Oral History Program Peter Jenks Interviewed by Sarah Langsdon 21 March 2021 Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Peter Jenks Interviewed by Sarah Langsdon 21 March 2021 Copyright © 2025 by Weber State University, Stewart Library Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Hill/DDO’95 oral history project documents the 1995 and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process and its impact on Utah. In 1993, rumors started to circulate that Hill Air Force Base and Defense Depot Ogden (DDO) would be closed by the 1995 round of BRAC, causing state officials, local government, and local grassroots lobbying group, Hill/DDO’95, to spring into action to save Utah’s military installations from closure or realignment to other facilities. This project includes interviews from a wide range of players, from congressmen, state officials, members of Hill/DDO’95, and the civilian employees of Hill Air Force Base and (DDO). Their accounts describe the process of fighting for the base, the closure of DDO, the formation of the Utah Defense Alliance (UDA) and Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) from the Hill/DDO’95 group, and their fight to save Hill Air Force Base all over again in 2005. Also discussed is the importance of the F-35 aircraft and the “Falcon Hill” Enhanced Use Lease project to the prosperity of Hill Air Force Base and military relations in Utah. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Jenks, Peter, an oral history by Sarah Langsdon, 21 March 2021, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. iii Abstract: This is an oral history interview with Peter Jenks. It was conducted on March 21, 2021 at Representative Blake Moore's office in Ogden, Utah. Jenks discusses his experiences with Hill/DDO'95, the 1991-2005 BRAC rounds, and his hand in the development and implementation of the F-35 fighter aircraft. The interviewer is Sarah Langsdon. Also present is Alyssa Kammerman. SL: This is Sarah Langsdon. We are here interviewing Peter Jenks in Representative Moore's office in downtown Ogden. It is March 12, 2021. With me on camera is Alyssa Kammerman. We are going to be talking about Hill/DDO'95, and the Base Realignment and Closure rounds from 1991 to 2005. So, thank you, Peter, for agreeing to talk to us a little bit about this. Why don't you just tell us when you started working for Representative Hansen and your position? PJ: I started working in Congressman Hansen's office in 1986, and that was the fall. I worked on his campaign prior to that, but then I was in his office as a special assistant doing various projects, and some of those projects included Hill Air Force Base. Then I became his district director somewhere in about ‘92-ish time period. So, I've been in this literal office from 1986 through 1995, and then with Rob Bishop from 2003, January, to present. Well, actually, to January 3rd for 18 years, and then stayed in this office for the last few months with Congressman Moore. SL: So, you've always been in the Ogden office, not DC? PJ: Correct, right. Generally as district director. SL: You're the one dealing with his constituents here locally. PJ: Correct. Correct. 1 SL: So, why don't you talk a little bit about what you remember from the 1991 and 1993 BRAC rounds and the concerns on how they would impact Utah? PJ: Bits and pieces as far as memory is concerned, but always the concern as far as the implications for the bases. The first implication was really felt at Tooele Army Depot North. That was kind of a surprise. That was not really on our radar. That was a time when things weren't really settled as far as processes were concerned, so it was kind of an attack overnight for Tooele. Maybe I’m going to ‘93 on that one. SL: Yeah, that's 1993. Yeah. PJ: I'm sorry. 1991, not as involved, but still we were well aware of how things were going for our bases here. But going back to ‘93, that was a real eye-opener. Just one anecdote about that is that there is a building called the Consolidated Maintenance Facility that was built at a cost of well over $100 million, in terms of early 1990s dollars, or late 80s dollars. So, it was a significant Army expenditure, and it was to modernize their ability to repair and do the functions that they needed to do as far as maintenance was concerned. So, to have that then built, and then had, actually, a gala. I remember it was black tie and everybody was there. It was a really big deal for the community. Then within a few months, it was closed. The Army basically over time walked away from that facility, leaving it to the city for redevelopment purposes. That was a tough one. 1991, let me get out my notes on that one. 1991, I think, was really the beginning of the questioning of how Hill Air Force Base was involved and what their role was. You mentioned the START treaty, that was an impact. But again, 2 as far as I was concerned, my radar was not around ‘91. It really started around ‘93. SL: Speaking of the START treaty, how was that impactful to Hill Air Force Base? PJ: From what I recall, it made Hill part of a treaty because it had a missile silo there that was to be inspected. So, you have at that time the Soviets inspecting that facility, and so, in a way, from my understanding, it allowed the base to have a little bit more substance to it. Again, ’91, kind of a little fuzzy on that one. SL: No, I understand. That is perfectly fine. So, you talked about how the closing in Tooele was kind of an out-of-the-blue shock to everybody. How do you think that sort of awakened the community and the political representatives when it came to the ‘95 round? PJ: Yeah. I think that really brought us to the point that we didn't have control over the process that had occurred previously. We didn't maybe keep our eyes open, and we knew that backroom deals were probably being made. So, as a community and as congressional offices, people were starting to say, hey, we need to be aware of every single move that's going on with regard to Hill Air Force Base, particularly Defense Depot Ogden, and Tooele Army Depot and Dugway to a certain extent. Obviously, in our area, the Ogden area, we were mostly focused at that point