Space
Operations, United States Space Force.
And I welcome all of our witnesses.
Secretary Kendall, let's start with you. You are recognized
for 5 minutes to summarize your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK KENDALL, SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE, USAF
Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Chairman.
We have submitted a statement for the record, but I will
summarize briefly.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, and other
distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
Any basing decision involves a balancing of different, and
often competing, factors. In my judgment, the two most
important factors in this basing action, ultimately, proved to
be:
One, the cost to the taxpayer of constructing and operating
a new permanent headquarters facility at any of the six
reasonable alternative locations.
And two, the operational risk associated with any
transition from the provisional headquarters in Colorado to
another location.
President Biden exercised his authority, as Command-in-
Chief and Chief Executive, to make the final decision to locate
the permanent headquarters of U.S. Space Command in Colorado. I
fully support the President's decision.
I would like to summarize how this decision came about.
When I became the Secretary of the Air Force in July 2021, the
preliminary designation of Huntsville, Alabama as a preferred
alternative was under review by the Department of Defense
Inspector General and the General Accountability Office, the
Government Accountability Office.
I took no action while these reviews were underway. The DOD
IG and GAO completed their reviews in the May 2022 timeframe.
While neither review found any fundamental flaw in the
identification of the preferred alternative of Huntsville, both
found deficiencies in the process by which that decision was
reached.
The Secretary of Defense directed me, on May 4th, 2022, to
conduct a review of concerns expressed by senior military
leaders regarding full operational capability for U.S. Space
Command.
Subsequently, I directed the Department of the Air Force
Strategic Basing Team to conduct a thorough reevaluation of its
basing analysis.
There have been three core assumptions underpinning this
basing action: the need for a 464,000-square-foot facility; a
workforce of 1450 people, and new construction of a permanent
headquarters building.
The results of the reevaluation were consistent with
earlier results. All six locations were reasonable
alternatives, but Huntsville was lower-cost, while remaining in
Colorado posed the lowest operational risk.
Under any circumstances, USSPACECOM would achieve its final
operational capability, its full operational capability, in its
current provisional location of Colorado Springs. As a result,
the time to achieve full operational capability [FOC] was not a
major consideration. But the disruption associated with moving
the headquarters became a factor to consider.
There would be some operational risk associated with moving
the provisional headquarters in Colorado to any other location.
General Dickinson expressed the view that the operational risk
was significant. The Department of the Air Force Strategic
Basing Team believed that potential mitigation measures were
available, and I concurred with that conclusion.
In early April 2023, General Dickinson stated that he
anticipated declaring full operational capability in the late
summer of 2023--earlier than previous estimates--and he would
do so without the construction of a new, permanent headquarters
building.
I, then, asked General Dickinson to reconfirm SPACECOM's
current basing needs and whether there had been any changes. I
also asked the Chief of Space Operations, General Saltzman, to
provide his perspective on the basing action. The committee has
been provided with General Dickinson's response.
General Dickinson stated, in part, that SPACECOM
requirements have not changed and will soon be fulfilled, as
the Command estimates declaring full operational capability in
August 2023. That date has since slipped.
Based on the accelerated threat in space and the progress
in the Command, selecting a final headquarters location other
than Colorado Springs would greatly reduce readiness, levy
significant cost, and impose high risk to mission and force.
And finally, considering the threat, the U.S. Space
Command's pending full operational capability, and the
situation as a whole, Colorado Springs should be the permanent
location for U.S. Space Command Headquarters.
General Saltzman also provided his perspective on the
basing action, which he has shared with the committee.
I, then, sent a basing team to Colorado Springs to assess
whether the Space Command Headquarters could remain in its
current configuration of leased and government-owned
facilities. The team concluded that new headquarters building
was still necessary.
Over the course of the Department of the Air Force's
extensive reevaluation of the basing process, I have kept the
Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council staff
informed regarding the status of the basing team's analysis.
After being informed that our President would make the
final decision, I briefed the Secretary of Defense and the
National Security Advisor on the results of the Department of
the Air Force's review in June of 2023.
Ultimately, my view was that the decision came down to a
judgment about the operational risk associated with the
relocating versus the reduced cost of the leading alternative
of Huntsville, Alabama. My assessment was that the projected
cost savings, together with the availability of potential
mitigation measures, outweighed the operational risks that have
been identified. As a combatant commander, however, for
SPACECOM, General Dickinson assessed these considerations quite
differently.
On July 31st, 2023, the President announced his decision. I
fully support the President's judgment in this matter.
Given the intensifying threat, and with a final decision
now having been made by President, we are preparing--we are
prepared to move forward with the implementation of this basing
decision. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Kendall can be found
in the Appendix on page 47.]
The Chairman. I thank the Secretary.
General Dickinson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES H. DICKINSON, USA,
COMMANDER, U.S. SPACE COMMAND
General Dickinson. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith,
ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it is, as always, my
honor to appear before you to represent the 18,000 men and
women of the United States Space Command.
These patriots perform a vital mission on behalf of the
American people--vital because space enables our modern way of
life and is critical to defending our Nation. As I testified
before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in March, threats to a
safe, secure, stable, and sustainable space domain are
increasing rapidly. Our strategic competitors, China and
Russia, are fielding counterspace capabilities designed to
diminish U.S. influence and military effectiveness. Beijing and
Moscow are fully aware of our advancements in space and the
enormous benefits to be gained by advancing their own space
capabilities, while holding ours at risk.
Since U.S. Space Command's establishment in August of 2019,
readiness has been our priority. When I took command in the
summer of 2020, then-Defense Secretary Esper directed me to
focus on operational readiness.
And we responded to this direction by establishing a 24/7
Joint Operations Center, publishing the first-ever Secretary of
Defense (SecDef)-approved Operational Plan for Space, and
conducting our first Tier 1 exercise with US Indo-Pacific
Command (USINDOPACOM), and validating our headquarters as a
synchronized team of professionals. And this is just some of
the achievements that we have accomplished.
The U.S. Space Command Headquarters basing decision has
been realized following a deliberate and robust selection
process. My role in this process was to identify the original
headquarters requirements for the permanent location.
As we awaited that decision, our Command remained focused
on our primary directive--to be ready to fight and win in space
whenever called upon. And we met our Unified Command Plan
directives to deliver space effects to the warfighter, protect
and defend the space domain, and conduct transregional missile
defense planning and operations support.
By our second anniversary in August of 2021, we achieved
initial operational capability at our provisional headquarters.
And due to the diligent work and professionalism of our staff
and components, we will soon reach full operational capability,
based on the Command's ability to:
First, execute our Unified Command Plan missions and in
conjunction with conducting global campaigning exercises in
response to crisis.
Secondly, hold the requisite number of skills across our
human capital.
Third, leverage essential infrastructure to enable command
and control across our mission and business functions.
Fourth, execute necessary command processes/functions.
And finally, set conditions and requirements for the future
fight.
Over the past four years, U.S. Space Command's growth and
focus on readiness has translated into the accomplishments of
significant tasks and milestones. U.S. Space Command works very
closely with the Department of the Air Force, our designated
combatant command support agency, to meet our obligations and
initiate actions necessary to build our operational readiness.
On July 31st, the President announced his decision for
Colorado Springs, Colorado as the permanent location for U.S.
Space Command Headquarters. I support the President's decision,
which I believe will further enable the Command to maintain
mission readiness at the highest levels, while imposing the
least disruption to the force.
In my view, selecting Colorado Springs as the permanent
basing location for U.S. Space Command best sustains our human
capital investments and, ultimately, maintains our readiness at
the highest levels, while imposing the least disruption to the
mission and workforce. This is especially important as our
pacing challenge, the People's Republic of China (PRC), is
working to accelerate its modernization and develop the
capabilities it assesses are needed to compel unification with
Taiwan and counterbalance the United States by 2027.
Our competitors are advancing swiftly with adversarial
intent. U.S. Space Command will not slow down. We will meet
that advance and we really have no time to lose. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Dickinson can be found
in the Appendix on page 54.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Saltzman, you are now recognized for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL B. CHANCE SALTZMAN, USSF, CHIEF
OF SPACE OPERATIONS
General Saltzman. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
As the Chief of Space Operations, I am the Service Chief
responsible for the U.S. Space Force, the military service that
secures our Nation's in, to, and from space.
Along with the Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps, I am also a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
And as the chairman has stated, the Space Force is a
separate and distinct organization from U.S. Space Command,
which is the combatant command tasked with planning,
coordinating, integrating, synchronizing, assessing, and when
directed by the President, executing global offensive and
defensive space operations.
As the Chief of Space Operations, I am the senior uniformed
officer responsible for the organizing, training, and equipping
of all Space Force forces serving in the United States and
overseas. I am responsible for the generation of ready forces,
which are presented to combatant commanders, in order to
execute missions on behalf of the Joint Force.
At this time, the overwhelming majority of U.S. Space Force
operational units are presented to U.S. Space Command through
the Space Force service component called Space Operations
Command. Space Operations Command consists of a headquarters
element at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs and
subordinate organizations at a number of locations which
generate ready forces for missions in space domain awareness;
electromagnetic warfare; missile warning; command and control;
cyberspace operations; intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance; satellite communications; position, navigation,
and timing, and orbital warfare.
As the Space Force Service Chief, I am, typically, only
involved in the Department of the Air Force strategic basing
process when U.S. Space Force units are under consideration.
Because this basing action related to a Joint Headquarters for
U.S. Space Command, I had only peripheral engagement in this
matter, as described in my September 13th, 2023 letter to the
committee.
I thank the Congress for their continued support of the
U.S. Space Force, the Space Force mission, our guardians, and
their families. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Saltzman can be found in
the Appendix on page 61.]
The Chairman. I thank you.
I now recognize myself for questions.
I want to start by emphasizing that, when the President
made his announcement on June 31st, the sole reason he gave for
deviating from the competition results was General Dickinson
indicating there would be diminution in operational readiness,
space readiness, if they were to move, period, full stop.
