ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-seventh Legislature – Second Regular Session
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL MANDATES
AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 1:30 p.m.
Chairman Gray called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Alvarez |
Mr. Pierce |
Mrs. Burges, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mrs. Barto |
Mr. Prezelski |
Mr. Gray C, Chairman |
|
None |
|
|
|
H.B. 2701 – DP (3-1-2-0) H.B. 2073 – DPA S/E (3-2-1-0) H.B. 2577 – DPA S/E (3-0-3-0) H.B. 2578 – DP (4-0-2-0) H.B. 2579 – DP (6-0-0-0) H.B. 2582 – DPA S/E (3-2-1-0) |
H.B. 2594 – Held at Request of Sponsor H.B. 2595 – Held at Request of Sponsor H.B. 2596 – Held at Request of Sponsor H.B. 2597 – Held at Request of Sponsor H.B. 2598 – Held at Request of Sponsor H.B. 2599 – Held at Request of Sponsor
|
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst
Representative John Allen, sponsor
Ed Flinn, Director of Joint Programs, Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA)
Representative Jim Weiers, Speaker, House of Representatives
Representative Russell Pearce
Thomas Donovan, Arizona Interfaith Network
Eric Edwards, Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Jennifer Streeper, Majority Intern
Steven Ford, representing Arizona Rangers
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Names of persons who did not speak (pages 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21 and 22)
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS:
H.B. 2701, national guard mobilization; border; appropriation – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2701 do pass.
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of H.B. 2701 (Attachment 1):
· Specifies that if the Governor declares a state of emergency for the protection of the lives and property of citizens of this state resulting from an increase in unauthorized border crossings and the related increase in deaths, crime and property damage, the Governor shall mobilize the National Guard to address the emergency.
· Appropriates $5,000,000 from the State General Fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 to the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs for payment of expenses incurred by the National Guard in relation to any mobilization due to a state of emergency declaration by the Governor that results from an increase in unauthorized border crossings, including a declaration issued on or after August 15, 2005.
· Exempts appropriation from lapsing.
· Makes technical and conforming changes.
Representative John Allen, sponsor, advised that H.B. 2701 reflects exactly what the Governor has told the Legislature she wants. In her State of the State address, she made it very clear there is a crisis in this State. In her Declaration of Emergency, she spoke of the increasing threat to public health and safety, and of gangs, coyotes and dangerous criminal activity along Arizona’s border with Mexico because of unauthorized border crossings. She also said violent crime activity has increased, and repeated trespassing and real property damage to vegetation, wildlife and livestock were the reasons she has declared our border at the southern part of the State an emergency. He opined that to say that and not put any resources at her disposal is poor management of the safety of Arizona citizens. This legislation would get troops to the border area. He said $5 million is a reasonable estimate of what it would cost to start addressing the issue. He reiterated this is what the Governor has asked for, except the State is not waiting for the federal government to pay for it. He believes that once the troops are down there, the federal government will pay a lot more attention to the needs of Arizona with respect to resources.
Mr. Prezelski brought up the Governor’s letter to the Secretary of Defense regarding her desire to mobilize the National Guard (Attachment 2). He said the Governor wanted to expand the current support role the National Guard had on the border. He advised he is unclear about the National Guard’s role on the border. Representative Allen revealed that he is not trying to usurp the Governor’s overall control of the National Guard. He is trying to untie her hands so she can fully utilize an asset that is already in the State.
Ed Flinn, Director of Joint Programs, Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA), spoke in opposition to H.B. 2701. He advised the agency is opposed to this bill as written because the Department sees this as a Legislative incursion into Executive powers. He maintained the issue of deploying the National Guard should be resolved at the Executive level. In addition this may have a chilling effect in the future on the Executive in declaring an emergency on the border if the tool available is mandated that it be the National Guard, and the fiscal posture may not be in the condition it is now. He stated that the National Guard is one of the tools available to the Governor to address emergencies, but is not the only tool. The tools that should be applied to an emergency should be directed through the Executive decision-making process in consultation with the cabinet and senior Members of the Legislature.
Mr. Pierce stated that when the Governor declared an emergency along the border, many Legislators felt she should have called the Legislature into special session to help deal with that issue, particularly where an appropriation is necessary. He queried whether DEMA’s position is that no appropriation is needed at this time to help with this situation that the Governor obviously feels is an emergency. Mr. Flinn said he is not in a position to answer that question. He believes there are some fiscal constraints here. Having the State pay for the deployment of the National Guard may be a way to address fiscal constraints. He mentioned that the Governor wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense requesting that the federal government pay for the deployment of the National Guard to the border. He said he assumes that in an emergency, the Governor would come to the Legislature to ask for an appropriation to deploy the National Guard to support a border operation.