on Hill Air Force Base. Because Tooele had been BRAC-ed so severely, we felt like that's about as much as they can do to Tooele without cutting into their demilitarizing process for chemical weapons. Tooele had 42% of the world's supply of chemical weapons, and in Tooele South, they were demilitarizing those 3 weapons. That was part of the treaty process with numerous nations, including the Soviet Union. But it really told us that we needed to be on our guard, that perhaps we needed to make formal organizations that were supporting Hill and DDO. The committee at that time was called Hill/DDO’95, and so we obviously made that northern Utah kind of focus. SL: So, did Congressman Hansen have to rethink his tactics for the '95 round after '93? PJ: I think he felt that his staff needed to be on top of and work with the community leaders, both in DC and out here in Utah. The ‘95 BRAC round included more than one visit to DC. Steve Peterson was a real key component of what was happening in Washington as far as the congressional staff was concerned. Obviously, the two senators were also highly involved at that time, but to give credit to Steve, he really was in the know on many of the things that were going on within the Pentagon and through his other sources on the hill through the Armed Services Committee staff. Congressman Hansen had been appointed to the Armed Services Committee in 1986, so by that time he had built up some connections through that, and therefore we had access to the members of the committee, but often, more importantly, committee staffers and staffers at home who were in the Pentagon, the legislative liaison folks. So, he had that connection, and then the community used that connection to a great extent to gain information. I think the community also kind of lit a fire under everybody so that they made more personal relationships instead of formal meetings. There was a lot 4 more socializing, getting to know people, having those informal conversations or off-the-record conversations that you wouldn't get, necessarily, if you just came in for a standard briefing at the Pentagon about the BRAC process. Because if you did that as a community and every community would come through—it seemed like that anyway—would come to Washington, do their spiel, and then the BRAC staff would give the same briefing to about everybody. They would obviously tailor it to their particular bases in their home states or where they were from, but I think that really catapulted smart people's perspectives on how we deal with the military, and what is important, and how to communicate our message better. SL: So, when The Washington Post leaked the story that Hill Air Force Base was going to be closed, we know that there was a conversation because Steve Peterson had told us that Congressman Hansen called General Yates and pretty much—but you weren't there, so you don't know the content of that phone call? PJ: I wasn’t there, that’s right. I remember hearing about the phone call very quickly afterwards. SL: I bet. But did people in this area know? Did they see that story? Were they calling in concerned? PJ: The story did get out, yes. I think that it heightened the concern, because obviously when you hear something like that you can use that to your advantage by saying, “Look, this is serious.” It galvanized folks around here, it helped with the attention that the community had on it. It kind of made it into, “Woah, what are those implications if Hill Air Force Base was to close? Why is it being closed as opposed to McClellan or Sacramento?” A lot of those things were starting to 5 be investigated really, really thoroughly by folks within our community. So, I think that really lit a fire more so than anything else. It wasn't a panicky thing. It was a very concerning thing though. SL: So, were you involved in the secret meeting in Dave Tanzi's basement? PJ: No. I looked at that and I thought, “Dave Tanzi's basement? I can't recall Dave Tanzi’s basement.” So, I mean, I remember seeing Ron Yates out here a couple of times, but that one? No, I was not involved with that one. I heard about it, but I truly do not remember being there. SL: So, you were still here in ‘94, and then you left midway through ‘95? PJ: Correct. SL: What do you remember about the commissioners’ visits? They visited in December of ‘94 and then in May of ‘95. PJ: Yeah. I think we felt like they probably didn't live up to what we thought the extent [was] of what we could show [of] Hill Air Force Base and other concerns that they would receive information [on] as they made their visit. That's what I remember. I remember thinking that it was wholly inadequate, what they were seeing and what they were doing. We kind of thought that would be a good opportunity to really—I mean the base did have some opportunity to get the community involved. But yeah, I mean, it was important. Those kinds of visits, really when it comes right down to it, even if you had two commissioners that came out, they did see something, they did get some information. But other than that, you know, that's about all I remember. SL: So, with Hill Air Force Base, there was always this big fear of encroachment. 6 PJ: Yes. SL: Was your office involved in purchasing land to help with the encroachment? Or with moving the local elementary school? PJ: Yeah, we were involved in that, pushing state legislators to looking at purchasing the land to a large degree. I think there are some federal bits as well. Yeah, we fully understood that we needed that kind of buffer zone at the end of the south runway, and there was a huge effort amongst the Hill/DDO'95 committee. I know that the person that we always really kind of went to, as far as who really did the groundwork, the shoe leather work kind of thing, was Steve Rush, who is still on Utah Defense Alliance. We did everything we could to support that effort. So, definitely. A lot of things that were produced, whether it be the early ‘90s to 2000s, our office, our staff’s Senate offices. But again, I would give a lot of credit to Steve Peterson on the House side when he was dealing with the committee staff and BRAC staff. He did a lot of footwork on that