humanic
05-23-2008, 07:34 PM
May 22, 2008 - The fourth and final Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) Committee hearing on Real ID took place in Erie, PA today, and a group of us traveled from the Pittsburgh area to join other concerned citizens in a show of opposition.
For those who have attended any of the previous hearings the scene was familiar: Committee Chairman W. Curtis Thomas made an opening statement insisting that the purpose of these hearings is to better educate the public about Real ID and hear our thoughts on the issue "so that [our Representatives] can make an informed decision". Unfortunately, it becomes more and more clear as time goes on that these statements by Representative Thomas are disingenuous (read on).
We first heard testimony from Jeremy Meadows from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) who has been at the other hearings. Nothing too new there.
Next up was "public intellectual" Neil Berro, who, as many know, is just as enamored with Real ID as he is with fear-mongering, whitewashing 9/11, and acting pretentious.
Case in point -- from Neil Berro's testimony which appeared in written form in the program handed out to all attendees (bold mine, for fun):
"I recognize that many Americans today, and certainly some of those present at the two past hearings have forgotten 9-11 or have fallen victim to urban myths and conspiracy theorists, and don't believe that they or their families are at risk from foreign terrorists.
It's probably understandable that Americans now discount the threat because they live far from New York and Washington, where the largest impact of 9/11 took place. But I am surprised that would be the case here in Pennsylvania.
On my way to this hearing by car, I detoured from the most direct route because I wanted to visit the Flight 93 National Memorial. I was deeply moved by the temporary memorial that protects the site of the crash of the United Airlines airliner brought down by foreign terrorists. [editor's note: when did he write this?]
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11, Flight 93 is the only one that did not reach its intended target. There is evidence that the foreign terrorists intended that plane to crash into the United States Capitol in washington, D.C.. As vividly presented by a semi-documentary movie, the passengers had learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center through cellular telephone calls to family. It is believed that two flight attendants six passengers [sic] fought the hijackers and thereby potentially prevented the death of thousands. The bravery of these passengers and the crew almost certainly brought about the plane crashing into the Pennsylvania field shortly after 10 a.m., killing all on board.
As today's testimony will likely be the last I will present to the Intergovernmenal Affairs Committee here, I want to tell you that we should not forget the example set by the heroes of Flight 93. Foreign terrorists will strike again if we do not maintain our vigilance and forcefully oppose them."
Those heroes "got it" and I "get it," even if some in this audience and at the earlier hearings at which I testified do not."
Does Neil Berro "get it" or what!?
One notable difference between this hearing and the Pittsburgh hearing: there were no less than SEVEN state Representatives present. Besides the Chairman, Representatives John Hornaman, Florindo J. Fabrizio, Curtis G. Sonney, Patrick J. Harkins, Brad Raoe, and Michelle Brooks were all present.
All but Brooks and Sonney are co-sponsoring HB 1351 (as far as I know). Hornaman and Fabrizio, who are also co-sponsoring HB 194 and HB 278, testified forcefully against Real ID, drawing loud applause from the crowd. The highlight of the hearing may have been when, shortly after Jeremy Meadow's testimony, Fabrizio caught the audience (or at least this writer) off guard by exclaiming "THIS IS MADNESS!" Hearing him shout that was a pleasant surprise!
Raoe and Harkins also reaffirmed their support for HB 1351, and I'm happy to report that Representative Sonney has stated that he will now sign on as well. I'm told that Representative Brooks echoed Sonney's show of support, but I missed that comment myself.
For those who have not yet heard, IGA Committee Chairman Thomas recently sent out a memo to all PA House members in which he stated that he would be introducting new anti-Real ID legislation. According to Jim Compton, Thomas has removed all of the biometrics information in HB 1351 for this legislation, a modification which will effectively allow PennDOT to continue taking high resolution digital photographs for all new and renewed drivers licenses and converting unsuspecting citizens' faces into biometric images which can identify individuals just as uniquely as their fingerprints. Furthermore, Thomas's legislation has replaced "Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance of any provision of the REAL ID Act of 2005…" with "The Commonwealth shall not seek or otherwise apply for state certification under the Real ID Act of 2005." As Jim explains, this new language "has no teeth and amounts to mire fluffy words."
