Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/09/2017 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 | |
| HB124 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB142 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 142 | 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."
1:33:27 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the bill had been heard in
committee twice on April 20, 2018 and April 25, 2018. In
the meeting the committee would be taking up amendments. He
invited Ms. Ridle to the table and reviewed the list of
testifiers available online.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 4, following line 20:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(d) The department
(1) may not share more than three
digits of a person's social security
number to determine whether a person
has been issued a driver's license in
another state;
(2) may share the number of digits of a
person's social security number
required by federal law.
(e) Notwithstanding (d)(l) of this section,
the department may share up to five digits
but as few digits as feasible of a person's
social security number to determine whether
a person has been issued a driver's license
in another state if the department
(1) has taken all steps necessary to
secure an agreement to use only three
digits of a person's social security
number; and
(2) has been unable to secure an
agreement to use only three digits of a
person's social security number."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 4, line 22:
Delete "(b) and (c)"
Insert "(b) - (d)"
Page 9, line 3:
Delete "AS 28.05.068(d)"
Insert "AS 28.05.068(e)"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara recently learned that in order for the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to determine that
someone did not have a driver's license from another state,
it had been required by a conglomeration of agencies and
non-profits to share 5 social security number digits. He
continued that with so many Alaskans having a "574" Social
Security number that shares 8 number digits the department
had not figured out a way around having to share 5 numbers.
The amendment stated that the department should share no
more than 3 digits. If 3 digits were not enough, then no
more than 4 should be shared. He relayed that federal law
at times required them to share 5 digits - the state could
not make the agencies violate federal law. The amendment
advocated that the state should attempt to negotiate the
number of Social Security digits down to 3 or 4. The
purpose of the amendment was to protect an individual's
privacy.
Co-Chair Foster indicated Representative Pruitt and
Representative Tilton had joined the committee at the
table. He also noted that Representative Stutes was
presently an alternate for Representative Guttenberg.
Representative Wilson liked the intent of the amendment.
She referred to lines 12 through 15 of the amendment where
it talked about having taken all steps necessary to secure
an agreement. She asked for clarification. Vice-Chair Gara
responded that it was a directive to the department. The
intent was for the department to work with the national
non-profit currently requiring 5 digits to find an
alternative to that requirement.
Representative Wilson reiterated that she liked the
amendment. She was concerned with being brushed off by the
non-profit. She was hoping the department could shed some
light on the non-profit's position. She asked Ms. Ridle
about her dealings with the non-profit around this issue.
1:37:52 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, reported that the non-profit dealt with all
of the DMVs across the United States. The State of Alaska
was a member and had a representative from Alaska's DMV
attending meetings who also served on the governance board.
The department had already sent an official letter and
would have representation and a physical presence at the
meetings. She assumed that Alaska was not the only state
with concerns about the 5-digit requirement. She thought
the state would have allies in the matter.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file):
Page 2, lines 13 - 15:
Delete "the minimum amount of time required by
P.L. I 09-13, Division B (REAL ID Act of 2005),
or other"
Insert "15 years after the date of application
unless otherwise required by another"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "one year"
Insert "15 years"
Page 5, lines 1 - 3:
Delete "the minimum amount of time required by
P.L. 109-13, Division B (REAL ID Act of 2005), or
other"
Insert "15 years after the date of application
unless otherwise required by another"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "one year"
Insert "15 years"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the purpose of the amendment
was to keep Alaska's current practice of retaining
documents for 15 years. He had heard from the Department of
Administration and the Department of Public Safety in
testimonies about the value of these documents being
available. He had also heard that the documents were
retained in an encrypted manner. He continued to explain
that for Real ID compliant licenses it would change from
the minimum required by REAL ID retention to the state's
current 15 years. For non-compliant licenses the amendment
would keep the same position as the current bill. The non-
compliant licenses would not be scanned or retained except
for the photos which would be retained for 15 years for the
Department of Public Safety and for internal state use. It
would maintain the current status for driver's license and
use of documents within the State of Alaska instead of
modifying it based on federal law.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that Amendment 2 was being
addressed.
