01/28/2003 11:09 AM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
January 28, 2003
11:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to the extension of the Alaska Railroad to Fort Greely
to serve the anti-ballistic missile launch facility.
- FAILED TO MOVE CSHCR 2(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE:EXTEND ALASKA RAILROAD TO FT. GREELY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LYNN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0024 (H) MLV
01/21/03 0024 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
01/24/03 0065 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM
01/28/03 (H) MLV AT 11:00 AM MAJORITY
CAUCUS RM
WITNESS REGISTER
FATHER THOMAS MOFFATT, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified briefly on HCR 2, which was
sponsored by Representative Lynn.
MICHAEL A. BARTON, Acting Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HCR 2, offered the
governor's support for an extension of the railroad to Fort
Greely, which would not only provide access for defense, but
also would benefit mining and agriculture.
PATRICK GAMBELL, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Department of Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HCR 2, stated his support
and that of Bill O'Leary for extending the line to Fort Greely,
which would be about a 15-percent growth for the corporation;
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-1, SIDE A
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House Special Committee on Military
and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 11:09 a.m.
Representatives Lynn, Masek, Weyhrauch, Dahlstrom, Fate, and
Gruenberg were present at the call to order. Representative
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also in
attendance was Representative John Coghill.
[Chair Lynn led participants in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
He then facilitated discussion by individual members of their
interest in and involvement with military issues.]
HCR 2-EXTEND ALASKA RAILROAD TO FT. GREELY
11:21 a.m.
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would consider HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Relating to the extension of the
Alaska Railroad to Fort Greely to serve the anti-ballistic
missile launch facility. As the prime sponsor of HCR 2, he read
the resolution to the committee.
11:23 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23-
LS0157\D.1, Utermohle, 1/28/03, which read:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "killer"
Insert "defense"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 23-
LS0157\D.2, Utermohle, 1/28/03, which read:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Air Force"
Insert "Department of Defense"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR LYNN called the preceding "housekeeping amendments" and
indicated further amendments could be entertained at any
appropriate point.
11:26 a.m.
FATHER THOMAS MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska
State Legislature, pointed out that HCR 2 has 18 House
cosponsors thus far. Noting that extension of the railroad to
Fort Greely was mentioned "rather strongly" in the governor's
recent State of the State address, he offered his belief that
the resolution adequately encompasses the governor's views, as
well as the feelings of the legislature. He called it a good
start towards getting the railroad through Canada and finally
down to the Lower 48.
11:28 a.m.
MICHAEL A. BARTON, Acting Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), came forward to
testify, noting that he is an Army veteran. He informed members
that clearly the governor supports extending the railroad to
Fort Greely. The project would assist the military in
implementing the new missile-defense system, he said,
emphasizing the need to support the military in protecting the
country. It also would help the mining and agricultural sectors
of the economy and would be an important part of developing the
state's transportation. "We look forward to working with the
railroad and the Bush Administration to make it happen," he
concluded.
11:29 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the railroad bed would be
capable of [transporting materials] for mining activities, which
are much harder on a railroad bed than would be just the
transportation of missiles. He acknowledged that it might be
better to ask Mr. Gambell [of ARRC].
ACTING COMMISSIONER BARTON deferred to Mr. Gambell.
11:30 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA followed up, inquiring whether there are
other ways to further use the railroad to aid the state in
development. She asked if Acting Commissioner Barton knew of
any studies regarding a railroad extension and its impacts.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BARTON answered that he is sure there are
[other ways to further use the railroad], as well as studies,
although he isn't personally acquainted with those. He noted
that it has been an ongoing effort for some time, though not
necessarily for this particular segment. He offered to obtain
studies.
11:31 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to page 2, lines 4-6, which says
in part that "the Alaska Railroad has a long and proud history
of providing transportation services to the armed forces of the
United States". She said it is crucial to begin looking at
better access in the state, especially for the military; it will
then open up a lot of areas. She offered her understanding that
some [federal] money seems to be earmarked, and that perhaps
this railroad [extension] would fit into that. She said this
resolution speaks highly for [the legislature's] support for
better access.
