02/13/2001 03:39 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 13, 2001
3:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Joe Green
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Relating to the deployment of F-22 Raptor aircraft at Elmendorf
Air Force Base.
- MOVED HCS SJR 3(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8(STA)
Relating to supporting polling places at military installations.
- MOVED HCS CSSJR 8(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE:F-22 RAPTOR AIRCRAFT AT AFB
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/01 0063 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/12/01 0063 (S) STA
01/24/01 0160 (S) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
01/25/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/25/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
01/25/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/01 0186 (S) STA RPT 4DP
01/26/01 0186 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
PEARCE, DAVIS
01/26/01 0186 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
01/29/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
01/30/01 0219 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/30/01
01/30/01 0222 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/30/01 0222 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
01/30/01 0222 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, PEARCE
01/30/01 0222 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 3
01/30/01 0222 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
01/30/01 0224 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
01/31/01 0208 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0208 (H) MLV
01/31/01 0216 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
02/13/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SJR 8
SHORT TITLE:VOTING SITES AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/25/01 0171 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/25/01 0171 (S) STA
02/01/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/01/01 (S) Moved CS(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(STA)
02/02/01 0255 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
02/02/01 0255 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
HALFORD,
02/02/01 0255 (S) DAVIS
02/02/01 0255 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
02/05/01 0268 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/5/01
02/05/01 0276 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/05/01 0276 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/05/01 0276 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/05/01 0276 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR
8(STA)
02/05/01 0277 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
02/05/01 0278 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/05/01 0278 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 8(STA)
02/05/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/05/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/05/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/07/01 0254 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/01 0254 (H) MLV, STA
02/07/01 0269 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
02/13/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN JOERIGHT, Intern
with Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 3 on behalf of the sponsor.
MAJOR ART McGETTRICK
(No address provided)
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered technical questions relating to
SJR 3.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL LARRY JONES
(No address provided)
Elmendorf Air Force Base
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to SJR 3 and
its impacts on Elmendorf Air Force Base.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 3 and SJR 8.
SHELLY GROWDEN, Elections Supervisor
Central Region
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
675 7th Avenue, Suite H3
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4594
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 8.
CAROL THOMPSON, Elections Supervisor
Southcentral Region
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
800 East Dimond Boulevard, Suite 3-580
Anchorage, Alaska 99515-2045
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE CHENAULT called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:39 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Chenault, Murkowski, Green, Kott, and Hayes. Representative
Masek arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SJR 3 - F-22 RAPTOR AIRCRAFT AT ELMENDORF AFB
Number 0071
CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Relating to the deployment of
F-22 Raptor aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base.
Number 0170
JOHN JOERIGHT, Intern with Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SJR 3 on behalf of Senator Leman,
sponsor. He explained that SJR 3 encourages the United States
Air Force to deploy its second wave of F-22 Raptor aircraft at
Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), for several reasons. First,
during the construction phase alone, the aircraft will generate
between $150 million and $300 million to the Alaskan economy,
creating 146 new jobs. Second, the F-22 Raptor will replace the
aging F-15 "air superiority" aircraft, ensuring United States
air dominance for the next three decades.
MR. JOERIGHT informed members that air superiority is a
prerequisite to successful military operations. Alaska is a
"forward" base, with perhaps the most strategic location in
North America. With other nations on the verge of developing
fighter aircraft on a par with the F-15, Alaska should have the
world's best fighter aircraft to combat lethal threats from
foreign powers.
MR. JOERIGHT pointed out that committee packets included current
information on the F-22. He advised members that Major Art
McGettrick of Langley AFB in Virginia was online to answer
technical and tactical questions, and Lieutenant Colonel Larry
Jones of Elmendorf AFB was online to address questions
pertaining to Elmendorf-specific impacts.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the first wave of staging will
be at Langley AFB.
Number 0345
MAJOR ART McGETTRICK clarified via teleconference that the
preferred alternative of the U.S. Air Force is Langley AFB,
pending the results of the environmental study and a final
decision by the U.S. Department of Defense; it is not official
yet. In answer to a further question, he said the original
operational "bed-down" for the F-22 begins in 2004. The first
squadron becomes operational in 2005, but the other two
squadrons in this first phase will be complete by 2007. Between
2004 and 2007, therefore, the Air Force would like to put three
squadrons in one location; that is the first base. Elmendorf
AFB is one of five being considered, with Langley AFB the
preferred alternative. In two or three years, the Air Force
would go through the same process again, with another
environmental study, to determine the second operational base.
