Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/20/2001 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 72 - ASST. ADJUTANT GEN. FOR MISSILE DEFENSE Number 1584 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next item of business would be House Bill NO. 72, "An Act relating to an assistant adjutant general for national missile defense in the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs." CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (MVA), came forward to testify. She said HB 72 is a simple bill that would give MVA the authority to have one more assistant adjutant general, this one being for national missile defense. If authorized, the position would be paid totally by the federal government. The concept is that the new officer would be a member of the Alaska National Guard in the traditional sense and a full-time employee of the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office. MS. CARROLL EXPLAINED that HB 72 is before the committee because only state legislatures have the authority to create these positions. The federal government, Congress, has the authority to create all other general officer positions. There are a limited number of general officer positions in the United States, and creating this state position is about the only way to get a general officer in Alaska for the National Missile Defense System. MS. CARROLL testified that MG Phil Oates, Adjutant General/Commissioner, believes this would be a very valuable position. It would be the state's military representative during the development and the deployment of the National Missile Defense System. Number 1705 CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Carroll to define the parameters of this position's authority, considering that the position is created by [state] statute but employed and paid by the federal government. MS, CARROLL replied that this would be a state position. "We would have to have a memorandum of understanding with the Joint Program Office on what the duties of the position would be, but we would have joint interview and approval of the position," she said. The governor would have to concur and the legislature would have to confirm the position [because it always confirms the rank of any of the general officers in the Alaska National Guard]. CHAIR COGHILL surmised, "So this would be the first step in securing the position, and then the authority would be defined afterwards, even though this sets out why we're doing it." MS. CARROLL said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked to whom this individual answers. "Will he answer to General Oates, will he be of the same rank, what's the ranking system of this, and who does he answer to?" MS. CARROLL replied that this position would answer to General Oates in [the new officer's] traditional Alaska guardsman role. He will be a brigadier general. He will be the site commander in Alaska for the development and deployment of the National Missile Defense System. In that role, he will answer to the Joint Program Office, and that's the federal military part. It's a dual role. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked what his duties would be, "taking into consideration the fact that most of this is going to be a federal project?" MS. CARROLL replied that he would be the site commander for National Missile Defense development and deployment. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked, [and] "From the Alaska National Guard side?" MS. CARROLL replied, "He would then be a traditional guardsman and that is the same role as any traditional guardsman plays: ... you are required to go to annual training two weeks out of the year, you are required to perform a weekend duty ... at least one month a year; and in that role, [the new officer] would be under the command of General Oates. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if in that regard, he would also command a small force, as in other National Guard areas. MS. CARROLL was uncertain of that and told Representative Fate she would have to ask General Oates to get back to him on that. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would like to know the answer "simply because there's a cost attached to it." Number 1914 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that those participating in the discussion kept saying "he," and asked if [the new officer's gender] was a foregone conclusion. MS. CARROLL acknowledged, "I made that mistake, didn't I?" REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS recognized the importance of the position, alluding to discussions about potential changes in national defense [involving Alaska]. "But should that not come to pass, should Alaska not be the major player in that ... is this premature? Will we still need this position if North Dakota is selected ...?" MS. CARROLL explained, "We are setting up the structure to be able to act if these things do happen. So if they don't happen, the structure will be there, but it will not be used." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired, "So if it does not happen, you will not fill this position?" MS. CARROLL replied, "That's correct." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized: "So you're putting things in place in case this happens. If it doesn't happen, then we aren't going to fill it at all .... Is that correct?" MS. CARROLL confirmed that it was correct. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if anything currently was being done to bring this [National Defense Missile] system to Alaska. MS. CARROLL said there are many efforts being made right now to try to bring this system to Alaska. We have interaction with the Joint Program Office, but only on the National Guard side. In addition, there is a state position that was approved by the legislature last year for National Missile Defense that is investigating all of the civilian spin-offs that can benefit the citizens of the state such as technology, fiber optics, how we can use those things on our civilian side. So there is a lot of activity that is occurring." Number 2052 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried, "This is all at no cost to the state now? Do you foresee down the line if this does happen, is this going to be all federal dollars ... or are we going to eventually be picking up part of the tab? MS. CARROLL emphasized, "We are not going to pick up the tab for the position. That's why ... the bill that you have before you says it will be federally funded. There is no intent for the state to ever fund this position." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that was not what she meant. "If because this position is here ... there will be offshoots of this. Then is it going to be costly to the state or is it all federal dollars still?" MS. CARROLL restated the question to clarify before she answered it: Will the National Missile Defense System have a state cost whether matching in our facilities or anything like that? No." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON confirmed that was what she had wanted to know. Number 2116 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 72 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. He added, however, that he would still like an answer regarding whether there would be a command under this position. MS. CARROLL promised to get that information for him. CHAIR COGHILL said he would appreciate that. Number 2143 CHAIR COGHILL noted that there was no objection to reporting HB 72 out of committee. Therefore, HB 72 was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|