Representative Wilson addressed her objection. She was not
in favor of the amendment. She did not think the public was
aware of their information being retained for 15 years. She
was concerned with privacy issues. She had a problem with
DPS using a picture of a person, who had not committed a
crime, in a line-up. She did not believe it had been
required. People had their picture taken for DMV purposes.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that the testimony had been very
clear from a previous day that if the state did not retain
photos it would make it more difficult for the Alaska State
Troopers and other law enforcement agencies to solve murder
cases and cold cases. It would also make it more difficult
to find missing persons. He opined that everything was a
policy call and very few policy calls were 100 percent
black and white. He sided with trying to solve murder cases
and finding missing persons. It had been reported by law
enforcement officials that keeping photos helped them to do
both.
1:42:17 PM
Representative Ortiz asked if there were other practical
benefits for keeping these records on file for up to 15
years other than what had already been mentioned by
Representative Gara. Ms. Ridle responded that it had mainly
to do with public safety. She added that the 15-year period
was in state statute. She reported that it also helped the
DMV to issue a duplicate license.
Representative Wilson did not understand why an old picture
would be kept for 15 years since she was going back every 8
years to renew her license. Ms. Ridle responded that,
foremost, it was a matter of public safety. She mentioned
the benefit of having previous addresses to help verify a
person's identity.
Representative Wilson asked at what point within the 15-
year period DPS had access to photos. Ms. Ridle responded,
"as needed." She elaborated that DPS would contact DMV with
what they needed.
Representative Wilson wondered about the benefits of having
an older license on file once a person renewed their
license. Ms. Ridle suggested having Captain Lowden respond
to Representative Wilson's question. The Department of
Public Safety might want to verify what information a
person provided about where they lived.
1:45:01 PM
CAPTAIN DANIEL LOWDEN, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), answered that when the
troopers were working cases that had any age to them, such
as cold cases, they liked to get the picture of the person
suspected as close to the time period as possible.
Representative Wilson asked if the troopers received all of
the information rather than just the photo from a person's
identification card. Captain Lowden was unsure of how much
of the information was provided to the troopers. The Alaska
State Troopers dealt mostly with photographs when trying to
identify people and to find wanted persons. He thought the
records bureau used more of the documents in trying to
reconcile a person's records. Sometimes people use
different names and it was necessary to merge records or
split them out. The troopers might use them for fraud
investigations or for identify theft investigations as
well.
Representative Wilson asked if the groups he was referring
to were part of DPS or another entity. Captain Lowden
answered that it was through DPS in a different division
where the employees compiled all records for every ticket
and conviction.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if a person had to appear in person
at the DMV for a driver's license renewal. Ms. Ridle
relayed that the DMV could issue a one-time renewal online
or in person. If a person lost a license, the DMV could
provide a duplicate with their paperwork on file.
Co-Chair Seaton reminded the committee that he asked the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about any breaches of
information. He reported that the ACLU was not aware of any
breach or problem with the 15-year retention of documents
for Alaska.
Representative Stutes asked if the records were currently
kept for 15 years. Co-Chair Seaton responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Stutes, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 2 PASSED (7/4).
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "$20"
Insert "$10"
Page 8, line 27:
Delete "$20"
Insert "$10"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:50:25 PM
AT EASE
1:51:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Representative Chris Birch
had joined the audience.
Vice-Chair Gara reported that the testimony he heard was
that the current version of the bill added a $20 fee to
obtain a Real ID compliant driver's license. He thought the
amount was excessive and would produce roughly $1 million
more revenue than needed in FY 19 and FY 20 and $500,000
more revenue than needed in FY 21 and FY 22. The department
had proposed a $10 fee because it would make the Real ID
license cost-neutral. However, a $20 fee would generate
additional revenue. He understood the need for revenue but
did not feel it was an appropriate place to get it. The fee
would be a flat charge to people no matter their income.
Ms. Ridle responded that in the original version of the
bill the fee was $5, the cost of making the card. In the
previous committee the amount was changed to $20. If the
fee was reduced to $10, assuming that about half of people
apply for a Real ID card (a guess based on other states),
the state should be able to payoff about $1.06 million in 2
years. It would take a little more to pay off the cost of
$1.4 million to implement it.