CHAIR LYNN surmised that it would greatly benefit the Delta
Junction area as well.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BARTON replied that it has a lot of
benefits, in a lot of ways and [to] a lot of people. Mentioning
economic development through resource and transportation
development, he said the governor is very committed to providing
access to Alaskans, as well as providing some transportation in
rural areas for the sake of better lives for rural residents in
terms of schools, health care, and access.
11:34 a.m.
PATRICK GAMBELL, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), Department of Community &
Economic Development, came forward to testify, noting that with
him at the hearing were Bill O'Leary, chief financial officer
and vice president of finance, and Wendy Lindskoog. Mentioning
his own extensive military background, Mr. Gambell indicated
he'd been asked to be an advisor to [the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security] in Alaska. He said committee members would
hear [from ARRC] the practical side of things, and presumably
would want the railroad to provide the best technical and
practical advice possible from an engineering and planning point
of view.
MR. GAMBELL conveyed his and Mr. O'Leary's support for the
proposal to extend the line to Fort Greely, as well as ARRC's
support for moving frontiers. Describing transportation as a
common denominator for economic development, he said the
operative word in Alaska is access, which converts potential
[into reality]. When access is provided, as shown by the
history of the railroad in the U.S., people who are adventurous
and entrepreneurial will take advantage of what has become
available. He surmised that this new project to extend the
frontier would be no different.
11:40 a.m.
MR. GAMBELL pointed out that, significantly, this first step to
Fort Greely, about 70 miles, represents about a 15-percent
growth overall in ARRC. He related the assumption that for a
capital project, some federal funding would be the most
important part. He described ARRC as a "state instrumentality"
and a private corporation that doesn't take money from the
general fund.
MR. GAMBELL informed members that federal funds are available to
passenger-carrying railroads nationwide. If there will be
regularly scheduled passenger service over the line, a
significant federal source is "formula funding"; if not, the job
is a little tougher, although not impossible: money may have to
come directly through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
could come through a direct appropriation in a particular year's
budget, or possibly could be obtained through "federal highway
dollars." The funding source will be an important issue that
will require discussion and planning. Federal funds, as opposed
to private funds, require going through sequential "hoops and
hurdles," he noted. However, those funds are available and will
certainly be considered.
11:42 a.m.
MR. GAMBELL reported that ARRC has on its books an alternate
route around Fairbanks. Perhaps a $100-million project, it was
split into two phases about two years ago. The first phase, the
northern piece, goes from Fort Wainwright to North Pole.
Therefore, [ARRC] has done some work on the initial phase of
this 70-mile route to Fort Greely, although not knowing at the
time that Fort Greely was an objective. "We think there's
opportunity here," he remarked.
MR. GAMBELL noted that annually ARRC sits down with [DOT&PF] to
compare projects up and down the Railbelt; this is to see
whether the two can leverage their money and take advantage of
scale. If the route [in HCR 2] is for DOD [U.S. Department of
Defense] purposes, he noted, DOD money may be an important
component to consider, along with whether there are advantages
of scale or synergy "with what would be supported to the DOD and
necessary for this rerouting, as well as the splitting of grades
at important crossings along the way where the highway goes, for
safety purposes and so on." The opportunity is to involve DOD
planning and DOD dollars as a result.
MR. GAMBELL informed the committee that [ARRC] has spent about
$350,000 studying this portion of the route, including a
"concept study" completed in March, and could address it in more
detail; however, it has done no work beyond North Pole on the
way to [Fort] Greely. He offered ARRC's experience that there
will be a lot of support in that area.
MR. GAMBELL noted that there also is a Fairbanks-North Star
Borough rail taskforce, chaired by Bonnie Williams (ph); it is
taking a 100-year look at what the railroad should be doing in
that part of the Interior. A railroad strategic planner sits on
a committee of that taskforce, and there have been several
meetings on the idea of extending the railroad to the border
[and] down to Fort Greely. Acknowledging that the taskforce has
probably taken more of a long-term look beyond North Pole than
the railroad itself has, he suggested that members of the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs might want
to hear from a member of that progressive group to see what
they've come up with. He surmised that the taskforce would
support this [extension of the line to Fort Greely].
