Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/16/2012 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR34 | |
| HB316 | |
| HJR34 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 16, 2012
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Urging the United States Congress to fund all the facilities and
vessels necessary for the United States Coast Guard to fulfill
its Arctic missions, including icebreakers and an Arctic Coast
Guard base.
- MOVED CSHJR 34(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to military facility zones in the state;
relating to the development of housing in military facility
zones; relating to the financing of projects in military
facility zones; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 316 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 34
SHORT TITLE: COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HERRON
02/03/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/12 (H) MLV, STA
02/16/12 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON
02/08/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/12 (H) MLV, STA
02/16/12 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 34, as sponsor.
ED PAGE, Executive Director
Marine Exchange of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 34 and answered
questions.
JEFFREY GARRETT, Maritime Affairs Consultant
Mercer Island, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 34.
LAWSON W. BRIGHAM, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Geography & Arctic Policy
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to HJR 34.
THOMAS STUDLER, Staff
Representative Steve Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for HB 316
on behalf of Representative Thompson, sponsor.
DALE NASH, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Aerospace Corporation
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Ft. Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 316 on behalf of
the Alaska Aerospace Corporation and answered questions.
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Ft. Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 316 on behalf of
the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs and answered
questions.
JEFF TROAN, Vice President
Economic Development
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 316.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:34 PM
CO-CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:07 p.m.
Representatives Thompson, Miller, Cissna, and Lynn were present
at the call to order. Representatives Gatto, Austerman, and
Saddler were excused. Representative Herron was also present.
HJR 34-COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE
1:08:26 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34, Urging the United States
Congress to fund all the facilities and vessels necessary for
the United States Coast Guard to fulfill its Arctic missions,
including icebreakers and an Arctic Coast Guard base.
1:08:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HJR 34, as sponsor. Representative Herron called attention to
the supporting documents provided in the committee packet. He
said the resolution is the result of the work Alaskans put into
the Alaska Northern Waters Task Force, including testimony from
throughout the state. The task force concluded that the U.S.
Coast Guard needs an Arctic-capable icebreaker and a forward
base located closer to the Arctic than the current base at
Kodiak. The base at Kodiak is valuable to the U.S., however, a
base near Nome or Barrow would protect the interests of Alaska
and the nation. The task force found there is increased Arctic
activity, thus an icebreaker and an Arctic base would enable the
responsible development of resources, foster maritime commerce,
safeguard Arctic residents and their ecosystems, provide
emergency and disaster preparedness and response, and protect
sovereignty. Representative Herron pointed out that Alaska is
the Arctic state, and it and the Coast Guard "need the tools" to
address the important resources there; even nations without an
Arctic border are building icebreakers. He said the supporting
documents were provided by the lieutenant governor of Alaska and
others, and more expert testimony will follow this introduction.
There is a zero fiscal note attached, and the resolution will be
further vetted by the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
He advised that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has invited
legislators and others to attend a hearing of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee, U. S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
in Washington, D.C., on 3/8/12. Passage of the resolution will
demonstrate serious support in Alaska for the funding of
icebreakers and facilities to enhance the Coast Guard presence
in the Arctic. Recent events on the seas highlight the need for
the Coast Guard to be an important aspect of life in Alaska.
1:14:26 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony.
1:14:43 PM
ED PAGE, Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska ("marine
exchange"), said the marine exchange is supported by the state,
the Coast Guard, and the maritime industry to provide a marine
tracking system. As personal history, he noted he retired from
the Coast Guard 11 years ago as an officer with service on the
East and West Coasts. Mr. Page advised that since World War II
the Coast Guard has provided icebreaking support for the Great
Lakes and for New York Harbor, but not for Alaska. His last
tour in the Coast Guard was as Chief of Marine Safety and
Environmental Protection for Alaska Region, but at that time
"the Arctic wasn't on our radar screen [be]cause nothing was
happening." Since then, the marine exchange vessel tracking
system has revealed that passage in the Arctic has increased
dramatically, by cruise ships, Chinese icebreakers, cargo ships,
tugs and barges, supply vessels, and tankers from Russia
traveling to the Far East. Clearly, now there is a need for a
U.S. presence to establish sovereignty, emergency response, and
oversight of compliance with safety and environmental
regulations. Unfortunately, Coast Guard icebreakers are
reaching the end of their lifespans, even though activities in
the Arctic are national issues and affect the entire country.
