Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/02/1999 04:05 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 2, 1999
4:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gail Phillips
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Relating to a national ballistic missile defense system.
- MOVED CSHJR 8(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 8
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HARRIS, Barnes, Murkowski,
Phillips, Mulder, Croft
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 61 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 61 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
1/27/99 95 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
1/29/99 106 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS, MULDER,
CROFT
2/02/99 (H) MLV AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4853
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HJR 8.
CHRIS NELSON, Staff Director
Joint Committee on Military Bases
Alaska State Legislature
Goldstein Building
130 Seward Street, Suite 220
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3865
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 8.
PHILLIP OATES, Colonel [Brigadier General after 2/9/99]
Adjutant General/Commissioner Designee
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
P.O. Box 5800
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-0800
Telephone: (907) 428-6003
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 8.
LAUREL BARGER-SHEEN
Department of Economic Development
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1081
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-1, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Murkowski, Coghill, James, Kott, Cissna, Croft and Foster.
HJR 8 - NATIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
CHAIR MURKOWSKI brought before the committee House Joint
Resolution No. 8, relating to a national ballistic missile
defense system.
Number 023
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, came forward to present the resolution. He told members
HJR 8 deals with an issue similar to the Star Wars project
discussed during the Reagan Administration; it also deals with
protection of the United States and other countries through a
missile defense system that he and others are working hard to
have deployed in Alaska, and which depends upon approval by the
U.S. Congress and the President.
Number 061
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether there would be any advantage
to sending a copy to all members of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS expressed the hope that if the resolution
is sent to the Alaska Delegation, it will get to the other
members. However, he agreed that could be ensured through the
wording.
Number 084
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the United States should get
out of or amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said his understanding is that the present
relationship will have to be eliminated first, because it is with
the Soviet Union, which no longer exists; under that agreement,
he believes the system would have to be located in North Dakota,
for example. A new relationship would likely be with Russia,
which may be less stable and have less interest in developing
this relationship. He suggested Mr. Nelson could address the
issue more completely.
Number 114
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Representative Harris would
consider adding Secretary of Defense William Cohen to the list of
those being sent copies of HJR 8.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS indicated he had no objection, then
specified that on page 2, line 8, following "United States", the
phrase, "the Honorable William Cohen, Secretary of Defense,"
would be inserted.
Number 136
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt that amendment.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there was any objection; none was heard.
She then referred members to page 1, lines 9 - 11, which says the
United States has recognized that it currently has no means of
protecting all of its citizens from attack by these new threats.
Mentioning that U.S. citizens may reside in another country, she
suggested it say, "protecting Americans living in all 50 states".
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that it says that on line 15.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI proposed using that same language on line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS indicated he had no problem with that.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt that as an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT objected, asking what the exact amendment is.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that the proposed amendment is to
replace "all of its citizens" with "Americans living in all 50
states".
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT withdrew his objection, then suggested that
statement ["currently has no means of protecting"] may not be
completely true, as he knew of training in response to similar
situations. He asked to hear from others on that issue.
Number 193
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL proposed saying "borders" instead of
"citizens" on line 10.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that "Americans" is too narrow,
and that "citizens" or "residents" would be more inclusive.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied, "Either way," then agreed that
"borders" probably includes both citizens and noncitizens.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI proposed waiting until after hearing additional
testimony.
Number 224
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew her motion.
Number 236
CHRIS NELSON, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Military Bases,
Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify in support of
HJR 8. He told members that on August 21, 1998, North Korea
launched a multi-stage ballistic missile that overflew Japan and
landed in the North Pacific; it was the signal event that focused
discussion regarding the threat to the United States. In
addition, last week Secretary of Defense Cohen announced that the
U.S. would pursue a ballistic missile defense of the nation,
indicating two sites were under consideration: Alaska and North
Dakota.
MR. NELSON advised members that the previous week, while in
Washington, D.C., he met with Brigadier General Willie Nance,
program manager for the national ballistic missile defense
organization. On Monday, February 22, Brigadier General Nance
would come to Juneau specifically to brief legislators.
