Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to the implementation of the federal
REAL ID Act of 2005; and relating to issuance of
identification cards and driver's licenses; and
providing for an effective date."
1:39:24 PM
SHELDON FISHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
(via teleconference), provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "CSHB 74 Driver's Licenses and ID Cards and REAL ID
Act" dated April 19, 2017 (copy on file). He listed staff
available to testify. He turned to slide 2 and provided
background about the federal REAL ID Act that covered 50
states, 5 territories, and Washington, D.C. He relayed that
it would establish minimum requirements for the
identification to be valid in federal facilities. He noted
that occasionally there was an argument that the federal
government should not require states to dictate to states
how they may produce identification. He believed it was a
valid concern, but he thought the federal government would
argue it was not mandating states to do anything - it was
merely setting a standard if individuals want to use state
identification in federal facilities.
Commissioner Fisher discussed that the process mandated by
REAL ID Act required the state to do two things. First, it
required the state to take a photo at the beginning of the
process for comparison against the individual receiving a
license at the end of the process to ensure there had been
no fraud between the person presenting documents for
validation and the person photographed and receiving the
license or identification. The act also required the state
to validate the primary documents used in establishing
eligibility for a license. There were currently 26 states
offering REAL ID compliant cards and 20 more states,
including Alaska, which had extensions. He detailed that
while Alaska did not currently offer a REAL ID card, it was
not out of compliance. Alaska residents had not been
impacted by the act, but it could change in the future.
There were currently 4 states that were non-compliant
including Maine, Montana, Minnesota, and Missouri; these
states did not have a REAL ID card and had not received a
waiver. He elaborated that Washington had recently received
a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security and bill
similar to HB 74 had recently passed both houses of the
Washington State Legislature. He did not believe the bill
had been signed into law yet.
1:44:00 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about a compliant card and
asked if it was a passport card or something with a chip or
other. He referred to a note on slide 2 indicating that
Minnesota had enhanced IDs with chip cards.
Commissioner Fisher answered that essentially there were
certain requirements to have a REAL ID compliant card. He
detailed that cards with chips also satisfied the federal
requirement. He continued that Alaska did not have either;
therefore, without a change in the law, Alaska residents
would be required to have an alternative form of
identification (i.e. a passport or other). He noted that
the department had a list of acceptable alternative forms
of identification.
1:45:32 PM
Co-Chair Seaton noted Representative Guttenberg would wait
for more detail later in the presentation.
Representative Wilson asked about non-compliant states
including Missouri and Maine. She wondered about issues
that had arisen in those states related to REAL ID
compliance and assumed residents needed to use passports
instead of driver's licenses.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the assumption was
partially true. He addressed consequences that would occur
if the legislation did not pass; under current enforcement
the consequences may vary. For example, if an individual
with a non-compliant license tried to get on a [military]
base in one of the non-compliant states, they would either
be turned away or would have limited access where they had
to be accompanied by an official from the base. He noted
the option was somewhat cumbersome and limited the
individual's time and activity on the base. He explained
that at present there were alternatives available. He
detailed that if a person showed up without a license they
could verify themselves in other ways including an
alternative form of identification or enhanced search. The
department was being assured that any individual attempting
to travel without a REAL ID after January 1, 2018, would be
turned away. He underscored that the current options would
no longer be available. He used Montana and Minnesota as an
example and explained that the enhanced search option or
alternative identification would no longer be available.
1:48:29 PM
Representative Wilson stated that Missouri had some large
federal bases and that the state overall had a larger
population. She found it interesting that she had not heard
many complaints on why Missouri or Maine had decided what
they were doing was not a good idea. She surmised they
would be hearing more negative information if it [action
under the bill] was something that had to be done at
present.
Commissioner Fisher deferred to another department for
detail.
BRIAN P. DUFFY, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS (via
teleconference), used Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri as an
example of a federal base. He compared the base to Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. He shared that
before retiring from active duty he had served as the
installation commander from 2012 to 2014. At the Alaska
base there was an estimated 14,000 local service providers
and contractors that would be affected and required to have
alternative forms of identification or would otherwise be
unable to access the installation. He continued that it
would be highly unreasonable to assume the installation
would provide escort for all the visitors. He referenced a
previous Joint Armed Services Committee meeting where the
commander at Fort Leavenworth had provided the same
information. Additionally, Fort Wainwright provided
estimates of about 5,000 per month and Eielson Air Force
Base provided estimates of about 2,600 per month.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that Representative Wilson's
question pertained to whether there had been problems in
Missouri.
Mr. Duffy answered that he had not been tracking specific
problems of bases in Missouri.
Representative Wilson remarked "and they're non-compliant
so that kind of makes you wonder."
Commissioner Fisher replied there was an example of an
individual in Washington that was subject to the same rules
and had very little access. He noted that Washington had
not been compliant until several weeks earlier. He asked if
Deputy Commissioner Leslie Ridle wanted to address the
question.
Co-Chair Seaton declined to hear more about the topic.
Vice-Chair Gara referred to Commissioner Fisher's statement
that Washington had received an extension by passing
statute. He shared that when the REAL ID Act had passed he
had privacy concerns. He noted that the state had passed
legislation to implement its privacy concerns. He asked if
Washington's extension lasted any longer than Alaska's,
which expired in the coming January.
Commissioner Fisher answered that Alaska's current
extension expired on June 6 [2017]. Beginning on June 7,
REAL ID compliant identification would be required under
normal circumstances. The administration had been assured
that if the legislation passed, the state would receive an
additional extension that would provide time for the state
to become compliant. The [federal] Department of Homeland
Security understood that it would take a period of
implementation. He relayed the department had been in
conversation with the Department of Homeland Security and
had been assured that if the legislation did not pass, the
state would not receive another waiver. The administration
had been told that it could not receive a waiver if the
current legislative session was still going in June. He
relayed that the State of Washington waiver was also set to
expire on June 6, but he believed that with its recent
passage of legislation, Washington would receive another
waiver to provide the state an opportunity to become
compliant.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification on who was
speaking. Commissioner Fisher clarified he had been
speaking.
1:54:45 PM
Representative Kawasaki requested a list of the individuals
available online for questions.
Commissioner Fisher moved briefly to slide 3. He
communicated that the bill was needed because current state
law prohibited the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from
spending state funds to comply with the [federal] REAL ID
Act. Without a change in state law, the state could not
proceed.
Representative Kawasaki referred to a letter from the ACLU
that the department was collecting information outside the
original scope of typical driver's licenses. He asked for
the accuracy of the claim.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the negative. He detailed
that by statute, the department could collect and maintain
individuals' applications, which it did. The department was
also allowed by statute to maintain and store individuals'
photos. The department maintained and stored a copy of the
primary documents provided by applicants (e.g. birth
certificate, passport, or other). The ability to maintain
the documents enabled the department to reissue licenses
when they had been lost or expired. He concluded that the
ability to store the information provided a benefit to
residents.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that the
State of Alaska had sole possession of the data.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the affirmative. He added
that part of the department's issuance process involved
confirming that an individual did not have a license in
another state. To do so, the department shared a minimal
amount of private information that included five digits of
an individual's social security number (SSN). The
department did not share applications, photos, or primary
documents.
1:58:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the five-digits of a
person's SSN had always been used pertaining to driver's
licenses. Alternatively, he wondered if use of the five-
digit number was a new practice.
Commissioner Fisher answered the practice had been enacted
recently, which mandated the five-digit number. He
understood the sensitivity, therefore, the department was
in discussion with AAMVA [American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators] to facilitate the transfer of
information. He noted that his colleague Marla Thompson
[DMV director] was present and was assuming a role on the
AAMVA board. The department was planning to try to reduce
the number of digits shared. He elaborated that the full
SSN had been shared by the department for commercial
driver's licenses as required by federal law.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the five-digit SSN was
required by the REAL ID Act.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the negative. He elaborated
that the system had been implemented to try to simplify the
process of comparing and ensuring that an individual did
not inappropriately have multiple licenses for multiple
jurisdictions. He furthered that the department had always
done that. He explained that when the department had
implemented the system there had been a few thousand
individuals who had multiple licenses that had fallen
through the process. He believed there was an important
fraud detection component that did have a benefit for the
state.
Representative Kawasaki asked if it was illegal to have
multiple driver's licenses in different jurisdictions.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative; it was a
violation of Alaska law.
2:01:46 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the new system Commissioner
Fisher was speaking about was related to a contract with an
organization in Indiana.
Commissioner Fisher replied that he was referring to a new
state-to-state system that was managed and administered by
AAMVA.
Representative Wilson asked it had been included in
legislation sponsored by Senator Peter Micciche the
previous year when Alaska had joined the multi-state.
Commissioner Fisher asked if Representative Wilson was
referring to ERIC [Electronic Registration Information
Center], which focused on preventing voter registration
fraud.
Representative Wilson answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fisher responded that the system under
discussion was different [from ERIC]. He explained that
under ERIC the state shared the same type of information
already. He clarified that the Division of Elections and
DOA shared the data with ERIC.
Representative Wilson asked if the state was sharing the
five digits with ERIC or the full SSN.
Commissioner Fisher replied that four digits of a SSN were
shared with ERIC. He elaborated that ERIC had slightly
different information.
Representative Wilson thought four [digits] was still too
many for many individuals.
Co-Chair Seaton asked members to hold any non-clarification
questions until the presentation was completed.
