Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/06/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB165 | |
| HB158 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 74-DRIVER'S LICENSE & ID CARDS & REAL ID ACT
3:33:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be 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." [Before the committee,
adopted as a work draft during the 4/4/17, 5:40 p.m., meeting,
was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 74, Version
30-GH1781\J, Martin, 4/4/17, hereafter referred to as "Version
J".]
3:37:02 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), referred to the 4/5/17 letter [from Sheldon Fisher,
Commissioner, DOA, and included in the committee packet], which
clarifies and revises Ms. Ridle's testimony during the 4/4/17
meeting.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 1 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 1, line 10, of Version J to point out that under
Version J, the total cost of an identification (ID) card would
be $25 and the total cost for a license would be $30.
3:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that the additional fee would "pay
down" the cost of [Alaska becoming REAL ID compliant] in about
five years. He pointed out that the current fiscal note does
not reflect any dues or fees. He asked for the cost of
membership in the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA).
MS. RIDLE replied that the Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) is already a member of AAMVA; therefore, that cost would
not be reflected in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what the cost would be for future
services from AAMVA.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified the question by asking if there
are any specific AAMVA related fees associated with the passage
of Version J.
3:41:13 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), responded that the amount
needed to implement the proposed legislation is in the current
budget; it is based on an estimate of the IDs and driver's
licenses that DMV anticipates issuing. She added that DMV pays
a "per use fee," and she can provide information to the
committee on all the different fees. She stated that included
in the fiscal note are the fees for checking birth certificates
and passports, which would be new for DMV under Version J. She
relayed that these checks require per use fees; the cost is
based on the number of people requiring these checks; and it is
a "shared" cost.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why a person with a passport would
come into DMV to obtain a REAL ID card.
MS. THOMPSON answered that one of the requirements of REAL ID is
the verification of the validity of passports, and there are
fees for that verification.
MS. RIDLE clarified that Representative LeDoux's question is,
Why would someone get a REAL ID if he/she has a passport? She
explained that sometimes people bring in passports as a form of
ID; they might still want to get a REAL ID, because they don't
want to carry their passports.
3:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that after REAL ID is implemented,
to obtain a driver's license for the first time he would need to
go to DMV with an ID besides just his driver's license; that
would be his birth certificate or his passport. He asked for
confirmation that the procedures at DMV would involve the
following: scanning his documents; sending the scan somewhere
to be verified for identity, duplicate IDs, or "identity markers
or pointers"; and handing the documents back.
MS. RIDLE responded that DMV does not send an applicant's
documents out; the DMV would do a check through the passport
database to verify identity of the applicant while the applicant
is present at DMV; and REAL ID requires that DMV retain the
documents.
MS. THOMPSON concurred.
3:46:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if an applicant would be able to
obtain a REAL ID the same day [as application], just as he/she
would a driver's license.
MS. RIDLE answered that currently an applicant does not receive
a driver's license the same day. Driver's licenses are
processed and produced in Indiana, and that would be the same
for REAL IDs.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the primary reason for
passing HB 74 was that under HB 74, obtaining a REAL ID would be
much easier and quicker than getting a passport card. She asked
how long it would take her to obtain a REAL ID, if she realized
[last minute] that she needed one to access a military base.
She asked, "Am I going to get something that same day that's
going to let me on the base?"
MS. RIDLE replied that just as is currently done, DMV would give
her a paper copy, and the actual card would be mailed to her in
about ten days to two weeks, which is the average time. She
responded to Representative LeDoux's second question by saying
that she was unfamiliar with [military] base rules and did not
know if a paper copy was sufficient for access.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX emphasized the importance of the public
knowing how quickly a REAL ID could be obtained. She said that
her concern has been the necessity to pass the proposed
legislation so that people can obtain access to bases for work
in a timely manner. She offered that if the paper copy is
insufficient, that would present a significant problem.
MS. RIDLE responded that if HB 74 passes during the current
legislative session, Alaska would be granted another waiver
while it implements the law. She asserted that it is the hope
of DOA personnel that with more time and a public relations (PR)
campaign, most people needing REAL IDs will obtain them timely.