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what locations Elmendorf AFB is
competing with for that second "wave" of F-22s.
MAJOR McGETTRICK specified that the initial five bases were
Langley AFB, Eglin AFB in Florida, Tyndall AFB in Florida,
Mountain Home AFB in Idaho, and Elmendorf AFB. No decision has
been made, he said. But unless something changes significantly,
he suspects that if Langley AFB gets the first three squadrons,
then the remaining four F-15 bases would be considered for the
second round. Depending on what BRAC [Base Realignment and
Closure Commission] does, perhaps another base would be added,
but that is not the expectation.
Number 0581
LIEUTENANT COLONEL LARRY JONES specified via teleconference that
he would address any questions relative to Elmendorf AFB
specifically. "My responses will be caveated based on the
environmental impact study to this point," he added. "Again,
the final of this environmental impact study for round one of
the operational bed-down, the F-22, will be released in April."
Number 0625
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the written sponsor
statement indicates one bonus of having the F-22 at Elmendorf
AFB would be a significant addition of new personnel [846] over
a three-year period. It further indicates that two of the F-15C
squadrons would be replaced by three [F-22] Raptor squadrons.
She asked how many personnel would be affected if [Elmendorf
AFB] were to get these Raptor squadrons.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES specified that replacing the two
smaller C-model squadrons with the three larger F-22 squadrons
would equate to an increase of 286 assigned military and
civilian personnel at Elmendorf AFB. The [846] number relates
to jobs that include the construction phase and the upgrade-of-
the-facility phase that would occur between 2002 and 2005.
Number 0720
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what kind of facilities upgrades
would be required for the new aircraft.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that there are several
proposals right now at Elmendorf AFB, although not specifically
based on the F-22; those are infrastructure upgrade requirements
being undertaken in that timeframe anyway. Primary new
construction for the first three squadrons of F-22s would
include a firing squadron; F-22 operations and maintenance
squadrons; eight-bay drive-through facilities to hangar the
airplanes; and any restoration and composite repair facility.
In addition, there would be upgrades to some aprons and
(indisc.), along with some new construction, and an upgrade to
the engine shop and some other structures.
Number 0794
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Major McGettrick whether he knows if
the Air Force plans to replace all of the F-15s in the fleet
with F-22s. He inquired about the potential of Elmendorf AFB
competing with other bases for that second wave.
MAJOR McGETTRICK said in answer to the first question, "they"
are not building enough F-22s to replace every squadron at every
base; right now, with the current "buy," the plan is for 339
aircraft, which would not replace one-for-one the amount of F-
15s. Those numbers could increase or decrease in the future, he
noted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested that if there hasn't been a
decision to replace the entire fleet of F-15s, then, for those
bases with F-15s the desire would probably be to replace those
F-15s in their entirety, rather than deleting one squadron of F-
15s and adding another squadron of F-22s, just because of the
mechanics of it.
MAJOR McGETTRICK responded:
You're right on that. I have ... no ability to
predict what decision they would make, but that would
be a consideration. And the other one may be, ... as
the next BRAC rounds occur, maybe there'll be one or
two less bases competing because of that. But ... I
have no idea what decisions will be made along that
line.
Also, as far as how does Elmendorf compete, in the ...
draft environmental impact statement that is currently
going final now, it appears to have competed very
well. I don't [know] if additional bases would be
added. The plan, at least for this first round, was
to only consider current F-15C bases because the F-22
is considered a replacement for the F-15C. So, I
think it would be a significant change to consider a
base that currently has other aircraft, but, once
again, I guess I could not rule that out.
Number 1026
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many F-22s would be needed to
replace the F-15Cs at Langley AFB.
MAJOR McGETTRICK answered that he believes Langley AFB has "in
the high 60s" for F-15s now, but he didn't have a copy with him
of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), which lists
that information. He added, "What they're talking about, for
the additional operational bed-down, is 72 combat-coded
aircraft, with several extras for attrition reserve."
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES specified that Langley AFB currently
has "66 combat-coded and then the attrition reserve."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many would be required at
Elmendorf AFB to replace the F-15Cs.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that there is a slight
difference between what would be required to replace the F-15Cs
at Elmendorf AFB or any given base, as far as covering the
mission. It really comes down more to infrastructure report.