as well. So, that was a great community delegation and sort of cooperative process. Obviously, my job was to make sure that things were being communicated and coordinated between the community and the congressional offices. SL: Did you have a lot of community approach you or come to you when the whole BRAC '95 process was going on? PJ: I can't remember if I was a formal member of the committee. I certainly attended all of their meetings. So, essentially, we would either go to them or they would come to us. It was kind of mutual. Basically, I would be there for every single 7 meeting that Hill/DDO’95 did, and then some of the side meetings that we needed to know information about, not every single meeting. So yeah, there was a lot of communication there. I remember Hatch's office was very aware and present for those kinds of meetings as well. I guess that would have been Senator Bennett at the time, but Orrin Hatch seemed to kind of take the lead within the Senate side of things. Interestingly enough, really at that point we had three US congressmen from the state of Utah, and really this was, as far as they were concerned, a northern Utah issue. They really didn't care too much. It was, “Well, we'll do what you want us to do. If you want us to sign a letter, we'll sign a letter.” But as far as actual work is concerned, it was really left to our office and the Senate offices, and then obviously to the Hill/DDO’95 committee itself. The committee itself was a group of very strong personalities. Lots of highly charged conversations at those meetings. “Should we do this? Should we do that? Should we pursue one avenue? Should we pursue another avenue? Should we drive to DC?” So, I remember Danny McConkey, who was a commissioner from Davis County, and Vicki McCall would often go through the rounds and have some spirited conversations right in the board meetings. It obviously gained more and more of our attention as we went into ‘95. SL: I'm interested, so the other two congressmen—or women, because it would have been Enid Green? PJ: Yeah, it would have been, during that period of time, yes. SL: I can’t think of who the other one was. 8 PJ: I would actually have to look that up. SL: I think I’ve seen Enid Green’s signature on things. PJ: Yeah, yeah, and that sounds about the right timing. SL: So, do you think they just didn't realize the economic impact of Hill on, yes, northern Utah, but even Salt Lake I think would have been impacted? PJ: Yeah, and the state of Utah, as far as revenues and taxes were concerned. We tried to communicate that to the Salt Lake community. You would have a recession in the state of Utah. We would not recover for years and years and years. Some other cities might be able to do that. Sacramento might be able to do that because they have other options for their base, [like] San Antonio. But Hill Air Force Base was Davis and Weber County, and there's so much tied into that that decades would have gone by before we would have recovered from that. You could have done things with the property, but we constantly reminded people, you can close a base but you don't necessarily officially close it because you have some functions on that base that cannot be replicated elsewhere. So, you can take the land away, you can do some redevelopment on those things, but you can't move the ICBM mission. The Utah Test and Training Range is very close, so you have to have some flight operations out of there. So, we would have gotten the worst of both worlds. We would have had a base with so many fewer people with such a smaller impact, but yet the military tying up a lot of that area that could be redeveloped. Tinker Air Force Base, for instance, in Oklahoma City had a large warehouse for cargo planes. They were able to take this massive warehouse and I guess sell it or lease it to Boeing 9 Company, and they were able to benefit from that. We really didn't have that kind of opportunities. There were really specialized things on Hill Air Force Base. SL: Do you think maybe it was more that they just didn't understand? I hear a lot that people don't understand everything that happens at the Air Force Base. PJ: No, they don't, not even people who necessarily live around Hill Air Force Base, unless you work on Hill Air Force Base. In some cases, some [of those] people don’t. You know, if you work on Hill Air Force Base and you work on landing gear, you don't know about the data center and what it does and what things it brings to the base. You don't know about the ICBM mission, and those things that are, as we come into the 2020s, driving the growth on the base right now. But when you get to Salt Lake, oh, it was tough. It was tough to get news crews to come up as far as Layton, because they would’ve had to drive in their cars and take footage up here. It was just not a media-centric sort of issue for them. It was, “Oh, you know, they're 20 miles that way. That's not going to affect us.” For those people who didn't drive necessarily as much and go up in northern Utah, they probably pictured it as Tooele Army Depot, out in the middle of nowhere, kind of isolated. But, obviously not. The people around here, Davis County, Weber County, knew. But you could even make that argument for, like, Bountiful in southern Davis County. They didn't know what went on at Hill Air Force Base to the extent that the surrounding communities of Layton and maybe Kaysville, Sunset, Roy, Clearfield, South Weber, Ogden City—they really got it. They would have been 10 the first ones to feel the impact, and then the rest of the state would have felt the impact. SL: So, do you know why representative Hansen during the '95 BRAC rounds was pushing to make inter-service service a competitive process? PJ: I don't know why. I think there were some real opportunities for Hill at that point to benefit from inter-service agreements. As a little anecdote off to the side: when we were called in as a delegation staff for the congressmen, the general wanted to meet with us and give us an update on what was going on at the base, our expectations coming into every one of those meetings was that, “Okay, they're going to announce a Reduction in Force, or we're