02/12/2002 03:11 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 12, 2002
3:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Joe Green
Representative Pete Kott
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Joe Hayes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to declaring September 11, 2002, as Emergency Service
Providers and Armed Forces Appreciation Day.
- MOVED CSHCR 20(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 305
"An Act prohibiting certain state employment, a student loan, or
a permanent fund dividend for a person who fails to register for
the military selective service; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 305 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act making supplemental and other appropriations for
homeland security; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 20
SHORT TITLE:SEPT 11 DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1946 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1946 (H) MLV
01/14/02 1946 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
01/29/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/29/02 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/07/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/08/02 2190 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
02/12/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 305
SHORT TITLE:NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MURKOWSKI, HARRIS, MULDER, JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1954 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1954 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1954 (H) MLV, STA
01/14/02 1954 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
01/28/02 2086 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS
02/11/02 2210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/12/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 324
SHORT TITLE:HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1972 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1972 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
01/16/02 1972 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/16/02 1972 (H) SPREADSHEET BY DEPT. COST
01/16/02 1972 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
02/12/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HCR 20, spoke in favor of the
changes in Version C.
NANCI A. JONES, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 305 will not cost the
division money; however, there may be customer service problems
if the effective date is 2003, and may be more appeals, reviews,
and delays because of timing and other issues.
VICTOR VAN HORN, Selective Service System Detachment Commander
Alaska Army National Guard
515 Verstovia
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 305 and answered
questions.
MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP OATES, Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
P.O. Box 5800
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 305; during
hearing on HB 324, explained the need for the Alaska Land Mobile
Radio (ALMR) system.
JULIE STINSON, ALMR Project Manager
Information Technology Group
Department of Administration
5900 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, presented
information on the concept demonstration project in 2002
relating to the ALMR system; answered questions.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 324 and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE CHENAULT called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:11 p.m.
Representatives Chenault, Masek, Murkowski, and Kott were
present at the call to order. Representative Green arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HCR 20 - SEPT 11 DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
Number 0093
CHAIR CHENAULT announced the first order of business, HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20, Relating to declaring September
11, 2002, as Emergency Service Providers and Armed Forces
Appreciation Day.
Number 0122
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt Version C [22-LS1152\C,
Kurtz, 2/11/02] as a work draft. [No objection was stated, and
thus Version C was treated as adopted.]
Number 0176
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HCR 20, told members he appreciated the changes.
Number 0189
CHAIR CHENAULT requested an amendment, on page 1, line 13, after
"estimated", to change the number of lives lost to 2,840.
Number 0249
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to adopt the foregoing as
Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to report CSHCR 20 [version 22-
LS1152\C, Kurtz, 2/11/02, as amended] out of committee [with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes].
There being no objection, CSHCR 20(MLV) was moved out of the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
HB 305 - NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Number 0324
CHAIR CHENAULT announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 305, "An Act prohibiting certain state employment, a student
loan, or a permanent fund dividend for a person who fails to
register for the military selective service; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 0338
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, speaking as a prime sponsor of HB 305,
explained why she believes the bill should be retitled. The
title comes across as negative or prohibitive, she told members,
but the purpose of HB 305 is to raise awareness about the
selective service. Several other states have looked at their
legislation as it ties selective service registration into
certain state benefits, she said, and have titled theirs
"selective service registration awareness and compliance Act,"
which she really likes. She further explained, "What we're
attempting to do with [HB] 305 is raise the awareness of young
men, that even though we don't have a draft anymore, you are
still required by federal law to register."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to a pamphlet in the committee
packet, "What young men should know about REGISTERING WITH
SELECTIVE SERVICE." She reminded members that any eligible male
between the ages of 18 and 26 is required to register for the
military selective service. Substantial penalties under federal
law exist for failure to do so; for example, a person can be
subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years in
prison, which is substantial. Still, young men are not
registering. Therefore, this bill says someone who wants to be
eligible for a permanent fund dividend (PFD), an Alaska student
loan, or certain state employment must comply with the
[Military] Selective Service Act.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reported that 28 other states have some
variation on this, although only Alaska has a PFD. Several
states tie compliance into a driver's license, for example; for
someone between the ages of 18 and 26, the application has a
form that says, in essence, "I consent that by signing this, if
I am eligible, that I have applied for the selective service."
Several states have a tie-in as well for their state student
loans. Currently, under the federal system, a person who fails
to [register] is ineligible for certain federal employment and
federal student loans.
Number 0646
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI concluded by saying there are all kinds
of good reasons for encouraging young people to [register]. She
noted that [Mr. Van Horn] from the Selective Service System was
on teleconference from Sitka. She said she understands it is
difficult to "get out to everybody in ... the various
communities across the state and let them know of the
requirement that still exists out there." Nor are there
recruiters in all the high schools. This is an effort,
therefore, to make sure that people know their obligations.
Number 0773
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what happens when a person is
deliberately trying to "throw off" [the Selective Service
System] with a bogus or no-longer-current address, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered that the person would also
"throw off" the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there is something that the
[Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue] would
impose if a person in that age group documented that he had
registered, for example, or just stated that he had. He then
suggested perhaps Nanci Jones of that division could respond.
Number 0878
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that the division's fiscal
note provides comments regarding enforcement. She then read
statistics from an unspecified document, saying the information
[for the State of Alaska] was collected February 28, 2001.
Statewide, the nonregistration rate was about 7.5 percent, she
reported. In Anchorage, however, "where you would think they
would have a relatively good compliance rate because of the high
schools and the counselors in the schools, it looks like it's
... a little over [a] 12 percent nonregistration rate, which I
find very interesting," she said.
Number 1002
NANCI A. JONES, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, came forward to testify. She explained
that the division and the Selective Service System already trade
information, so there will be no cost to the division to get the
information required by the bill. However, on a customer
service basis, there may be problems if the effective date is
2003. Anyone who isn't registered for this whole year wouldn't
know about the bill, and because of noncompliance would be
denied a PFD; she characterized it as a "blindside."
MS. JONES explained a further concern. When the division trades
data with others, there is a timing issue. The division gets a
"tape" with a cutoff date of "X" and that someone applied, and
why. That person would be denied because of not being on that
"particular tape that we match." So there will be clerical
issues. Also, having more people denied will increase the
number of appeals. Furthermore, because the division knows that
there are timing issues related to data received from various
organizations such as the Selective Service System, it would
also increase the number of reviews; before a person was denied,
the division would look to see whether there is a timing issue,
for example. Or if, in haste, the person slipped a wrong digit
into the social security number and there wasn't an exact match,
the computer would reject that application, again resulting in a
delay in receiving the dividend for the applicant.
Number 1147
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether some problems, such as [unmatched]
social security numbers, would happen when anyone applies for a
PFD.
MS. JONES answered in the affirmative.
Number 1173
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI conveyed appreciation for Ms. Jones's
comment about how the effective date ties in. She acknowledged
that denying a PFD is very different from what other states are
able to do, because it can be a couple of thousand dollars [a
year]. She said she would consult with others and think about
perhaps having a delayed effective date relating to the PFD.