Mr. Prezelski expressed concern that this is chiefly a law enforcement problem and is best left up to military police. Mr. Flinn stated that Arizona has two National Guard military police companies. One is currently in Iraq and the other returned about ten months ago. He noted that about 150 soldiers would be available to do enforcement along the border.
Mr. Prezelski asked how the Department of Defense would react if the State decided to put those 150 military police on the border. Mr. Flinn said he does not know what the Department of Defense’s long-term plan is and how they are going to apply military police resources to the global war on terrorism. He revealed that the time between operational deployments is about five years, so essentially there is another four years available before the military police company currently in Arizona would be deployed overseas. Meanwhile if the State calls them out for a State mission and pays for the cost, he does not see that getting in the way of how that unit would be deployed.
Chairman Gray noted that a 150-military police unit is not the entire military force the State has at its discretion. Mr. Flinn concurred. He related there are about 4,500 Army National Guardsmen and 2,600 Air National Guardsmen.
Mr. Pierce stated that in the Governor’s State of the State address, she basically called for replacement of the National Guard at the border. She did say she wanted the federal government to pay for the cost and that is part of the solution. He said the issue is whether the federal government or the State will commit the financial resources. He believes it is incumbent on the State to act since Arizona is the one that is damaged, and if the federal government will not take action, then the State should. For that reason, he said he thinks a special session should be called to address this issue. This bill basically goes to the heart of what the Governor has said she wanted to do in her State of the State. He maintained this is the tool where she can deploy the National Guard along the border and have financial resources to take care of that build-up. He asserted that Arizona has to show it is willing to take the next step. Mr. Flinn said he never said that the National Guard was opposed to going to the border. The opposition is putting Legislative prerogatives on the Executive, as well as the impact of what this does. This puts in law that when the Governor declares an emergency along the border, she must deploy the National Guard. He again stated there are other tools available to address emergency issues. The National Guard may be one of those tools but it should not be the only tool or a mandated tool. He wondered what would happen in the future should an emergency occur. It could affect an emergency simply because the Governor is hamstrung by the mandate of having to deploy the National Guard.
Mr. Pierce reiterated that the Governor should have called Legislators into special session to address this critical issue. He revealed that if it is an emergency, deploying the National Guard is the first step to protecting the border. The Governor talks about the increasing threat to the public health and safety from gangs, coyotes, others engaged in criminal activities along the Arizona-Mexico international border. He maintained that the only way to stop those activities is to have troops there to stop them. He again asked Mr. Flinn if he thinks the National Guard is the first step in a true emergency. Mr. Flinn replied that he never said the National Guard may not be the first tool. He said it probably is one of the more responsive tools, but public safety resources could be applied, as well as resources from other federal agencies to help assist with the border emergency. His point is that it goes back to what the Executive prerogative is and what the Executive decision-making process is. He believes there has to be some analysis of the nature of the emergency as well as the resources available to the State. The National Guard may be the first resource; however, he does not think it should be done through this vehicle.
To that point, Chairman Gray stated that it is her choice as to whether she thinks this is appropriate. He said he does not understand why DEMA would get involved in that decision.
Mr. Pierce pointed out the Governor vetoed a bill last year that asked for local law enforcement to help out with rounding up folks who are here illegally because the Legislature did not provide funds for local law enforcement. He expressed concern that the message the Legislature is getting from the Executive is not consistent. He asked Mr. Flinn if he has had conversations with the Governor on the appropriate use of local police to work on the border to apprehend people who are invading this country.
Mr. Flinn said he has not had any personal conversations with the Governor. He does not have first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the Governor’s office.
Mr. Prezelski stated that the Governor declares emergencies at various times. He asked whether every emergency in the past required a National Guard response and whether every emergency called for a special session of the Legislature. Mr. Flinn answered that he cannot speak to emergencies in the State since he only recently retired from the military and assumed this position. His guess is that not every emergency has required the National Guard to be called out to respond.
Representative Jim Weiers, Speaker, House of Representatives, spoke in support of H.B. 2701. He referred to testimony relating to incursion and said he believes this needed further discussion because it is becoming more prevalent and prominent. He maintained that the National Guard is the first line of defense in an emergency. The Governor has declared an emergency. In her State of the State address she said it is her desire to put the National Guard on the border but lacked the funds from the federal government to do so. If it is that important to call an emergency, he believes it is that important to act to stop that emergency from taking place. He asserted it is time the crisis is addressed and action taken. He declared that the State needs more than rhetoric; it needs results. This legislation helps the Governor respond to the point she made in her State of the State address.
Representative Russell Pearce, testified in support of H.B. 2701. He stated that the U.S. Constitution contains a provision in Article IV about securing our borders from invasion. He thinks it is an appropriate role for the National Guard to help secure our borders. This legislation helps the Governor meet another promise she made. He asked Members for their vote to help the Governor keep her promise.