General Saltzman just made reference to the fact that--and
you can turn that time limit off--made reference to the fact
that he didn't have a part in this, and he's right. Generals,
the Space Force is separate and apart from Space Command, and
Space Command is a combatant command.
He is here to emphasize what he just said in his opening
statement, and that is, the overwhelming operational readiness
of our space capabilities is conducted by the Space Force in
their Space Operations Center in Colorado Springs, which is not
moving. And the portion that doesn't fall under his control,
there's small elements of space capabilities in the Army,
Marines, and the Navy. They aren't moving. So, this idea that
moving Space Command is going to affect operational readiness
is just fabricated.
But that is the reason he is here, so people can understand
that this Service component, which provides the bulk of the
resources to General Dickinson's Command, if needed, is not
moving. That is one thing.
General Saltzman, more than 90 percent, as I just said, of
SPACECOM's operational forces are provided by the Space Force.
Isn't it true that it makes no difference to readiness whether
SPACECOM is in Colorado, Alabama, Nebraska, or Texas, because
those units that you have are not going anywhere?
You wrote me a letter September 13th saying, ``It is my
belief that the permanent location of SPACECOM Headquarters
will not impact the readiness of U.S. Space Force forces.''
Close quote.
On April 13th, you wrote Secretary Kendall, quote,
``Regardless of the U.S. Space Command Headquarters location,
there is very little operational risk to the space missions
currently being executed.'' Close quote.
Are those not your statements?
General Saltzman. Yes, sir, those are my statements.
The Chairman. General Saltzman, as you know, the Service
components are responsible for the underlying readiness of
their respective units. Those units are, then, offered up to
the combatant command for use in operations. Isn't it a fact
that you retain ultimate responsibility for over 90 percent of
those forces assigned to USSPACECOM?
General Saltzman. I have the responsibility to generate
readiness for the Space Force forces assigned to U.S. Space
Command.
The Chairman. And those are in Colorado Springs, and they
are not moving, no matter where the Space Command Headquarters
is located?
General Saltzman. They are in a number of locations,
including Colorado Springs, and are not moving.
The Chairman. Correct.
Secretary Kendall, first, I want to applaud you. You did
what you thought was right, regardless of the political
pressure that you knew was being exerted, and I know that it
was being exerted on General Dickinson.
And I want to go to the most important thing you said in
your opening statement, and that is, ``After considering all
these factors, including General Dickinson's observations, my
assessment was that the projected cost saving, together with
the availability of potential mitigating measures, outweighed
the operational risk that had been identified. As the Combatant
Commander for the USSPACECOM General Dickinson assessed,....''
You considered these factors, and then, did what you were
assigned to do, and that is come up with the best location. And
again, I can't overstate this: why have a nationwide
competition if we are just going to disregard it? But you
didn't, and you are to be applauded.
I understand that you serve at the pleasure of the
President and you are going to say, ``Yes, sir,'' and salute,
when he decides to do something different. But I will emphasize
that, for the last two years, the Secretary of Defense has told
this committee, and told me, that the decision on where the
basing was going to be, the permanent basing of SPACECOM, was
solely in the purview of the Secretary of the Air Force, and
whatever he decided was going to be final.
That did not change until the Secretary of the Air Force
started indicating in late June that he was probably going to
pick Huntsville. That is when, all of a sudden, efforts were
made to get General Dickinson to invigorate his arguments that
we have seen here today, to give the President a plausible
toehold to take away this decision. But, as you have just heard
from General Saltzman, there is no effect on operational
readiness, no matter where SPACECOM is.
General Dickinson, I had the chance to come out and visit
you in late August and had you take me through all of your
buildings. Over a thousand of your 1400 employees are in rented
spaces off-base, is that not correct?
General Dickinson. It is not quite a thousand, but it is
about 800.
The Chairman. Eight hundred I thought were in the Bay Area
building. Aren't there another 200 in Newport?
General Dickinson. So, Bayfield, sir----
The Chairman. Yes, I have got Bayfield lease----
General Dickinson. I have about 800 in Bayfield, and then,
the Newport is about 210.
The Chairman. Two ten, yes.
So, of the 1400 you are expected to have, you are going to
have over a thousand of those in two locations--one four and a
half miles off-base and the other nine and a half miles off-
base, is that accurate?
General Dickinson. That's accurate.
The Chairman. And most of the work done in both those
buildings is classified, isn't it?
General Dickinson. That's correct.
The Chairman. Okay. Now, as you have heard me say in my
opening statement, they are in residential areas; they are near
schools; they don't have fences around them. This operation,
this facility, needs to be in a base.
The competition that Huntsville, Alabama won was going to
put the building inside Redstone Arsenal in one state-of-the-
art building that was one big Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility (SCIF), which is what it should be.
Now, General Dickinson, I met with you when I came out
there. I said, ``I want you to show me everything that you do
out here, all your buildings.'' And we went through all the
buildings.
And I asked you, ``Is there anything that you're doing out
here that will be interfered with by the construction of a new
headquarters building in Huntsville, Alabama, five states away?
And as I understand it, it's going to take five years to build
this new headquarters. Is there anything about that
construction process that would interfere with your operations
in Colorado Springs?'' And your answer to me was, ``No, sir.''
Is that correct?
General Dickinson. Chairman--and thank you again for coming
out and seeing the great folks working at U.S. Space Command
during your visit--and for the brick-and-mortar piece of it
that we talked about, building the physical building itself to
the standards that we need, it won't have a direct impact on
readiness in Colorado Springs until we look at the transition
of the workforce and the mission sets from Colorado Springs, in
this case, to Huntsville.
The Chairman. Which would be five years out?
General Dickinson. It could be five years out, if that is
what it is determined to be, the build time for that.
The Chairman. Right.
General Dickinson. But, Chairman, I would tell you that, as
we get ready for that move, there will probably be civilian--
the 60 percent of the headquarters that is civilians where
folks will start making decisions that they no longer want to
work there and seek employment elsewhere, given the
predictability and their personal desire that they would not
want to go to Huntsville.
The Chairman. That's right. And that is what I asked you
there. Because you just skipped past my question. And that is,
I asked you, ``Is there anything about the construction process
in Huntsville, Alabama over the next five years that will
interfere with your operations here in Colorado Springs,'' and
you said, ``No, sir.''
But, then, I asked you, I said, ``Well, why would you tell
the President that it could affect operational readiness?'' And
that is when you told me, ``Well, as we get closer to the move,
some of the civilians may not want to move.''
Well, clearly, as the Secretary said, there are mitigating
factors. You have got five years to plan it and you are moving
to the Rocket City, one of the most high-tech cities in
America. You are going to find a ready workforce, particularly
when you have got five years to plan it. So, that is not a
reason.
But, even aside from that, as we have already found out,
most of the operations, day-to-day operations, are conducted by
the Space Force.
But now, let me go back to a meeting that we had June 7th
in the Capitol, where you met with the Alabama delegation and
about 20 staffers, and we were talking about this, concern
about operational readiness. And you told me that the reason
you stood up this provisional headquarters was to ensure that,
while a new headquarters was being built, no matter where it
was being built, there would be no interruption to operational
readiness, and that is the purpose of the provisional
headquarters; and that you had 10-year leases, which are now
closer to eight, to make sure that there was more than enough
time, and to ensure that operational readiness was carried out
by your Command, and there would be no interruption.
Have you not achieved that goal, that you have an
operationally functioning command that is not going to be
affected by construction of a headquarters in another state?
General Dickinson. I have an operating command right now in
the provisional facilities in Colorado Springs.
The Chairman. That is right. And if we were to have a
conflict with Taiwan in 2027, you would be ready for it, or
your successor would be, because I know your time is up?
General Dickinson. We would be.
The Chairman. All right. Secretary Kendall, when you spoke
with the Alabama--oh, before I leave that point, I want to go
back to that June 7th meeting.
In that June 7th meeting after you told me that you had
stood that up to make sure you were ready to prevent any kind
of readiness interference, I asked you, ``Can you envision any
circumstance in which you would recommend Colorado Springs for
the permanent basing location for SPACECOM?'' and your direct
answer to me was, ``No, sir.'' Is that not correct?
General Dickinson. Chairman, there was a misunderstanding
in that meeting.
The Chairman. But that was your answer to me, was it--I
asked you a direct question. If you want to follow it up with
an explanation--but was that not your answer to me?
General Dickinson. Chairman----
The Chairman. You're under oath, sir.
General Dickinson. Chairman, I had a misunderstanding with
how that question was----
The Chairman. What was your answer to me?
General Dickinson. Chairman, I would go back to I had a
misunderstanding with what was asked of me of that----
The Chairman. That was a pretty clear question.
General Dickinson. Which I clarified in----
The Chairman. No, you didn't. The next day, you emphasized
that the decision rested with the Secretary of the Air Force;
you did not mean to infer who should win.
I asked you if you would, under any circumstances,
recommend Colorado Springs, and you answered, ``No, sir,'' and
then, you went on to explain that Colorado Springs was just set
up to be a temporary provisional headquarters while the new
headquarters was being built.
But you are right, the letter you sent me the next day
said, ``I want to make sure you understand I was not impeding
the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force, who is going to
make the decision''--we thought, until the President decided he
didn't like the results.
But that is what you told me, and I want you to know you
are under oath. Do not deny that because that would be perjury.
General Dickinson. Again, Mr. Chairman, I--that was a
misunderstanding on my behalf, and the answer----
The Chairman. That was a very clear question.
General Dickinson. The answer I gave----
The Chairman. That was a very clear question, General, and
you knew exactly what your answer was.
General Dickinson. But I did not----
The Chairman. Secretary Kendall--Secretary Kendall. when
you spoke to the Alabama delegation on May 23rd, you said,
unequivocally, that you had been given the decision authority
for SPACECOM.
On June 8th, you wrote me a letter. Quote, ``I am committed
to making a decision. This is the best long-term interest of
the Department of Defense.'' Close quote.
According to your testimony, you were told that, quote,
``The President would make the final decision.'' Close quote.