She commented that she believes it is important that young
people get the word that although [the consequence] has always
been serious, now it could affect the pocketbook [at the state
level].
MS. JONES clarified that the effective date "goes to the next
dividend." The division is always looking at the qualifying
year, which is the previous year. For 2003, therefore, the
division would look at 2002. If [the effective date becomes]
2004, the division would look at 2003.
Number 1264
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it sounds as though what Ms. Jones had
just explained would take care of his own concerns. Because the
division exchanges address lists, a person who gave a bogus
address would be "popped out" right away.
MS. JONES concurred.
Number 1289
CHAIR CHENAULT suggested perhaps having the current effective
date would only delay [the PFD for] some individuals who cannot
prove [registration] or who haven't registered yet, and that if
the information were brought to the division or sent in, that
person's check would be processed.
MS. JONES pointed out that as the bill is worded, however, the
person must be in compliance. If a person must be in compliance
for calendar year 2002, someone who registered [with the
selective service] on January 3, 2003, would be out of luck.
"It's a strict compliance: either you are or you're not," she
added.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI acknowledged that she'd been thinking
the same thing [that Chair Chenault had suggested], that once
the person got the notice from the division, he could just
register and then send [proof] to the division. However, that
doesn't get the person into compliance for the eligibility year.
Number 1363
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether Ms. Jones envisions some
coordinated effort by the division to notify the Selective
Service System regarding individuals who hadn't [registered].
He suggested ensuring compliance is really what the Selective
Service System should be doing all along.
MS. JONES explained that every year, the Selective Service
System asks the division to compile a list of people between the
ages of 18 and 26 who live in Alaska. The division provides it
from the rolls for the PFD, and the Selective Service System
then compares it with its "tapes" to determine the compliance
rate. Now, the Selective Service System would send the division
a tape, and the division would do a match. The division already
would know who isn't in compliance, she added.
Number 1464
VICTOR VAN HORN, Selective Service System Detachment Commander,
Alaska Army National Guard, testified via teleconference,
stating support for HB 305. A person who doesn't register loses
out on federal financial aid, federal job training, and some
jobs such as those at post offices, he pointed out, so
consequences go beyond those at the state level. Also a
schoolteacher, he said he'd hate to see students "miss out on
this." He told members:
We try to ... have registrars in the high schools, and
right now we're about at 90 percent; so we're doing a
pretty good job of that, but it's still not getting
out to everybody, and there are some that are slipping
by the wayside. And those are the ones we need to
affect, that [10 to] 15 percent. If we could get
schools at 100 percent, at least we would cover all
the schools, but there's still some that get by the
wayside, that don't go all the way through school,
that drop out [for example]. ... Those students still
have to register with the selective service.
MR. VAN HORN said there are a lot of important reasons to
register, and many people don't realize that until later when
they discover they've missed a job opportunity at a post office,
for example, after they turn 26. They can still register all
the way up to the age of 26, he pointed out.
MR. VAN HORN described various ways to register. It can be done
by computer, which is what most high schools use. He remarked,
"You can register 30 days before you're 18, and we catch a lot
of them that way." A person can register at the post office,
which also has a change-of-address form, and to his belief a
person can change an address online as well. Mr. Van Horn said,
"Usually the selective service is pretty good about sending a
registration card out to as many 18-year-olds as they possibly
can, and all they have to do is send it back and check it off."
He acknowledged that some people lose the cards.
Number 1624
MR. VAN HORN noted that [HB 305] talks about losing certain
state employment, the Alaska student loan, and the PFD. He said
many states have provisions whereby [those who don't comply with
selective service registration] lose state employment and other
benefits such as state loans. This isn't a new thing, but is
just coming to Alaska now. He pointed out that the military had
downsized. He said the Selective Service System is "ready to go
into operation mainly because of medical personnel" that would
be needed if there were a catastrophe. That is another
important reason for having the Selective Service System.
Number 1702
MR. VAN HORN reported that there are only three selective
service officers in Alaska, "and only two at this point in
time." Although working on it part-time, he said it consumes
most of his extra time; he teaches full-time. There are only
two people trying to make sure there are registrars in all the
schools and so forth. The Selective Service System only has a
budget of $25 million to run the whole system, including full-
time people in Denver, Virginia, and Chicago. "Those are the
three regions that we go under," he added. He noted that he'd
been the detachment commander for about three years.
Number 1747
CHAIR CHENAULT asked what happens regarding home-schooled
children.
MR. VAN HORN answered that Sitka, for example, has a home-school
program; [those students] are contacted by the registrar in the
high school as soon as they reach high school age. Mentioning
the alternative high school, he further indicated that the
registrar sometimes must do "dual service." Referring to a
correspondence school in Fairbanks, he remarked, "We've
contacted them"; he explained that a student who is becoming a
senior [at the high school level] is contacted and reminded to
register with the Selective Service System. Whether students
are in correspondence or home-school study, he said, "we try to
cover all of them, if at all possible." He noted that there is
a list of schools that they use, trying to ensure that everyone
has had some kind of contact, through the registrar, with the
Selective Service System.
Number 1845
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the statistics provided by
Representative Murkowski; he called the numbers for Anchorage
"startling." He asked whether Mr. Van Horn knew why that
compliance has been so low, and what can be done to improve it.
MR. VAN HORN said although Anchorage has the largest schools,
"we have the hardest time getting a registrar in those larger
schools or in the schools in Anchorage." In contrast, smaller
schools are willing to help out "just about as well as they
possibly can," he said; some registrars cover two or three
schools, rather than just one. As a good example, he noted that
in Southeast Alaska only one school - Kake - doesn't have a
registrar; he expects one there this year or next, however. In
the Anchorage School District, though, perhaps ten high schools
still don't have [a registrar].
Number 1925
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether that is due to the district or the
schools themselves.
MR. VAN HORN answered that some is due to the school. "We
contact them at least once or twice a year, trying to get a
registrar," he explained. "And I still haven't been able to get
them. And my next step is to contact the Department of
Education [and Early Development] and see if they can help us
get some of those schools to get registrars in, and get Alaska
up to 100 percent." He offered that four [areas] have 100
percent compliance in Western Alaska. "The schools in Anchorage
[are] where we're having the toughest time," he concluded.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI told members she would get a better
copy of the chart [from which she was reading the statistics],
which was difficult to read. She then pointed out that Kodiak
Island has 100 percent registration compliance, as do the Lake
and Peninsula School District, the Matanuska-Susitna district,
North Slope, and Nome. She offered her understanding that
Representative Foster was a selective service officer prior to
when he became a legislator; she suggested that perhaps accounts
for the success in the Nome area.
Number 2026
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what the time limitation is to
register once a person turns 18.
