Legislature(2001 - 2002)
11/15/2001 08:20 AM Senate ASC
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
November 15, 2001
8:20 a.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Randy Phillips
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Ben Stevens
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Jeannette James
PUBLIC MEMBERS PRESENT
Frank Love
John Hoyt
Jake Lestenkof
Dean Owen
George Vakalis
Charles Wallace
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Alan Austerman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Reggie Joule
OTHERS PRESENT
Amy Erickson, Staff to Representative Murkowski
Cliff Stone, Staff to Senator Austerman (via teleconference)
Sue Wright, Staff to Representative Chenault (via teleconference)
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Citizen Advisory Board member recognition and certificate
presentation
Presentation by Charlie Smith - proposed legislation for
selective service registration
Update on Mobility Hub project by Larry Crawford
Report on National Association of Independent Developers (NAID)
conference by George Vakalis
Update on National Missile Defense (NMD) by Chris Nelson
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
Charlie Smith
Alaska Selective Service Representative
POSITION STATEMENT: Selective Service presentation
Amy Erickson
Staff to Representative Murkowski
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on draft legislation
concerning selective service registration
Chris Nelson
Alaska Army National Guard Missile Defense Coordinator
POSITION STATEMENT: Update on National Missile Defense
Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz
ALCOM Commander
POSITION STATEMENT: State of military readiness
Larry Crawford
President & CEO Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
POSITION STATEMENT: Update on Mobility Hub project
AFTERNOON SESSION:
Invited participants:
Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch
POSITION STATEMENT: City and State working with military on
economic development business
Governor Bill Sheffield
Anchorage Port Director
POSITION STATEMENT: Port issues and the military
General Patrick Gamble, Retired
President Alaska Railroad
POSITION STATEMENT: What Alaska might do to keep and attract
more military units
Mano Frey
Co-chairman Arctic Power, AFL-CIO representative
POSITION STATEMENT: Possibility of umbrella organization for
military matters
Duane Heyman
Executive Director Commonwealth North
POSITION STATEMENT: Importance of the military to Alaska.
Dave Hudspeth
Representative of Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
POSITION STATEMENT: Importance of the military.
Janice Nielsen
Representative, United States Air Reserve Pacific, Hawaii
(USARPAC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on military activity in Hawaii
Tom Morgan
Executive Officer, Armed Services Young Men Christian Association
(ASYMCA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the importance of the military
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-04, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR ELDON MULDER called the Joint Armed Services Committee
meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. Committee members present were
Senators Phillips and Leman and Representatives Harris and
Mulder. Staff to Representative Lisa Murkowski, Amy Erickson, was
also present. Cliff Stone, staff to Senator Austerman, Sue
Wright, staff to Representative Chenault participated via
teleconference. Public members present were Frank Love, John
Hoyt, Jake Lestenkof, Dean Owen, George Vakalis and Chick
Wallace. Janice Nielson and Chris Nelson were also in attendance.
Barbara Mee was introduced as the new Armed Services Committee
staff member.
CO-CHAIR MULDER recognized and thanked newly appointed Senator
Ben Stevens for being present.
CO-CHAIR MULDER introduced Frank Love as the new public member to
the committee. He pointed out his biographical sketch in the
committee packets. Frank is the representative for the Coast
Guard, and is given high praise by Admiral Barrett. Frank
replaces Alan Walker who had obligations, which took him out of
state.
FRANK LOVE: Expressed his appreciation in being appointed to the
committee and looked forward to serving.
CO-CHAIR MULDER explained CO-CHAIR Wilken's absence due to
unexpected death in the family and that Co-Chairman Wilken sent
his regards. Welcomed Janice Nielsen from USARPAC Hawaii. Mulder
mentioned that General Ed Smith was still in command in Hawaii
but would be retiring in a couple of months and that hopefully
his successor, General Campbell would visit Alaska soon and
perhaps pay a visit on the committee.
CO-CHAIR MULDER also welcomed former JASC Staff Director, Chris
Nelson, who has moved on to new responsibilities with National
Missile Defense. Mulder then introduced new staff person, Barb
Andrews-Mee, who many of the committee would know having worked
with her when she was with Senator Ted Stevens' office.
CO-CHAIR MULDER then said he would deviate from the agenda in
handing out the Citizens Board certificates as they were still
enroute. Mulder said this morning's session would deal with
activities happening in and around the State; this afternoon's
less formal session would be an outgrowth of meetings the
committee had with Senator Ted Stevens and General Schwartz where
recommendations came back to us that we have so many things going
on trying to help advocate the military position in Alaska but
not much coordination. This afternoon we have invited a number of
individuals to participate in a discussion on how we can better
serve the military and more greatly maximum the utilization of
the resources we have.
CO-CHAIR MULDER pointed out that copies of the September 2000,
and January, February and April 2001 minutes were in packet and
would welcome a motion for approval of these minutes.
SENATOR LEMAN MOVED to approve all the minutes, and there being
no objection, the minutes were approved.
CO-CHAIR MULDER welcomed General Hoyt back to the committee after
a prolonged absence. Not only is he a valued member of the
committee but a very good friend - General Hoyt we welcome you
back, it is really good to see you up and around and have you
back.
MR. JOHN HOYT: Well, I want you to know that I am delighted to
be here! (much laughter) … considering the alternative.
CO CHAIR MULDER: Well you were certainly in our thoughts and
prayers.
CO CHAIR MULDER: Gave a synopsis of informal meetings of August
16, 2001 when committee members met with Senator Stevens and
August 21, 2001 with General Schwartz.
We talked with Stevens about the BRAC (Base Realignment and
Closure) process and what we could do as a committee and as a
state to make us more BRAC proof and more attractive to the
military. Mulder stated in his opinion, and asked for feed back
that other members have, Senator Stevens encouraged the committee
to be supportive, positive and as proactive toward the military
as possible; that in Stevens' judgment there would be plenty of
time to consider the hiring of a consultant if necessary to
represent us with any BRAC process. Stevens had been asked how
imminent was BRAC and if we should go out and try and procure
representation as we did the last go-around or should we keep our
powder dry! Mulder says the latter reflected Senator Stevens'
opinion that BRAC wasn't on the front burner just yet; keep our
power dry but be mindful and aware and ready to move if we had
to. The other point Stevens raised was that we should try to
correlate the actions of those traveling to Washington DC; to
meet the movers and shakers in the military and Congress; and to
help educate decision makers about Alaska and the importance of
Alaska to the military. Hence the meeting this afternoon where
we have invited Anchorage and Fairbanks officials and citizens
for a brainstorming session on how me might correlate the efforts
of local government, Chambers, civic groups and individuals in
our goal to not only retain our military but to get the word out
to decision makers in DC of Alaska's strategic location and
assets.
On August 21, 2001, we had an informal, off the record meeting
with General Norman Schwartz (ALCOM) and received a briefing on
Alcom's (Alaska Command) perspective on the Efficient Facilities
Initiative (formerly BRAC) giving reasons for military to reduce
its infra-structure. General Schwartz explained the Department
of Defense logic and why there would be the need. He made
suggestions for Alaskans to speak with a consistent voice and
emphasize its strategic value. He also briefed us on the Alaskan
Air Space and Range Modernization Plan- describing what the air
space has been, where they're going and ongoing needs to maintain
air space and improve Army training ranges.
CO CHAIR MULDER asked committee members if there was any other
feedback they had from either of these meetings.
GEORGE VAKALIS said Stevens also made the point that he was
concerned that if we got out in the forefront talking about BRAC
that it would be almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy and he
strongly recommended we not mention the BRAC word yet until
something was imminent but that we go along the course of action
that you just outlined.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN said Senator Stevens also talked about the
importance of Alaskans not only going to Washington to meet key
people but inviting them to our state to get to know us and our
Alaskan communities, and the importance of us to proactively
speak out for the military.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS mentioned meeting of Anchorage Caucus
recently and the importance of Fort Richardson, Elmendorf,
Eielson and Fort Wainwright was top priority.
CO CHAIR MULDER mentioned we had tried to schedule a meeting in
Kodiak to coordinate with a rocket launch, but it was difficult
to arrange and then the attack of 911 really put that on the back
burner.
CHICK WALLACE mentioned with regard to General Schwartz briefing
on Air Space, he'd heard a rumbling from some in the Fairbanks
civil aviation side about how much air space the Air Force is
using and that is something we have to be aware of and constantly
on guard about. That is probably just local to Fairbanks, I'm
not sure it happens here in Anchorage.
CO CHAIR MULDER agreed that it's probably not heard so much here
in Anchorage but that it is something we should talk about this
afternoon. How can we help the military with issues like the
ever-present encroachment concerns at Fort Richardson and also
air space issues in the Interior. These things pose real threat
to the security and long-term stability of the military in
Alaska. We have to be proactive to try and help stave some of
that off - we can really help the military do their job.
CO CHAIR MULDER - Introduced Charlie Smith, State Director of
Selective Service, a federal non-paid position, who'd like to
address our group about possible legislation for selective
service registration.
8:35 a.m.
MR. CHARLIE SMITH handed out brochures talking about Selective
Service. The Selective Service System, is the old draft system.
We haven't had a draft since 1973. In 1980 Congress and the
President decided that we needed to have the availability of a
standby force and came up with what they called Selective Service
Registration. Since then we've been registering young men when
they turn 18. We now have about 12 million young men registered.
