Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/06/2003 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 6, 2003
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Relating to the Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord,
to annual legislative exchanges, and to continuing
intergovernmental work on matters of joint concern and mutual
interest.
- MOVED SJR 17 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act changing the name of the Department of Community and
Economic Development."
- MOVED CSHB 288(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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.
- MOVED HJR 22 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Relating to the USA PATRIOT Act and to the peace and security of
citizens of our country.
- MOVED HJR 23 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 17
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA-YUKON INTERGOV RELATIONS ACCORD
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OLSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/14/03 0834 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/14/03 0834 (S) STA
04/22/03 (S) STA AT 4:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/22/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/22/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/23/03 0932 (S) STA RPT 3DP
04/23/03 0932 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY, DYSON
04/23/03 0932 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
05/01/03 1084 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/1/2003
05/01/03 1084 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/01/03 1085 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
05/01/03 1085 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 17
05/01/03 1085 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
05/01/03 1085 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON, SEEKINS,
WAGONER,
05/01/03 1085 (S) LINCOLN, ELTON, ELLIS,
STEVENS B, OGAN,
05/01/03 1085 (S) COWDERY, TAYLOR
05/01/03 1091 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/01/03 1091 (S) VERSION: SJR 17
05/02/03 1267 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/02/03 1267 (H) STA
05/02/03 1290 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): STOLTZE,
DAHLSTROM,
05/02/03 1290 (H) WILSON, GRUENBERG
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE:CHANGING NAME OF DEPT OF COMM & ECON DEV.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/28/03 1156 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/28/03 1156 (H) STA, L&C
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 22
SHORT TITLE:PATRIOT ACT AND DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GUTTENBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/02/03 0737 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/03 0737 (H) STA, JUD
04/07/03 0830 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD
04/23/03 1078 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 23
SHORT TITLE:PATRIOT ACT AND PEACE & SECURITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/07/03 0818 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/07/03 0818 (H) STA, JUD
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 17.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 288.
EDGAR BLATCHFORD, Commissioner
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 288, as amended,
and responded to questions.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 22.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 23.
GRAHAM STOREY
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
offered his preference that neither resolution pass.
JIM SYKES
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 22 and mentioned
that HJR 23 would be okay.
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments regarding aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act and
testified in support of sending a message to Congress.
ROGER W. SHANNON
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HJR
22 and HJR 23.
JANET KUSSART
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
offered her support of the resolutions and asked the committee
to vote to pass them.
KATY PARRISH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
relayed some of her concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act, detailed
examples of its misuse, and urged passage of HJR 22 and SJR 15.
GEOFF KENNEDY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HJR
22 and HJR 23.
JOHN ILIFF
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
highlighted some problems with the USA PATRIOT Act and asked the
committee to pass HJR 22.
FRANK TURNEY
Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Fairbanks Chapter
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments regarding the Bill of Rights and proposed that
both resolutions be reported from committee.
LARRY HURLOCK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
detailed some of the aspects of the Juneau resolution and urged
members to get something similar passed this session.
JED WHITTAKER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and urged the committee to move the
resolutions forward.
JOHN BRADING
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and asked that steps be taken to repeal those
Acts and executive orders that infringe on people's
constitutional rights.
MIKE PRAX
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and urged members to move some form of the
resolution through the process this session.
ELIZABETH CUADRA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments, testified in support of HJR 22, and urged
members to enact it this session.
GREG ESCHRIGHT
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and said he supports passage of a resolution.
DAVID NOON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HJR
22 and HJR 23.
JUNE PINNELL-STEPHENS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided statistics resulting from the implementation of Section
215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and urged members to pass the
strongest resolution possible.
ANDREA DOLL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and asked whether citizens should just stand
by and let their freedoms and rights be taken away.
NINA MOLLETT
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and encouraged members to pass as strong a
resolution as possible.
HEATHER McINTYRE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and encouraged passage of an amalgamation of
the two resolutions.
ALVIN A. ANDERS
Alaska Libertarian Party
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
urged passage of a resolution with teeth.
M. MIKE LAWLESS
Two Rivers, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
expressed confidence that the legislature will send a resolution
with teeth to Congress.
PAOLA GREER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided a synopsis of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003" and urged members to take action as soon as possible.
LIZ GREIG
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and relayed that she would like to see an
amalgamation of the two resolutions with more teeth in it.
ANNA GODDUHN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and testified in support of passing a
combination of the two resolutions.
MICHAEL WALLERI
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 22 and HJR 23,
provided comments and said he hopes the resolutions will pass
from committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-52, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Seaton, Dahlstrom, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SJR 17 - ALASKA-YUKON INTERGOV RELATIONS ACCORD
Number 0052
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Relating to the Alaska-Yukon
Intergovernmental Relations Accord, to annual legislative
exchanges, and to continuing intergovernmental work on matters
of joint concern and mutual interest.
Number 0081
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said
that SJR 17 supports the extension of the Alaska-Yukon
Intergovernmental Relations Accord, which is currently set to
expire on September 8, 2003. Alaska and the Yukon territory of
Canada, he remarked, share not only a long, common border but
also a connected history of resource development and pre-contact
ethnography. In the past, Alaska and the Yukon territory have
enjoyed mutual prosperity from joint efforts in mineral
exploration and development, and currently co-manage important
fish and game resources that transmigrate borders. With a
pending gas pipeline and other matters of potential resource
use, exploration, and development, it is essential, he opined,
for Alaska and the Yukon territory to work together
cooperatively to ensure the wise use of resources.
SENATOR OLSON went on to say:
This year, I and a number of others attended the
annual legislative exchange with our Yukon colleagues
in Whitehorse. The meetings and discussions that
ensued underscore the importance of continuing the
Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord for
our future economic growth and wellbeing. With that,
I respectfully urge your favorable support of this
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM mentioned that she was one of those who
attended the aforementioned exchange, adding that it was a very
productive meeting and that she is looking forward to many good
things resulting from it.
Number 0240
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SJR 17 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SJR 17 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 288 - CHANGING NAME OF DEPT OF COMM & ECON DEV.
Number 0297
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 288, "An Act changing the name of the
Department of Community and Economic Development."
Number 0336
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 288 changes the name of the Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED) to the Department of
Commerce. He opined that the name "Commerce" more accurately
reflects the objectives of the department, that being to:
promote growth in Alaska's economy through the large-scale
trading, buying, and selling of goods between cities, states,
and countries; and have business dealings with the same. He
relayed that the DCED's web site lists, among others, the
following two objectives: "Organize and conduct business trade
missions to expand product sales in current markets and develop
new markets," and "Marketing Alaska-Sell Alaska's goods and
services throughout the world." A second reason for changing
the name, he offered, is that it will "eliminate any confusion
that's out there about whether we even have an agency in Alaska
that is tasked to develop commerce as we attempt to promote the
state throughout the world and attract investment here."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING mentioned that numerous other states
include "Commerce" in the title of their comparable agency. In
addition to the aforementioned reasons, the administration
desires a name change, he remarked, noting that the governor
announced in his "State of the State" speech that the
administration would be referring to the department as the
"Department of Commerce." House Bill 288 merely formalizes that
change and is accompanied by a zero fiscal note.
Number 0526
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 288 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that although the
administration desires a name change, it wishes for the words
"Economic Development" to remain in that new name; thus the new
name would be "the Department of Commerce & Economic
Development." He said that he would be amenable to such a
change to HB 288
Number 0629
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew her motion to report HB 288
out of committee.