MR. NELSON explained that under the terms of the 1972 ABM Treaty,
each nation designated a single site for a ballistic missile
defense system. The Soviet Union chose Moscow, its capital,
whereas the United States chose North Dakota, which has the
missile fields for the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic
missile. At the breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. said it
would recognize its treaty obligations with the survivor states,
which were determined last summer, for purposes of the ABM
Treaty, to be Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
MR. NELSON told members Secretary Cohen's announcement had
indicated the U.S. would approach the Russians to renegotiate the
ABM Treaty; but Secretary Cohen had also stated that if the
Russians were not agreeable to changes or amendments, then the
U.S., under the terms of the treaty, would exercise its right to
abrogate the treaty and go forward on this. Mr. Nelson
emphasized that the federal Administration had decided there will
be a national ballistic missile defense system. The question is
where.
MR. NELSON explained that Alaska is the only location from which
all 50 states can be defended, because its strategic position
allows defense of Alaska and Hawaii. He said SJR 30, passed by
the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature, noted that a national
intelligence estimate published in 1995 talked about the threat
to the Lower 48 but completely omitted discussion of Alaska and
Hawaii. That resolution, which sparked a lot of debate, called
upon the President to exercise his responsibilities as the
Commander in Chief, as well as the constitutional obligation to
provide for the common defense of the citizens in every state.
An article in the Wall Street Journal had covered the
legislature's action. The Heritage Foundation had also picked
this up and distributed it nationally. Mr. Nelson said it really
put Alaska on the cutting edge in the debate.
MR. NELSON indicated the ballistic missile defense office's
representatives were in Alaska in December. He said that office
has been conducting initial scoping sessions for an environmental
impact statement on four Alaska sites: the Yukon Maneuver Area
at Fort Wainwright, Eielson Air Force Base, Clear Air Force
Station in Anderson, and Fort Greely in Delta Junction. Public
hearings had been held in all four locations, with an additional
public hearing in Anchorage. Mr. Nelson said when he had visited
their office in Washington, D.C., the previous week, they were
just about finished with initial assessments, and they are coming
close to making the decision on where to site the system itself.
MR. NELSON told members it would be wonderful if the legislature
could greet Brigadier General Nance on February 22 with a
resolution showing unanimous and bipartisan support for this
system. He pointed out that the growing threat to the U.S. is
not from a Cold War, with a possible massive nuclear attack from
another superpower, but from a so-called rogue nation like North
Korea. He referred to the North Korean missile recently launched
in the direction of the U.S., then concluded, "They were testing
to see how close they could get to us. And I think that it is
important for our citizens here in Alaska, and important for the
citizens of all the United States, that that system be deployed
here in Alaska just as soon as it is feasible."
Number 343
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether, setting aside the ABM Treaty
restriction, the siting decision is all or nothing. For example,
could some be in North Dakota and some in Alaska?
MR. NELSON said there could be that decision. The military value
of Alaska is the ability to defend all 50 states and make a
launch closer to the launch of an incoming missile from just
about all areas from which one could potentially be launched.
The advantage of North Dakota is that it allows a few more
seconds of battle time, enabling a "shoot-look-shoot" scenario.
If a missile were coming at the Lower 48, from North Dakota they
could launch an intercept missile, have a chance to see how that
missile did, then make a second launch. If Alaska were the sole
site, there would be a "shoot-shoot-shoot" scenario, "where
basically we would throw everything up there and hit it that
way."
MR. NELSON specified that the intercept vehicle is a kinetic
intercept vehicle that hits the missile in flight, and it is an
exo-atmospheric intercept; in other words, the missile is
intercepted in space before it reenters the atmosphere. He said
there has been talk of a more redundant system, adding that in
the history of air defense systems, the only ones that have
really worked on a continuous basis are the Soviet systems that
worked in North Vietnam and in the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the
Middle East; those are redundant systems that have multiple
launchers with different capabilities and that give an
overlapping umbrella. A good military value argument can be made
for both sites.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Alaska is better because of an
assumption that an attack will come across the Pacific Ocean or
if it has something to do with the trajectory.
