Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2002 03:37 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 313-NO LEGIS APPROVAL OF AEROSPACE PROJECT
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced he proposed this legislation to
repeal the section of the statutes that relates to legislative
approval of construction projects of the Alaska Aerospace
Development Corporation (AADC).
Section 14.40.886 that is proposed for repeal reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of AS
14.40.821-14.40.990, a proposed construction
project of $1,000,000 or more shall be submitted
by the corporation to the legislature for
approval at a regular session of the legislature.
Repeal of this section would not and is not intended to give AADC
the same standing as the railroad. If this legislation were to
pass, there would still need to be an appropriation by the full
Legislature for AADC to accept and expend federal funds or
corporate receipts coming into the corporation. By removing this
section of the statute it would be clear that Legislative Budget
and Audit would be able to make modifications to that budget
without having to wait for the next time the full Legislature is
sitting in session. Thus AADC would be able to be more responsive
to meet the needs of its clientele.
Committee members had no questions but there were a number of
people that wanted to testify via teleconference.
STEVE CONN with the Alaska Public Interest Research Group
(AkPIRG) went on record in opposition to SB 313. He said this is
a public corporation and they believe passage of this legislation
would rob residents and their representatives of the kind of open
debate and questioning that allows them to know the benefits as
well as the downside costs and risks of the various projects
undertaken by AADC. With benefits come costs and risks that are
more than a budgetary matter to be dealt with by a budgetary
agency because they deal with things that impact quality of life.
Such matters should be discussed in an open forum as originally
intended.
STEVEN CLEARY with the group Citizens Opposed to Defense
Experimentation (CODE) testified in opposition to SB 313. He said
he echoed Mr. Conn's testimony.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether CODE's concern is more
environmental than expenditure of dollars.
MR. CLEARY said his group is currently seeking to do three
things. Two of those are to get an environmental impact statement
(EIS) out on the Kodiak Launch Complex and to get public input
into the process and they see passage of SB 313 as a matter of
taking the public out of the process.
STACEY FRITZ said she was representing No Nukes North, which is
an organization that promotes educated opposition to missile
defense activities in Alaska. There are about 300 group members
that would like in depth information on this issue.
"It should be deeply disturbing to all of us that Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld has recently exempted the new Missile
Defense Agency from normal Pentagon oversight procedures.
According to Rumsfeld's orders, the Missile Defense Agency can
now conduct tests without involving the Pentagon Office of Tests
and Evaluations. Missile Defense Agency commanders no longer have
to specify new weapons requirements. The agency no longer has to
report back to the Pentagon on the project's timelines or costs
and Secretary Rumsfeld has clarified that he retains the right to
approve contingency or emergency deployment of any experimental
defense test assets. So not only has the public been removed from
information about where billions of their tax dollars are going,
they can not even be assured that their federal government knows
anything about it."
She said passage of this legislation would remove the state's
oversight of major construction projects at the Kodiak Launch
Complex. Rather than making the AADC more responsive to its
clientele, which is largely the Department of Defense, the people
of Alaska would rather see the Legislature and the AADC be more
responsive to the public.
She wanted to go on record as opposing the bill and urged the
Legislature to retain all oversight of missile defense activity
anywhere in the state and particularly at the Kodiak Launch
Complex.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked her if she would still be against the
legislation knowing that the full Legislature would still control
the appropriation process. He informed her that any unanticipated
project that is funded by the federal government or through
corporate receipts would still have to be appropriated by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee under the powers that are
given to it by the full Legislature.
MS. FRITZ said it is her understanding that the bill is
attempting to remove state oversight of major projects on Kodiak
and she doesn't feel there has been enough scrutiny of the major
projects there. She hopes that money coming in from anywhere for
Kodiak Launch Complex projects would be subject to scrutiny by
the Legislature.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT informed her that it already is subject to
scrutiny and the passage of this legislation wouldn't change that
scrutiny. No money can be received and spent by the corporation
without the underlying appropriation that is made by the full
Legislature. This bill simply clarifies that the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee, which is made up of Senate and House
members, can make budgetary adjustments during the eight months
of the year that the full Legislature is not in Juneau. It is a
misconception that is largely borne out of the budget system that
has led people to believe that the bill removes state oversight
of AADC.
MS. FRITZ said she would like to believe that is true and
although she doesn't fully understand the budget system she would
still like to voice her concern as a relatively informed member
of the public on this issue.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if No Nukes North is philosophically
against the Missile Defense Initiative.
MS. FRITZ replied they are opposed both environmentally and
politically. They try to provide in-depth information on missile
defense activities in Alaska to promote educated opposition to
the project.