Number 0636
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1: to add,
after "Commerce" on page 1, line 7, the words "and Economic
Development"; to retain, after "Commerce" on page 1, line 9, the
words "and Economic Development; to add, after "Commerce" on
page 2, line 2, the words "and Economic Development"; and to
add, after "commerce" on page 2, line 2, the words "and economic
development". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 0835
EDGAR BLATCHFORD, Commissioner, Department of Community &
Economic Development (DCED), indicated that the administration
supports HB 288, as amended, adding that the cost to the state
will be minimal in that the changes effected will be gradual in
terms of acquiring supplies containing the new name. He added,
"We are eager to change the name of the department to "Commerce
& Economic Development, simply for the sake that we need to be
more effective in our communications with people: the private
sector, and in the community, and in the international arena."
COMMISSIONER BLATCHFORD, in response to questions, confirmed
that he'd been commissioner of the Department of Community &
Regional Affairs (DCRA) under Governor Hickel in the early
1990s; that in 1999, the DCRA was merged with what was then
known as the Department of Commerce and Economic Development;
and that with the change proposed by HB 288, the last vestige of
the name "Community & Regional Affairs" will be removed. He
relayed that his heart and sole is in rural Alaska; therefore,
one of the things he did as the commissioner of the Department
of Community & Economic Development was to reorganize the
department to reflect a continuing commitment to activities in
the unorganized boroughs as well as the organized boroughs. He
mentioned that one of the divisions in the DCED is now
responsible for all of the programs that were under the purview
of the DCRA.
COMMISSIONER BLATCHFORD went on to say that the DCED strongly
believes that the municipalities, the boroughs, and the
unorganized areas of the state need to be at the table when
public policy discussions are underway. He assured the
committee that the proposed change in the department's name
contains no intention to diminish the functions that were
formerly under the purview of the DCRA, adding that it is the
DCED's intention to strengthen its commitment to the private
sector and to economic development in both the organized and the
unorganized boroughs. He relayed that the department views the
name change as a strengthening of the its mission.
Number 1121
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked whether either the sponsor or the
commissioner would have any objection to changing the title of
HB 288 to say: "An act changing the name of the Department of
Department of Community and Economic Development to the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Representative Kohring is "shaking
[his] head, 'No,' to that title change."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for a definition of the word
"commerce."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING replied that he defines it both by the
dictionary and by the department's mission statement, and
reiterated his earlier comments on that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered that under Article X, Section
14, of the Alaska State Constitution, it says: "An agency shall
be established by law in the executive branch of the state
government to advise and assist local governments. It shall
review their activities, collect and publish local government
information, and perform other duties prescribed by law." He
pointed out that "that term" was not mentioned in either of the
definitions proffered by the sponsor. He opined that "this
title change doesn't sweep in the constitutional requirements,"
adding that during the discussions surrounding the merger in
1999, there was a great deal of angst that the DCRA was going to
be swallowed up by the Department of Commerce & Economic
Development and that the concerns of rural Alaska were going be
swept under the rug.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ relayed that he viewed Governor
Murkowski's announcement as a retreat from the commitments and
assurances made during the original debate that the needs of
rural communities were going to be met. There is a lot in a
name, he remarked, adding that the signal being sent via HB 288
is: "Not only have we done away with ... 'Regional Affairs,' in
phase one, now we're going to do away with the 'Community' part
of what we're supposed to take care of." He said it seems to
him that the proposed change deviates from the constitutional
mission that used to belong exclusively to the DCRA, and that it
adds another brick in the wall between urban and rural Alaska
that could easily be interpreted as a slight to rural Alaska.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING suggested that the creation of a division
within the DCED specifically tasked with administering programs
to rural Alaska was an adequate solution to the concerns
expressed regarding the original merger. He said that he
believes that the assurances made in 1999, that rural programs
are taken very seriously and that the intent is to retain them,
still apply.
COMMISSIONER BLATCHFORD said that as Alaska has changed, so has
the department. At statehood, all of Alaska was in the
unorganized borough, and since that time, he offered, much of
Alaska's population is now living in the organized borough or in
some form of a borough or under a joint city-borough type of
government. The department's mission is still the same with
regard to dealing with municipalities, he assured the committee,
adding that some communities still welcome the department's help
and some no longer need it.
COMMISSIONER BLATCHFORD offered his view that the goal of state
government is to enable local governments to make their own
decisions as much as possible. He also offered his view, as the
former commissioner of DCRA, that rather than the DCRA being
swallowed up by the Department of Commerce & Economic
Development, the opposite has happened in that the functions of
the DCRA swallowed up the Department of Commerce & Economic
Development. He again offered to the committee that the
department's mission remains the same, to be available to assist
communities and provide them with as many resources as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered his opinion, however, that
notwithstanding the commissioner's assurances, everything he has
seen from the current administration runs counter to letting
local people make local decisions. He added:
The signal that is sent, in addition, by the change
here, is fairly unmistakable. And there are good
people involved in your department, and I have every
confidence in your ability to steward the department.
But these departments and these institutions endure
long after we're gone. And we ought to make sure that
the good that [is] occurring now and the good that
occurred in the past continues, and a name change is
just a precursor to a mission change. And a mission
change could readily happen under someone who is much
less friendly to rural Alaska and rural needs than you
are.
Number 1785
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 288 [as amended] out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note.
Number 1792
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked whether there were any objections
regarding his suggestion to change the title of HB 288 to read:
"An act changing the name of the Department of Community and
Economic Development to the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development." He added, "I move that title change."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he objects to that title change.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the title change had already been
adopted, and invited Representative Berkowitz to speak to his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked:
Economic development is one of these vague terms that
we all tried out, particularly around campaign season
and in our great rhetorical flourishes on the floor,
but it doesn't have a specific meaning. And ... we
ought to be precise and short, and "Commerce" is
pretty short and to the point. It also links up
fairly well, I think, with the federal department of
commerce, and there could be benefits from that. So,
we ought to be short and to the point, and if we're
going to get rid of "Economic Development" -- if it
wasn't the intent of the sponsor to have "Economic
Development" in it, the administration was acquiescent
in that. It's their department and I think they
should call it what they intended to call it. And
hopefully, in future years, we'll go back to making it
what it's supposed to be.
Number 1882
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holm, Seaton,
Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Weyhrauch voted in favor of reporting HB
288, as amended, from committee. Representatives Berkowitz and
Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 288(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-2.
HJR 22 - PATRIOT ACT AND DEFENDING CIVIL LIBERTIES
HJR 23 - PATRIOT ACT AND PEACE & SECURITY
[Contains brief mention of SJR 15.]
Number 1936
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the final 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; and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
NO. 23, Relating to the USA PATRIOT Act and to the peace and
security of citizens of our country.
Number 1952
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HJR 22, paraphrased portions of his sponsor
statement, which read in part [original punctuation provided]:
The State of Alaska has a proud history of respecting
the right to privacy and individual liberties as
reflected in the Alaska and U.S. Constitutions. This
resolution states that efforts to fight terrorism must
not be waged at the expense of the civil rights and
liberties of the people of the State of Alaska and the
United States.
The resolution affirms the state's strong opposition
to terrorism but raises concerns about provisions of
the USA Patriot Act that expand federal authority to
detain and investigate and engage in the electronic
surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike.
The resolution states that absent any probable cause
of criminal activity, it is the policy of the State of
Alaska to forbid participation or cooperation with
such investigations, surveillance, or detention; the
recording, sharing, and retention of intelligence
information such as library records; book and video
sales or rental records; medical, financial, and
student records, and other personal data; and
profiling based on race, ethnicity, citizenship,
religion, or political views.
The resolution also calls upon Alaska's Congressional
delegation to work to correct provisions of the USA
Patriot Act and other measures that infringe on civil
liberties.
[Chair Weyhrauch turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Holm.]