Persons in opposition to H.B. 2701 who did not speak:
Robert Mings, Arizona Interfaith Network – East Valley
Thomas Donovan, Valley Interfaith Project, Arizona Interfaith Network
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Kristen Martin, Neighborhood Ministries
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Noel Barto, representing himself
Patrick Leavy, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Martha Seaman, representing herself
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that H.B. 2701 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 3-1-2-0 (Attachment 3).
H.B. 2073, illegal aliens; prohibited possessors
S/E: illegal immigration reform – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2073 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 to H.B. 2073 be adopted (Attachment 4).
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, summarized the provisions of the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 (Attachment 5):
· Exempts a public employee from liability for:
Ø The enforcement of immigration laws
Ø The detention or arrest of any person for immigration law violations or the questioning of any person about the person’s immigration status
· Permits a peace officer who has lawfully detained a person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, to inquire about that person’s immigration status.
· Specifies that this state and any political subdivision of this state shall not prohibit a peace officer from carrying out this duty.
· Establishes that if a person is in violation of 8 USC §§1324, 1325, 1326, or 1328 upon entering or remaining on any public or private land in this state, that person is committing criminal trespass in the first degree, and designates this violation a Class 6 felony.
· Expands the definition of prohibited possessor, as any person who is unlawfully or illegally in the US as an alien and who is a prohibited possessor under 18 USC §922(g)(5).
· Excludes an illegal alien from the definition of employee, workman, worker, and operative.
· Defines illegal alien.
· Prohibits a landlord from knowingly entering into a rental agreement with a person who is not lawfully present in the United States.
· Deems the use of a federal individual taxpayer identification number as a method of identifying a mortgage loan recipient unlawful.
· Stipulates that once a mortgage loan is approved, a mortgagee may then lawfully request the mortgagor’s individual taxpayer identification number if the borrower is not eligible to receive a social security number under federal law.
· Includes a severability clause.
· Makes technical and conforming changes.
Thomas Donovan, Arizona Interfaith Network, testified in opposition to H.B. 2073. He said the Network does not see this legislation as a comprehensive systemic solution to deal with the issues. The bill provides an unfunded mandate and removes workers’ compensation protection provisions. He said he believes this should be coordinated with the federal government.
Chairman Gray asked why the Network is opposed to the provisions relating to workers’ compensation. He reminded Mr. Donovan that it is illegal to be employed in this country if the person is an illegal alien. Mr. Donovan answered he is opposed because it opens employers to lawsuits.
Mr. Prezelski noted that Proposition 200 did not stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country.
To that point, Mr. Pierce stated that Proposition 200 was about welfare benefits.
Mr. Prezelski stated that since this does not address the problem comprehensively, it is not a good solution to the humanitarian crisis seen on the border. Mr. Donovan agreed. He opined that not having a comprehensive approach will result in more unintended consequences.
Mr. Pierce asked Mr. Donovan why he does not think it is incumbent on the State to do something to curb the problem. Mr. Donovan stated that he sees this as a piecemeal approach to the problem.
Chairman Gray mentioned that in response to testimony by law enforcement, a provision on immunity was added to the bill so they would not be sued simply for asking immigration status.
Representative Russell Pearce stated that changes were made to the bill to accommodate concerns and to comply with federal law. He said it is a federal responsibility to secure the border. He opined they have failed in that. He referred to the Supremacy clause in the Constitution that makes it clear that states share responsibility with the federal government. He said it is a state responsibility, shared with the federal government, to enforce federal law, including immigration law. He maintained this bill is good. It makes it clear that it is against the law to harbor, aid, facilitate, encourage or refer illegal aliens for employment. This proposal clarifies that Arizona is going to enforce the law since the federal government has failed to do so. The impact of illegal immigration on citizens is huge and he submitted that this problem cannot be ignored.
Mr. Pierce raised the issue of employers who do not knowingly hire illegal aliens. He suggested an amendment that exempts those who unknowingly hire illegals from tort liability.
Mrs. Barto brought up the impact on those who are already living here illegally. She noted this could displace a lot of people, and the impact could be immense. Representative Pearce disagreed. He stated those people are already here illegally.
Eric Edwards, Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, expressed opposition to H.B. 2073. He argued that adding language to the bill on qualified immunity does not provide protection to law enforcement. He cited the Ninth Circuit case Gonzales v. City of Peoria that is still controlling law. He explained that the Ninth Circuit looked at the authority of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law and said law enforcement could only enforce criminal provisions of the federal immigration law. The trespass provision in this proposal only addresses civil provisions. Legal advisors for law enforcement have concluded that if officers attempt to enforce the trespassing provision, they would be directly contrary to the Ninth Circuit case law that creates the 1983 liability.
Chairman Gray disagreed. He said if the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling and the Legislature passes a law, that law can be enforced until a court overrules it. Lieutenant Edwards disagreed. He believes the referenced case law is controlling and law enforcement cannot authorize police officers to enforce this. Mr. Pierce contended that one cannot selectively enforce the law. Lieutenant Edwards said his job is to advise the Department and the Association of laws that have potential constitutional implications or violations.