The Coast Guard is recognized worldwide as a leader in maritime
safety and environmental protection, however, its present
capability in the Arctic is limited. Mr. Page urged for
continued support from the state for the U.S. to provide for a
Coast Guard presence as required.
1:18:07 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON asked what Coast Guard icebreakers are
available if needed on the Arctic coast.
MR. PAGE said the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy is
operational and suitable, and there are smaller icebreakers on
the East Coast. However, the USCGC Healy was designed primarily
as a research vessel with icebreaking capabilities. Although
access to McMurdo Station in Antarctica is an important mission,
he opined the Arctic mission is more pressing, and the more
appropriate place to stage icebreakers. In further response to
Co-Chair Thompson, he said USCGC Healy is in Seattle at this
time.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked what the capabilities of a fully
equipped icebreaker would be.
1:20:21 PM
MR. PAGE advised a fully equipped icebreaker would have a stern
configured so it could back up in ice, and it would have larger
displacement and greater horsepower than the USCGC Healy. The
legacy icebreakers like the USCGC Polar Star and USCGC Polar Sea
have more horsepower and different hull configurations.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked how long it would take an icebreaker
to get from Kodiak to the Arctic.
MR. PAGE estimated one week, depending on the thickness of the
ice. In further response to Representative Miller, he confirmed
that the response would take days, unless the icebreaker was
already in the Arctic.
1:22:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked several questions about the
capabilities of an icebreaker.
MR. PAGE said he has limited knowledge, but the design of an
icebreaker involves the thickness and design of the hull so that
it rides on top of the ice. Icebreakers have ballast systems
that move water from the stern to the bow and propellers and
steering gear that are well protected from ice, along with more
power and displacement to break thicker ice. In further
response to Representative Lynn, he said the USCGC Healy can
travel through ice six feet thick.
1:24:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her understanding that military
organizations need to prepare to be ready for difficult tasks.
She asked if the resolution goes far enough to support
readiness.
MR. PAGE said current operations are increasing - 350 vessels
travelled through the Bering Strait last year - and the
resolution seeks to ensure that Coast Guard capabilities grow as
the pace of the traffic grows. The Coast Guard plans to go to
the Arctic this summer with vessels and aircraft, and there will
be challenges with equipment that may not be designed for cold
weather. He opined the resolution identifies a mission: the
future need for more facilities, capabilities, and icebreakers.
In further response to Representative Cissna, he said HJR 34 is
a good beginning and an important endorsement from the state.
MR. PAGE, in response to Representative Lynn, said helicopters
are standard equipment on icebreakers.
1:29:32 PM
JEFFREY GARRETT, Maritime Affairs Consultant and retired Coast
Guard Rear Admiral, provided a brief history of his experience
serving in the icebreaker fleet. He served in both Polar
Regions, and particularly in Arctic Alaska, although during his
career most operations were limited to defense support and the
support of science programs. However, transformational changes
occurring in the Arctic affect the Coast Guard's statutory
responsibilities. More recently, the Coast Guard is seeking to
project an Arctic presence by deploying cutters, boats,
aircraft, and specialized teams to test equipment, but during
this time of growing need, its polar icebreaker capabilities are
drifting into "obsolescence." He observed that the Coast Guard
has been unable to deploy an icebreaker for Arctic multi-mission
purposes for over two years, and plans for the USCGC Polar Sea
have been canceled, forcing the U.S. to charter a Russian vessel
to serve bases in Antarctica. In addition, the USCGC Healy's
mission to deliver fuel to Nome this year disrupted its planned
maintenance and operations schedule. Mr. Garrett commended HJR
34 and Alaska's strong call for the federal government to
provide the Coast Guard with the capabilities, particularly
polar icebreakers, to meet national needs in the Arctic. He was
encouraged by the 2013 federal budget which contains funding to
begin the acquisition of an icebreaker, and urged quick action
to restore the USCGC Polar Star and the USCGC Polar Sea to full
operational capabilities.