going to lose this mission, or we're going to lose something else.” It was this constant drumbeat of that. Quite the opposite now, but you know, “Okay, just cut to the chase, how many people are we going to lose now?” So, we were always looking for new options and new ideas, and inter-service agreements was one of them. SL: So, I know you weren't here when the final recommendations came down, and Hill was not on the list. PJ: Right. SL: But since you had worked with BRAC for so long, what were your feelings? PJ: I was still pretty much on the committee. I would attend their meetings. Not in an official capacity, but as a concerned citizen and being friends with all those people. What was my reaction? I was nervous because of Tooele, and it's kind of like you don't really know what's going to happen. You hear these things about, 11 you know, “Hill Air Force Base is okay.” You'd hear that from a lot of people. But then you'd hear one or two other people saying, “No, not necessarily okay.” I was shocked when they put two other Air Logistics Centers up for closure. We all knew that Sacramento was probably going to be closed. That would be the best bet of them. But we did not have the confidence that this is a nonpolitical process, that somebody wouldn’t sneak in and say, “Okay, it’s Utah. They don't have the large delegations. They don't have the Texas-sized delegations or the California-sized delegations that could be brought to bear these certain combinations of power,” whether it be a governor, or, you know. Back then, it wasn't “red state, blue state,” but you know, it was party-based. I remember just being nervous up until the actual votes and the announcements. But it was a shocker that two went. SL: So, you mentioned—and we hear this all the time—that BRAC was supposed to be an apolitical process. PJ: Right, it's supposed to be. SL: But obviously, when reality comes down to it, it is not. So, talk a little bit about the political overtones you saw in BRAC. PJ: Yeah. This used to be an exercise where all the power players would start early and often, just trying to influence, or at least make it well known, their concerns about what would happen if they lost X-Y-Z base, what would happen economically. I think there was—not from Utah’s side. I really believe, not from Utah's side—but there were some hints that other powerful senators, or other powerful congressmen, would hold some other things over the Pentagon and 12 then have this separate commission. Those people were not bulletproof, you know. They would get the message one way or another. So, people being people are not going to necessarily always be brave about what is the right thing to do, what makes the most sense in the world, what is going to help us reduce costs? So, then you get this hybrid of, yeah, that was a great decision, and no, that was a political decision. I remember with Cannon Air Force Base, you just knew. It’s like, “What? They voted on that and they're staying open? There's no reason for that.” Or you could see them move the chess pieces and say, “We're going to take this mission from this place and put it over here.” But that's not what the whole BRAC process is about. It was about saving money by making the military more efficient and using fewer bases to do it. So, I think they missed an opportunity to do more and to save more money through political pressure often. Because, you know, they all say you never want to make so-and-so senator mad. Then guess what? We're not going to get this weapons system. AK: So, since Utah at the time didn’t have as much political clout as maybe McClellan and Kelly, were there any kind of compromises you had to make, where they said, for instance, “Okay, we will keep Hill off the list if you do this?” or, “Okay, we looked at the data, but you're going to give us this and this?” Where there ever any things like that? PJ: Horse trading, you mean? AK: The reason why I ask is that apparently, something happened in the '93 round, so they announced in the ‘95 round that they were going to close two ALCs 13 instead of one. We had heard that that was almost like in repercussion of what had happened with Sacramento and Hill Air Force Base in 1993. I’m sorry, I can’t remember more details about that. I just remember thinking that Mike Pavich had said something about that as part of the reason they looked at Air Logistic Centers. So, I didn’t know if there were some political dealings with that. PJ: It could have been. You know, the funny thing is that as you go through this time period, the players change. So, the head of AFMC [Air Force Materiel Command] is not necessarily the same person who, in ’91 or ’93, was in ‘95. So, it was kind of you never knew who was saying what and if that made any difference to the process. AK: Another question that I had was about DDO. Was Jim Hansen especially involved in fighting for the Defense Depot Ogden? PJ: Yeah. I mean, obviously, we did not want DDO to be gutted like it was in BRAC. We got some clues that Utah was going to have to take its lumps. Sometimes when you hear that you go, “Okay, well, what can the community do with the land if DDO closes?” So, obviously we spoke with the mayors and local city council people and Weber County and things and said, “What would the impact be?” Obviously, we would be very concerned about losing it, we didn’t wanna lose it. But if they said, “Okay, we kept DDO open, we’re gonna close Hill,” we would say, “Okay, there’s more opportunities to redevelop DDO.” The committee was called Hill/DDO'95 for a reason, because our concentration was there on both of them. We were staking our name on it, you know, and so were the congressmen, senators, and the community. So no, it was 14 an important part of our push. I think we just got indications early on that, yeah, it's going to be a much bigger uphill fight for DDO. We were willing to do anything to do that fight, but yeah, that's what I remember of it. AK: Once they closed, was Hansen’s office pretty involved in getting the businesses into Business Depot Ogden? PJ: Yeah. I think that once it started occurring, it kind of went into the hands of the redevelopment folks and Ogden City and