MR. VAN HORN explained that a person has from 30 days before his
18th birthday until he turns 26. Even if a person forgets to
register at age 18, there is plenty of time. Most register by
the time they are 19, if they are going to register. A few
string along until age 20 or more. He emphasized the importance
of registering before age 26, at which point the person loses a
lot of privileges such as federal job training.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired about civil or criminal penalties
for not registering.
MR. VAN HORN said he believes it is quite a large sum. Although
there is some criminal [penalty], he said, nobody has been
prosecuted by the Selective Service System because there hasn't
been a war situation. "It's hard to prosecute somebody when we
don't have something that's pressing," he commented, pointing
out that since the United States is fighting terrorism now,
things may change. He said he would obtain that information
shortly.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI thanked Mr. Van Horn, adding that she
hadn't realized that only three selective service officers cover
the whole state, and that there are only two right now. She
acknowledged the large number of youths and territory that Mr.
Van Horn must cover, in addition to his full-time job.
Number 2168
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired about the difficulty in the
Anchorage schools, asking whether Mr. Van Horn has been talking
with the principals or counselors.
MR. VAN HORN explained that the contact with schools in
Anchorage is with both principals and counselors. He finds it
is better to get somebody to be the registrar, he said, to put
up posters and so forth; usually it is the counselor who does
that, "but if we go through the principal, usually we have a
pretty good time of getting a registrar there."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "And you're getting shut out?"
MR. VAN HORN answered, "For a few of them. Most of them are
pretty good, though."
Number 2230
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Van Horn whether he believes,
if HB 305 is enacted, that he'd receive more assistance from
counselors, who'd be more motivated to encourage students to
comply with selective service requirements, knowing that
students otherwise might be ineligible for state student loans
and PFDs, for example.
MR. VAN HORN replied, "I know I would." He pointed out that
although counselors are very busy, they try to prepare students
before leaving high school to make sure they get their student
loans. If [HB 305] were added, he said, counselors would make
it a point to ensure that students are registered. He noted
that the Alaska Guard Youth Corps Camp actually puts students in
front of a computer and has them register right there, resulting
in 100 percent registration. He concluded, "I know it would
help ... me in talking to those counselors, in each one of those
schools that do not have a registrar, to help students register
for the draft."
Number 2342
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what happens after a person turns 26
and still hasn't registered. Has that person beaten the system?
MR. VAN HORN replied that the person definitely wouldn't have
beaten the system. He recounted stories from when people
haven't registered but have falsely believed they could get a
post office job, federal job training, or federal financial aid
for college, for example. He noted that people entering the
military must register, and that National Guard recruiters are
registrars as well. "We catch them in many different ways prior
to the 26 [years of age]," he said. "But after that, if they
haven't registered, then they can't get some of the federal jobs
that are offered." He said because there hasn't been
prosecution [of those who fail to register], he can't recall all
the details regarding that, but it is a substantial fine and
imprisonment.
Number 2450
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired whether there is a statute of
limitations regarding when a person can register. He suggested
a person from a well-off family, who doesn't require financial
assistance, a post office job, or any federal or state aid,
would essentially beat the system. If caught, the person
wouldn't be prosecuted.
MR. VAN HORN said most people actually register, but he'd hate
to see the few who drop out miss a chance later in life to work
at a federal job or get some federal training. "Those are
important people to get registered," he remarked. He also
suggested that because [HB 305] will "catch" those who apply for
a PFD, even wealthier people will be caught because most
Alaskans apply for the dividend.
Number 2537
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI advised members that in the packet is a
memorandum from the Selective Service System dated December 27,
2001. It indicates that 37 Alaskans over the past three years
have been identified who failed to register and then later tried
to get a federal job or aid after they turned 26 years old; for
those people, it is too late. The memorandum [from the Region
III Director in Denver, Colorado] estimates there is $185,000
[in federal funds lost by a state when a person fails to
register].
MR. VAN HORN noted that Charlie Smith, the state director from
Juneau, had wanted to testify. He then asked that members
direct questions to either himself or the full-time regional
director, Colonel Lyle Wilkes. He expressed the desire to get
everyone registered and to make a fair and equitable selective
service. If the draft ever is reinstated, the main concern is
that it be fair and equitable for everyone, which requires that
everyone be in the pool, not just those [who need jobs and aid,
for example], he concluded.
CHAIR CHENAULT thanked Mr. Van Horn.
Number 2726
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Jones whether a block on the PFD
application form would ask - yes or no - whether the person is
between the ages of 18 and 26, and if so, whether that person
has registered for the draft. If the person answers no, [the
form would state that] the applicant is not eligible for a PFD.
He'd like to see that included on the form, he said, because he
wants to see 100 percent compliance, rather than taking away
someone's PFD or ability to apply for a student loan; he
suggested that is what the sponsor would like as well. "If the
schools are letting us down, maybe we can pick up that small
percentage by putting it on the [PFD] application itself," he
added. "If you say 'yes' and you didn't [register], then you're
subject to other state penalties."
MS. JONES answered that the division would do something similar
to that. She explained, however:
We don't like to discourage people from filing [for] a
dividend. Legally, everyone has a right to file for a
dividend. So we would put some language on there that
asks that question, "Are you ...?" We would just
soften it up and say, "You may not be eligible for a
dividend if you don't [register]," ... and then have
something in the explanation booklets, rather than
say, "Don't even apply," because someone might not
understand that, and miss the deadline for the
dividend, and wind up in appeals, and there's some
legal thing, "Well, you encouraged ... me not to
file." So we don't discourage people from filing,
even though the rules say that they probably aren't
eligible.
Number 2825
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response. He then asked Representative Murkowski
whether she needed time to contemplate the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered that the bill has a referral
to the House State Affairs Standing Committee. Based on
testimony, she said, the effective date is something she should
look at, as it applies to the PFD, to ensure that "we don't
unwittingly reject some permanent fund applicants just because
they didn't know." She emphasized, however, that people between
the ages of 18 and 26 should be [registering with the Selective
Service System]. She concluded that it wasn't necessary to hold
the bill in committee, although the change could be made at the
current hearing and then revisited, if necessary, in the next
committee. She deferred to Chair Chenault.
CHAIR CHENAULT said he would entertain a motion.
Number 2888
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained why she doesn't support the bill.
She noted that the sponsor statement refers to an "effort to
encourage". However, from the bill and testimony, she said, it
appears the sponsor statement isn't correct. The bill appears
to add another layer of requirements. It prohibits people who
don't register from getting [state] benefits, including the PFD,
jobs, or money for college. It's already a federal law, she
said, and she doesn't see why the state must debate the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she sees [HB 305] as a move to gain
more government control in the choices that Alaskans want to
make; it says, "You'd better file or else ... you're not going
to get any of this funding." She said she understands the
intent, but reiterated that there is already a federal law
[requiring registration]. She questioned the need to put it in
statute, saying it makes no sense to her.
Number 2990
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed that it says, "Do it or else."
At the federal level, it is a requirement, and there are federal
consequences for [failure to comply].