1:32:58 PM
LAWSON W. BRIGHAM, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Geography &
Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), informed
the committee he is a former commander of the USCGC Polar Sea.
Dr. Brigham raised a question of protocol regarding the
resolution, noting that the draft form of the resolution was
sent to Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic states but he
recommended that the resolution be sent to the Foreign Ministers
of the Arctic states. On a more substantive matter, he observed
the last passage of the resolution urges the U. S. Congress and
the administration to consider all options to finance
icebreakers, including charging fees, leasing, and giving
icebreakers to the private sector. Dr. Brigham highly
recommended that legislators remove that section because user
fees have no place in the operation of the Coast Guard. The
Congress and administration should fund the Coast Guard as it
does the Navy or Air Force, and ships should not be leased for
use by the Coast Guard.
1:35:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER called attention to page 2, line 1, of the
resolution which read:
WHEREAS ice cover in the Arctic is at historic lows,
and multiyear ice is decreasing;
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether this loss of ice will affect
how many icebreakers are needed, and if this passage applies
exclusively to the Arctic, or also to the Bering and Chukchi
Seas.
1:36:28 PM
DR. BRIGHAM said the multiyear ice will disappear in the Arctic,
aiding navigation, but the retreat of ice and the thinning of
ice has drawn traffic and opened sea lanes leading to more
responsibility for the Coast Guard for presence, law
enforcement, security, and science. It is a misconception that
less ice reduces the need for icebreakers when, in fact, it is
the opposite due to the greater use of the whole of the Arctic
Ocean. This is related to natural resource development and the
longer season of open navigation.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER surmised a less than fully-equipped
icebreaker may be designed for these conditions.
1:38:11 PM
DR. BRIGHAM reminded the committee the Bering Sea to the Arctic
Ocean is fully ice-covered so if industry seeks to operate year
around, or in the fall and spring, the need for an icebreaker
with USCGC Polar Sea capability is more necessary. Operations
deep in the winter season, such as exploration in the Bering
Strait, would be beyond the capability of the USCGC Healy.
DR. BRIGHAM, in response to Representative Lynn, estimated the
time needed to build an icebreaker is eight to ten years, due to
the budget process in Washington, D.C.
1:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON supported Dr. Brigham's recommendation on
protocol. Regarding the resolve on leasing, he offered to
address Dr. Brigham's concerns during the hearing process on the
resolution. He then asked whether the USCGC Polar Star's return
to service and its projected length of service is accurate in
the resolution.
DR. BRIGHAM indicated yes. The challenge is to appropriate
sufficient funds to keep the ships running in the short run,
with the hope of funding the acquisition of a new ship. He
agreed that the costs are extraordinary and a challenging budget
issue.
1:43:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether the action of the USCGC
Healy for the community of Nome, and the fact that China is
building another world-class icebreaker, will convince the
administration and the Navy to invest in icebreakers.
DR. BRIGHAM opined these events show the high readiness of the
Coast Guard and that it only lacks assets; it has quality staff
and readiness. Other less visible factors, such as offshore
development, require a presence on the ice and in the shallower
waters around Alaska. He suggested buoy tenders are also
necessary.
1:46:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON heard the Navy has ordered 51 warships at
$500 million each, and he suggested that one should be an
icebreaker.
DR. BRIGHAM agreed saying, "Two of them could equate to an
icebreaker, [of] course that's not necessarily how Washington
works." Because the U.S. has an extraordinary investment in
Antarctica, he encouraged investment in America's presence in
both Polar Regions by increasing the nation's icebreaker
capability to support both Antarctica and the Arctic.
[Although not specifically stated, public testimony was closed
and HJR 34 was set aside and taken up later in the meeting.]