MR. NELSON said the nations of greatest concern, the so-called
rogue nations, would launch across the North Pole. Alaska's
geographic position allows faster interception, and defense of
Alaska and Hawaii. There is a constitutional obligation to
provide for the common defense. "If you want to write off Alaska
and Hawaii, and those Americans who live here, then North Dakota
makes perfect sense," he added, emphasizing that Alaska is a
target now.
Number 394
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked why Alaska could defend North Dakota
but not the other way around.
MR. NELSON explained that a missile's delivery time from North
Korea to Alaska, for example, would not allow sufficient time
from North Dakota. However, if the same missile were aimed at
North Dakota, there would be sufficient intercept time throughout
the missile's path for an Alaska-launched missile to intercept
it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked for confirmation that there is little
likelihood of a missile attack from over the Atlantic Ocean.
MR. NELSON affirmed that, saying it would be a longer flight path
to launch from the Middle East across the Mediterranean and the
Atlantic Ocean, to hit a site on the East Coast. It would be
easier for Iraq or Iran, for example, to do an over-the-Pole
launch, to hit a variety of targets in North America.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "But if they did shoot over the
Atlantic and tried to hit Florida, we can still intercept that
from Alaska?"
MR. NELSON said yes, Alaska's reach is total across the territory
of the United States. He urged members to direct these excellent
questions to Brigadier General Nance when he visits Juneau.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if HJR 8 should perhaps mention the
ABM Treaty.
MR. NELSON said he believes the resolution addresses the fact
that the world has changed, and that treaty constraints and
diplomatic understandings valid during the Cold War are no longer
valid or a threat. He suggested that HJR 8 probably doesn't need
to go further than that, then stated that the Administration has
indicated, through Secretary Cohen's statements, its intention to
renegotiate the treaty. He added, "Secretary Cohen has gone even
further and indicated that in his view, as the official charged
with the defense of our nation, that if the surviving states are
unwilling to renegotiate the treaty, then we would be within our
rights under the treaty to abrogate it, given sufficient notice.
So, I think that the 'treaty compliant' issue is being dealt
with, and that the Administration has made the decision, that it
sees its responsibility to defend all 50 states."
Number 434
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked about defending Puerto Rico or any
other territory.
MR. NELSON suggested that would be best answered by Brigadier
General Nance, then stated his understanding that Puerto Rico,
specifically, probably would be included. However, places
farther out in the Pacific such as American Samoa, Guam and some
others may be a bit far afield. Mr. Nelson noted that as this
system has evolved, the University of Alaska Fairbanks has
developed a series of maps showing Alaska's unique strategic
location, from which "we really can reach and do anything in the
Northern Hemisphere." Although a launch from the Southern
Hemisphere would be somewhat different, thus far a proliferation
of missile technology that would lead to this has not been seen
there.
Number 459
PHILLIP OATES, Colonel, Adjutant General/Commissioner Designee,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He said it is important to
understand that it would not be treaty compliant to have the
location either all in the Dakotas, all in Alaska, or in a
combination of the two. He emphasized that it was the collapse
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that raised the
question of whether the treaty still exists, and he reminded
members of the importance of discussing aspects of the treaty.
He said another advantage of doing this from Alaska is where the
intercept would be; whether it would be over a landmass such as
in Alaska, Canada or portions of the U.S. is a consideration.
COLONEL OATES said other than that, he believes the resolution is
appropriate and that he welcomes Brigadier General Nance's visit.
He expressed the belief that the work on the environmental
aspects of the site selection is on course, as is the technology.
He said the goal in Alaska at this point, from the military side,
is to facilitate the work in Alaska, so that when the decision is
made, they will be prepared to assist in fielding of the system.