TAPE 02-8, SIDE B
Number 3001
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said although [Representative Masek]
may see it as overkill, obviously [the federal law] isn't
getting the attention of all eligible Alaskans. She stated, "My
purpose is to get their full attention. And I think that this
would."
Number 2977
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK responded that she believes it is too far-
fetched and is like blackmail: "You'd better do it or else."
She tries to encourage youth to get educated, she said, and this
seems like a prohibition. She suggested the federal government
probably should do a better job to encourage more people to sign
up. She said this is "an encroachment that's gone way too far."
Number 2945
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he appreciates what
Representative Masek has said, but believes the sponsor
statement is fairly accurate because there is a requirement
right now that a [male] between the ages of 18 and 26 must
register. He suggested the sponsor is trying to encourage those
individuals to fulfill that requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to the testimony of Ms. Jones and
said, "Again, I'm not out here trying to catch people. I want
to encourage people, through whatever mechanism, that they do
sign up, so they don't lose the benefits later on." He said
there can be argument about the percentages, but he would think
the majority of adults aren't draft dodgers, but are just
ignorant about the situation. He suggested having the statement
on the PFD [application] would solve the problem. Based on Ms.
Jones's testimony, he offered, it is good to get those people
upfront, right at the beginning, so they don't fall through the
cracks and later, when applying for a postal position, find out
[it's too late], especially because there hasn't been a draft in
effect.
Number 2870
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied that if it's a federal law that has
been on the books awhile, the federal government should be the
entity to do the "imposing and carrying it out" if people aren't
signing up and registering. She reiterated her belief that this
bill is further encroachment, to add control; that this is a
federal issue; and that the Selective Service System should be
doing a lot more to reach out to youths who are graduating from
high school, to encourage them to file. She said [HB 305] isn't
a good way to get people to [register], by using these
"blackmail" tactics, especially for employment and education.
She said she wouldn't support it.
Number 2782
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with Representative Kott that other
than for the very small percentage who are trying to beat "the
system," this is trying to help "sometimes forgetful teenagers
to keep out of trouble." [Under federal law] they would be
subject to five years in jail and a tremendous fine, besides the
state incentive. He noted that sometimes teenagers aren't
thinking clearly, but affecting their pocketbooks [may help].
He suggested this bill would help Alaska's teenagers [by keeping
them away from the stiff federal sanctions]. He said he'd like
to see 100 percent [compliance]. He added, "We go to the feds
for a lot of help up here. It seems like the least we could do
is kind of 'help back' a little."
Number 2725
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT encouraged Representative Murkowski, as the
sponsor, to look at the effective date regarding the PFD. He
noted that she'd also said perhaps a title change would be in
order.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI acknowledged that.
Number 2712
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HB 305 from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 305 was moved out of the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
Number 2679
CHAIR CHENAULT called an at-ease at 4:06 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 4:11 p.m.
HB 324-HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
[Contains testimony in support of HB 305 by Major General Oates]
Number 2675
CHAIR CHENAULT announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 324, "An Act making supplemental and other appropriations
for homeland security; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2670
MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP OATES, Adjutant General/Commissioner,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), came
forward to testify on HB 324. First, however, he commended the
committee for passing HB 305. He remarked on the importance of
reminding young men and women about serving their country.
Furthermore, he said HB 305 is a reminder that the common
defense of the country is not just a federal responsibility, but
a state responsibility and an individual responsibility as well.
"Therefore, I applaud your effort, and I think you did exactly
the right thing," he concluded. "And I'm proud ... of you, as
the military and veterans' committee, to take that approach to
service, and especially to military service."
MAJOR GENERAL OATES returned attention to HB 324, noting that he
would address the Alaska Land Mobile Radio (ALMR) system, a
complex topic. He informed members that he would go through
some frequently asked questions.
Number 2549
MAJOR GENERAL OATES first asked: What is a land mobile radio
(LMR) system and why do we need it? He explained that it is the
two-way system in use today nationwide by first responders and
public safety officials for effective and private
communications. It allows mobile communications over the two-
way network. It is needed because other systems - such as
cellular communications, the public telephone system, or CB
[citizens band] radios - don't provide, by law, the priority and
security required by first responders in public safety roles.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES next asked: What is a trunk land mobile
radio system? In two-way radio communications, he told members,
"trunking" refers to automatic sharing of a small number of
radio channels among a large number of radio users. He pointed
out that when someone using a CB radio pushes the button to
talk, nobody else can talk. With a land mobile radio system,
however, a person can push a button to talk, and then that
frequency and spectrum also can be used for other purposes
because there is computerized switching. It is a limited
spectrum that allows multiple users.
Number 2461
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: What is the Alaska Land Mobile Radio
(ALMR) system? He answered:
It is a land mobile radio system for the State of
Alaska, for the Alaska Municipal League, that
encompasses all of our communities, for the federal
Department of Defense [DOD] and other federal agencies
that are non-DOD. And it is designed to identify a
solution for LMR, and to establish a migration path to
that solution that meets the needs of all these
agencies.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES said it makes it possible to use over a wide
area - all of Alaska, ultimately, with all the phases. It adds
air and maritime communications to land [communications], and
allows use of multiple vendors to provide solutions and
technology for the system. Furthermore, it allows transmission
of data. He explained:
This handheld device, through the benefits of IP
[Internet protocol] addressing - which is what you use
with a computer and you use on the Internet - can
target, to individual users, the ability to receive
data or transmit data to certain users. And we can
also identify workgroups, like you would on a
computer, in an e-mail system, so when you push to ...
talk, that workgroup automatically hears what you're
doing. So ... the Alaska Land Mobile Radio system
ultimately will be ... an integrated, wireless network
that is secure and interoperable, that is cost-
effective and technology-sound.
Number 2361
MAJOR GENERAL OATES offered the next question: Why can't we use
the current approach in systems, instead of changing to the ALMR
system? He answered:
We can. However, we will ... do so at significant
cost. It will continue to be inefficient and lack
full interoperability between first responders. Also,
the federal government has been mandated to move to a
new system that supports narrowband technology. There
is wideband and there's narrowband. And the reason
they've been mandated to go to a narrowband technology
is that technology permits that. That narrowband can
be analog communications, which are these ways of
communications, or the ones and zeros of digital
communications. So you can go with either system, but
the federal agencies have been mandated, by 2005 to
2008, to go to those systems.
So what happens to us then? They can't mandate [that]
the state go to these systems. The fact is, our
systems here in the state are old. They're costly to
maintain. And many of them are in need of
replacement. So ... if you've got to pay to migrate
but you've also got to pay if you don't migrate - to
allow that interoperability, to maintain and continue
your existing systems - why not pay to migrate along
with the other players and have a truly interoperable
and higher technical solution to the dollars you've
spent? And the dollars, ultimately, might ... be as
much if you don't migrate as they are if you do
migrate.
Again, what does "the federal government mandated to
go to narrowband" mean? It just means that the U.S.