3:49:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed a need for more details on DOA's
response to the committee's concerns.
3:50:06 PM
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 2 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 2, lines 5-7, of Version J. She stated that
there are other laws that apply to record retention [besides
those mentioned in Version J] and suggested that adding the
phrase, "or other federal and state law", to the end of the
sentence in line 6 would ensure Alaska is not in conflict with
the other record retention laws.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 3 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 2, lines 11-12, of Version J. She contended that
the requirement [not to retain images of the applicant's face]
would make Alaska noncompliant with the REAL ID Act; REAL ID
requires the retention of the images; and the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) could testify regarding its concerns
regarding retention of photographs ("photos").
3:51:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that AAMVA requires some
provisions that are not required by the REAL ID Act. He asked
if the retention of photos is a requirement of the REAL ID Act
or a requirement of AAMVA.
MS. RIDLE expressed her understanding that it is a requirement
of the REAL ID Act, since AAMVA's requirements are only related
to the State to State (S2S) system, and there are no photos in
the S2S system.
3:52:49 PM
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 4 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 2, lines 13-20, of Version J. She stated that
the prohibition of records retention reflected in these lines
would make Alaska noncompliant with REAL ID.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 5 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 2, lines 26-27, of Version J. She relayed that
DOA does require some of its employees to access a military base
or to travel by plane. She suggested that the phrase, "unless
federally compliant identification is required for employment",
be added in line 27.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 6 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 2, lines 29-31, of Version J. She related that
DPS has concerns regarding non-retention of photos, and she
suggested deletion of that paragraph.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 7 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 3, lines 2-7, of Version J. She stated that the
provision in that paragraph would require that DMV store paper
documents for noncompliant driver's licenses and IDs. She
relayed that there are several related issues: customer
service, cost, security, and fraud prevention. She offered that
DMV strives for efficiency and good customer service as well as
privacy. She maintained that fulfilling this requirement would
preclude the public applying for licenses online and diminish
the timeliness of service.
3:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if renewing a driver's license
online would be impossible under Version J.
MS. RIDLE said, "No, this is the noncompliant cards in this
Version." She explained that for compliant cards, DMV would not
be required to store paper documents; therefore, online renewal
would be possible. She maintained that under Version J, DMV
would be required to store [paper] documents for noncompliant
licenses and cards; therefore, holders of noncompliant licenses
and cards would be required to renew them at DMV, because DMV
would not be able to access the documents electronically.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for an explanation as to why
currently someone can renew online, but under Version J would
not be able to renew a noncompliant license or card online.
MS. RIDLE explained that currently all Alaska licenses are
noncompliant; DMV has been storing documents online; and when
someone renews his/her license, DMV personnel can review the
documents online to process an application. She asserted that
even if a person applies for renewal online, "a real person" at
DMV still reviews the application. She maintained that if DMV
is prohibited from retaining documents online, then an applicant
would need to physically come into DMV to renew.
3:56:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP restated that under Version J, the
paperwork for REAL ID compliant licenses and ID cards would be
retained [electronically] allowing online renewal; however, the
[electronic] storage of information for noncompliant licenses
and ID cards would be prohibited; therefore, they would need to
be renewed in person.
MS. RIDLE confirmed that under Version J, that is correct; the
DMV would be asked to store paper copies of documents for
noncompliant licenses and ID cards.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that he first obtained an Alaska
driver's license in 1979; he continually renews it without
additional paperwork; and the paperwork from 1979 is still
adequate today. He said, "That makes no sense to me."
MS. RIDLE suggested that Representative Knopp must have been
required to go to a DMV once or twice in the 40 years that he
held the driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that paperwork "gets old" after a
period, and no one looks the same after nine years.
3:58:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the process for noncompliant IDs
would change.
3:59:16 PM
ERIC GLATT, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of Alaska, referred to the requirement in Version J that
applications be kept only in paper form and offered that an
amendment is to be introduced in which DMV would not be required
to keep applications only in paper form, which would allow DMV
to process applications as it is currently doing and allow for
online renewals.