Number 2076
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HJR 23, indicated that his and Representative Guttenberg's
goal is to put together a bipartisan message to send to the
nation's leaders regarding the Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 ("USA PATRIOT
Act"). He opined the so much swings on what the definition of
"terrorism" entails, that caution is appropriate in order to
ensure that essential liberties are protected. He noted that
HJR 23 includes the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL went on to say:
We want to establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for common defense, provide for
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty for the next generation. So, all of those can
be intentions, and especially when we're trying to
protect our borders. We're trying to ensure domestic
tranquility and provide justice at the same time. So
we find ourselves once again at that moment of tension
where we have those who would want to destroy our
country and we need to have some kind of surveillance
and intelligence and all of the different things that
are necessary to protect our borders, but we don't
want to [come] ... under the powerful hand of the
tyrannical government.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he took a little different
approach than did Representative Guttenberg, but notwithstanding
that difference, "I think we can amalgamate some of our
approaches and I am sure willing to do that." He indicated that
[HJR 23] calls upon Congress to affirm its commitment to the
founding principles of the U.S. Constitution, its amendments,
and its preamble. He mentioned that although he has no
objection to adding more teeth to HJR 23, he is cautious about
describing "all the things, lest we leave something [important]
out." He opined that "the whole thing" hinges upon how the
government defines terrorism. "The liberties that we enjoy in
Alaska and in America are something that we would like to see
[enjoyed] across the world, but the only way they're going to do
that is if they stay healthy at home," he added, and predicted
that "probable cause" will be a key issue in the discussion of
how to ensure appropriate limitations on the power of
government.
[Vice Chair Holm returned the gavel to Chair Weyhrauch.]
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ thanked Representative Coghill for the
bipartisan cooperation he's shown on this and other issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he appreciates that these resolutions
are being brought forth, and mentioned the fine line between
protecting oneself and losing all personal freedoms.
Number 2439
GRAHAM STOREY relayed that he'd been scheduled to fly from
Seattle to Chicago on September 11, 2001, but the flight was
canceled due to the terrorist attacks. He offered the following
to illustrate why the USA PATRIOT Act is needed:
The "Church Senate committee hearing" back in 1973
results in the stripping of federal law enforcement
powers which could have prevented such occurrences
that happened on September 11. [The USA Patriot Act]
does not take us back to that same level of law
enforcement powers we had, that were eroded from the
'70s through the '80s through the '90s. As a point,
every time a provision of this Act is challenged in
court, it is either upheld to be constitutional or the
lower court's ruling is overturned by the appeals
court.
Quite frankly, I can't believe that responsible
legislators would advocate the civil disobedience of
not following federal legislation which is entirely
constitutional. My preference, if either one of these
[resolutions] were to pass, would obviously be
Representative Coghill's, but my preference would be
that none of them pass and, instead, the Alaska
[legislature] come out with a resolution in full
support of the [USA PATRIOT Act]. Thank you.
Number 2540
JIM SYKES mentioned that in the mid-1970s, he'd traveled around
the world a lot by himself, and he'd traveled to eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union and he'd never experienced a more secure
place - there were no guns, there was no crime, it was an
entirely secure place. He went on to say:
I had one person take me aside when I was traveling
through Bulgaria, who took me through a walk in the
park, and he said, "We have a saying here, that if
three people sit down to drink coffee, that one of
them is an informant." And I think that the [USA
PATRIOT Act is taking us dangerously in that
direction. We have to recognize that terrorism is not
a military problem - it's a police problem. We do
need to give tools to the police to give them adequate
information to help prevent terrorism, but by the
nature of terrorism, it's not something that you can
easily prevent. And during the time I was traveling
around, the Bader-Meinhof gang was very, very active
in Europe - there were bombs going off in Paris and
other major European cities - and it really was police
work that needed to be done.
And I think you'll find that across the nation, there
are even more, I would say, assertive, resolutions of
this type being passed, and some of them even suggest
fines for cooperating with the parts of the [USA
PATRIOT Act] that take away our most dear freedoms.
So I would like to speak in favor of [HJR 22]. I
think that it is -- and I would like to actually thank
both Representatives Coghill and Guttenberg for coming
forward with this, because I think that while [HJR 23]
is okay, I think that [HJR 22] strikes a good balance
between where most Alaskans feel our very important
freedoms need to be preserved, and that we should
speak out.
It is the responsibility of our legislature to speak
out in favor of our freedoms that are in the Alaska
[State] Constitution as well the U.S. Constitution.
So I would say I favor [HJR 22]; [HJR 23] would be
okay. And I thank you very much for bringing this
forward, I think it's very important to state this,
and I hope that you pass it with the unanimous vote.
Number 2654
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (AkCLU), thanked the committee for hearing both
resolutions, and said she is pleased to hear that the sponsors
are working toward a bipartisan resolution. She went on to say:
I had a wonderful meeting two weeks ago with
Congressman Young when he was in ... Anchorage for
Easter break. And we sat down for 30 minutes and
didn't disagree about anything. ... Congressman Young,
actually, is one of the most vocal critics of the USA
PATRIOT Act. As you probably are aware ..., the [USA
PATRIOT Act] was passed not only in the aftermath of
the tragic attacks of [9/11/2001] but in the midst of
anthrax [threats]. There was beginning to be some
talk in Congress of slowing down the movement of the
[USA PATRIOT Act], just to have a few hearings, maybe
ask some questions and get some answers. [But] then,
in October of [2001], anthrax hit, and these folks ...
were afraid - not just abstractly for American lives,
but for their own lives - and they were working out of
hallways and closets, afraid to open any envelopes,
didn't have their own fax machines.
And frankly, in the midst of this chaos, not enough
copies of this 342-page bill had been printed for
every member of Congress to even have one. Most
members of Congress never read it. And that's
understandable ... [considering] the fear in which
they were operating. In times of panic, when one is
so desperate and one is being told, "Give us this law
and we will keep you safe," I think the tendency
generally is to say, "Okay, okay, okay, here - do it."
But then second thoughts creep in because Congress was
not told exactly what this really authorizes. And
many provisions of this 342-page bill actually go way
beyond dealing with anything related to terrorism, and
get to ordinary, routine criminal investigations. So
now there are many in Congress who are calling for
hearings and calling for revisions and amendments.
Just recently, the Washington Times ran an article
where Congressman Sensenbrenner, a Republican from
Wisconsin, joined with Congressman Conyers, a Democrat
from Michigan, to call for hearings and begin to look
at this because Congress is not getting reports on how
this is being implemented - Congress is not able to
track [it] because so many of these provision involve
law enforcement activities that are done in secret.
Our representatives cannot hold the executive branch
of government accountable - they cannot hold law
enforcement accountable - when they don't know what's
happening. And neither can we, the people.
Number 2819
MS. RUDINGER continued:
So Congressman Young, in our meeting a couple of weeks
ago, agreed to do three things. He said that he would
sign on to cosponsor a bill that has been introduced
in Congress by [Congressman] Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, and this bill will begin to fix one part of
the [USA PATRIOT Act], Section 215, that deals with
library records. And that is something that, all over
Alaska, folks are very upset about; the Alaska Library
Association has taken a very strong position against
the [USA PATRIOT Act], especially Section 215.
Congressman Sanders's bill is something that
Congressman Young said he would support.
The second thing Congressman Young said he would do
is, he is very likely to oppose the Domestic Security
Enhancement Act, which is also known as "PATRIOT II."
This is a measure that was leaked in January, or none
of us would know of its existence. It was at that
point over 120 pages long and it was being drafted for
the purpose of removing the sunset provision on the
[USA PATRIOT Act] and also expanding law enforcement's
authority to conduct secret searches even broader than
[it] already [is]. So ... PATRIOT II, however it ends
up being introduced, given the intent of the ...
proposed bill, is something that Congressman [Young]
said he's very likely to oppose.
And on the sunset issue, I should add that not all of
the USA PATRIOT Act does sunset in [2005]. One of the
compromises that was put into it in Congress, because
no one had had time to read it, was: "Well, let's
have it sunset in four years; let's give this a try
and see how it works." But some of these changes such
as the provision dealing with Section 213, the
provision dealing with "sneak-and-peak warrants," this
is a permanent change in the law; there is no sunset
on this.
