Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/09/2003 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 22 - PATRIOT ACT AND DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES [Contains mention that HJR 23 and HJR 22 are being merged together.] Number 0029 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22, Relating to the USA PATRIOT Act and to defending the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and civil liberties. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he supported HJR 22. Number 0292 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that HJR 22 is a unique piece of legislation, and noted that he has provided the committee with a sponsor statement. Number 0368 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 22, Version 23-LS0924\D, Cook, 5/8/03, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG mentioned that Representative John Coghill would be signing on as HJR 22's first cosponsor, and that HJR 23, which was sponsored by Representative Coghill, has been merged with HJR 22 to form Version D. He then turned members' attention to what became known as Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, Line 2 DELETE: "Adequate Tools In Opposition to" INSERT after "Provides": "Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct" The committee took an at-ease from 1:33 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG explained that Amendment 1 will correctly state the full name for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 ("USA PATRIOT Act"). Number 0539 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HJR 23 and cosponsor of HJR 22, mentioned that Amendment 1 merely corrects a drafting error. Number 0545 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0550 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned members' attention to [Amendment 2], which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, Line 26: DELETE: FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the state may not Page 2, Line 27 Delete: (1) Insert: (4) Page 2, Line 29 Delete: (2) Insert: (5) Page 3, Line 1 Delete: (3) Insert: (6) REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he'd wanted the paragraphs beginning on page 2, lines 27 and 29, and page 3, line 1, to fall under the language on page 2, lines 14 and 15, which in part says: "in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law, may not". He suggested that Amendment 2 would accomplish this and keep with the original intent of the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that the words, "and be it" should also be removed from page 2, line 25. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed. [There was no formal motion, but the foregoing was treated as an adopted amendment to Amendment 2.] Number 0653 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 [as amended]. Number 0670 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said that he is concerned with the amendment because the language on line 14 would "allow them to do it with, quote, 'reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law' - [to] do such things as racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling." That's very serious stuff, he remarked, adding that according to lines 27-31, "an agency or instrumentality of the State" could also, with "reasonable suspicion", get involved in federal immigration matters, and collect and maintain information about political, religious, social views, and so forth. He said that although he does support the resolution, he does not support the amendment, adding, "I think it's very dangerous." CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that Amendment 2 was created by the sponsors in the spirit of compromise. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG clarified that he has only just seen this amendment. He noted that just prior to the meeting, he and Representative Coghill had briefly discussed the idea of perhaps simply adding something along the lines of "without just cause" on line 26, as a different option. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that such an option would certainly be acceptable to him. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL relayed that he wished to see some barrier - either "reasonable suspicion" or "just cause" or some other language - as opposed to an absolute "may not" as is currently written. He indicated that although he would not want to see any of the things listed in the aforementioned paragraphs done without a compelling reason, a situation might arise that would justify such activities. Number 0869 CHAIR McGUIRE withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 2 [as amended]. Number 0880 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt new Amendment 2, to add ", without just cause" to page 2, line 26, after "may not". There being no objection, new Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0936 FRANK TURNEY thanked both the committee and the sponsors of HJR 22, and called the resolution an important step in defending individual liberties. He said he supports [Version D], and offered his hope that the differences between the sponsors can be worked out and that the Senate could support the resolution as well. In conclusion, he encouraged the committee to pass HJR 22. Number 1003 JOHN BRADING said that he supports HJR 22 and that the USA PATRIOT Act is an insult to Americans - even the very name of it is an insult, given what the Act contains. The USA PATRIOT Act relinquishes any semblance of due process; violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws. The USA PATRIOT Act is dangerous, he said, adding that it is a travesty. Most troubling, he remarked, is that most of these powers of the USA PATRIOT Act do little to increase the ability of law enforcement or intelligence to bring terrorists to justice, but do much to undermine the U.S. Constitution by violating the rights of immigrants and American citizens alike. MR. BRADING offered that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has