Weber County as a whole. Then you had someone like Mike Pavich who oversaw the redevelopment of DDO, which I think is still BDO. So, we would—this is kind of going after my time as well—we would definitely look for opportunities for other companies to come in. It was a harder thing to do because we're not in the economic development field, but we would certainly encourage and say, “Hey, this is so close to Hill Air Force Base. This is a wonderful [location], it’s got train tracks, it’s got—" It had all the infrastructure there. Let's use it. So, in that way, yes, we did. But it was still at that point, some of the buildings were still there, still coming down. Some of them are still being refurbished. It was kind of in the process. But they had the right guy to start that process in Mike Pavich. He knew a lot. He’s a big-brain guy. SL: Just about everyone we’ve talked to really puts Jim Hansen as the one who saved Hill Air Force Base. What do you think was Hansen's drive to fight for Hill? PJ: Well, it was his stewardship. I mean, it’s his role. This is a federal property and we all—then and now—were convinced of its worth to the US military. It would have been really tough to fight for a base that really wasn't contributing, or its 15 missions could contribute better elsewhere. We knew that Hill Air Force Base was the most efficient of the ALCs. We knew that the Utah Test and Training Range was a gem. We knew of all the missions that were happening at Hill. It was his job to ensure that a really valuable part of the Air Force and the military was saved from political destruction, basically. I mean, if they had closed Hill, it would have been a total political maneuver, and we were bound and determined not to let that happen. Obviously, when you’re a congressman from this area, we're really concerned about the people of the area and the economy. Again, that was his stewardship as well, as a US congressman. So, you had great people with great work ethic being the most efficient, and we needed to make sure that that was considered at every single level, to the top of all the military services, to the top of the Air Force, and all the way down. So yeah, it was no question. We pulled out the stops and did everything possible that we could do. Again, Congressman Hansen had meeting after meeting after meeting with those who he could speak to. Obviously, the commissioners were pretty much isolated from that kind of thing, but within the services. Then, again, I want to toot Steve Peterson's horn again back in DC, he really got a lot of information, and knowing the Pentagon and knowing where to go and some of the pressure points. My job was to make sure of communication between the community and our office. We had community people who were tied in with folks in the military. You know, I would hear something and say, “Hey Jim, you should know that this 16 is occurring.” So, yeah, it was a no-brainer. It was something that you could feel really proud about. In my humble opinion, the senators did not have the kind of drive that Jim Hansen did. So, if you were to say Jim Hansen saved Hill Air Force Base, it was all these dozens and hundreds of people who did. It was the people who worked at Hill Air Force Base who did such a great job, it was the leadership, the community, the Chamber of Commerce, Hill/DDO '95—they're all in there. But one of the things I think that Jim's legacy should include is really being a major part, or the major part, of saving Hill. SL: So, you came back in 2003 to work again for Bishop? PJ: Yes. SL: So, what was your involvement in the BRAC 2005 process? PJ: I was a little bit more involved this time, because I had known the process from before and had stayed in as a volunteer during the time I was gone. I left because my wife was having health problems in ‘95 and I had to skedaddle and take care of the kids at home for a while. But coming back in, it was perfect timing. I can't remember exactly when the name changed from Hill/DDO'95 to Utah Defense Alliance, but I immediately was part of that. I think Rob kind of depended upon me, and then again, Steve was on staff as well. But we would need to do the kind of work that had been done before. Again, rumors abounded about were they're going to take out another ALC, and could they do it, or should they do it? To me, it was a little bit less tense of a situation because the 17 arguments against foreclosing another ALC were really kind of difficult to make. But there's always that chance, and man. Again, we were all over it, and groups went out to DC, went to meet with Pentagon officials to talk about missions and talk about what Hill was capable of doing so that they had a better knowledge. I mean, the chief of staff of the Air Force has so many bases under their jurisdiction, we had to remind them what our base is doing currently. Then I think Rob took a leadership role in that as well, amongst the delegation. So, we understood the players. The players at the community level hadn't changed a whole lot. You had Vicki McCall, Steve Rush, Pat Condon, myself, and a lot of people that had been through the war before. We kind of knew what the process was and who we needed to talk to. SL: Did Bishop sort of continue Hansen’s legacy of fighting for Hill? PJ: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. It was number one; he knew it. He had been through it as a state legislator, looking at it from that perspective, and as a state Republican Party chair, and just being from Brigham City. He knew what the stakes were. He wanted to be “Mr. Hill Air Force Base.” He wanted to be able to know that base backwards and forwards and be able to convince his colleagues that it was so ironclad important that it really shouldn't be part of the equation. It was interesting when Jim Hansen got on the BRAC commission itself. Obviously, you had Jim’s successor working. So, there had to be kind of a separation there, because we weren’t going to use that card, because we didn't want to put Jim Hansen in any particularly bad situation. In fact, I think he had to, as I recall, recuse himself from votes on that, [Hill Air Force Base]. I'll have to 18 look that up to