Number 2911
MS. RUDINGER, in response to a question, said:
Well, a sneak-and-peak warrant -- normally, the Fourth
Amendment requires that if the government is going to
search your property, come into your home, come into
your computer or your office and download files, that
you have a right to have notice that they're doing it.
A sneak-and-peak warrant, or what used to be called
"the black-bag job" during the Watergate
investigations, this is where you don't have that
notice, where the government can come into your home,
download your files, search through your property,
your records, go to your office and do the same,
without you ever knowing they were there. Or, at
least prior to the [USA PATRIOT Act], it could be
months before you knew that they were there; there
were court cases that had ruled they could have a
certain amount of time but eventually you had [to]
know they were there.
The [USA PATRIOT Act] says, under some circumstances,
you may never know that they were there; the only way
you would find out is if, in fact, their searches
[led] to criminal charges being filed against you. So
if they went in and did a fishing expedition, found
nothing and left, under the [USA PATRIOT Act] you
don't ever have to find out that they were there.
That's my understanding. So ... prior to the [USA
PATRIOT Act], as I mentioned, the court cases said
that ... after a certain amount of time, you would
know. Well, there were very tight restrictions on
when this kind of a warrant would be issued - there
were basically five things that law enforcement had to
show the judge in order to get the warrant. Number
one, that an individual's physical safety would be
endangered if notice were given. Two, that someone
would flee prosecution. Three, that evidence would be
tampered with.
TAPE 03-52, SIDE B
Number 2988
MS. RUDINGER continued:
[Not on tape, but taken from the Gavel to Gavel
recording on the Internet, was the following bracketed
portion.] [Four, that potential witnesses could be
intimidated - or would be intimidated, I should say.
And five, that an investigation would be jeopardized
or a trial unduly delayed. If they showed any one of
those things and convinced the judge that notice
would] be potentially harmful, they could get around
the notice requirement, but eventually, after the
fact, they had to tell you. So, what ... Section 213
of the [USA PATRIOT Act] does is take this limited
authority and expand it. It used to be that it
applied to electronic information they were trying to
get. Now it expands it so it applies to any kind of
search, whether it's for physical evidence or
electronic evidence, and in any kind of criminal case,
not just about terrorism.
So this is a permanent change in the law, and this is
one of the things that a lot of folks in Congress,
frankly, didn't realize the scope that they were
authorizing when they agreed to Section 213. ... The
[American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)] has been very
involved, it's part of a broad, left-right coalition
including the Eagle Forum, ... the American
Conservative Union, Gun Owners of America, and ...
groups like People for the American Way - over 100
groups are involved in working to make some changes
and put some balance ... back into the inquiry here.
Anytime that the government is proposing measures that
potentially infringe on our civil liberties in the
name or security, there are some questions that we the
people and our elected representatives should ask.
Number one, we should be asking: "Show us how this
really makes us safe. Show us, don't just give us
some feel-good assertion. Explain to me how this
measure is necessary to make us safe." Now, if the
government does convince you that the specific
provision is going to keep the public safe, then there
is a balancing that comes into play - balance the
increase in safety with what you may be giving up in
terms of individual liberties. If you're getting a
minimal increase in safety but you're trading away
some very essential liberties, maybe the balance
doesn't weigh in favor of passing that proposed ...
language. If the balance does tip in favor of that,
then that makes some sense. ... It's not that we have
to trade away our liberty for our freedom; we can be
both safe and free if the right questions are asked
and we make sure that we're not trading away our
liberty for a false sense of security, that we're
really getting something for this, something that,
frankly, ought to have something to do with terrorism.
...
Number 2842
MS. RUDINGER added:
And also the third thing that Congressman Young agreed
to, besides working to fix the library thing with
[Congressman] Sanders and opposing PATRIOT II as it's
likely to be introduced, most importantly, he agreed
to introduce legislation into Congress to begin to fix
the USA PATRIOT Act - an actual bill that would repeal
some of these things and amend some of these things.
It's not the whole [USA PATRIOT Act] that we're trying
to repeal, but there are some very specific provisions
of it that are quite onerous, and Congressman Young
agreed to introduce legislation to ... get at that.
Now, of course the first thing I then said, besides
"Thank you," was "Well, Congressman Young, you realize
as soon as you introduce something getting at
attacking or correcting the [USA PATRIOT Act]" - as
Representative Coghill pointed out, the importance of
naming, it's very Orwellian, really - "if your against
something called the [USA PATRIOT Act] does that make
you," and he finished the sentence for me, he said,
"Yeah, I'll be called 'unpatriotic.'" And so ... I
left him copies of the Fairbanks resolution that had
passed unanimously in that city council on January 6;
of the Juneau resolution, which at that time was
pending but then has since passed 6-1; copies of [the]
Gustavus [resolution] - I didn't have at that time a
copy of [the] North Pole [resolution], but I see they
passed one as well; and also copies of HJR 22 and SJR
15, which were what I had at the time.
And I asked him if it would be helpful to him and his
colleagues who are maybe not in as safe a political
position as he is, when they try to fix the [USA
PATRIOT Act], is it helpful that, right now, we're up
to 97 communities around the country, including four
in Alaska, who have passed resolutions calling on
Congress to do this. And I said, "Would it be helpful
if the ... Alaska legislature passed a strong
resolution calling on Congress to do this; it's going
to be pretty hard to say you're unpatriotic." And he
said, "Yes."
Number 2741
MS. RUDINGER went on to say:
In fact, Senator Ogan had placed a call to his office,
asking that question, "Would this be helpful to you?"
And he asked me to convey to Senator Ogan, which I did
through his staff, that it would be helpful and he
meant to call him back but he was in transit between
[Washington] D.C. and Alaska. So, it was a great
meeting. And there are many provisions of the [USA
PATRIOT Act] that are quite onerous that Congress, at
the time, did not realize went well beyond what's
required, as the wording of the title says, to
intercept and obstruct terrorism, but that actually
gets to ordinary, routine criminal investigations.
So ... whether this becomes a joint bipartisan
[resolution] with two sponsors on it, or a committee
bill, or whatever ends up happening, what the ACLU and
our coalition partners would like to see is, something
that does call on Congress to do their homework, do
the balancing between whether these measures will
really keep us safe and, if so, what are we trading
away, and be sure to understand that. So to fix the
[USA PATRIOT Act] where that balance is not
appropriately struck, but also have some binding
language in it - something with teeth. ...
An example of excellent binding language is the
Fairbanks resolution. Fairbanks is saying that our
city dollars, in Fairbanks, will not be used to
violate the bill of rights to the extent that we have
the right to say no. A lot of the things coming down
under the [USA PATRIOT Act] are mandatory, but
sometimes these are voluntary requests that come down
from the feds, and having binding language means that
the answer will be, "We will not violate civil
liberties if it's a voluntary request." Thank you
very much to the committee, and I look forward to
working with anyone that wants to put together a
bipartisan effort here.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that it is his hope that the House State
Affairs Standing Committee will pass out both resolutions and
that the two sponsors will work together in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
Number 2622
ROGER W. SHANNON suggested that the issue raised by HJR 22, HJR
23, and SJR 15 are important enough that one's political
affiliations ought not hold sway in the discussion. He went on
to say:
We need to come together on this issue because it's
probably one of the most important pieces of
legislation to have been enacted upon these shores in
many, many years. With all this in mind, I'd like to
give you an example as to what I see going on. Let me
take you back to my football days in high school when
we were doing tackle practice, and a little buddy of
mine was flipped the ball from 10 yards away and it
was my duty to get down below it, at ankle level. He
was much shorter than myself. We met head on. When I
rolled off to the side, he says, "Are you all right?"
