Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/20/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and
to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, testified in support of HB
3. He stated that the bill requires:
· An applicant for an Alaska driver's license to have
a legal presence in the United States (U.S.) and by
extension, a legal presence in the State of Alaska.
· The legislation makes a license expire when the
legal presence in Alaska State expires.
Representative Lynn pointed out that HB 3 offers safeguards
that will insure that Alaska license or identification (ID)
card holders are who they say they are. He emphasized that
the bill is not the Federal Real ID Act. The Alaska
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has the statutory mandate
to determine if an applicant has the necessary documents to
receive a license. He urged the Committee's support of the
bill.
3:08:34 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, SELF, spoke in favor of HB 3. He claimed the
bill is about the Alaska Statutes mandating that illegal
aliens are not allowed to obtain or have an Alaska driver's
license or identification card (ID). It is not about the
national databases, tracking chips, a gun registry or
constitutional rights protecting free travel or privacy. He
stated that through the drafting and committee hearings,
there has been meaningful discussion on good public policy
of the proposed legislation.
3:11:32 PM
Representative Hawker requested Mr. Bannock's qualifications
for the record. Mr. Bannock explained he had testified for
himself; however, indicated he had served as the Director of
the Division of Motor Vehicles from 2003-2007. Through
various versions, the bill has been a piece of priority
legislation and the Senate companion bill passed in 2006.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the bill as written would bring
Alaska into compliance with provisions and security
requirements of the Federal Real ID Act. Mr. Bannock
responded that is partially true, noting that last year, he
had testified in the House Judiciary Committee on that point
& as defined under the Real ID Act, legal presence is the
tenant of real identification. HB 3 is drafted to be a
legal presence bill; however, the "grandfather" clause is
missing from the proposed bill. Under HB 3, there is a
presumptive clause in which the person is presumed to have
met the test if they currently have an Alaska driver's
license and that is not consistent with federal regulations,
mandating every driver's license be renewed. When HB 3
becomes law, for Alaska to become fully Real ID compliant,
the measure will require another legislative visitation to
the statute.
3:15:28 PM
MATTHEW KERR, SELF, testified against HB 3. He acknowledged
that although the bill does not fulfill 100% of the Federal
Real ID Act, the bill's language is very close. He
acknowledged that most Alaskans probably support the illegal
presence requirements, however, oppose the Real ID Act.
Mr. Kerr pointed out that Alaska already has an illegal
presence requirement in regulation. The net result of the
bill allows the State to implement the Real ID Act, which is
why he opposes the bill.
Mr. Kerr continued, as the bill is written, it will cause
potential problems for those people that are legally
residing here and have little affect on those that are not.
Illegal residents will not be deterred by a driver's
license. If the bill is intended to pass, he recommended
changes to be made to preserve the intent.
· It is possible to copy the existing legal presence
regulation into statute, which would require a legal
presence with no Real ID issues and costing nothing.
· It is possible to be legally present in the United
States without being in possession of documentary
evidence. The U.S. Immigration Service is not
known for efficiency, good communication or
expedience. He proposed that a grace period be
added to the bill.
· It is important to clarify that the license expires
on the end of someone's legal status or on the
expiration date of their visa, whichever is later.
Visa validity and legal status are different terms
under Immigration Law.
· Those citizens from certain countries that qualify
to enter the country under the federal visa waiver
program, should be exempt from the regulations.
Mr. Kerr concluded that even though the bill is not the Real
ID Act, the only required statute change needed could permit
the Real ID Act to be implemented. He reiterated there is
already a legal presence requirement in regulation. He
added there are necessary changes needing to be made in the
bill to prevent causing trouble for people that are legally
present.
3:20:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about Mr. Kerr's comments regarding the
ability to accomplish the legislation's intent through
regulations. Mr. Kerr pointed out, there is an existing DMV
regulation that requires someone applying for an original
license, have legal presence in the United States. That is
current existing practice.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if someone applied for a driver's
license and had only a one year visa, would their license be
good for the full five years. Mr. Kerr explained that there
is a difference between the visa and a legal presence. If
they have a one year visa with a 30-day entry period, under
HB 3, their license would be valid for 30-days. He
recommended language be clarified if the bill were to pass,
the expiration date be set to either the visa or the
expiration date, whichever is greater.