2:04:04 PM
Commissioner Fisher moved to slide 4 titled "CSHB 74
Driver's License, State IDs, REAL ID ACT." He explained
that the bill had been structured by the administration to
offer Alaskans a choice. He detailed that if an individual
did not want a REAL ID compliant license they did not have
to obtain one. However, the bill provided the DMV with the
ability to establish a REAL ID compliant license for
individuals who wanted one. The bill would also allow DMV
to extend the term of a license to eight years (an increase
from the current five-year term). He continued that the
bill attempted to address privacy concerns - it directed
the DMV to destroy scanned documents once the minimal
retention is met; created a limit of nine years for photo
storage for non-compliant driver's license and
identification; prohibited the DMV from scanning, copying,
or retaining in any form documents for a non-compliant
identification; and restricted data sharing with entities
to the minimum amount necessary to be certified for REAL
ID, while still allowing SSN and other data transfer to the
non-profit ERIC for voter registration issues. The bill
required the DMV to work with other states to address the
use of SSNs. He reiterated his earlier statement that the
department was going to try to reduce the number of SSN
digits it shared. The bill would also prohibit the DMV from
engaging in bulk sharing of photos. He noted that the state
had never engaged in the bulk sharing of photos.
Commissioner Fisher elaborated on the slide. He referred to
an individual available from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) to address a specific issue. He believed it
was important to understand that DPS used the material for
a number of important and legitimate purposes including
missing persons, identifying deceased persons, and criminal
investigative activity.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if DPS wanted to address privacy
concern issues.
DAN LOWDEN, CAPTAIN, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), relayed that DPS had
some concerns about its ability to access photos and
documents. He noted that the department had sent a letter
outlining the concerns [letter addressed to the co-chairs
dated April 17, 2017 from DPS legislative liaison Allison
Hanzawa (copy on file)]. The department used for myriad
tools including missing person fliers, wanted fliers, to
identify deceased individuals, and on the street when
people had no identification. He explained the photos could
help identify the individuals and could be emailed or
texted from a dispatcher to the officer on the street on a
phone or car computer. They were used for photo lineups
(arrays) to help identify suspects. He shared that the
Records and Identification Bureau frequently worked to
reconcile records. He detailed there were times when people
acquired criminal histories using different names; it was
necessary for the department to try to merge those records.
There were also times when two names were similar and it
was necessary to determine whether they belonged to one or
two individuals. He explained that restricting the ability
for DPS to access the documents would impair its ability to
conduct investigations, find missing people, and so forth.
2:10:18 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not want to create unnecessary cost for
little reason. He asked if it would be possible for the DMV
to transfer the information to DPS prior to destroying it
(if it would be helpful to DPS).
Mr. Lowden answered that if the DMV destroyed the
information the troopers would not have access.
Vice-Chair Gara asked understood the concern. He asked if
the DMV could transfer the data to DPS prior to destroying
it, without any major cost. Mr. Lowden replied it would be
one way to approach the situation.
Vice-Chair Gara thought it would be the ideal situation if
there was no cost and the information could be encrypted.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to language on slide 4 of the DOA
presentation: "prohibits DMV from scanning, copying, or
retaining in any form documents for a non-compliant DL/ID."
He reasoned that if DMV could not scan the documents it
would not have the ability to provide them to another state
agency. He continued that whether the DMV or DPS should be
the repository of information was something to consider at
a later time. He referred to the letter from DPS [dated
April 17, 2017] and observed that it did not include a
request for a document retention period (e.g. 20 years, 30
years, or indefinitely). He asked the department to provide
additional detail if it wanted a certain bill provision to
be changed.
Mr. Lowden responded that DPS would like to have the
information retained as long as reasonably possible. He
detailed that the information had been used in cold cases
that were a number of years old. He would speak with the
commissioner's office and they would provide a timeline to
the co-chairs.
2:13:37 PM
Commissioner Fisher replied that the department did not
really feel it had a stake in whether the DMV was the best
repository, but he stressed that the data was encrypted in
its data bases. He continued to address slide 4. The bill
would prohibit the state or municipalities from requiring
people to have a REAL ID compliant license. The bill would
impose an additional fee of $20 that would cover the cost
of issuing the licenses. In addition to offering Alaskans
the choice, those who chose the compliant licenses would
pay an additional fee to cover the cost. Additionally, the
bill would allow the DMV to offer licenses to non-U.S.
citizens for up to eight years.
Commissioner Fisher referenced an earlier question and
relayed that the Missouri House of Representatives had
recently passed legislation approving compliance with the
REAL ID standard. He referred to an online article [U.S.
News article dated March 30, 2017] that quoted [Missouri]
Representative Steve Lynch as stating that the state's
inaction had caused problems in the area:
"Everywhere I go, every weekend, I run across people
that stop me and tell me 'We need to fix this issue,'"
he said. "People are angry. They are frustrated. Many
people still visit Ft. Leonard Wood, but all of them
are concerned that they may lose access to air travel
next year."
Commissioner Fisher elaborated that the quote reflected at
least one Missourian's expression of concern about
challenges pertaining to the REAL ID Act.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to the last bullet point on slide 4
stating that the bill would allow the DMV to offer licenses
to non-U.S. citizens for up to eight years. He and asked if
it included both REAL ID Act compliant and non-compliant
licenses.
Commissioner Fisher believed so. He deferred to a colleague
for confirmation.
LESLIE RIDLE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, answered in the affirmative; the licenses
could be REAL ID compliant.
Representative Pruitt referred to the eight-year timeframe
and assumed the license would expire at the time a green
card or other documentation expired.
Ms. Ridle answered in the affirmative. She detailed that if
a person had a green card allowing them to live in the U.S.
for five years, the license would not go beyond that
timeframe. However, some individuals had indefinite-stay
cards that would enable the license to be obtained for the
full eight years (just like a normal license).
2:17:38 PM
Commissioner Fisher advanced to slide 5 titled "What Will
Change for REAL ID Compliant Cards":
· Alaska DMV will take a photo at the start of an of
application process and store that image in Alaska
· DMV will validate birth certificate, passport, or
immigration documents
· REAL ID compliant DLs/IDs will have unique design or
color indicator to clearly distinguish from
noncompliant cards
· DLs/IDs will be valid for 8 years instead of 5
Under CS for HB 74--Non-Compliant DLs/IDs
· Will not be eligible for online renewal
· Cannot be duplicated or replaced without showing
documents again
Commissioner Fisher elaborated on slide 5. A photo was
taken at the start of the application process to ensure the
same individual received the license at the end of the
process. He shared that each validation by DMV constituted
a "dip" into a database to verify that an individual's
birth certificate, passport, and immigration documents were
present. He clarified that DOA would not be establishing a
database, it would merely be confirming that information
was present in existing databases. He noted it was
important to understand that under the current legislation,
there would be some implications for people who elect a
non-compliant license. He explained that because DMV did
not store any documents, the individuals would not be
eligible for online renewal and would need to return to a
DMV with their primary documents (e.g. birth certificate)
to receive a replacement license in the event a license was
lost. At present, if an individual lost a license they
could go to a DMV where staff could visually confirm their
identity and issue a replacement license.
2:20:08 PM
Commissioner Fisher turned to slide 6 titled "What Won't
Change":
· DMV will still require the primary document,
secondary document and proof of Alaska residency for
compliant and noncompliant cards
· DMV will continue to background check employees and
Business Partners
· DMV will continue to use a secure facility to
produce compliant and noncompliant cards
Commissioner Fisher moved to a bubble chart outlining the
REAL ID process on slide 7. Highlighted text on the slide
reflected changes from the current process. A box on the
upper left indicated a photo would be taken with an
application. A larger box in the middle showed the three
different databases the department used to validate either
a person's birth certificate, passport, or other
immigration documentation.
Commissioner Fisher spoke to the timeline on slide 8. There
were two important upcoming dates. The first was June 7,
2017 when Alaska's waiver from the Homeland Security Agency
ended. At that time Alaska residents with an Alaska license
would need to present an alternative form of identification
to access military bases and federal facilities. Second,
beginning on January 22, 2018, a REAL ID compliant license
or another form of federal identification would be required
to pass through TSA security checkpoints (unless a waiver
was received). The final date was October 1, 2020 - REAL ID
compliant ID/DLs or other federal ID will be required at
TSA security check points and no additional TSA waivers
would be granted.
2:22:54 PM
Commissioner Fisher turned to slide 9 titled "REAL ID -
Accessing Military Bases." The slide listed the individuals
who would be impacted by limiting access to military bases.
The list included state employees, school districts in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, civilians, individuals working on
the base and visitors. He cited upcoming construction work
planned on bases and noted concern about the impact on
construction workers.
Commissioner Fisher moved to the conclusion of the
presentation with a list of supporters of HB 74 on slide
10. The list included workers and individuals who would be
impacted by the limitations or restrictions that would be
applied in the absence of a pathway to REAL ID compliant
licenses. He reiterated his earlier testimony that the
legislation had been structured to give Alaskans a choice.
He detailed that no Alaskan was required to obtain a REAL
ID compliant license. The organizations listed on slide 10
believed their members had a particular interest and need
to receive a compliant license.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that
individuals who chose to not receive REAL ID compliant
licenses could obtain identification by providing the same
documents as required under the current process. She
surmised that the only thing that would be saved was the
application and "as long as we have an alternative plan,
they're going to write it off as being in compliance."
Commissioner Fisher replied that individuals with a non-
compliant license would be required to have an alternative
form of identification when entering a federal facility.
