November 17, 2003

Washington, D.C.--- Utah First District Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT01), a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, has gone on the offensive to fight a recently-disclosed proposal to close down the commissary in Dugway, Utah.  The GOP Freshman questioned Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, during the latest hearing of the committee.  The questions centered around a newly surfaced Department of Defense memo which targets Dugway Proving Grounds’ commissary, among a host of others, for closure in Fiscal Year 2005.

The memo was first referenced in a story which appeared this month in a publication called the Army Times.  The memo, signed by Dr. Chu’s Principal Deputy, Mr. Charles Abell, reverses the recommendation of the Defense Commissary Agency’s Board of Directors by ordering the services to come up with closure plans for 19 small commissaries worldwide, including Dugway, Utah.

“Since the time the story came out,” said Congressman Bishop, “my staff and I have been heavily involved in contacting top Pentagon officials to try to confirm the story and to voice strong opposition.  As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to personally question Dr. Chu when he appeared before our committee, and I got him to commit to take another look at Dugway’s situation.”

As part of an on-going annual review process, all of the defense commissaries worldwide are examined to see if they are meeting performance guidelines and are profitable.  If not profitable, then the Defense Commissary Agency (DCA) Board of Directors can recommend that a particular commissary be closed, or in the alternative, should remain open in spite of not showing a profit if any number of other exceptions are met.  The criteria for those exceptions are outlined in a policy memo dated June 8, 2001 issued by Mr. Abel.  They include such things as the need to support “remote and isolated” military bases, or to provide shopping opportunities for bases where no other commissary or commercial shopping is closer than 30 minutes away.   Dugway clearly meets both of those mitigating circumstances.

Representative Bishop continued, “It is my understanding that the DCA Board recommended to the Department of Defense that Dugway’s commissary be kept open in spite of its unprofitability, mainly due to its remote and isolated condition.  However, there is a decision memorandum dated August 29, 2003 in which Mr. Abel seems to contradict his earlier policy memo by requesting that plans be submitted to close multiple commissaries, including the one at the Dugway Proving Ground.  He incorrectly states that these decisions are based on the ‘number of active duty personnel assigned and the proximity of a larger commissary.’  This proposal was clearly not based on a sound understanding of Dugway and its needs.”

“At the present time, I have requested that Dr. Chu and his staff review their flawed analysis of Dugway’s circumstances and have pointed out to them that: (1) Contrary to their assertion in the August memorandum, there is no other commissary located close to Dugway; and (2) There are 180 military personnel assigned to Dugway at the present time, which exceeds the previously stated 100 minimum threshold.”

“The bottom line is that I believe that this particular decision was made in gross error on flawed data, does not pass the common-sense test, and should be reversed as quickly as possible.  I strongly oppose any attempts to close the commissary at Dugway and stand ready to do what I can with all of the tools at my disposal to make sure that the families working and living at Dugway can continue to have their most basic daily subsistence and quality of life needs met as they work to perform vital missions for our national defense.”

###