Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/20/2001 03:38 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 10 - US COAST GUARD FUNDING Number 0026 CHAIR CHENAULT announced the first item of business, SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Urging the United States Congress to fully fund the operational readiness and recapitalization requirements of the United States Coast Guard. Number 0125 SEAN RILEY, Staff to Senator Alan Austerman, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present SJR 10 on behalf of the sponsor. He referred briefly to the written sponsor statement, then told members it seems the perfect time to send a clear message to Washington, D.C., that Alaskans have a critical relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard. Mr. Riley suggested that if Alaskans fully support funding the U.S. Coast Guard, "Washington, D.C., will listen" because the country depends on Alaska, which has unique geography and rich resources. MR. RILEY reported that the U.S. Coast Guard is facing a $91 million deficit, "reducing its air and sea patrols by over 10 percent." It is running in the red because of higher-than- expected energy costs and higher pay; its workhorse, the C-130 aircraft that operate out of Kodiak, will soon begin a 33 percent reduction in flight hours. Furthermore, U.S. Coast Guard patrols have already spent 3,000 fewer hours in the air and close to 5,000 fewer hours at sea. MR. RILEY informed members that the U.S. subcommittee chair of the Department of Transportation has said that lack of adequate resources has seriously weakened the U.S. Coast Guard's ability "to defend our borders and to patrol our waterways from harm." Furthermore, Rear Admiral [Thomas J.] Barrett has said his budget is being squeezed so tightly that missions are having to be delayed. Mr. Riley emphasized that [if legislators] unite in one voice to Washington, D.C., there will be a much better opportunity for the U.S. Coast Guard to be funded. He pointed out that being a resolution, SJR 10 has no fiscal note. Number 0377 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed 100 percent support for the U.S. Coast Guard, including "more than adequate funding and full funding." However, "full funding" is subject to different interpretations. She referred to [page 2, beginning at line 27], where it read "fully fund the United States Coast Guard's operational readiness and recapitalization requirements". She asked whether there is a more direct way to say that. MR. RILEY asked whether Representative Murkowski had a recommendation regarding that language. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said no, clarifying that she was wondering whether the meaning of full funding was discussed in the [Senate]. MR. RILEY offered to get back to her with an answer. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI specified that she didn't wish to hold up the resolution [in order to address the meaning of "fully fund"]. Number 0548 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked whether this is a supplemental request or is a request for FY02 funding. MR. RILEY answered, "This is supplemental. Initially, it was not accepted, and now we're going to be going through the second rounds and having another opportunity." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked why, if this is for full supplemental funding in order to make it through this year's budget, that isn't stated in the resolution; it sounds [in SJR 10] as if the request is for the next year's monies. MR. RILEY said he believed Representative Hayes to be correct. He asked whether Representative Hayes had a suggestion to clarify that language. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES answered that he would think about it and come up with something. Number 0703 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI concurred with Representative Hayes, noting that it reads [beginning on page 2, line 28] "fully fund the ... operational readiness and recapitalization requirements to ensure that this ... remains 'semper paratus' throughout the Twenty-First Century." She commented that it is a pretty broad statement, with which Alaskans probably would agree. She asked, however, whether it is the message the sponsor wants to send. Or is the request more direct, to address the immediate problem with the federal budget? MR. RILEY responded that he didn't have a problem with rewriting it to be more specific, but he believed it was a figurative, not literal, intent, in order to strengthen [the resolution]. Number 0796 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he agreed with the previous speakers. He said he would be curious to have "some conversation with our senior [U.S.] Senator, since he is a powerful individual in Washington, D.C., that controls, to a large extent, what is appropriated around the country; and I know he's a strong supporter of the military." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether there was any discussion in previous committees with regard to including the name of Rear Admiral Barrett in the list of people to receive copies of the resolution. He explained that he always likes to send something to "the most senior individual in the state, to let him know we're behind him." MR. RILEY deferred to Mr. Clifford Stone. Number 0874 CLIFFORD STONE, Staff to Representative Alan Austerman, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to respond to Representative Kott's question. He noted that Rear Admiral Barrett has been kept fully informed, and had, in fact, given a full presentation in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee regarding SJR 10. He explained the reason for the wording in SJR 10: We drafted the resolution ... in this form to address other concerns, ... in kind of a generic sense, if you will. It seemed to be what the Coast Guard wanted, when we ran this past both Admiral Barrett and his staff. And this was born out of ... the Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force, because they could see ... the dollars drifting away from the Coast Guard. And so, the ... task force came up with this generic language, which we tweaked ... [to be] specific to Alaska, and made some recommended changes. ... This same resolution, in essence, is going to come from the other states; there [are] about six other states in this task force