WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) during a hearing Sept. 28 grilled military officials over their role within the Biden administration’s decision to maintain U.S. Space Command’s headquarters in Colorado.
President Biden in July overturned the Trump administration’s advice to maneuver U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama. The Pentagon said the president’s decision was based on the recommendation of military leaders that the relocation could be disruptive and undermine military readiness.
Testifying on the hearing were Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, U.S. Space Command’s commander Gen. James Dickinson and the chief of space operations of the U.S. Space Force Gen. Likelihood Saltzman.
Rogers and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) argued that the Biden administration’s rationale for stopping the move — that it undermines military readiness — doesn’t delay since it’s the U.S. Space Force, not U.S. Space Command, that’s chargeable for the readiness of forces.
“Let me be clear, this will not be and has never been about readiness,” Rogers charged during a contentious exchange with Dickinson.
Rogers suggested Dickinson had made contradictory statements about whether moving Space Command would impact readiness. On the hearing, Dickinson said the relocation could create workforce disruptions because lots of the civilians aren’t prone to move. Space Command headquarters has about 1,400 employees.
In response, Rogers said the Air Force had proposed ways to mitigate workforce issues, comparable to hiring contractors to fill gaps until recent employees may very well be hired in Alabama.
The readiness argument is a canopy “so the president can attempt to endear himself to a purple state prior to next yr’s election,” said Rogers.
Rogers cited written correspondence from Saltzman stating that the placement of Space Command would haven’t any impact on the readiness of the Space Force.
As a military service, the Space Force is responsible to prepare, train and equip forces. Space Command is a combatant command that was activated in August 2019 to oversee military operations within the space domain.
“So this concept that moving Space Command goes to affect operational readiness is just fabricated,” said Rogers.
‘Horrible process’
The fight over Space Command is about to enter its third yr.
The rating member of the HASC, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), described the turn of events on Space Command as a “horrible process.”
This has dragged on for too long, said Smith. “We’d like to listen to more about how that happened and easy methods to make certain that it never happens again.
“Yes, Alabama won the initial competition,” said Smith. The standards for the unique number of Huntsville — that it’s inexpensive and ranks higher in quality of life aspects — nevertheless, must be balanced against the undeniable fact that “the people at Space Command don’t wish to move,” Smith added. “Moving is a pain. I feel that’s what it comes all the way down to.”
Kendall up until last yr was prepared to back the move to Huntsville, but said he now supports Biden’s decision since the president is the commander in chief.
“President Biden exercises authority as commander in chief and chief executive to make the ultimate decision to locate the everlasting headquarters of U.S. Space Command in Colorado,” said Kendall.
“I fully support the president’s decision,” he said.
Kendall in May 2022 was directed by the secretary of defense to review the basing decision. The fundamental takeaway from that review, said Kendall, was that “Huntsville was lower cost while remaining in Colorado posed the bottom operational risk.”
Kendall said Dickinson had concluded that moving the headquarters location would “greatly reduce readiness and impose risk to the mission of the force.”
“Ultimately, my view was the choice got here all the way down to a judgment concerning the operational risk related to relocating versus the reduced costs in Huntsville,” said Kendall.
His earlier assessment had been that the projected cost savings “along with the supply of potential mitigation measures would outweigh the operational risks.”
But as combatant commander, “General Dickinson assesses these considerations quite in another way,” Kendall said.
Now that the president made a choice, said Kendall, “we’re prepared to maneuver forward with the implementation.”
Concerns about politicizing basing decisions
A lot of lawmakers on the hearing said they were disillusioned that an easy basing decision had turn out to be so highly politicized.
Kendall said he had been involved in a few dozen basing decisions during his tenure, but Space Command was an unusual case. He noted that it started off as a normal Air Force basing process, but it surely took a turn in 2020 when then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper directed a brand new approach and solicited bids from states.
The undeniable fact that each presidents Trump and Biden got directly involved is unusual for a majority of these base selections that typically are handled by the military services, Kendall said.
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) said Space Command’s contentious forwards and backwards “opened a Pandora’s box” as the placement of military bases shouldn’t be so highly politicized.
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) identified that as commanders in chief, each Trump and Biden had the authority to direct a combatant command relocation. But the best way Space Command was handled sets a precedent for future administrations to make use of military bases to reward political allies.
Rogers said he’ll ask for an additional DoD inspector general investigation. “Within the meantime we’ll suspend funding for any construction in Colorado for a everlasting Space Command headquarters.”
The president is the commander in chief, he said, “but Congress gets to make a decision what we’re going to authorize and what we’re going to fund.”