Representative Kawasaki returned to the topic of social
security numbers. He wondered why the state used a portion
of individuals' social security numbers if it was not
required to do so by the federal government under the REAL
ID Act.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the department was
required to validate certain information, including whether
a person possessed a license in another state. Federal law
did not require, but allowed the state to use the social
security number for this purpose. The system established by
AAMVA was viewed as an efficient and minimally invasive
method for doing so. The state was trying to share the
minimal amount of information that allowed it to validate
that an individual did not have a license in another state.
Without the system, the department would have to reach out
to 50 states to validate that they did not have a license -
the method would be quite cumbersome.
Representative Kawasaki referenced Commissioner Fisher's
earlier statement that use of SSNs was a requirement. He
asked if it was a federal, state, or a requirement of the
one organization the state worked with.
2:28:00 PM
Commissioner Fisher answered that the sharing of SSNs was a
requirement of the system implemented by the organization
to validate that an individual did not have a license in
another state. He relayed that the state collected SSNs at
present and was also obligated collect them as part of REAL
ID. He clarified that the state was not obligated to share
the information with anyone else, but it was obligated to
collect the information.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that the state was not
required by law to share SSNs, but it was a requirement of
an organization the state partnered with.
Commissioner Fisher responded that the state was required
(by current state law and under the REAL ID Act) to
validate that an individual did not have a driver's license
in another state. The SSN was the tool that allowed the
state to do so. Thus far, a better alternative process had
not been developed. He continued that AAMVA had created a
"pointer" system that only used a subset of the SSN (five
digits). Without utilizing the SSN it would be impossible
to confirm a person did not have a license in another
state.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if all REAL ID compliant cards would
have a chip.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the negative. Alaska's REAL
ID compliant licenses would not have a chip. He detailed
that the presentation's reference to a license with a chip
was a different license issued in some states for different
purposes. He clarified that Alaska did not intend to issue
a license containing a chip.
2:31:17 PM
Representative Grenn asked if there was a difference in the
information an individual would share with the DMV under
the current system versus under a REAL ID compliant system.
Commissioner Fisher answered that if the state was
authorized to issue REAL ID compliant licenses and an
individual wanted a compliant license, the first time they
applied for a compliant license they would be required to
bring a primary document. He referred to an appendix on
slide 12 of the presentation, which included a list of
primary documents (i.e. birth certificate, passport, or
other immigration information) and secondary documents
(that can be used for establishing residency in Alaska). He
stated the process was essentially what people had been
doing previously.
Representative Grenn shared that he had recently been to
the DMV to renew his license. He had received a black and
white copy and was told he would receive his official
license in the mail within 30 to 60 days. He asked if the
process would be the same when obtaining a REAL ID
compliant license. He assumed the license would be mailed
from out of state.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn asked if the information currently
provided by license applicants would be sent to the same
company for issuance of REAL IDs. Alternatively, he
wondered if the information would be sent to a new company.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the information would be
sent to the same company as was used at present. The
company kept the information for 30 days and then destroyed
it.
2:33:42 PM
Representative Pruitt wondered if an individual would have
to pay again in the event of a lost license (either regular
or REAL ID compliant).
Commissioner Fisher believed the state had a duplicate fee,
but he did not know the precise amount.
Representative Pruitt stated that at one point the state
did not have a duplicate fee and he had spoken with a DMV
employee who believed the decision was unwise. He detailed
that the employee was producing replacement licenses four
or five times for the same people for no cost. He hoped a
duplicate fee had been implemented. Separately, he spoke
about the timeframe and the employee need. He referred to a
chart in the presentation that indicated the process was a
bit more extensive. He asked how much more time it would
take for a person to obtain a REAL ID compliant license.
Additionally, he wondered how it would impact the
department's personnel needs. He spoke to the challenge of
getting a license in a timely manner in regular
circumstances.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the average wait time of
getting a license had been reduced from 45 minutes to 10
minutes over the past 18 months. He detailed that the
decrease had been achieved without additional personnel.
The DMV had used process reengineering - using a
streamlining process and improving queue management. He
explained that when queues became long the offices utilized
staff typically performing other functions. He did not
claim that every individual was served within 10 minutes,
but the time had been dramatically reduced. He often
received positive emails thanking him for the service an
individual received at the DMV. He was pleased and believed
it was a great success story. The department believed it
could implement changes the bill would make (shown on slide
7) without a dramatic increase in time. The department did
not believe the additional steps would be particularly
burdensome. He stated that the higher the number of
different processes and different licenses and IDs that
followed different steps, the less efficient the process
would become. He agreed that efficiency should probably not
trump privacy. The department was trying to be both
efficient and respectful of people's privacy. The goal was
to develop a system and approach that would allow
exceptional customer service.
2:38:07 PM
Representative Pruitt provided a hypothetical scenario
about an individual without a local DMV who may need to fly
to the nearest hub community to access a DMV office. He
surmised that after 2020 the individual would not be able
to use an Alaska license, but it appeared individuals would
have to go to a DMV in person. He noted it was a challenge
for rural residents to obtain a REAL ID. He asked what kind
of burden the law would place on the individual trying to
fly to Seattle or another location outside of Alaska. He
asked how to deal with the potential challenge.
Commissioner Fisher recommended passing the legislation to
give individuals an alternative and the needed time. He
shared that if the legislation passed, the department
wanted to begin communicating with people to help them
understand the need to get their license renewed as REAL ID
compliant. If the legislation did not pass the individual
would need a passport or some other form of identification.
He agreed that it would be a challenge for individuals,
which was part of the reason he was motivated to give
individuals an option to choose a REAL ID compliant or
basic license and to provide as much time as possible for
individuals to do so. As an aside, he relayed that there
was now a method to set up an appointment at the DMV on the
division's website. He encouraged committee members to take
advantage of the option.
Representative Pruitt remarked that at present a person
looking to obtain a passport could mail information in for
renewal. He stated that the passage of the legislation was
different from whether the individual had access to a DMV.
He stated that no matter what, REAL ID would disadvantage
individuals in some Alaska communities by hindering their
ability to travel within the U.S. He surmised the change
would be a burden for individuals aiming to move freely
around the country. He asked for the accuracy of his
statement.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the burden that would be
imposed was the requirement to obtain a new license in the
next couple of years.
2:41:49 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification that there would be
a burden to obtain a travel document, whether it was a
passport or REAL ID compliant license, in a timeframe not
controlled by the state, other than through a waiver if the
bill was passed.
Commissioner Fisher responded in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt mentioned that the committee had
recently considered legislation related to off-highway
licenses and had discussed the lack of access to a DMV. He
stated that related to the current legislation, certain
individuals had lack of access to a DMV. He believed it
would be more difficult for some Alaskans to travel if they
had to go through one of Alaska's 17 airports with TSA
screening. He thought it would be a burden. He did not know
if there was legislative solution to solve the problem
because the individuals had to go to an office in person.
2:43:19 PM
Vice-Chair Gara was trying to find a way to support the
legislation given travel problems that would exist for
people in the future. He thought the largest privacy
concern had nothing to do with REAL ID, but was the use of
SSNs for a service used by the department. He believed it
seemed dangerous. He referenced Commissioner Fisher's
earlier testimony that the department was looking at
options. He wondered about the likelihood a solution would
be found. He thought it constituted the biggest privacy
concern.
Commissioner Fisher explained that the administration was
trying to reduce the number of digits it would be required
to share. He did not intend to communicate that the
department believed it could eliminate the use of a portion
of SSNs altogether. He believed that with or without REAL
ID, the SSN was the mechanism allowing the state to ensure
an individual only had a single driver's license. He noted
that current state law mandated that an individual could
only have one driver's license - the restriction existed in
all 50 states. His ambition was to reduce the number of
digits used, but not to eliminate reliance on the
mechanism.
2:45:40 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked the commissioner to keep the
committee apprised of any progress made going forward. He
shared that he was not personally informed about the danger
of having two driver's licenses. He surmised it did not
seem to be among the biggest dangers in the world. He
understood the department had laws it needed to follow. He
asked if the commissioner had looked at options to avoid
charging a fee of $20 per license. He questioned the idea
of charging individuals $20 more to comply with the law. He
guessed it was slightly offset by the fact that the license
would be good for eight years rather than five. He wondered
if there were small fees that could be spread around at DMV
or find some fee in another department that would not be
burdensome to help pay for the cost. He suggested
potentially using a portion of the motor fuel tax for the
purpose. The increase caused him some concern.
Commissioner Fisher reported that the legislation proposed
by the governor included a $5 fee increase, which
represented the minimal amount necessary to cover the
incremental costs with each additional license. However,
some legislators were concerned about using GF to cover the
bill's $1.5 million fiscal note. The increased fee of $20
in the current bill version would help to quickly repay the
$1.5 million. He indicated that the fee was a policy call.
He explained that if the legislature did not want the
department to charge a fee, the department could cover the
cost in other places. He detailed that the DMV made money
and returned money to the state's GF; if a fee was not
charged, the DMV would return a bit less to the state GF.
He stated that Alaska charged one of the lowest license
fees in the nation; the base license fee of $20 was very
inexpensive compared to many jurisdictions. He reiterated
that it was a policy decision for the legislature.
Representative Tilton noted that the license duration would
increase from five years to eight years. She asked what the
reasoning was for changing the period.