The Selective Service System has been known as kind of the third
branch of the military. If we get into a national or
international emergency and need more manpower than is available
we would call on Selective Service. Alaska is at about 84%
registration. I believe we are about 10th or 11th state in the
nation, so we're doing well. Recently the Governor signed the
proclamation for Selective Service for November. The biggest
problem we have in Alaska is awareness. We do advertise. Every
high school in Alaska has a registrar- I think we have something
like 270 of them. If a school happens to have two or three
students - if one of them happens to be a senior- that's a high
school by Selective Service standards. The registrars are
certified by the Selective Service and register young men when
they turn 18. Last year the law was changed whereby a young man
can sign up when they are 17 and when they reach 18 they will
automatically be registered with Selective Service. I've been
working with various legislators in trying to get legislation to
assist registration. There's some driver's license legislation
going through whereby young people would not be able to get a
driver's license unless they were registered. I want to preface
that by saying registration is a federal law. It's a felony not
to register. It's punishable by 5 years in prison and a $250,000
fine. The federal government about 3 or 4 years ago passed
legislation whereby if a person has not registered by the time
they are age 26 they can never work for the federal government,
including the Postal Service, they cannot get any federal grants,
loans and if they're aliens, they can never become a citizen. We
find the main reason people don't register- obviously there are
some people who don't want to - but most of them don't register
because they don't know they have to. In the old days, those of
us under the old draft system knew at age 18 what we were going
to be doing. There are many ways to register: at the Post
Office; on-line; or by telephone. In addition to legislation
tying registration to drivers' licenses, we're hoping to do
something with Permanent Fund Dividend. That would get everybody
in the state whereas a lot of folks in the state that don't get
drivers licenses. Under the PFD system if a person is under 18,
someone signs the PFD application for them. Once they reach 18,
they sign on their own and that's the age we're after. I don't
know of the legal dynamics involved but ideally that would work
very well. There is also some legislation in the works right now
where the person would have had to meet the requirements in order
to obtain state jobs, state loans, state student loans and things
like that. I know that Representative Murkowski has been working
on quite a few of these things. I've been working with the
Municipality of Anchorage and City of Juneau so that employees of
the municipalities would also have to be registered in order to
get these jobs. I should explain that in the State of Alaska
although there is no draft, we still have six draft boards in the
State.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he assumed automatic registration when
filing for the Permanent Fund Dividend would be preferred.
MR. SMITH agreed
MR. LESTENKOF asked how many states impose penalties for non-
compliance, how long you would be subject to call once registered
and the size of the Selective Service budget.
MR. SMITH replied that 21 states impose penalties, young men are
subject to call until age 26 and the budget is $34 million per
year but it could rise during times of active conflict.
MR. HOYT asked whether registered young men are required to
report when they move.
MR. SMITH said they are.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked whether women are required to register.
MR. SMITH said the federal law does not require women to
register.
CO CHAIR MULDER if state did put in place that when you apply for
the Permanent Fund Dividend when you are 18 and that
automatically registers you with Selective Service, might it be
contested even though you are complying with a federal mandate
that supercedes even our constitution.
Mr. Smith - Permanent Fund Office they didn't see it as a
problem. States who have these laws now don't have a permanent
fund but their drivers' licenses laws have been tested and so far
everything's gone through ok.
MR. HOYT asked what Mr. Smith would like the committee to do to
help him.
8:50 p.m.
MR. SMITH said he would like support from the committee for
Representative Murkowski's legislation on the subject. If this
legislation comes up he would like the committee to help
MR. HOYT proposed Charlie Smith provide copies of suggested
legislation to the members of the committee and let the people
who are sympathetic with what you're trying to do help you.
SENATOR LEMAN said withholding the dividend is effective in
shaping desired behavior.
MR. SMITH responded that his staff is working with Representative
Wilson (Wrangell) on legislation that requires Selective Service
registration to be eligible for a driver's license.
AMY ERICKSON, staff to Representative Murkowski, said the
legislation under discussion is in work draft form and will
pertain to the Permanent Fund. She and Mr. Smith agreed to meet
following the meeting.
CO-CHAIR MULDER thought a companion Senate bill would speed the
process.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether federal law prohibited female
registration.
MR. SMITH said federal law does not prohibit female registration
it just requires male registration. The reasoning at this point
is that enough women are signing for service without having to
resort to mandatory registration for them. Federal law would have
to be changed before women could be required to register and
there is no such legislation before Congress at this time.
CHICK WALLACE asked how young men are notified that they are
required to register.
MR. SMITH said notices are posted in the high schools, school
counselors have information. He also said Selective Service gets
information comes from the Permanent Fund database. The Selective
Service computer center matches the names of men that are not
registered and sends them reminders.
CO-CHAIR MULDER commented the effort is to keep these young men
from becoming felons. He thought that in addition to tying
receipt of the Permanent Fund to registration there should be
similar requirements for receipt of federal loans, jobs and
benefits.
SENATOR PHILLIPS moved the joint committee request legislation be
put forward requiring receipt of state benefits including the
Permanent Fund be tied to Selective Service registration.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether this request for legislation
would interfere with work Representative Murkowski has already
done.
MS. ERICKSON said she could not speak for Representative
Murkowski.
CO-CHAIR MULDER said Representative Murkowski or Senator Phillips
could carry the legislation but deference should be shown to
Representative Murkowski since she has a draft bill.
There being no further discussion or objection, the motion
carried.
TAPE 01-04, SIDE B
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked George Vakalis to report on NAID (National
Association of Installation Developers).
GEORGE VAKALIS reported that NAID has been in existence for many
years and now includes more individuals in the development and
finance fields. Their first mission began about 25 years ago when
bases started to close around the country. They determined there
was a niche to redevelop former military bases. Over the years
they determined they can not only redevelop old bases and turn
them over to the civilian community but they can also give
assistance to active bases to become more economically viable and
business oriented.
The last conference he attended with Barbara Mee and Chris Nelson
broke into the following workstations to discuss cost cutting
measures to determine how developers and financiers can help
bases to be more cost effective.
· Housing privatization: Base housing is very
expensive. Private developers are currently
building 260 new houses at Elmendorf. Three
developers have merged for the project and gotten
financing from Alaska. There is a 50-year lease
under which the developer owns, manages and
maintains the housing and leases it to the
government leases the space for 50 years. At the
end of that 50-year lease the military can take
the housing over fee simple or they can ask the
developer to raze the development.
· Utilities privatization: Utilities are very
expensive on bases in Alaska because of old
methods of generation. In a privatization move,
Fort Richardson has contracted with Honeywell to
provide independent gas fired heating systems in
each building on the base. Once this is finished,
the old power plant will no longer be used and
Chugach Electric and ML&P will compete to provide
power generation for the base.
· Tax credits: Discussion centered on ways the
various developers could work together to receive
tax credits if they were to take over other base
operations such as range operation and
administrative work.
· Leasing BRAC properties back to the military:
There are examples of this in the Lower 48.
· Senator Stevens' legislative work to return to the
original BRAC process: This is much better for
Alaska than the process preferred by the
Administration that weighs base efficiency
heavily. Geographic factors make Alaska operations
more expensive. The focus on BRAC changed after
the September 11, 2001 attack.
· Alternate options to prepare for a closure.
· Establishing foreign trade zones in and around
military installations: Anchorage is a foreign
trade zone, which gives leverage and tax
incentives to local businesses.
· Creative financing: There are different ways to
obtain financing if a private entrepreneur wants
to go on base and assist in privatization. For
example, the housing project at Elmendorf had
three different financial institutions that worked
together.
MR. DEAN OWEN asked whether the base or adjoining community would
initiate the action of increased base efficiency.
MR. VAKALIS replied it was a combination of three entities.
First, the Department of Defense (DOD) is conducting A76 studies
to determine which functions the military may divest itself of so
it can be more focused on combat support functions. Second,
individual installations may conduct their own examination to
divest themselves of operations that could be done more
efficiently by a private contractor. Third, a private developer
could approach an installation or DOD with a plan to privatize
and streamline operations. This doesn't happen often because the
military cannot let contracts to a private developer without
putting the project out to bid first.
MR. OWEN asked what was going on regarding efficiency.
MR. VAKALIS said the Army and Air Force were currently undergoing
A76 studies for utilities, public works, housing, range
operations and community relations (MWR activities).
MR. OWEN reported the DOD has directed that all military
installations must have a request for proposals (RFP) by 2003 for
privatization of utilities.
MR. VAKALIS added that Fort Wainwright has asked for an extension
because they are undergoing an extensive renovation of their
utilities. Eielson Air Force Base received an exemption because
of their military mission and Elmendorf will not be privatizing
its power plant. They decided it is not cost effective to change.
However, it is cost effective at Fort Richardson. Generation in
Fairbanks is all coal fired and has dual generation so change
won't occur until natural gas is available in the area.
MR. CHRIS NELSON said he had been attending NAID conferences for
about five years and it's an excellent opportunity to speak with
other military communities and exchange ideas. He encouraged all
public members to attend the next conference in January 2002 in
Tempe, Arizona.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked whether other communities typically send
resource development council (RDC) members or similar entities.
MR. VAKALIS said attendees are developers, finance companies,
legislators, military personnel and interested community members.
In the past, most attendees were those who had been affected by
BRAC, but now many are interested in working to keep posts viable
so they won't get on the BRAC list.
MR. OWEN said he plans to go to the next conference.
CO-CHAIR MULDER thought it would be advantageous to have both
armed services members and counterparts within the civilian
sector attend the conference.
MR. NELSON agreed that encouraging municipalities and other
entities to participate in the conferences would be advantageous.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked whether the January conference would
conflict with the upcoming session.
MS. MEE reported the conference dates were January 27-29.
MR. VAKALIS said Larry Crawford was planning to send a
representative to the conference.
CO-CHAIR MULDER reminded members the meeting was being
teleconferenced.
CLIFF STONE, staff to Senator Austerman, said he was listening to
the meeting from Juneau because Senator Austerman was
unavailable.
CO-CHAIRMAN MULDER asked that the record reflect that
Representative Cissna arrived at the meeting and Senator Phillips
had to leave.
He called for a 20-minute break.
11:05 a.m.
CO-CHAIR MULDER called the meeting back to order and acknowledged
the following Citizens Advisory Board members and presented those
present with certificates.
Karen Washburn Dave Dean
Gerald Myers Gordy Lewis
Mike Olson Howard "Buzz" Otis
Mike Ferguson Mead Treadwell
Lance Herrington* Chris Gates
Craig Johnson* Dave Lewis*
John Nicely Tom Morgan*
Dennis Metrokin Roger Schnell
Mitch Abood
*Indicates a member present to receive a certificate.
He then asked Chris Nelson to give an update on National Missile
Defense Program (NMD).