Department of Commerce has mandated the migration of
all federal land mobile radio systems, from wideband
to narrowband, by 2005 and 2008 - so, during that
period. This doubles the available radio spectrum.
And ... it will require all federal agencies to
replace their existing LMR infrastructure and
implement that, either in an analog or a digital
solution.
Number 2251
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: What does "backward compatible"
mean, and why is that important to the ALMR system? He said it
is important because not everyone will be able to switch
systems on a given date, due to the challenges of funding and
the different agencies involved. Just as a new computer system
is compatible with previous systems, part of the ALMR will be
compatible with the old systems in order to allow them to be
used. However, with the old systems there will not be full
technical interoperability, "a solution that will allow us to
move into the future and use the full benefits of narrowband
digital communications."
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: What communications standard will we
use for the ALMR system? He answered that the industry
standards for LMR for public safety use are prepared under the
auspices of the Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials (APCO) and the Telecommunications Industry Association
(TIA). He explained:
The APCO Project 25 standards have been selected in
this cooperative partnership we have here in Alaska.
Again, that's a partnership with the municipalities,
with the state, with the federal non-DOD and the
federal DOD, because that meets their requirements.
If we went to a different solution, some of these
players ... would fall out because they are mandated
among themselves to migrate to that solution.
Number 2151
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: Why use a standard? He answered
that without adhering to a standard, the state, local, and
federal public safety entities will essentially be compelled to
implement system solutions that lack "full interoperability of
security." He further asked: Why would a solution like the
ALMR solution be difficult to establish in other states? If
this is a such a good idea, why isn't everybody doing it? To
answer, he said:
I think we're leading the way, and I think Alaska ...
will be the first state in the nation - indeed, maybe
the first place in the world - to have a totally
interoperable system. But I think it'll be the wave
of the future. And I think you'll see enough emphasis
on this, because of September 11, that you'll see
other communities, in spite of their large population
centers, competing or lack of supporting resources,
inability of different government agencies in the
government levels to work out cooperative agreements
for their mutual [benefit] -- and I think you will see
us overcome those difficulties.
And again, I think we'll be an important model for the
nation. And that's ... not only important for Alaska,
but it's also important in many, many other ways, ...
to our military, to our interoperability. But also,
to have technical solutions up here that are leading
the nation and the world is only good for our other
technological inroads into the future.
Number 2081
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: What happens if communities don't
participate? He answered that they can continue with existing
systems that don't provide full user interoperability. He
added, "But again, you pay to migrate or you pay not to migrate.
And then, if you pay not to migrate, you also lose the
advantages of the new technology."
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked next: What happens if we fiscally
support the project today and it is not supported in future
years by legislative appropriations at the state level? He said
the system is designed with a building-block approach and can be
added to, once more funding is identified. In addition, money
won't be wasted because of the backward compatibility.
Number 2035
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked: What is the current funding strategy
for the state, and how much funding will the state have to
commit to over the life of the project? He answered:
Almost 90 percent of the funding of the project will
be provided from federal funding. Remember, half of
that team is ... federal agencies already. But also,
because of homeland security issues and the
requirement for communications and information sharing
and intelligence sharing, you'll see more and more
dollars available - if we're smart enough to get it
and have a program on the ground here to get that
federal funding. Currently, the first three phases of
the project are included in our state's homeland
security request.
Now, here's an important thing: If federal funding is
appropriated, as we think it will [be], the state's
matching amount over the course of the project would
be approximately $6.1 million. Now, it's easy to get
overwhelmed by the huge cost of all the federal
agencies and everybody else that comes into this. But
this is a bite-sized chunk for the state, if you think
of it in terms of $6.1 million over all the phases ...
of the program.
Number 1984
MAJOR GENERAL OATES asked next: What was the plan for funding
before September 11? He answered:
Since September 11, enabling interoperable radio
communications at a state and local level has obtained
national attention and prioritization. More
specifically, homeland security program funding
appropriations, and other related national
initiatives, which will be funded - which is now
currently the target for funding the initial phases of
the ALMR project.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES concluded by noting that Julie Stinson would
talk about the project team, the system, and the concept
demonstration project; following that, Del Smith, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS), would wrap up
the presentation. He offered to answer questions.
Number 1928
CHAIR CHENAULT informed members that Wayne Rush [of the DMVA]
was online, and that Mark Johnson [of the Department of Health
and Social Services] was present in support of the legislation.
Number 1895
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what security could be employed for a
system like this, which is interactive nationwide.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES surmised that Representative Green was
talking about the secure communications themselves. He
mentioned the use of industry standards and public safety
standards. He said an inherent requirement in those standards,
and in this new technology, mandates the ability to communicate
in a secure fashion. He added:
Although we are now within those standards devising an
Alaskan solution, ... we ultimately think this same
solution will probably be taken on by ... the lower 48
states, if you will. But part of those requirements
in those existing standards, and the advantages of
going to narrowband and digital communications, is
also the ability to have more secure communications,
so if you're not on that IP address of that (indisc.--
coughing), you cannot hear it. It's not like where
you've got a scanner and it can pick up police
broadcasts.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES indicated the experts could perhaps offer
further information.
Number 1786
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI mentioned backward compatibility. She
requested clarification about why the new system is needed if
the old one already allows communication.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES replied:
First of all, we are always updating equipment,
especially as it gets older and the maintenance costs
go up for that equipment. And we're always updating
equipment to hopefully take advantage of new
technology. So one is, across the state of Alaska,
when you look at a state perspective, our equipment,
as a ... general statement, is approximately 25 years
old, when you look at the infrastructure that we had
to communicate across so many of the devices we use.
So, again, we will pay if we go with the federal
government. But we will also have to pay in increased
maintenance costs and the enhancements to that system
if we don't migrate, but then we won't have the
advantages of the new technology.
Now, when you talk about backward compatibility, what
... you're saying here, in this land mobile radio
context, is that we've designed the system so the
existing first-responder equipment could be used. But
it will not have the advantage of ... fully
interoperable, digital IP-addressing equipment; ... it
will be one radio using one channel to speak to one
other radio, as opposed to one radio being able to
talk and speak to air or ground or maritime to
multiple users, and pass digital communications in a
more secure mode.
So, we've designed this so you can still talk, but
that's all you'll be able to do. And ... in that
scenario, it's ... more like a CB radio-type of
system. One person pushes and one person hears, but
you don't have the ability to network in as many other
people as you would in this system. So, truly, you
can still speak, but you don't have the advantages.
And when we think in a homeland security [environment]
of huge events and tremendous interagency response and
resourcing and assistance, we need to have an ability
to be able to control the situation better, and that
requires much more ability to communicate, because in
the military, you will always see that any operation,
and the success of that operation, is built on your
ability to communicate.
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that in terms of the ability to
communicate statewide, one argument she's heard against it is a
questioning of the need for a little, remote community to let a
larger community in Southeast Alaska, for example, know what is
going on. Referring to Major General Oates' explanation of the
building-block approach to funding, she asked whether it would
work if key areas have up-to-date equipment, but small, rural
communities use older technology for now. She explained that
she was trying to get around the fiscal note and still have the
system work.