said that this sort of "trust me, we're the government" solution is entirely unacceptable. He then offered the following as a quote from Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights: "To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of the government." Mr. Brading also offered that Ms. Chang has said: The USA PATRIOT Act launches a three-pronged assault on our privacy. First, the Act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers, including the enhanced ability to track email and Internet usage, conduct sneak-and-peek searches, obtain sensitive personal records, monitor financial transactions, and conduct nationwide roving wiretaps. Second, the Act permits law enforcement agencies to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause when conducting wiretaps and searches that have, as "a significant purpose," the gathering of foreign intelligence. Third, the Act allows for the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence operations and thereby opens the door to a resurgence of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency. MR. BRADING said: "The proponents of this Act used American's shock and fear to slip this Act past our awareness." He added, however, that he believes in the intelligence of the average American, and that regular Americans armed with knowledge will use common sense to find out what the government is up to. He asked the committee to send a message to Congress by passing HJR 22. Number 1173 MIKE FAIR said he supports the "State of Alaska rejecting points of the [USA PATRIOT Act]" because it infringes on "our" liberty. He went on to say: I take this really personal. I feel that my rights and my freedoms are in jeopardy every day. I fear who's looking over my shoulder whenever I do anything. ... There's a sense of fear by a lot of people in the library; people are talking about what books they ... can take home. This isn't the country that we are wanting to protect, at least I don't think it is. I think this Act make a mockery of the deaths of the people on [9/11/01]. America in 2003 isn't what some of those people would have given their lives for. ... I hope that when this resolution is passed that Alaska's representatives can make it sound strong enough so that the federal government will hear it, because I think our representatives in Alaska here are standing up for the [U.S.] Constitution far stronger than those cowards in D.C. Thank you. Number 1253 ROGER SHANNON said: "I think you folks down there have done the job very well for the rest of us. ... Thank you for coming together on it." Number 1340 JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), thanked the committee for hearing HJR 22 so quickly, and Representatives Guttenberg and Coghill for their hard work and the bipartisan spirit they brought to "this important resolution." She went on to say: The bipartisanship that we're seeing in the House mirrors what's happening all over the country and throughout Alaska, where a broad, left-right coalition has come together to stand up in defense of the Bill of Rights. And we recognize [that] we do need measures that actually keep us safe - but there has to be some balancing - and that many provisions of the [USA PATRIOT Act] go way too far, have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and infringe our liberties - trade away our liberties, really - for a false sense of security. So we laud this resolution, and we laud the committee for moving it quickly. And with that, I'll just add that Congressman Don Young has agreed to introduce a measure in Congress to begin to fix some of the more onerous provisions of the [USA PATRIOT Act] - again, it's part of a broad, left-right coalition supporting that - and a strong resolution coming out of the Alaska [State] Legislature would really arm him as he prepares for that fight. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 22. Number 1397 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion that the committee rescind its action in adopting new Amendment 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1414 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt a third Amendment 2, on page 2, line 26, insert ", without compelling justification". There being no objection, the third Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1434 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed (CS) for HJR 22, Version 23-LS0924\D, Cook, 5/8/03, as amended, out of committee [with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note]. REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that Hawaii has a similar resolution that contains a clause that "recognized this type of thought." He noted that during World War II, Alaska was occupied by foreign forces and thus its citizens experienced loss of civil rights. He suggested that HJR 22 ought to recognize that point. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that although Representative Ogg is correct about what happened in World War II, it wasn't just Alaskans that experienced a loss of civil rights. He remarked that he did not want HJR 22 to become a "history lesson." "We struggled hard on how to get the language that asserted ..., with as much strength as possible, the need to protect our liberties while still trying to say [that] we support the war on terrorism," he added. REPRESENTATIVE OGG, in response, read the portion of the Hawaiian resolution to which he referred, and suggested that HJR 22 could use the same language and simply substitute "Alaska" for "Hawaii". He opined that Alaska should join hands with Hawaii on this point. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she agreed with Representative Coghill against adding such language. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG indicated agreement as well. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS again moved to report the proposed (CS) for HJR 22, Version 23-LS0924\D, Cook, 5/8/03, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHJR 22(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|