The program we received when we walked in the door showed the last thirty minutes of the hearing to be allotted for a "Question and Answer Session", yet Representative W. Curtis Thomas only allowed for about ten minutes for questions and comments from the crowd before ending the hearing. I had circulated a copy of the e-mail sent out by Aaron and Jim explaining the situation with the memo, so one member of the audience attempted to call Rep. Thomas out on his ploy:
"I understand that you have a bill presented similar to HB 1351. Is it stronger than HB 1351?"
--- "Well I have not introduced a bill yet."
"Are you going to?"
--- "Following these hearings, we're going to have a committee meeting, and we're going to make a decision based on the comments that we have received from people in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia..."
Another gentleman responded: "How 'bout the Constitution... why don't you base your decision off that? It isn't an opinion, it's the law."
Nick Ramaglia of Pittsburgh PA spoke next and further drove home the need for HB 1351 as opposed to Representative Thomas's watered down bill. He discussed the $45.5 contract between Viisage and PennDOT and emphasized the fact that PennDOT has already begun moving towards compliance with the Real ID Act, including the implementation of biometric photography. Representative Thomas responded by saying, "I would not conclude about what PennDOT has done until the legislature has acted." Undeterred, Ramaglia stayed on point, urging Representative Thomas and his colleagues to "please pass HB 1351 AS WRITTEN. We don't need biometric 'Face Explore' technology. We don't need any bills coming before the legislature that are dumbed down. We need 1351."
For the next few minutes a few other citizens took Mr. Berro to task on the unconstitutionality of Real ID (amongst other things), but I really wanted to call W. Curtis Thomas out and make it clear to the citizens and lawmakers present that his memo clearly states: "In the near future, I will be introducing legislation which mandates..." He didn't say he was considering doing it. He didn't say he wanted to solicit the publics' opinions first. He didn't say he wanted to talk to his committee. He said he WILL BE introducting the legislation, period. Unfortunately, despite my being front and center with his quote in one hand and my other hand raised high, he very abruptly ended the hearing without giving me the chance to call him out on this publicly and on camera.
As you can imagine I was not happy, and I made it known immediately. So, having effectively thwarted my attempt to put him on the spot (the room was already clearing out), he invited me up on stage to speak with him. I rushed to the nearest microphone in the hopes that I could say what I wanted to say for the benefit of those who remained, but by the time I got near one and turned around I realized that it was a lost cause.
I did, however, get to talk one-on-one with the chairman for a number of minutes. He seemed surprised that I had his memo in my hand, as made evident by the fact that he wanted to see it for himself and read his own words on the paper.
He began lying to me right away. He looked me dead in the eyes and, in his best "I'm just a big silly dummy" voice, said "Look - I don't know anything about biometrics." I cut him off right there and said "Are you being sincere here?" He insisted that he was (though I knew he wasn't). Aaron, Jim, and others have been feeding him a steady stream of information on biometrics for nearly a year now, including personal briefings in his office. I took a seat.
Thomas continued, "We need to just kill the Real ID. We can have an academic discussion about biometrics and determine what we want to do with that, but let's just kill the Real ID first."
I explained to him (or rather reviewed for him, since he already well knows) that the two are inseparable: PennDOT's implementation of biometrics is part of its goal of eventual full-compliance with the Real ID Act, and has been since 2006.
(Paraphrasing): "Regardless," I continued, "over ninety members of the house have co-sponsored 1351 AS WRITTEN. None of them are pushing to have the passages about biometrics removed, and neither is the public. Likewise, no one is complaining that the language of HB 1351 is too strong and in need of a watering down. You claim that you have been having these hearings so that you can listen to the people; the people have spoken, and we want HB 1351 passed AS WRITTEN."
At this point Representative Thomas began recommending that I urge Representative Rohrer (who introduced the bill) to add it as an amendment to an existing bill so that it can be voted on that way.