MR. CHRIS NELSON used slides to enhance his presentation. He said
he would point out significant changes in NMD that will have
important and positive effects in Alaska. The Bush Administration
made changes by announcing the new Pacific Region Test Bed and a
more comprehensive approach to missile defense. He also wanted to
touch on the changes expected within the next 72 hours in our
relationship with Russia and the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty. Finally, he would discuss the environmental lawsuit that
has been filed.
DoD wants to set up a series of ground base mid-course phase
missile interceptors. A missile launched anywhere in the world
would be detected by early warning satellite space sensors. In
the 2006-2010 time frame, the current defense support program
(DSP) satellites will be replaced by a more modern, infrared
sensor system that will break the radar horizon on advanced early
warning radars. The trajectory of incoming missiles will be
plotted, an intercept area will be designated and a ground-based
interceptor will be launched. The interceptor will acquire the
target once it reaches outer space and within that interceptor
location it will perform a hit to kill, kinetic energy kill.
Due primarily to its geographic location, the Clinton
Administration designated Alaska as the site for the ground base
interceptors. It is the only North American location from which
ground based interceptors can be launched to defend all 50
states.
When the missile defense program was first announced, they were
constrained by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the
Soviet Union that required each country to have just one missile
site. The United States designated North Dakota as the site to
defend the Minute Man Missile Fields when the treaty was signed.
The Clinton Administration wanted to maintain the treaty but move
the site to Alaska. The Russians weren't in favor of changing the
treaty to make this possible. However, since the September 11
attack, Russian President Putin has indicated a willingness to
discuss the change.
As of one year ago, the missile defense plan for location in
Alaska was designed for the deployment of 100 ground-based
interceptors and an X-Band radar site at Shemya Island. Getting
the X-Band system up and running on the island presents logistic
difficulties and then President Clinton decided to defer the
decision to deploy to his successor.
In March, President Bush announced he would move forward with a
more robust system than planned during the previous
administration. They are advocating for a multi-layered approach
that would consist of a mid-course defense system, a boost phase
intercept and a terminal defense system such as the Patriot
Advance Capability III (PAC III), thus providing three
opportunities to intercept an incoming missile rather than one.
TAPE 01-05, SIDE A
At this point, the X-Band Radar system is under evaluation. They
are considering using the existing missile facility at Barking
Sands on the island of Kauai or putting systems on ships so they
can be deployed from locations around the world. The urgency felt
a year ago to get the system up and running on Shemya has
dissipated with the change in administration but software
upgrades to the Cobra Dane are going forward.
Upgrades to the early warning radar at Clear, Alaska and Beale
Air Force Base, California are on track. Reducing the size of the
missile field at Fort Greeley to just five missile silos instead
of the 100 is planned. However, the battle management command
and control facilities and the in-flight data transmission
facilities that steer missiles into the intercept area will go in
and Fort Greeley could be easily upgraded to 100 silos. They
expect the entire Test Bed to be up and operational by 2004,
which means construction will begin much sooner than previously
anticipated.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER asked about the silos at Narrow Cape.
MR. NELSON said no decision has been made on installing silos at
Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island but if that happens, the military
will be a tenant in that private facility. The possibility that
test silos will be installed has triggered some concern on
whether that will require National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) compliance activities.
In response to questions from speakers that did not identify
themselves, Mr. Nelson explained that Russia does not view the
clearing done at Fort Greeley as a treaty violation. If they
agree to a ground based mid range interceptor test proposal,
Alaska is in good position to move forward. Reaching an
understanding on sea-based interceptors will probably take
longer.
MR. NELSON went on to explain that after the flag came down at
Fort Greeley, the commanding general of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization requested that it be withdrawn from the BRAC
list and turned over to the army. This was done and authorization
to move forward with construction of the test facility was
received recently. President Bush will have to come to an
understanding with the Russians before they can move beyond the
construction phase and install the system.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER asked about power generation at Fort
Greeley.
MR. NELSON explained the military wouldn't be in the power
generation business. They will have back up generators for the
tactical installation, but intend to buy their electricity from
Golden Valley Electric for operations. When they are remediating
lead-based paint and asbestos hazards, there will be opportunity
to address installation of efficient heating units and other
infrastructure concerns. The rehab will be necessary to comply
with current standards.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked how large a deployment is expected when the
number of silos has been reduced from 100 to five.
MR. NELSON responded that a parallel activity is to build a unit
and structure within the Army National Guard that will run the
ground based mid-course phase interceptors. They expected to get
an Alaska National Guard unit with support from battalions and
force structures in other states that are currently doing missile
work. This probably won't happen until a decision is made to
build the other 95 silos and deploy the system. With just five
silos, the contractors will probably conduct the tests with a
military presence from the Joint Program Office.
The responsible players in Alaska include Major General Nance
from the Joint Program Office, Army National Guard Lieutenant
General Jay Smith who is working with civilian contractors and
has overall site responsibility for the Fort Richardson project,
which will eventually be turned over to the U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command. Boeing is now the prime contractor with
overall responsibility and is designing the system architecture
and design integration. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in the
Alaska district is doing site design at Fort Greeley and Shemya
and will help the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation at
Kodiak.
There are several things that are influencing the action here in
Alaska. First, we need to reach an agreement with the Russians on
the ABM Treaty. Second, a coalition of environmental groups has
filed a lawsuit demanding a full environmental impact report for
the entire Pacific Region Test Bed. The environmental offices at
Space and Missile Defense Command are working on behalf of the
Joint Program Office on a National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) compliance strategy. A thorough environmental impact study
for the Fort Greeley deployment was published in December 2000
and it identified all the activity planned for Shemya and Eielson
Air Force Base. Kodiak had a rigorous environmental assessment
done when the launch facility was constructed but adding the two
missile silos may require additional environmental study. An
option being discussed includes moving forward with the existing
EIS for the Fort Greeley, Clear and Shemya portions and tier
environmental assessments from that to handle the new reduced
construction at Fort Greeley and do an environmental impact
statement for Kodiak. If a full EIS is required, it won't slow
progress because the environmental studies have been done and a
new series of scooping meetings would fulfill NEPA requirements.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER asked who the plaintiffs were.
MR. NELSON listed the National Resources Defense Council,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Greenpeace, Alaska Action
Center, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group, Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group, No Nukes
North and the Alaskan and Circumpolar Coalition Against Missile
Defense.
He commented some of the statements made in the suit have factual
errors.
CO-CHAIR MULDER called for a short at ease.
TAPE 01-05, SIDE B
CO-CHAIR MULDER called the meeting back to order at 11:00 a.m.
and introduced Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz, Commander,
Alaskan Command, Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command
Region, and 11th Air Force.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ gave a slide presentation and discussed
Homeland Security and Defense and gave information on activities
in the last several months and what the near-term future holds.
September 11 was a significant emotional event that has
underwritten significant changes into the perspective as to what
armed forces missions are in Alaska and internationally. He
talked about Homeland Security and wanted to emphasize the amount
of interagency cooperation occurring nation wide and particularly
within Alaska. He said his first phone call on 9/11 was to Pat
Poe (Administrator of the Anchorage Federal Aviation
Administration) to make sure they were working in concert.
Al Qaeda proved itself to be a formidable adversary but that does
not mean they won't be soundly beaten. What occurred was a
paradigm breaker because, as a nation, we have traditionally felt
quite secure. It was quite a shock to suddenly realize we too are
vulnerable. He said there is a two front war here because we're
fighting our adversaries and those who sponsor terrorism and
we're also battling for homeland defense. Terrorist acts place
everyone on the front line. Teamwork, particularly as it is
represented in Alaska, will work to our benefit and play a large
role in our success. Defending our homeland is mission one.
He said he would discuss two missions. Operation Enduring Freedom
is the part of the military mission that is outside the United
States. It focuses primarily on Afghanistan, which is a long-term
mission. The early unraveling of the Taliban is the result of
purchased and coerced soldiers capitulating. The core has not yet
been confronted and it will be a significant undertaking.
The second mission is in the United States and is a many
dimensioned inter-agency undertaking. The Alaskan North American
Air Space Defense Command Region continues to defend Alaskan air
sovereignty. The difference after 9/11 is they are focusing on
threats from domestic aircraft as well as external threats. The
Alaskan Command is ready to support civil authority if the need
arises. It's important to acknowledge the National Guard has a
substantial role in Alaska because it is military and able to
handle a role in either a state or federal context. For instance,
they are currently handling security at airports throughout the
state.
The governor recently announced plans to create an analog
homeland security office in state government and the Alaska
Command's role is to provide support. Because keeping the
military separated from law enforcement is fundamental to
sustaining freedom, there must be very special circumstances
under which the military can become involved in law enforcement.
This is not a local decision; rather it typically involves a
determination by the President and the Attorney General.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ said under most circumstances he cannot act
unilaterally to provide federal assets to support a civil
emergency. Prior to 9/11, he had to receive presidential approval
for such an action, but now there are singular events under which
he has the authority to act to mitigate the consequences of a
disaster. The Stafford Act allows him to act on his own
authority.
Subsequent to 9/11, there are 27 bases in the Lower 48 where
airplanes are on alert in addition to constant air patrols over
New York, Washington D.C., Detroit, Chicago and wherever the
President is outside those areas. The ten-mile no fly zone around
nuclear power plants is another example of stricter air space
controls being enforced by the combat air patrol. In Alaska,
there are fighter aircraft, airborne radar aircraft and a
National Guard tanker on alert. Because the Valdez Marine
Terminal is a potential target, there is a multi-disciplinary
plan for its defense that involves key individuals from all the
key agencies. The lack of aerial radar for the Valdez area is a
deficiency that is currently being addressed.
Under the old paradigm, each of the peripheral radar sites in
Alaska looked out to the polar basin where the Russians routinely
operated. Because there are just a few interior sites coupled
with the shift of concern from exterior to interior, it is
apparent that interior coverage is not as robust as it might be.
This situation is being evaluated at this time.
He made reference to the well-publicized fact that, under certain
circumstances, he has the authority to act unilaterally. He
pointed out that everyone makes decisions upon data that is
presented. Because everyone in his organization knows that it is
a profound decision to act upon a hostile threat, he is provided
with the best and most current data so he is able to make careful
and diligent decisions.