Commissioner Fisher replied that historically licenses had
been good for a period of five years. The REAL ID Act
allowed a license to be issued for eight years. Due to the
proposed fee increase the administration suggested allowing
a license to be extended to the maximum eight-year period
allowed by the REAL ID Act. He noted that the time could be
reduced by the legislature if desired. The REAL ID Act
allowed the state to issue one renewal online, meaning a
person could receive the license for a maximum period of 16
years before being required to return to the DMV to have
another picture taken.
Representative Tilton asked for verification that the
standard license had historically been good for a period of
five years. Commissioner Fisher responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the increase from five
to eight years for license renewal. He reasoned that the
increase meant that individuals would have to visit the DMV
fewer times and would result in a decrease in revenue.
Separately, he referenced the fiscal note and addressed the
cost breakdowns to get to the $1.5 million request. He
observed the note included startup fees. He wondered if any
additional fee would be ongoing in the future. He asked if
the state currently paid to be part of AAMVA.
Commissioner Fisher responded that fees shown in the fiscal
note were primarily startup fees. There was a cost
associated with each license of $5. There was not a
recurring component of the $1.5 million included in the
fiscal note. The state paid to participate in AAMVA, which
was a nonprofit controlled by the states. He detailed there
was a board of directors that Alaska's DMV director [Marla
Thompson] would be joining soon. He did not know the AAMVA
membership fee, but he would provide the information to the
committee.
2:52:23 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the ongoing fees required
for the REAL ID compliant database were reflected in the
fiscal note.
Commissioner Fisher asked for verification that
Representative Kawasaki was referring to the state-to-state
database the department used to validate whether an
individual had a license in a different state.
Representative Kawasaki replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Fisher responded that the department already
paid that cost at present; therefore, it was not reflected
in the fiscal note. He believed it was more efficient than
any alternative mechanism that could be developed.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the fees had ever
increased. He wondered if it was a situation where the
state bought a license fee at the beginning and was then
stuck using it again and again, and the fees could increase
and the state could not ever get out of the system.
Commissioner Fisher was sure the fees had increased, but he
would have to follow up with detail. He detailed that AAMVA
had been around since 1933; therefore, he was confident the
fees had changed and grown over time. He pointed out that
the organization was a nonprofit and was not charging fees
based on a desire to turn a profit; the organization was
managed by states for states and was managed at a level to
cover its costs.
Representative Kawasaki stated that AAMVA currently
received basic customer data including names, five digits
of a social security number, and birthdate. He asked if the
organization had required more or less information in the
past.
Commissioner Fisher deferred to his colleague for detail.
He noted that more information was required, but he did not
have specifics.
MARLA THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), answered
that AAMVA was a backbone for the DMV and was used for
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) and problem drivers.
She explained that if a person was coming from another
state, there was a data dip that would allow the DMV to see
whether a person had a DUI or had lost their license due to
points. She relayed that the process had been used for many
years. Additionally, there was a data dip for CDL
applications - law required a person could only have one
CDL. The state-to-state was more of an evolution - it was
something DMV had been doing with other pieces of data on
things it was required to do.
2:56:22 PM
Vice-Chair Gara referred to the fiscal note and the costs.
He observed that the costs would start out at $528,000 and
would decrease over the years. He remarked that the $1.5
million in revenue the state would receive, which may be
due to the increased license fee, was triple the starting
costs. He remarked that the revenue would decline. He asked
if a former legislative committee's proposal to increase
the cost of the license the reason the bill would generate
more revenue than it cost.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative. The reason
the revenue was initially high and projected to decline was
due to the expectation that there would be a surge of
individuals going to get a license, which would decline.
The department believed that at $20, the costs recovered
would be above and beyond the amount necessary to pay for
the legislation cost.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed that revenue needed to be increased,
but if the legislature implemented numerous little fees it
would irritate people. He recalled that under former
Governor Frank Murkowski's tenure there were numerous
little fees implemented. He asked what the amount would
need to be to make the bill cost neutral (where the license
fee would cover the cost of the legislation).
Commissioner Fisher replied that a $10 fee would cover the
$5 associated with the incremental cost for each license
and $5 would be collected. The department estimated that
over the course of five years the fee would repay the $1.5
million. He noted that after that time, the additional $5
fee would be incremental. He believed a payback period of
five years seemed to be a reasonable approach.
2:58:51 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the picture used on
passports and was the same type of facial recognition
software used for the REAL ID Act.
Commissioner Fisher answered that when a person applied for
a REAL ID identification a photo would be taken and
compared with other photos. If there was a match, other
photos with certain similarities would be presented and the
customer service representative would inspect the photos to
detect any potential fraud. The goal was to ensure a person
had not previously brought in a photo under a different
name. He relayed that the department did not share the
photos or any information from the photo facial recognition
program; the tool was for internal use to detect fraud. He
did not have information about the passport photo system.
Representative Wilson remarked it was very important for
her district to know if the two were the same. She
countered that the information was shared with DPS. She
surmised the federal government was involved in both and
that it would not want an individual to have two passports
either. She would try to get more information about the
issue.
Commissioner Fisher clarified that the department did not
share the information outside the State of Alaska. He did
not intend to be misleading and relayed that the
information was shared with DPS, the Office of Children's
Services, and the Permanent Fund Dividend Division. The
information was shared across the state to ensure there was
not fraudulent behavior in the State of Alaska. He
discussed that passports were issued by the federal
government and he was certain there were a series of
mechanisms to ensure that passports were secure and
validated. The state did not share any of its data with the
federal government.
3:02:21 PM
Co-Chair Seaton noted that DPS had raised a concern and
asked if DOA had any objection to holding the database in
encrypted form for a longer period than as listed in the
bill.
Commissioner Fisher asked for clarification.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified he was asking about the DMV under
DOA.
Commissioner Fisher shared that DOA currently encrypted all
the data and would continue to do so. The department had no
objection to keeping the data longer if desired by the
legislature.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to some discussion outside of
committee related to a passport card and whether it could
be used. He noted the cost of issuance was $55. He referred
to a U.S. Passports and International Travel passport card
information sheet provided by his office (copy on file).
The card could be used for land or sea crossing into Canada
and Mexico. He explained that even though the card was
issued by the federal government at the same time as a
passport, it could not be used for air transportation into
Canada, Mexico, or other foreign countries.
3:04:27 PM
Representative Wilson observed that the REAL ID Act
identification could not be used for foreign travel either.
She stated that a passport would still be required for all
the travel mentioned by Co-Chair Seaton. She stated she
could not go to Europe with only a REAL ID card.
Co-Chair Seaton believed an individual could use a REAL ID
driver's license to travel to Mexico and Canada by air, but
a passport card would not be sufficient.
Ms. Ridle believed a passport would be needed to travel to
Canada and Mexico.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that the committee would get some
verification on the issue. He asked if Mr. Bob Doehl
[Colonel Robert Doehl, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs] was online to testify.
Mr. Duffy answered there was no testimony from Mr. Doehl.
He provided testimony for the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs (DMVA). He emphasized the importance of
understanding that federal installations such as Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) were complying with provisions
of the REAL ID Act at present. Visitors wishing to obtain
unescorted access and did not have identification cards
compliant with the REAL ID Act were denied entry or
required to escorted with a Department of Defense (DOD) ID
card holder while on the installation. He continued that it
included individuals with driver's licenses from Maine,
Missouri, and Montana and individuals with non-enhanced
licenses from Minnesota. He noted the committee had heard
about changes underway in the State of Washington earlier
in the meeting. He elaborated that if there was no change
in statute by Alaska's extension expiration date of July
[June] 6, 2017, Alaska driver's licenses and similar
identification cards from six additional states (assuming
no change from them as well) would be added to the list of
identification cards designated as insufficient, much like
Maine and Montana were added at the end of January 2017.
The installations had no waiver authority and there should
be no expectation they would pursue any.
Mr. Duffy referred to his earlier testimony about the
challenge associated with individuals wishing to obtain
unescorted access to the installations in Alaska. Leaders
at JBER estimated approximately 14,000 contractors and
local service providers, Fort Wainwright had about 5,000
per month, and Eielson Air Force Base had about 2,600 per
month. In the case of JBER there were approximately 50
different mission partners on the installation (some
federal and some state) with others from either public or
private organizations. Currently, individuals without other
DOD credentials could be issued (from the base) a defense
biometrics identification system (DBIDS) card to attain
unescorted access. Upon that card's normal expiration date
and absent a change in statute, individuals would need a
different form of REAL ID compliant identification other
than their current Alaska driver's license to renew the
DBIDS card. In coordination with DOA and the Office of the
Governor, the previous month the DMVA commissioner had
published instructions to teammates working on Alaska
installations advising them of the potential impact and
potential need for action to ensure they could get to work.
However, it was not only state DMVA employees who were
likely to be affected - he anticipated the committee would
hear testimony from labor providers, the Anchorage School
District, and others. He relayed that the recently arrived
Alaska Military Youth Academy (AMYA) class would be
impacted as well.
3:09:26 PM
Mr. Duffy continued that with almost half of the students
being 18 years of age or older or projected to turn 18
while enrolled, they would also need REAL ID compliant
forms of identification to obtain the DBIDS card for
continued base access. He noted there were times when
students were transported for personal or medical
appointments by family. Additionally, the department
foresaw a potential adverse action for AMYA sponsors
needing to visit the campus on base.