MR. GAMBELL also offered his understanding that some work is
underway inside the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), not
from a railroad perspective but from the perspective of what
kind of transportation would most benefit the opening up of
Interior Alaska. Principally, the look is at resources,
including "heavy lift," longer distances, markets that need to
be served, conditions over which transportation must be routed,
and year-round conditions that must be contended with.
Logically, he said, a secondary benefit would be the ability for
tourists to come in and so forth.
MR. GAMBELL said [UAF] is looking for some funds and has a
commercial partner, but reiterated that he doesn't know how far
they've gone. He offered his belief that [UAF] is capable of a
further study of the impacts; it could include the viability of
a line to the Canadian border, which "would take us back to the
Tanana River valley and down to Fort Greely." Surmising that
[UAF's] work might be of interest to the current committee,
depending on how far it has progressed, he suggested that staff
inquire about it. Mr. Gambell pointed out that the foregoing
are other players in the arena that he is aware of who have done
some work.
11:48 a.m.
MR. GAMBELL spoke in support of moving the line forward, noting
that the railroad is built on a model with 17 years of solid
success. It hasn't had to come back to the state for operating
funds. It must generate its own operating funds from the net
earnings, since the federal government doesn't pay for operating
and maintenance.
MR. GAMBELL offered some history. After the federal transfer,
when the state wrote the laws governing the railroad, he
explained, [ARRC] built a model such that if one component is
removed, it breaks down. As with the transcontinental line in
the Lower 48, one of the most important pieces was land, which
was conveyed with the intent of its becoming fee simple once it
was entirely surveyed and turned over; the surveying hasn't been
completed yet, although the intention is there. The land
component is important for generating revenue. In the Lower 48,
it allowed success for the transcontinental railroad, which was
given as much as 6,000 acres per mile of railroad in order to
generate revenue and thereby fund itself. He said that formula
has allowed the Alaska Railroad to be successful; it contributed
significantly to [ARRC's] net earnings of about $11 million in
2002. That money goes towards operating and maintenance
expense, which, according to his rule of thumb, is about $33,000
a mile per year.
MR. GAMBELL pointed out that if 15 percent is added to the
length of the railroad, maintenance costs will increase 15
percent. Once [an extension] is built, therefore, he is looking
for a guarantee of some significant revenue coming across that
line that would go to ARRC and help in maintaining the line and
the standards that can be expected. Referring to an earlier
question about the heavy weight [of mine ore, for example], he
told members:
That's what we build our standards to. We build our
bridges to it. We build our rail to it. And we want
to be able to haul the heaviest load, which is, ...
for the Alaska Railroad, about a 10,000-ton train,
which is far more weight than probably any military
train that would be going to Fort Greely. We would
build to the worst case, or the best case, however you
want to look at it, which would be a pretty
substantial line ..., that were mining to develop,
were the line to be extended to Canada, were the heavy
ores to be transferred in long trains - which is
really what railroads do best - this line would be no
different than any other piece of our line. It would
be substantive. And it would be capacity- and weight-
capable and weight-bearing-capable, to get the most
out of it ....
11:50 a.m.
MR. GAMBELL turned attention to another important component,
indemnification. One consequence of building more rail is that
development occurs along the corridor. The result is immediate
pressure, as soon as there is development in a small town, "to
want to cross the track and join the two pieces." He reported
that "at-grade crossings" are the primary killer in the Lower 48
with regard to railroads; he mentioned stories of people who
want to beat a train at a crossing, for example. Hence the
railroad has been indemnified through a "very, very healthy
indemnification" by the state, realizing that there were going
to be many crossings on the rail line that wouldn't be put there
because the railroad wanted them. The railroad is indemnified
against multimillion-dollar lawsuits such as those seen in the
Lower 48. He explained the theory behind state indemnification:
Even though many times the experience has shown that
it's the fault of the person trying to make the
crossings, the railroad is still sued. The suits go
to court. They're very expensive. And many times the
jury, if it's sympathetic, is ... going to find fault
with the railroad in some way. And I think the state
realized that [for] a small railroad like this, it
wouldn't take but two or three of something like that,
and it could break the railroad's back. And so we
have a very healthy indemnification. And the theory
is, we didn't ask for those roads, we didn't put those
roads there, but if somebody needs a road and wants to
come in - if they take responsibility for it - we'll
allow them to cross there.