At some point between June 8th and June 30th, we know from your
testimony that you preferred sending the SPACECOM Headquarters
to Huntsville.
When were you told that the President would be making the
decision instead of you?
Secretary Kendall. Chairman, it was shortly before the
decision was made.
The Chairman. Okay. Were you given any reasons?
Secretary Kendall. The reason is the one that the President
has publicly stated, the concerns about readiness, and the
readiness manifests itself in the transition process of moving
to another location. And as General Dickinson indicated, losing
the civilian workforce, and then, having to reestablish a
trained workforce at the new location.
The Chairman. Okay. I will wait for my second round of
questions later.
I just want to pause right here and emphasize, General
Saltzman says he takes care of daily readiness, almost all of
it, what the Navy and the Army and the Air Force don't do,
which is very small.
Secretary Kendall said he considered General Dickinson's
concern and found that they were not overriding and there were
mitigating factors.
General Dickinson just acknowledged he is ready to operate
for the next eight years, no matter where the headquarters is
going, and all he needs is to be concerned about replacing
maybe some civilian personnel who may not want to move, but he
has got five years to do it. There is no readiness concern.
I yield to the ranking member for any questions.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
yield my time now to the gentlelady from Alabama, Congresswoman
Sewell.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much,
Colleague Courtney.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
And let me start off by saying that Huntsville, Alabama is,
unequivocally, the best place for Space Command--not because it
is cheaper, although that is really important, cost savings,
but because of superior competency and an able and ready
workforce.
Huntsville is synonymous with space. Its nickname is the
Rocket City. It is the home of the Space and Missile Defense
Command, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the Missile
Defense Agency, and Missile and Space Intelligence Center.
The city has more engineers per capita than anywhere else
in this Nation, and we are proud of that in Alabama. No place
is more equipped, competent, capable, and better suited to
headquarter the Space Command than Huntsville--not just because
it is cheaper, but because of superior competencies and an able
and ready workforce.
Through two extensive competitions, DOD agreed with this
assessment. Huntsville came in first--first place--of those
competitions, while Colorado came in fourth and fifth.
Let me repeat: a competition is held for a reason. Criteria
are given. And when one particular location meets all of the
boxes, including operational readiness, and was chosen first,
to go with fourth and fifth--you know, we are a competitive
state in Alabama; we love our football. No. 1 means No. 1.
DOD IGA, the DOD's IG found that the process Air Force
used, quote, ``compiled with law and policy, was reasonable in
identifying Huntsville as the preferred permanent location.''
End quote.
Additionally, there has been a Republican and a Democratic
Secretary of the Air Force, and both have found Huntsville to
be the best location.
The evidence is overwhelming, gentlemen, and undeniable.
While Space Command needs to be in Huntsville, we have made a
political decision over a competency decision. And I know that
this administration strives for equity; strives to be fair, and
this is simply unfair.
I want to focus on workforce and labor issues that I found
in your assessment to select Colorado over Alabama. General
Dickinson, you asserted that you believe moving SPACECOM
Headquarters would impact readiness through a loss of civilian
hires. But Secretary Kendall supported moving to Huntsville
because DOD could mitigate operational risk using temporary
supporting staff. You do so now; you have done so in the past,
and you will continue to do so, using temporary staffing
support.
The fact is that we could move to Huntsville; build a new
headquarters; pay for staffing mitigation to buy down risk, and
still come out hundreds of millions of dollars ahead.
General Dickinson, isn't it a fact that we could spend
every dime projected in mitigation costs and still come out
ahead financially by moving to Huntsville?
General Dickinson. Congresswoman, I would address your
question in this regard: it is that 60 percent of the
headquarters today is civilians, whether Department of the Air
Force civilians doing great work for us. We know if we were to
move, for example, that we would believe about 88 percent of
those folks would probably not move.
Ms. Sewell. Did you conduct any new workforce analysis of
the Alabama labor market?
General Dickinson. I believe the Secretary of the Air Force
did during this basing process.
Ms. Sewell. Did you support and provide the committee any
statistical evidence to support a claim that the workforce in
Huntsville, Alabama or in the State of Alabama was inadequate,
either of you? Secretary Kendall?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, the workforce was adequate. It
would need to be trained, of course, for the specific roles.
Ms. Sewell. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, beyond everything
we have discussed today, another major concern I have in the
Air Force decision to locate Space Command in Colorado is that
it would geographically cut off a diverse talent pipeline for
military and civilian personnel.
Alabama is the home of 14 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), the most in the country. Colorado is the
home of zero. Alabama's population is 27 percent African
American, while Colorado's is only 4 percent. This makes a
difference when recruiting personnel.
In Huntsville, Alabama, the Space and Missile Command
recruits students from Alabama A&M down the road in Huntsville,
Alabama, bringing them into the internship program; fostering
their full-time employment, and creating an able, ready
workforce.
I hope that we can move away from politics and look at the
facts. And the facts are the Huntsville will be a better
location, the best location for Space Command.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. And I would also
emphasize they get a lot of engineering graduates from Tuskegee
in my district.
The gentleman from Colorado Springs is recognized.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank Secretary Kendall, General Dickinson,
and General Saltzman for testifying before the committee today.
And I commend Chairman Rogers for calling this hearing.
I have had serious concerns about flaws in the Air Force's
role in the basing decision process from the very beginning.
Both the DOD Inspector General and the GAO reports stated that
the Air Force process deviated from prior basing decision. It
focused on secondary factors rather than America's readiness to
exert space dominance. Sure, housing costs, school districts,
and such matters are important, but not as important as
military readiness.
As an aside, I do want to go on record to say that, even in
these secondary considerations, Colorado Springs takes a
backseat to no one. After all, according to a popular ranking,
it is one of the 10 most desirable places to live in the entire
United States and has been for each of the last six years.
People who live in Colorado Springs are fiercely loyal to
it and will not move away, no matter how attractive an
alternative may be. This loyalty means that moving Space
Command anyplace else, no matter where that would be, would
produce a dramatic attrition in the civilian portion of the
trained workforce at Space Command.
Significantly, the Inspector General's report--I have a
copy of it right here--cited the site selection findings that
stated that, when FOC, or full operational capability, was
considered, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs rose to
the top of the list. I repeat: when full operational capability
was considered, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
rose to the top of the list. That is on page 19 of part two of
the Inspector General's report.
Quote: ``This assessment supports the selection of Colorado
Springs as the preferred alternative and Huntsville as the
feasible alternative.'' End quote. Page 19 of the Inspector
General's report.
But, no matter where in the Air Force site selection
rankings Colorado Springs or Huntsville, or any other location,
are placed, at the end of the day, it is only academic. The
Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump in January 2021 and Joe Biden
today, makes the final decision. The site selection rankings
are only advisory, and the President can give them as much or
as little weight as he wants.
Now, before I ask General Dickinson about the importance of
FOC in readiness, I have two quick questions I want to ask the
entire panel. Hopefully, this is just a yes-or-no answer, for
the sake of time.
First of all, do you support the decision of the President?
General Saltzman or Secretary Kendall?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, I do.
Mr. Lamborn. General Saltzman?
General Saltzman. I can support implementation of the
President's decision.
Mr. Lamborn. And, General Dickinson?
General Dickinson. Yes, I do. I support his decision.
Mr. Lamborn. And secondly, did the President have the
authority to make this basing decision? Secretary Kendall?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lamborn. General Saltzman?
General Saltzman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. And, General Dickinson?
General Dickinson. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. And finally, General Dickinson, why is
reaching FOC as soon as possible so important, and how many
years would it take to duplicate that somewhere else, if it
could even be done? And I ask--I yield to you.
General Dickinson. So, what we have seen over the last four
years--and the Command just turned four years in August--we
have seen a rapid growth in capability and capacity, in
particular, by the PRC. And so, what we have looked at over the
last two years, since the January 2021 meeting, was that we
have seen increases in counterspace capabilities by the
Chinese, dual-purpose satellites, direct-descent satellites. We
have seen electromagnetic interference by the Russians. We have
seen a whole host of increases in capability and capacity by
our competitors.
In response to that, I saw the need that we needed to
accelerate and move quickly towards FOC, so that the strategic-
level command of U.S. Space Command was trained and ready. And
that included bringing on, hiring a workforce, and training and
certifying that workforce. And we have done so over the last
two years in terms of having events, exercises--actually, real-
world events that have pushed us to FOC. And I expect that we
will achieve FOC later this calendar year.
But, in terms of the workforce, I can't emphasize enough
how important it is that we have a trained and ready workforce,
and that workforce provides the command and control, the
direction, and the leadership of all of the forces that General
Saltzman provides, plus, the other Services, to the combatant
command.
And so, moving that would create that operational risk that
we are talking about today, in that you would take a trained
and ready workforce, and then, have to move them to another
geographic location, which would create risk--risk that I have,
as the combatant command in the performance of the Unified
Command Plan (UCP) missions I have been given by the President.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Michigan, Ms. Slotkin, for any questions.
The gentlelady passes.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wittman, for any questions.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank our panelists for joining us today.
I think, as we watch how this decision making has unfolded,
we now see an example of how not to make a decision in these
realms. We know that we live in a town that is political, but
we expect these decisions not to be made within the political
realm. I think that what we are seeing here today,
unfortunately, is politics entering into this.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the
balance of my time to Mr. Strong.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
I'm disappointed that Chairman Rogers had to call a hearing
to get answers that we have been seeking for months.
As I have been saying for years, Redstone Arsenal was, is,
and remains to be the best possible location for U.S. Space
Command and national security. This isn't an opinion. This
isn't speculation. It is a fact supported by the Air Force
basing process; a GAO report; a DOD Inspector General report;
the Air Force Strategic Basing Team reevaluation in 2022; the
Air Force Strategic Basing Team reevaluation in 2023.
Huntsville came in first place and Colorado Springs came in
fifth five separate times. I would be willing to bet that at no
other point in U.S. history did a President willingly select
the fifth-best option for our men and women in uniform. It has
never happened.