Representative Kawasaki stated when he had been a youth he
had a friend with a parent in the military. He recalled
that to access base he had to obtain a tag for his car
window - his friend's military issued ID had been
sufficient to get on the base. He stated that somewhere
along the line it became more frequent for any individuals
to access a base. He asked about generalized access to
bases.
Mr. Duffy believed Representative Kawasaki was referring to
what was currently known as the Trusted Traveler Program.
He used his personal experience as an example. He explained
that he was retired from DOD and had a retired DOD ID card.
Under the Trusted Traveler Program, he could escort up to
nine people with some form of valid ID (it did not
necessarily have to be REAL ID compliant) on the JBER
installation. As an escort, he had to remain with the
individuals during their time on the installation and was
required to escort them off the base. He believed that to
anticipate the installation would be able to escort the
14,000 service providers on a routine basis, was not
feasible. He referenced a previous Joint Armed Services
Committee hearing where the challenge had been discussed.
He explained that individuals on the base had day jobs
rather than providing recurring escort.
Representative Kawasaki stated that legislators who were
members of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee
(maybe living near a base) received identification cards.
He asked if the cards were REAL ID compliant.
Mr. Duffy answered that the cards did not have to be REAL
ID compliant. To receive the card, it was necessary to
present a form of identification that was REAL ID
compliant. For example, the DBIDS cards were issued by the
installation - receiving a card required showing a REAL ID
Act compliant form of identification.
3:13:05 PM
Representative Kawasaki surmised a person would still have
to have a REAL ID compliant ID before obtaining a USARAK
[U.S. Army Alaska] installation card.
Mr. Duffy answered in the affirmative. For example, if an
Anchorage School District employee was issued a DBIDS card
in September of 2016, they may have used their Alaska
driver's license in its current form to obtain the card.
Upon expiration in 2017, the current Alaska driver's
license would be insufficient to renew the card.
TARA RICH, LEGAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, ACLU OF ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke to the organization's
prior opposition to REAL ID. She relayed that the
organization had supported the legislature's resistance to
REAL ID in 2008. However, the ACLU of Alaska recognized the
political reality the legislature was currently facing -
having to choose between two "terrible" choices that it
seemed no one asked for. She addressed the current version
of HB 74 that had come from the House State Affairs
Committee. She relayed the current version was a product of
working earnestly and in good faith with DOA to ensure that
if Alaska became compliant through the legislation, that it
contained the least amount of privacy invasive policies as
possible. At the outset, the organization had requested a
number of provisions to be included in the legislation,
including that the minimum number of documents required by
REAL ID would be fixed (so that DMV would require no more
than the minimum), the timeframe for retention of the
documents would be fixed (Alaska DMV would retain documents
for no more than the minimum timeframe required by REAL
ID), and that there would be no bulk sharing of photographs
or other documents. She believed it related directly to an
earlier question by Vice-Chair Gara about sharing
photographs between DMV and DPS. As the legislation was
currently drafted, the sharing would be prohibited.
Additionally, the organization had requested that no
documents that were not required by REAL ID would be
obtained by DMV. Lastly, although REAL ID would require an
individual's picture to be retained if they did not obtain
a driver's license or identification card for at least five
years, the organization had requested that a person's
photograph would not be retained by DMV if they were
obtaining a non-compliant card. The organization did not
see any purpose for maintaining the photograph in the case
of obtaining non-compliant cards. Additionally, it was a
privacy concern.
Ms. Rich relayed that the organization had not been able to
get everything it wanted - the issue of SSNs being provided
to the interstate pointer system had been a focal point in
the [House] State Affairs Committee. The organization had
concluded that if the law were to require that SSNs did not
get sent to the interstate pointer system, Alaska would not
be deemed compliant. She stated that if compliance was the
goal of the legislation, it would not be feasible to
include the provision in HB 74. She referenced other items
the organization had requested such as paper applications
and relayed that the existing DMV process was to scan the
documents; therefore, it had not been realistic for the
ACLU Alaska to get everything it wanted. She focused on two
areas that were currently enshrined in the bill.
3:17:43 PM
Ms. Rich spoke to the first item. She explained that people
requesting a driver's license or identification card at DMV
were required to present certain forms of primary source
identification (i.e. a passport, birth certificate,
marriage license, and other). She detailed that if a person
was not applying for a REAL ID form of identification, the
ACLU Alaska emphatically supported the idea that the
documents did not get scanned or copied in any way. Current
regulations only required individuals to furnish the
documents and did not allow [require] for scanning or
copying and retaining the documents. The organization
believed the topic was critical because the entire basis
for the legislation appeared to be establishing a two-tier
structure that allowed people to opt into REAL ID if they
wanted to forego the privacy protections to trade off for
the convenience of the ability to fly domestically without
worrying about bringing a passport or alternative form of
identification or regularly travel onto a military base.
Ms. Rich stressed that for individuals valuing their
privacy, it was the last remaining distinction between a
compliant card and a non-compliant identification card and
driver's license. She did not believe it would make sense
to create a two-tiered structure when the structures were
essentially meaningless in terms of privacy protections. It
also seemed it would be unnecessary for the DMV to retain
the documents. She referred to testimony from DPS that it
did use the documents in certain circumstances - she did
not know whether the sharing of documents between DMV and
DPS had been a long-term practice. She assumed that as time
went by the retained documents became stale and less
relevant. She surmised there would be a limited purpose for
retaining the documents. Lastly, she addressed the
retention of facial images. She spoke about the difference
between the time facial images were required to be kept
under REAL ID and the time in which Alaska retained the
images. The REAL ID minimum was 10 years and the current
law required facial images to be retained for 15 years. The
ACLU believed the use of facial recognition was a
significantly important piece of data for an individual; to
the extent the images could be purged on a regular basis
increased an individual's privacy rights.
3:21:35 PM
Representative Wilson asked for a restatement of
information related to facial images.
Ms. Rich complied. She detailed that DPS had advocated for
keeping facial images as long as possible within reason.
The minimum time required under REAL ID was 10 years. Under
the current version of the bill there was no maximum time
listed for REAL ID cardholders. For individuals with non-
compliant cards, the time would be the term of the license
plus one year; at that time the facial image would have to
be destroyed. The ACLU requested affixing the time limit to
the minimum in REAL ID, consistent with the other
provisions included related to document retention.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the
current bill version contained no time limit, but that some
other states had a time limit of eight years plus one. She
stated her understanding that the bill would need to
include a time limit of nine years or the documents would
be kept in the database indefinitely.
Ms. Rich responded that the eight years plus one was for
the non-compliant cards. For the REAL ID compliant cards,
it would have to be the term of the license, which was up
to eight years, plus two (10 years minimum). She agreed
that the bill currently contained no maximum time. Current
law included a retention period of 15 years.
Representative Wilson asked if there were other states with
an opt-in/opt-out program like Alaska was considering.
Ms. Rich replied that there were a number of two-tiered
systems under development in other states - particularly in
states that had been REAL ID holdouts for a number of years
(states like Alaska that did not initially intend to comply
with REAL ID).
Representative Wilson asked Ms. Rich to provide information
comparing Alaska to other states. She asked if the
committee had a letter from the government specifying that
the two-tiered system would be counted as REAL ID
compliant. She did not want the federal government to come
back in the future telling Alaska that all residents needed
to comply with the REAL ID Act.
Ms. Rich answered that the DMV may be the best entity to
provide the assurance to the committee. Colleagues in her
office had correspondence with the Department of Homeland
Security and had been told that the federal government did
not regulate non-compliant ID cards and licenses at all.
The Department of Homeland Security did not take a position
on what requirements should be related to non-compliant
cards as long as the state had an option for compliant
cards.
Vice-Chair Gara was struggling with idea that DPS needed
the information that may be destroyed under the
legislation, to help solve cold cases and help with finding
missing persons. He wondered the concerns expressed by DPS
should not be taken seriously.
Ms. Rich responded that by affixing a maximum retention
period for facial retention would be taking the DPS
concerns seriously. She believed that largely the images
were used by DPS for photographic lineups. She relayed that
DPS had been using driver's license photographs, but the
ACLU urged the photographs to be obtained through mugshots
due to the privacy implications of sharing a person's
photograph in that context. She had attempted to reach out
to DPS on what the documents were used for. For example,
how a marriage or birth certificate was used during
investigations that the department would not be able to
access through another means apart from DMV.
3:27:40 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he was sympathetic to allowing
the DMV to transfer information requested by DPS for the
criminal purposed identified by the department. He asked
what the problem would be with ensuring the information was
encrypted during the process. He stated it would be pretend
to think there was not a significant amount of personal
information inside myriad state databases at present.
Ms. Rich replied it was important to recognize that in
terms of government databases, DMV databases were one of
the most powerful - they contained some of the highest
amounts and types of personal information about an
individual. For example, an Internal Revenue Service
database may contain SSNs but did not necessarily contain
an address. The DMV also contain facial recognition
photographs. She furthered that if non-compliant cards used
identity documents the DMV would also have copies of
original documents (e.g. passports and birth certificates),
which were not found anywhere else. She stated that copying
personal documents was made was akin to making a copy of a
person's house key. She reasoned that a person may trust a
neighbor or sibling with their house key, but the more that
were made, the more difficult it became to trust that the
copies would be maintained securely. She explained that it
became critically important to safeguard the information
and to ensure copies were not created for purposes that may
not justify the privacy implications for individuals.