MR. GAMBELL reiterated support [for extending the line] and
concluded:
We can do it. We'll be delighted to participate in
the process, whatever you determine that process to
be. We do have some equities ... in that process that
we think would make it more successful. There's more
than one way to skin a cat, but for 17 years we've
skinned it one way; it's been pretty good. And we
would hope that you would consider that in ... your
considerations, as well as others who might take this
subject up.
11:55 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if Mr. Gambell has looked at whether
and how the rest of the line might have to subsidize the
additional 15 percent [proposed to Fort Greely] because of lack
of passengers or the "periodic shipping," depending on how big
Pogo or any other mine is.
MR. GAMBELL replied that, as a practical matter, in the
beginning it would not. The good news, however, is that the
line would be brand new. That $33,000 [a mile] is an average;
with a brand-new line, for two or three years the maintenance
would be rather routine, and [the costs] wouldn't be as high.
It would give [ARRC] some time to develop the revenue picture.
He said that is probably what the railroad would be counting on
to have happen. "But we would have to subsidize that line
through the rest of the railroad for some additional period," he
added. "I don't see any way around it at the present time."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked whether Mr. Gambell foresees any
permitting or land-acquisition problems with the bill. He
offered his understanding that most of it would be federal or
state land, but that there might be some private land that [the
railroad] would have to go over.
MR. GAMBELL answered:
We have not really gone out to the degree that you're
asking and tried to look into what those problems
might be. As a general rule, anytime you've got to go
out and get permitting, there's always problems. But
it's a way of life; you've just got to get through it.
TAPE 03-1, SIDE B
11:58 a.m.
MR. GAMBELL mentioned the ability to request eminent domain, a
time-consuming legal process that has its own steps. First of
all in the process, he said, the EIS [environmental impact
statement] is very important: it takes the first look at
alternatives and some of these issues. Second, if there is a
successful EIS and a decision is made to go forward, part of
that decision is based on not only the geography, but also the
permitting. He explained:
The permitting is going to be in the micro; the
geography's going to be more in the macro. But it may
require that you sidestep or go around or ... take
some unusual actions. We would hope that that would
be minimized, because from a transportation point of
view ... you want the most direct line from A to B, to
keep your velocity up and to keep the goods and
services moving. ... That's where you not only [get]
efficiency, but you make (indisc.) too.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked what kinds of hoops exist for
federal money. Saying she is a fan of the railroad, she pointed
out that rail line is semi-permanent and requires much
forethought; it has huge implications for the part of the state
[where it goes]. She said it sounds as though it has
implications for the success of the whole line if it isn't done
prudently and with forethought.
MR. GAMBELL agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired about possible financial effects
on ARRC. She mentioned Alaskan hire as an example of something
desirable, but emphasized the desire to avoid weakening the
railroad. She asked what the legislature should be adding to
this resolution to make sure it is done right.
MR. GAMBELL offered his opinion that most likely this would be
contentious, that the clock would tick fast during the
legislative session, and that there would be debate over whether
to study it more or take steps. A likely compromise would be an
agreement to study it, which would be a "win" for everybody and
would buy time. A route most likely won't be part of the
debate. Citing several studies - beginning in the 1940s during
[World War II] and including some studies in the 1970s and 1980s
- he said the geography isn't that difficult, and pretty much
dictates which way the line will run: "If you want to get to
civilization on the other side, you've pretty much got to head
down with the route that we've already seen, past Greely down to
the border, which is about a 270-mile route, and then it's 600
miles to join up with the ... railroad that's going up to
Whitehorse, and that's the road down through Canada and down to
the Lower 48."
MR. GAMBELL acknowledged, however, that the governor and others
are talking seriously about moving forward; that this first
section to [Fort] Greely isn't rocket science; and that once
there is momentum and what it takes is determined, the next step
will be easier. "Not a bad philosophy, actually," he remarked.
