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.
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 . 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.