Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/10/2020 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HJR 27-FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN PORT OF ALASKA
1:03:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Requesting the United States
Department of Defense to invest in the Port of Alaska.
1:04:03 PM
ETHAN BERKOWITZ, Mayor, Municipality of Anchorage, testified in
support of HJR 27, which he said would work to ensure the
military was prepared for contingencies. He said HJR 27 would
urge Congress to participate in the reconfiguration of the new
port so the commitment may be honored. He added neither the
State of Alaska nor the Municipality of Anchorage had the fiscal
wherewithal to do everything that could be done to support
national defense, but with a bit of "couch change" from the
federal government, the federal mission could be supported. The
Port of Alaska would be able to remain one of the 17 ports
designated as "strategic" by the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), and missions of all bases in the state could be
supported. He added it was a good sign that more than half of
the committee had signed on as co-sponsors to HJR 27.
1:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HJR 27. Representative Fields related via
PowerPoint presentation that the Port of Alaska is Alaska's
largest port, handling more than three-quarters of all railbelt-
bound, waterborne, non-fuel freight cargo, as well as 95 percent
of all refined petroleum products. The port served 85 percent
of the state's population, he added, well over 200 communities.
Relevant to HJR 27 was that the port was the primary entry point
for DoD installations, including Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson
(JBER), Fort Wainwright, Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Greely,
he said. The port was one of only 23 DoD-designated strategic
sea ports, he related, and maybe the only one as at risk of
corrosion and failure in the event of a significant seismic
event. The Port of Alaska handled most consumer goods coming
into the state and was a foreign trade zone as well, he
imparted. Jet fuel, including that used at JBER, came in
through the port, he added, and increased demand for jet fuel
from the state's military bases has helped keep port losses from
being more severe. Tankers carrying jet fuel into the port now
made up nearly half the port's business; such units as the 172nd
Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Wainwright and an Airborne
Brigade Combat Team at Fort Richardson require the ability to
deploy by sea, he related.
1:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he had seen the corrosion on the
port's pilings himself and it was severe. Referencing slide 5,
regarding renovation needs for the port, he said increases in
taxes wouldn't be enough to pay for all of the improvements that
were needed for the port, whose main work was to carry out DoD
operations, hence the need for HJR 27.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS imparted he had been approached by port
commissioners, specifically by Captain Bob Pawlowski from
Anchorage, who shared the resolution from the Port Commission
and requested the legislature draft a resolution, which
Representative Fields said he felt was the correct thing to do.
1:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how 20 percent was arrived upon
and how, if at all, the work was intended to be separated.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS replied that the 20 percent was just a
figure to show the importance of the port for DoD; HJR 27 had
been written more generally and there were many "whereas"
statements regarding the importance of the port to defense
installations. He noted any amount of money received from DoD
and Congress would be helpful.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked where the 20 percent would be
spent, if received.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that the first project was the
cement terminal's pilings, but he would defer to port staff to
give a more detailed answer.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the military paid any fees
for using the port.
1:14:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
1:15:17 PM
STEVE RIBUFFO, Director, Port of Alaska, testified in support of
HJR 27. Mr. Ribuffo explained he has explored the port's
relationship with the state and with DoD, having retired from
the U.S. Air Force as a colonel. He listed multiple reasons the
port was a key node to supply chains, and he applauded the
committee's acknowledgment of there being no existing way for
DoD to participate in financing port infrastructure efforts to
ensure that the capabilities expected from a strategic port
would be available when needed. He informed the committee that
despite the relationship between port workers and DoD logistics
partners, it was agreed that what DoD needed would likely not be
consistently deliverable. Commercial operations would need to
step aside for DoD and vice versa, he explained. If DoD had a
way to be a financial partner in significant infrastructure
planning and construction, then the probability of having to
deal with "this type of interruption" would go almost to zero,
he stated.
1:17:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what type of funding HJR 27 would
make available for the port.
MR. RIBUFFO, responding to Representative Spohnholz, as well as
to the previous questions asked by Representative Rauscher,
related that when DoD used the port for deployments or
redeployments, it paid its bills, but there was nothing
requiring DoD to provide anything else for port infrastructure
maintenance or replacement.