He explained that normally, they've found that if they "bed
down" multiple squadrons at a location, there is a "synergy
there for the support side of it, to lessen the cost." Although
he didn't know the answer, the EIS study was based on the first
round of bed-down, which includes 72 F-22s, but that doesn't
mean in the follow-on rounds that necessarily they would be
looking at 72, which would be three "24 PA" squadron F-22s.
[The second round] could one or two [squadrons].
MAJOR McGETTRICK agreed with Lieutenant Colonel Jones that on
the additional rounds, they would like to put three squadrons in
one place, for a building-block approach, so that the first
squadron can help train the next, and so forth, to get a synergy
of resources in personnel. That second round may just be one or
two squadrons, rather than three.
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: If a fewer number of F-15Cs are
being replaced with F-22s, why is the EIS necessary, and what
would it show as far as an impact?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that "we" do an EIS whenever
bedding down a new weapons system, at any location. It is not
necessarily an increase of numbers of aircraft at a location.
Every aircraft is different. The F-22 is structurally different
"avionics-wise" from the F-15. The sound contours are
different, as are the engine emissions, the flight profiles, and
how training is done. The EIS is done regardless of the numbers
that are bedded down at a location.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that an EIS is a matter of public
record. He asked whether there is any potential for getting
into a classified area.
MAJOR McGETTRICK responded that the EIS is entirely
unclassified. It still covers pretty much the full gamut of
impacts, including those related to economics, visual factors,
noise, emissions, groundwater, "and all those things that we're
required by law to do years in advance of any kind of bed-down."
CHAIR CHENAULT noted the presence of Representative Masek,
Senator Leman, and Representative Foster.
Number 1308
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 1, line 15, which
read:
WHEREAS the United States Air Force plans to begin
deploying the F-22 Raptor in 2005 and to procure 339
F-22 Raptor aircraft by the end of 2013; and
She noted that President Bush is looking at the military "from
the top down," and said she has read articles suggesting that
some programs underway are open for discussion.
MAJOR McGETTRICK said the new [federal] administration is
looking at every system and service, with studies and proposals
being done right now to look at less F-22s and more F-22s, "just
depending on what decision they make." He emphasized that it is
unknown what the decision will be, then added:
It's very clear, for those familiar with the program
and its capabilities, and what the threat is out
there, that the F-22 or something very much like it is
needed in the near future for the United States to be
able to handle the threat. But you are correct in
saying that hopefully it will still be supported, but
we can't guarantee that.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether, in Major McGettrick's
opinion, [the legislature] is wise to insert a specific deadline
and count regarding the F-22.
MAJOR McGETTRICK answered:
At this point in the program, they are on track to
meet the initial operational capability at that first
base, in December of 2005. We could see, maybe, some
changes in the matter of a handful of months, but
there is no indication or reason we have right now
that it would change significantly from the dates that
we have. Those dates are for the initial base,
though. The second bed-down would not occur until
somewhere in the 2007 or 2008 timeframe for that next
phase.
Number 1481
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether anyone had questions; there was no
response.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI read from page 2, line 15, which
stated:
WHEREAS the strategic location, joint training
opportunities, and experimentation opportunities,
together with unmatched community support, in Alaska
have been noted by senior military leaders in Alaska;
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested Alaska's strategic location,
joint training opportunities, and experimentation opportunities
sell Alaska above and beyond any other location, "in addition to
our unmatched community support." She asked Senator Leman
whether he would be averse to amending that "whereas" clause to
add more superlatives, to say that it has been "positively
noted", for example, or that "our strategic location is ...
unmatched or unparalleled."
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SJR 3,
concurred that Alaska is unique, saying he is delighted that the
military leaders have said the same thing. He indicated that
for many military people, Alaska is the top request for
assignment. He said the language sounds good to him as written,
but he has no problem with amending it to add more.
CHAIR CHENAULT closed public testimony.
Number 1682
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment to "beef up that 'whereas'" [page 2, beginning at line
15]. She suggested it could be as simple as saying "these
assets have been noted positively by senior military leaders in
Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred and suggested adding even more
zeal to it. He pointed out that military leaders across the
country, not just senior military leaders in Alaska, have
recognized the importance of the strategic and training
opportunities at Elmendorf AFB. Ample information out there
suggests Elmendorf AFB is a vital asset to the defense of the
country. He referred to the BRAC and commented, "We fared
extremely well; in fact, we grew as a consequence of that.