His personal opinion on homeland defense is that although our
government is able to bring both military and economic powers to
bear, the American people are fundamentally safe and secure
because of missile defense. It is a necessary part of homeland
defense because it provides Americans the security that they must
have in order to have the freedom to act as a great nation.
Ballistic missile defense might not be priority number one, but
"it's part of the package in its proper place."
Last April, Alaska DoD agreed to pursue the enhancement of the
Alaska Land Mobile Radio capabilities. By 2008 there will be a
transition from wide band frequency use to that of narrow band.
The cost is high, but the benefits would be substantial if the
federal government, state government and municipalities were able
to operate and communicate on the same frequencies. There would
be substantial cost savings if all agencies built their systems
using the same framework rather than building separate units. He
identified this as a classic case of good government.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ concluded his slide presentation with the
thought that this is not a war of choice; we are now fighting a
war of necessity. Believes Americans and Alaskans are
fundamentally safe and secure. It is a fight for our national
survival...and we will not lose.
CO-CHAIR MULDER commented there was $3 million in last year's
budget for Mobile Radio. [Balance of comment was indiscernible.]
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ responded his point of contact has been Lt.
Governor Ulmer. She has been an advocate on the executive side
and it's clear that there is a vision there that is consistent
with their view. There is good federal, state and municipal
cooperation. It is not a cheap thing but it is something that
will last us fifty years or more.
CO CHAIR MULDER asked if there were any military plans for Adak
navigational aids.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ said Adak was a base closure location but the
VHF navigational aid and instrument landing system are under
contract maintenance agreements. It's unlikely DOD will reassume
a base ownership role at that location. Said that Elmendorf, Ft.
Rich and the bases north of the range have infra-structure
shortfalls that would only be worsened by taking on bases we
don't need.
CO-CHAIR MULDER didn't disagree with that assessment but replied
that Adak is an important place from the Coast Guard's standpoint
- not necessarily the installation itself, but the support
apparatus that can be operated out of there.
LT. GEN.SCHWARTZ advised there might be a win-win solution in
which a government entity maintains the runway and navigational
aids while the corporation provides base operations, fire
department and similar activities.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if there was a plan for additional
Coast Guard defense for Valdez.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ said Tom Barrett has increased his presence in
Valdez and there is a plan to bring in active duty military if
the threat level rises.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ discussed the upgrading of the Emergency
Operations Center as a result of 9/11, there is now a hot line
that exists between NORAD, ALCOM Crises Support Room, the OAC out
at Fort Richardson with 24 hour capability and the Municipality
EOC counterpart. That gives you a sense of the interaction we
have and the reason that came about is because of the discussion
that Harry Kieling had with me. The bottom line is that the
communications is now good.
CO CHAIR MULDER said with respect to our afternoon meeting, it
would be interesting for the committee to hear General Schwartz'
perspective on what we can we do to better coordinate our efforts
with regard to retaining and attracting addition military to our
state.
LT. GEN. SCHWARTZ said in a general sense, my take is that Alaska
is not at risk. It has more to do with the strategic situation
than more tactical considerations. My long view is that in ten
or fifteen years, there is going to be a reconciliation of some
sort between the North and the South Koreans. What that means is
that in the Western Pacific the fifty-year rationale for basing
U.S. Forces will lose one of its fundamental imperatives and that
is the defense of South Korea. When that occurs, if you are the
Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, you're going to ask
yourself, ok, if I've got basing problems in WesPAC and I do not
want those assets to go back to the Lower 48, I'd rather have
them somewhere in Theatre, where do they go. I'd say there are
two bastions in the Pacific, one is Guam and the other is Alaska.
And so, my sense is that since the criteria for the new base
closures legislation proposed by DoD, specifically contains a
criterion for consideration of long-term basing prospects, (that
wasn't always the case. It was capacity driven). There are
encroachment considerations, things of that nature, but nowadays
there is this strategic component, which I think is very
powerfully in Alaska's favor. I'm sure that those throughout
the Pacific Community see it that way too. The same reason UPS
and FedEX are here is the same reason you want the Armed Forces
here.
To talk more specifically about what to do, let me speak
candidly. Knik Arm Crossing and things that have the potential
of affecting the clear zones approaching Elmendorf's Runway Five
are not the way for long term stability of the base structure.
There's a way to work all this out but it might not be the way to
have the approach, which I've heard proposed is to bring it to
the North side of the Anchorage Port. There are reasons for
that. I appreciate them, but my role is to defend the DoD
equity. If you're going to keep Elmendorf viable and as a result
Rich, you need to be concerned about clear zones and obstructions
and things of that nature to the west of the Elmendorf runway.
How do you reach out to people? I think we'll connect with them
when they're here in town. I have made a commitment previously
to coordinate with Barb (Mee) to make sure that she knows when
people of substance are in town so that appropriate people can
make a pass if you want to do that. We want to keep it discrete
obviously. You have to protect my equities in this, too. I
can't allow "campaigning" to occur on the installation, but doing
business with federal officials as they pass through, that's a
good opportunity and other things that might occur of that nature
so that you can make your case in a way that we (the military)
ought not to do.
CO-CHAIR MULDER recessed the meeting until 1:30 p.m.
CO-CHAIR MULDER called the meeting back to order at 1:30 p.m. He
noted the arrival of Citizen Advisory Board members, Roger
Schnell and Chris Gates and presented them with their
certificates.
He stated purpose for this afternoon's meeting - to correlate and
coordinate the efforts of city and state agencies to inform
citizens of how important the military is to Alaska and how
Alaskans can carry the message of Alaska's resources and location
to both Military and Hill decision makers in Washington. In all
probability Congress may not deal with any BRAC action this
session. Senator Stevens' staff indicated yesterday to us that
in all likelihood there's less than a 40% chance that the
Conference Committee would pass the BRAC legislation. We hope to
establish dialogue today how this type of information would be
useful now and when and if we ever do face another BRAC action.
We have invited a number of guests today who have a wide range of
experience and talent. Serving on this committee has impressed me
of the vast resources in our state and yet we don't fully utilize
them in a coordinated effort to maximize the return to the State.
We have our committee doing one thing, the Anchorage and
Fairbanks Chambers doing another thing and so on. If we could
work in a coordinated effort we could maximize the time, the
commitment and the impact that we could have. Therefore, several
individuals have been invited to come here speak to us today
concerning the strategies they are looking at - opportunities
that they are seizing and points they might have as to how we
might better coordinate all the efforts.
With that, I'd like to invite Anchorage Mayor George Wuerch to
speak.
MAYOR GEORGE WUERCH: I'd like to set the stage to outline the
multiple contacts and avenues of communication available to
municipalities. I'll speak of the operating government side, not
the School District. You have a member of your Committee (George
Vakalis) who can better represent the School District's
activities. Wuerch pointed out that utilities maintain offices
and lobbyists in Washington and municipal officials frequently
travel there to press their particular viewpoint. The importance
of that to the issue of our defense position in Alaska and value
of it to future developments - whether on the downside of a BRAC
action - or the upside of evolution of national military defense
or increased logistics presence of the newly designated interim
brigade combat team for U.S.Army Alaska is that we have
intelligence avenues. We can with very little effort and money
exercise this. I'm reminded of the international business
community in the 50s and 60s when an American executive doing
business or traveling overseas, would return and voluntarily do a
debrief with our intelligence community. Times have changed of
course and that ended but that was so effective after WWII. I
think if we could create that mutual willingness in our various
organizations. What we'd need here in Alaska is a politically
knowledgeable Alaskan that could absorb information and share it
with interested parties.
I would encourage us to think in terms of who we have who might
sign on to take that job instead of trying to reach out to some
external "professional". There are in Washington, D.C. a myriad
of "beltway bandits" who would be willing to take your $100,000
and represent us but I don't think we need to do that. I think
what we have is the ability with our own resources to bring back
or to carry messages as long as we have some central hub in
Alaska.
Having said that, unless you want to go into the particular names
of individuals we have representing us in D.C., I'm happy to
respond to any questions. I think your chairman's comments about
any possible BRAC legislation soon with the events of 911 are
probably more remote than they were before 911. I think we're
all focused on security. Now's the time for us to be organizing
and stay proactive in this effort.
MR. LESTENKOF asked if he had anyone in Washington to track
legislation that is of interest to municipalities.
MAYOR WUERCH said they did have several people, but most of their
contracts are specific to a function. For example, Governor
Sheffield, who came out of retirement to help with the port
development plan, has two lobbyists in Washington that are
involved with funding the port project. He said some of their
lobbyists are already connected with the defense industry and it
wouldn't take much to have them keep their eyes and ears open. He
thought perhaps they could be of assistance.
CO-CHAIR MULDER mentioned committee member George Vakalis
attendance at NAID (National Association of Installation
Developers). Some of the discussions at NAID have transformed
from cities that have been impacted by base closure to those now
trying to be proactive about how they can reduce costs. Mulder
asked the Mayor if he and Vakalis have talked about city
opportunities - how you might might interact. I know AEDC is
part of that as well.
MAYOR WUERCH said he isn't familiar with that organization (NAID)
and we haven't talked about it this go-around - but they were
very much active in the last (BRAC) go-around.
CO CHAIR MULDER said when they talked with Senator Stevens - one
of the issues that came up was trying to host some of the
dignitaries that came up - both civilian and military and
government - to better acquaint them with Alaska. Does the muni
have any type of informal committee or are you alerted at all?
MAYOR WUERCH said they haven't focused on that issue yet.
CO-CHAIR MULDER agreed with Mayor Wuerch's suggestion that we
need a central post to collect and disseminate information and
perhaps a home host location; someone willing at short notice to
host visitors in a personal setting.
MAYOR WUERCH asked if Mulder meant a home host as opposed to VIP
quarters at the base.
GEORGE VAKALIS reflected that back in the 94 time frame and a lot
of visitors coming here, not only the Chamber but some
legislators and certainly the military were very involved with
them but so was the local government to some extent as far as
some hosting and I think that was what Senator Stevens was
talking about. But to be more proactive this time because we
have an awful lot of business community contacts with their
corporate headquarters and/or contacts in Washington DC on
legislative matters where these folks could also be of great
service to us in communicating how great Alaska is for all the
military. And certainly some of those folks come HERE. And if
someone high up in the corporate structure does have influence in
the Washington area we really don't know it - mainly only by
circumstance. We have the venue where we can get the information
if there is a military or DoD official coming. But Stevens' focus
was not only the DoD decision-makers, both civilian and military,
but also the corporate structure of big business to help advocate
for Alaska.