General Dickinson, I understand you are concerned about
workforce retention and believe that a move would pose
unnecessary risk to readiness. The military moves constantly;
you know it. As you also know, the breakdown of your personnel
is roughly 60 percent civilian, 40 percent military. Every
analyst shows that SPACECOM personnel, especially military
personnel, would be better off in Huntsville, Alabama.
We are grateful for our civilian workforce, but if they
don't want to move, they don't have to, and we won't force
them, because there are new people waiting to take these jobs.
I'm looking forward to asking questions soon, and yield
back the remainder of my time to Mr. Wittman.
The Chairman. He left.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have a
dog in this fight because I'm from Georgia.
[Laughter.]
I know Alabama has got pretty good football teams--well,
Alabama had pretty good football teams.
[Laughter.]
But I am very concerned about what happened here. And I
have two Air Force bases. I have seen basing decisions made
where there is always a tremendous amount of detail, and
sometimes my bases have been selected and sometimes others have
been selected. But I have accepted that the process works in
the best interest of the DOD and our national security.
And the DOD has, historically, been one of the most
respected institutions, not just in America--I mean our DOD,
America's DOD--but in the world. And I think it is because, up
to and until recently, for the most part, they have kept
politics out of the decisions.
What Mr. Lamborn said is President Trump had the authority
to make the decision and President Biden has the authority to
make the decision. The problem with that is, if we go down that
path, and that is the way the decisions are going to be made,
then, when you have a Republican President, the missions are
going to be put in red states, and when you have a Democratic
President, the missions are going to be put in blue states, and
a political agenda is going to end up destroying the
effectiveness of our DOD and our national security.
And, Secretary Kendall, how many basing decisions does the
Air Force make in a given year?
Secretary Kendall. I don't have the exact number, but we
make several.
Mr. Scott. Do you know approximately how many have been
made since you have been Secretary?
Secretary Kendall. I would say at least a dozen.
Mr. Scott. In any of those, other than this one, has the
President given you a directive of where the mission was going
to be?
Secretary Kendall. No, Congressman. This is very unusual,
non-standard in many ways. It is a combatant command, first of
all, and we rarely do a combatant command. So, obviously, I
think, as an agent of the President and the Secretary of
Defense in this case, it also went through an unusual process.
We started out with the standard Air Force basing process,
but Secretary Esper and the previous administration changed
that process rather fundamentally and asked each state,
essentially, to put in a bid for the headquarters. So, the
basing team stopped the process it would normally conduct, and
then, conducted the process directed by Secretary Esper. And
that produced six, ultimately, candidates, and then, in the
Trump administration, again, there was a decision which
involved a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. So,
this started out very non-standard.
And then, we had the DOD and IG investigation. So, this is
nothing like a normal basing decision, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Scott. I'm down to two minutes.
I certainly respect you, but it appears political to me.
And before I say what I'm about to say, I want you to know I
disagree with the way Senator Tuberville did things. I also
disagree with Senator Schumer not taking other actions that
were available to him to go ahead and get our commanders in
position. I think there is blame with Senator Tuberville; I
think there is blame with Senator Schumer--blaming both sides
over what has happened. But I disagree with what Senator
Tuberville did.
But, to me, my concern is it looks like it is payback from
the President of the United States, and payback is a very
dangerous game to play. Nobody wins when there is payback.
And if we are going to get to the point that politics is
going to determine where the mission goes, then what you are
going to see is that the people who sit on the top row up here
are going to put missions in their districts, and then, when it
flips, the missions are going to move to somewhere else. This
is a dangerous game.
You answered my question. Since you have been there as
Secretary--and I think you have done a good job--the President
has never done what Joe Biden did in this case. Is that
correct?
Secretary Kendall. I think it is unusual for a President to
intervene in a basing decision in any case, and it was done by
President Trump, and then----
Mr. Scott. Would you agree with my concern then--and I
apologize for interrupting you--that if we continue down this
path, if you have a Republican President that turns around and
does the same thing--I mean, you could, 18 months from now,
have a Republican President that comes in and says, ``You know
what? I'm changing the basing decision that Joe Biden made. And
so, I'm going to turn around and put it in Huntsville.'' And
then, four years from now, you have another one come in who
says, ``Well, I'm changing what the last President said.''
If we don't follow the process--if we don't follow the
process, our national security is going to suffer as a country.
And with that, I would yield.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Before I go to our next Democrat, I do want to address
something that was mentioned by my friend from Colorado. I
challenge him to show me where the word ``advisory'' was ever
uttered or written in correlation with the competition of the
states for the permanent basing of the Space Command. It was a
competition for the basing, not an advisory competition.
And with that, I recognize the gentlelady from Alabama for
5 minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say for the record that I am an ardent supporter,
a passionate supporter of President Biden. And what I believe
is that President Biden wasn't given all the facts when he made
that decision. And I think that, as a man of integrity, as a
man who literally loves this country, would put his life on the
line for this country, he would want to know all the facts in
making a decision.
So, General Dickinson, I want to know, did President Biden
know that you told the entire Alabama delegation--I was sitting
there myself--when asked by Chairman Rogers about operational
readiness, that it would not be affected if it went to Alabama?
You said, quote, ``No, sir.'' Did he know that?
General Dickinson. I can't tell--I don't know if the
President knew that or not.
Ms. Sewell. I think that we have to give this President the
full information.
Secretary Kendall, you said early on, or after your
assessment, that Huntsville was the best location. You chose
that when you had the authority to do so, right?
Secretary Kendall. The basic process that I, I ran and my
judgment was that, when I weighed operational considerations
versus cost, and other factors, that Huntsville was the
preferred location.
Ms. Sewell. Yes. And so----
Secretary Kendall. But General Dickinson did not agree with
that. Both of our positions were made clear, I believe, to the
White house.
Ms. Sewell. Are you sure?
Secretary Kendall. I, I----
Ms. Sewell. Did he have full information?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, I am sure.
Ms. Sewell. Did he know that five times Huntsville was
chosen over Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. I, I--Congressman, with all due respect,
I don't think that is accurate. The IG and GAO reviewed the
action; those weren't separate selections----
Ms. Sewell. Yes, the IG did so because Colorado, the
delegation from Colorado, insisted that it was that Trump was
being political in this process.
Look, I don't want to--I don't want to talk about politics.
I really just want to talk about the facts. And I truly believe
that Huntsville is the preferred location because it is the
best location. And to say that you don't have temporary staff,
that you don't go out and look for temporary civilian staff to
fill your workforce gaps, is absolutely summarily wrong. You
do, don't you?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, but all of the--all of the six
locations that we were considering were acceptable and could
have accommodated the headquarters. They were all viable.
Ms. Sewell. Right.
Secretary Kendall. Huntsville did come up----
Ms. Sewell. And so----
Secretary Kendall. --first by some of the standards,
particularly cost. But Colorado was a very acceptable location.
And there was----
Ms. Sewell. But cost was really a factor----
Secretary Kendall. There was risk associated with moving
from Colorado to any other location. That was recognized from
the beginning of the process.
Ms. Sewell. So, why even have a process if you know that
you are going to choose the location that they are currently
in? We spent how many manhours, how many dollars--how much of
the taxpayer money did we spend in this competition, in this
reexamination, in this investigation? And I'm sorry, to go back
to the same place that it's in? What was that about? Why have a
competition?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, following the GAO and the IG
investigations, there were a number of things that they pointed
out that were deficiencies, if you will, in the process. They
found no fundamental flaw with what was done, but there were
some deficiencies.
There was also the issue that was raised about the
disruption associated with moving----
Ms. Sewell. Yes, sir.
Secretary Kendall. --and what full operational capability
and achieving that would do to the decision.
Ms. Sewell. Yes, sir.
Secretary Kendall. So, there were some things we had to go
back and look at----
Ms. Sewell. Can I just say, though, that overarching all of
this, the American people, we don't--we do a disservice to the
American people to see Alabama versus Colorado battling it out
on this at this hearing.
I just want you to know that it is not about politics. I,
literally--and I know that the workforce, the able, ready
workforce that is there in Huntsville can more than accommodate
this, the operational readiness that is being at issue. And
operational readiness only came about, like, months before the
President made the decision?
So, I just want to ask the question----
Secretary Kendall. No----
Ms. Sewell. --General Dickinson, is it correct that you are
still using contractors to fill a shortfall in your civilian
workforce right now in Colorado Springs? And isn't it accurate
to reflect that lower--that long-term costs of staying in
Colorado, you would still have civilians and contractors to
fill voids?
General Dickinson. Congresswoman, it is true that we are
using contractors right now to fill out a portion of the
workforce. And that is a standard practice as you are standing
up a new organization. It is very common across other combatant
commands to have a contractor force as well. And so, as we look
to hire, continue to hire and fill in the Command, we will
continue to use contractors.
Ms. Sewell. Well, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that
politics aside, this is really--you know, I am in full support
of President Biden; will be voting for him again, but I just
think that he was not given the full range of information to
make the right decision, because if he had, he would have
chosen Huntsville.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I completely agree. I think that the
President, unfortunately, relied on General Dickinson's
observation, which he has just demonstrated is not accurate.
Whoever follows you as combatant commander is also going to
be a four-star general, who is going to have five years and can
use contractors, if they need to, if some of the people don't
want to move. There is no readiness concern here, no basis for
the President to interfere with these competition results. And
I agree that the President shouldn't have been given that
information, and he would have supported, then, Secretary
Kendall's recommendation, which was also the recommendation of
his previous Air Force Secretary.
I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais,
for 5 minutes.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
And I appreciate our witnesses for being here today.
Secretary Kendall, I appreciate the forthright manner in
which you laid out your decisionmaking process as it pertains
to U.S. Space Command. You indicated in your statement that the
cost savings associated with locating Space Command in
Huntsville is what carried the day for you, is that correct?
Secretary Kendall. That's correct.
Dr. DesJarlais. In April, you told the House Appropriations
Committee that there was no indication that President Biden
would mettle in the decision of where this Space Command was to
be located. And you said, I quote, ``Lloyd Austin delegated it
to me and that's where it stays today.''