And I said, "I think so." ... He'd said, "You
shouldn't be all right; check your helmet." I took it
off. Sir, there were 17 splits and cracks in that
helmet. That's what I'm starting to see with these
different resolutions down there. We need to throw
the party lines out and individual (indisc.) out of
this, and [come] together and live up to that little
word in HJR and SJR - I believe it says "joint."
That's a five-letter word, sir; I believe it equates
to another five-letter word, and that would be
"unity."
MR. SHANNON said that although he can see the importance of and
the need for the USA PATRIOT Act, he can also see the need to
scrutinize it, to be vigilant, and to not give away civil
liberties.
Number 2250
JANET KUSSART indicated that she supports [the resolutions], and
asked the committee to vote to pass them. She relayed that if
she were to be frightened of anything, it would be of the
government and of what it might do under the name of the USA
PATRIOT Act. She went on to say:
I've never been so upset, to think that my own
government would pass such an Act that would cause us
to be afraid of it, [for] our own being, here in this
state and in this nation. ... And we ask our military
men and women to fight for freedom and democracy, and
yet we're living under something right now that is not
good for us. ... I really would want you to put us
back on the right track, and let our Congress people
know ... that we do not live under such a totalitarian
way of life. Thank you.
Number 2153
KATY PARRISH said she had some concerns about the USA PATRIOT
Act. She elaborated:
Number one, up to 2,000 people, including children,
have been detained in the United States without trial
or charge or even legal right. The fate of most is
unknown. Rabih Hadad, one of the detained, a
respected Muslim pastor, has been charged with no
crime. To date, Mr. Hadad is being held in solitary
confinement, and can only see his family for four
hours a month. Meanwhile, Congressman John Conyers,
Jr., has expressed outrage over the fact that his
proceedings, to date, have all been in secret. As
Congressman Conyers states, "Justice delayed
translates to justice denied."
On March 20, Jason Halperin, a doctor with [Doctors
Without Borders/Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF)], and a
friend were held at gun point in an Indian restaurant
in Manhattan by INS [Immigration and Naturalization
Service] and Department of Homeland Security agents.
They told the agents they had no right to hold them.
The agents responded, "You're being held under the
[USA] PATRIOT Act following suspicion under an
internal Homeland Security investigation. These men,
other patrons, and staff were terrorized and held for
over two hours while agents checked their background.
They were subsequently released after the agents
realized [that] the tip given was a mistake.
Finally, in the 2002 performance report for the
Department of Justice, Section 8.1.b (ph), the Office
of Professional Responsibility released data looking
at the misconduct of U.S. attorneys; despite the
implementation of the [USA PATRIOT Act], which has
been touted to aid law enforcement and attorneys in
prosecuting terrorists, U.S. attorney misconduct is
the highest it's been in six years. Thanks to the
[USA PATRIOT Act], having less checks and balances
doesn't seem to have made a positive impact on law-
enforcement ethics. I beg you to pass strong
resolutions such as HJR 22 and SJR 15 to keep America
safe and free. Thank you.
Number 2018
GEOFF KENNEDY offered the following comments:
One of the three biggest lies, as you know, is: "I'm
from the government and I'm here to help you." I got
plenty of government help in the 1980s when I spoke
out publicly against the immoral policies of the
federal government. I got rewarded with audits by the
Internal Revenue Service [IRS] again and again. Once
the IRS examiner asked me for evidence for my claims
one, two, three, and four. When I did so, she asked
questions about claims numbers five, six, seven, and
eight. I told her I didn't bring such evidence
because she didn't ask me to, so she unilaterally
[decided] to disallow my claims - the old bait-and-
switch trick. I was making about $7 an hour at the
time, I'd guess you'd call it the "leave no person's
wallet behind" strategy.
Well now, big government has the Internet; Mr.
Poindexter, of "Iran/Contra-gate" infamy, can now find
an opinion piece I wrote in the Catholic Anchor
newspaper in which I suggested people in government
shouldn't just post the Ten Commandments but actually
obey them, even on the job. So now the feds can find
out I'm a member of [a] religion who's leader, John
Paul II, has publicly called the war in Iraq immoral.
Now, President Bush says either you're with him or
against him. Does following my pope make me an enemy
of my country? Now the government insists it's only
after terrorists, not dissenters.
Yeah, that's the government that told me it wasn't
doing arms business with terrorists to finance the
Contras; it's the government that told me, "Read my
lips, no new taxes"; and [it's] the government that
told me, "I did not have sex with that woman." Yeah,
right. They're from the government and they're here
to help me. Well, legislators, it's time to decide:
Are you on the side of Alaskans, or tyrants? Because
make no mistake, if you let the feds take away our
rights, your handing the terrorists a victory. It's
time to tell the feds to stick tyranny where the sun
don't shine. Thanks.
Number 1899
JOHN ILIFF relayed that he is a librarian. He went on to say:
A fundamental tenant of my profession is that library
patrons should be able to read and research with a
reasonable expectation of privacy. With the USA
PATRIOT Act, the bar that assures even a modicum of
privacy for my folks has been set too low. Among the
problems with the [USA PATRIOT Act], that I see, are
that it provides easy access for federal agents to
library and bookstore records under the guise of
obtaining business records; it allows for obtaining
records that can be part of really overly broad
investigations, it also gags librarians and other
library keepers from telling the folks that we serve
that they're being monitored, that they're being
observed and scrutinized.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed in a period of
heightened emotion. It is time, I think, for us now
to be levelheaded. We all want security, but
excessive information gathering by federal agents is
not the answer. It is now clear that the tragic
events of 9/11 were not the result of too little
information. As a joint committee of the U.S.
Congress noted, the failure to impede the attacks was
due to a lack of coordination of information. Stated
otherwise, the feds don't need easy access to library
records, they need better coordination of information.
Please join the American Library Association, the
Alaska Library Association, the American Booksellers
Association, and many, many other organizations by
resolving to support the U.S. Bill of Rights and by
condemning the onerous parts of the [USA PATRIOT Act].
This is not a Republican party issue, and it's not a
Democratic party issue; it is neither a liberal nor a
conservative issue. This is an issue of basic
American rights. Please pass HJR 22 and declare
Alaska a safe zone for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Thanks.
Number 1787
FRANK TURNEY, Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Fairbanks
Chapter, thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify
and the sponsors for bringing forth the resolutions. He went on
to say:
As of right now, 97 cities and towns across the United
States have passed resolutions defending civil
liberties versus the [USA PATRIOT Act]. Arcata
California [passed] the first ordinance that actually
had teeth; it was brought by the mayor, the chief of
police, and the city manager. I'd like to remind [you
that] not only the Fairbanks city council passed a
resolution, and Juneau, but also North Pole passed a
... resolution 7-0. Looking at the Bill of Rights and
the U.S. Constitution and the [USA PATRIOT Act], this
[USA PATRIOT Act] is not the intent of our Founding
Fathers when it comes to protecting unalienable rights
versus the federal government. The Bill of Rights has
been in jeopardy for the past couple of decades. The
[USA PATRIOT Act] and Homeland Security has added fuel
to destroy our Bill of Rights.
I support our president, as far as terrorism, and
support our troops. But I believe it takes more than
a soldier to protect our freedoms. Elected officials
are sworn to an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution,
and that includes the Bill of Rights. Looking at both
of these House resolutions, they are both worthy of
passing. ... Let's let freedom ring and pass both
these resolutions [out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee]. Thank you.
Number 1680
LARRY HURLOCK noted that he'd worked on the Juneau resolution,
and remarked that resolutions of this nature are easy to write
but hard to get through the process. He went on to say:
What I'm urging you to do is, ... move to the center
... if you must ..., [and] get something out this
session. If you can't get something with big, sharp
teeth, at least use your voice. The Juneau resolution
called for four action items. ... The first was, we
asked for continued congressional engagement with the
issue of government surveillance. And not just the
[USA PATRIOT Act]; we did include the homeland
security Act, and one of the reasons we did that is
that the homeland security Act has a provision in [it]
that prevents their own inspector general from looking
at those cases/investigations which the secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security feels the
[inspector] general shouldn't be looking at. And
that's pretty egregious stuff; at least in our opinion
it was. ... We actually included, also, the executive
orders.