MAYOR WUERCH thought that was an excellent point. Recalled from
his industry days we have a lot of companies in Alaska that have
a Washington office - whether oil company or contractors as well
as the professional associations who have offices and full time
staffs in DC. It wouldn't take long to compile a list of those
with fully staffed offices in Washington. I'm also thinking
about the Alaskans across the state who are serving on federal
boards and commissions. Former Mayor Tom Fink for instance serves
on a federal commission and still goes to DC once a year plus
several meetings throughout the year across the country. It's
amazing the kind of network you can put together when you start
to chart out who all the players might be.
MR. HOYT said he didn't have to explain to Mayor Wuerch the
importance of the military to the economies of Anchorage and
Fairbanks and all Alaska and questioned if it would be worthwhile
to select some of these lobbyists to kind of keep an eye on
military issues that affect Alaska?
MAYOR WUERCH said yes they could do that. First step would be to
communicate with each one of them; to have them give him a
statement of their qualifications and expectations and see who
might be the best - but quite honestly, I think tasking all of
them to keep their eyes and ears open - just walking down the
halls of a House Office Building you can sometimes pick up
information and just having our folks who are on the Hill keep
their ears open but more importantly for them to remember to go
back to their offices and send us an email or whoever our HUB
here is and have them say here's what I just heard or observed.
GEORGE VAKALIS pointed out to Mayor Wuerch Alaskan bases have
great potential for expansion capabilities. Several things we
need to be looking at. If we could look into the stationing of
the F22 Raptors and the C17s that would enhance our ground and
air forces capabilities worldwide. Opportunity of the Interim
Brigade Combat Team which eventually will be the new Brigade
Combat Team format but that's going to need a Division
Headquarters. And wouldn't it be great - we have the capacity of
a Division Headquarters already here - nothing went away -
advocating for something like that as well as maybe another
Interim Brigade Combat Team because we have expansion capability.
From a proactive standpoint all of us should come up with a
strategic plan to enhance Alaska's position - because these
decisions will be made.
MAYOR WUERCH commented he represents Anchorage but recognizes the
importance of keeping a statewide perspective. Anything that
benefits the state will enhance Anchorage. Wanted to be on the
record that he is favor of anything that will benefit the entire
state.
CO CHAIR MULDER mentioned that we did invite Fairbanks government
and chamber officials who could not attend, but left their
representation in the capable hands of Dean Owen, Chick Wallace
and Representative James; and agreed we are working for the
benefit of the entire state, not just one area.
GEORGE VAKALIS said that another point to what makes Alaska's
military such a steadfast organization is that we have the
Elmendorf/Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright/Eielson links as
well as Fairbanks and Anchorage's Ted Stevens' airports as well
as the great Port capacity. If we strip away any one leg we
weaken it but with training areas, geographical location it's a
strong force.
BARBARA MEE asked whether the chambers and others' efforts to
attract units such as the Raptors, the C17s from other places
were being coordinated with the Alaska delegation so we wouldn't
be getting out ahead of them.
GEORGE VAKALIS said that no, that the Chamber has about four
major projects the military committee is working on. Both Alaskan
Command and U.S.Army Alaska have members on Anchorage Chamber so
it's a statewide approach. They're working on a strawman
pamphlet much like was done in 94- but one which not only
captures Alaska military capabilities, but capabilities of
Anchorage and Fairbanks resources that enhance the military
capabilities. Also working on a series of briefing slides that
individuals or corporate leaders could use highlighting the
military in Alaska and what Alaska has to offer the military.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she thought that was the key
point - what we can do for the military to keep what we have and
expand. Necessity to show our interest in supporting the
military - making available for them what makes their life
easier.
MR. LESTENKOF asked Vakalis if State Chamber could come into play
with Anchorage Chamber is doing.
GEORGE VAKALIS said that other than the Anchorage Chamber having
members on the State Chamber it's not an issue they've taken up.
But once the Anchorage Chamber signs off on it's strawman
pamphlets it is something they would go out to find a mechanism
for funding.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES offered as to who's the best sales
person for military's importance, she feels the State Chamber's
main focus is tourism and might conflict with promoting the
military.
CO-CHAIR MULDER stated air space, Alpen Glow ski area and the
Knik Arm Bridge are all areas of interest for the military and
they want assurances they will be protected against encroachment
in the future. Asked the Mayor if they'd had conversations about
any of these.
MAYOR WUERCH said, with respect to the Knik Arm Bridge, Governor
Sheffield is negotiating an additional road easement at the base
of the bluff behind the port. They delivered to our delegation a
mark up version of the 1983 study. The key issues are the removal
of some obstacles that existed in 1983 that no longer exist.
Number one is the removal of the old Native Hospital at the
junction of the Old Glenn Highway and Seward Highway. It's
removal makes it possible to take a road from that junction
across Ship Creek on a new viaduct nearly parallel to what's
there now. The second big player is the removal of the Defense
Fuels Farm behind the Port, which now allows the construction of
a road behind the Port that would go up to where the Knik Arm
crossing abutment may be. This provides access to the port
without cutting through either Elmendorf of Fort Richardson.
General Schwartz' team has been very responsive in coming back
with an initiative that opens that door to establish an easement
at the base of the Bluff. Mayor Wuerch has written State House
and Senate asking that $75,000 be appropriated early to update
the '83 Concept Study. DOT has received some money for beginning
EIS for the crossing. Things are possible within the next 24
months. Timing's important because the Transportation Efficiency
st
Act of 21 Century is up for reauthorization in 2003 and we need
to give our Delegation the tools with which to lobby to get that
bridge started.
MR. LESTENKOF asked the Mayor to clarify if they are looking at
the 1983 Study as the plan for the Knik Arm Crossing.
MAYOR WUERCH said the 1983 study looked at a series of approaches
on the East side to get to it and a series of road networks on
the West side. The end result was a recommendation that pretty
much brought it across close to the Port (Carin Point) but had to
drop it because of the obstacles previously mentioned.
MR. LESTENKOF said the reason he brought it up was because of
General Schwartz comments of concern this morning.
GOVERNOR SHEFFIELD said he met with Lt. Gen. Schwartz and Brig.
Gen. Fraser. As far as what the Port wants and needs to protect
in the future if there's going to be a bridge are two different
things. One's a lot more highway and one's just a road and rail
behind the Port to do our business. The military's concerned
about security can be overcome because a fence would be
installed; they're concerned about quality of life issues (noise
factors - emissions etc.) for Cherry Hill housing. We're working
all those issues out. It wouldn't be fair if I only went for a
road and a rail, which may be all that we need right now, but
must look to future needs for the area. Mayor's Planning
Department says Muni will be out of residential land by 2020.
Port grows 2 to 3% a year.
As to what we can do for the military -stay friendly. We're
noted for that. The Railroad gives away a million dollars worth
of tickets each year for military use. Lots we can do. Shouldn't
take them for granted which we probably do.
CO CHAIR MULDER - perfect opportunity to introduce Alaska
Railroad's President, recently retried General Pat Gamble.
MR. PAT GAMBLE said his perspective is slightly different than
some of what he's heard. In talking of your value to the
military, I will talk to you from previous experience what the
military views when dealing with BRAC action; how it weighs the
different things that communities came forth with in their
energetic efforts. So while what I have to say may sound a bit
funny I'm just telling you the way it was at the time and that I
don't think a lot has changed.
Base values and reputations are built long before BRAC occurs.
It isn't what you do right before BRAC it's in terms of your
history and how you've related to the military over an extended
period of time. History and consistency count heavily because,
before the BRAC process begins, military services meet and
evaluate all sites; there are no sacred cows. One of the first
questions asked is how difficult it is to do business in a
particular area. Next, it is important to realize there are
linkages between bases in terms of force structure and the
ability to consolidate or move force structure quickly to an area
of interest depending on what that force structure's mission is .
In other words if you want to put tankers on the coast - you put
bombers inland because they have longer range- you tend to put
fighters toward the coast line where they can meet up with the
tankers and get to the Pacific and Europe faster. If the Air
Force had its way that's the way they would organize and as we
got smaller we would consolidate because it's more efficient.
You have two opportunities here. You have an opportunity to gain
and you have an opportunity not to lose. If you play your
strategy right I think you can take advantage of both of those.
You cannot lose and when they look around to consolidate you can
also gain. If that's what you want to do.
It's important to understand the missions of military units that
are in the state. Understand their mission because that is what
they're concerned about and where they place the most weighted
value. If they're unable to train and exercise to that mission,
that location becomes of little value to them. Strategic value
will be relinquished to maintain training and mission value. When
BRAC occurs, they will view a base or unit according to
encumbrances. If they are encumbered and training is not
possible, value decreases. Mobility potential then the ability to
enhance, refine and do their mission are predominate.
In working to keep a base or post open, you're working for or
against preconceived notions relating to mission training and
structure so you need to work that to your advantage when you
build a strategy. Pick those things the military already likes
and enhance them as much as possible. (For states who do not
already have a history of being pro-military - it is not going to
work for them to all of a sudden become proactive and hire
lobbyists to enhance their ability to retain bases).
The military is looking ahead a long way - they know this is
probably going to be the last one (BRAC) for a very long time and
they want to get it right. So in going with the flow, if you
know what their mission is, you won't be going in and telling DoD
what you think is good for them about Alaska, they already know.
You want to enhance and protect what you have that the military
needs. Not Alaska, but other communities have gone in and tried
to present its case based on how they looked at what they had to
offer - not through the military's eyes. The DoD will state
it's value. If it needs training space, a state saying it has
good communities, schools, etc. won't mean anything. Those
issues might be important but they're only frosting on the cake,
they don't tip the scales.
Cited a story from Inside the Air Force, a military publication,
that said Secretary of the Air Force will allow World (?)