1:18:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for confirmation that there was
no additional funding available.
MR. RIBUFFO answered that's correct.
1:18:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Mr. Ribuffo to confirm whether DoD
paid the same rates as other private entities when using the
port.
MR. RIBUFFO replied that DoD paid tariff rates because it
brought in military sea lift command vessels or contracted with
a commercial carrier to move its equipment and supplies, so DoD
paid the same rates, with the exception of Matson and Tote
Maritime shipping companies, who had what were termed
preferential user agreements, having negotiated relief from the
public rates in a contracted exchange for a guaranteed amount of
cargo.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the guarantee was still in
place considering the current economic downturn.
MR. RIBUFFO replied that the volume had been guaranteed on an
annual basis, and to date he had not witnessed any downturn
worth noting.
1:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked how often DoD used the port
annually.
1:21:34 PM
MR. RIBUFFO replied that military equipment moved through the
port all the time on the two scheduled carriers that called
twice a week. Major movements, such as helicopters, varied in
terms of national responsibility. He added that in 2019 there
were seven instances of movement of major equipment; in 2018
there were only two.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked about the $20 million grant for the
port and whether there was a portion DoD was being asked to
match.
MR. RIBUFFO replied that the $20 million was in addition to the
$25 million received in the fall of 2019 to go towards
offsetting the construction costs of the first piece of new
infrastructure. He said the offsetting was a success by about
$45 million, and the remainder would go to the banking community
to enter a financing arrangement to finish the project. He
added that the final price would be contingent upon how much
fuel was brought in to the port.
1:25:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked whether there had been a
conversation with DoD and engineers or whether HJR 27 was the
conversation.
MR. RIBUFFO replied that there had been communication with
logisticians up to the general officer level but not with
engineers. He added that some of the best letters of support
for grant money have come from DoD.
1:27:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what HJR 27 would achieve if the
purpose was to secure more funding from DoD when there was none.
1:28:42 PM
MR. RIBUFFO answered that fuel was half of what went to DoD for
the port; the other half was consumer goods. He said that as he
understood HJR 27, those in the strategic port industry desired
financing for construction and facilities put into place. The
other aspect was the port readiness plan that listed the
specifics DoD was looking for when it came to the port. If DoD
did not provide the actual length it needed, then it would have
to be okay with what the port built for business purposes, Mr.
Ribuffo related. In other words, DoD needed to provide what it
needed to get exactly what it wanted, and HJR 27 would provide
that flexibility.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what the timeframe was for the
port to make decisions on the additional capacity to operate as
a military strategic port.
MR. RIBUFFO answered that the port was in discussions regarding
the cargo dock portion of the modernization program, which was
the next phase to seek users' input as to what the requirements
ought to be. An invitation to participate in these
conversations would be extended to DoD, he related. He surmised
that a plan would be made within the next eighteen months. He
added he did not think the strategic port was in jeopardy.
1:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what portion of goods and services
going in and out of the port could be attributed to DoD.
MR. RIBUFFO replied around 20 percent, and that included dry
goods, bulk goods, and refined petroleum.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether, outside DoD, other fuel was
coming into the Port of Alaska to serve Alaska.
MR. RIBUFFO answered that the watershed of all bulk products
including commercial grade jet fuel, high sulfur diesel fuel,
and unleaded gasoline, as well as leaded aviation gasoline, were
covered to meet customer demand.
1:36:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the Port of Alaska had
lawsuits against the federal government over the oversight and
construction of the port.
1:36:32 PM
MR. RIBUFFO replied, "Not lawsuits." [Emphasis was placed on
the plural aspect.] He said there was one with the Maritime
Administration, which he explained was the lead federal agency
and project manager for the old intermodal expansion project.
He explained there had been bad work done and a big area left
unusable as a consequence, and "there's an attempt to recover
damages for that which we've been elected to have to deal with
but is otherwise unusable." In response to a follow-up
question, he said the Maritime Administration is within the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DoT).