remember that, but I thought there was some sort of symptom that he couldn't participate in. I do remember the fact that the trips by the commissioners, the one was cancelled, or rescheduled and then canceled, or something like that. We were betting it was a signal that it was kind of not worth their time, that Hill was in such a good position that they really didn't need to come out here and do the big show where you get the whole community. I mean, other bases would bring the whole communities out, and the bands and the balloons and everything to show their support. Hill Air Force Base was ready to do that as well, but then the signals came and we kind of like, “Okay, we really don't need to do that necessarily.” If we demanded it, then we’d go back on the radar screen. So, it was an interesting time. As I recall, Jim Hansen believed that they really should have a hearing back here in Utah. Not necessarily for Hill, but to consider the other bases— Dugway and Tooele and Utah Test and Training Range, for that matter—just to make sure that the commissioners were aware of those as well. AK: So, I imagine the commissioner's office would have more than just BRAC to worry about during those two years. PJ: Oh yeah. AK: So, my question is: when a BRAC round would come around, would it be necessary for you to hire some extra people specifically for BRAC work? Or did you guys have to pull a lot of late nights? 19 PJ: Yeah, there were a lot of late nights we had to pull. We didn't bring on anybody extra. I think the extra people that you would count would be the consultants that the Utah Defense Alliance or Hill/DDO'95 were using to gain entry into some offices in DC, or to get information, do research, put publications together, things like that. So, that would be kind of the extra “oomph.” But as far as we were concerned, we just pulled our own extra hours making sure within our office that we were covering everything. The focus, obviously, in this office is constituent service. So, we had dedicated caseworkers who really did not get involved with the Hill issue at all. They kept their jobs going to serve our constituents and get them through the bureaucracy of what’s going on. We just kept on doing the same things we always would do, but we’d just add some time onto the end of the day to do other things with regard to BRAC. Yeah, it was a consuming thing, but we’re a congressional office. We have to do a lot of different things, and there are waves of work. Sometimes it's low, sometimes it's extremely high, so we kind of have to roll with those punches. Just as an aside: We talk about bow waves of things to do, and I’m just going to kind of compare this to the BRAC process. It's not a really good comparison, but when Mexico and Canada were included into the places that you needed a passport for, there were so many people that didn't get the message, or had applied and the passport office was so backlogged that we would have ten to fifteen inquiries per day saying, “I can't get my passport. We're going to Russia tomorrow or the next day. What do we do?” 20 So, literally, we'd have people here late at night calling the passport office in San Francisco. Thank goodness we had some really nice people at the passport office in San Francisco who would literally go from desk to desk looking for people's applications, and then trying to get them through like within a half an hour and say, "Okay, it's ready. We can federal express it out today. They can get it tomorrow." They went as far as meeting people, saying, “If you can get to the airport in San Francisco tomorrow, we'll meet you there.” So, you know, when you need to stretch those hours, you do. So, that was one of those things of like for two or three months, oh my goodness, it was crazy. But anyway, that's just kind of a comparison of workload [during BRAC]. AK: Yeah, for sure. So, BRAC added extra stress as far as your workload went? PJ: Yeah, yeah. But then the people who do different jobs just kept doing their jobs. So, mine was stretched more. I would often go out to DC, or I’d go to Dayton or wherever that we needed to go to make a case. AK: Thank you. Another question I had: so, were you president of UDA in 2003? Or was that more of a current thing? PJ: Oh, when was I the president of UDA? Probably 2005. I'd have to look at my resume. [Laughs] I don't know, it's all a blur. But I was president of UDA at some point. It would have been later because that was right during the time when the F-35 was coming on board. AK: I read that you spearheaded some efforts for the F-35. Can you tell me about that a little bit more? 21 PJ: You know, if you don't have a spear to go with it, a spearhead doesn't do much. But I was president of UDA. At that time, we needed to make the case that Hill Air Force Base, A, needed to be home to the 1st Squadron of F-35s—that it made sense—and, B, that we were going to get some at all, and not just the F-16 legacy base. So, there were scoping hearings. I think they went to four places, the people who put the sites together for where the first base would go. Then they'd narrow that down, and then they narrowed down to two, and we were competing with Shaw Air Force Base to be the first. But there's a lot that goes into basing a weapons system where the first base is going to go. So, it was a very time-consuming thing to, A, work with UDA and have people working all angles there and working with the congressional delegation and making sure that was coordinated. Then working with the base to make sure that they had the capacity and the ability to accommodate the F-35, and then kind of figuring out whether or not the base could be the economically best choice to site the first F-35 squadrons. So, yeah, basically there was a lot of work on that. It was very important. But the 34th fighter squadron and the 388th fighter wing was the first fighter squadron to get the F-16s, so there was a lot of legacy there. I mean, that's like, okay, yeah, we should get the F-35. We have the Utah Test and Training Range, so we had lots of people coming in from the military. Obviously, Hill would host them, but UDA would informally do receptions at people's