When did you learn that this decision was out of your hands
and would be made by the White House instead?
Secretary Kendall. It was shortly before the President made
the decision.
Dr. DesJarlais. I'm sorry, it was when?
Secretary Kendall. It was shortly before the President made
the decision.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Was Secretary Austin the one who
informed you of this change or did it come from the White
House?
Secretary Kendall. It came through the chain of command.
Dr. DesJarlais. Can you say who?
Secretary Kendall. Through the Secretary of Defense's
office.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And what did they say to you?
Secretary Kendall. Nothing more than that the President
would be making the decision.
Dr. DesJarlais. Were you informed--I'm sorry, you may have
answered this--were you informed that the White House would be
the ultimate decisionmaker before or after they learned of your
preference for Huntsville over Colorado Springs?
Secretary Kendall. I'm not going to go into the details of
the decision making process and how it played out. But, as I
said in my testimony, I kept the National Security Advisor, the
National Security staff at the White House and the Secretary of
Defense's office both fully informed throughout this process.
Dr. DesJarlais. Uh-hum. And, you know, you had explained to
them that there were mitigation concerns and that you could
remedy some of General Dickinson's concern over operational
risk, among other things, and why it was more strategically
advantageous to have it in Huntsville than Colorado Springs.
But, yet, in your opening statement, you said that you fully
support the President's decision. How can that be when, up
until it wasn't your decision, that you supported Huntsville?
Secretary Kendall. The committee has a copy of my briefing
which went to the Secretary of Defense and National Security
Advisor and fully communicates my views.
At the end of the day, this was an operational decision
about operational risk versus cost. The President is the
Commander-in-Chief; I'm not. General Dickinson is the commander
of our combatant command. He has a direct operational
responsibility and I do not. General Saltzman shares with me
the responsibility to provide ready forces.
They have a different perspective, and they have the
authority to make this decision based on their assessment of
risk. And I respect that.
So, while I might have come to a different conclusion,
there was adequate basis in the whole record, going all the way
back to----
Dr. DesJarlais. Yeah.
Secretary Kendall. --when President Trump made the earlier
decision, of full operational capability, and the time to
achieve that was a major factor that was added late in that
process to the decision making process. And the operational
concerns----
Dr. DesJarlais. All right. And I shared my--I share my
concerns with the gentleman from Georgia who just mentioned
that one thing I enjoyed about this committee was that, when
witnesses like yourselves come before us, your job is to give
your best military advice to the President and the Commander-
in-Chief. We just have one Commander-in-Chief. He is ours,
regardless of what side of the aisle it was on. It sounds like
you gave your best military advice and that was not taken. But,
yet, you still fully support the President, and that kind of
almost partisanship concerns me.
General Dickinson, you are a native Coloradoan; born in
Colorado; grew up in Colorado; went to school in Colorado;
cheered for the Broncos, even though they lost 70-to-20.
[Laughter.]
Did you have a personal preference for the Space Command
being located in Colorado?
General Dickinson. I did not.
Dr. DesJarlais. That is interesting because I'm from
Tennessee--I'm not from Alabama--and I have a personal
preference for it being in Huntsville because I border Alabama
and I have a lot of constituents that go there.
All things being equal, I would have a preference for my
own area, where I'm from and the people who would benefit from
that. But things weren't equal. Huntsville was proven to be the
better choice. And so, I don't have to feel guilty about my
personal preferences, but you are saying that you didn't have a
personal preference. But I will take you at your word.
The reversal seemed to be based, at least in part, on your
statement that USSPACECOM would be fully operational earlier
than previously thought, in August of 2023. Is the U.S. Space
Command fully operational?
General Dickinson. Congressman, we are not fully
operational-capable at this moment. I anticipate that we will
be so here by the end of the calendar year.
And the reason I'm continuing to review and assess the
Command is two reasons.
One is we received an additional Unified Command Plan task
in this, in the latest one that came out in May of this year,
which is transregional missile defense. So, I'm assessing to
make sure that I have got the proper functions and personnel
within the headquarters to be able to do that task.
Dr. DesJarlais. If the chairman would indulge me just for
10 seconds, I would say that I don't share the same confidence
in the ranking member and others that this is not a political
decision. It is pretty clear how the State of Alabama votes. It
is pretty clear how the State of Colorado votes. It is a swing,
it is a swing state, and I personally believe that there is
political bias in this decision. And that is detrimental to our
military readiness.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan,
General Bergman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Kendall, let's start with a positive. Okay?
I'm pleased with the Air Force's recent decisions to expedite
the cleanup of the Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) releases at the former Wurtsmith Air Force
Base in Oscoda, Michigan. I commend your Department for taking
these necessary actions, albeit we could have moved a little
faster, but, nonetheless, you know, we are moving in the right
direction.
However, this is just a start to ensure that everyone there
has safe drinking water. You know, the time for study is long
since over; the time for action is now. It is imperative that
the Air Force continues the remediation with the sense of
urgency that the situation rightly deserves.
And I implore you, please continue to keep us updated on
the next steps, as an open and transparent process is
imperative to keeping the public informed. Because you know
rumor mills are never good news. So, the sooner we can dialog
with the Department of the Air Force and the updates, it is
going to help us message to the citizens there in the area
about all the good things that are happening.
So, thank you for that.
Now, kind of changing gears to the topic at hand here, in
all my years I have never seen a process that was kind of so
blatantly disregarded when it came to the time to making a
final decision.
By the way, just as an aside, my first Base Realignment and
Closure [BRAC] I was involved in was 1979. Okay? This isn't a
BRAC, but the idea of the emotion that goes into creating or
downsizing or re-missioning bases, it really does become a very
emotional, very parochial, very, you know, guard-your-ground
situation.
And, you know, we have heard the word ``readiness''
consistently used as a reason for, or a reason not to. And I
would suggest to you that you just use the term ``ORM.'' And I
assume that still stands for operational risk management. Is
that a true statement? I heard ORM used here in the last couple
of minutes.
But, anyway, if I misheard, then let's consider operational
risk management. We have to, first of all, before we manage any
risk, we have to assess the risk. I would suggest to you what I
saw here in how this process has played out, it is not
operational risk management; it is organizational risk
management. In other words, bureaucracies protecting needless
bureaucracies at the expense of the operating forces and the
readiness thereof. That concerns me, and any bureaucracy is
capable of devolving into that, and then, using someone else or
some other entity as the scapegoat for their bad decisions.
And what is at risk here is the readiness of our families.
Sure, we can talk about our readiness to fight, our readiness
to respond, but families don't need to be whipsawed back and
forth by bureaucratic, if you will, jousting. And that is
where, when you think about our military members whose spouses
are--they are like seven times the national unemployment rate
because of the challenges with moving families around.
The idea of making this decision, making it early, making
it for the right reasons, and sticking with it, rather than get
into a politicization, if that is the right word--I probably
added an extra syllable in there. But the point is, that is not
only ethically wrong, but it is morally wrong on the part of
the readiness for the families itself.
So, I guess the one thing that, again, as I listened to you
all speak--and I know this didn't really end up with much
questions--but the question is, can anybody tell me what
percentage long term you plan to use contractors for? Are you
going to have an 80/20 workforce, 90/10, 70/30? Because
contractors really don't care. Contractors, you let a contract
and they go to work wherever the hell it is. Okay? What is the
long-term plan for use of contractors?
General Dickinson. Mr. Congressman, so the way the work,
headquarters is organized right now, 60 percent of them are
civilians. In this case, they are Department of the Air Force
civilians. Forty percent are military.
The contractors help us in terms of the shortage we may
have in the workforce on the civilian side, in terms of being
able to do those types of functions for us. Ideally, you
eventually wean yourself off the contractor force as you fill
out the rest of----
Mr. Bergman. Over the long term, is the contractor force
less capable and more expensive; more capable, less--than a
civilian workforce? Because with contractors, you have speed of
movement when it comes to changing, if something changes, where
you don't necessarily have that within your civilian workforce.
Thoughts?
General Dickinson. So, I would answer that by saying that
it is a function, the number of contracts is a function of how
many people you are trying to recruit and hire entering.
Mr. Bergman. Okay.
General Dickinson. And they are a little bit more mobile,
if you will, in terms of their functions and the ability to
bring them on the team.
The Chairman. Yes, the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bergman. Yes, thank you.
The Chairman. But I will make the point, the fact is you
are using 360 contractors now to fill positions. As I said
earlier, whoever follows you is going to be a four-star
general; has got five years to plan. By the time that you get
ready to move to the new, permanent headquarters in Alabama, if
all the civilians don't want to go, you can do what you are
doing now, and do what Secretary Kendall found, and use
mitigating ways of getting contractors to fill those spots.
This is not in any way going to diminish the operational
readiness of Space Command when that move occurs.
The gentleman from New York, do you have any questions?
Okay. I think, then, we will go to the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Waltz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Strong from Alabama is recognized. I thought Mr. Waltz
was up next. I'm sorry.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Dickinson, in April, you informed Secretary Kendall
that Space Command would reach full operational capability this
summer in secure workplaces with network connectivity all the
way to the special access program levels, our most highly
classified programs. That would be great if it weren't for one
thing. Colorado Springs has a real space problem. Literally,
there is not enough space for your required personnel numbers
on Peterson Air Force Base, which does offer force protection.
Are there SPACECOM functions being run out of trailers
currently in Colorado?
General Dickinson. Congressman, on Peterson Space Force
Base, next to Building 1, which is where my headquarters is, we
have some mobile facilities that are being utilized as SCIFs.
But those mobile facilities are inside the security of
Peterson.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
Aren't you lacking sufficient backup power for multiple
buildings?
General Dickinson. So, we, in terms of the power
consumption, the power redundancy, if you will, we are working
through that now.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
Aren't there over a thousand personnel working at two
separate facilities, 4.5 miles and another one 10 miles away
from Peterson Space Force Base, with zero force protection, not
even a concrete barrier? Is that true?