I said, "Maybe that's something to consider, but right now I am talking about HB 1351, which is sitting in YOUR committee. You are the Chairman, you decide when it comes out to the floor. You have been signed on as a co-sponsor of this bill for months now; we know we have the votes to pass the bill, why are you still sitting on it?"
"Because I don't have the votes in the commitee. I need fifteen votes in the committee before I can move it out of the commitee."
"So you're telling me what? That not having enough votes in the IGA committee is the only thing keeping this bill off the floor? Even though you are planning to introduce a watered down version of the bill? If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you take it to the floor for a vote?"
"Get me the fifteen votes in the committee..."
"Okay. If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you immediately take 1351 to the floor for a vote? Yes or no?"
"When I'm considering what to do with this bill I have to respect the will of committee..."
"I'm asking you for a simple yes or no. If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you immediately take 1351 to the floor for a vote?"
At that point a guy standing nearby, who was apparently a friend of Representative Thomas, said "He already answered you three times now!"
I said, "I'm just asking for a simple yes or no, not these vague answers. Mr. Thomas, you seem to be imply to me that not having fifteen votes in committee is the only thing stopping this from going to the floor. I want you to be honest with me here and tell me yes or no whether or not you will bring this bill out of committee if fifteen committee members co-sponsor it."
"If fifteen members co-sponsor the bill I'll have to listen to the committee."
I think maybe we should mark him down for "no", or at least "not necessarily." As I said I have written this conversation from memory and therefore the quotes are not verbatim, but this is quite close to how it happened.
All things considered, though, I'd have to say the hearing was relatively successful. We were able to get at least one, probably two new co-sponsors for HB 1351, make it known to Representative Thomas that we are onto his ploy, and alert a few of his fellow Reps. And (surprise!) the local news was there, and I believe they filmed an interview with Pamela Irwin.
I recommend everyone take Jim's good advice and meet with your Representative at their home office over the next couple of weeks before they go back to the capitol, even if they're signed on to 1351. It is clear that Representative Thomas is trying to pull a fast one and we need to sound the alarm.
For those who have attended any of the previous hearings the scene was familiar: Committee Chairman W. Curtis Thomas made an opening statement insisting that the purpose of these hearings is to better educate the public about Real ID and hear our thoughts on the issue "so that [our Representatives] can make an informed decision". Unfortunately, it becomes more and more clear as time goes on that these statements by Representative Thomas are disingenuous (read on).
We first heard testimony from Jeremy Meadows from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) who has been at the other hearings. Nothing too new there.
Next up was "public intellectual" Neil Berro, who, as many know, is just as enamored with Real ID as he is with fear-mongering, whitewashing 9/11, and acting pretentious.
Case in point -- from Neil Berro's testimony which appeared in written form in the program handed out to all attendees (bold mine, for fun):
"I recognize that many Americans today, and certainly some of those present at the two past hearings have forgotten 9-11 or have fallen victim to urban myths and conspiracy theorists, and don't believe that they or their families are at risk from foreign terrorists.
It's probably understandable that Americans now discount the threat because they live far from New York and Washington, where the largest impact of 9/11 took place. But I am surprised that would be the case here in Pennsylvania.
On my way to this hearing by car, I detoured from the most direct route because I wanted to visit the Flight 93 National Memorial. I was deeply moved by the temporary memorial that protects the site of the crash of the United Airlines airliner brought down by foreign terrorists. [editor's note: when did he write this?]
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11, Flight 93 is the only one that did not reach its intended target. There is evidence that the foreign terrorists intended that plane to crash into the United States Capitol in washington, D.C.. As vividly presented by a semi-documentary movie, the passengers had learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center through cellular telephone calls to family. It is believed that two flight attendants six passengers [sic] fought the hijackers and thereby potentially prevented the death of thousands. The bravery of these passengers and the crew almost certainly brought about the plane crashing into the Pennsylvania field shortly after 10 a.m., killing all on board.