1:37:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recommended that a copy of HJR 27 be sent to
DoT considering the mess the port was in trying to serve the
federal government's needs, especially regarding DoD. He added
that a copy should also be sent to the Department of the
Interior as it controlled 75 percent of federal lands, and all
areas in which federal help could be administered ought to be
explored, as the port served not only Alaska's but America's
needs.
1:39:06 PM
BRITTANY SMART, Special Assistant to the Mayor, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, testified in support of HJR 27. Ms. Smart related
that the Fairbanks North Star Borough was a member of the
Association of Defense Communities, an organization that helped
leverage the role communities played in meeting military needs.
One way this had been put into effect, she related, was through
working with Congress to establish the Defense Critical
Infrastructure Program (DCIP), for which DoD had been allocated
$50 million for 2020. The need far exceeded the $50 million,
she added; DoD had funding for peripheral concerns, but there
was yet a need to establish criteria for "award and review."
1:41:27 PM
CAPTAIN ROBERT PAWLOWSKI, Retired Vice Chair, Port Commission,
testified in support of HJR 27. Captain Pawlowski said the role
of the Port Commission is to develop and propose tariffs for
goods and services across the port. He anticipated the Port
Commission's having to do the same regarding cargo tariffs
associated with consumer goods coming into the Port of Alaska,
primarily on Matson and TOTE Maritime. He said it was key to
consider that the quality of living that first attracted, and
then kept, military families living in Alaska, is dependent on
the port. He informed the committee there were approximately
$2.9 billion in defense spending in 2017 to support Alaska, and
that fund remained "at a significant level." He related that
the important, strategic port was unfunded as a federal mandate,
and as such it was not possible to design the port to the level
of resiliency needed to ensure proper response in a national
security incident or in a disaster. Without the port
functioning, major and arduous airlift or sealift operations
would be needed to continue military operations, he added.
CAPTAIN PAWLOWSKI said HJR 27 would work to keep strategic
resiliency in place as well as to assist with commercial
viability. He also noted that of the 17 strategic ports, 15
were on a conventional road system; only the Port of Alaska and
Guam were not, which also came back to the difficulty of
overland road lift. He mentioned he was grateful for the
discussion regarding how to get authorization for funding into
strategic seaport language.
1:45:18 PM
CAPTAIN PAWLOWSKI noted military bases, particularly through
Matson, were supported not only on mainland Alaska but also
Integrated Support Command Kodiak [a naval facility located on
Kodiak, Alaska, and the largest Coast Guard station in the
U.S.]. He echoed other testimony regarding quality of life
afforded by the port having led to highest per capita of
veterans, who depended on services administered by Veterans
Affairs (VA).
1:46:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for more details regarding the
relationship between the Port of Alaska and the military
installations on Kodiak.
CAPTAIN PAWLOWSKI answered that Kodiak depended on Matson after
Matson called on the port, the port not being large enough to
support full container ships.
1:47:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how many strategic ports there are.
1:47:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS replied there are 17 commercial seaports
and an additional 5 DoD ports. In response to Representative
Tuck, he confirmed that most strategic seaports serve both
commercial and DoD functions, while some only serve DoD
functions. He added he did not know whether DoD weighted either
more heavily, in terms of importance to defense installations.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for confirmation that 17 commercial
seaports should be in HJR 27.
1:48:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS confirmed that is correct, because the
Port of Alaska was a commercial seaport.
1:49:00 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON related he was in the U.S. Army working in the
transportation office at Fort Wainwright in 1965 when the 6th
and 9th infantry, basically the entire Fort Wainwright
population of military, had been shipped to Vietnam. From 2001
to 2007, when he was city mayor, the striker brigade was shipped
overseas from Fort Wainwright. He spoke to the importance of
the port and expressed gratitude for HJR 27.
1:50:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked where the additional five non-
strategic seaports were located.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS replied he did not know.
1:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ thanked the sponsor of HJR 27 and
admitted the ability to meet military needs required funding.
1:53:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW announced that [HJR 27 was held over].