houses, and people would talk about the virtues. So, if you want to call that spearheading, that would be it. Just kind of 22 coordinating and making sure that we were touching all the bases. That did take a lot of time away from the job I was doing here. AK: Yeah. That's another question I had: How did being president of UDA interact with also working in Bishop's office? PJ: Fortunately, good staff members would be able to pick up some of the extra workload that we had here. Obviously, there's a lot of issues that are important to the first congressional district, not just Hill Air Force Base. We have agriculture, public lands, you name it. You know, there's just everything. Plus administering the people and the folks here and making sure that everything’s covered. So, I think just basically good staff and just doing a little bit of extra work. Because it was not disinteresting; it was really interesting, because you go down and see the prototypes of the F-35 being built and finding out what some of the capabilities were. You kind of knew that this was really special and that this was going to be a weapons system that was going to take us into the—who knows how long it's going to take us? Into the 2040s, at least. It was a quantum jump from the legacy fighters, the F-16s and the F-15s. It was important. It was going to propel the fighter wing part of the base, the operational part, and it was going to make it more stable in the future in that we would not be losing our F16s, and we would retain operational capability at this base. Gosh, we really do have two great fighter wings, the 388th and the 419th. AK: Absolutely. Do you feel like the F-35 is one of Hill Air Force Base’s efforts to prepare for any future BRAC rounds that may come? 23 PJ: You know, the times changed so much. The F-35, yes, would help BRAC-proof, but the fact that the F-35s can fly five to 10 minutes and go to the crown jewel of the test and training ranges made it the perfect place to be. It's just a no-brainer. Then also on the other side of it, beyond the operational part of it, we also had to seek out the maintenance of the F-35 at Hill Air Force Base, just like we did with the F-16s and the A-10s. So, having operational capability here? Yeah, that would help Hill Air Force Base in the future. Having them maintained here? Yes, that would be a big part of it as well. Since that time, we've had things that have just become so overwhelmingly dependent upon the base that, again, you could cordon off parts of the base to still do those functions, but the F-35 kind of took over the maintenance line, along with the F-16s currently. We have the operational squadrons coming out of here, and we have the support groups that did with the squadrons. Then we've got GBSD, the third leg of the triad. That is going to employ thousands, literally, of high-paying jobs in Northern Utah, and that's going to be a massive boon to the entire economy. Then you also have the data center, and there's just a never-ending insatiable appetite to get more of that work done, and having that, you know, you want to make sure that it's done at Hill Air Force Base. So, some of these things are so, so very important that when you put them all together, yeah, Hill Air Force Base is in such a good position now. We have flipped the script, basically, from the time when we were threatened, going into those meetings wondering what the reduction in force was and how many. We had 800 to 1,000 people who were going to be laid off and, 24 “Oh no,” you know. We were thinking, “Okay, great, what's going to happen now?” Instead, we're getting briefed on the opposite problem: Where do we find more skilled people? How are the universities going to produce them? How are we going to get them to be here? So, you have a problem on both sides, but one's better than the other, because they come up with some creative ways of getting people here and making the missions bigger. So yeah, all that was important. The culture, too. It's all about, we have high civilian numbers in the Air Logistics Center compared to the amount of military, but the military is still a number of two and a half thousand folks out there, and they play a big part in the culture of the area. The one thing that every, I mean seriously, every commander that comes in—and it's almost embarrassing—they will say that by far, the best support that they have received from any community that they have been a part of at a base is right here in Utah. Seriously, I would say, "Oh, you don't have to say that," you know. Then they say, "No, no, no, seriously. Really, this is a great place." Quality of life is really high here as far as they're concerned. They're skiers, and [you can] walk out your back door and climb mountains. Particularly on the military side, boy, they love that. There are parts of Mountain Green or Layton where there are enclaves of retired officers who have just said, "Okay, I still have time left to be in the Air Force, but I'm buying the piece of land. I'm buying a house now, and I'm going to come back here and retire. Whenever it is I retire, I'm coming back here and retiring," and they do, and it's a good thing. 25 It also has a part to play in any process that is, you know, going forward that's going to look at a base. They're going to look at the quality of life and they're going to grade it. Sometimes it's not fair how they grade it. But anecdotally, too, it has a reputation of being a good place to be. SL: What role do you see the current representatives—so, Congressman Moore— having and playing in the future of Hill Air Force Base? PJ: We've got a lot of those challenges before us against some of those with different kinds of issues. I mean, currently, the things that Congressman Moore is concentrating on are things like GBSD and making sure that his compatriots in the House of Representatives and on the Armed Services Committee are well aware of why you need that third leg in the triad and what it does, without going into secret clearance sort of stuff. There are some people who don't share that idea, so he's got to do that. He's got to convince his colleagues; he's got to make it easy for that funding to