4:00:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked at what frequency a driver's license
must be renewed and a new photo taken.
MS. RIDLE stated that currently a driver's license is up for
renewal every five years; Version J would change that to every
eight years and allow for one online renewal. She said that
under Version J, someone could wait 16 years before physically
visiting DMV again, at which time there would be a new photo,
vision check, and eligibility check.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 8 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 3, lines 16-19, of Version J. She stated that
paragraph 3 asks DOA to tell people that they can use a non-
federally compliant form of ID to travel by airplane. She
asserted that DOA disagrees with this request; the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has indicated that would
not be an option [for airplane travel); and abiding by this
request would constitute passing on false information. She
concluded that DOA personnel recommend this paragraph be
deleted.
4:02:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the possibility of someone
from DHS testifying on what will or will not be accepted [as
ID]. She lamented that the committee has received information
regarding DHS's plans second hand, but not directly.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated that DOA facilitated a call
between his staff and DHS, which helped answer questions that
his office had about the proposed legislation. He asked Ms.
Ridle if it would be possible for a DHS representative to
testify to the committee.
MS. RIDLE responded that DOA personnel have had conversations
with DHS personnel to get answers to questions; however, she
conjectured that DHS personnel would not be inclined to give
testimony [during a hearing on HB 74], and DHS does have an
extensive website that specifies an acceptable form of ID.
4:04:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that there is no requirement
currently [for a federally compliant ID] for airplane travel.
He added that the only requirement is additional screening [if
flying without an ID]. He referred to his experience of flying
without an ID, which he described during the 4/4/17 meeting: he
was given a red bin instead of a gray bin; he submitted to
scanning and a "pat down"; and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) personnel checked his carry-on items. For
the return flight, he was allowed on the plane using his expired
Costco card as ID. He asserted that the ACLU confirmed during
the 4/4/17 meeting that an ID is not required to travel by
plane, but without an ID one would have to submit to additional
screening.
MS. RIDLE responded that the key word in Representative Tuck's
comments is "currently." She relayed that the TSA website
clearly states that by October 2020, no one will be able to fly
without a federally compliant ID out of an airport with a TSA
checkpoint. She stated that deleting this paragraph would avoid
putting Alaska in a difficult situation.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 9 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 4, lines 11-15, of Version J. She stated that
DOA shares data with other state agencies such as DPS, the
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) Division to detect fraud, the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), the Division
of Public Assistance (DPA) to detect fraud, and Child Support
Services Division (CSSD) for the enforcement of child support.
She asserted that the language in this section would prevent DOA
from discussing driver safety, recalls, or any other
interactions with other agencies; therefore, DOA's position is
that it should be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK contended that since Version J specifies a
prohibition against sharing data outside a state agency, it
would not limit DOA from sharing data with the agencies that Ms.
Ridle mentioned, because they are all state agencies.
MS. RIDLE replied correct but clarified that DOA staff
interprets the language to say that DOA could not share data
with the Anchorage Police Department (APD) or municipalities
that currently interface with the DPS database.
4:08:04 PM
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), responded that as Section 4 of Version J is written,
there would be a blanket prohibition on data sharing. He
offered that although it does provide some exceptions, such as
data sharing with state agencies and to administer driver's
licenses, all other current data sharing would be prohibited.
He said that under AS 28.10.505, personal identifying
information is confidential, but the statute gives exceptions
and the DOA letter outlines some of those exceptions. He gave
as examples: information may be shared regarding vehicle safety
and recall; information may be shared for litigation purposes;
and information may be shared with government and law
enforcement agencies. He said that the concern of DOA is that
under Version J, these types of data sharing may be prohibited.