Chairman Gray explained this is referencing new law that says if a person is in violation of the U.S. Civil Code, he is a criminal in this State. This does not enforce civil law but references a civil definition in federal law as to how it applies to State law. Lieutenant Edwards agreed. He said the problem is the reference to federal civil statutes.
Mr. Prezelski asked if the problem is that law enforcement will ask some people about citizenship and not others. Lieutenant Edwards disagreed with that statement. He said the way the provision is crafted takes care of racial profiling concerns because it requires law enforcement to ask everyone who has been stopped based on reasonable suspicion.
Mr. Prezelski queried whether this allows law enforcement to enter a home if an illegal alien is visiting there. Lieutenant Edwards replied in the negative. He said police cannot enter a home without a lawful basis which usually comes from consent of a homeowner, a search warrant or an exigent circumstance.
Person in support of H.B. 2073 who did not speak:
Mark Faull, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Persons in opposition to H.B.2073 who did not speak:
Scott Peterson, Vice President of Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Deanna Kupcik, Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tina Bruess, Rim Country Regional Chamber of Commerce
David Maurer, Prescott Chamber of Commerce
Beverly Liles, Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Joe Galli, Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
Charles Ratliff, Valley Interfaith Project
Tanya Wheeless, Arizona Bankers Association
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Kristen Martin, Neighborhood Ministries
Janet Valder, Arizona Interfaith Network
Ron Johnson, Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Elizabeth Hourican, Arizona Interfaith Network
Suzanne Gilstrap, Arizona Multihousing Association
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Lucy Howell, Saint Vincent de Paul Society
Noel Barto, representing himself
Caroline Isaacs, representing herself
Patrick Leavy, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Paul Cruikshank, General Counsel, Arizona Credit Union League
Mike Williams, representing Citigroup
Martha Seaman, representing herself
Susan Tegmeyer, Greater Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce
James Flynn, representing himself
Janna Day, representing Arizona Financial Services Association and Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Jeff Sandquist, representing United Dairymen of Arizona
Susan Leon, representing herself
Kathy Langdon, Gilbert Chamber of Commerce
Ed Stolmaker, Marana Chamber of Commerce
Persons neutral on H.B. 2073 who did not speak:
Kevin McCullough, Assistant Superintendent of Banks, Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
James Stabler, Chief Counsel - SCF Arizona
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 to H.B. 2073 be adopted (Attachment 4). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2073 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 3-2-1-0 (Attachment 6).
H.B. 2577, illegal aliens; employment; verification
S/E: same subject – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2577 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 to H.B. 2577 be adopted (Attachment 7).
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 (Attachment 8):
· Stipulates that a person commits forgery by falsely making or altering a written instrument that purports to be a document that fulfills the requirements for establishing identity or eligibility to work in the U.S. pursuant to the IRCA and that is used to obtain employment in this State by a person who is not authorized to work in the U.S.
· Requires that if a court orders restitution for a person who has committed forgery by falsely making or altering a written instrument for the purposes of establishing identity or eligibility to work in the US pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the restitution order must include damages incurred by any employer who relied on the forged instrument, including the employer’s costs, attorney fees and expenses.
· Designates a Class 3 felony for a person who has committed forgery by falsely making or altering a written instrument that purports to be a document that fulfills the requirements for establishing identity or eligibility to work in the US pursuant to the IRCA and that is used to obtain employment in this State by a person who is not authorized to work in the U.S.
· Specifies that an employer who verifies the immigration status of their employees through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program shall not be subject to any civil sanction or criminal penalty imposed by this state for employing an illegal alien.
· Requires an employer to discharge an employee if the employer discovers the employee provided an invalid social security number to the employer and specifies that this is not applicable if the employee proves an error occurred when the social security number was processed by the employer.
· Stipulates that an employer must discharge any illegal aliens who are employed by the employer before discharging an employee who is lawfully present in this state.
· Allows an employee who is aggrieved to file an action in Superior Court within 90 days of the alleged violation and stipulates that a violation has not occurred if an employee who is lawfully present was discharged for just cause.
· Specifies that the court may award a prevailing employee appropriate relief, including rehiring of the employee to the employee’s former position, any lost wages and reestablishment of any employee benefits. The court shall award the prevailing employee treble damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees.
· Requires that a person who has a license that is issued by an agency and who has been sanctioned as an employer by a federal agency for knowingly hiring or employing an illegal alien be subject to the following:
· Stipulates a rise to an inference that an employer knowingly employs an illegal alien under any of the following circumstances:
· Stipulates that the Attorney General must enforce statutes relating to the employment of illegal aliens and specifies that if the Attorney General fails to take action against a person within six months after the person is sanctioned by a federal agency for knowingly hiring or employing an illegal alien, the county attorney may take action on behalf of the Attorney General.