Fighting Commanders in Chiefs to guide his basing decisions,
according to this source. In particular Pacific and Central
Command Chiefs, such as CINCPAC would be able to provide
Secretary of the Air Force information regarding what he thinks
his priority bases ought to be. So, our strategy ought to be
when we see things like this, is not to run to a staffer on the
Hill, but we need to get with the CINC and find out what his
program is and decide what we can offer to his program. I can
tell you the CINCPAC has a very large program and basing is key.
And part of his concern is what happens if we have bases close in
Korea because of a reconciliation of North and South. Where do
those forces go; how do they continue to support his over all
strategy for guarding against growth and resurgence of militarism
in China or other unforeseen things that may go on in the
Pacific. In figuring out how Alaska fits in that then is what we
want to tell the CINC. Not tell him what his job is, but tell
him what we're willing to offer so he can do his job better. And
that brings you to the fact that if you're going to get around,
you have to have airlift and Alaska has the room to expand if
that's what we want to say. Let him know that offer's on the
table and all they have to do is come and talk to us; tell us
what they need; and let us tell them what we can do for them. If
we have to bring fighter units back, Alaska is a forward
position, but it is a route over the horizon position at the same
time. If we're going to swap the fighters out in Okinawa, which
are principally air to air fighters, for the Raptor, for example,
which needs this expanded broader air space, there is no broader,
better air space anywhere left in the United States than there is
here in Alaska.
But, offering that, going forward and saying we know you're going
to need more training opportunity, we know you're going to need
more air space- if we decide we can do that then being proactive
and saying we're here to work with you on these things - we can
hang the shingle out and say we're open for business.
Some dos and don'ts to go along with these thoughts:
Don't concentrate on saying how important the military is to a
city for jobs.
Don't say how important the commissary is to retired military.
Don't tell DOD how much money they will save by closing
certain bases and keeping others open.
Don't stifle a commanders attempt to improve internal quality
of life opportunities on bases. Base may need to build more
housing on base, commissaries, etc. that may look like its
taking away from local community.
Don't be afraid to deal with local commanders; you don't have
to go to Washington to make your point.
Don't believe schools and housing are predominant issues.
Don't compete the Air Force with either commercial or private
aviation.
Don't interfere with communication capabilities.
Don't encroach on bases.
Don't assume the Washington delegation can fix everything.
Do capitalize on new missions. Sec Def Rumsfeld is seeking
creation of three new assistant secretaries of Defense
between the new under secretary of defense for counter
terrorism for security. One each for counter terrorism,
support for civil authority and international and
humanitarian support. There are new missions being created
right now that will have worldwide application wherever
there are American bases, American people and businesses in
ways I don't even know yet. Our ability to stay in tune to
understand what's happening in these areas and then raise
our hands and say we can offer some resources for you to be
able to do that mission. We're a hop and a step away from
Asia and there's a lot going on over there and maybe there's
going to be a need for some headquarters or communications
or quick transportation. There are tests going on - there's
a lot of new equipment coming out. It's tough to find test
areas. There's some pilot-less machinery that's starting to
fly - they need space to do operational testing. I'm not
talking about the original testing that goes on like in New
Mexico or one of the ranges at Eglin (Florida) - but once
they get them going they need operational testing. They
need to get with military units, become parts of exercises
and get an operational check out. Once again, we've got
this wonderful air space up here and these kinds of things
might prove fruitful. We flew one of these Drones (unmanned
reconnaisance aircraft) from West Coast to Australia in one
hop; exercised with it down there and then flew it back. It
was all pre-programmed and flew by itself. There's some
tremendous technology coming and tapping into that and
opening our arms and saying we've got opportunity to test
some of that out here - what can we do to help. When you
test you bring in communications, people, temporary
facilities and structure and then sometimes if they like it,
those temporary things turn into permanent things. Our test
areas would be more up to the North and there's development
for Fairbanks. Jointness and experimentation.
Experimentation is a bad word in the military right now.
Jointness and Experimentation that I'm talking about are on
the larger scale and there are almost no places left in the
Lower 48 where you can get the Army, Navy, Marines and the
Air Force all together doing their thing at Brigade level or
above. You can do tactical stuff on a small level but to
find a coast line so you can bring the battle group up and
then join in at a Brigade-sized, throughout all those
services, exercise is virtually impossible. You can't fly
over California with military aircraft to get to the Eastern
part of California or into Nevada; the maneuvering space on
the ground in some of those ranges is such that once you've
been there and done it once or twice you've maneuvered the
only way you can because it's so limited. Depending on time
of the year you can come up to Alaska five times and never
see the same country and that's very valuable for training.
So the idea of capitalizing on new missions and meeting the
needs that pressing the military right now is important.
Do be proactive with regard to homeland defense- a brand new
mission. When I was aware of that job in joint forces
command about a year and half ago that was about a 30 man
office. That office today is up to about 90 people and
growing. They have no idea where they're going to go and in
fact the CINC who owns that particular staff may very well
become the military Commander in Chief of Homeland Defense.
We don't know what his plan will be for homeland defense but
it may be that more organizational or communication
components and I wouldn't think that Alaska would be left
out of that - so what could we offer to be proactive and say
come on up - we need homeland defense, too and here's what
we can offer you by way of support
Two ways to look at dealing with the military on issues - one
is compromise -
ok, you've got a problem we have an issue but we want to help
you solve your problem so lets sit down and make this thing
work. OR, delimiting the impact and that is ok, I know what
you want to do but I can't let you do that but I can let you
do a little part of that. There's a whole different approach
to one verses the other. Delimiting means how can I reduce
the impact of what they want to do to the very minimum so no
one even sees it or is impacted by it. The other one is how
can I offer as much as I can so they can get their mission
done and I can get advantage out of it at the same time.
One's proactive - one's defensive It's amazing between
communities - one will take one approach and the other a
different one. I remember as a Wing Commander in Phoenix at
our Air Force's largest fighter training base- more fighters
and trainers sitting on the ramp than we have in all of PACAF
or Europe. Understanding that mission of course means if
you've got all those trainers you have to be training some
place. I was on the Governor's Air Port Commission for a
short time. They wanted to put the airport right in the
middle of area between the base and the training area. I
tried to make the point to them they could have their cake and
eat it too. They could be an aviation state- build a big
international airport for NAFTA North South Cargo Hauling and
all those things they wanted - but why would they want to cut
their other foot off while they are growing one at the same
time. Why don't you do both because it's the training space
that counts. The base doesn't count. That base is on the
table like every other base. You've got a vine - and that's
the ability to train and the air space that goes with it.
You've got a grape - and that's the base. You cut that vine
and the grape shrivels up and BRAC will take it. What the
base and the community did was encroachment and that's a big
killer for bases. Land was being encroached and the farmers
were being offered prices to sell off their land and build
their houses up close to the base. With 225 fighters or so-
that flight pattern is full and it's noisy 24 hours a day. We
knew as soon as those people built houses up next to the base
they would start complaining and try to stop the flying- so
the community stepped in and bought the land and said they
weren't going to develop on that land and basically saved it
in my view. It was a very bold step but they understood the
value of what the mission was and preserved the mission and
then preserve the base.
Don't be afraid to deal with the local commanders. They talk
to their bosses and when those bosses to the bosses in
Washington what they say is "General Fraser said this". They
put a lot of stock in the local commander. You don't have to
run to Washington to make a point. You can make it with the
local Post and Base Commanders and local general officers
The issue of affordable, available housing , schools, living
in a safe community - all those are very important quality
of life issues to military people, but I'll tell you we've
put up for many years not having those things around our
bases - wishing that we'd had them - but we're there anyway.
So they're not the predominating issues . They can be great
attractors and pluses but if you cut the mission and have
the worlds greatest housing it's not going to save the base.
The other way, you can have the world's greatest mission and
have lousy housing and we're still going to move people to
the base and they sort of fend for themselves. They find
housing where they can until it can be made available. I
think the idea of people across Knik Arm once that gets
built and the fact that suburbia could be growing up there -
that's another place that could be feeding Elmendorf with
commuters if someday that happens.
Do speak with one voice. Whether you're a Chamber if Commerce
- the Governor - the Mayor. There's nothing wrong with
saying we can't do this - as long as you can back it up and
everybody says it with the same voice. Try to avoid mixed
signals
A couple of never-nevers are you don't want to compete the Air
Force with the airport because the Air Force will lose and when
they do they'll leave. Don't compete the Air Force with
commercial or private aviation. Sit down and work those issues
out in a positive way like Alaska has a history of doing and in
fact it's a model for other states because you've been so
successful. That's a great Kudo - and it was done years ago and
it's still remembered very well in the office of the Secretary of
the Air Force and the halls of the Pentagon. They know we can
make things happen other states can't. But the minute we start
competing those things instead of cooperating than you're on your
way to being a BRAC candidate in my view.
Never interfere with communications capability. For the Army on
the ground for hand held radios for aircraft radio frequency -
when we start reallocating frequencies or eliminating the ability
to communicate over as vast an area as we have in Alaska -
communications is fundamental to the mission. When you start to
erode the primary mission, you start to erode the viability of
the whole apparatus.
Never encroach and never assume that your Washington delegation
can fix it because they're realists too and understand the
mission of the military and sometimes somebody's got to give
someplace. I think our legislators in Washington by and large
have given a lot in the past. They are very responsible when it
comes to these things and are ready to anti up if the time is
right, or go to the complete opposite extreme if they don't have
any seniority at all and it's sacrificial time and they spin the
dial and it comes up "state 'x'" and that state doesn't have the
power to overcome it and that can happen too. So the idea that
we've reached an impasse, I can't live with this, I'm going to go
to Washington and Washington will fix it- that can be dangerous
as a strategy.
(Talked of futility of communities hanging on to bases who have
no mission and are only kept going through political efforts.
Only a matter of time till these bases are closed).
MR. LESTENKOF asked what Alaska's strongest point is as far as
air operations are concerned.
MR. GAMBLE said quick access (you can be in Europe or in the
Pacific) and expansion capabilities are extremely important
points. And to be sure that Alaskans understand expansion.
There's more demand - air space - communications. Have to WANT
to expand. If answer is yes - play it for all it's worth.
Taking a proactive position sends a powerful signal. Sit down
with (General) Norty Schwartz and say we're interested in playing
on this- how should we go forward - can you give us some ideas.