The second action item we had was, we dealt with
employee responses to the homeland security Act. ...
The American Library Association teaches their people
how to respond to a ... subpoena, as opposed to a
warrant. In other words, with a subpoena, you just
don't hand something forward; [with] warrants, you
react in a much faster way, you give them what [they]
want - you give them inventory. My point being, we
did include an employee response within our action
items. We also created a repository for complaints -
the Juneau borough does have a human rights commission
- and today, if you feel that you are being unjustly
put under surveillance by the U.S. government, you can
report that to the human rights commission, which will
report that to the assembly, which is to make that
information public.
Number 1442
MR. HURLOCK continued:
We also requested reportage of activity, from the
federal government, for actions which are taken within
the City and Borough of Juneau. We worked down to
just asking for just one single number, and we were
told that, "No, you're not going to get the
information." But we are a municipality; this is the
state of Alaska, I think there is something called
state's rights and, hopefully, you have a little more
clout as to getting the kind of reportage that the
average person on the street would like to know about
the surveillance activities being taken by the federal
government concerning their lives.
I have a hiking partner: he's an NRA person, [a]
hardcore conservative. After the events of 9/11, when
so many people were being thrown in jail, their names
not even being given out, I said to him, "You know, I
think it's just a pity that in this country that
Congress doesn't even know the names of the people who
are in jail." And he said, "Well, what bothers me is
that I don't know the names of the people in jail." I
wish you all good luck, and that concludes my
testimony. Thank you.
Number 1380
JED WHITTAKER offered the following testimony:
The foundation of the United States of America was to
prevent the tyranny of government, the tyranny of
kings, and to assert the common rights of man. And I
do believe that the [USA PATRIOT Act] is a piece of
legislation that asserts the tyranny of government
over [the] common rights of man, and therefore it's
not a good thing. It was, as Jennifer Rudinger
pointed out, a piece of legislation that many Congress
people did not read when they passed it; they were in
shock because of the events of 9/11.
I do believe that I can paraphrase Congressman Don
Young, who said that, "The [USA PATRIOT Act] bill is
the worst piece of legislation I ever voted for." And
now, I'm glad to see that he has seen the error of his
ways and is attempting to stand up for the common
rights of man against the tyranny of government. And
make no mistake about it, the [USA PATRIOT Act] is
tyrannical. I commend the bipartisan effort of
Representative Guttenberg and Representative Coghill.
Once you get finished with this, please take a look at
the homeland security Act, which, if I may take the
time to quote form a column by William Safire, the
homeland security Act allows: "Every purchase you
make with a credit card, every magazine subscription
you buy and medical prescription you fill, every web
site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every
academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you
make, every trip you book and every event you attend -
all these transactions and communications will go into
what the defense department describes as 'a virtual,
centralized grand database.' To this computerized
dossier on your private life from commercial sources,
add every piece of information that government has
about you - passport application, [driver's license]
and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records,
complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your
lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera
surveillance - and you have the supersnoop's dream: a
'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S.
citizen."
Well, that got passed as well, and it is really very
scary to think about the tyrannical powers that the
United States government has. And it's time to try to
defend what this country's all about, which is freedom
not tyranny, and therefore I urge you to bring these
resolutions [forth], to give our congressmen some
backbone and to recognize that they did make a mistake
and that they have the opportunity to recommend
[fixing] it. This is a grassroots effort, and the
more they hear from the people around the country, the
more they will act. Thank you very much.
Number 1115
JOHN BRADING said he would be speaking in support of both [HJR
22 and HJR 23]. He went on to say:
I found an interesting quote from a famous statesman
that lived during Roman Empire times, some 2,000 years
ago, that relates to these resolutions: "Beware the
leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is
indeed a double edged sword - it both emboldens the
blood just as it narrows the mind - and when the drums
of war have reached a fever pitch, and the blood boils
with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have
no need to seize the rights of the citizenry; rather,
the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the
leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is
what I have done, and I am Caesar"
Quite interesting, that quote was. This ingenious
mind-control technique is used over and over again
through the centuries. [It was] picked up again
[seventy] years ago by Adolph Hitler, who came to
power in 1933 because of a terrorist's successful fire
bombing of the German parliament - Reichstag -
building. Hitler used this terrorist attack on the
German homeland to bang the drums of war in order to
whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor that boiled
their blood and filled their minds with hate.
Psychologists today call this, (indisc.), a part of
the brain, backwards to trigger the mind's reptilian
flight-or-fight survival mode.
MR. BRADING continued:
That's what is manipulating the mass consciousness of
the U.S. people for control, power, and wealth-
building greed. I believe the power elite and
corporate greed machine are simply doing a modern
version of the old tried and true Caesar-Hitler scam:
first creating fear with 9/11, then do war, we win,
leaders are cheered, military industrial corporations
make billions, [and] the duped U.S. people foot the
bill with blood and more taxes. All the while, our
minds are in shock with fear and diverted away from
the "un-patriot" Act (indisc) and executive orders
that seized the rights of people. Pretty slick scam,
hmmm?
If these Acts and executive orders stand, our country
will [be] converted into a fascist police state ruled
by ... secrecy behind closed doors. Those who
exercise their First Amendment rights to oppose
government policies will disappear first, just like
Hitler did, just like Stalin did, just like Mao did;
it will be the final, complete abduction of democratic
laws and principles. Wake up, America - demand
freedom from bondage. Our constitution does not
defend itself, we the people must. I request my
elected representatives to repeal those portions of
the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, homeland security Act,
and related executive orders that destroy our
constitutional rights. Thank you.
Number 0846
MIKE PRAX thanked the committee for hearing testimony on HJR 22
and HJR 23. He went on to say:
I think it's essential to consider that one of these
resolutions should get through the legislative process
and be passed this session if possible. The [USA
PATRIOT Act] is [a] huge bill that affects many people
and many aspects of our life, and Congress is
considering other bills that could make the situation
even worse. The first thing that we need to do is to
get the attention of Congress by passing resolutions
of this nature, letting them know that we are
concerned about it. And once we have their attention,
then we can (indisc.). So, I hope that you don't get
too hung up in the details; (indisc.) emphasize the
need to move this through and pass something this
legislative session. Thanks a lot.
Number 0756
ELIZABETH CUADRA thanked the committee for hearing the
resolutions and the sponsors for bringing them forth. She said
that she supports HJR 22 and hopes that the sponsor of HJR 23
will merge that resolution with HJR 22, making it a bipartisan
effort. She offered her belief that the USA PATRIOT Act impacts
the rights laid out in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Six, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She went on
to say:
It seems to me that fear is the problem. There is
fear in this country ever since 9/11, and we are now
burdened with a U.S. attorney general, John Ashcroft,
who knows how to take advantage of that fear to get
what he wants. I fear him far more than I fear any
terrorists. I was a child when World War II began, on
a farm in Kansas, and remember listening to radio
broadcasts of speeches by President Roosevelt. And in
one of those speeches, he said something that I hear
quoted again nowadays: "The only thing we have to
fear is fear itself." And yet even under that
administration, this country made the horrible mistake
of interning U.S. citizens in prison camps just
because they were of Japanese ancestry. That's what
fear does.
Yesterday in the news we were reminded of what
happened 50 years ago, during the cold war, when
Senator Joseph McCarthy held secret hearings in which
he interrogated and intimidated roughly 390 U.S.
citizens over whether they were communists or not.