1:48:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
1:50:04 PM
Co-Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order at 1:50 p.m.
HB 316-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
1:50:18 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to military
facility zones in the state; relating to the development of
housing in military facility zones; relating to the financing of
projects in military facility zones; and providing for an
effective date."
1:50:33 PM
THOMAS STUDLER, staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HB 316 on behalf of Representative
Thompson, sponsor. Mr. Studler said the bill gives statutory
authority to the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
(DMVA) to establish military facility zones within the state.
These zones are designated areas nearby military bases or
facilities where industrial or economic development will
directly enhance the military's ability to fulfill its mission.
Military facility zones are successfully employed in other
states as vehicles to obtain and administer funds for business
development specifically relating to military activities.
Funding for such zones in Alaska may be available from the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), or from federal New
Market Tax Credits. Federal, state, or local public or private
funding sources, credit, or guarantee programs can be made
available directly to municipalities and boroughs that are
working on specifically approved projects within a military
facility zone. Military facility zones create opportunities for
significant benefits to Alaska and to the nation. They will
enhance economic activity near military installations and
thereby facilitate economic growth and development in the state,
especially where local governments are working in close
partnership with their military counterparts. The zones promote
expansion of infrastructure to benefit both military and
civilian objectives, such as civil defense, homeland security,
and emergency response. They will enhance the nation's military
capabilities by helping bases operate more effectively and
efficiently. Finally, military facility zones in Alaska will
clearly demonstrate the state's continuing and substantive
support for the armed services, and help defend against the
negative impacts on Alaska's regional economies and military
communities that might occur should Congress choose to implement
the federal Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC).
1:53:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for a clear definition of what
constitutes a military facility zone.
[Although not specifically stated, HB 316 was set aside and
taken up later in the meeting.]
HJR 34-COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE
1:54:05 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would return its
attention to HJR 34.
1:54:55 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON moved Amendment 1 which read:
"COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the
Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United
States; the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, United
States Secretary of State; the Honorable Sergey
Viktorovich Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Russian Federation; the Honorable Erkki Tuomioja,
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland; the Honorable
Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden;
the Honorable Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Norway; the Honorable John Baird, Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Canada; the Honorable Össur
Skarphéðinsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs and
External Trade of Iceland; the Honorable Villy
Søvndal, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark; the
Honorable Admiral Robert J. Papp, Commandant, United
States Coast Guard; Ambassador David A. Balton, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, United
States Department of State; Rear Admiral Thomas F.
Ostebo, Commander, United States Seventeenth Coast
Guard District; the Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor
of Alaska; the Honorable Mead Treadwell, Lieutenant
Governor of Alaska; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and
the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the
Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of
the Alaska delegation in Congress; and all other
members of the 112th United States Congress."
1:55:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON said the amendment is in response to Dr.
Brigham's testimony recommending a change in procedure to follow
proper protocol on who receives the resolution.
1:55:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HJR 34, Version 27-LS1303\A,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
34(MLV) was reported out of the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs.
1:56:17 PM
HB 316-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON returned the committee's attention to HB 316.
1:56:35 PM
DALE NASH, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Aerospace
Corporation, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA),
informed the committee that Lockheed Martin is the largest
defense contractor in the U.S. and the world. He said HB 316
derived from working closely with Lockheed Martin in order to
improve the state's position with military customers and the
aerospace support industry. Several states have adopted similar
legislation to create economic facility zones in support of
military installations, so the state is in a position to help
facilitate a reduction in costs for the military, thus becoming
more competitive. When states partner with the military and its
industrial base - for example, with Lockheed - costs are kept
down for all. These zones are specific to the military and
should not be confused with other economic development zones.