Let Norty be the go-between because he's got to go to his boss at
PACAF, the component who would talk to CINCPAC. Use that
military channel. And then at a point in time, when it's right,
depending on how CINCPAC reacts - his initial reaction may be
well - that's really great, we've got a lot of planning to do,
we'll get back to you. At some point he's going to come back and
say exactly what are they willing to offer- would they be willing
to do this.. or that.. And then it gets down to Norty and he
comes back and says would we be willing to bed down a squadron of
C17s and a squadron of F22s. Would we have that much expansion
capacity? Then the community's got to get involved - now it's
back to us. And we say is this really what we mean or is that
biting off a little bit too much. It's like negotiating but I
see the dialogue working up and down that military channel. I
don't see getting a group together at the very beginning and
going to visit Admiral Blair , the current CINCPAC. I think he
would be cordial and find it interesting but it's a bullet I'd
save until later on in the game. Later on when he comes here for
a visit to bring him in and specifically talk about what offers
you have made and to seal that deal between the civilian side and
him directly. But I would see that in the later stages.
MR. HOYT asked Gamble in his opinion, is the air space Alaska has
sufficient to support additional training for Air Force.
MR. GAMBLE… In the abstract, absolutely. It's the largest single
piece of air space we've got anywhere. It's bigger than the
Goldwater air space (Arizona) it's bigger than the Nellis Air
space (Nevada) by a factor of like five, I think. It's huge.
Now when you say is it adequate. We have commercial operations..
private operations.. airport operations.. We have to consider
and interface those to determine what the reality of adequate is.
But if you just take it in the abstract and look at the MOA that
we've got - assuming you could use the whole thing, it's
wonderful.
MR. HOYT - so it would be advantageous for the State of Alaska to
continue to support the MOAs.
MR. GAMBLE - Yes sir, in fact it is one of the best things Alaska
offers on the air side, no doubt about it. In my last job the XO
of the Air Force (head of operations for the Air Force). we had
this Air Expeditionary Force - an organization the AF undertook -
where you take a group of airplanes and on short notice you move
them into a crisis area. You can't just take 100 airplanes and
move them into a crisis area for practice in New York - or
Florida or Texas, anymore. You could in the old days but not
anymore. And about the only place you can go is Nevada and half
that range is owned by the Atomic Energy Commission and the
minute they want to use it, they pick up the phone and it shuts
down just like that. All airplanes stop flying and you don't
fly.
And you never know when that's going to happen. And so when you
look at the places you have available there aren't very many. So
when the XO called he asked is that air space up in Alaska really
that good because we need a place to rehearse to train this unit
force. That was probably a little over a year ago and today on
the books they're coming up to train in Alaska. So, absolutely.
TAPE 01-07, SIDE A
CO-CHAIR MULDER recessed the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
CO-CHAIR MULDER called the meeting back to order at 3:20 p.m. He
noted the arrival of Citizen Advisory Board member, Mead
Treadwell and presented him with his certificate.
MANO FREY, Arctic Power co-chair, opened by saying maintaining
the military is important, and the prospects of nurturing
military growth throughout the state are truly exciting.
In thinking about what I might say this afternoon I thought back
to 1989. It hasn't been reflected much in the media recently but
in 1989 we almost had the coastal plain of ANWR )Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge) open. Our delegation was pushing forward and at
th
the time George H.W. was president. Then on March 24, Joseph
Hazelwood became the laborer of the year (when the Exxon Valdez
spill occurred) and the opportunity to open ANWR dissolved for
years. If that incident hadn't occurred we'd be 12 years down
the road of oil probably coming into the line the last couple of
years. So one of the things that happened as we started to
resaddle the horse - there were a lot of great support groups
working to support opening ANWR. Resource Development Council,
the Alliance, the Chambers - and all the different groups - none
of them doing anything that was negative or bad - just that they
were all doing their own separate issues. That's how Arctic Power
was born - as an effort to try and coordinate the message.
Hopefully, the burden's going to be lifted from my shoulders soon
as far as being co-chair, but one of the things we accomplished
is coordinating the effort. It provides the material, it provides
the arguments, it responds and every person that's involved has
the same information. I know many of you have traveled to DC and
helped us in our efforts lobbying both the House and the Senate
and each of you have the same information so no missed messages
are sent and no false statements made.
I would suggest that is one approach as far as the military I
this State do - is to have a single focal point. You will still
have the same groups supporting the efforts but they'll be
singing from the same sheet of music as far as the mission.
The other entity I'll mention is the Denali Commission. It was
established by Senator Stevens, who was frustrated by federal
agency work done in rural Alaska because there was no
coordination. The Denali Commission is a perfect model for
coordinating federal and state efforts- whether they be training,
construction or maintenance. The Commission provides the focal
point and an opportunity for all those groups to coordinate.
I think both Arctic Power and the Denali Commission are excellent
models that could be utilized by this group in trying to for the
same kind of thing. I don't have any answers as to what the
right mechanism is but I would encourage those of you who are
involved in these things to move ahead with that kind of
approach.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES thanked Mano Frey for his efforts
with Arctic Power.
CO CHAIR MULDER mentioned that lack of coordination appears to be
our problem. We just aren't proceeding with full potential that
we could.
MANO FREY agreed and that the committee could expand the
opportunities out there on a statewide basis by having a single
focal point.
DUANE HEYMAN, Executive Director for Commonwealth North, said his
comments build upon those made previously to focus on ways to use
civic, business and public policy organizations to help further
what we've been talking about. It's an opportunity to build a
long term track record in communication, personal relationships
and help formulate strategy, learn from and influence key people,
involve local commanders and educate the community.
If there were some kind of a clearing house for information you
could take advantage of the range of activities these different
organizations have by way of offering speaking opportunities;
having dinners with various Boards of Directors; more intimate
dinners in people's homes; there was some talk of a need to find
places and people who could entertain and there's a very strong
network among these Boards and executive committees of various
organizations who have access to those kinds of things. If a
coordinating group or person were aware of the different missions
and interests of different groups, they could pick what would be
most appropriate - i.e. if it were something that affected a
local community you'd go to the Anchorage or Fairbanks Chamber.
If it was a statewide policy issue you might go to Commonwealth
North. By utilizing these groups and networks that already exist
- that would fit in with their missions.
CO CHAIR MULDER said dovetailing on the concept of Arctic Power,
but recognizing that Arctic Power has some vested interest to
help fund Arctic Power, that even though we do fund it publicly,
it's really more or less private enterprise. He asked Heyman how
he saw an entity like this happening - did he see it as an
outgrowth of this committee or something separate. Who could pay
for it.
DUANE HEYMAN said someone could hire an individual, an employee
to track that. Or through an organization like The Group - that
the Anchorage Chamber pulled together - which includes executive
directors and elected heads of various organizations - to meet
and talk about common interests. Maybe we could add a military
component to that organization, or this group could have another
meeting to talk about those things.
CO CHAIR MULDER mentioned in past conversations with General
Ralston as to what Alaska could do to help familiarize the
military, he'd said to utilize groups like Commonwealth North to
give speaking opportunities to key military. Mulder asked Heyman
if they'd focused on that and how is it determined whom they ask.
MR. HEYMAN said its part of their mission to ask key people to
Alaska for this interchange and their program committee is always
looking for speakers and assumes the Chamber is also.
MR. VAKALIS says Chamber is also and trying to find out what's on
the horizon to keep membership informed.
MR. HEYMAN said there are many connections and resources people
have here to bring up speakers and most all are very supportive
because the sustainability of the economy is important matter and
military's a major part of that.
MR. LESTENKOF asked if Commonwealth North had weekly speakers and
how many military speakers in past year.
MR. HEYMAN said they have at least one meeting a month as well as
different formats. He didn't have exact number of military
leaders in past year - but past speakers have included General
Ralston, Secretary of Defense Cohen; head of the Space Command.
CO CHAIR MULDER then introduced Larry Crawford, Anchorage
Economic Development Corporation who had asked to be moved from
the morning agenda.
LARRY CRAWFORD reviewed the committee of the Price Waterhouse
study recommendations, the conclusions the committee reached and
the work AEDC has done with various military organizations.
The Price Waterhouse study identified Anchorage as a beneficial
location for certain high cost, high demand items in the North
Pacific and Europe. They also found that Anchorage is
strategically located to provide services such as maintenance and
product support. They recommended meeting with third party
logistics providers and the DOD vendors to promote the Anchorage
advantage. They should consider incentives to defray startup
costs, pursue DOD to commission a study to identify specific
vendor items to be stocked in Anchorage and continue to pursue
support functions based on Anchorage's strategic location. When
he says Anchorage he means the system because they have been
working with Fairbanks.
All the findings and recommendations represent opportunities that
exist but an essential finding is that the military wants to
piggyback on the commercial system. They want a good commercial
infrastructure to which they can add their logistics.
The scope and objective of the current project, and this is the
second appropriation the Legislature made for this project, is to
focus on global companies with military and commercial customers.
We've contracted with a firm to help us with this and are also
working with D Logistics from Germany, who has a high interest in
and is in process of negotiating a lease for a major hub at the
Anchorage Airport. We've pre-qualified 10 to 15 companies and
the criteria we've used are: what are their markets; who are
their customers, where are the factories and where are their
distribution hubs.
Some of the companies we're looking at: 3M, Lockheed Martin,
Boeing, General Dynamics, Motorola, InTel.
We believe opportunities do exist both on military and commercial
side and if they can establish this infrastructure that interests
the military, I think we'll see some real opportunities open up.
We still have the military logistic steering committee in
existence and Fairbanks is a member. We believe the current
project will result in some new business and in identifying some
new opportunities. There's need to continue to follow up on the
current project. We need to continue to renew our contacts with
military leaders; follow up with the companies we identify as
opportunities and working with DoD Logistics in establishing a
major hub here in Anchorage.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked how Fire Island figured into the picture
and whether air space is an issue there.
MR. CRAWFORD said Fire Island is one of the alternatives in the
airport master plan. He considers Fire Island an excellent
industrial site. It's within the city limits so anything that
happens there will add to the tax base. It's 3,000 acres of
undeveloped land and wouldn't interfere with City traffic. There
may be some access issues and we wouldn't want to do anything
locally that would interfere with military air space.
