02/20/2001 03:41 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 20, 2001
3:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Chair
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Joe Green
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Relating to the development and deployment of the National
Missile Defense System.
- MOVED SJR 9 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the award of a high school diploma to
certain World War II veterans."
- MOVED CSHB 98(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 87
"An Act establishing the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 9
SHORT TITLE:NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/29/01 0201 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/29/01 0202 (S) STA
02/06/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/06/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/01 0300 (S) STA RPT 3DP
02/07/01 0300 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
DAVIS
02/07/01 0300 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
02/08/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/08/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/08/01 0308 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 2/8/01
02/08/01 0310 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/08/01 0310 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/08/01 0310 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 9
02/08/01 0310 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY, TAYLOR,
WILKEN,
02/08/01 0310 (S) WARD, AUSTERMAN
02/08/01 0310 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
02/08/01 0314 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/09/01 0276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/09/01 0276 (H) MLV
02/20/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE:HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA FOR CERTAIN WWII VETS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/01 0211 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0211 (H) MLV, HES
01/31/01 0212 (H) FN1: ZERO(EED)
01/31/01 0212 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/20/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 9.
PAUL ROETMAN, Staff
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained difference in SJR 9 between a
National Missile Defense System and a National Missile Defense
Program.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 98 on behalf of the DMVA.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 410
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comments about World War II
relating to HB 98.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE CHENAULT called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:41 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Chenault, Murkowski, Green, and Kott. Representative Hayes
arrived as the meeting was in progress. Chair Chenault invited
Representative Foster to join members at the committee table.
SJR 9 - NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
Number 0086
CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Relating to the development
and deployment of the National Missile Defense System.
Number 0146
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SJR 9 speaks to an issue addressed in past
legislatures: an interest in national missile defense. While
the United States reigns supreme as the last great "superpower,"
there is no means to protect the entire nation from ballistic
missile attack. The threat, however, is real.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that last month, before President Bush took
office, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a report [a
portion of which is in the packet] titled "Proliferation:
Threat and Response." That report analyzes the country's
growing threat from foreign nations that are developing missile
technology. In the report, Senator Leman pointed out, former
Secretary of Defense William Cohen says at least 25 countries
now possess - or are in the process of acquiring and developing
- capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction:
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons or the means to
deliver them. Senator Leman noted that the foregoing was
reiterated by Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz when he spoke
to "us" a few weeks ago.
SENATOR LEMAN advised members that in response to this growing
threat, the United States has been developing a National Missile
Defense System; it is not operational, however, the decision on
how to proceed having been deferred to President Bush by former
President Clinton.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Alaska has been identified as a
preferred alternative for the location of key system components,
including a forward radar site at Shemya and perhaps a ground-
based interceptor site, most likely at Fort Greely. The design
of the entire system isn't final; North Dakota may figure in the
mix, and there may be mobile installations on submarines or
ships, for example. Although there are unanswered questions,
there is broad political support for developing the National
Missile Defense System.
Number 0388
SENATOR LEMAN reported that President Bush's stated plans
include planning to develop and build this; Alaska's
congressional delegation support this, and packets contain
letters of support from U.S. Senators Murkowski and Stevens.
SENATOR LEMAN said normally people from the [U.S.] Department of
Defense would testify in support, but the department is
reviewing this and doesn't want to get caught up in the
politics. In order to do the analysis fairly, he said, "they've
been asked not to participate today." Senator Leman told
members he believes the resolution is worded such that it is in
the national interest as well as the interest of Alaska. He
urged members' support.
Number 0478
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that page 1, line 10, the
third "whereas" clause, has the only reference to a National
Missile Defense Program, rather than a National Missile Defense
System. She asked about the difference.
Number 0588
PAUL ROETMAN, Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the "program" refers to the overall
umbrella organizations that are initiating the development of
not only a missile defense system, but other technologies
including theater missile defense and sea-based defense.
Number 0666
SENATOR LEMAN, in response to a question by Representative
Murkowski, affirmed that there was a similar resolution the
previous session. This [SJR 9], however, has been tailored a
little differently at the request of the [congressional]
delegation, in the interests of working with the new President
and the Department of Defense.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled little, if any, opposition
[the previous session]. She also recalled discussion on the
House floor about developing and deploying this as soon as
technologically feasible, however, as well as Representative
Davies' questions about the technological feasibility at the
time. Representative Murkowski suggested it is timely to move
something like this through.
Number 0752
SENATOR LEMAN noted that there was no opposition in the Senate
[to SJR 9]. Brought to his attention that very day, he
reported, was that part of this system may include a fiber-optic
cable or cables that would run from approximately Whittier to
Shemya, at the end of the Aleutians. If that ever became part
of the overall project, it would, in itself, be an incredible
investment. Senator Leman surmised that there might be elements
which could be tied in with the civilian systems of
communication; that would have tremendous impacts on Alaska.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded by saying Alaska rightfully was the
first to step up, as a state, and express support for this
system. He suggested it is appropriate, therefore, to indicate
that support. Even if a part of the system is invested
elsewhere, Alaska and the rest of the United States need to be
fully protected.