General Dickinson. So, the facilities there, Congressman,
have been certified by the external agencies for their ability
to do the functions we are asking them to do, whether it is
SCIFs or whether it is the----
Mr. Strong. Do they have protection in front of those
buildings to keep threats away?
General Dickinson. No, they do not.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
It is just unbelievable that these conditions would be
deemed acceptable or appropriate for a four-star command. In
Huntsville, Space Command would immediately have move-in-ready
facilities, and within 24 months, a brand-new, 400,000-square-
foot facility--all within secured Redstone Gateway. And this is
before the construction of the permanent headquarters--not to
mention Alabama, in their proposal, was going to build and
donate new general officer housing. That would have eliminated
a $1.5 million purchase for you in that new farm that you
bought.
Secretary Kendall, in your statement, you were very clear
Space Command's current temporary facility must be replaced and
new buildings are required. And that is your judgment, based
off findings of the Strategic Base Team that Huntsville was
more competitive and just as capable of hosting the permanent
headquarters.
Isn't it a fact that the Air Force found we could save $426
million by moving to Huntsville rather than staying in
Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. That's an accurate number. It would be
offset by cost of mitigation, however, to some extent.
Mr. Strong. Is it true that construction in Alabama is
easily 30 percent or more cost-effective than Colorado? Is that
true?
Secretary Kendall. That is approximately what our data
shows.
Mr. Strong. Is it also true that maintenance of facilities
in Alabama are approximately the same savings for maintenance
of buildings in Alabama versus Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. I believe that is roughly correct.
Mr. Strong. Out of the six locations considered for Space
Command, which one had the higher construction cost estimated?
Which one had a higher construction cost estimated than
Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. Colorado Springs was highest.
Mr. Strong. It was the highest? Was there any facility that
was higher to build in than Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. I don't believe there was among the six
candidates.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
Isn't the housing allowance substantially higher in
Colorado than Alabama? Is that a true statement?
Secretary Kendall. I would have to check that one for the
record. I think it is probably true.
Mr. Strong. It is true.
And the people wonder why we have a $33 trillion debt. I
think these decisions right here are exactly what the people of
America are focusing on. It is because of decisions like this
which ignore the facts and the expense of the American
taxpayer. That is who is paying the bill.
Isn't it true that the Air Force found that the alleged
operational risk shared by General Dickinson could easily be
mitigated? Is that true, that it could be easily mitigated?
Secretary Kendall. I don't think the word ``easily'' was
ever used. There were, there were mitigations available.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
Did Space Command ever consider these mitigation efforts in
their risk assessment?
Secretary Kendall. In their initial assessment, no. You
have been provided with some of those documents, I believe.
But, in conversations with my staff, they were discussed.
Mr. Strong. A lot of documents you provided us reference
the May 2022 SPACECOM sensitivity analysis. However, this
document hasn't been provided to this committee. That is
exactly the point I want; we would love that documentation that
has been referenced, but this committee can't get a copy of it.
Was any of the information I just asked included in that
analysis? We don't have it.
Secretary Kendall. I think you do have it. I think in my
briefing, in the backup charts, there is one that talks about
the cost of mitigation and the estimates that Space Command had
and that my staff had.
Mr. Strong. Well, I know that we have been trying to get
it. I hope it is in there and that will answer some of these
questions.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Strong. Will you commit to getting the committee, as
you have said, if we don't have this, will you commit to
getting every member of this committee a copy of that analysis?
Secretary Kendall. I can't do that. That is deliberative
materials. I mean, I would have to review that before we could
do that.
Mr. Strong. General Dickinson----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Fallon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Kendall, the last couple of weeks, we have been
talking in the Subcommittee for Tactical Land and Air--Air and
Land, rather--about the next-generation air dominance and what
it will take, of course, to win moving forward.
And what we are going to do, we are going to need to be, if
we are going to stay No. 1, you would agree that we need to
have these fifth-generation fighters, so we can have air
superiority, right, basic?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, we have a large number of
modernization programs that we need to move forward with. Next-
generation air dominance is one of them.
Mr. Fallon. Secretary, if we got into a conflict with China
with, say, the fourth-best fighter aircraft, would that be
problematic?
Secretary Kendall. I think any disadvantage relative to
China, or any other adversary, would be problematic.
Mr. Fallon. We would struggle, then, if we weren't No. 1,
if we didn't have the best?
Secretary Kendall. We always strive to have superiority of
our----
Mr. Fallon. Of course. Of course, we are the United States
military; we want to be No. 1, and we have been for almost 100
years now.
Is USSPACECOM important to our future?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, it is.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. So, you would agree with me that we want
to have the best? We don't want to be fourth or fifth? We want
to be No. 1?
Secretary Kendall. We want to have the most ready
capability that we can.
Mr. Fallon. Yes. General Dickinson, are you okay with not
having the best resources and equipment available?
General Dickinson. No, I want----
Mr. Fallon. Of course,
General Dickinson. --the best resources and equipment.
Mr. Fallon. Absolutely. So, you wouldn't want to be fourth
or fifth best; you want to be No. 1?
General Dickinson. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Yeah. Okay. So, while I'm not thrilled that San
Antonio didn't get awarded and chosen, but this was a study and
San Antonio didn't come out on top, did they, Secretary
Kendall?
Secretary Kendall. No, it did not.
Mr. Fallon. No. Colorado Springs didn't come out on top,
either, did it?
Secretary Kendall. It did not come out on top, for some of
the criteria that we used to be----
Mr. Fallon. Well, yeah, I mean, it seems like fourth or
fifth. I think maybe something--because there was a point value
and Colorado Springs scored nine points below? Is that
accurate?
Secretary Kendall. I'm not sure what you are referring to
there, Congressman.
Mr. Fallon. In the basing decision. In fact, it was that
Huntsville scored--the chasm between Huntsville and Colorado
Springs was greater than Colorado Springs and the last?
Secretary Kendall. Yeah.
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Secretary Kendall. I think you are referring to the earlier
basing decision analysis that went into----
Mr. Fallon. Yes.
Secretary Kendall. --that was covering the IG report, is
that right?
Mr. Fallon. Yes.
Secretary Kendall. Okay. I don't recall the point
differences in----
Mr. Fallon. And what I found interesting, hearing some
parts of this committee hearing, the available workforce,
according to this study, Huntsville, Alabama was No. 1. I
didn't do the study; you all did. And it is ranked at No. 1.
Secretary Kendall. And there was reason, based on those
criteria, that my recommendation would have been Huntsville.
Mr. Fallon. Yeah.
Secretary Kendall. But there were operational reasons why
Colorado would have been a preferred location.
Mr. Fallon. I think it is a blatant political decision
because the guy down the street, the people in Colorado vote
for him and not enough people in Alabama do.
And if we continue to have this kind of political garbage
infect our military, we are risking No. 1. I don't want
American generals--I don't want Republican generals; I don't
want Democratic generals. I want American generals, and to put
our best interests as a nation and not be infected with this
politics.
But I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
And I do want to follow up with a couple of things.
One, my friend and colleague from Colorado Springs asked
earlier, ``Did President Biden have the authority, as
Commander-in-Chief, to come in and interject himself?'' And
each of you answered yes.
He didn't see it that way when it was President Trump. In
fact, he called for an Inspector General's inspection for abuse
of power. And so, I find that rich.
But my friend from Georgia asked the Secretary this
question: ``Could you remember in recent years any President
usurping the authority on a basing decision?'' And you said you
couldn't.
I have been on this committee 21 years. It has not
happened. Because I guarantee you whichever members from the
state that it did happen to would have been yelping, just like
I'm yelping. This just does not happen.
And as I opened this hearing, it is very disturbing on its
face when we have these kind of nationwide competitions and
this kind of circumvention comes up at the end which can only
be described as political.
With that, we will now go to--who's next?--Mr. LaLota of
New York.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, I'm not from Alabama, no. I'm not from Colorado.
[Laughter.]
I'm proud to be from New York, sir. And we New Yorkers have
a good nose for when something smells pretty funky, and this
deal smells mighty funky.
Following a defined process with innumerable criteria and
metrics aimed to take politics out of the process, Alabama was
chosen multiple ranks ahead of Colorado. Yet, Colorado was,
ultimately, chosen, and it is clear this committee, both
Republicans and Democrats, are skeptical of how fifth place was
chosen over first place. And that smells mighty funky.
Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend,
Mr. Strong, who is going to elicit some more facts to inform
the committee.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Strong. That you, Mr. LaLota.
You know, a couple of things here. It is funny how you
mention both sides of the aisle for questioning this.
General Dickinson, I just thought of this. In 2005, the
Missile Defense Agency went through a BRAC. We were told many
would not relocate to Huntsville. General Dickinson, I believe
you were a two-star general in Huntsville at that time. Do you
remember how that relocation worked out?
General Dickinson. Congressman, I don't believe I was part
of the Missile Defense Agency at that time.
Mr. Strong. Okay. Well, I can tell you this right here. We
were told that the relocation wouldn't work, and I believe the
history shows that it was probably the largest percentage to
relocate because of how things were handled, greater than 60
percent. And it was a defining moment. And I can tell you this
right here, that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in
Huntsville, Alabama is alive and well and doing a phenomenal
job for our country.
General Dickinson. Congressman, if I could, I might have
been part of MDA. Right now, I can't recall the exact years I
was there.
Mr. Strong. Okay. Secretary Kendall, in your statement, you
were very clear about--I am going to yield back for just a
second. Mr. Chairman, I have got to look at something here. I
want to be sure that it is factual before I do this.
The Chairman. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now goes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
McCormick, for 5 minutes.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, I will be
less than 5 minutes here.
I think we pretty much addressed the location issues ad
nauseam. So, I want to take a little bit of a different tack,
if you don't mind.
There are some supply chain issues that we had recently. In
2014, the National Defense Authorization Act reduced the import
restrictions on purchase of Russian RD-180 rocket engines.