As today's testimony will likely be the last I will present to the Intergovernmenal Affairs Committee here, I want to tell you that we should not forget the example set by the heroes of Flight 93. Foreign terrorists will strike again if we do not maintain our vigilance and forcefully oppose them."
Those heroes "got it" and I "get it," even if some in this audience and at the earlier hearings at which I testified do not."
Does Neil Berro "get it" or what!?
One notable difference between this hearing and the Pittsburgh hearing: there were no less than SEVEN state Representatives present. Besides the Chairman, Representatives John Hornaman, Florindo J. Fabrizio, Curtis G. Sonney, Patrick J. Harkins, Brad Raoe, and Michelle Brooks were all present.
All but Brooks and Sonney are co-sponsoring HB 1351 (as far as I know). Hornaman and Fabrizio, who are also co-sponsoring HB 194 and HB 278, testified forcefully against Real ID, drawing loud applause from the crowd. The highlight of the hearing may have been when, shortly after Jeremy Meadow's testimony, Fabrizio caught the audience (or at least this writer) off guard by exclaiming "THIS IS MADNESS!" Hearing him shout that was a pleasant surprise!
Raoe and Harkins also reaffirmed their support for HB 1351, and I'm happy to report that Representative Sonney has stated that he will now sign on as well. I'm told that Representative Brooks echoed Sonney's show of support, but I missed that comment myself.
For those who have not yet heard, IGA Committee Chairman Thomas recently sent out a memo to all PA House members in which he stated that he would be introducting new anti-Real ID legislation. According to Jim Compton, Thomas has removed all of the biometrics information in HB 1351 for this legislation, a modification which will effectively allow PennDOT to continue taking high resolution digital photographs for all new and renewed drivers licenses and converting unsuspecting citizens' faces into biometric images which can identify individuals just as uniquely as their fingerprints. Furthermore, Thomas's legislation has replaced "Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance of any provision of the REAL ID Act of 2005…" with "The Commonwealth shall not seek or otherwise apply for state certification under the Real ID Act of 2005." As Jim explains, this new language "has no teeth and amounts to mire fluffy words."
The program we received when we walked in the door showed the last thirty minutes of the hearing to be allotted for a "Question and Answer Session", yet Representative W. Curtis Thomas only allowed for about ten minutes for questions and comments from the crowd before ending the hearing. I had circulated a copy of the e-mail sent out by Aaron and Jim explaining the situation with the memo, so one member of the audience attempted to call Rep. Thomas out on his ploy:
"I understand that you have a bill presented similar to HB 1351. Is it stronger than HB 1351?"
--- "Well I have not introduced a bill yet."
"Are you going to?"
--- "Following these hearings, we're going to have a committee meeting, and we're going to make a decision based on the comments that we have received from people in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia..."
Another gentleman responded: "How 'bout the Constitution... why don't you base your decision off that? It isn't an opinion, it's the law."
Nick Ramaglia of Pittsburgh PA spoke next and further drove home the need for HB 1351 as opposed to Representative Thomas's watered down bill. He discussed the $45.5 contract between Viisage and PennDOT and emphasized the fact that PennDOT has already begun moving towards compliance with the Real ID Act, including the implementation of biometric photography. Representative Thomas responded by saying, "I would not conclude about what PennDOT has done until the legislature has acted." Undeterred, Ramaglia stayed on point, urging Representative Thomas and his colleagues to "please pass HB 1351 AS WRITTEN. We don't need biometric 'Face Explore' technology. We don't need any bills coming before the legislature that are dumbed down. We need 1351."
For the next few minutes a few other citizens took Mr. Berro to task on the unconstitutionality of Real ID (amongst other things), but I really wanted to call W. Curtis Thomas out and make it clear to the citizens and lawmakers present that his memo clearly states: "In the near future, I will be introducing legislation which mandates..." He didn't say he was considering doing it. He didn't say he wanted to solicit the publics' opinions first. He didn't say he wanted to talk to his committee. He said he WILL BE introducting the legislation, period. Unfortunately, despite my being front and center with his quote in one hand and my other hand raised high, he very abruptly ended the hearing without giving me the chance to call him out on this publicly and on camera.