4:09:35 PM
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 10 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 5, lines 9-10, of Version J and stated that this
issue [regarding the retention of historical photos for DPS's
use] was previously addressed.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 11 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 5, lines 11-18, of Version J and stated that this
issue [regarding the prohibition of the retention of documents,
which would make Alaska noncompliant] was previously addressed.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 12 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 5, lines 24-25, of Version J. She stated that
this issue regarding the ability of the state to require that an
employee have a federally compliant ID was previously addressed.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 13 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 5, lines 27-28, of Version J and stated that this
issue [regarding the retention of historical photos for DPS's
use] was previously addressed.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 14 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 6, lines 13-16, of Version J. She stated that
this issue regarding the ability of the state to require that an
employee have a federally compliant ID was previously addressed.
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 15 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 6, lines 24-31, of Version J. She stated that
this subsection would require that DOA give only compliant cards
to legal aliens in Alaska, and she asserted that this is a
violation of "equal protection." She recommended that, to avoid
the violation, "federally compliant" be removed from the
sentence beginning on line 28 and "shall" in that sentence be
replaced with "may".
4:11:20 PM
MS. RIDLE clarified that the subsection states that DMV may only
issue a compliant card to a legal alien. She maintained that it
is DOA's position that legal aliens should have the choice
between compliant and noncompliant ID cards just like everyone
else. She added that changing "shall" to "may" addresses the
issue brought to the committee by Representative Birch [3/28/17,
3:08 p.m. meeting] regarding a constituent's wife, who as a
Japanese national with a green card without an expiration date
is required to renew her driver's license annually.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered as background that former
Representative Bob Lynn offered an amendment in 2014 requiring
immigrants with longer stays in Alaska to renew their driver's
licenses annually.
MS. RIDLE stated that Mr. Stanker relayed to her after her
testimony at the [04/04/17] committee meeting that there is an
ambiguity in statute, and DOA has been applying the statute
fairly.
4:13:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the issue brought forward
by Representative Birch - concerning the wife of a constituent
with an indefinite immigration status who must renew her
driver's license annually - still exists.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that as Version J currently is
written, that is the case; however, he anticipates an amendment
to change it as DOA has recommended. He asked if "shall"
existed in the language of the original version of HB 74.
MS. RIDLE replied, yes. She opined that it is in the statute,
not just the proposed legislation.
4:14:48 PM
MS. RIDLE referred to issue Number 16 in the DOA letter, which
addresses page 7, lines 26-30, of Version J and said that DOA
supports codifying in statute the prohibition of bulk sharing of
photos outside the state.
4:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if DOA would support the proposed
legislation with the amendments that have been prepared for the
committee.
MS. RIDLE answered that she has not seen the amendments,
therefore, cannot respond to that question. She maintained that
DOA does not oppose the proposed legislation, if it is [REAL ID]
compliant. She stated that her testimony addresses those
provisions of the proposed legislation with which DOA does not
agree.
4:17:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
GH1781\J.1, Martin, 4/6/17], which read:
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.65.310(b) is amended to read:
(b) A person may obtain an identification card
provided for in (a) of this section by applying to the
department on forms and in the manner prescribed by
the department. The department shall include on the
application for an identification card a requirement
that the applicant indicate
(1) that the applicant understands the
options for identification cards available at the time
of issuance; and
(2) the type of identification card that the
applicant selects."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, lines 22 - 25:
Delete "The application must require that an
applicant indicate that the applicant understands the
options for identification cards available at the time
of issuance and indicate the identification card that
the applicant selects."
Page 5, lines 20 - 23:
Delete "The application must require that an
applicant indicate that the applicant understands the
options for drivers' licenses available at the time of
issuance and indicate the driver's license that the
applicant selects."