In March of 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the
Russians suspended shipments of the RD-180 and no longer
serviced the 24 currently held by the U.S. Government.
I know this is probably outside of the purview you are
prepared to answer. The problem this presents is that this
rocket engine is used by the United States or the United Launch
Alliance Atlas V. Secretary Kendall, how has your Department
worked to mitigate this disruption in the RD-180 supply chain?
Secretary Kendall. I'm familiar with the RD-180 from my
previous role as Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics.
Basically, we basically worked as hard as we could--and
Chairman Rogers will remember this--to get off the RD-180 as
quickly as we could. At an earlier era, when relations with
Russia were different, we developed that dependency. I am not
current on how many of those engines we have left, but I
believe that we are moving forward with an alternative engine.
I will have to get you a more current answer for the record.
Dr. McCormick. Is that, in general, is the supply chain
becoming problematic?
Secretary Kendall. We have had supply chain issues in
general, particularly in space, with some of the components--
not so much from Russia, but just in general with the supply
chain. And we have had to manage those to work through some
risks there.
Dr. McCormick. Okay. General Saltzman, I will be quick. Can
you explain how Space Force collaborated with the commercial
partners to purchase space location data that is often more
accurate than that of our government and what advantages that
provides? And I can give you background on it, if you would
like. I think you are familiar.
General Saltzman. No, I'm not.
Dr. McCormick. Okay. So, Space Policy Directive-3
transferred responsibility from the civilian space situation--
it went from Space Force to the Department of Commerce. I think
you are probably familiar with that. Then, the Office of Space
Commerce has been setting up traffic coordination systems for
space (TraCSS), the TraCSS system.
And then, when the transfer is behind schedule, even in the
early stages, from my understanding, this new system is merely
replicating what the Space Force did previously. And so, in
regards to that, can you explain how we are collaborating with
commercial industries and how that is either interfering with
what you are trying to do, which is tracking, or actually
enhancing that? And how can we do better?
General Saltzman. I certainly don't think it is
interfering. We are working closely with the Department of
Commerce to make sure they have the capabilities, the training,
the expertise, the procedural aspects, to make sure they can do
the space traffic management piece of that space domain
awareness mission.
So far, I think they are on track, and we have had good
conversations. We are just still early in the process. And so,
therefore, we have to, as the Space Force, keep track of all
those objects on orbit.
Dr. McCormick. About how long do you think that transition
is going to take?
General Saltzman. I don't have a good timeline for you,
Congressman.
Dr. McCormick. Okay. Thank you.
With that, I yield.
The Chairman. The chair now goes back to Representative
Strong for the balance of his 3 minutes. He said he is now
ready to exhaust that. So, we will put 3 minutes on the clock.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
General Dickinson, how long did this meeting last in the
White House when you recommended Colorado to the President? How
long did that meeting last?
General Dickinson. Congressman, I can't speak to that.
Mr. Strong. Thank you.
General Dickinson, for Space Command Headquarters, you
haven't recommended the most qualified location, Redstone
Arsenal in Huntsville; not the second most qualified in New
Mexico, or even the third most qualified in Nebraska. You have
stalled when you have been asked the hard questions. You gave a
brief to Members of Congress that appears to be misleading. You
looked us straight in the face and said you couldn't imagine a
circumstance where you would recommend Peterson to be Space
Command's Headquarters.
I believe the facts are, you know, you think the facts for
more than three years showing delay--I believe everybody here
knows who is interfering.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.--
well, I'm sorry, Missouri, Mr. Alford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Thank you to our witnesses for coming in today.
I echo what the chairman and many of my colleagues have
said here in this hearing today in voicing their frustration
over this administration's decision to move Space Command
Headquarters from Huntsville to Colorado Springs.
On January 13th of 2021, Huntsville, Alabama was selected
as the preferred permanent location. President Biden and his
administration reneged on that decision and decided to move the
headquarters from Alabama to Colorado. This was not about
selecting the best location. It was purely politics--the
politics of abortion in America.
I want to go over a timeline with you of what has
transpired. In May of 2020, the competition reopened. In
January of 2021, Huntsville, Alabama was selected.
In June, June 24th of 2022, Alabama abortion ban went into
effect. In March of 2023, Senator Tuberville of Alabama began
holding up promotions until the Department of Defense changed
its abortion travel reimbursement policy. On July 31st of 2023,
President Biden overrode the two-site selection contest, and
that is where we are.
Mr. Secretary, do you know the abortion policy for
Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. I do not, and I want to respond to your
allegation here.
Mr. Alford. Well, let me get through, and then, we will
have time to respond.
But do you know the abortion policy for Colorado?
Secretary Kendall. I do not.
Mr. Alford. Well, it is legal in almost any circumstance up
until the moment of birth.
Do you know the abortion policy for Alabama?
Secretary Kendall. I do not.
Mr. Alford. It is illegal.
So, here we have a situation, and I'm not doubting your
veracity and what you are saying here today, based on what you
believe--and, Generals, it is the same with you--on why this
decision was made.
But don't you think that this is an odd set of
circumstances when you look at the timeline, that this issue of
abortion in America and placing this important headquarters in
a state that allows abortion up until time of birth, and taking
it away as a punitive measure against Senator Tuberville and
against the State of Alabama, which has outlawed abortion in
that state. How can that not be part of the President's
thinking when we know that he is in favor of abortion in
America?
Secretary Kendall. Let me be clear. I know, in general,
that abortion is more restrictive in Alabama than Colorado, but
I don't know any of the details of that.
This basing decision, to my knowledge, was never affected
in any way by considerations about abortion. That was never
discussed in any conversation that I had----
Mr. Alford. Well the President is not going to do that, and
even a setting, and I know you can't reveal what is talked
about in great detail with the President of the United States.
But he is not going to say, ``Oh, I'm going to not give Alabama
this headquarters because I believe in abortion and I want it
in a state that has unlimited abortion up until time of
birth.'' He is not going to do that.
He is going to come up with some other reason--funding
issues, convenience, not wanting to relocate, for other
reasons. This is very disturbing. I think it is disturbing to
Americans that this process, when the fifth place is elevated
to a winning status. Two competitions.
And so, once again, Mr. Secretary and Generals, I'm not
doubting your veracity and your truthfulness in this committee.
I am doubting the President of the United States and his
motives to fund the abortion industry in America and to place
this important headquarters in a state that allows abortion up
until birth.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Now, is it Waltz? The chair now recognize the
gentleman from--Mr. Waltz from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I think you would agree that childcare,
quality of schools, quality-of-life considerations are
important to readiness as a general matter. I mean, those are
things that this Department has repeatedly said, including
diversity, as Ms. Sewell said?
Secretary Kendall. Yes, Congressman, they are a
consideration.
Mr. Waltz. Right. So, just so we are clear on the disparity
here of the objective process and how badly Colorado scored, we
have energy resilience fifth, less than Alabama. We have
childcare third, less than Alabama. We have quality of schools
fourth, less than Alabama. We have cost of living last, way
less than Alabama. We have affordable housing, which many
people on both sides of the aisle say is a critical issue,
last, less than Alabama.
But even on the more kind of readiness and operational
focus, we have got communications infrastructure last.
Available qualified workforce last. I can go down--or less,
excuse me, than Huntsville--I can go down an objective list. I
think my colleague is right, absolutely right, this is about
politics.
Even on the diversity issue, which I have been loud and
clear that we need to make decisions based on meritocracy and
merit, but even on the diversity issue, as my Democrat
colleague pointed out, Colorado is far less diverse than
Alabama, as Major League Baseball figured out when they made a
politicized decision to move the All-Star Game.
So, when President Trump decided to put this in Alabama, it
was based on an objective process. And members of this
committee and the media howled and cried that it was all about
politics. So, we had multiple--as in your administration came
in, Secretary Kendall--we had multiple checks on it--all of
which validated it was an objective process to put it in
Alabama.
However, this decision, then, gets pulled out of your
hands; overrides your recommendation; overrides an objective
process; pulled into the White House. And I think the American
people have common sense to know what happened.
Colorado is a blue state. Both Senators are Democrats. The
Governor is a Democrat. And at the same time, as my colleague
pointed out, you have Senator Tuberville making his stand and
you have state law changing as it comes to abortion.
Mr. Chairman, this is common sense what happened here. This
was a politicized process on a basing decision for a critical
command that has never happened before in modern American
history. And we need to call it out, Mr. Chairman, and I
support you in stopping this.
But what is also at issue here is that we are allowing--
Services in this Pentagon are now making personnel decisions
based on state law put forward by elected officials.
If we could put this up? And this is what I want to ask you
about, Mr. Secretary. You had a three-star general, General
Burt, openly state, in the wake of the State of Florida saying
we shouldn't have sexualized material for 5- to 8-year-olds,
which I would hope most people--I know most people agree with--
but at a Gay Pride event said she would put less qualified
people if they had concerns about this state law. Do you agree
with that approach? Do you disagree with her statement?
Secretary Kendall. Let me be clear about----
Mr. Waltz. I would have thought that would be an easy yes.
Secretary Kendall. She was, I think, addressing a
hypothetical and talking about a potential impact.
Mr. Waltz. No, she said, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Kendall. General Burt made----
Mr. Waltz. --she said this right after what the media,
unfairly and wrongly, labeled ``Don't Say Gay.'' Then, she
speaks of this event and says, ``You know what? If they have
concerns about this, and don't feel like''--and we have a quote
here--``they can be themselves,'' she will put less qualified
people--Cape Canaveral is pretty important to the Space Force--
and to Florida.
Secretary Kendall. Yeah, I have read the transcript of what
she said, and it is as you say, but I think she was still
addressing a hypothetical and potential case.
Mr. Waltz. The DOD Instruction 1350, service members are
evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, capability, and
performance.
Secretary Kendall. That's correct.
Mr. Waltz. That's it. That is absolutely correct.
So, this is, then, incorrect. That is not in accordance
with DOD policy. Do you agree?