· Requires that a person who has a license issued by an agency and who has been sanctioned as an employer by a federal agency pursuant to the IRCA or any other federal statute for knowingly employing an illegal alien be subject to the following:
· Requires the Director of the Arizona Department of Administration verify the immigration status of every state employee through the SAVE program.
· Prohibits an agency or political subdivision of this state from issuing a license to any applicant who is an illegal alien.
· Requires that agencies and political subdivisions of this state that issue licenses conduct random audits of 5% of all persons issued a license to determine if a person knowingly employs illegal aliens.
· Specifies that if an audit determines that a person knowingly employs an illegal alien, the person is also subject to the following:
· Stipulates a rise to an inference that if an employer is found through an audit to knowingly employ an illegal alien under any of the following circumstances:
· Requires the Ombudsman-Citizens Aide appoint an Immigration Enforcement Citizens Aide who shall receive complaints that an employer in this state employs an illegal alien and requires the Immigration Enforcement Citizens Aide to forward the information contained in the complaint to the Attorney General.
· Specifies that a procurement officer must not award a contract to any contractor that employs an illegal alien and before a contract is awarded, all contractors and subcontractors must verify the immigration status of their employees through the SAVE program. Each contractor and subcontractor must provide a signed affirmation to the procurement officer that the verification has been conducted.
· Prohibits businesses from deducting the compensation paid to an illegal alien.
· Appropriates $100,000 from the State General Fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 to the Ombudsman-Citizens Aide and provides for one full time employee.
· Defines agency, employer, illegal alien license and sanction.
· Includes a severability clause.
· Names this act the “Fair and Legal Employment Act.”
Representative Russell Pearce, sponsor, advised that the Ombudsman Citizens Aid provision was amended to correct a drafting error. He revealed that the Ombudsman was never intended to be the investigator but to simply be a liaison to the public and businesses to help them with compliance. Any complaints are referred to the Attorney General or the County Attorney. He submitted that it is illegal and immoral to allow one business to compete illegally and unfairly against the honest business person by employing people who are in this country illegally, and he pointed out the standard is “knowingly.” He pointed out that a business can access a free system in order to identify and verify social security numbers. He revealed that in an Arizona Republic poll, 87 percent of citizens feel that sanctions should be placed on employers who hire illegals. He stated that the federal government is the only entity that can set immigration policy but once policy is set, states have the inherent authority to enforce immigration laws. He mentioned the billions of dollars in damage to Arizona taxpayers in terms of health care, education and criminal justice costs. Arizona is number one in the nation in crime and there is clearly a connection to the open border. He asserted that Arizona must secure its border, enforce the law, go after employers who hire illegal aliens and stop giving away free benefits to those who break into this country illegally and take advantage of Arizona taxpayers. The provisions in this bill are reasonable steps to enforce existing laws and protect taxpayers.
Mrs. Barto asked whether the bill is retroactive to employers. Representative Pearce replied in the affirmative. He said it applies to them if they knowingly hired these individuals. Mrs. Barto stated concern for the impact on families who are not criminals but who are working to support their families. She said she would like to protect those already in this State and who are productive. Representative Pearce pointed out this is not making a felon out of anyone. These individuals already are felons by illegally crossing the border.
Vice Chairman
Burges moved that the Gray 18-line amendment dated 2/3/06 to the Gray 15-page
strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 be adopted
(Attachment 9).
Ms. Stoddard explained the Gray 18-line amendment removes the requirement of the SAVE program and inserts the Basic Pilot Employment Verification System (Attachment 9).
Representative Pearce explained that the Basic Pilot Employment Verification System is a better system in verifying employment than the SAVE program.
Persons in support of H.B. 2577 who did not speak:
Eric Edwards, Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Lu Ebratt, Legislative Director, Arizona Probation Officers Association
Rusty Childress, United for a Sovereign America
Persons in opposition to H.B. 2577 who did not speak:
Scott Peterson, Vice President of Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Deanna Kupcik, Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tina Bruess, Rim Country Regional Chamber of Commerce
Julia Brooks, Wickenburg Chamber of Commerce
Eric Emmert, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
David Selden, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Beverly Liles, Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce
Sharolyn Hohman, Southwest Valley Chamber of Commerce
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Joe Galli, Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
Charles Ratliff, Valley Interfaith Project
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Janet Valder, Arizona Interfaith Network
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Elizabeth Hourican, Arizona Interfaith Network
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Noel Barto, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Martha Seaman, representing herself
Susan Tegmeyer, Greater Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce
James Flynn, representing himself
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Jeff Sandquist, representing United Dairymen of Arizona
Susan Leon, representing herself
Kathy Langdon, Gilbert Chamber of Commerce
Ed Stolmaker, Marana Chamber of Commerce
Jim Harken, representing himself
Thomas Donovan, Valley Interfaith Project, Arizona Interfaith Network
Person neutral on H.B. 2577 who did not speak:
Mark Faull, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that the Gray 18-line amendment dated 2/3/06 to the Gray 15-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 be adopted (Attachment 9). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Gray 15-line strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 as amended be adopted (Attachment 7). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2577 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 3-0-3-0 (Attachment 10).