Co-Chair Chenault asked why a person would have a one year
visa when they have only a 30-day limit to be in the
country. Mr. Kerr explained that a visa under the
Immigration Law provides permission to enter the U.S.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired why immigration service would
allow someone to come into the country on the last day of
their visa and then provide them a 30-day extension. Mr.
Kerr clarified that would not be an extension. He explained
that foreign students typically receive a visa for one or
two years, although they are permitted to stay until the
completion of their four year program. Under U.S. Federal
law, the visa document is permission to apply to the U.S.
The actual date of the legal presence is decided by an
immigration officer at the port of entry.
3:23:44 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked how it would be addressed when a
student comes to U.S. for four years and they only have a
two year visa. Mr. Kerr replied that would not be the case.
The document that establishes the legal presence as a
foreign student is granted by the university [I-20 form] and
as long as the student remains enrolled at the university,
they are permitted to stay in the U.S. without a current
visa, although if the student departs from the country, then
they would have to reapply for a new visa to be able to
return.
3:25:04 PM
LISA DONNELLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to HB 3. She noted that she
is an immigration attorney in Anchorage. She commented that
many of her clients are businesses in Anchorage that sponsor
foreign workers but indicated that she was not testifying on
behalf of those clients. She echoed comments made by Mr.
Kerr.
Ms. Donnelley explained the difference between a visa and
legal status. A visa is a document that allows a person to
make an application for admission into the United States.
Once at the port of entry, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security determines how long a person is allowed to stay in
the country. Upon expiration of the status, the person may
apply for an extension, which could take up to seven months
to receive. During that waiting time, the person may not
have any documents to verify that they have legal status in
this country. In many cases, it is the employer that is
filing the document of application of status. She
emphasized that the bill could have an adverse effect on
legal immigrants and employers. She advised the bill's
verbiage is imprecise and ambiguous when it refers to visas.
Visas are not an indicator of legal status.
Ms. Donnelley pointed out that the bill fails to list all
the classes of aliens who should be entitled to obtain a
drivers license. She mentioned "withholding of removal" ,
granted by an immigration judge to someone who is likely to
be persecuted if returned to their home country. These
people are not included in the list. They are entitled to
indefinitely reside in the U.S.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if he understood correctly that U.S.
Department of Homeland Security determines who is legally
able to enter the U.S. Ms. Donnelly said yes.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about the I-20 forms. Ms. Donnelley
explained that an I-20 form is the form issued by the
university to the foreign student. Co-Chair Chenault asked
if at the point that the I-20 form is completed and approved
by the university, would the university control how long the
visa lasts rather than the Department of Homeland Security.
Ms. Donnelly responded, it is more complicated than that.
The I-20 form is issued by the university and allows the
student to apply for the visa. Once the student receives
the visa, they can then apply for admission into U.S. At
that point, the Department of Homeland Security will admit
them into the U.S. for usually, the duration of that status.
The I-20 form normally stipulates the length of the program,
providing a 60-day grace period.
3:30:17 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, stated the Administration is supportive of
efforts to pass HB 3. He noted it provides DMV the
flexibility to issue a driver's license with a flexible
termination date. He added that the regulations attached to
the Real ID Act as issued in January 2008, carries a
component for a legal presence. The bill in and of itself,
does not make the State compliant with the Real ID Act. He
noted that the Department has submitted a request for an
extension and received approval of that through December
st
31, 2009, as it relates to the entirety of the Federal Real
ID Act.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if that was the target date for the
State to be in compliance with the Act. Mr. Brooks imagined
that there could be another opportunity for an extension,
however, to obtain a second extension, the State would have
to be in substantial compliance and working toward final
compliance.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the bill places the State in
compliance. Mr. Brooks responded that the legislation makes
sense and that it had been offered in 2003, prior to the
Real ID Act of 2005.
3:33:49 PM
HB 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|