Page 6, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 28.15.061(b) is amended to read:
(b) An application under (a) of this section
must
(1) contain the applicant's full legal
name, date and place of birth, sex, and mailing and
residence addresses;
(2) state whether the applicant has been
previously licensed in the past 10 years as a driver
and, if so, when and by what jurisdiction;
(3) state whether any previous driver's
license issued to the applicant has ever been
suspended or revoked or whether an application for a
driver's license has ever been refused and, if so, the
date of and reason for the suspension, revocation, or
refusal;
(4) contain the applicant's social security
number; the requirement of this paragraph only applies
to an applicant who has been issued a social security
number; [AND]
(5) contain other information that the
department may reasonably require to determine the
applicant's identity, competency, and eligibility; and
(6) require that the applicant indicate
(A) that the applicant understands the
options for drivers' licenses available at the time of
issuance; and
(B) the type of driver's license that the
applicant selects."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 11:
Delete "Sections 12 and 13"
Insert "Sections 14 and 15"
Page 9, line 12:
Delete "sec. 14"
Insert "sec. 16"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:17:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:18 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.
4:23:00 PM
ERIC GLATT, Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of Alaska, stated that Amendment 1 addresses a concern
expressed by DOL that the proposed legislation does not include
an affirmative obligation for DOA to create a place on the
application at which the applicant must indicate that he/she
understands the options for compliant and noncompliant cards and
which one he/she chooses. He declared that Amendment 1 would
provide that obligation.
MS. RIDLE asked if the intent of Amendment 1 is to put this
obligation into statute instead of regulation.
MR. GLATT replied that DOL staff offered that Version J was "too
passive" in specifying whose obligation it was to include the
information on the application.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that Amendment 1 would be held
over for further work.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if Amendment 1 would address the
issue of informing the public that a REAL ID is or is not needed
for plane travel.
MS. RIDLE opined that it does not; it only requires that the
application reflect that a person understands the options -
compliant or noncompliant driver's licenses and ID cards. She
expressed her belief that Amendment 1 would not require DOA to
inform an applicant that his/her noncompliant driver's license
allows him/her to travel by plane.
4:28:17 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:28 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.
4:32:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that two amendments would be
considered in the current meeting.
4:33:04 PM
REPRESENTAIVE LEDOUX withdrew Amendment 1.
4:33:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 30-
GH1781\J.2, Martin, 4/6/17], which read:
Page 4, line 21:
Delete ", including the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators,"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:33:39 PM
MS. RIDLE explained that Legislative Legal and Research Services
indicated that it was unusual to name a specific organization in
legislation. She said DOA supports the amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for the purpose of discussion. He
asked why the mention of "the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators" should be deleted from the proposed
legislation. He opined that the reason for the reference is
because AAMVA is the only organization currently that can
facilitate REAL ID compliance.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Ridle if the specific mention of
AAMVA was in the original version of HB 74.
MS. RIDLE answered no; it was mentioned first in Version J and
was not requested by DOA. She stated that Section 4, subsection
(c), on page 4 refers to any other system managed by an entity
other than DOA; she offered that Legislative Legal and Research
Services indicated that the mention of a specific agency was
"odd."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed that the reference resulted from the
drafting of Version J; it was not intended; therefore, Amendment
2 would delete it.
4:35:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that although the reference may
appear odd, Alaska DMV is a member of AAMVA, and the language in
Version J is clearly intent language to place restrictions on
any entity other than DOA. He said that his question was,
Although we find it odd, is it really inappropriate? He asked,
"Would there be any harm in leaving it?"
MS. RIDLE responded that DOA's position is that it would make no
difference.
4:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Amendment 2.
4:37:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 30-
GH1781\J.5, Martin, 4/6/17], which read:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "$10"
Insert "$20"
Page 8, line 25:
Delete "$10"
Insert "$20"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. He
explained that Amendment 3 addresses the fee for a compliant ID
card. He relayed testimony during the [4/4/17, 5:40 p.m.]
committee meeting: with a $10 increase in the fee for a REAL ID
compliant ID, the cost of the program could be recouped in
[about] five years. He stated that Amendment 3 would increase
the fee to $20 over the fee for a noncompliant ID card, reducing
the payback period to 2.5 years. He asked Ms. Ridle to confirm
the accuracy of his statements.