H.B. 2578, border radar; lease; appropriation – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2578 do pass.
Jennifer Streeper, Majority Intern, presented the provisions of H.B. 2578 (Attachment 11):
· Appropriates $50,000,000 from the state general fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 to the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to lease or purchase a ground-based radar system integrated with cameras for the southern Arizona border for border protection.
· Mandates that the location and implementation of the ground-based radar system be established by the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs in cooperation and consultation with the Department of Public Safety, the United States Border Patrol, military facilities on the border, nearby Indian reservations, the Bureau of Land Management, local sheriffs and chiefs of police near the border and private property owners on the border.
· Exempts appropriation from lapsing.
Representative Russell Pearce,
sponsor, advised that H.B. 2578 provides an appropriation of
$50 million for a pilot program for a ground-based radar system for border
protection. The radar tells the number of people crossing the border and
tracks them for three miles beyond the border. It directs the Border Patrol to
the exact location of where these individuals are. The $50 million cost will
secure the entire 377-mile Arizona border.
Chairman Gray asked whether the $50 million covers the entire Arizona border with the exception of what the military is already covering. Representative Pearce replied in the affirmative. He advised the intent is to bill the federal government for the cost.
Persons in support of H.B. 2578 who did not speak:
Ed Flinn, Director of Joint Programs, Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA)
Walker Butler, President/CEO, Sensor Technologies and Systems
Persons in opposition to H.B. 2578 who did not speak:
Thomas Donovan, Valley Interfaith Project, Arizona Interfaith Network
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Kristen Martin, Neighborhood Ministries
Janet Valder, Arizona Interfaith Network
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Elizabeth Hourican, Arizona Interfaith Network
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Noel Barto, representing himself
Patrick Leavy, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Martha Seaman, representing herself
James Flynn, representing himself
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Susan Leon, representing herself
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that H.B. 2578 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4-0-2-0 (Attachment 12).
H.B. 2579, appropriation; national guard; border security – DO PASS
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2579 do pass.
Jennifer Streeper, Majority Intern, reviewed the provisions of H.B. 2579 (Attachment 13):
· Appropriates an unspecified amount of money from the State General Fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 to the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs for deployment of the National Guard to southern Arizona for border security functions.
· Stipulates that billing invoices shall be sent to the federal government by the Department of Administration to recover the amount of the appropriation for deposit in the State General Fund.
· Exempts the appropriation from lapsing.
Representative Russell Pierce, sponsor, stated that this bill differs from H.B. 2701 in that it does not mandate calling out the National Guard in times of emergency. He advised the reason for not specifying an amount in the bill is because the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA) has not gotten back to him with a cost figure. He related that he has set aside $10 million in the budget to cover this expenditure.
Chairman Gray pointed out the only difference between this bill and H.B. 2701 is that this bill is permissive.
Person in support of H.B. 2579 who did not speak:
Eric Edwards, Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Persons in opposition to H.B. 2578 who did not speak:
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona)
Thomas Donovan, Valley Interfaith Project, Arizona Interfaith Network
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Kristen Martin, Neighborhood Ministries
Janet Valder, Arizona Interfaith Network
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Elizabeth Hourican, Arizona Interfaith Network
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Noel Barto, representing himself
Patrick Leavy, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Martha Seaman, representing herself
James Flynn, representing himself
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Susan Leon, representing herself
Person neutral on H.B. 2579 who did not speak:
Ed Flinn, Director of Joint Programs, Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA)
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that H.B. 2579 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 14).
H.B. 2582, immigration enforcement mission; council; appropriations
S/E: same subject – DO PASS AMENDED S/E
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2582 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that the Gray nine-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 to H.B. 2582 be adopted (Attachment 15).
Vice-Chairman
Burges moved that the Gray 11-line amendment dated 2/3/06 to the Gray nine-page
strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 be adopted
(Attachment 16).
Kristine Stoddard, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of the Gray nine-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 (Attachment 17):
· Exempts a public employee from liability for the enforcement of immigration laws and the detention or arrest of any person for immigration law violations or the questioning of any person about the person’s immigration status.
· Specifies that it is unlawful for a person who is a citizen of any country other than the U.S. to enter into or be on any public or private land in this State if the person is in violation of federal law.
· Requires the arresting authority to fingerprint a person arrested for entering into or being on any public or private land to transmit the fingerprints to the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
· Allows discretion by the arresting authority for an arrested person entering public or private land as to whether the person be deported to the person’s country of origin, transferred to the federal agency with jurisdiction or referred for prosecution.