Representative Guttenberg understood that the DMV database
was data-rich. He remarked that some private sector
databases were very data-rich. He asked how secure the DMV
was against hacking or incidental leakage and transmission
to AAMVA. He asked about the strength of AAMVA's security.
He asked about parameters the organization was required to
follow.
Ms. Rich responded that she was not an authority on levels
of encryption or technical specifications of the databases
in terms of security. She had read in a privacy impact
assessment on the specific database run by AAMVA that the
data was encrypted, but she did not know the specific
security measures in place to ensure the information was
not susceptible to hacking. Since 2012, there had been
eight separate database breeches ranging from private
hospital records to state records. The breeches could be a
result of hacking or a result of leaving information on a
laptop in an unsecure location. She believed DMV could
better speak to its systems. She added that Commissioner
Fisher had testified the database was encrypted, but she
did not have further detail.
3:32:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about AAMVA's
responsibility to control and keep the data provided by the
state. He asked if the organization sold or marketed any of
the information. He understood it was a tax-exempt
nonprofit, but he believed it did not preclude the
organization from marketing the information.
Ms. Rich was not aware of any obligations AAMVA owed the
state for security of the information. She believed DMV may
be able to provide the information through its contract
with AAMVA.
Representative Pruitt addressed the topic of individuals
living in rural areas and their ability to travel. Separate
from the bill, he asked if individuals living in rural
areas of Alaska without access to a DMV or location to
obtain a REAL ID in an expediate manner would have grounds
to argue that REAL ID put them at a disadvantage.
Ms. Rich believed there were significant hurdles that
placed residents in rural Alaska at a disadvantage
considering the tight timeline and access to DMVs in terms
travel after the REAL ID waiver expired. It remained to be
seen whether DMV could provide an option to access the REAL
ID without having to experience disruptions in their travel
plans.
Representative Pruitt surmised if the legislature did not
pass the bill it would be standing in the way of
individuals getting access because it had not provided
individuals an option for REAL ID. He asked for
verification that if the bill was passed it would not be
the legislature standing in the way and individuals could
look at the federal government as their challenge to
access. He reasoned that the state could probably work on
some system for accessing some sort of DMV [in rural areas
without a DMV], but he did not know whether DMV would be
able to come up with a mechanism because individuals were
required to provide documents in person. He stated there
was not even a Walgreens option as was available for a
passport; it appeared individuals were required to go to a
DMV. He asked if the passage of the bill would give an
individual in a rural area better ground to argue their
ability to travel had been hampered in comparison to
individuals living in an urban area.
Ms. Rich replied that the short answer was no. She believed
Representative Pruitt was asking whether the bill needed to
be passed to provide individuals with sufficient grounds to
challenge whether their right to travel had been interfered
with. She could not opine without a specific set of factual
circumstances about what would be needed to successfully
mount that challenge. However, the ACLU did not believe it
would be the legislature standing in the way of an
individual's right to travel if the bill did not pass. She
reasoned that individuals always had the alternative of
obtaining a passport or passport card. She conceded the
option was more expensive, but a bit easier for individuals
in rural communities to obtain because they could receive
the passport in the mail. The ACLU's position had not been
in favor of passing the bill for those reasons, but it had
not been opposed; if the bill was passed, the ACLU wanted
to see the most privacy protections included as possible.
3:37:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton stated that they had been working on trying
to keep Alaskans safe and trying to look at convictions and
gaining the ability to compare some of the databases. He
spoke about efforts in another bill to get outstanding rape
kits processed. He asked if there was a push to have the
current 15-year database retention timeframe reduced due to
REAL ID. He had not seen anything come forward in the
legislature indicating there had been a problem with the
current 15-year retention. He wondered whether a reduction
to the retention would in some way impacting DPS and child
welfare enforcement. He asked if there had been any big
problem with the 15-year number.
Ms. Rich answered there had been no significant event
indicating that retention for 15 years as opposed to 10
years would make a substantial difference. In terms of
privacy prevention, the less data kept about a person, the
better. From ACLU's perspective, a 15-year old photograph
of a person was of limited utility even for cold cases or
missing persons investigations. She believed it was a
policy decision for the legislature to weigh whether
outdated photographs were worth the amount of data the
government amassed as a result of keeping photographs of
every Alaskan driver's license and identity card holder for
five additional years.
3:40:51 PM
TOM ROTH, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICE, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), supported passage
of legislation that would enable residents to obtain state-
issued REAL ID compliant identification or driver's
licenses. He relayed that the Anchorage School District
educated approximately 1,600 students at five elementary
schools located on JBER. The district's information
technology and fine arts departments were also located on
JBER. At any given time during the standard school day, the
district had up to 500 employees supporting JBER
activities, schools, and students. To maintain its mission
on JBER after June 6th, the district issued guidance in the
current month to employees to obtain a REAL ID compliant
identification at individual cost. He endorsed the passage
of the legislation.
3:42:44 PM
THOR BROWN, TEAMSTERS 959, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the legislation. He provided detail
about the members the union covered including school bus
drivers, delivery drivers, port companies, and other who
were responsible for delivering food and materials to and
from bases for construction and maintenance. The
legislation would enable its members to access military
bases without the added cost of a passport. He believed it
seemed like a fair compromise to have an opt-out option for
individuals not wanting to participate in REAL ID. The
union had concerns with security and appreciated the
involvement of the ACLU as far back as 2008. Many Teamsters
members were already part of culture of background checks
for security purposes. He was puzzled by the total lack of
concern for commercial driver's license holders' privacy.
He spoke to background checks that were required for ten
years. He had learned earlier in the current meeting that
his entire social security number had been shared, which he
found bothersome. He relayed that individuals working at
the port received a background check, those with hazardous
materials working at the port received two background
checks, and individuals working at the post office received
three background checks. He stated that if he had to get a
passport he would have to have a fourth to access the base.
He shared it was becoming cumbersome to pay the background
checks involved. He stated that the passport or passport
card was just another cost members would absorb. There were
several thousand individuals accessing the base and much of
the cost would go to the people who worked and live in
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Representative Kawasaki asked if most Teamsters drivers
working on base had a Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) card.
Mr. Brown replied that primarily the people going in and
out of the port had a TWIC card. He clarified that
currently many CDL holders had a TWIC card because it
provided access to the port, airport, and other areas.
3:46:47 PM
JULIE DUQUETTE, ASSOCIATE BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
bill. She read from a prepared statement:
I've worked in the construction industry for the past
30 years. I'm currently employed with Slayden Plumbing
& Heating. Slayden Plumbing is a full service
mechanical contractor specializing in large commercial
and Department of Defense projects. We have several
projects this year at Eielson Air Force Base for the
F-35 program and we just received notice on the UAF
hangar at Fort Wainwright.
I'm here today speaking on behalf of ABC, a
construction industry trade association with 142
members and 279 active apprentices. While I respect
the differing opinions on this issue and the debate,
but for all of the philosophical debate for us in the
construction industry it comes down to the reality of
jobs and work and not philosophy. Homeland Security
and our local bases have now told us that current
Alaska driver's licenses will not be accepted for work
on the military base. This is our reality. With the
state capital budgets cut to a minimum, federal work
on the military bases are the largest construction
projects in Alaska. We need Alaskans working on these
projects. The financial impact that the military work
is playing in Alaska, specifically the construction
industry, is enormous and quite honestly,
singlehandedly saving the construction industry in the
State of Alaska. It is our reality that not all of the
workers will be successful in getting passports. In
Fairbanks it now takes five weeks just to schedule an
appointment to submit your passport application and
then another three to six weeks to process the
request. In our short construction season this will
prevent Alaskans from working.
I believe when we checked today they're into the
middle of May for taking new appointments. Alaska
construction companies and ABC fought for Alaska-hire
provisions in the federal contracts. We won. There is
very strong language that requires Alaska-hire. How
ironic that the largest impediment in meeting this
local hire is our own inability to field workers with
compliant IDs. Eielson security told us this week
global access cards, although acceptable to TSA and
requires a passport to be issued, will not be accepted
as ID at Eielson. They also told us that there will
not be escort service and bussing construction workers
on site will not be permitted.
The governor has submitted a bill that seems to be
reasonable compromise. Alaskans that want a REAL ID
compliant license can get one, those that don't want
one can still get a regular driver's license. It's our
choice. Please give us, give Alaskans, the choice to
get a REAL ID or not. In the end, Alaskans will not
remember why this bill did not pass, they will only
remember that they could not go to work and make a
living. Please pass this legislation this session.
Vice-Chair Gara asked which cards Eielson had recently
specified they would no longer be accepting in the future.
Ms. Duquette answered it was a global access card. She
detailed it had been another idea of a type of
identification people may be able to use. She continued the
item was global card for national travel to get through
TSA. However, Eielson would not accept the card.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Ms. Duquette had mentioned a
passport card not being acceptable. Ms. Duquette replied in
the negative.
3:51:24 PM
SCOTT EICKHOLT, ALASKA LABORERS LOCAL 942, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. He
stated that it was well-known the issue had existed for 12
years and that the legislature had chosen to defer any
action. He believed that it would cost the state close to
$1.5 million to become compliant. Possibly one of the less
talked about facts was what it would cost the state in lost
revenue due to residents being forced to spend their money
outside of the state to the federal government. He surmised
the amount could reach tens of millions of dollars if
hundreds of thousands of people opted for the $135 passport
option. He continued that in a rare showing of solidarity,
the business and labor communities were standing united on
the issue. He stated that failing to act would negatively
impact the close to 1,000 members he represented and
hundreds of thousands of others. He asked the committee to
listen to what appeared to be the majority of state
residents by passing the legislation.