MR. LESTENKOF asked whether Anchorage is ready to accept
expansion.
MR. CRAWFORD said the broader community is ready, but there are
neighborhood issues that are difficult to fight through. Some
public meetings don't really give an accurate representation
because those present at meetings are frequently those most
immediately affected. He is sure the total community believes the
Anchorage Airport is a major economic generator. Crawford said
that one in ten jobs in Anchorage is tied to the Airport.
MR. LESTENKOF then asked whether there was any information about
repositioning military equipment in Alaska in the Price
Waterhouse study.
MR. CRAWFORD said it did and it is an opportunity, but to be able
to serve Europe they must also be able to serve Asia. That is
where the savings come from.
CO CHAIR MULDER then introduced Dave Hudspeth, member of the
military committee of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
DAVE HUDSPETH explained their mission is to foster and encourage
relationships among the business and military communities. He is
involved in the committee due to his strong belief in the
importance of the military to the Anchorage and Alaskan economy.
Areas of concern for the committee have been base closures,
national missile defense, attracting military units and
government privatization. Hudspeth deferred to George Vakalis,
who's the most knowledgeable Chamber member on Base Closure and
military related matters.
Both Anchorage and Fairbanks Chamber members voiced methods they
are involved with to show appreciation for it's military
neighbors by yearly event.
GEORGE VAKALIS reiterated General Gamble's and Mano Frey's
earlier assessments of the need to speak with one voice. The
Anchorage Chamber is preparing briefing slides that look at
military from holistic point of view from Alaska. No matter the
color of the suit or where it's stationed - it's being looked at
as one organization. The slides will take into account our
jointness and training capabilities and the military air space;
our geographical location which allows the military to get to any
place faster than from anywhere else.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said there are people that don't want
anyone interfering with their personal activities. As a
legislator, she hears those types of complaints and realizes this
is very sensitive matter.
CHICK WALLACE spoke of civilian pockets in the Fairbanks area
that have expressed frustration with military activity and the
cost benefit ratio of military presence.
DAVE OWEN said that Fairbanks has counterpart to Anchorage's
Chamber's military committee and the Borough Mayo appointed a
BRAC committee as an organization that would, when the time came,
have a structure to do whatever needs to be done. And, I think
this committee (JASC) might be the forum to address who and how
do we get that central message.
CO CHAIR MULDER then introduced Mead Treadwell.
MEAD TREADWELL represents three organizations. He is the managing
director of the Institute of the North; he works with Governor
Hickel who is secretary general of the Northern Forum; and he is
a member of the Arctic Research Commission.
The Northern Forum has been brought into humanitarian aid issues
four or five times in the last several years and they have always
had military assistance in their relief efforts. This coming
spring, the Northern Forum will host a conference to bring
representatives from regions throughout the Arctic to plan for
cold region disaster assistance. Coinciding with the conference
is a meeting of a cooperative group of eight Arctic nations that
work in disaster assistance.
He pointed out that large portions of the kind of research done
in the Arctic, such as biodiversity and global change, have been
sponsored by and budgeted through the military.
The Northern Forum and the eight Arctic nations have been working
with the Institute of the North as the Secretariat for the
Circumpolar Infrastructure Task Force to discuss air routes and
logistics in the north. The next chairman of the Arctic Council
will be Iceland, which is a country with many of the same air
support and U.S. base characteristics and issues. Governor
Knowles recently invited the President of Island to visit Alaska
to encourage a cordial working relationship.
The Institute of the North is planning another national policy
conference on national missile defense and other issues that give
Alaska visibility. They realize the importance of speaking with
one voice and will stay in touch with the committee.
CO-CHAIR MULDER said the state needs to speak with one voice and
formulate a strategic plan of action to coordinate the civilian
and military people back east and acquaint them with Alaska. He
challenged the committee to become active and commit their time
and efforts. We need a coordinated message that will assure we
are all saying the same things. When General Campbell, General
Smith's replacement comes on board, he's interested in coming to
Alaska. That would be an opportunity, if there are to be
expanded missions, for Alaskans to discuss with him what we have
to offer. There are missions that Hawaiians are opposing the
Army on and that might be a mission Alaska could offer to do. We
need to include in that strategic plan how we're going to court
the civilian and military folks from back East to acquaint them
with Alaska.
What I'm throwing out to my committee members here is: do we want
to be an active committee and take this? It's going to take a
commitment on your part.
As stated earlier, when some committee members, Barb Mee and I
discussed these matters with Senator Stevens, we talked about the
possibility of a retreat. I'm curious to get feedback from the
committee if they're interested and willing to make that kind of
commitment.
MR.WALLACE agreed with the chairman's ideas and added it would be
a good idea to put together a resource bank to show what could be
offered. The super computer at the University of Fairbanks and
the Center for Global Change were resources that came to mind.
MR. LESTENKOF offered that because he lives in Hawaii part time,
although the army is having difficulties with training areas
there, they're good neighbors and the senators work together
closely. If anything is put on the table about replacing Hawaii,
it's important to be very strategic and state the concerns about
the COPAC in the Pacific - if anything is moved back to CONUS
from the Pacific we are concerned about that and we'd want to
keep it in the Pacific - and we're available!
JANICE NIELSEN addressed the problem Hawaii's facing regarding
the training area the Army's had prior to WWII. It had been shut
down for training since 1998 because of fires and other issues.
Training area is used not only by active Army but also the Guard,
Reserve and Marines stationed there. Recently they settled out
of court a two-year litigation with a group of environmentalists
and the Army's now back training on a limited basis for the next
three years. During that time an EIS will be done. Problems
include endangered species and cultural resources. Whatever
comes out in that EIS will determine what kind of training can go
on three years from now. At that point it will be determined if
the Army can use it. Of course during the next three years the
Army is considering putting an Interim Combat Brigade Team in
Hawaii, just as in Alaska, so Hawaii will be going through an EIS
process for the entire state to see the possibility of putting an
ICBT there. Other areas in Hawaii will be looking at expanding
their training ranges - mostly at Scoffield Barracks. There's
always been the rumblings that maybe the Army would leave Hawaii
but that doesn't look viable at this time. We do look, as was
mentioned earlier, when the reunification of North and South
Korea occurs, where will those troops go. Alaska is very much
in the top of consideration for both army and air force, as well
as Guam, who's put out a tremendous White Paper on why those
troops should be assigned there. I'm get a copy of that to
Chairman Mulder to see what your competition might be.
LARRY CRAWFORD added some military leaders believe Alaska should
be doing benchmark studies to compare Anchorage to Guam and some
other locations to determine strengths and weaknesses.
CO-CHAIR MULDER asked Crawford how we'd undertake such a study.
MR. CRAWFORD thought it could be part of the strategic planning
process. Do an analysis of Alaska itself, and then do a
benchmark with these other strategic locations to see how we
stack up. If there's something we can correct in a relatively
short period of time we can do it.
CO CHAIR MULDER discussed difficulty in coming up with dates to
meet or for a retreat to further discuss these issues. Stressed
importance of coming up with a strategic plan to enhance our
position regardless of any BRAC action. We'll look at early next
Spring, January or February. Also as General Campbell's
interested in visiting the state, perhaps we'll have a meeting in
Juneau, acquaint ourselves with him so when the opportunity to
discus missions is right we'll have made initial contact with
him. Asked Barb Mee for any ideas.
BARB MEE indicated she had not yet been brought into the loop on
General Campbell's schedule. But wanted to remind that in these
times since 911 when the patriotism is high we should strike
while the iron's hot to come up with a plan. She lamented the
loss of Bob Atwood, former Anchorage Times editor and publisher,
adding she now gets more military news from the Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner than the local Anchorage paper. Since they can't count
on the news, they need to find some way to get out the word on
the importance of the military. We need more than to just be
talking to each other in small groups. Additionally, Anchorage's
Pat Gamble, and Fairbanks' Mark Hamilton and the super computer
are tremendous resources that shouldn't be overlooked. January
and February shouldn't come and go without conducting a study
regarding available resources.
CO-CHAIR agreed there should be no delay.
MR. OWEN asked if it wouldn't be a good idea to break the project
into two phases. A good days session will be needed to figure
exactly what they want to do and then the retreat might be in
order.
CO CHAIR MULDER asked Janice Nielsen if she knew when General
Campbell might be in Alaska.
MS. NIELSEN said that was unknown yet - it might be as late as
February.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought that we ought to check to see if
some of the information we need hasn't already been gathered.
MR. NELSON said General Willie Nance is spearheading a project
that will be promoted into a full time position and his
replacement is interested in coming to Alaska. As soon as more is
known, they will inform the committee.
MS. MEE said it would be helpful if those in attendance today
wrote their ideas down and sent them in so they can be compiled.
CO-CHAIR MULDER advised public and advisory members that they
were selected for participation because of their specific areas
of expertise and their ideas were most welcome.
MR. TOM MORGAN, Executive Director of the Armed Services Young
Men Christian Association, (ASYMCA) suggested incorporating
monthly military programs in any organization members belong to
currently. He said he would be happy to find speakers. Said
people in military are put in harms way every day (not just since
911) and all of us should be trying to get regular military
programs included in our local social organizations.
MS. NIELSON announced Admiral Blair will be changing command in
February and his successor has not been named yet.
MR. OWEN asked whether Fairbanks or Anchorage JASC members could
host advisory members to a luncheon to discus and solicit ideas,
and be reimbursed for that cost.
CO-CHAIR MULDER said he thought that was possible.
MR. WALLACE reiterated the importance of interacting and hosting
young military members at luncheons.
MR. VAKALIS wanted to set the record straight that the Chamber
luncheon has bigger groups that 25 for lunch - closer to 80.
Also pointed out that the war we're undertaking now is different
than any in the past. When bombings done, we're going to have to
send troops in and the war will be long and prolonged. Patriotism
will start to wane. It's up to every one of us to do everything
we can to foster and encourage the support for our military.
Encourage people to keep the flags up and decorate around them
for the Christmas holiday!
CO CHAIR MULDER thanked everyone for his or her participation and
the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|