MS. RIDLE replied that his assessment was correct based on 50
percent of people obtaining a REAL ID; if fewer people obtain a
REAL ID, it would take longer to recoup; and if less obtained a
REAL ID, it would be recouped in a shorter period.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK also objected to Amendment 3 for the purpose
of discussion. He referred to the fees charged by AAMVA that
Alaska pays on a per-ID basis, which is included in the fiscal
note. He asked if there are fees associated with the
verification of a passport, since a passport is a compliant
federal ID and "ranks higher" than a REAL ID card.
MS. RIDLE replied that since passports may be forged, DOA must
verify them with the passport database. She added that DOA does
get charged for those verifications.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if passport data, which is
administered by the U.S. Department of State (DOS), also is
included in the State Pointer Exchange Services (SPEXS) system.
MS. RIDLE replied that the passport database is a separate
database and not part of SPEXS. She reiterated that DOA checks
with the DOS passport database to verify passports.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if Representative Tuck's question is
related to the fee for a REAL ID compliant driver's license
[addressed in Amendment 3].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that his concern is that the fiscal
note reflects all the fees and memberships that would be
involved under the proposed legislation. He stated that the
purpose of Amendment 3 is to "buy down" the burden [of
implementing REAL ID] sooner rather than later.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Representative Tuck if he believes
that Amendment 3 - to increase the fee for a REAL ID compliant
ID - would not actually reduce the time in which the investment
is reimbursed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the increase in the fee [under
Amendment 3] may not reduce the time as much as desired.
4:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that Representative Tuck's
concern is that the fiscal note of $1.5 million may not include
the cost of Alaska belonging to these organizations and the dues
required.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that Representative LeDoux's
assessment is correct. He said that the committee expressed its
desire to reduce the time [for reimbursement] to two years, and
he stated that he wants to make sure that is still possible.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that the issue relayed by
Representative Tuck is broader than the scope of Amendment 3.
He stated that as Ms. Ridle noted, the percentage of people
choosing to obtain REAL ID compliant IDs will dictate the
payback period, and at this point, DOA is basing its estimates
on assumptions. He offered that it is a sure statement that by
increasing the fees, the payback period will be reduced, even
though the eventual length of that period is unknown.
4:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if under Amendment 3, the fee would be
doubled again after it was previously doubled.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered, "That's what the amendment would
do."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that if a $5 surcharge would
result in a payback period of ten years, and a $10 surcharge
would reduce it to five years, an additional $5, not $10, for a
total of $15, should reduce it to 2.5 years. He asked for an
explanation of the motivation for additional reductions in the
payback period. He asked if paying back the investment in a
shorter time would result then in additional revenue for DMV or
DOA, or if the fee would be reduced after the investment is
reimbursed, so that the first few thousand-people obtaining REAL
IDs pay the higher fee, and after that the fee would be reduced.
MS. RIDLE maintained that funds generated by the fees go into
the general fund (GF), not to DMV or DOA. She stated that DMV
currently contributes $30-40 million to GF, and any funds from
additional fees would increase that contribution.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he supports recouping
implementation costs to make the program "price neutral." He
maintained that a $20 additional fee will create a surplus for
GF; he supports increasing GF, but not in that way. He opined
that paying off the cost of the program in five years through a
$10 fee is reasonable. He stated that under Amendment 3, many
Alaskans who will be required to get REAL IDs, including those
wanting to travel by air, would be required to pay the
additional $20 fee, for a total cost of $40.
4:47:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX declared that it is not "end of the world"
if the funds are added to GF. She stated that she is not
"thrilled" with REAL ID, but she maintained that if people want
REAL IDs, "let them pay for it."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that his concern is to ensure that
the $20 surcharge covers the cost of the program. He referred
to the testimony of Maine Senator Shenna Bellows, who opined
that it would be better for Alaska to subsidize passport cards
rather than be REAL ID compliant. He removed his objection to
Amendment 3.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS also removed his objection to Amendment 3.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
[HB 74 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.5 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.6 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.7 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.1 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.2 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB074 Draft Proposed Amendment to CS ver J J.4 4.6.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| DOA Response to CS version J (HSTA) 4.5.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB074 DOA Response to CS version J (HSTA) 4.5.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/6/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |