3 Critical Issues at Special MAF

MILITARY AFFAIRS FORUM

Military Affairs Committee
Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber

Date & Time:  Wednesday, July 16, 7:30 – 9:00 a.m.
Place:  La Quinta Inn | 1425 E. 27th St. | Tacoma 98421
Register: Online here.

AGENDA: 

The JBLM JLUS (Joint Land Use Study)
Doug Richardson, District 6
Pierce County Councilmember

The JBLM JLUS (Joint Land Use Study) is designed to create a collective regional dialogue around sometimes complex issues of balancing military operational demands and mission changes with the region’s and local communities’ land use plans, economic development and infrastructure needs, and goals for environmental sustainability. The study area generally encompasses those communities within two miles of the JBLM boundary, evaluating existing or potential conflicts with the military installation’s operations.

Resource: Project Website

2013 JBLM Survey Results
Mary Huff, Interim Project Manager
City of Lakewood – SSMCP

Over 5,000 people who live and/or work on Joint Base Lewis-McChord responded to the SSMCP Needs and Preferences Survey in October 2013.  Ms. Huff will summarize those results from a regional perspective, and also highlight some of the key findings specific to Pierce County.  Topics will include servicemembers’ perceptions of safety and other quality of life issues in their communities; housing choices; and career/education plans for those servicemembers transitioning off active duty in the next two years.

Resource: Executive Summary

Overview Briefing on PSEA for Army Forces Reduction
Gary Brackett, Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber

A staff review of the Preliminary Supplementary Environmental Assessment for Army Forces Reduction. Gary Brackett will present an overview of the PSEA for Army Forces Reduction (and USAF planning for reducing C-17s at McChord Field) – and the planning for a community-inclusive response to the potential worst-case loss of 16,000 soldiers from JBLM.


Resources for Background:
US Army Environmental Command Press Release
2014 Supplement for Army Forces Realignment (Open for public comment until Aug. 25, 2014)
USAF Force Structure C-17 Reduction Plans

Sequestration Prompts Force Reductions at JBLM

The US Army has released a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA) for additional reductions in response to the current Congressional Sequestration budget (and defense) reductions.

You may also refer to the US Air Force's response to the current Congressional Sequestration budget (and defense) at our earlier C-9 Blog article.

(Click on Image for a Complete View)

Sequestration Dance Continues

From today's Congressional hearing about sequestration, you may hear & see on YouTube this clip from the House Armed Services Committee meeting at which Cong. Derek Kilmer asked our Senior Military leaders about the impacts of sequestration and a potential government shutdown on our military readiness and DoD civilian workforce.

For a fuller overview of the hearing, including the quote of Cong. Kilmer's quip about sequestration, “it is a Latin word meaning stupid,” see this link to Defense News 09/18/2013.

Readers are reminded that sequestration cut $500 B. from the Defense budget in 2013, and proposes to continue by cutting $52 B./yr. X 10 years.

Forces 2020 Realignment Decision

Today the Department of the Army announced force structure and stationing decisions associated with the active component end-strength reduction of 80,000 soldiers, resulting in an Army end-strength of 490,000 by 2017.

(Click on Image for a Larger and Complete View)

A BCT will inactivate at each of the following locations by 2017:  Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Campbell, Ky; Fort Carson, Colo.; Fort Drum, N.Y.; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Riley, Kan.; Fort Stewart, Ga., and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.   Two BCTs, stationed at Baumholder and Grafenwoehr, Germany, will complete their inactivation in Fiscal Year 2013, leaving two BCTs in Europe to fulfill strategic commitments.

Based on extensive analysis, the lessons of a dozen years of combat and the need to increase operational capability and flexibility, the Army will make the following changes to its force structure:

• Reorganize infantry and armor brigade combat teams (BCTs) to restore the third maneuver battalion and increase engineer and fires capability.
• Reduce active component BCTs from 45 modular to 33 reorganized BCTs.
• Continue growth in aviation, special operations, missile defense and cyber capabilities.

This active component force structure, in conjunction with Army National Guard and Army Reserve capabilities, supports the current defense strategy and meets combatant command requirements through regional alignment of forces and global responsiveness for contingencies.

The decision to restructure armor and infantry BCTs helps mitigate the loss of BCTs by eliminating the headquarters but preserving 13 Armor and Infantry battalions that would be lost without the reorganization.