As you can imagine I was not happy, and I made it known immediately. So, having effectively thwarted my attempt to put him on the spot (the room was already clearing out), he invited me up on stage to speak with him. I rushed to the nearest microphone in the hopes that I could say what I wanted to say for the benefit of those who remained, but by the time I got near one and turned around I realized that it was a lost cause.
I did, however, get to talk one-on-one with the chairman for a number of minutes. He seemed surprised that I had his memo in my hand, as made evident by the fact that he wanted to see it for himself and read his own words on the paper.
He began lying to me right away. He looked me dead in the eyes and, in his best "I'm just a big silly dummy" voice, said "Look - I don't know anything about biometrics." I cut him off right there and said "Are you being sincere here?" He insisted that he was (though I knew he wasn't). Aaron, Jim, and others have been feeding him a steady stream of information on biometrics for nearly a year now, including personal briefings in his office. I took a seat.
Thomas continued, "We need to just kill the Real ID. We can have an academic discussion about biometrics and determine what we want to do with that, but let's just kill the Real ID first."
I explained to him (or rather reviewed for him, since he already well knows) that the two are inseparable: PennDOT's implementation of biometrics is part of its goal of eventual full-compliance with the Real ID Act, and has been since 2006.
(Paraphrasing): "Regardless," I continued, "over ninety members of the house have co-sponsored 1351 AS WRITTEN. None of them are pushing to have the passages about biometrics removed, and neither is the public. Likewise, no one is complaining that the language of HB 1351 is too strong and in need of a watering down. You claim that you have been having these hearings so that you can listen to the people; the people have spoken, and we want HB 1351 passed AS WRITTEN."
At this point Representative Thomas began recommending that I urge Representative Rohrer (who introduced the bill) to add it as an amendment to an existing bill so that it can be voted on that way.
I said, "Maybe that's something to consider, but right now I am talking about HB 1351, which is sitting in YOUR committee. You are the Chairman, you decide when it comes out to the floor. You have been signed on as a co-sponsor of this bill for months now; we know we have the votes to pass the bill, why are you still sitting on it?"
"Because I don't have the votes in the commitee. I need fifteen votes in the committee before I can move it out of the commitee."
"So you're telling me what? That not having enough votes in the IGA committee is the only thing keeping this bill off the floor? Even though you are planning to introduce a watered down version of the bill? If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you take it to the floor for a vote?"
"Get me the fifteen votes in the committee..."
"Okay. If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you immediately take 1351 to the floor for a vote? Yes or no?"
"When I'm considering what to do with this bill I have to respect the will of committee..."
"I'm asking you for a simple yes or no. If you have the support of fifteen committee members will you immediately take 1351 to the floor for a vote?"
At that point a guy standing nearby, who was apparently a friend of Representative Thomas, said "He already answered you three times now!"
I said, "I'm just asking for a simple yes or no, not these vague answers. Mr. Thomas, you seem to be imply to me that not having fifteen votes in committee is the only thing stopping this from going to the floor. I want you to be honest with me here and tell me yes or no whether or not you will bring this bill out of committee if fifteen committee members co-sponsor it."
"If fifteen members co-sponsor the bill I'll have to listen to the committee."
I think maybe we should mark him down for "no", or at least "not necessarily." As I said I have written this conversation from memory and therefore the quotes are not verbatim, but this is quite close to how it happened.
All things considered, though, I'd have to say the hearing was relatively successful. We were able to get at least one, probably two new co-sponsors for HB 1351, make it known to Representative Thomas that we are onto his ploy, and alert a few of his fellow Reps. And (surprise!) the local news was there, and I believe they filmed an interview with Pamela Irwin.
I recommend everyone take Jim's good advice and meet with your Representative at their home office over the next couple of weeks before they go back to the capitol, even if they're signed on to 1351. It is clear that Representative Thomas is trying to pull a fast one and we need to sound the alarm.