That's a recognition right there of the importance." He
mentioned perhaps taking out "in Alaska" and adding some
national flavor. He suggested there would be a couple of days
to do a floor amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative Kott's
suggestion that it shouldn't be limited just to military leaders
in Alaska. She stated, "I wouldn't have any problem just
saying, 'Let's adopt a conceptual amendment to beef it up, not
limited ... to just those senior military leaders in Alaska,'
and have it fixed up in [the House] Rules [Standing Committee].
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she thought it was a good idea.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether everyone concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it sounded fine.
[There were no objections stated, and the conceptual amendment
was treated as adopted.]
Number 1840
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move SJR 3, as amended,
out of committee with the attached zero fiscal note; she asked
for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HCS SJR 3(MLV)
was moved out of the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs.
[This action was rescinded later in the meeting in order to
adopt another amendment before moving the resolution from
committee.]
SJR 8 - VOTING SITES AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8(STA), Relating to
supporting polling places at military installations. He
confirmed that Shelly Growden and Carol Thompson from the
Division of Elections were online.
Number 1959
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SJR 8,
explained to members that SJR 8 addresses a situation that arose
about a year before the last general election. It "came to a
head" during the summer, he said, and the challenge was averted
by congressional action.
SENATOR LEMAN offered some history. For years, military
personnel in Alaska who lived on bases and posts were able to
vote on their bases or posts, right in their own neighborhoods.
There was access to schools or other facilities on these bases
and posts to conduct the elections. It was a good thing, and it
was convenient. However, in December 1999, the U.S. Department
of Defense issued a directive that advised installation
commanders not to allow their facilities to be used for polling
or voting sites. This was temporarily averted by amendments
placed in an appropriations bill that made the effective date of
that directive December 31, 2000, after the last general
election.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that this year there will be a wave of
municipal elections; the first election occurs in April in the
Municipality of Anchorage, his own community. Election
officials must start planning months in advance. If something
isn't done, there is concern about having access to polling
places by military personnel on Alaska's four military
installations.
SENATOR LEMAN advised members that there are two ways to remedy
the directive's impacts. First, the Department of Defense could
rescind its directive. Second, there could be congressional
legislation that tells the Department of Defense it isn't
illegal to allow voting on the military installations, and that
discretion would be left with the base or post commander; it
would be similar to federal H.R. 5174 [copy in committee
packets]. Senator Leman said SJR 8 does the first, and Congress
is already working on the second.
SENATOR LEMAN voiced his belief that military men and women
should be able to exercise the same right that they defend for
others: the right to vote. He commended the Division of
Elections and the election officials online for doing a fine job
of making voting available to as many Alaskans as possible.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether only Alaska, Hawaii, and
possibly one other state actually have voting on military
installations.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believed so. He suggested other states
should be as forward-thinking as Alaska in making voting
available. He stated his understanding that the directive had
been previously issued "but in many cases it was sort of
understood that the commanders sort of could ignore it." When
the directive came down this time, however, it caused concern.
That is why there is strong action being taken by Congress, he
indicated, which he believes is appropriate.
Number 2217
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES referred to a letter in packets from the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense. He said it sounds
as if the basis of the argument for not allowing voting on
military bases relates to a strict policy of separating military
activities from political activities. He asked, "Do we have a
response to that, other than we want to allow better access to
our military members to vote?"
SENATOR LEMAN replied:
My response is that bases and posts are homes to ...
the people who are assigned to work there and live
there. And just like we treat our neighborhood
polling places, polling should be available to them,
to be as convenient as possible.
One of the things the military has done ... is try to
locate - with the local officials - locate polling
places where it wasn't obviously in an area of
engagement. ... And that's why schools have been good
locations. ...
You don't necessarily want to have people confronting
military activity. You want them to come to a place
where they feel secure, safe, private, and all these
things that we expect of a polling place, and yet
there's been ... no effort that I'm aware of to ever
... connect military voting with any overt political
activity. We just want to see people engaged in --
and are allowed, and make it convenient for them to
participate in voting. ... Nobody's telling them how
to vote; there's ... no activity like that that would
be associated with it.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he likes this resolution a great deal.