 (Click on Image for a Larger and Complete View)

Stationing decisions necess- itated by the reductions and reorgan- ization were based on a compre- hensive analysis of installation quantitative and qualitative considerations to include training, power projection, well-being, expansibility, regeneration, geographic distribution, environmental and socio-economic impacts, cost, and alignment with the defense strategy. Opportunities for community input  were included through both the programmatic environment assessment public comment period and community listening sessions  conducted in parallel with the military value analysis and qualitative stationing analysis, prior to the final decision.

The reduction of 80,000 soldiers from the force represents a 14 percent reduction across the AC force. The specific impacts of these decisions on individual installations are being provided to affected Congressional delegations. The Army will conduct Congressional notification in accordance with Section 993, Title 10 U.S.C. prior to taking any irrevocable actions to implement these decisions.

These reductions are consistent with fiscal constraints resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 and defense planning guidance issued in 2012, but do not reflect  additional reductions that will be required if sequestration-driven funding reductions remain unmitigated.

For more information on this release, please contact Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry at 703-697-7550 or Wayne Hall at 703-693-7589, Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary of the Army.

Voted Against the "Deal"

WASHINGTON, D.C.- House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA-09) released the following statement on the passage of H.R. 8, the fiscal cliff agreement:

 

"I voted against the fiscal cliff deal because it left too much uncertainty for government programs, lacked a realistic path towards deficit reduction, and fell short in providing necessary revenues to effectively move towards fiscal responsibility.

 

"The legislation leaves far too much uncertainty on government spending. Sequestration still looms, it was simply delayed two months, and the debt ceiling was not addressed.  As the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Committee, I am concerned that our Department of Defense once again faces a situation where they do not know how much money they will have to spend, and the very real possibility of indiscriminate across-the-board cuts just two months from now.  (emphasis added)

 

“ I am also concerned that all other areas of discretionary spending--education, transportation, infrastructure, housing, and more--face this same crippling uncertainty. I recognize that defense and other areas of spending will face cuts, but we should be clear on what those cuts will be and they need to be more thoughtful than the blind across-the-board approach of sequestration. (emphasis added)

 

"Second, the deal did nothing to address our long term debt and deficit problems.  No grand bargain was reached that could help our economy right now by giving some clear picture of what our ten-year plan is to achieve some measure of fiscal responsibility.  I understand that our current situation means that balancing the budget in that ten-year period is not a wise policy decision.  But we should at least have something in place that shows we will keep the debt at a manageable level.  This bill failed to do that.

 

"And third, not only did this bill fail to offer that ten-year plan, it made getting to a reasonable ten-year plan far more difficult by making permanent 90 percent of the Bush Tax Cuts.  By not allowing those tax cuts to expire, and then making them permanent, we took $3.5 trillion of revenue off the table. This will lead to one of two results, both of which I am strongly against. Either our debt will climb over 100 percent of GDP or we will have to make devastating cuts in vital programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, education, transportation and more.

 

"We face very tough choices right now.  Our economy is weak, and our debt is substantial and growing by nearly one trillion dollars a year with no end in sight.  There are no easy answers.  But continuing to take an approach that delays addressing the fundamental choices we face will only make matters worse."

Avoid the Fiscal Cliff

The Tacoma-Piece County Chamber is working through several venues to encourage Congress and the Commander-in-Chief (President) to solve the dilemma posed by the self-mandated fiscal cliff adopted earlier as a budget-balancing incentive.  Always considered to be an incentive to get national adoption of budget and tax compromises, the looming implementation date of the fiscal cliff and its sequestration component pose significant harm to our national defense and our fragile economy.

The Chamber participates in the Association of Defense Communities which recently issued a letter encouraging adoption of a solution to the fiscal cliff and sequestration, which details ADC’s 2012 positions on specific pressing issues for the ‘lame duck’ session.  This letter was distributed to the leadership and senior ranking members of the Senate and House  Armed Service Committees, Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees, and the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well as the Defense Communities Caucus leadership. 

(click on image for a larger view)

Official Sequestration Impacts Reported

The impact of Sequestration on defense programs can be distilled to the Office of Management & Budget’s (OMB) report that funding for each defense account would be reduced by 9.4% if sequestration is imposed on Jan. 2, 2013. 

Almost all DoD and military service accounts including military construction and operations and maintenance would be subject to the same uniform reduction.  That’s a $54.7 billion loss in fiscal 2013.