The transcripts were finally released - after 50 years
of being under seal - yesterday. John Ashcroft
belongs in this array of events with what he is trying
to do to our country and to our rights now,
unfortunately. He told congress, when he presented
them the USA PATRIOT Act legislation, "You have three
days to pass this bill, after that you are the ones
responsible for more terrorist acts in this country."
You've already heard about the anthrax in the Senate
buildings at the same time and the fact that members
of Congress never actually read the [USA PATRIOT Act].
Congressman Young has been heard to say that this is
the worst ... thing that Congress ever did - or
something to that effect .... Obviously, we need
constant vigilance if we're going to prevent the
country that I love from becoming a place where our
federal agencies and even our local police are now
required to act as if they were part of the old Soviet
KGB. And the reason is also, we have PATRIOT II
coming down the line. And under that one, I
understand, even we native born U.S. citizens can be
stripped of our citizenship if we put a foot wrong.
So please do enact this legislation, and please do it
this session.
Number 0365
GREG ESCHRIGHT thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify and the sponsors for bringing HJR 22 and HJR 23 forth.
He offered the following as a dictionary definition of republic:
"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and
representatives responsible to them." He opined that inherent
in that definition is a "need for civil liberties and the
ability to have information about our government and what it's
doing. He posited that the issue raised by the resolutions is a
nonpartisan issue, adding that he supports passage of a
resolution and that it is imperative that the legislature act on
it. He reiterated earlier comments about the USA PATRIOT Act,
adding that it was adopted without the citizenry being given the
opportunity to know what it contained.
MR. ESCHRIGHT opined that the Bill of Rights conceptualizes God-
given rights rather than government-granted rights, and that
these rights are rights that citizens hold for themselves rather
than rights that the government holds to protect itself.
Referring to the USA PATRIOT Act, he noted that one of its
provisions pertains to the collection of e-mail data, and that
advocates of that provision say that those collecting e-mail
will only read who it's being sent to and where it was sent
from. Addressing the members, he said: "You wouldn't let them
do that with your regular mail; ... I wouldn't let them do that
with my e-mail."
MR. ESCHRIGHT concluded:
When you listen to the administration talk about the
current holding of prisoners, one of the things that's
said is that they have no trouble getting people to
talk. Well, the problem with that is that the Bill of
Rights, particularly, ... forbids being compelled to
[be a] witness against [oneself], and that's very
definitely being allowed under the current
legislation. Thank you.
TAPE 03-53, SIDE A
Number 0001
DAVID NOON relayed that he teaches U.S. history at the
University of Alaska Southeast. He indicated that as a
historian he is gratified to hear testimony offering historical
examples. He went on to say:
[Also] as a historian, I'm aware of ... many of the
long-term, often unintended, consequences of
legislation - in U.S. history - that has criminalized
what should be and what's usually recognized as the
constitutionally protected activities of ordinary
citizens. ... We've heard some examples of this
already; people have referenced the McCarthy hearings.
I would also reference World War I era anti-sedition
legislation, as well as many of the abuses that were
uncovered in the 1970s by the "Church committee,"
particularly campaigns conducted by the FBI [Federal
Bureau of Investigation] and by the CIA [Central
Intelligence Agency] to target domestic civil rights
organizations, antiwar groups, and so forth. ...
A point I would like to make in addition to that is
that many of the [damages] caused by these particular
episodes in American history did not result
necessarily from a swooping tyrannical power coming
from Washington [D.C.]. Much of the damage caused by
the McCarthy hearings took place with the cooperation
of, and often at the instigation of, local government
officials, school boards, state investigative
committees, and so forth. So I think that when states
like Alaska, or the [City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)]
initiate resolutions of this kind, it's an important
counterbalance to that fear that many of us have of
federal authority and federal power exercised
unjustly.
And I think it is crucial for communities to stand up
for the people who work for them: librarians, public
health officials, police officers, and so forth. And
I think that ... a resolution of this kind reiterates
what the 100 communities and several states in the
U.S. have already insisted on, which is that their
communities back them up. And that's all I have to
say. Thank you.
Number 0241
JUNE PINNELL-STEPHENS relayed that she is on the board of the
AkCLU and on the council of the American Library Association.
She went on to say:
I want to discuss particularly Section 215 of the [USA
PATRIOT Act]. And although the U.S. attorney for
Alaska, Tim Burgess (ph), says that the library
community is overreacting, because libraries and
bookstores aren't even mentioned, I'd like to point
out that no specific entity is mentioned in Section
215 - ... therefore, all of us are covered. And in
fact, within the first three months after 9/11, more
than 200 public libraries in this country had already
been contacted by the law enforcement officials, and
within twelve months, that number rose to nearly 600.
Other incidents include computers being removed from
libraries in Washington [D.C.] without a court order;
every public internet access computer was removed from
the library in Wisconsin; and in New Mexico, Andrew
O'Connor, a former public defender, was arrested in
St. John's College library, taken away in handcuffs
and held for five hours after he was accused of making
threatening remarks about President Bush in a chat
room. Mr. O'Connor contends that he made those
comments in person to another person in the library
and he was swept up by mistake after federal officials
had warned institutions in the area about suspicious
persons being around.
Underlying these attempts to gain records of library
use is an absurd assumption that it's possible to
equate what people will do based on what they read. I
frequently buy material for the public library here
about explosives and blasting because Fairbanks is a
mining center and I think it's important that miners
have access to current, accurate information about
safe handling procedures. Will they continue to use
these materials if they think the FBI is looking over
their shoulders, much less adding their names to watch
lists? Another concern I have is the use of national
security letters. These are administrative subpoenas
issued by the FBI without court review. There are
more than 1,200 of them issued in the year 2002, which
is a 30 percent increase over the previous year, and
now there's a proposal to expand their use by the CIA.
There are also proposals, as you know, in the Senate,
to remove the sunset provision of the [USA PATRIOT
Act]. Other speakers have already mentioned that this
is a bipartisan effort. Lori Waters, who represented
Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, began her comments at
a speech at the American Conservative Union by saying,
"Everyone in this room is a suspect until it's proven
that you're not." ... I do want to point out that Dick
Army says, "The justice department seems to be running
amok; this agency, right now, is the biggest threat to
personal liberty in the country." I certainly concur
with that comment, and I urge you to pass the
strongest statement possible to turn back these abuses
and excesses. Thank you very much.
Number 0529
ANDREA DOLL indicated that her freedom to write letters to the
editor, march with peace signs, and testify before committees is
what makes America the country that its citizens love. She went
on to say:
I am here because I believe that representative
government begins right here at this local level, at
the town meeting, beginning with the town meeting, and
then that voice continues and goes right here into the
state, and then from the state this voice, your voice,
will go onto the federal government. And the public
response to the [USA PATRIOT Act] has been very, very
strong. Democracy is built on an open dialog and
checks and balances, and this is being threatened
right now by the alarming federal trend towards
secrecy and suspicion of the American citizen and the
expansion of executive power.
Well, when we ask our military to defend our
democratic principles on a battlefield, are we, as
citizens, able to stand by and watch our principles
taken away by a pen and a pencil and we don't do
anything? And [so then] I ask you all: Are you
willing just to stand by and do nothing? I don't
think you are. Are we as citizens willing to lose our
rights - and our freedom ... to assemble, and our
rights to privacy, our right to trial by jury, our
freedom of speech - so that we might have security?
And I think of this security as sort of [a] padded
cell. Well, democracy is risky, and vigilance is
really what it's all about. So I thank you, right
now, thank every one of you, for being alert, for
having this dialog, for inviting us in and
demonstrating what this whole thing is all about.
Thank you.