He said the intent of the bill is to affect the area within a
reasonable driving distance from military installations; for
example, to enable the base to set up low-cost housing without
the burden of a large capital investment. Mr. Nash advised that
most military installations have a large industrial base nearby;
however, Alaska has few aerospace support companies. Nearby
support facilities allow contractors to resupply equipment
without shipping material long distances. He assured the
committee this would help the Kodiak Launch Complex grow in
support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) or the military. This approach can also be an effective
way to address the BRAC process because the military should
focus its concern on ships, planes, and troops, and not on
recreation centers, shopping, and more. Sharing these costs
with the military would help attract military expansion,
including the utilization of space on a base that may now be
idle. Finally, Mr. Nash pointed out that this is enabling
legislation effective statewide for all branches of the
military.
2:03:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether there are ways to make the
legislation "pay[ing] attention to exactly what this state is
like." She observed that Alaska has many small communities
spread over vast regions, and the position of the state -
relative to other states and nearby land masses - is critical to
security. She opined Alaska should be strengthening its borders
and "planning ahead" when locating military sites.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON held Representative Cissna's question for
Deputy Commissioner Pierre.
2:06:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether an economic zone or a
military facility zone could be established on a military base
or territory.
MR. NASH explained that other states have established "co-use"
on a base, but he said "I don't think the military base nor the
commander would want to come under the legislation of a military
effectiveness zone;" the intent is for the zone to be close. He
agreed the state has a strategic location, but cautioned that
its location alone will not guarantee Alaska will not turn into
a training outpost with a skeleton crew.
MR. NASH, in response to Representative Cissna, said the Kodiak
Launch Complex is located on Narrow Cape.
2:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA observed there are a number of other
places in the state that have a history of military bases.
MR. NASH agreed, but pointed out that HB 316 is trying to focus
on protecting the missions that the state now has. He referred
to the transfer of F-16s from Eielson Air Force Base in
Fairbanks to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage,
saying the focus now is to work with industry in support of a
military installation to bring expansion, or to protect existing
missions. He added that the legislation will allow the state
"to react with the local communities and boroughs ... if
opportunities arise; we do not want to have to wait for another
legislative cycle to begin the process."
2:11:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, co-sponsor of HB 316, had the following
testimony read by Co-Chair Thompson [original punctuation
provided, with some formatting changes]:
To Co-Chair Thompson and Members of the MLV Committee:
Though I can't be there today, I wanted to put on
record my strong support for HB 316, Military
Facilities Zones. I was pleased to work on this
legislation during the interim with Representatives
Thompson and Feige, and to see it come before our
committee. I see HB 316 as an important legislative
tool to strengthen the position of military facilities
in our state.
Alaska has 32 different military installations that
are critical elements in our state economy. There are
more than 24,000 active-duty, Guard and Reserve troops
serving in Alaska, with an annual payroll of more than
$1.5 billion. About 13 percent of the state economy
depends on the military, with the impact being
especially significant near the larger installations.
These bases are a significant part of our nation's
defense structure. They defend the nation's airspace
and outer space; rapidly deploy forces around the
world in times of crisis; support global logistics and
transportation functions; and provide training
opportunities that are unmatched elsewhere in the
world.
We've heard recent news that does not bode well for
Alaska's military bases. We've heard news of nearly
half-trillion dollars in defense budget cuts over the
next 10 years. We've heard of the possible loss of F-
16s from Eielson Air Force Base, and of HC-130s from
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. We've heard that
nearly 270 civilian jobs are being cut from these two
bases. And we've heard the Secretary of Defense raise
the prospect of another round in the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) process that could mean the further
diminution of the military's presence in Alaska.
HB 316 can provide a number of significant benefits to
our state and nation:
· It will provide a mechanism for bringing new
federal and state money to bear on the bases.
· It will help develop infrastructure that can
improve living conditions and economic prospects
for the communities surrounding military
facilities.
· It will help Alaska's bases become more efficient
and better able to effectively perform their
missions, strengthening the case against their
realignment or closure.
· It will provide a mechanism to fund expansion of
existing facilities to embrace new missions.
· It will help protect private - and public-sector
jobs.
· It will provide another positive demonstration of
Alaska's support for the military.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation;
please join me in supporting its passage.