There is no detail on projects, programs and activities.  The exception is military force structure accounts.  But federal civilian employment is not exempt.

Sequestration Estimates by WA Congressional District

 

The Center for Security Policy has posted new Congressional District Reports to help estimate the potential local economic impacts of the ten-year $500 billion in cuts to the nation's defense budget under Sequestration.  The reports are free and available online to the public at http://forthecommondefense.org/districts.

To view today's additional new release (Version 2.60) of the detailed reports with 2011 data showing the 18% Sequestration cuts for all U.S. states and territories, counties and cities go to http://forthecommondefense.org/reports .

According to the Aerospace Industries Association, “Four out of five likely voters in critical battleground states want our leaders in Washington, D.C. to find an alternative to “sequestration” budget cuts before the November elections take place, according to a Harris Interactive online poll.”

The Congressional District Reports are a tool to help local officials and businesses prepare for the possible impact of job losses and harm to local communities from the sequestration budget cuts.  The Congressional District Reports provide a 2011 baseline to see how congressional districts may be affected by the planned across-the-board sequestration cuts in the 2013 defense budget.  These sequestration defense budget cuts will be an estimated total of 18% or more when combined with earlier budget cuts.

Download a separate spreadsheet for each congressional district in Washington state: 

1. Vacant    

2. Rick Larsen    
3. Jaime Herrera Beutler    
4. Doc Hastings    
5. Cathy McMorris Rodgers    
6. Norman D. Dicks    
7. Jim McDermott    
8. David G. Reichert    
9. Adam Smith

These Congressional District Reports show 2011 defense contracts for businesses in each congressional district (and bordering zip codes), including the contract dollar amount, contractor business name,  address and phone number, the contractor industry classification, and whether the business is a small or disadvantaged business, woman-owned, minority-owned or veteran-owned.  The Congressional District Reports are provided as a spreadsheet file for each congressional district.  They include contractor businesses in zip codes that are exclusively within the congressional district, as well as businesses in zip codes shared with bordering congressional districts.

To build each Congressional District Report, contract information was derived from public data at the Federal Procurement Data System ( https://www.fpds.gov) based on queries from http://www.governmentcontractswon.com, and combined with public zip code data linked to congressional districts.

The detailed reports for Sequestration's economic impacts on states, Cities and Counties have all been updated for the new release (Version 2.60) of the Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports, at http://www.forthecommondefense.org/reports including:

• Updated menus
• Additional links to profiles of 874 Government Contracting Offices, as reported for each state, city and county's contracts performed in that locality
• Archiving data for years 2006-2010
• Removal of largely "non-discernable" "weapons systems" data from "Place of Performance" reports
• Updated 4-page State Summary Reports for changed estimates on personnel cuts due to policy changes

The “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are a project of the Center for Security Policy for the Coalition for the Common Defense, intended to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense. 

About the Coalition for the Common Defense

The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.

 

A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.

 

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

New Report on Sequestration

The Air Force Magazine’s Daily Report online  spotlights a new study by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA release) that paints a dramatic picture of sequestration’s economic impact.  In 2013 alone, the nation stands to lose 2.14 million jobs, $215 billion in gross domestic product, and $109.4 billion in the personal earnings of the American workforce if the Budget Control Act's sequester takes effect in January, 2013.

“For the defense sector, which would absorb some $500 billion of sequestration's $1.2 trillion in mandated federal budget cuts, this would mean a loss of more than one million jobs, $86.5 billion in GDP, and $59.4 billion in workers' personal earnings,” states the study.

"The results are bleak, but clear-cut," said Dr. Stephen Fuller, economist, George Mason University, who led the research, at the July 17 press conference unveiling the report in Washington, D.C.  "The unemployment rate will climb above 9 percent, pushing the economy toward recession and reducing projected growth in 2013 by two-thirds.”

Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee each blamed the other for the looming budget sequestration.

"In addition to the issue of jobs, I worry that the cavernous silence from the President will lead many to exit the [defense] industry or to walk away from capital investments that are in the best interests of our troops," said HASC Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) during the hearing called to discuss sequestration's effects on the defense industry.

Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) countered by saying Congress must first acknowledge that it won't be solving the federal budget deficit anytime in the near future. "We're going to have structural deficits for awhile," said Smith. "Our role is to get those deficits under control so that they are manageable. But we can't hold hostage steps (more revenue and strategic cuts) that will do that."