SENATOR PHILLIPS told her he represents Fort Richardson and maybe
Elmendorf so he has a constituency that views the issue
differently than she does. He was interested in determining
whether her opposition is philosophical or fiscal because he has
fiscal concerns.
MS. FRITZ said she is fiscally opposed as well but it is
difficult for her to separate the environmental from the
political because she believes missile defense will create a new
arms race in space and on earth. This is globally destabilizing
and environmentally unsound.
C
SEAN MGUIRE testified in opposition to SB 313. It is disturbing
to him to have political leaders try to remove information from
the public on any level and he believes this makes the public
wary.
SIDE B
4:25 p.m.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he understands that the budget process
is complicated but this legislation would not change the fact
that AADC is a state corporation that cannot receive or expend
any money without the approval of the full Legislature. This
would make it clear that while the Legislature is not in full
session, the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would be able
to make modifications to the budget that was passed by the
Legislature. The meetings would be publicly noticed and would
take into account public testimony. This committee is comprised
of members of the House and members of the Senate with the
chairmanship alternating between the bodies every two years. The
Legislature is still well informed of monies received and
projects that are approved. Current wording is a redundancy that
was incorporated when AADC statutes were first put into place
because the Legislature was unsure how the corporation would
develop. Part of the concern was that the corporation had the
power to issue bonds for projects. The Legislature was somewhat
concerned that they would issue bonds in amounts that exceeded
$1,000,000 and expend those receipts without Legislative
oversight. With the passage of this bill, oversight and
accountability are maintained with the added benefit of increased
flexibility.
C
SEAN MGUIRE replied that does make him somewhat more comfortable
but it still makes him uncomfortable when four or five members of
some committee are making these decisions because this is taking
away from a whole range of ideas and views.
c
SENATOR PHILLIPS corrected Mr. MGuire on the composition of the
committee and said opportunities arise that might be lost if it's
necessary to wait until the next legislative session.
ED DAVIS from Fairbanks said he wanted to give his historical
viewpoint regarding military launches taking place on state
subsidized facilities. Between the mid 1980s and into the early
1990s he was a leader in starting a group called Sane Alaska,
which encouraged a sane nuclear policy.
As AADC was beginning, his group was losing membership because
the Cold War was coming to an end and the threat of an arms race
was reduced. However, one of the last issues they became involved
in was the Star Wars research that was planned at the University
of Alaska Poker Flat Research Range. With the exposure of what
that really meant they were told there was no intention of
delving into things that might destabilize global security by
triggering an arms race.
With respect to SB 313, he doesn't want to lose any public
disclosure or Legislative oversight that would prevent doing
something that might not be in the best interest of the state,
the country or the world.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it is in the operating budget where the
Legislature authorizes the University of Alaska Legislature to
receive and expend funds that come from different sources.
Because of the university size, the authorization number is
large. They have a bit of leeway in their appropriation and when
some of the research money that was previously referred to came
available, they had authorization on the books to receive and
expend that money. With respect to AADC, they are proposing that
rather than making an empty appropriation of $10 or 20 million in
anticipation of projects that may come in, they would like
Legislative Budget and Audit to be able to look at those projects
as they come in and reserve judgment until they come in. Viewed
this way, the bill provides the opportunity for more oversight
because there wouldn't be any blanket authorization.
MIKE MILLIGAN from Kodiak testified in opposition to SB 313. He
has always been a strong supporter of the rocket launch facility
in Kodiak and is excited about its future. He wants to go on
record as reminding the people with CODE that a fantastic job is
being done in preserving the democratic exchange of information.
He said that if we are to automatically get away from missile
defense it doesn't mean that India and Pakistan will stop
building missiles. However, he is generally opposed to
legislative bodies giving up authority. This democratic society
operates with oversight and this appears to be an attempt to make
it easier for some of the federal interests that are involved in
a rocket launch facility to come in whenever they want to. The
Kodiak facility is in the development stage and the development
and proposals need to be planned and held up for review.
Kodiak recently had a very exciting Athena rocket launch with
four satellites. The launch facility offers an opportunity for
Alaska and humankind. The future of the facility is bright but it
is a future that needs dedicated legislative oversight.
Personally he wants to see the military continue to use the
launch facility because they are best prepared to contribute the
resources that will make it a viable facility. They can do that
with the understanding that the Legislature meets in the spring
and that is when they need to present their proposals. This will
ensure both legislative and public oversight.
SENATOR STEVENS addressed his comments to everyone who had
testified via teleconference. He questioned whether any of them
had read the statutes that deal with the AADC because all the
concerns voiced regarding relinquishing oversight are stated in
the statutes. He found it disturbing that they would say
Legislators are not doing their job when they obviously haven't
even read the statutes. He suggested they should read the
statutes before testifying.