Vice-Chair Gara asked Ms. Ridle whether $10 was an accurate
amount to remain cost-neutral. Ms. Ridle responded in the
affirmative. At a certain point $1.5 would be paid off and
the remainder would go back into the general fund. She
estimated that it would take 2.3 to 3 years to pay of the
implementation costs.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the $5 fee that the
administration had originally introduced in the bill. Ms.
Ridle responded that the $5 fee would pay for the cost of
the card. It did not include the costs of implementation.
If the fee was $10, $5 would go towards paying the $1.5
implementation cost.
Representative Kawasaki asked if there was a charge to
become a member of American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA). Ms. Ridle responded affirmatively.
Representative Kawasaki wondered if the charge was a
variable charge rather than a fixed charge. He understood
the charge increased every year. Ms. Ridle did not know
what the state paid in charges. She thought Marla Thompson
from DMV could answer the question.
1:55:22 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), asked
Representative Kawasaki to repeat the question.
Representative Kawasaki repeated his question. Ms. Thompson
would have to double check. The fees increased and
decreased, but the state received notice of any changes 12
months in advance. She would look up the information.
Representative Kawasaki wanted the answer to his question.
He believed the fees increased annually. He thought it was
important because Alaska would have Real ID compliant
identifications, and because the state was going through a
national privately owned non-profit organization. He
suggested that the fees would go up every year. He wanted
to make sure the fiscal note reflected a downward trend. He
thought the cost for implementing Real ID in Alaska would
actually go up because of being part of AAMVA. He asked for
the answer in writing.
Representative Pruitt asked if the amount was in addition
to the already set fee that the public currently paid for
cards. Ms. Ridle replied affirmatively. It would be an
additional
$20.
Representative Pruitt asked when the last rate increase
occurred. Ms. Ridle thought it was sometime in the 80s.
Representative Pruitt mentioned that 4 or 5 years prior
Alaska changed how it produced its ID's. He asked if that
particular program cost more than previously. Ms. Ridle
deferred to Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson replied that the
cost was similar because at the time managers really
struggled with the printers and the quality of the products
that the division used. In the end, her understanding was
that the cost was similar between what the state was
spending on printer costs, paper, and supplies versus what
the division did with bids.
Representative Pruitt asked if there was an increase in
cost from the time the fee was set at $20. He suggested
there was an increase in costs over the time frame. He
asked if his statement was appropriate. Ms. Ridle responded
that the cost most likely went up over time, particularly
in personnel.
Representative Pruitt asked if he could expect the cost to
remain for an extended period since $5 was currently
covering the cost. He wondered if the state should expect
the amount to go up. Ms. Ridle thought it would increase
incrementally.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the length of the current
driver's license and what it would be under Real ID. Ms.
Ridle answered that it was currently a 5-year renewal and
the Real ID legislation would bump it up to an 8-year
renewal.
Co-Chair Seaton mentioned the differences in cost and the
time between renewals. At a fee of $20, the cost of the
card would be $5 to make and an additional $5 per year for
the additional 3 years for a Real ID with an 8-year renewal
instead of a 5-year renewal. He asked if he was
approximately correct. Ms. Ridle responded affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that his understanding of the
testimony was that if the state charged $10, it would
offset the cost for the first 2 years and there would be
some money left over in the out years. He thought there
would be less money if the costs went up. He thought it was
possible that the license fee would have to be raised. Ms.
Ridle answered that the DMV turned money back to the state
every year in an amount between $30 million and $45
million. It would be the will of the legislature, at the
time, if it wanted to increase the fee. Basically, it would
be a fee to the public.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Gara, Stutes, Kawasaki, Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn, Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 3 FAILED (5/6).
2:02:14 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4 (copy on
file):
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "department"
Insert "commissioner of administration"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "or federal"
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "or federal"
Page 4, lines 2 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 28.05.068. Prohibition on data
sharing. (a) The department may not convey,
distribute, or communicate data to be used
in a database, index, pointer system, or any
other system managed by an entity other than
the department, including the American
Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators."
Page 4, line 31:
Delete "or federal"
Page 5, line 3:
Delete "or federal"
Page 7, line 31:
Delete "state"
Insert "department"
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above). She
understood the attempt was to follow the Real ID Act.