However, he would like additional language. If voting is
allowed on posts and bases, he said, his opinion is that
campaigning for candidates who live in that district should be
allowed there also. Although it would be construed as more
partisan, if the desire is to make the living environment and
home environment for military members more accessible and
convenient, that would go hand in hand.
SENATOR LEMAN responded that he doesn't disagree. It is a
little frustrating, with the high turnover rate, to have the
inability to interact at the same level with the people whom he
represents at Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) as is possible with
others in his community. For example, he cannot go door to door
there, which he respects. He has suggested, however, community
forums in which all candidates can participate, particularly in
local elections; he believes that if community activities like
that are conducted properly, it could be beneficial for
[military personnel] as well as the rest of the community.
Number 2397
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed it would be nice for those
representing the military personnel to have the opportunity to
go door to door. He indicated there are reasons for the
longstanding policy regarding campaigning, however, including
security, whereas SJR 8 relates to voting locations on bases
that existed previously. He questioned whether one could turn
back regulations [regarding campaigning] that have been in
effect for so long.
Number 2474
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the letter from the general
counsel, mentioned by Representative Hayes, opposes the
congressional legislation.
TAPE 01-2, SIDE B
Number 2474
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said in Alaska it has been a tradition
to allow voting at Elmendorf AFB, Eielson AFB, Fort Richardson,
and Fort Wainwright. She suggested adding clarification by
inserting that it disrupts the traditional authority of the
military base and post commanders "in Alaska". Based on that
letter, she said, it would appear that the Department of Defense
believes its policy has been longstanding prohibition, and that
in Alaska it has been interpreted differently or ignored.
Number 2426
SENATOR LEMAN said he couldn't speak to longstanding practice in
other states, but believes in Alaska the longstanding practice
has been to allow the voting, which has taken place without
incident or complaints.
SENATOR LEMAN referred to a letter in packets to Secretary of
Defense William Cohen, dated October 17, 2000. He read from a
paragraph on page 2 of the letter, which stated:
Finally, H.R. 5174 provides ample discretion to the
Department in choosing to allow these election
operations when they are compatible with the
facilities' mission.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that it still leaves the discretion in
the hands of the local commander. He continued reading:
The practice of some base commanders who have made
facilities available for service men and women, their
families, and support staff is commendable especially
in isolated areas.
SENATOR LEMAN remarked that he believes [Alaska's] election law
says the polling place will be in the precinct unless there is
some compelling reason for it to be located elsewhere; not
allowing voting on a base or post would violate that. He
acknowledged that a compelling reason could exist when a school
is closed for repairs, for example.
Number 2333
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred again to the first "whereas"
in SJR 8 [page 1, line 4], which read:
WHEREAS the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a
directive that disrupted the traditional authority of
military base and post commanders to allow local
election officials to set up voting booths at military
installations; and
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI again proposed saying it has disrupted
the tradition in Alaska.
SENATOR LEMAN said he has no problem with that clarification.
He suggested the resolution is far more powerful if it speaks to
Alaska's own tradition rather than another state's.
Number 2253
SHELLY GROWDEN, Elections Supervisor, Central Region, Division
of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, testified via
teleconference. She advised members that in her jurisdiction
are Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB. During the 2000 election
process, it was extremely difficult for her to get word
regarding whether [the Division of Elections] would be allowed
to have a polling place on base. She commented, "I believe I
brought the directive to their attention once I learned of the
directive and other states were having problems."
MS. GROWDEN said for Eielson AFB's 6,000 voters, she was told on
July 6, 2000 - a month before the primary election - that she
couldn't have a polling place on base. That left her scrambling
to find a new location. Furthermore, [the Division of
Elections] is required to submit for preclearance through the
Department of Justice, which requires about a 60-day process
when there is a change in a polling place, and to notify the
voters. That put unnecessary stress on Ms. Growden's office.
She added, "And that is when we had requested assistance from
[U.S.] Senator Ted Stevens and other congressional members on
having the directive not be in place for the 2000 election
cycle."
MS. GROWDEN told members that as an election official, she
doesn't want to see military voters just voting in presidential
elections. They do participate, as they should, in local
elections. If polling places were moved off base, she believes
it would adversely affect voter turnout, "which is already low
for our military voters."