Number 0710
NINA MOLLETT thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak
and the sponsors for bringing the resolutions forth. She went
on to say:
I feel more secure living in [a] state which has now
had four city councils - borough assemblies - passing
these resolutions to defend the Bill of Rights, and
having the feeling that this body also is going to
pass a similar resolution. It makes me feel better
about my fear [regarding] the road this country seems
to be going - I do think that we're tumbling down a
slippery slope. ... A lot of people are afraid of
what's going on in this country, and afraid that all
of our democratic rights are eroding very rapidly. So
I'd like to encourage you to pass a resolution that
has as many teeth in it as can be. ...
And I'm proud of [Congressman] Young; ... I'm really
glad he said that this was the worst bill he'd ever
passed, because, in my opinion, he's voted for quite a
few bad bills. ... Power does corrupt ... - it's just
the way we are - and I think it's a mistake: this
government has been acting very secretive itself -
they don't want to give us ... enough information.
They don't want to give us information, but they want
to get information from us, and I think this is a
recipe for disaster. So ... thank you very much for
doing this.
Number 0972
HEATHER McINTYRE said that she supports an amalgamation of HJR
22 and HJR 23, adding that she is really pleased that it has
become a bipartisan effort. She reiterated that many members of
Congress did not have time to read the 342-page USA PATRIOT Act
before it was passed less than two months after 9/11, and that
there was no public debate conducted at that time. She too
noted that Don Young has been noted as describing it as the
worst Act ever passed. She acknowledged, however, that it was
unlikely that anyone would have been willing to vote against
something called a "patriot" Act. She relayed that although
she'd at first thought that the provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Act were justified, she has since come to realize that she was
wrong, adding that many Americans now realize the Act's negative
impact on the long-cherished freedoms and civil liberties of
law-abiding residents. She stated: "It's now time for the [USA
PATRIOT Act] to be properly in Congress, and passage of an
amalgamation of HJR 22 and [HJR 23] will help encourage that
debate."
Number 1062
ALVIN A. ANDERS, Alaska Libertarian Party, simply urged members,
on behalf of his organization and himself, to pass a resolution
with teeth in order to make Congressman Young's job easier.
Number
M. MIKE LAWLESS relayed that two weeks ago he was a delegate for
the Bill of Rights Defense Committee that met with many members.
He went on to say:
I have a lot of confidence in the body there in
Juneau; I know that when [Representative] Coghill and
[Representative] Guttenberg say they're willing to
work together to put some teeth in the resolution that
will reflect the vast majority of [opinions] of
Alaskans concerning the USA PATRIOT Act, I have a
feeling [they're] going to get [it] done. I'd like to
thank the staff down there too, because I know that
this is taking up a lot of their time and [it's]
necessary.
My only passing comment is that the Bill of Rights
[was] handed to us in trust, at great sacrifice, and I
don't believe we have the right to trade off our
securities and leave our children without an
opportunity to enjoy the same freedoms we had, just
because we're getting a little wound up about the
terrorists now. Anyway, do your job down there and
pass what's noble in our character, not what's base
and fearful in it. I have confidence ... that you'll
send a message, nationwide, [regarding] where Alaska
stands when it comes to the application of the USA
PATRIOT Act. Thank you.
Number 1202
PAOLA GREER thanked the sponsors for bring forth HJR 22 and HJR
23. He said:
The [USA PATRIOT Act] was introduced by the Whitehouse
soon after September 11; Attorney General John
Ashcroft gave Congress one week to pass a bill without
changes. Few Americans have the slightest idea what
the law contains or what it means; those that do,
think it deals with foreigners, just foreigners, and
terrorists. Nothing could be less true. One U.S.
Congressman said it plainly, "This was the least
democratic process for debating questions [of]
fundamental democracy I've ever seen: A bill drafted
by [a] handful of people in secret, subject to no
committee process, comes before us immune from
amendment." Now Attorney General John Ashcroft wants
to strengthen the first Act with a new one called the
"Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," or ...
PATRIOT Act II.
In short, it says: many of the [USA PATRIOT Act's]
limited sunset provisions could be erased from the
books; Businesses that rat on customers to the feds
would be granted immunity, even if the information
violates privacy agreements or is, in fact, dead
wrong; police officers carrying out illegal searches
would also be granted legal immunity if they were just
carrying out orders; American citizens would be
subject to secret surveillance by their own government
on behalf of foreign countries, including
dictatorships; the death penalty would be expanded to
cover 15 new offenses; legal permanent residents could
be deported instantaneously without a criminal charge
or even evidence if the attorney general considers
them a threat to national security; Americans could
have their citizenship revoked, and be exported, if
found to have contributed ... "material support" to
organizations deemed by the government, even
retroactively, to be terrorist; the government [shall]
be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen's
DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid] information if (indisc.)
only suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement
officer; DNA would also be collected from anyone who
is or has been on probation for a crime no matter how
minor; for the first time in U.S. history, secret
arrests will be specifically permitted; meanwhile, if
you happen to find out something about the identity or
whereabouts or anything else about a detainee, it will
be criminal if you ... [do not] reveal it, even if you
are the detainee's parent, spouse, or child.
The powers granted already in the [USA PATRIOT Act],
if PATRIOT II should pass, will fundamentally change
American society. Please understand the seriousness
of these Acts, and do what you can to defend our
people and Constitution. You may not have much time
left to make a difference, but we might have the rest
of our lives to wish you had tried a little harder,
sooner. Please try now. Thank you.
Number 1374
LIZ GREIG expressed appreciation for the opportunity to testify.
She said she would like to see an amalgamation of HJR 22 and HJR
23, one that contains more teeth if possible. She referred to
the USA PATRIOT Act, the homeland security Act, the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003, and related executive orders,
and asked the committee to investigate them for all the
previously state reasons. She concluded by saying:
I've been taking a master gardener class, and a
comment that a lady said to me in California yesterday
was ..., "We don't know if we can ship the red worms
because, since 9/11, our shipping has been
restricted." Red worms? I don't know why that's
contrary to the peace and security of the United
States, but apparently it is. Thank you very much.
Number 1454
ANNA GODDUHN relayed that the Bush Administration has made her
an activist and a patriot in a way that she never anticipated.
As Americans, she remarked, people have the right and the
responsibility to question the motives and methods of
governmental officials, adding "The war has made us think an
awful lot about patriotism, but I really do feel a civic
responsibility to question our officials." She said that
although those that protest the preemptive warfare paradigm and
the erosion of civil liberties are scorned as unpatriotic, those
people are really just performing their civic duty and it is
their responsibility, as citizens, to raise unpleasant
questions. She added, "Our Founding Fathers knew well that
governments could and would become corrupt; they designed the
safeguards to prevent such outcomes, and they intentionally
excluded the measures such as those found in the [USA PATRIOT
Act]."
MS. GODDUHN assured the committee that protesters have respect
and appreciation for the troops; protesters have issues only
with those who would put them in harm's way on the basis of weak
and misrepresented and even fabricated evidence. Times have
changed, she acknowledged, and that makes evaluating risk more
complicated, but it also makes honesty in and disclosure of
policy decisions even more important than ever. In conclusion,
she said that she wholeheartedly supports passage of a
combination of HJR 22 and HJR 23, and that she particularly
appreciates the language in HJR 22 that protects her and other
critics of the federal government from undisclosed investigation
in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity. She
thanked the committee for being willing to participate in the
"all-American process of checking and balancing the powers of
the executive branch."
Number 1630
MICHAEL WALLERI referred to the aforementioned problems with the
USA PATRIOT Act, noted that the Act also amended 15 separate
statutes, and detailed again some of the Act's effects,
including a limitation on hazardous materials (HAZMAT) licenses.
He opined that the USA PATRIOT Act is a broad-based overreaction
to the events of 9/11. He said he hopes the committee will pass
HJR 22 and HJR 23 in order to bring to the attention of Congress
the problems resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony.
Number 1756
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HJR 23 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 23 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HJR 22 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 22 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1792
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was recessed at 10:05
a.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting never was
reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|