However, she thought the bill would require the state to
get permission from the federal government. She believed
the was the bill an overreach as currently written. She
also expressed concerns about security within AAMVA. She
was unfamiliar with what security measures the entity had
in place and the potential for an information breach. She
argued that there was a larger framework around the use of
passport information. She did not think the framework was
the same for AAMVA. She supported matching the list of
requirements for the Real ID Act.
Vice-Chair Gara was interested in the department's view of
whether the amendment would violate federal law. Ms. Ridle
pointed to Page 4, line 2-10. The changes would make the
state non-compliant because AAMVA was the only vehicle in
which to check state-to-state to make sure there were no
duplicate licenses. If Alaska was unable to use AAMVA, it
would not be compliant, and Alaska IDs would not be
accepted by Real ID.
Vice-Chair Gara asked Ms. Ridle to remind committee members
of the importance of making sure a person did not have 2
licenses. He also asked her to review other reasons for
checking a person's license. Ms. Ridle responded that every
state had a state law that indicated a person could not
have 2 licenses. Also, the state checked to make sure that
someone was not under restrictions for a DUI or other
problem driver issues in other states. Mainly, it was due
to every state having a law that only allowed for one
license. She added that Federal Homeland Security had
certified the state-to-state AAMVA system as meeting strict
federal requirements of security. Homeland Security did not
convey that Alaska had to use AAMVA, but it met their
standards of security. She reemphasized that it was the
only system the state could use to be compliant.
Co-Chair Seaton thought that lines 11-16 would make the
state non-compliant. He wondered if the change on lines 5-6
would make the state non-compliant with other federal
regulations such as commercial driver's licenses. He asked
if he was accurate. Ms. Ridle reported that lines 11-16 of
the amendment that would make the state non-compliant.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the other lines being in
conflict with the retention of document requirements for
commercial driver's licenses. He believed it was 55 years.
Ms. Ridle called for a lifeline.
2:08:27 PM
CORI MILLS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, referred to lines 5 through 9.
The issue the department was concerned with was that there
were several different laws dealing with commercial
driver's licenses (CDL), highways, and how to deal with
identification. Eliminating the lines might not present too
many issues. However, she was concerned it would become
tangled as a person looked further into the laws. She could
not report off the top of her head exactly what such a
change might implicate. It could potentially create another
tangle of issues.
Co-Chair Seaton thought that if the state got into the
problem of issuing non-compliant CDL's it would lead to a
greater problem of not being able to use Alaskan CDL's in
other states. He would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Wilson reminded members that the legislature
was only dealing with the Real ID Act. She did not want
other issues tied to the Real ID Act. She expressed
concerns about identifying a specific entity in statue.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Gary Knopp in the
audience.
Vice-Chair Gara suggested that the bill had 2 competing
interests. The first was the concern of the business
community and labor community that their members would not
be able to travel by plane, into Canada, and would have
difficulty getting work if the legislature did not pass
this bill. The flip side was that there were privacy issues
people were concerned about. The Department of Law was
concerned about travel restrictions on workers, businesses,
unions, military bases, and across state lines if the
committee adopted the amendment. Ms. Ridle was concerned
about the items Vice-Chair Gara had brought up. If the
state was not allowed to use the AAMVA system, it would
result in some of the things he mentioned.
Vice-Chair Gara understood the privacy issues. He was not
comfortable with people not being able to get to work. He
would be opposing the amendment.
Representative Wilson thought people could get to work.
They had the option of getting a passport. She thought the
legislature needed to know how to protect people's privacy
and to make sure the options were clearly defined. She
wanted people to get to work but was concerned with the
amount of information that would be provided to an entity
that could change.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Stutes, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson, Gara,
Seaton
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 4 FAILED (3/8).
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 (copy on file):
Page 3, lines 1 - 2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) shall scan and retain the minimum
documents necessary for issuance of the
identification card; the department shall
destroy any documents retained one year
after the identification card expires."
Page 5, lines 19 - 20:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) shall scan and retain the minimum
documents necessary for issuance of the
driver's license; the department shall
destroy any documents retained One year
after the driver's license expires."
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for a brief at ease.
2:15:29 PM
AT EASE
2:16:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Seaton explained that the amendment addressed non-
compliant ID's and licenses. It would allow the department
to scan and retain the minimum documents needed for a non-
compliant license and would require the documents to be
destroyed within one year after the expiration of the
identification card or the non-compliant driver's license.