MS. GROWDEN specified that the Division of Elections supports
this resolution; they are looking at elections coming up in
2001, wondering where the polling places will be. Although it
may seem easy to move the polling places off base, these are
very large, wholly contained precincts; only voters residing on
the bases are assigned to those precincts. Few public
facilities around these bases can be used to add another
precinct; most of the public facilities already are being used
as polling places, and it would put stress on those.
Furthermore, if a polling place is moved from Eielson AFB, those
voters will have to drive ten miles to North Pole, for example,
and some may not have transportation. She strongly encouraged
support of SJR 8.
Number 2113
CAROL THOMPSON, Elections Supervisor, Southcentral Region,
Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
testified via teleconference. Responsible for Elmendorf AFB and
Fort Richardson, Ms. Thompson told members she didn't have the
difficulties of Ms. Growden's area. However, she is supportive
of continuing to have access to polling places on base. Fort
Richardson's voters, for example, would have to travel a
distance to a [different] polling place, which she agrees would
probably lower voter turnout, especially in local elections.
Ms. Thompson said she is very supportive [of SJR 8], and
encouraged members' support.
Number 2082
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that although voter turnout was
low statewide for the primary election, she believes District
14, which contains Elmendorf AFB, had the lowest turnout in the
state. She asked whether Ms. Thompson attributes any of that to
the change in polling place for Elmendorf AFB from the Talkeetna
Theater, the traditional place, to Mount Spurr [Elementary
School].
MS. THOMPSON replied that she received no public comment; to her
knowledge, there were no complaints about the move. She then
said no, she believes that the locations were well marked, and
information was provided to the voters. She added that there
was a really good turnout, she believes, for the general
election.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to written comments provided
by Ms. Thompson, dated January 26. She noted that for Elmendorf
AFB, the impact wouldn't be as great as for Fort Richardson,
since other facilities are just outside the gates into Elmendorf
AFB. Representative Murkowski said she lives on Government
Hill; Government Hill Elementary is the voting place for her own
precinct, which is right outside the gates. She pointed out
that the school cannot accommodate the Elmendorf AFB voters.
MS. THOMPSON replied that in the primary election, she had to
move out of the elementary school and conduct voting at the
Round and Square Dance (ph), which "has offered to let us come
back." In reply to further comments, she affirmed that the
Round and Square Dance could be the place for voting for
Elmendorf AFB, although staying on base is preferred.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES noted that the letter from the General
Counsel of the [Department of Defense] is very strong; it lays
out [federal] criminal statutes that need to be changed, as well
as other apparent problems regarding holding elections on bases
or posts. He asked whether [the Division of Elections] has
considered a backup plan if voting cannot be conducted on base.
MS. THOMPSON replied that she had looked at other facilities.
Keeping in mind that she could probably go to the Round and
Square Dance area for Elmendorf AFB, another possibility is
doing extensive recruitment, on voting by mail, for example.
For Fort Richardson, she would have to try to find the closest
facility outside the base, perhaps Muldoon Elementary School or
something closer to Eagle River.
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Senator Leman's mention of
a requirement that "you have to have the polling place within
your precinct unless there's some kind of extenuating
circumstances." She asked whether that is in statute.
MS. GROWDEN answered that [AS] 15.15.090 requires that a polling
place be located inside the precinct unless there is a more
suitable location in an adjoining precinct. In response to a
further question, she agreed there is not a more suitable
location off base, then said, "I would imagine that we would be
in violation of our statute if we did move the locations off the
bases. ... So perhaps we would be in violation or need a
statutory change."
Number 1822
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that the letter from the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense recommends that
installation vendors not use their facilities for polling or
voting sites because it may inadvertently violate one or more
statutory prohibitions. Representative Kott said it isn't clear
whether the conduct of those elections on the installation would
violate it, but there is a potential. Recalling a discussion a
couple of years ago, he asked whether the schools on the base
weren't given back to the municipality.
SENATOR LEMAN replied that it was more than two years ago when
"fix-ups" were identified and 11 schools were fixed up to a
standard "whereby we can transfer the school itself." He said
the property that the school is on, he believes, is still owned
by the Department of Defense or the GSA [General Services
Administration] or some other entity; it was a convoluted
ownership, and multiple agencies participated in the fix-ups.