Number 0918
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there was any public testimony;
none was offered.
Number 0930
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move SJR 9 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SJR 9 was moved from the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
HB 98 - HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA FOR CERTAIN WWII VETS
CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to the award of a high
school diploma to certain World War II veterans."
Number 0984
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt version 22-GH1011\C,
Ford, 2/17/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, it
was so ordered and Version C was before the committee.
Number 1051
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), explained
that HB 98 was put forth by the DMVA in order to recognize and
honor World War II veterans who left school to fight in the war,
in service to their country.
MS. CARROLL addressed changes in Version C, which the DMVA had
requested. On page 1, line 10, deleted are the words "in this
state". She explained that many people moved to Alaska after
the war and never went to school in the state; the DMVA would
not like to exclude those people. Second, on page 1, line 12,
deleted are the words "or general equivalency diploma". Ms.
Carroll explained that just because a person got a general
equivalency diploma (GED) doesn't mean that person wouldn't like
to have the actual paper diploma.
Number 1145
MS. CARROLL informed members that she had received a letter from
the Revisor of Statutes concerning the dates August 7, 1940,
through July 25, 1947 [page 1, line 14, Version C]. Ms. Carroll
explained that in Alaska Statutes, the date August 7 as the
beginning of World War II is never found; that date is September
16, 1940. She asked that it be changed, therefore, from August
7 to September 16, to be consistent throughout the statutes.
She noted that according to the [federal] Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA), "those dates are the true dates that they have
for the conflict of World War II, beginning and end dates."
Number 1216
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that there were conflicts relating
to World War II prior to that date, although [the U.S.] didn't
come into the war until 1941. He suggested perhaps the date
mentioned was the date of the first armed conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER, Alaska State Legislature, said he
would think German U-boats sank some American ships flying aid
to England in 1940.
MS. CARROLL noted that Poland was invaded in 1939.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if the given date is for the start of
World War II, he believes it is too late.
Number 1271
MS. CARROLL clarified that the desire is to be consistent with
what the federal DVA defines as the time period for veterans in
that conflict. Sprinkled throughout Alaska Statutes, too, are
various veterans' programs, including preference programs, that
start with the date of September 16. The Revisor of Statutes
would like to make it more consistent throughout Alaska
Statutes, which the DMVA has no problem with.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI alluded to materials in the packet that
indicate the national "Operation Recognition" program uses the
date August 7.
MS. CARROLL said she had no idea where the August 7 date came
from; she surmised that it was an error overlooked in putting
the bill together. She suggested it is safest to stick with the
federal DVA definition of the conflict period, although it
certainly is the committee's prerogative to broaden it.
Number 1384
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN proposed saying "ending July 25, 1947" [so
that page 1, lines 13-14, would read: "(4) actively served in
the United States armed forces or the Alaska Territorial Guard
during the period ending July 25, 1947"]. He asked, "Do we care
if there was a veteran that was in the service prior to
September 1940?" He pointed out that nobody seems to object to
an ending date well after World War II.
MS. CARROLL said she had no objection. The purpose of the bill
is to recognize people in this situation; these cutoff dates
were chosen because they are what the federal government uses.
However, if the desire is to get the largest number of people
and not exclude anybody [whose service] falls before that date,
she added, "I do understand what you're saying."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN emphasized the desire to do something for
these veterans who made sacrifices for others' benefit.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that under Representative
Green's proposal, HB 98 would not be limited to those who served
in World War II. For example, a veteran who served from 1933 to
1935, or during World War I, would fall within the scope. He
said that is fine with him; the point is to recognize veterans.
MS. CARROLL remarked that except for the dates, nothing within
the body of [the bill] relates it to World War II.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the title says "World War II".
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said if the desire is to include even those
who served in World War I, for example, then the title would
need to be changed, which would be appropriate.
MS. CARROLL said she certainly doesn't mind including veterans
of World War I. This bill also applies to people who have died,
she pointed out; she doesn't know how many people would be
included. She restated that it is up to the committee. In
response to a question about how many people would want this
[diploma], Ms. Carroll estimated that it would be less than 150
people, if limited to World War II veterans.
Number 1619
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 2, line 5 [Version C],
which read in part, "(b) The commissioner shall provide a form
or electronic format". Pointing out that there is a zero fiscal
note, she surmised that would make no difference whether 150 or
300 [requests] were received.
MS. CARROLL answered that up to 300, it would make no
difference; if there were thousands, of course, it would. She
stated, "We were certain that, with the number of World War II
vets that we thought would apply for this, ... there would be a
zero fiscal impact to prepare a high school diploma for them."
In response to comments, Ms. Carroll said [the DMVA] has a web
site and interacts with the veteran service organizations all
the time.