Rep. Dan Saddler, Co-Chair, Military and Veterans
Affairs Committee
2:14:49 PM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs, addressed questions that had been asked
previously. He clarified that the nearby community will apply
for the zone and will designate the size of the zone - up to an
area of 500 square miles. The area may overlap an existing
military facility, but will not have an impact on existing
businesses or other activities. The legislation enables the
community to develop the area near the military facility in
cooperation with partners such as Lockheed Martin, which are
direct contractors with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
Other businesses, such as "payday lenders" cannot take advantage
of this legislation. For example, if Fairbanks North Star
Borough created a zone and a company that contracts with DOD
proposes a project in an area near Eielson Air Force Base or
Fort Wainwright, the company could qualify for development
opportunities such as low-interest loans from AHFC or AIDEA.
Mr. Pierre said DMVA feels it is critical to diversify the users
of the military installations in order to offset the high cost
of operating military installations in Alaska, maintain current
missions, expand to new missions, and build the economy.
2:17:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that some of the residents of
Galena want to use facilities at the closed base for harvesting
willow, and asked whether this legislation would be relevant to
that issue.
2:18:30 PM
MR. PIERRE indicated no. House Bill 316 is relevant only to
existing, active military installations. In further response to
Representative Cissna, he said Fort Greely is a good example of
a community with an existing military infrastructure.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON asked whether the legislation could be
utilized at a new base.
MR. PIERRE said yes.
2:20:28 PM
JEFF TROAN, Vice President, Economic Development, Lockheed
Martin Corporation, said he has worked for Lockheed Martin for
30 years - 15 years in economic development. He generally works
on economic development agreements between Lockheed Martin and
states and localities, which lower the cost of business for his
company so it can pass the savings on to the military. The
zones create an optimum business climate that supports the
military mission and lowers the cost of goods and services
through enhanced relationships. He noted that in other states
the zones follow town planning and are usually out the main gate
of the military base and in the surrounding area where an
industrial park would be. Mr. Troan gave the example of a
military commander who wants to obtain an electronic warfare
mission but who has no facilities. A contractor could create
the infrastructure necessary to do the mission and share the
infrastructure with military personnel. To establish a zone on
the base, "enhanced-use leasing or modified enhanced-use
leasing" legislation is necessary and the base commander
segregates an unused portion of the base, leases it to a private
or public entity, and that area is redeveloped to support new
missions on the base but with private and public capital instead
of military construction funds. This happened at (Indisc.) near
Ogden, Utah.
2:25:09 PM
MR. NASH returned to Representative Cissna's question about
harvesting biofuel at the closed base in Galena. He advised
that the legislation could enable harvesting of biofuel in an
area near an active base.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON gave an example of a private company using a
military facility zone to finance the construction of a gas
pipeline to Eielson Air Force Base.
MR. NASH agreed this would be a "perfect candidate."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined the military zones - if they are
long-term - would be beneficial for local jobs.
2:28:05 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether there are any differences in
law enforcement, fire and rescue, or taxes within the zone, once
the zone is designated.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON advised the status would not change.
2:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 316, Version 27-LS1191\I,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 316 was
reported out of the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs.
2:30:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1-HJR034A- Bill.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 2- HJR 34 - USCG Icebreakers Arctic Base - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 3- HJR 34 - 12 01 11-LG Treadwell on Icebreakers.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 4- HJR 34 - 2010 USCG Auth Act - AMSA Section.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 5- HJR 34 - ANWTF Recs PP 14-21.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 2- HB 316 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 3-HB316 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 6- HJR 34 - Foreign Minister Amendment.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 4- HB316-Fiscal Note- DCCED-AIDEA-02-10-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 7- HJR 34 - Ltr from Lawson Brigham.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 8- HJR 34 Leg Coun-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 5- HB316-Fiscal Note-DMVA-MVA-CO-02-13-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 6- HB316-Fiscal Note-DOR-AHFC-02-10-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 1- HB0316 ver I- Bill.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| Saddler testimony HB 316.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 9- CSHJR34 (MLV) ver. M.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 34 |