continue to come through Congress. That's a huge, huge thing for him, making sure that the Utah Test and Training Range is viable, that it has all the sort of technology it needs going forward to accommodate the F-35. The F-35 is a whole different sort of animal than the F-16, because as soon as the F-35 gets on the range, they can basically shoot down—you know, virtually—any other aircraft on the range. So, you’ve got to have other challenges, which are technological challenges. You’ve got that, you've got to support the range, you've got to support the fighter squadrons and their ability to do their job, helping to get future monies for the data center, making sure that the 26 facilities at Hill Air Force Base are consistent with what an Air Force Base should offer, and not being in World War II warehouse facilities. So, obviously that means the Enhanced Use Lease program that is on the west side of the base, and making sure that continues, and having that constant communication with the upper levels of, in this case, the Air Force. Then also, being a freshman on the Armed Services Committee, he has the ability to be disarmingly friendly, you know, just to talk with people. He also has the ability to talk across the aisle. He has as many friends on the Democrat side as he does on the Republican side. So, what you do is you talk to them too and say, "This is why we need this." Once you get the information, it's more of an easy sell. But when you're on the Armed Services Committee, you kind of have to specialize. There is nobody, including the chairman on that committee, who could tell you everything about all the military services. There's just too much to know. Obviously, we concentrate on the larger picture of the budget for the military but specialize in what's happening in the Air Force. So, those are the challenges. There are upside challenges, I would say. We're not defensive; we're kind of more offensive right now in trying to make sure that we continue that communication between education and the State of Utah and what's needed on the base. We need to make sure that locality pay is commensurate with how much it costs now to live in this area, because that cost has gone up. We're now on par rather than below the average. So, that's something we need to get done. 27 There’s a never-ending list of things that he needs to work on and will be working on. That's a good thing, because we're not status quo. That base is not just staying put with one mission going and doing the same thing over and over and over again. We're constantly now growing and trying to figure out how to accommodate that growth. Things like the EUL are going to make it a lot easier for people to get on the base and not have transportation problems and all of those sort of things. You know, quality of life and things like that. With regard to Hill, that's his main focus. SL: Okay. So, one last question. What do you think the legacy of BRAC‘95 was in northern Utah? PJ: I think it galvanized the community to be a solid source of information that highlights what Hill Air Force Base is all about in the long run, because that committee was formed to be defensive, to make sure that that was being done in that particular case. But the Utah Defense Alliance goes on. We're not fighting necessarily the BRAC process now. Now we're looking for all those other opportunities. That's what it's going to be doing in 10 years from now. It's going to be saying, “Okay, we're in the middle of GBSD and this current administration wants to cut some of the funding,” or something like that. “Well, no, we have to educate and we have to work with the congressional delegations”—take myself out and putting myself back in—"and we need to work with the communities and other people who understand what is going on.” 28 So, the real legacy, I think, is the fact that people were educated about Hill. We understood that we could take nothing for granted and that we needed to be always aware, have our ears open all the time, never ignore something that is a possibility or opportunity. Again, we're looking a lot at opportunities right now. So, the legacy is that we have a solid community core. When I say community I mean Northern Utah, and then UDA also staunchly looks at the missions of Dugway and Tooele Army Depot and the Utah National Guard. We've got those things on the plate as well; it's not just Northern Utah. We're talking about the military community in general. So yeah, it's a great legacy. I guess, the legacy also would have been that we put our best foot forward in ’95. But the lasting legacy is that we’re a community that has all those officers and generals and people who were commanders say, “The legacy is that you guys are the most supportive community we've ever come across.” That is because there is a real love for the people who come through here as commanders and people who work at Hill Air Force Base. There's just an affinity for that as an entity. I think the more that community leaders get involved with the base, the more you love it and you understand it, and you understand why some things are happening. But yeah, the torch will be passed from person to person, but that torch generally kind of emanates from Utah Defense Alliance and, you know, obviously the congressional delegation, too. But it doesn't really waver; it just kind of keeps on push, and push, push, push, because everybody really loves it. I mean, it's a passion. Once you get into it, it’s like, you know, this is a really incredible thing 29 we have up here in Northern Utah. Some of those people south of the Davis-Salt Lake line don't really know what we have up here. Some of the things that are potentially spin-offs from what they do at Hill, like all the deposits and the technology spin-offs that breed small businesses. You know, mom-and-pop businesses that go on to bigger companies and will continue to do so in the future. We want to diversify the economy, obviously, up here. But you know, that can happen with a robust Air Force Base as well. SL: Well, thank you, Peter. We appreciate you taking your time. PJ: Well, thank you. I appreciate you guys coming in. It's nice to chat about it. 30