Pointing out the necessity of an [EIS], he suggested that one
step, if legislators want to act, is to put "reasonable dollars
down" to take the first step towards doing the EIS. He reported
that for an EIS on a project this size, the railroad uses a rule
of thumb of 10 percent of the capital costs, which has worked
pretty well for projects in the "double-digit millions"; he said
he didn't know how it would apply to a project costing billions
of dollars. He estimated that for a $40-million project,
therefore, a full EIS would cost about $4 million and take about
two years.
MR. GAMBELL also reported that for a big project like this,
[ARRC estimates] $3 million to $8 million a mile [in capital
costs], with an average of perhaps $5 million a mile, depending
on terrain, the number of bridges, and so forth. At $5 million
a mile, capital costs would be $350 million to [Fort] Greely.
After the engineering survey is done, he pointed out, the cost
would be nailed down; the foregoing is estimated on the rule of
thumb, and the cost of the EIS could be estimated at 10 percent
of that.
MR. GAMBELL, because of the costs, suggested the need for the
legislature to debate whether to do [the EIS] on just the
section to Fort Greely or clear to the [Canadian] border, so
that it would be done already when there is a desire to extend
the next phase as markets develop and so forth. He said
permitting would be part of that. Returning to Representative
Cissna's question, he said:
I think that the movements that you're looking for are
probably going to be in the environmental area, and
then, if you're going to study something, study the
permitting that's going to be required - at the detail
level, for example, with private landowners and those
agencies, whether it's state, whether it's federal, or
whether it's tribal. Find out who ... owns what. And
that's all been mapped out, but take the next level
down and say, ... "What do you think about running a
railroad through here? What are you going to tell us
... when we really sit down and start talking to you
about it?" And maybe start to develop that dialog a
little bit.
12:04 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked how HCR 2 could be worded best,
then, to set the stage to start this off in the best possible
way. She said she was thinking more about what other uses are
potentially affected, as well as what social factors there are
to think about. She asked whether those usually are in an [EIS]
as well.
MR. GAMBELL answered that an [EIS] "mandates alternative
routes," and its purpose is to look at impacts, including
impacts on wildlife. He indicated it depends on how it is
written and remarked, "A lot of what you're concerned about
would be in the environmental impact statement and studied."
For what isn't included, he suggested possibly looking to the
University of Alaska, for example, which may have already done
some work to look at those types of issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed there is no reason to reinvent the
wheel if studies already have been done. She said she'd like to
think about it awhile and then request [Mr. Gambell's] expertise
when the committee fine-tunes it.
12:09 p.m.
[There was overlapping discussion of where this extension would
be on a map, following a request by Representative Weyhrauch.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired about using "requests" rather
than "direct" on page 2, line 13. He expressed concern about
the relationship between the State of Alaska and ARRC, since it
is an independent corporation.
MR. GAMBELL responded that the use of "direct" is appropriate.
He explained, "We work for the governor through the board of
directors of the railroad, and the governor can direct the board
of directors."
12:11 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH explained that he'd been concerned
whether this proposed extension is for a branch line instead of
the main line.
MR. GAMBELL said it is the main line. He added, "It will become
... a new main line, depending on what else you did to the
railroad. But since it's a single, yes, it would be the main
line, unless you went up northwest, ... in which case it's sort
of a new ..."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH interjected. He referred to the last
"WHEREAS" clause [page 2, line 9], and suggested this would get
the railroad closer to Canada.
MR. GAMBELL indicated it is along the same route that was
surveyed to go to Canada.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked where this extension falls in the
railroad's priority list.
MR. GAMBELL replied that it isn't [on the priority list].
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked who wanted this resolution, then.
He specifically asked whether the railroad wanted it.
MR. GAMBELL said no.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked whether this would be billed as a
passenger line to the federal government.
MR. GAMBELL said no.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH suggested the railroad wouldn't be
getting federal funds in the passenger formula, then.
MR. GAMBELL answered, "Not until such time as we would start
regularly scheduled, year-round passenger service."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH highlighted the zero fiscal note. He
surmised that any [funding] would be from either the federal
government or railroad revenues.