However, he believes that ownership of the schools themselves
has been transferred, and they now are owned and operated by the
local school districts. He said he may be wrong about some of
them, but he believes that is what transpired.
Number 1708
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if that is the case, he wonders whether
those schools are now considered a part of the installation
facilities; if not, there is no reason that polling locations
couldn't be held in the schools. He wondered whether, once this
memorandum came out, anyone had pursued that. He suggested that
may be a loophole to get out from underneath this.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that is a possibility. He said he would
guess that in the transfer agreement there probably is the
provision that the school is still under the authority of the
installation commander, certainly when it conflicts with the
military mission; he would guess that they retain that overall
oversight. He added, "But in terms of functioning as a school -
and even, perhaps, as a polling place - you may be right. I
just don't know. But that would be something interesting to
pursue." He stated his understanding that there are "activities
going on to fix this." He said he hopes it will happen soon.
Number 1623
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked how much lead time the election
supervisors online need in terms of getting notices out to the
voters for these municipal elections that are coming up.
MS. THOMPSON answered that the Municipality of Anchorage is in
the process of recruiting its polling places. She added that
"we" require 60 days' preclearance for a polling place change;
at that time, voter notification would also have to be sent out,
which has a pretty fast turnaround time.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented, "So you need to know now."
MS. THOMPSON agreed.
CHAIR CHENAULT thanked Ms. Growden and Ms. Thompson for their
participation.
Number 1561
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Senator Leman what type of "fix"
Alaska's congressional delegation is looking at, and whether
there is now a piece of legislation in the Senate. He said it
sounds as if some type of legislation will be needed to go with
the criminal statutes, which he suggested provide some of the
strongest arguments for not having polling places on posts or
bases.
SENATOR LEMAN specified that he believes that the best way to
provide a permanent "fix" is through legislation passed by
Congress and signed by the President. A short-term solution is
to at least get the Department of Defense to modify or rescind
its directive, to give states that have traditionally allowed
this voting [the right] to continue. His understanding, he
said, is that it is being pursued on both fronts.
Number 1489
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that the memorandum that
suggests there may be a problem was issued in December 1999.
However, Alaska has been doing elections on military
installations for a long time. He said:
It may be that somebody has interpreted the code
differently. I think what I'll have my staff do is
look up the code and see what provisions that they may
think we would be violating, based on certain types of
activity, and you could certainly craft a plan that,
if narrowly constructed, could work around the
possibilities that they're talking about in the
memorandum, where you wouldn't violate anything, if
you followed these .... I think we'll investigate the
18 U.S.C. statute and try to determine what, if
anything, the problem was, by holding the polling
locations on any of the military installations. That,
and the school thing, ... may be what's needed to send
the office that we got this directive from the whole
story, give them the whole picture.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested going back to the [school-related]
legislation as well.
[There was a brief mention by members that the schools in the
Anchorage area had been transferred, and that members didn't
know the status in Fairbanks.]
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment in the first "whereas" clause [which began on page 1,
line 4], to insert the words "in Alaska" after the word
"commander[s]". She stated her understanding that the sponsor
did not have a problem with that amendment.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there was any objection. There
being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to move CSSJR 8(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS
CSSJR 8(MLV) was moved out of the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs.
SJR 3 - F-22 RAPTOR AIRCRAFT AT ELMENDORF AFB
Again brought before the committee was SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
NO. 3, Relating to the deployment of F-22 Raptor aircraft at
Elmendorf Air Force Base.
Number 1302
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to rescind the committee's
previous action that day in moving HCS SJR 3(MLV) from
committee, in order to add a second amendment. There being no
objection, SJR 3 was before the committee again.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT proposed amending page 2 so that General
Schwartz receives the resolution, since this is his
installation. He said he had talked to the sponsor about adding
other individuals, and asked Senator Leman to clarify.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
clarified that he had suggested adding three people: Donald
Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense; [Lieutenant] General
Norton Schwartz; and Admiral Dennis Blair. Those three
individuals are listed on SJR 8 [which the committee had just
heard]. He thanked Representative Kott for bringing this to his
attention.
Number 1184
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT amended his motion to include the Honorable
Donald Rumsfeld, General Schwartz, and Admiral Blair. There
being no objection to the amendment, it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SJR 3, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, HCS SJR 3(MLV) was moved out of the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|