Number 1675
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether it is the sponsor's concept
to honor all veterans who couldn't do this [get a high school
diploma] or just those who were in World War II, primarily
because Alaska, as a territory, was involved in that war but not
World War I.
MS. CARROLL answered that the concept was to honor the World War
II veterans, as is being done nationally with "Operation
Recognition."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that having "World War II" in the
title creates a conflict with "1947", which wasn't the end of
the war. He asked how that language can be changed if the
desire is to confine it to [World War II].
MS. CARROLL said there must be some way to state it in order to
be reasonable, to have a definite time period, and to be able to
include someone "who comes in prior to that date."
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN at first offered to change his possible
amendment conceptually, to find what truly is considered the
start of World War II, so that nobody is excluded. He then
acknowledged that there may be another reason for the proposed
dates.
MS. CARROLL offered to research how many U.S. citizens were
fighting in forces other than the U.S. armed services, if that
was what Representative Green was talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that the U.S. wasn't in the war
in 1940, and the war started prior to 1940. He said he didn't
know what 1940 tied to, although if there was some unknown
factor, he would retract his concern; otherwise, he indicated,
he would want to make sure that everyone was included who was in
the conflict.
MS. CARROLL reiterated, "The only thing that we were using is
the Department of Veterans Affairs and their dates."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that it may be a good enough
reason.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER commented that it is possible for someone
who joined the Army in November 1945, after the war, to qualify
without even being a veteran [of the war]. He suggested that
would apply to perhaps only one person, and also suggested it
wouldn't make any difference.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how the Alaska Scouts, who performed a
vital function during World War II, fit into the scheme.
MS. CARROLL confirmed that Representative Kott was talking about
the Territorial Scouts of the Territorial Guard. She said they
are included, having been active when the Japanese were in the
Aleutians.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether initially they weren't part of
a militia, however, rather than the Guard.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said they were in more than the Aleutians,
having been scattered all over the western and northern coasts
of Alaska, as the "eyes and ears" watching for a Japanese
invasion. Initially, they were a militia under "Muktuk Marston
(ph)," who didn't have authority to create a national guard.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT returned attention to page 1, line 10; he
said he understood why "in this state" had been taken out,
because Alaska wasn't a state during World War II. However, how
could it be validated that a person left high school for the
sole purpose of joining the armed forces? He suggested that all
of subsection (2) [page 1, lines 10-11] could be deleted,
because taking a person's word for it would make it meaningless.
MS. CARROLL agreed that the department would take a person's
word for it, and said there wouldn't be any real reason to
validate it.
Number 2021
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to
delete page 1, lines 10-11 [subsection (2)], for the reasons he
had already stated.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether a model "Operation
Recognition" statute was used in formulating this legislation,
and whether that may be the reason for having subsection (2).
MS. CARROLL affirmed that, adding that it was copied from
Wisconsin's law. "Not all states are the same," she noted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI responded that she would agree with
Representative Kott, then.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT specified that Amendment 1 would include the
Scouts, who may have been in the militia and, therefore,
excluded; it would still achieve the same overall objective. He
asked for unanimous consent.
Number 2139
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there was any objection. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2149
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, on
[page 1], line 14, Version C. [Line 14 read: "Territorial
Guard during the period of August 7, 1940, through July 25,
1947, and".] Amendment 2 would delete the language between
"during" and "and", and insert "World War II". Thus line 14
would read, "Territorial Guard during World War II and",
followed by subparagraphs (A) through (C). Representative Green
explained that this way, there would be no problem with dates.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether it would be left open for
the individual to establish that [the service] was during World
War II.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN affirmed that, noting that [the DMVA] would
take the person's word for it anyway, as Ms. Carroll had said.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there was any objection. There
being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 2206
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether this will really increase the
number of applicants; he remarked, however, that he didn't
really care if it did.
MS. CARROLL answered that she doesn't believe it will increase
the number of people who will apply. She added, "Whether or not
they were there on September 14 instead of September 16, really,
the purpose is to honor the people that did that and don't have
a high school diploma and want one."
Number 2235
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what the diploma will look like,
and whether it will be a regular state diploma.
MS. CARROLL said she thought it would be [a regular state
diploma], although she hadn't seen what the Department of
Education [and Early Development] is going to do. "They do tell
me, though, that it's not going to cost them any more than what
they already have available," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested perhaps the department could
"spiffy it up a little bit" because these folks have waited this
long.
Number 2289
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that because of Amendment 2,
subsections (3) and (4) would have to be renumbered.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move CSHB 98 [version 22-
GH1011\C, Ford, 2/17/01, as amended], out of committee with
individual recommendations and the zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated there may be concern by
veterans of more recent wars about being excluded. She
suggested that this bill honors World War II veterans in
recognition of Alaska's involvement in that war.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there was any objection to moving
the bill from committee. There being no objection, CSHB 98(MLV)
was moved from the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2368
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|