3:53:30 PM
KARA MORIARTY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION (AOGA), ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation
because it provided the option for Alaskans to obtain a
REAL ID. Member companies wanted to ensure there were
seamless, uninterrupted access to the North Slope. She
detailed that almost every worker had to reach the North
Slope by plane and would be required to have a REAL ID to
travel if they did not already have a passport. She stated
that due to the timeframe, it could be cutting it close for
individuals to get a passport. The association was
supportive in passing the legislature during the current
session to avoid disruption to slope operations.
Vice-Chair Gara stated he was leaning towards agreeing with
Ms. Moriarty on the issue. He remarked that some people
wondered what was wrong with asking people to get a $55
passport card. He asked Ms. Moriarty for her thoughts on
the idea.
Ms. Moriarty answered that the passport process could be
cumbersome. She shared that it had taken her family close
to nine weeks to obtain passports. Additionally, it was
also difficult to replace a passport if it was lost. She
explained that it would be an easier option for workers to
go to the DMV to obtain a REAL ID compliant card.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for clarification if Ms. Moriarty's
personal experience had been related to a passport card or
passport. Ms. Moriarty replied her family had applied for
passports and passport cards, which had all come at the
same time.
3:57:14 PM
TIM JONES, VICE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DOYON
UTILITIES, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the legislation. He shared that the company owned,
operated, and maintained the utilities on the three army
installations in Alaska. He shared information about his
professional background. He understood the arguments about
federal overreach and privacy, but he also understood the
impacts of failing to pass the legislation. The company
employed 170 Alaskans, all of whom required access to
Alaska's military installations. Nearly all of the workers
used their Alaska driver's license to gain access as did
hundreds of other Alaskans working as contractors on
military installations. He continued that if the state did
nothing many individuals would be required to get passport
cards or compliant form of identification to keep their
job. Employers who worked on military bases would have to
find ways to get the work done. He spoke about prior
testimony to the Joint Armed Services Committee that
hundreds of millions in military construction dollars would
be spent in Alaska in the next few years - the last thing
the state needed was another reason to award the contracts
to non-Alaskan companies.
Mr. Jones stated there would be a real impact on hiring
individuals who did not already have a form of compliant
identification because it could take several weeks for a
newly hired employee to gain access to their workplace. He
acknowledged that the state could require a person to have
a passport or passport card, but practically speaking as an
employer, when Doyon hired someone, they had to work on the
military installation and had to have access. He detailed
that individuals had to demonstrate that they could gain
unescorted access to the installation before they were
hired. Therefore, anyone applying for a job with Doyon
would have to have a passport during the application
process, which would likely force an employer to hire
individuals with compliant identification. He believed the
bill's language allowing Alaskans to opt out of the program
and the other stipulations in the bill, adequately
addressed the concerns of privacy and overreach. He urged
the committee to pass the legislation.
Representative Kawasaki referred to a document provided by
Commissioner Fisher specifying that one of the currently
acceptable forms of identification was an employment
authorization document containing a photograph and Form
I766. He asked what the document was.
Ms. Jones was not familiar with the document.
4:01:12 PM
JEFF STEPP, STAFF TO FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH MAYOR
KARL KASSEL, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. He read from a prepared
statement:
Back in October of 2016, the Fairbanks North Star
Borough Assembly passed a resolution supporting
efforts by the legislature to resolve the State of
Alaska's compliance with the REAL ID Act. Throughout
this committee process and in conversation with
legislators, we have heard many reasonable concerns
about individual privacy and civil liberties, unfunded
federal mandates, and federal overreach. In order to
better understand the potential risks of passing the
proposed REAL ID legislation, we have reviewed the
ACLU's written testimony and the ACLU's proposed
amendments. We are in agreement that Alaska's
compliance must focus to the greatest extent possible,
on protecting Alaskans' individual privacy rights and
civil liberties. It appears to us that the ACLU's
proposed amendments may offer a reasonable path
forward that greatly safeguards individual liberty,
thus improving the legislation.
Since passing the Fairbanks North Star Borough
resolution last fall, we have continued to be engaged
in the debate and continue to support legislation
bringing Alaska in compliance. During Tiger Team
meetings here in Fairbanks, Chamber of Commerce
meetings, Fairbanks Economic Development Commission
meetings, town halls with legislators, and
correspondence with members of our Interior
delegation, we have consistently encouraged elected
officials to protect Alaskan residents and workers
from the consequences of non-compliance. We have also
read the letters of support for HB 74 from our friends
and neighbors at the Chamber of Commerce, the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, Doyon
Utilities, and many other local and statewide
organizations that are in your bill packets. We echo
their statements and strong support for the passage of
this legislation.
Fairbanks North Star Borough remains committed to our
resolution that was passed last fall. We are hopeful
that you will be able to reach a compromise so that
Alaskans who choose to do so can receive state issued
REAL ID compliant driver's licenses and/or
identification cards before tens or even hundreds of
thousands of Alaskans are adversely impacted at
airports, border crossings, military installations,
and other federal facilities. Thank you for your
service to our great state of Alaska.
4:04:14 PM
MEG NORDALE, PRESIDENT, GHEMM COMPANY, INC., FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. She
read from prepared remarks:
I'm the president of GHEMM Company, a Fairbanks-based
general building contractor, and a former president of
the Associated General Contractors of Alaska. I am
urging your consideration and support of House Bill
74, allowing for those residents of the State of
Alaska to secure a REAL ID compliant driver's license
or other REAL ID compliant state-issued identification
in order to access federal military installations.
Specifically, I would like to have assurances that
Alaska's construction workforce will be able to report
to work on projects that my company and all
construction companies in Alaska might have the
opportunity to perform for any branch of the federal
government.
The current economic situation that our state is
facing does not lend itself to robust budgets for both
public and private construction. Construction
companies are looking at fewer opportunities, much
lower capital budgets, much more competitive bidding,
much more levels of employment. Federal spending in
Interior Alaska is a bright spot that should be taken
advantage of by all Alaskan companies and their
workforces. If we as employers and our employees do
not have easy access to the workplace, out of state
workers will fill those slots just as Julie Duquette
mentioned earlier. The last thing that the State of
Alaska should be doing in my opinion is making it
easier to hire out of state workers who live in states
with REAL ID compliant forms of identification.
The 2017 construction season is upon us and we are
making plans for work activities well beyond the
current June 6th waiver expiration date. GHEMM Company
is currently working at Fort Wainwright employing
approximately 20 individuals who will need access to
the installation on a daily basis. Additionally, we
are bidding on projects at Eielson Air Force Base and
will be faced with the impact of REAL ID should we be
successful there. Right now, today, we have already
started making provisions to meet the access
requirements to both Eielson and Fort Wainwright after
June 6th. We are expending resources, real dollars, to
make certain that all of our office and field staff
will be ready and available to work on June 6th and
beyond. Not only will our process be made much easier
with the passage and implementation of this
legislation, but the resources that we are expending
today to find alternative means of compliance could be
redirected in other ways which would perhaps mean even
more jobs for Alaskan residents.
I urge you to please give Alaskans the choice to go to
work by providing them with the option to obtain a
REAL ID. Unemployment could be the alternative for
many and in my opinion the multiple costs associated
with unemployment are great for all of business in
Alaska and the state as a whole. Please keep Alaska
open for business and keep it easier for our
businesses to work and employ Alaskans. Thank you for
considering my comments.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed the committee would hear public
testimony the evening of Tuesday, April 25.
Representative Wilson wanted to know whether an individual
was required to go to the post office when applying for a
passport. She thought it could make a big difference if
everyone had to go to the post office. She thought it was
interesting the invited testimony had included one
testifier from Anchorage, six from Fairbanks, and six
statewide. She speculated it may have been a message to
Fairbanks legislators. She stressed that she and other
Fairbanks legislators were merely trying to protect the
privacy of state residents.
Co-Chair Seaton stated that the goal was to have access to
the base and jobs.
Representative Wilson remarked that there were large bases
in Anchorage as well.
Co-Chair Seaton thought the committee may want to ask the
department about a $20 fee increase in the license fee and
concern about villages across the state not having access.
He thought it could be possible to ask the department if it
could consider sending someone around the state to rural
Alaska. He reasoned that a small eyesight machine would be
necessary in order to test applicants' vision.
Ms. Ridle replied that the department did not have a plan
yet, but it would develop one immediately if the bill
passed. She relayed that it would include trying to have a
presence at the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)[annual
conference] to access people when they traveled to the city
in the next couple of years. She noted that hopefully the
extension would get the state to October 2020. She noted
that the department was concerned about rural Alaska. One
thing that would help some individuals in rural Alaska was
a Bureau of Indian Affairs card with a photo on it, which
was also accepted by TSA for flying. She envisioned the
department would have extended hours during AFN and would
travel to rural areas to help as many people as possible.
She reiterated that a plan had not been formulated, but the
department had been having discussions about the topic.
Co-Chair Seaton surmised that the additional revenue coming
through would probably enable the department to mount an
effort throughout villages. He understood it would not be
possible to travel to every village. He asked if the
department would consider traveling to rural hub villages
without DMVs.
Ms. Ridle confirmed it would be something the department
would want to do. The department would try to do as much as
possible and would probably need to ask permission to spend
a bit of extra funding for the effort.