Secretary Kendall. I don't think she was talking about how
to evaluate people. She was talking about a possible impact----
Mr. Waltz. ``I am compelled to consider a different
candidate and perhaps less qualified.'' She sits on general
officer boards. That is an outrageous statement for our
readiness, and yet, she is still in the job, correct?
Secretary Kendall. She is and she realizes that she said
some things that she should not have said. And she loves the
Department----
Mr. Waltz. Do you agree that she should not have said that?
Secretary Kendall. I agree that she was--she did say some
things about state laws that were misleading. We do not keep
track of state laws.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kendall. We do not assign people based on that.
Mr. Waltz. Here's the slippery slope. And, Mr. Chairman, if
you can indulge? Here's the slippery slope. We can start--we
can have a Department in a future administration that allows
members to say, ``You know what? I don't feel safe because of
gun control laws here and out-of-control crime. And therefore,
Space Force, I want to go somewhere else, and that needs to be
considered.''
This and other things like this basing decision have opened
a Pandora's box of political issues that this administration,
this President, and this Pentagon have allowed to open. And we
don't know where that is going to go, except to hurt our
military. And, Mr. Chairman, we have to put a stop to it.
And thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Waltz--I mean Mr. Gaetz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. I'm going to follow up on Mr. Waltz's comments
because I think they were directly on point.
So, you say that this--I appreciate you have been a
straight shooter with us, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kendall. Thank you.
Mr. Gaetz. When stuff gets said that is not right, you say,
``That's not right. That's not what we should be doing.''
So, I appreciate that you say that this isn't how we should
think about these things, and that General Burt understands
that she made a mistake. But like, when you say things that
aren't true, or that are a mistake, you usually have to correct
them. Has General Burt said anything to correct this?
Secretary Kendall. I don't know that she has.
General Saltzman?
Mr. Gaetz. Right. So, that is the problem, right? Again, I
do appreciate you being a straight shooter and saying this is
not reflective of how our military should think about our
service members.
But I would just encourage you that, like, if you, as the
civilian leader of the United States Air Force, have this
perspective, and a general has a different perspective and they
are sharing it, we have got to align those. And I want to align
them with your view because I think it is the right one, but
that does require a little bit of remediation of the thing that
has happened that is wrong.
And that brings us to the substance of this hearing because
we have to remediate punishing Alabama, and that really is what
is going on here. When you listen to Mr. Strong and others lay
out Alabama was, like, first in everything; Colorado was last
in everything, and I believe Alabama is being punished because
of their abortion policy. I believe they are being punished
because they don't adhere to the radical gender ideology that
has infected DOD. And I think they are being punished because
the senior Senator from Alabama has got these military holds.
That is the most obvious explanation.
But I do want to be open-minded, if there is any other. So,
General Dickinson, I want you to bring us in the room when you
made the recommendation to President Biden to forego the
objective process based on merit, and instead, just revert to
Colorado.
When Mr. Strong asked you how long that meeting lasted, you
declined to answer. Why is that?
General Dickinson. Congressman, I can't talk about a
deliberative type of setting/meeting that was conducted for the
basing decision.
Mr. Gaetz. So, you can't even tell us how long the meeting
occurred?
General Dickinson. I cannot.
Mr. Gaetz. Were there notes taken at the meeting?
General Dickinson. So, Congressman, I wasn't there. I
didn't brief the President.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, okay. So, who did?
General Dickinson. I can't talk to that.
Mr. Gaetz. See, this is where the American people start to
lose confidence because we have a thing that we can actually
see, where there was ratings and metrics. And Alabama won the
thing you could see. But, then, there is this other thing that
you can't see, and Alabama just loses that.
And my worry is that this is about depriving a red state of
mission. And we should not do that. And I don't just see it in
Alabama. This is the capstone example of what is going on, but
I see it in my state. I see it in my community, where missions
with no real bases--like there are these phony bases that are
put out. But, then, when I ask what the basis is in writing,
what analysis has been done, that doesn't really happen.
So, what could you say to the American people that are in
red states, that love our military, that want to host a
mission, who believe that abortion or gender policies are
affecting whether or not they are able to make that
contribution to the fight and the national defense?
General Dickinson. So, Congressman, what I did is I
provided my best military advice to Secretary Kendall, which I
provided to the committee as well.
Mr. Gaetz. But why does your best military advice seem to
run contrary to all of the objective analysis that the American
people are able to see?
General Dickinson. As a combatant commander, my job is to
make sure that I am able to conduct and execute the UCP
missions given by the President of the United States. So,
operational readiness and our ability to do those functions is
what I do, as a combatant commander.
Mr. Gaetz. Right, but when, in toto, the analysis we have
done would point us to Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, and we
ignore that analysis, does that maybe lead us to believe that
the analysis was just a performance in the first place?
General Dickinson. Congressman, I provided my best military
advice.
Mr. Gaetz. Right, but what the American people don't
understand is, when you have got folks in somewhat of a
clandestine process giving their best military advice, and on
the other side you have an objective process that you all just
ignore, do you see how it would reduce the trust the American
people have in the decision making process when those things
are so incongruent?
General Dickinson. I would offer that I think the American
people would trust me in the execution of the duties that I
have been given by the President.
Mr. Gaetz. But don't you think it would enhance the trust
that the people would have in whatever your best military
advice is if there was objective information that backed it up,
rather than offering your best military advice that runs
contrary to all of the objective information?
General Dickinson. Well, my viewpoint is a little bit
different in the sense that I'm executing these operational-
type of missions that have risks that are associated with it.
Mr. Gaetz. I think that the operational mission that the
DOD is engaged on is that you all want to become an abortion
travel agency.
And it is right that the President can put this thing
wherever he wants to put it, but, then, we can decide what to
fund. And I think that there is something really rotten in
Denmark here, and I am glad we are having this hearing.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognized the gentleman from Colorado for
any final statements he may have.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to say to my friend from Florida and others who
have repeatedly said that there was an objective process that
came out with Huntsville No. 1, and you didn't hear me earlier,
Mr. Gaetz, but, on page 19 of the Inspector General report for
the Department of Defense--and I'm going to ask to have this
entire report put into the hearing record with unanimous
consent.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to is retained in committee files
and is available upon request.]
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. It is dated May 11th, 2022. And they
quote the decision matrix as it stood a day or two before the
meeting with President Trump in the White House in January of
2021. So, this is the matrix as it was updated on January 10th
of 2021.
And they go over mission as a decision factor, and a lot
went into that. They go into infrastructure capacity, and a lot
goes into that. Community support, childcare, education,
spousal opportunities, et cetera, et cetera, they go into that.
Costs to DOD, they go into that. And then, they add a fifth
element, ``mission impacts to full operational capability.''
With this updated fifth category, they come to a different
conclusion. The summary says, ``The numerical values in this
section for each location summarizes the net pros and cons for
each location. This assessment supports the selection of
Colorado Springs as the preferred alternative and Huntsville as
the feasible alternative.''
So, those two cities came in----
Mr. Gaetz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lamborn. Yes.
Mr. Gaetz. So, is the gentleman concerned that, for
Colorado Springs to move up, a new category had to be added and
the rules of the game had to be changed during the game?
Mr. Lamborn. No. Taking back my time, no, I'm not at all
surprised or perturbed because that should have been there from
the beginning. Getting military advice as to operational
capability or readiness should have been the first thing all
along. It should have been the top factor all along. And I am
glad it was added, even if it was belatedly.
So, it is incorrect when people say Colorado Springs is
four or five, and et cetera, et cetera, and I have heard that
repeatedly. On January 10th of 2021, Colorado Springs was the
preferred alternative.
So, I just want to set the record straight. This entire
report is now in the hearing record. Everyone can look at it.
And I wanted to point that out because there is not this
conspiracy to overturn a merit-based approach. When different
factors are considered, different results and different cities
came up to the top. And right before the White House meeting,
Colorado Springs was on top.
And so, a lot of assumptions based on what a different
narrative would assume are simply wrong. Colorado Springs was
not No. 4 or No. 5.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. That's just not accurate. Colorado Springs
came in fifth. I love you, Doug, but that is not accurate.
Listen, I started off this hearing explaining that the
whole purpose of the hearing was to emphasize that there is no
impact on operational readiness to build a new, permanent
headquarters in someplace other than Colorado Springs.
Specifically, in this situation, Huntsville, Alabama won.
I think we demonstrated in the first part of this hearing
the one thing that General Dickinson had indicated in his
concerns expressed to the Secretary, which were, then, later
picked up by the President, is that some of the civilians may
not want to move. And as we have made clear here, he can use
contractors to fill that void, if he has to, or his successor
can. But they have got five years to get ready for it. There is
going to be no impact.
And plus, the operational readiness has been conducted
almost exclusively by the Air Force, anyway. Secretary Kendall
made it clear he factored this in. There are mitigating
circumstances. There is no effect on operational readiness.
So, what I want to point out about where we are now is, we
don't live in a monarchy. We live in a constitutional republic.
The President doesn't get to just, from high on, decide this is
the way it is going to be, and we all just sit by and say,
``Yes, sir.'' Those in his employ must do that, but we are an
equal branch. The judicial branch--I mean the legislative
branch now gets its say-so.
The President can intervene and tell his Department
personnel what he wants to do. Congress gets to decide what we
are going to authorize and what we are going to pay for. It is
my intent to make sure that the competition results are honored
and that the permanent basing headquarters are authorized and
funded to be constructed in Huntsville, Alabama, and during
that period of time, the provisional headquarters in Colorado
Springs is fully funded until that completion is made.
But we have some real concerns raised here today. There is
no reason to justify what has happened, other than, in my view,
political considerations. So, I am going to do what my
colleague from Colorado Springs, his delegation did when they
felt like President Trump had incorrectly intervened, and I'm
going to ask the Inspector General from the Department of
Defense to investigate this.
In the meantime, I intend to work to make sure that no
funds are authorized or expended to be spent in Colorado
Springs for the building of a permanent headquarters.
And with that, I thank the witnesses for their time and
their contributions, and the members for their participation.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 28, 2023
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 28, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]