MR. GAMBELL replied, "We assumed that the state was not going to
fund this railroad. Now, ... that's a very short-notice
assumption; just last night, really, is the first time we got
the question about the fiscal note." Adding that the assumption
might not be accurate, he said it is up to the legislature and
the governor. In response to a further question from
Representative Weyhrauch regarding whether the military wants
this line, he said [ARRC] hadn't been contacted by the military.
As to whether building the line will upset any truck traffic
that currently delivers supplies to Fort Greely, he indicated he
didn't know.
12:14 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that it
wasn't certain until the results of the last presidential
election were known that the U.S. would deploy a large number of
missile-defense [systems] like that at Fort Greely, and that in
some ways the decision was as much political as military and
strategic.
MR. GAMBELL said he thought that was a fair statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked: If that is the case, and if
there is a change in the political climate in Washington [D.C.],
might the Fort Greely site no longer be operative at some point
in the future, perhaps even before the rail [extension] is
built?
MR. GAMBELL replied that it isn't really a "railroad question,"
but observed that because the deployment itself is phased over
several years, there will continue to be debate about it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether it is necessary to have a
railroad in order to get missiles onto the site, or whether they
can be trucked.
MR. GAMBELL answered that they'll be delivered by air.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether facilities at that site
could allow an aircraft of that size to land, and whether
missiles can be maintained without a railroad, either by air or
by road.
MR. GAMBELL replied:
Again, my expertise on the maintenance of the missiles
is almost nonexistent, but I can tell you that ... if
they're going to be maintained by air, the state of
the art ... in weaponry these days is, they're more
and more self-contained. They're ... encapsulated, in
other words. In ... a lot of cases, they're
environmentally controlled. Their diagnostics are
internal to each weapon; you plug it in and read it on
a computer.
It's not like building a hole in the ground in Grand
Forks, North Dakota, like it was before, where you had
to have a blockhouse and a lot of computers and those
kinds of things. The ability to move the missiles is
much easier; they're much smaller; they weigh less.
And my understanding at this point is that that's what
allows air to lift them in and out. As you've said,
if you've got the right-size runway and all the arctic
hardware ...
12:17 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why a railroad is necessary.
MR. GAMBELL answered that he was simply responding to the
question of whether [ARRC] would be able to construct this
railroad satisfactorily. He suggested the need to have a dialog
with the military in order to determine why the military hadn't
contacted [ARRC] regarding maintenance or logistics support.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that he is a cosponsor of the
resolution, agreed it is worthy of discussion. He said he
didn't want to see [the state] do something unnecessary or
expensive that would waste time or money.
12:18 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, with regard to the military importance,
said he was privy to some discussion with "the senior officers"
who were doing the strategic planning for the military for the
site. He agreed with [Mr. Gambell] but added, "They did,
however, say, that if there was a railroad to that site, even
though the railroad ... was not necessary for the project
itself, they would certainly use that for infrastructure." He
cited as examples concrete, supplies, and logistical support.
Noting that [then-Representative] Jeannette James [had
introduced legislation regarding extending the railroad] for
years, and that the congressional delegation has "been on the
subject" as well, Representative Fate said this expansion of the
transportation system is sorely needed throughout Alaska. He
expanded on his remarks:
There are huge deposits of minerals in that area that
we need to ... not only develop but to ship, and make
it ... economic for that to take place.
Transportation is the one, sole thing in the
development in the state of Alaska that is lacking.
And if we're going to develop this state, we have to
have transportation. It just so happens that a
railroad is usually much cheaper transportation than
any other mode of transportation, unless it's water
transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested moving on and taking a hard look
at what the resolution does. He noted that if there is a bill
to fund the right-of-way or provide matching funds, for example,
it will be well debated before the permitting process even
begins on this huge project.
12:21 p.m.
CHAIR LYNN thanked Mr. Gambell and asked whether anyone else
wished to testify; there was no response.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA requested to hear from a member of the
military with regard to support for this.
CHAIR LYNN responded that the committee could certainly contact
the military for input, but that at this point he didn't see the
need to delay anything for the military to comment. He said it
is simply a resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern on behalf of her
constituents about not wasting money through governmental
spending of huge amounts of money around the state. She
suggested the need for vigilance, even if this is a resolution.
She again asked to hear from the military.