· Creates the crime of trespassing if a person has entered this state and found to be in violation of federal law.
· Changes the heading of Title 41, Chapter 12, Article 1 of Arizona Revised Statute form Definitions to General Provisions.
· Authorizes peace officers to investigate, apprehend, detain or remove aliens in the United States, including transporting aliens across state lines to detention centers, in the enforcement of the immigrations laws of the United States.
· Stipulates that the Arizona Rangers may be included as a part of the Department of Public Safety Reserve if the group designated is organized as a nonprofit organization in this State. The Director may use the Arizona Rangers to assist the Department in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States.
· Specifies that while on duty, the Arizona Rangers will be deemed state employees for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation.
· Establishes that monies in the Arizona Highway Patrol Fund will be used to administer the provisions of law relating to the Arizona Rangers and all matters pertaining to those laws.
· Establishes a Border Security Council and prohibits members of the council from being eligible for compensation with the exception of specified members being eligible for reimbursement of expenses.
· Establishes that the Border Security Council will be allowed to use the facilities and staff of DPS and may enter into interagency agreements for council business.
· Designates the Border Security Council to:
1. Make grants.
2. Receive quarterly reports from the entities receiving grants and evaluate their effectiveness.
3. Submit a written report on the effectiveness of the grants provided to the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and provide a copy to the Secretary of State and the Director of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.
· Establishes the Border Security Fund (Fund) that consists of legislative appropriations, gifts, grants, any criminal surcharges for any offense related to immigration control and for FY 2006-2007 through 2010-2011, all assessments received by the State Treasurer and directs the Border Security Council to administer the fund.
· Stipulates that monies in the Fund are continuously appropriated and are exempt from lapsing.
· Directs that on notice from the Border Security Council, the State Treasurer will invest and divest monies in the Fund as directed under ARS §35-313.
· Mandates that monies earned from investments will be credited to the Fund.
· Prohibits the Border Security Fund from being granted to a city, town or county that has a stated or implied sanctuary policy involving any form of aid to illegal immigrants or any reduced enforcement of illegal immigration and that does not either detain or refer all illegal immigrants to appropriate federal agencies.
· Appropriates the following amounts from the state General Fund in fiscal year 2006-2007 for the purposes indicated:
1. $15,000,000 to the Border Security Fund for grants to counties only for incarceration operating expenses, including temporary and movable detainment facilities and tents for immigration control.
2. $15,000,000 to the Border Security Fund for grants to city, town and county law enforcement agencies, city and town prosecutors and county attorneys for border security personnel, physical barriers and other immigration enforcement purposes.
3. $10,000,000 to DPS for the director to expand the existing gang intelligence team enforcement mission into a gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission for all existing gang functions, and new functions relating to immigration enforcement, including border security, border personnel, incarceration, including temporary and movable detainment structures and tents, and design and construction or reconstruction to border physical barriers.
4. $10,000,000 to DPS for additional highway patrol officers exclusively for border security.
· Directs the Director of DPS will provide quarterly reports to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) beginning October 1, 2006, regarding the use and effectiveness of the monies appropriated.
· Designates that the Department of Administration (DOA) will send billing invoices to the federal government to recover the amount of the appropriations for deposit in the state General Fund.
· Terminates the Border Security Council on July 1, 2016.
· Repeals Title 41, Chapter 20 on January 1, 2017.
Ms. Stoddard explained that the Gray 11-line amendment to the Gray nine-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 specifies that the Arizona Ranger Reserves is a voluntary organization (Attachment 16).
Chairman Gray asked whether the amendment to the strike-everything amendment puts the Rangers under the Department’s authority. Ms. Stoddard advised the organization already exists and the amendment creates a volunteer organization instead of a mandatory one.
Representative Russell Pearce, sponsor, stated that the Arizona Rangers is a private organization that functions as a volunteer group. The Rangers would like to work under the direction of DPS. Having statutory authority to do so would limit their liability and allow them to work in a broader capacity for the citizens of Arizona. He advised they will not be Arizona Peace Officer Standard and Training (AZPOST) certified officers. The Rangers will be volunteers who will be allowed to do limited types of duties on the border.
Steven Ford, representing Arizona Rangers, testified he is the attorney for the Arizona Rangers. He provided background on a problem within the Arizona Rangers group. There was a splinter group within the organization that attempted to take power over the organization last summer. That group, represented by S.A. Everly, has been working with Representative Pearce on this proposal. He advised that Mr. Everly does not represent the Arizona Rangers. There is ongoing litigation in Maricopa County Superior Court that involves control of the group and whether this splinter group actually has corporate authority. He advised that the judge entered an injunction barring the splinter group to purport to be Rangers.