It would make the non-compliant ID's essentially the same
as the status of the current licenses. The intention of the
bill was to offer an alternative for people - they could
get a Real ID compliant license or continue to use the
current Alaska Driver's License. However, with the changes
that had been made, the non-compliant license would not be
applicable or identical and would not serve the same
purposes as the current driver's license. A person would no
longer be able to get a duplicate license. Also, without
having the security of retaining the applicable documents,
the DMV testified that it would be easier to falsify a
license, as there would not be an audit available to track.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Grenn, Stutes, Ortiz, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Kawasaki was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 5 PASSED (6/4).
2:20:37 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6 (copy on file):
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that the state will continue to work
with the Alaska delegation in Congress to amend
provisions of P.L. 109-13, Division B (REAL ID
Act of 2005) that compromise the rights of
Alaskans to the privacy of their personal
information, while protecting the nation's
efforts to combat terrorism."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 10:
Delete "Sections 13 and 15"
Insert "Sections 14 and 16"
Page 9, line 11:
Delete "sec. 16"
Insert "sec. 17"
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Gara acknowledged that privacy concerns had been
raised with Real ID. Amendment 6 conveyed that the state
took privacy concerns seriously. He thought that Amendment
6 in conjunction with Amendment 1 tried to limit the use of
social security numbers. The amendment advocated for
Alaska's congressional delegation to continue working to
limit and reverse the provisions of the Real ID Act that
compromised the privacy of Alaskans in a way consistent
with the ability to combat terrorism. There were concerns
about the privacy provisions of the federal Real ID Act. He
was comfortable that Alaska had to follow it. Otherwise, he
thought it would compromise the ability of people being
able to travel. He wanted Alaska's delegation to work to
reverse any of the provisions of Real ID that were not
necessary and compromised people's privacy.
Representative Pruitt asked that he be added as a co-
sponsor to the amendment.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster asked Vice-Chair Gara to walk the committee
through the fiscal notes.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal notes:
[New Fiscal Impact Note]
Department: Department of Administration
Appropriation: Motor Vehicles
Allocation: Motor Vehicles
OMB Component Number: 2348
Representative Pruitt requested an at ease.
2:23:44 PM
AT EASE
2:23:58 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Gara continued to review the fiscal notes for
HB 74:
[FN2 - Zero Fiscal Impact]
Department: Department of Public Safety
Appropriation: Statewide Support
Allocation: Commissioner's Office
OMB Component Number: 523
[FN1 - Zero Fiscal Impact]
Department: Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs
Appropriation: Military and Veterans' Affairs
Allocation: Homeland Security and Emergency Management
OMB Component Number: 2657
Vice-Chair Gara referred to the first fiscal note (OMB
Component Number 2348) and explained that the note assumed
a capital appropriation cost of $1.5 million.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 74(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson spoke to her objection. She believed
the bill was important. She thought the legislation allowed
the state to continue to scan and retain private
information for 15 years. She disagreed with the 15-year
period and with sharing the information provided to the
DMV. She was also concerned with giving the information to
a private entity and with the federal government changing
the rules no longer requiring a Real ID. She could have
supported the bill prior to adopting the amendments but
could not support it in its current from. She stressed the
importance of protecting individuals' privacy. She
disagreed with the argument that people could not go to
work without an ID. She felt that people could
alternatively obtain a passport. She understood that the
bill would make it more convenient. The bill had
essentially removed driver's licenses and replaced them
with federal IDs. She would not be supporting the bill.
2:27:51 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood Representative Wilson's
concerns. The concerns were really with the state's
congressional delegation and the actions of congress. The
state's choice was to make it more difficult for people to
travel and work, to have to carry around multiple
documents, pay extra for a passport card and a driver's
license, or have to carry around a passport. He thought the
question was whether the state was going to make it more
difficult for people to work. The bill contained provisions
to encourage congress to make changes to the law. He would
be siding in favor of getting people to work.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson. Gara, Grenn, Stutes, Kawasaki, Ortiz,
Pruitt, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION to REPORT OUT CSHB 74 (FIN) PASSED (9/2).
CSHB 74(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with an "amend"
recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration and with two previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1(MVA) and FN2(DPS).