Number 1449
MAJOR GENERAL OATES said the ALMR is built in phases. First
will be the concept demonstration, which Ms. Stinson would
address. The next phase will orient on the population centers
on the road system and in the Railbelt; other phases will add
areas such as Southeast Alaska and outlying areas. He further
said:
[In] some cases, part of this system will have the
ability to deploy this capability to an area. In
other words, those that don't have it will have some
deployable ability to establish this type of
capability wherever you are.
The system ... is not envisioned to allow you to talk
from Nome to, say, Bethel, as much as it is to have
fully interoperable capability in that geographic
area, when you go to that geographic area for a
significant problem. So, in other words, if we have a
situation that happens in Nome - whether that would be
because of severe weather or collateral damage from
some type of biological attack that ended up in a
devastating scenario in Nome - we could, then, have
the ability to have fully interoperable communications
and have the ability to put other resources there and
interact, more so than we want Nome to communicate
with some other system.
But the good thing about this design is that there are
different phases that we will fund. And wherever we
end up in that funding, even if we take a (indisc.),
that funding is not lost and we still have the
capability that exists, and we'll still have the
ability for the older systems to at least have the
ability ... to function, although at less capability.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES requested confirmation that the system was
designed not so much to allow someone in Nome to communicate
statewide, but rather to be interoperable in a geographic area.
Number 1280
[Julie Stinson responded off-microphone that the system was
designed for the more populated areas, and that Phase 4 will be
for rural areas.]
MAJOR GENERAL OATES concluded:
I don't think I can overemphasize the point of the
value to the state to have a system like this, that is
on the technological leading edge and makes us more
integrated and more interoperable, whether that's
military purposes or it's emergency response or public
safety. The further we ... push the state in these
areas, the more advantages and opportunities we also
bring to the state. So I think, truly, ... you're
fertilizing the ground for other opportunities to
grow, in addition to what we see here growing.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES turned the presentation over to Ms. Stinson.
Number 1232
JULIE STINSON, ALMR Project Manager, Information Technology
Group, Department of Administration, came forward to testify,
noting that she had prepared a folder containing information for
the committee. She told members she would explain what is going
on with the concept demonstration project in 2002, talk about
timelines, and discuss funding. She noted that the packet
includes funding information; an overview of requirements for
different participating agencies; funding opportunities from
various sources; a map of the "full-phased approach"; some
project overview information; a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) signed in April by the four partners; and a document in
support of the project from the City of Fairbanks police
department.
Number 1047
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a reason for not
including support from Anchorage.
MS. STINSON said no. The Municipality of Anchorage isn't in a
situation to change its system yet, although in a couple years
it will be. By contrast, the City of Fairbanks currently is
requesting $900,000 in funding, and has received some of it.
She explained:
They're depending on our system to implement their
consolidated dispatch system. Their system design is
based on ... the infrastructure of the ALMR system;
... they can act independently, but they're buying
equipment that is totally compatible with the
statewide initiative. ... And some of the first phases
of our project are ... with the Department of Defense,
... in the Fairbanks area. So we can truly show true
interoperability from the City of Fairbanks with the
DOD's presence in Fairbanks, if we have the
infrastructure in place in that area. So it's ...
somewhat unique.
Number 0953
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether the City of Fairbanks is
requesting the $900,000.
MS. STINSON mentioned grant programs and said:
I think that they have received the $900,000, or will.
I know that ... their mayor was back in D.C. with
[Major General] several weeks ago, and then to [U.S.]
Senator Stevens' office as well, to talk about this
money. I think they were short some amount. ...
There's many grant programs available for ... local
governments and equipment like this. But there's not
an awful lot of grant programs that will fund and
support $67 million worth of infrastructure. But for
$50,000 for a whole bunch of radios, you bet, but not
for the ... bigger picture. But ... they're in
support of the initiative because ... they want to tie
into the system as soon as they can, for full
features.
Number 0880
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to a pie chart for estimated
system costs that shows the local government share at $29
million. She surmised that Ms. Stinson was suggesting a good
portion of that could come from grants.
MS. STINSON affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added, "But not the state's."
MS. STINSON replied:
Not the grant programs. But ... we are requesting for
federal funds through the homeland security
initiative, at this point, and there's other federal
appropriations that were noted on that funding
opportunity sheet, in this package, of other places
perhaps we could go for funding.
Number 0822
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether [the City of Fairbanks]
is waiting to find out what the state is going to do in order to
know what vendors to use; she asked whether it is that specific,
and whether several vendors out there have the type of units
that the city would be looking to convert to.
MS. STINSON replied:
On the vendor side, they've gone out for bid, and
they've got a system design that matches our ... total
system design that I'll talk a little bit about here
in a minute. But ... they need to deploy because some
of their monies will go away if they don't start with
the implementation. And so they're [sharing] some of
the infrastructure with us, as far as the Birch Hill
antennas and things like that. And so they're anxious
for us to get some of that site work done so that ...
they can operate their system. They have alternative
plans, but it would be money wasted, in their eyes, if
we're going to do it eventually. So, they are sitting
back and saying ..., "When should I buy these radios
for this new system? How should I plan? If I get
grant money today, how should I spend it in the
future?"
So, we're developing some tools for those communities,
and it's a radio matrix, basically: "Here's all the
radios that are available; here's the timeframe;
here's the area you live in; and this is what our
implementation plans are, if everything goes as
planned." ... The local governments are saying, "We
have to deploy now because we're going to lose our
money, and we're going to deploy this way, and then
put a cost in to upgrade the system, to make the tie-
in back to the statewide system." But the designs are
the same. At least we're co-planning. ... Several
years ago, that wasn't occurring.
Number 0662
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the "$16 million non-DOD" is
federal non-DOD or grants, for example.
MS. STINSON answered that on this funding chart, the "local
government and the non-DOD" are for subscriber equipment only.
She explained:
In non-DOD, typically they have a budget cycle where
they budget radios into their standard budget cycle.
With local governments, this isn't a mandate that they
have to move to our system. But with all the
different communities that were surveyed, this is the
amount of radio and user equipment that was
identified, and the ... estimated cost for that. And
typically, on the non-DOD side, they're [federal
agencies], so they don't typically apply for grants.
Number 0585
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is no share, then,
from local government in the infrastructure.
MS. STINSON said no.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why.
MS. STINSON said she could get back with an answer. She added
that the system originally was designed several years ago,
before she [worked for the department]. She asked Mr. Smith to
address it if possible.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI remarked that it seems local government
agencies such as the Fairbanks police department are getting
great benefits from it. She noted that Fairbanks would have had
its own infrastructure under an old system, even if it were a
simple "trunking" system.
Number 0504
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, responded, saying he has been a
"land mobile radio representative" since about 1996 for the
State of Alaska. He said a substantial part of the system
"backbone" involves the state's existing telecommunications
system; he mentioned the microwave towers around the state and
the plan to use those, as well as some DOD sites. He indicated
most municipalities deal with what is local, without "long-haul
capability" or dealing outside their own organizations.