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to lines 9 and 10, where it says
that the U.S. currently has no means of protecting all of its
citizens from attack. He asked whether it may be more
appropriate to replace "no" with "limited."
COLONEL OATES replied, "I don't feel we have even a limited
ability to protect our citizens at this point in time, unless
protection is actually going to the source that would be
launching it and doing something prior to the launch."
Number 511
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked when a siting decision might be released.
COLONEL OATES said it is a little premature to even guess. From
a siting perspective, although the time line is quite tight, he
believes Alaska is on schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for confirmation that this ballistic
missile program is still in the design phase.
COLONEL OATES replied, "We are in the process of developing the
technology. Boeing is the lead system integrator on it. But I
can tell you that, to date, technology for ballistic missile
defense is having much more success than some of the theater air
defense programs. The tests to date have been successful. We're
looking here in the very near-term future to the next series of
tests, which will include an actual intercept. And I would say
if that goes as we expect it to go, I think that the technology
is further along than ever before in our history, and I don't
think we'll experience the same problems that the (indisc.)
program had."
Number 546
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if it would be anticipated, then, that
the site selection, preparation, environmental impact statement
and so forth would be done in conjunction with the development of
the technology, with the hope that when the development is
finished, the site would be determined and ready to go.
COLONEL OATES answered yes, specifying that it is based on the
original "3 plus 3" time line: three years to develop the
technology, to prepare and select the sites, and to resolve the
treaty aspects; and the next three years for fielding the system.
He concluded, "Right now, we're meeting that time line
requirement."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed members that she had received from Delta
Junction a faxed copy of 295 signatures from the residents of
Fort Greely, expressing their desire for the national missile
defense site.
Number 573
LAUREL BARGER-SHEEN, Department of Economic Development, City of
Delta Junction, testified briefly via teleconference in support
of HJR 8. [The sound quality was extremely poor.] She told
members the signatures just mentioned had been collected over a
period of four to five weeks, following meetings in Town Hall at
the beginning of the year.
[Blank tape at end of Side A and beginning of Side B -- tape was
flipped before next testifier spoke.]
TAPE 99-1, SIDE B
Number 001
COLONEL OATES referred to page 2, line 5, which said, "the common
defense of our nation by selecting an Alaska site". He pointed
out that whether Alaska or North Dakota participates, there will
be more than one site, because the system requires an X-Band
Radar (XBR); a Battle Management, Command and Control (BMC2)
center; and the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) field. He
suggested saying, "the common defense of our nation by selecting
sites that allow for protection of all 50 states of our union."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether his suggestion included the phrase,
"Alaska sites."
COLONEL OATES agreed "sites" is appropriate. However, it
wouldn't have to specify "Alaska" and would still say the same
thing, but in a kinder and gentler way.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Colonel Oates'
suggestion as an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the committee had ever addressed
Chair Murkowski's proposed changes to page 1, lines 10 and
possibly 15.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said no, then asked whether Colonel Oates had
been on teleconference when the committee had discussed revisions
to page 1, line 10, which says "no means of protecting all of its
citizens from attack by these new threats." She noted that
consistency with line 15 had been suggested, so that line 10
would read, "protecting Americans living in all 50 states from
attack by these new threats".
COLONEL OATES said he believes he'd agree with that.
Number 077
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to adopt as a friendly amendment that
both lines 10 and 15 would say, "persons living in all 50
states".
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that there was no objection.
Number 082
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked for clarification about whether the
proposed amendment on page 2, line 5, would say "by selecting
sites".
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that was how she had inserted it after
Colonel Oates' suggestion. She asked the will of the body.
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HJR 8, as amended,
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes, if any.
Number 104
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered a friendly amendment on page 1, line
12. He noted that they are trying to drive this point home to
high-ranking military and government officials. He offered that
rather than "four locations in the state", for consistency it
should say, "four locations in Alaska". He also suggested, on
page 2, line 2, changing "armed forces stationed here" to "armed
forces stationed in Alaska".