that are going to send that same resolution back to their congressional leaders and the cabinet members and the Vice President, to address what they feel is a very serious undermining of the ... United States Coast Guard. We did receive ... some input from Admiral Barrett, and we did make those additions in the resolution. ... Certainly, it could ... be more specific and to the point. ... Senator [Austerman] would certainly entertain ... any language, and we could work on that. We could try and go back, both to our congressional delegation in D.C. and to Admiral Barrett, to see if we can't be a little more specific and if they felt it would make a bigger impact back there in D.C. So, we could certainly work on that before we requested ... it go to the floor for a vote. Number 1017 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't sure that he would hold it up for that particular purpose, depending on the timeline involved. He suggested that the congressional delegation members are smart enough to figure out what [the legislature] is trying to achieve. He restated, however, that for any resolution dealing with the State of Alaska, as a courtesy, a copy should go to the highest-ranking military official in charge of that operation. As to whether Secretary Principi [Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs] should get a copy, that is another argument, he added. MR. STONE agreed [regarding Rear Admiral Barrett] and stated, "We'll go ahead and get that in there." He also said that perhaps the commander of the Pacific should be added after getting that person's full title. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI responded, "Admiral Blair." She then suggested that if this message could be better used by the congressional delegation if [SJR 10] were more specific, then it would be worth asking, even by telephone. If U.S. Senator Stevens comes back and states that it would be helpful to specify that the legislature supports full funding for the supplemental for this budget - even in a specific amount, if desired - that could be done. If, however, he said it didn't make any difference, SJR 10 could be sent to [Congress] as soon as possible, in order to be in [Washington, D.C.] in conjunction with the other states' [resolutions]. She questioned whether it was desirable or appropriate procedurally, however, to make a conceptual amendment that was contingent upon a response to a telephone call. Number 1283 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Kott, as chairman of the House Rules Standing Committee, whether an amendment could be added in that committee to conform with the current committee, in order to not hold up [SJR 10]. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would "entertain that option." At that point, it could either be amended in the House Rules Standing Committee or a floor amendment could be prepared. If this current language is best for what is being attempted, that is fine, he added, but he suspects that some language could be used to address the concerns expressed. Number 1351 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to amend SJR 10 to add both Rear Admiral Barrett and Admiral Blair to the list of individuals who will receive copies. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1419 FRANK KELTY, Resource Analyst, City of Unalaska, came forward to testify in support of SJR 10. He offered some personal background, noting that he had worked 30 years in the Alaskan seafood industry in the Aleutian Islands, in Unalaska and Dutch Harbor, and was an elected official [mayor] in the community for 18 years. MR. KELTY explained that the U.S. Coast Guard's mission, both nationwide and in Alaska, is of critical importance. When he first moved to the Aleutians, there were few resources. Many nights, choppers would leave Kodiak to come to the middle of the Bering Sea to assist with a rescue, which took hours. He noted that C-130s had to respond. He had experienced working with vessels that sank and tragedies that occurred, he told members, emphasizing the importance of the U.S. Coast Guard in that regard. In addition to search-and-rescue missions, the U.S. Coast Guard enforces the 200-mile limit and stops incursions into the pollock fishing grounds on the border. The U.S. Coast Guard also conducts high-seas driftnet patrols in order to protect Alaska's salmon returns. The large area that must be patrolled and protected is incredible, he added. MR. KELTY reminded members that the Bering Sea crab fisheries are the most dangerous in the nation. The U.S. Coast Guard has responded by keeping helicopters at Saint Paul Island during some of the crab [seasons] around the Pribilof Islands, and by keeping helicopters on the 378-foot cutters on patrol, in order to respond to events. For example, this past crab season, three fishing vessels lost their pilothouse windows on one day; the U.S. Coast Guard had to respond and assist those vessels in order for them to get back to port and make repairs. MR. KELTY noted that Unalaska has a marine safety detachment that does a great job of doing safety inspections of vessels. As a result, there are fewer tragedies, as well as better equipment and training for the fishing fleet. Furthermore, [the U.S. Coast Guard] responds to pollution events such as the incident a few years ago in which a Japanese tramper went aground; the U.S. Coast Guard rescued the crew and coordinated the cleanup of 40,000 gallons [of fuel] that inundated the community. MR. KELTY concluded by saying he has seen, firsthand, the work that they do [in spite of] terrible weather conditions out there. He urged the committee to support the U.S. Coast Guard, which definitely needs the tools to do the job, not just for Alaska and the seafood industry, but also for the nation. Number 1581 CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there were questions, then thanked Mr. Kelty. He returned the discussion to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he thinks [SJR 10] is a worthy resolution, and that under the circumstances discussed previously, [members] would look for the sponsor to provide input in order to resolve the funding language. Number 1605 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SJR 10, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS SJR 10(MLV) was moved out of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|