Therefore, there isn't one voice speaking for all the
municipalities.
MR. SMITH noted that ultimately, when the system is up and
running, how to charge back for maintenance will be looked at,
for example. An issue that could arise is amortizing what was
spent originally to create it. He explained:
We felt that - the federal government and the State of
Alaska - the DOD portion was in the best position to
provide the infrastructure. And because the military
has a mission up and down the highway, ... and they
needed that infrastructure, we've added some in our
design that [the] military is not concerned about;
it's not part of their mission - certainly down the
Kenai Peninsula, down to Kodiak, and in Southeast
Alaska.
Number 0362
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked who does the maintenance.
MR. SMITH noted that Ms. Stinson was going to talk about it. He
said in this test project, it hasn't yet been determined how to
manage it and apportion it. He added, "Certainly, you can't
build it and walk away and not ever maintain it again."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI responded, "Oh, no, we do that all the
time."
MR. SMITH said he'd like to break the cycle, then. He
acknowledged that it will need to be determined whether to
charge per radio, per subscriber, or a yearly fee, for example.
He cited Seattle's King County as a place where agencies are
involved but there is also a per-unit charge; Portland, Oregon,
by contrast, built a system and charges people for subscriber
units.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether there is a cost estimate yet for
maintenance.
MR. SMITH said no.
Number 0224
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether it should be lower than for
the existing system.
MR. SMITH said he couldn't guarantee it. For the proposed
technology, some sites will have to be "hardened" - putting in a
system with an uninterruptible power supply - to meet military
requirements and 24-hour [capability]; the cost of maintenance
could rise. He pointed out that a few years ago several sites
were "lost" for a while because of avalanches; there was no way
to get fuel there. He said there is no way to estimate the
maintenance cost yet because it depends on how big the system
becomes and how many other entities agree to sign on.
Number 0090
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there is any indication from
other states, or whether this proposal is "the leading edge."
MR. SMITH answered that there are other locations such as the
ones he'd mentioned in Washington State and Oregon; although
physically smaller, these locations have more radios because
there are so many people and agencies involved. He said Alaska
faces unique geographical challenges.
MR. SMITH returned attention to Representative Murkowski's
question about remote areas. He said when discussions initially
began, it was uncertain how to deal with Bush Alaska because of
lack of infrastructure and the substantial cost to put it there.
With the involvement of federal agencies, however, part of the
pilot-project testing will be done using the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA's) [50-some sites].
TAPE 02-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. SMITH explained that those ANICS [Alaskan NAS Interfacility
Communications System] sites already exist; the FAA uses them to
communicate with aircraft and for other functions. He mentioned
a portable design that had been considered, one that could be
flown to remote areas, setting up a small "trunk" radio system
in case of flooding or some other disaster that is out of the
mainstream of Alaska's infrastructure. However, he expressed
hope that this ANICS system - part of the test project - could
deliver at a relatively reasonable price.
Number 0092
MAJOR GENERAL OATES added that part of the concept demonstration
is to look at the business model, "how we're going to maintain
this system, how well does it work together." There will be
multiple "players" besides the state to pay for the "backbone."
Furthermore, there are creative ideas to pay for maintenance and
operations, some of which will be tested in this concept
demonstration; examples are making part of the "backbone"
available for private users at a cost, having some be in the
form of a public corporation, or having some people may pay more
because of getting more use from the system. After the concept
demonstration, [the department] will be able to come back and
answer these questions in more detail.
Number 0221
MS. STINSON drew attention to the handout titled "ALMR Overview,
February 12, 2002," noting that the "front-end" information had
been covered earlier that day. She turned to the fourth page,
"Statewide System Design Basis." She reported that a system
design was initiated by DOD, which then consulted with the state
and decided to do a statewide system design together. There was
input from public safety users; local agencies are listed in the
brochure titled "Alaska Land Mobile Radio Project." Ms. Stinson
indicated the list would grow as other agencies become
interested; before full implementation, there will need to be a
survey of "the locals" again. A further design basis was
ensuring both backward and forward compatibility regarding
technology.
MS. STINSON pointed out that the current design covers the most
populated areas, but that can change. For example, following a
meeting with Alyeska Pipeline [Service] Company last week, there
may be an exchange - with the state's using the communications
network on the haul road going north [to Prudhoe Bay] in return
for Alyeska's use [of the state's network] going south to
Valdez.
Number 0456
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired about having private users
ultimately share costs. She said she doesn't know whether the
need for a tight security network precludes that option; she
asked whether it is possible.
MR. SMITH answered yes, potentially. Since his involvement with
ALMR, he said, private-sector agencies have "sort of come and
gone at our meetings," although Alyeska has been there a number
of times. He referred to "talk groups" and "IP addressing." He
related his understanding that it could be segregated. "The
amount of people that can get on a trunk system is mind-boggling
to me," he said. In addition to Alyeska, Mr. Smith mentioned
the electric utilities and a gas pipeline. He suggested that in
a time of emergency, when the utilities need to become part of a
talk group, it would be beneficial.
Number 0612
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there is any reason to
include them in the current planning phase.
MS. STINSON said yes. "That's why we've actually started
conversations with them again," she added, "because before we do
full implementation, we need to get the design refreshed,
basically: Here's the technology. How many new users are we
going to have on it? Who else is interested? What do we need
to work into it?" She suggested there'd be two computer
controllers, for redundancy, with many users on the system. She
added:
Perhaps they'd just pick up another controller,
because they don't want to be too close to the
regulating agencies, either, is what they kind of
indicated. And then also, ... in a time of disaster,
they're very much available and online with the rest
of the system. The system is very secure that way.
... It knows where you are and who you are, and can
shut you off or turn you on. So the conversations
have started in that regard.
The system also is a phased approach, so that if ...
we receive lots of funding, we can implement the
system, by site. And ... if we have shortfalls, then
we can stop.
MS. STINSON continued with the fourth page of the handout. She
said the whole design was based off the cost-sharing approach
and sharing of resources and properties. A new site right now
would cost about $1 million, but instead of building new sites -
locations for the repeaters and all the equipment - the proposal
is for a $200,000 or $300,000 upgrade, which will save everybody
money. The concept was to do shared operations and maintenance
as well; that was considered in the design and in the equipment
identified for purchase or procurement for that design.
Number 0789
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the system will be line-of-
sight or use satellites, for example. He asked, "How do you
cover the broad distances that we have?"
MS. STINSON answered that LMR is, by nature, a land-based
microwave system; that is for the "mainstream" system, and the
majority is based on the existing microwave system, also
referred to as the SAT (ph) system. For "long hauls," however,
there are fiber, "T-1," and satellite connections as well.