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection; none was
heard.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, noting the number of changes made, asked to
amend her motion to include that after the committee substitute
(CS) is prepared, the members be allowed to see it before
transfer to the next committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed that would be appropriate.
Number 134
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked for clarification about how the
amendment to page 2, line 5, read.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she understood it to read, "to provide for
the common defense of our nation by selecting sites that allow
for protection of all 50 states for the deployment of a national
ballistic defense system."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he agrees with Representative Kott,
and that to be consistent, it should perhaps say, "by selecting
Alaskan sites".
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that the discussion with Colonel
Oates had indicated there would be several sites; she said it
could be possible that one site might be in North Dakota and some
in Alaska, for example. In addition, they were trying to not
make it so parochial, and to emphasize that whatever sites are
selected should be able to defend all 50 states. She added that
she personally didn't have a real feeling about it one way or the
other, although the plural "sites" is a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS restated his desire to make sure "Alaska"
is in there, to be consistent and to put forward Alaska's
interests.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether Representative James had a problem
with the language, "selecting Alaska sites".
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said no.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he didn't have a problem with it,
either, but it seemed that there may be a combination, with some
sites possible in North Dakota. He suggested it should say "an
Alaska site" or "all Alaska sites".
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated his understanding that only one site
would be selected in Alaska.
MR. NELSON told members that Colonel Oates had correctly pointed
out that there are a number of types of facilities in the overall
national ballistic missile defense system, some of which will be
sited here, such as the acquisition radar at Eareckson Air
Station. With HJR 8, they hope to address the fact that of the
potential launch facilities - the actual missile intercept launch
sites - Alaska has four sites being considered. The selection
among those four sites should be made by the national ballistic
missile defense organization, based on what they consider the
highest military value; they certainly have the option of putting
additional sites into North Dakota. Mr. Nelson concluded, "I
don't think that we have to apologize for being advocates for the
state of Alaska. I think that's correct and proper for the
Alaska legislature to do, simply because it guarantees the safety
and security and defense of our own citizens."
Number 209
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the Department of Defense fact
sheet in committee packets, stating his understanding that the
Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) have to be located at one of the
four Alaska sites.
MR. NELSON replied, "That's what we are advocating."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed it is proper to ensure the defense of
Alaska's citizens, then suggested that whereas "we want the site
here" may sound parochial, "we want a site that protects us" does
not.
Number 225
COLONEL OATES said in discussing these issues with a
congressional delegation sometime back, he had understood that
the decision was not to argue for any specific site and yet argue
for protection of all 50 states, to avoid political in-fighting.
Although HJR 8 is an Alaska resolution, he indicated an interest
in protecting all 50 states. He agreed that the GBI siting is
the most important, because it allows protection of all 50 states
from Alaska but not from other locations. He concluded by saying
either wording would be right and appropriate.
Number 251
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that page 1, lines 12 and 13, which
says four locations in Alaska are currently being considered as
sites for the deployment of the intercept vehicles, is specific.
He proposed as an amendment that page 2, lines 5 and 6, read:
"the common defense of our nation by selecting an Alaska site for
the deployment of the intercept vehicles for the national
ballistic ... missile defense system."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that page 1, lines 14 - 16,
already says that any of these locations currently being
considered provides the unmatched military value of a strategic
location from which Americans living in all 50 states can be
defended, as required. She suggested it didn't need to be
restated.
Number 273
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there was any objection to
Representative Croft's amendment, then noted that none was heard.
Number 285
CHAIR MURKOWSKI told members the new CS would be provided to
members. She asked whether there was any objection to the motion
to move HJR 8, as amended, from the committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes, if any. There being
no objection, CSHJR 8(MLV) moved from the House Special Committee
on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
Number 300
CHRIS NELSON reminded members that all legislators are invited to
meet with Brigadier General Nance on February 22 in the Speaker's
office.
COLONEL OATES applauded Mr. Nelson for his tireless work for
Alaska in this endeavor. [CSHJR 8(MLV) was moved from the
committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 312
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|