12:24 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested, in view of Mr. Gambell's
comments and that this is the first week of [hearings during]
the session, that no damage would be done by getting testimony
[before moving the resolution forward]. He pointed out that the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs is the
only committee of referral for this legislation, after which it
goes to the House floor.
CHAIR LYNN called an at-ease at 12:25 p.m. [Side B of the tape
ends early; no testimony is missing.]
TAPE 03-2, SIDE A
CHAIR LYNN called the meeting back to order at 12:33 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed members that he'd checked with
[legislative] legal counsel and that a concurrent resolution is
the right format for this.
12:34 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA [moved to adopt] "informal" Amendment 3
[later clarified off the record to be a conceptual amendment],
as follows:
Page 2, line 13:
Delete the second "the"
Insert "a feasibility study including ... the
required ... environmental impact statement, plus any
additional studies that have been completed on an
extension of the Alaska Railroad to Fort Greely"
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said the foregoing would take care of any
objections she had.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected. He said the EIS is part of the
process of permitting, and there are many hurdles before even
beginning a project. "Any fear that you're going to upset ...
an environmental balance, you really don't have to worry about,
because that will take place even before the project," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated that although she'd used the
term "environmental impact statement," she was referring to
testimony that the EIS covers a great many things. She offered
her own concern that "we really know what we're spending," and
that [the extension of the rail line] is being suggested without
following the due course that's required.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the EIS covers "basically everything"
and that the coastal zone management [requirements] may even
cover the Interior. He mentioned water quality and said that
any project of this size will be scrutinized thoroughly with
regard to the environmental aspects.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern that the state has made
mistakes in the past, that not all projects have been viable,
and that the state cannot afford to make more mistakes at this
crucial time in Alaska's history.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said this resolution is more than helping
the military. It has to do with the development of Alaska,
including resource development. He offered his belief that
those developments are "secure" because the state and federal
governments have existing law "that scrutinizes the effects of
this project on any environment." He added, "And so, I don't
have the problems with the environment that some people have,
because of the law of the land - both federal and the state -
that cover these areas so well. But we must get on with
projects to help develop the state of Alaska." He again offered
his belief that the regulations and laws exist to make certain
that development occurs properly.
12:40 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the record of this
committee will go along with the resolution to the President and
the congressional delegation. However, the committee has no
evidence that the military needs this railroad for the [anti-
ballistic] missiles, which Mr. Gambell has said come in by air
and don't even require a road. If the state is going to ask the
federal government to provide the millions of dollars for this -
and for perhaps developing that part of the state, which may
require a heavy-duty rail bed and additional rolling stock or
locomotives, for example - there needs to be a strong record [in
support of HCR 2]. Pointing out that this committee deals with
the military aspect, not the resource-development aspect, he
urged the chair to take one more week in order to get testimony
from the military, in order to have evidence in the record from
that perspective. Otherwise, the resolution might not be doing
the project any good.
CHAIR LYNN conveyed his preference for taking action. He said
he would be contacting the military for comments.
The committee took an at-ease from 12:45 p.m. to 12:49 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked about adding to [Conceptual
Amendment 3] a request that railroad officials respond to
whether the amendment would be helpful to [ARRC] in terms of
making sure that this is financially viable for the railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, as a point of order, questioned the concept
of asking a question in a resolution in order to gain
information. He suggested dealing with Conceptual Amendment 3
without this new amendment to it.
CHAIR LYNN concurred.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Fate, and Lynn voted against it.
Representatives Masek and Weyhrauch were absent for the vote.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-3.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HCR 2 [as amended] out of
committee [with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to table the resolution until the
next meeting. He offered his understanding that the chair
wanted to get the views of the military.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that he would talk to the military, but
that it wouldn't [affect what was done this current day].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Fate,
and Lynn voted in favor of [reporting HCR 2, as amended, out of
committee]. Representatives Cissna and Gruenberg voted against
it. Representatives Masek and Weyhrauch were absent for the
vote. Therefore [because a majority of the seven-member
committee didn't vote to move the resolution from committee],
CSHCR 2(MLV) failed to be reported from the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs by a vote of 3-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 12:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|