MR. CONN said, "You're absolutely incorrect. We believe that the
current situation requires more oversight not less oversight
during the summer, in a period in time when the citizenry is not
focused on what you are doing in Juneau."
SENATOR STEVENS said, "You ought to read the statute and then
read the Executive Budget Act in 37.07. It says everything that
every one of you has spoken about is already in statute and this
act that Senator Therriault has introduced doesn't repeal any of
that. You're not reading what's already in statute."
MR. MILLIGAN was somewhat opposed to the comments made by Senator
Stevens. Alaska has a political season and [balance
indecipherable because he and Senator Stevens were talking at the
same time.]
SENATOR STEVENS interjected, "You're not reading, you're not
listening to what I said. If you read 37.07 it says in section 6:
'Public participation and development of an annual budget
including opportunity for public to review and comment on the
plans and programs of the office of the governor and all state
agencies.' It already says that in law. You're not reading--
you're telling us to do what's already in statute. And you're
using it to try to further your mechanism to prevent the
development down there and saying we're not doing what's already
there. It's already in law."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that gets back to one of the issue that
was brought up concerning the university proposal that caused
concern in Fairbanks. That kind of blanket appropriation is the
other way of dealing with this situation and provides little to
no oversight. In that type of instance, a blanket authorization
would be given so that any proposal coming in would be pre-
authorized. In contrast, this request requires that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee look at and evaluate each
proposal as they come in, which offers more oversight than the
system under which the university currently operates.
The existing statute says you can only act during the four month
window of opportunity when the Legislature is sitting in session.
That has turned out to be unworkable. For example the Legislature
is frequently unable to tell whether a client will want a range
safety upgrade in any one of the eight interim months or whether
there will be federal or corporate money for that upgrade.
Without this legislation, the only other way for the Legislature
to deal with that potential scenario is to give a blanket
authorization even though none of the specifics of a project
would be known.
MR. MILLIGAN wanted to comment on a conversation he had with some
British aerospace technicians that were in Kodiak for the launch
that took place the previous summer. He said that ultimately, it
will be necessary to have range safety equipment permanently in
place at the Kodiak launch facility.
He then asked Chairman Therriault why changes couldn't wait until
the regular legislative session. While the facility is still in
the development stage, he thought it important to put the
appropriations on a calendar year format.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT countered that if they anticipated that
equipment would be needed at the range but they weren't sure when
it would be authorized in the federal budget, they could pass a
capital appropriation that would stay on the books for five
years. Such an appropriation would be pre-authorized and could be
used at any time. There would be no further legislative
interaction at that time, which is exactly the concern voiced
today. With the passage of this bill, any proposal would have to
go to the administration and they would have to propose that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee take it under
consideration. If it were close to the regular legislative
session, it would probably be put off, but if it was just after a
regular session, the administration would have to take it to
Legislative Budget and Audit and they would have to have a
meeting and then take action. The authorization for Legislative
Budget and Audit to take action is only granted to the committee
on a year-by-year basis.
Passage of this bill would keep the Legislature from having to
consider a blanket authorization, which contributed to the
controversy at Poker Flat. He didn't think that any of the
testifiers would want to see that sort of situation repeated.
PAT LADNER, President and CEO of the Alaska Aerospace Development
Corporation, wanted to clarify that the portion in statute that
refers to leasing Poker Flat has to do with the origination of
AADC because the launch complex was initially meant to be at
Poker Flat. The language is in statute so that AADC could, as a
corporation, be allowed to use Poker Flat.
Regarding public scrutiny of the Kodiak Launch Facility, there
have been four environmental assessments done by three separate
federal government agencies. The public did have an opportunity
to participate in the process and they all resulted in a finding
of no significant impact. The Ballistic Missile Defense Office
has made it clear that they anticipate conducting environmental
documentation that complies with the law at the Kodiak facility.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER wanted to respond to Senator Stevens's
comments and said the language that would be repealed refers to
appropriations over $1 million. He said he used to work for the
Army Corp of Engineers and is familiar with how federal and
private appropriations work. There is a significant planning
cycle required for appropriations of that size and he can't
imagine that there would be any difficulty tying the planning
cycle into the regular legislative session. With that in mind, he
didn't think there was a big problem that needs to be addressed
by the passage of this bill.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the bill is straightforward, but there
is misunderstanding on how it impacts the budgeting system. Once
again he clarified that the bill would still require Legislative
oversight and interaction before any client could go to AADC and
propose that a capital project be undertaken.
There was no committee substitute and no amendments were offered.
He noted the zero fiscal note from the aerospace corporation.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS made a motion to move SB 313 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SB 313 moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|