Co-Chair Seaton stated that if the department was looking
at a plan it could identify the fiscal note from the
receipts it would receive. He noted the bill would be heard
again the following Tuesday.
4:12:57 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated the bill contained vague language
that the DMV would tell a person their options if they
chose a non-REAL ID license. He noted that the bill did not
specify that the DMV would tell the person the
ramifications. He assumed that the DMV would tell people
about the ramifications of selecting on ID or another. He
asked for verification the specification did not need to be
added to the legislation.
Ms. Ridle concurred that the specification did not need to
be included in the bill. She believed the DMV would outline
the information so customers could make an informed
decision about the ID they selected. She added that the
department wanted to provide the information to its
customers and did not want to hide anything.
Representative Wilson asked if there was anything
preventing the department from implementing a travel DMV to
rural villages. She used Nome as an example.
Ms. Ridle replied that the DMV had an office in Nome. She
detailed that the camera was very fragile and required high
speed internet. Therefore, DMV would more likely try to set
up in rural hub communities for a longer timeframe with
extended hours. She surmised that perhaps during AFN the
department could run buses to DMV and offer extended hours.
Representative Wilson asked why there were not private
businesses offering some DMV services in locations with no
DMV.
Ms. Ridle replied that a pilot program had begun in the
current month where private partners were doing driver's
licenses. The department envisioned that private partners
would help with the REAL ID as well. The program had begun
with one group and would be offered to others wanting to
participate.
4:15:45 PM
Representative Wilson thanked the department.
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the requirement to go an office to
get a REAL ID compliant form of identification. He asked if
a person could currently get a license without going in to
DMV.
Ms. Ridle replied that an individual was required to go to
a DMV to receive their initial license. The license could
then be renewed online at least one time.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked to the department that the glue on
the vehicle license plate tags did not work in the winter.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the paper identification
card a person would get from DMV allow them to board a
plane.
Ms. Ridle answered that it did at present. However, the
department had checked with the Department of Homeland
Security and it would not in the future. She addressed a
difference between licenses and passports. She detailed
that passport renewal required mailing the passport in,
which meant an Alaskan had to find a six to eight-week
period when they would not fly. She stated that personally
that was very difficult - for a ten-year period she had not
had a six to eight-week period when she had not traveled
(even driving through Canada to get to Anchorage). Whereas
it was possible to keep an old driver's license while
waiting to get the new one, which was part of the
convenience of a driver's license versus a passport.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for verification that a person could
not renew or replace a non-compliant license because DMV
did not keep the original paperwork.
Ms. Ridle agreed that under the current version of the bill
the DMV would not have backup documents on file and it
would require an individual to come back in to the DMV with
documentation. Whereas, if a person had a REAL ID, the DMV
would maintain the person's documents, and the individual
would be able to come back in to receive a renewed or
replaced license.
4:18:35 PM
Representative Kawasaki provided a scenario using October
3, 2020 and asked for verification that an individual would
not be able to fly if they only had a paper card and were
waiting to receive their REAL ID compliant card.
Ms. Ridle answered in the affirmative. The department had
been told that people would be turned away by TSA without a
compliant ID (including a passport).
Representative Guttenberg stated his understanding that if
an individual went to fly at present without an ID they
would be subject to a more intensive "pat down." He asked
if the same would be true in the future.
Ms. Ridle replied in the negative. She shared that she had
asked the question in an email to the Department of
Homeland Security and had been told that the individual
would be turned away if they did not have a REAL ID or
passport that was compliant (beginning October 2020).
Representative Guttenberg thought the constitution
specified that a person's right to travel could not be
infringed.
Ms. Ridle replied that she was not a constitutional
scholar, but she did believe people had the right to
travel. She specified there was a legality of the federal
government "your entry into their facilities" - she
explained that the TSA and military bases were both federal
facilities and the federal government had the right to
limit a person's entry into its facilities. She deferred to
the Department of Law for further detail.
Representative Guttenberg understood the point about a
federal facility, but countered that an airport is a public
place.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that a
person's first REAL ID would still be a paper copy. She
surmised there would still be an issue of a paper copy.
Ms. Ridle answered in the affirmative - it would still be
the same process to create the REAL ID. She had been
surprised that Representative Grenn had been told he would
receive a hard copy of his new license in 30 to 60 days.
She clarified that the wait time should be closer to 7 to
10 days. She reiterated her earlier statement that a person
could hold onto their old license when applying for a new
one.
Representative Wilson stated that she wanted to make sure
the paper copy would be for both.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed he was considering an amendment to
maintain the current statutory 15-year period in order not
to impact other state agencies. He noted the ACLU had
testified they knew of no problems with the current
encrypted system.
4:23:11 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to AAMVA and SSNs
collected by DMV. He stated it was not required by REAL ID
and he could not determine why the process was required at
all other than acting as a source of identifier. He did not
know the process of other states that were not currently
AAMVA members, but he was concerned about the issue related
to privacy. He reasoned that if the first three numbers
were commonly known and the last five numbers were
provided, it meant someone had a one in ten chance of
figuring out the remaining digit. He believed his concern
was shared by some other committee members and the ACLU.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Representative Kawasaki was
thinking about including a letter of intent to ask that the
fifth digit not be provided. He believed the testimony had
been that four digits were required to ensure a person did
not have another license in a different state.
Representative Kawasaki replied that his concern began with
the fifth digit. But he wondered why the information was
collected at all and was interested in what other states
did who were not AAMVA participants.
Ms. Ridle believed the requirement to get a SSN when
applying for a driver's license was a federal regulation
that existed under the current system as well as under REAL
ID. There was also intersection with other state law
related to child support enforcement and collection that
used the SSN. She believed Commissioner Fisher had
testified there was not a requirement that the DMV send the
five digits. She explained that the SSN was one of the
documents required to get a driver's license at present.
Additionally, all 50 states were involved in AAMVA and she
believed they always had been; the organization had been in
place since 1933. She continued that AAMVA was the
organization of DMV directors - it worked to make sure
state's set consistent policy that was similar from state
to state. She furthered that AAMVA was the vehicle to
comply with the REAL ID - it was the vehicle that Homeland
Security had certified; there was not another option to
achieve compliance. She reasoned it there may be another
database in the future. She explained that the department
had reached out to AAMVA (additionally, the state's DMV
director was on the organization's board) to request that
the required social security digits be reduced to four. She
relayed that it was similar to an ERIC bill the legislature
had passed the previous year that only used four SSN
digits; ERIC was a similar nonprofit organization made up
to work on voter issues.
4:27:05 PM
Vice-Chair Gara relayed was planning to offer three
amendments. He detailed the first was related to asking the
department to limit the number of SSN digits shared as
quickly as possible. He was not even sure that releasing
four social security digits was right. The amendment would
request reducing the number of digits shared to three when
feasible. Second, he was concerned about the non-release of
information internally to DPS for cold cases. Third, he was
not convinced a $20 hike in the license fee was warranted.
He was more compelled by Commissioner Fisher's statement
that a $10 would make the bill cost neutral.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario about getting a
license at present. She asked if all the documents provided
to DMV by an individual seeking a license (e.g. birth
certificate) were scanned.
Ms. Ridle answered that the DMV scanned primary and
secondary documents provided by applicants (shown in the
presentation appendix on slide 12). The department did not
scan the information an individual brought in to show they
live in Alaska (e.g. a checkbook or utility bill showing a
person's address).
Representative Wilson understood the DPS's use of photos
provided to DMV, but she did not want her photo used in a
lineup for any reason. She wondered about purpose of
keeping a scanned copy of a birth certificate and social
security card other than not having to ask an applicant for
them again in the future.
Ms. Ridle responded that one reason was for convenience -
enabling a person to renew online or receive a duplicate if
they lost a license while traveling. Another purpose was
for fraud detection. The department worried a bit about the
non-compliant cards - she had shared her concern with the
ACLU that if the DMV was not taking documents for the
cards, the division had no way of doing an audit on a card
that was issued if there were no backup documents kept (to
ensure the DMV clerk did receive the information and to
ensure another person was not getting a license under
someone else's name).
4:30:51 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the primary or secondary
information went anywhere outside the DMV.
Ms. Ridle answered that the information was shared with
DPS, but not outside the state system.
Representative Wilson detailed her understanding that DMV
shared primary and secondary information with other
agencies besides DPS, including the Office of Children's
Services and child support. She asked which other agencies
DMV would share the documents with.
Ms. Ridle answered that she believed the division only
shared the information with DPS and that DPS shared with
other agencies. For example, if the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division or Division of Public Assistance was trying to
prove a fraud case. She did not believed DMV directly
provided the data to the other agencies - it was routed
through DPS.
Representative Wilson believed no one had previously had
the problem with the issue because they had not been aware
of it. She did not know that DPS could use anyone's picture
in a lineup or that people's primary and secondary
documents were shared outside the DMV. She remarked that
she now understood that DPS could share the data with other
agencies.
Ms. Thompson clarified that when DMV shared data it was
based on a court subpoena or something that was required.
The data shared with DPS was "more on the photo side." For
example, if a person was pulled over driving, the driver's
license was hooked into the DPS system.
4:33:39 PM
Representative Pruitt asked for verification DPS did not
have access to source documents if they pulled someone
over. Ms. Thompson replied that an officer would only have
access to the photo and driver's license - they would not
have the ability to access source documents.
HB 74 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the schedule for the following
week.