MS. STINSON continued with the handout. She explained that a
standard [the APCO P-25] was selected so that a radio purchased
in Kenai, for example, would work in Anchorage as well. By
contrast, that wouldn't happen now; a person would have to be
issued a radio at the new site or perhaps carry two radios.
Number 0896
CHAIR CHENAULT asked how that reprogramming would occur so a
Kenai policeman's radio would work in Anchorage.
MR. SMITH noted that ultimately, for the most part, it would be
an over-the-air-reprogrammable radio.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether it would be done through a
programmer.
MS. STINSON mentioned software.
MR. SMITH added that if it is software, rather than over-the-air
reprogramming, "equipment somewhere" would be used to program it
for the appropriate frequencies.
Number 0964
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether it would be the same radio being
used in Kenai and Anchorage, then.
MR. SMITH said ultimately, yes. He explained that if a person
has purchased a radio that meets the APCO [P-25] standards which
Ms. Stinson had referred to, and if it had been manufactured by
a particular company with those standards, it could be
programmed to be compatible with a talk group.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES noted that each radio would have its own IP
address. He added, "When that address talks to the computer
system, if you will, it recognizes where that is, and then
somebody just adds in that IP address to [the others]." He said
the person wouldn't have to program it; it would be done
centrally, to add that person to the group.
MS. STINSON added that it either could be done on demand or
predefined and preset. For this system, there could be 20,000
different talk groups. For example, a talk group could be the
governor and the mayors, or General Schwartz and the governor.
It all depends on the needs.
Number 1094
MS. STINSON returned to the presentation, noting that the system
design had allowed a rough estimate; it also had defined the
need for a concept demonstration project because of unanswered
questions such as how to operate and maintain this, how to
operate together as a consortium, and whether the MOU is "strong
enough to go out and procure things together." She said there
are some real challenges when bringing together the DOD, the
non-DOD entities, the state, and the Alaska Municipal League;
there are numerous opinions within each.
Number 1150
MS. STINSON brought attention to the fifth page of the handout,
"System Concept." She pointed out that [with the current
system] a "bad guy" who'd obtained an officer's radio, for
example, could listen to the pursuit. Referring to the proposed
system, she explained:
If they're on this kind of a system, as far as
security goes, the system would just shut them off.
It would identify that radio that was missing. They
know that that officer was assigned the radio, and
through the system control - through [software] - it's
just turned off; it doesn't work anymore.
MS. STINSON further noted that when people are on a military
assignment or exercise, part of the system can be "partitioned
off to just go do the military, because that's a requirement -
the military doesn't want us to know all their business." That
is all done through computers and software, she added.
Number 1225
MS. STINSON turned attention to the eighth page, which has an
Alaska map labeled "Phase O: Concept Demonstration." She
explained that although the concept demonstration project is a
pilot project, there is a federal prohibition against calling it
that without an endorsement by the President, to her belief.
MS. STINSON reported that two types of goals need to be achieved
through the concept demonstration. One is to build the business
model discussed, which includes items listed at the bottom of
the page under "Business Practices Evaluation": governance,
procurement, ALMR team organizations structure, systems
maintenance and operations, frequency management, and
cooperative agreements and partnerships; the latter includes
"all the cooperative agreements that we may or may not need with
the local governments." She added:
We're also going to come out of it with the best
business practices and a full implementation plan of
how that will be done. The way we're going to do that
is through outreach and finding out, with the local
communities, what their tolerance is, and what they
need, and what they can do. We have to do a lot of
interviewing and finding out a lot of research, and
then finding out what, ... legally, as far as four
entities coming together, what we can do and can't do.
So that's a big portion of it, probably than the
technical functionality that we're going to be
testing.
MS. STINSON pointed out that an opportunity exists with some
local governments, such as in the Fairbanks area, for some sites
to perhaps trade services so that no money will change hands.
Number 1361
MS. STINSON brought attention to the ninth page, "Technical
Scope." She noted that it goes over the different areas that
will be touched on. She said:
Wide-area connectivity is one of the big ones, where
we have two controllers - where DOD will have a
controller and we'll have a controller - and we check
redundancy. When the World Trade Center went down,
they lost all their antennas on one building and lost
an awful lot of communications when that went down.
So redundancy is ... a big issue.
MS. STINSON indicated the airport and municipality are running
on an 800-megahertz system, which is different from this one;
there is a need for "connectivity" in that regard. As for
"remote FAA ANICS connectivity," that is a big issue for rural
Alaska. For some areas lacking connectivity now, satellite
communications are probably fine, she said, but there is a need
to check whether real-time performance is acceptable.
MS. STINSON mentioned Anchorage-to-Juneau performance testing,
but said the "big one" is interoperability with the Fairbanks
public safety responders. She explained, "If Fairbanks gets a
consolidated dispatch center up and the military is online, then
we can try full capabilities and features, and run through
scenarios of terrorism, or whatever, with ... all the players
involved." Regarding an [evaluation] of "multiple vendor
subscriber equipment," Ms. Stinson said there has been a lot of
interest in making sure "that we don't sole-source in one way or
another." She noted that the goal is to have the system up and
online by the end of summer/September.
Number 1484
MS. STINSON continued with the eighth page, turning attention to
the bottom portion, "State Funding Summary: Project Phases And
Estimated Costs." She pointed out that Major General Oates had
discussed this already, then reported that the concept
demonstration project [Phase 0] is estimated to cost $5 million,
a rough estimate until it is sent out to bid in the next month
or two.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI offered her understanding from Ms.
Stinson's testimony that communities would be approached
regarding their tolerance levels and what they would or wouldn't
support. She referred to the indication that the concept
demonstration project may be determined by some of the
information obtained from the business practices evaluation.
She asked what the state is seeking from this public
interviewing process.
MR. SMITH clarified that Ms. Stinson was referring to the
community of users - police officers, fire responders, ambulance
personnel, and so forth. He also suggested the average person
would believe the interconnectivity is more sophisticated than
it really is.
MS. STINSON noted that people in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough had recently said they have 55 radios, and if the charge
is $20 per radio, per month, they cannot afford it. She
explained the need to see what the tolerances are in that
regard, and then determine whether the state is trying to recoup
the infrastructure costs, for example, or just provide public-
safety-responder communication gear and make sure maintenance
can be paid for. She mentioned an exchange in which perhaps
Fairbanks would maintain the site, and then Fairbanks could have
its radios on there for free.
Number 1663
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether, based on these
conversations with potential users, the scope may be lessened
because of fiscal intolerance from various communities.
MS. STINSON specified that the $5 million is money identified to
do the business model and "secure initial equipment money." She
added, "Based on that, perhaps the other numbers will change in
Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4."
Number 1713
CHAIR CHENAULT thanked the testifiers and asked that they attend
a further meeting.
Number 1757
MAJOR GENERAL OATES requested guidance on a possible direction
or areas of interest. He offered that the basic presentation
had been covered.
MS. STINSON added, "We are working on a one-pager that perhaps
will make it easier."
CHAIR CHENAULT agreed to provide some direction. [HB 324 was
held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1805
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|