Mr. Ford stated that at this point, the organization feels it does not have enough information as to how this legislation will be implemented. The Rangers are available to do DPS volunteer work. Under this proposal, the Rangers would be a part of DPS. Rangers are already doing volunteer work across the State and they are fearful their effectiveness will be diluted since the focus will be on the border instead of being on the entire State. He advised the Rangers do not support this legislation because they do not think it is necessary. Since they can already perform these functions, this proposal adds a level of confusion to the situation.
Representative Pearce expressed disappointment that concerns with this bill were not expressed to him earlier. He believes this bill moves the Arizona Rangers in the right direction as an auxiliary. They currently do not have statutory authority, and this legislation is necessary if they want to work with qualified immunity as an auxiliary to DPS. In addition, this gives them workers’ compensation coverage if they were to be injured while doing these voluntary services for the public, so it is a good move for them. He said he would like to move forward with the bill but since concerns have been raised, he asked that the amendment be withdrawn. To alleviate confusion, he said he prefers to draft other language and offer it on the Floor.
Vice-Chairman Burges withdrew her motion that the Gray 11-line amendment dated 2/3/06 to the Gray nine-page strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 16).
Representative Pearce advised that a $50 million appropriation is being proposed:
- $10 million will go to DPS for expanding the Gang Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) for 100 new full-time employees (FTEs) for gang and immigration enforcement.
- $15 million will go to local sheriffs and law enforcement for costs related to incarceration, and will be billed to the federal government.
- $15 million will go to local agencies for grant programs they will submit for plans to address the immigration problem in their communities.
Chairman Gray asked whether provisions are in the bill to ensure those FTE positions will be allocated specifically to GITEM and the boarder areas, and not be moved or reallocated elsewhere. Representative Pearce explained they will go where the demand is.
Mr. Prezelski noted the language that creates the Fund mentions criminal surcharges, one of which is Clean Elections. He asked whether this recreates the Prop 105 issue. Representative Pearce replied in the negative.
Seth Apfel, volunteer, American Civil Liberties Union – Arizona (ACLU – Arizona), testified against H.B. 2582. He stated the trespassing provision will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The bill gives immunity to peace officers to investigate and detain illegal aliens while giving State authority to create an incarceration infrastructure and to detain aliens. He noted that the Constitution reserves the power to regulate immigration solely to the federal government and pre-empts the State from enacting any law relating to immigration. He asserted that only the federal government may enact and enforce laws with respect to immigration. He asserted it is a dangerous precedent to give law enforcement immunity for unfettered discretion without repercussions to investigate, apprehend and detain because people will be targeted based on ethnic background.
Representative Pearce said the trespassing issue will be dealt with separately. He advised he intends to remove that language from this bill.
Chairman Gray asked the sponsor to address the concern that officers can make arrests based on ethnicity and never be held accountable. Representative Pearce reminded Members that law enforcement detains people based on probable cause. He stated there are rules and procedures that guide law enforcement in an arrest.
Chairman Gray asked the sponsor whether it is true that if an officer is found to be racially profiling, he is held accountable. Representative Pearce replied that no one is immune for violating civil rights.
Persons in support of H.B. 2582 who did not speak:
Mark Faull, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Robert Gowens, representing himself
S. A. Everly, representing himself
Persons in opposition to H.B. 2582 who did not speak:
Thomas Donovan, Valley Interfaith Project, Arizona Interfaith Newtork
Eric Edwards, Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Charles Ratliff, Valley Interfaith Project
Kristen Martin, Neighborhood Ministries
Ligia Umana, representing herself
Janet Valder, Arizona Interfaith Network
Arthur Carter Rogers, Arizona Interfaith Network
Elizabeth Hourican, Arizona Interfaith Network
Judy Eighmey, Arizona Interfaith Network
Kit Danley, President, Neighborhood Ministries
Mary Marshall, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC)
Noel Barto, representing himself
Lucy Howell, Saint Vincent de Paul Society
Caroline Isaacs, representing herself
Patrick Leavy, representing himself
Jorge Mendez, representing himself
Martha Seaman, representing herself
James Flynn, representing himself
Ian Danley, representing himself
Jeremy Wood, representing himself
Susan Leon, representing herself
Person neutral on H.B. 2582 who did not speak:
Phil Hanson, representing himself
Question was called for on Vice-Chairman Burges’ motion that the Gray nine-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/2/06 be adopted (Attachment 15). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Burges moved that H.B. 2582 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 3-2-1-0 (Attachment 18).
H.B. 2594, family assistance; eligibility; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
H.B. 2595, child care services; eligibility; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
H.B. 2596, adult education; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
H.B. 2597, postsecondary education; student status; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
H.B. 2598, postsecondary education; financial assistance; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
H.B. 2599, job training; citizenship – HELD AT REQUEST OF SPONSOR
Chairman Gray announced that H.B. 2594, 2595, 2596, 2597, 2598 and 2599 will be held at the request of the sponsor.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
___________________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
December 23, 2016
(Original minutes, attachments and tape on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL MANDATES
AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
22
February 6, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------