Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/10/2017 07:00 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 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 74-DRIVER'S LICENSE & ID CARDS & REAL ID ACT
7:04:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only 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 committee substitute (CS) for HB 74, Version 30-
GH1781\J, Martin, 4/4/17, hereafter referred to as "Version J".]
7:06:01 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 74, presented the committee
substitute (CS), labeled 30-GH1781\U, Martin, 4/10/17 [hereafter
referred to as "Version U"], with the use of a handout, entitled
"HB 74 Summary of Changes, ver J to ver U," included in the
committee packet.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that in Section 1, the fee for a REAL ID
compliant identification (ID) card is increased from $10 to $20,
incorporating Amendment 3, adopted by the committee on 4/6/17,
into the proposed legislation.
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that Amendment 1, adopted on 4/8/17, is
incorporated into Section 2. [Amendment 1 refers to the
inclusion of Department of Administration (DOA) information on
the application for ID cards and driver's licenses to explain
the options and require the applicant to indicate he/she
understands the options and to select an option.]
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that Section 3 addresses the issuance of ID
cards. Section 3, subsection (m), is amended to clarify that
when DOA issues a REAL ID compliant ID card, it may retain only
the minimum documents required by the REAL ID Act and no more;
and it shall destroy any documents retained as soon as legally
allowed to do so.
MR. MAGDANZ said that in Section 3, subsection (n), two
sentences from the original version [Version A] of HB 74 are
added. They are: The proposed legislation explicitly requires
DOA to continue issuing noncompliant ID cards. It requires that
the state and municipal government treat compliant and
noncompliant ID cards the same.
MR. MAGDANZ related that Section 3, subsection (o), introduces
new, but not substantive, language recommended by Legislative
Legal and Research Services. Language from the Alaska Statutes,
Title 28 - allowing DOA to issue a driver's license for less
than eight years, if the applicant is legally allowed to be in
the U.S. for less than eight years - is replicated in Title 18
as it pertains to ID cards.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that Section 3, subsection (p), is amended to
address more generally the purposes for which REAL ID compliant
ID cards will be required; the change relates to the public
information DOA must share concerning the differences between
compliant and noncompliant ID cards.
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that Section 3, subsection (q), is amended
to clarify that the definition of "identification card that is
federally compliant" applies to a state issued ID card only.
MR. MAGDANZ said that Section 4 is substantially changed. This
section addresses the limitations on DOA for sharing data with
interstate databases or pointer systems. Language objectionable
to DOA, pertaining to data sharing outside the scope of REAL ID,
is removed. Section 4 also is changed to clarify that DOA may
convey, distribute, or communicate data only to the extent
absolutely required by the REAL ID Act; that is, only to the
extent necessary for the state to be certified as REAL ID
compliant by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
7:10:36 PM
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the changes to Section 5 mirror the
changes to Section 3 but apply to driver's licenses instead of
ID cards.
MR. MAGDANZ indicated that new language is incorporated into
Section 6, which is the language from Amendment 1, adopted
4/8/17.
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that there are no changes to Section 7. He
said that "federally compliant" is removed from Section 8, which
specifies that driver's licenses issued to people with limited
authorization of standing in the U.S. must be federally
compliant. He mentioned that on page 6, line 14, the word
"shall" is replaced with "may".
MR. MAGDANZ offered that there are no changes to Section 9 and
Section 10. He stated that in Section 11, the fee for a REAL ID
compliant driver's license is increased from $10 to $20,
incorporating Amendment 3, adopted by the committee on 4/6/17,
into the proposed legislation.
MR. MAGDANZ said that in Section 12, the definition of "driver's
license that is federally compliant" is amended to clarify that
it applies to a state issued driver's license only.
7:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if under Version U, the issue
brought to the committee by Representative Birch [during the
3/28/17, 3:08 p.m., meeting] would be resolved. [The wife of a
constituent is a Japanese national with a green card without an
expiration date; therefore, must renew her driver's license
annually.]
MR. MAGDANZ replied that the problem would be resolved. With
the change from "shall" to "may" on page 6, lines 14-15, DOA no
longer would be required to issue a one-year license to anyone
with an indefinite period of stay in the U.S. but may now issue
it for the "full term."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she interprets the passage
as stating that DOA may or may not issue a license with a
validity of one year. She suggested that the language could
mean that DOA has the option of not issuing a license with a
validity of one year. She opined that Version U does not
address issuing a license for more than one year.
MR. MAGDANZ expressed his understanding that the inclusion of
the word "shall" required DOA to issue a license for only one
year to someone with a permanent green card. He said that DOA
supports issuing those licenses for more than one year; it was
prohibited from doing so by the current statute; and changing
"shall" to "may" will permit DOA to issue licenses for a longer
period. He added that DOA supports this change for this reason.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the language on page 6, lines
14-15, of Version U, which read, "If the period of authorized
stay is indefinite, the department may issue the license with a
validity of one year." She maintained that under Version U, DOA
may issue the license for one year or not at all; it does not
address DOA issuing a license for eight or ten years.
7:16:51 PM
MICHAEL STANKER, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), stated that the position of the Department of Law (DOL)
is that changing the wording from "shall" to "may" on page 6,
line 14, will allow DMV to issue licenses for a period greater
than one year for a person with an authorized stay that is
indefinite. He gave two reasons for its position: 1) the first
sentence of subsection (d) on Page 6, Section 8, specifies that
a person may receive a driver's license with a duration of less
than eight years, if that person's stay in the U.S. is less than
eight years or indefinite, and 2) the DMV is authorized to adopt
regulations, and through those regulations, DMV may specify the
duration of licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the bill language would be
clearer if it read, "the department shall issue the license with
a validity of up to eight years" instead of "the department may
issue the license with a validity of one year".
MR. STANKER agreed that there are other ways of wording the
sentence.
7:21:19 PM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services (LLS), Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
indicated that the sentence could be clearer; it was the result
of trying to adapt the new language to existing law. She
conceded that there could be ambiguity regarding whether the
"may" in the sentence refers to the one-year validity or to
issuing the license. She expressed her belief that a court
would rule that DOA's interpretation of the language from DOL is
reasonable; however, there are ways to draft it to make it
clearer.
7:22:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the governor and his
administration are satisfied with Version U, since the sponsor
of the proposed legislation is the House Rules Committee by
request of the Governor.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested the following language: if the
period of the authorized stay is indefinite, the department
shall issue the license with a validity of up to eight years.
She maintained that is clearer.
MS. MARTIN responded that is an option. She said that to avow
the flexibility, it could be worded "the department may issue
the license with a validity set by regulation". She offered
that including the word "shall" means that DOA must issue a
license.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested the drafting of a conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX concurred.
7:24:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL agreed with Representative LeDoux. He
stated that under Version U, [page 6, Section 8,] subsection (d)
states that a person authorized to stay in the U.S. for three
years may get a license for three years. He maintained that for
a person authorized to stay for an indefinite period, such as
someone with a green card, the license should be issued for the
full extent of the licensure period.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that other language may be equally
workable. He asked if Ms. Thompson had any issues with the
language suggested by Representatives LeDoux and Wool.
7:25:13 PM
MARLA THOMPSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), replied that she did not
have a problem with a language change; the intent is to align
the wording with that of the visa or paperwork of the [resident
alien] and to ensure the licensure period does not exceed the
authorized stay.
7:26:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that the proposed legislation is
ambiguous and lacks details. He asked, "Is this just another
bill we're going to pass and then adopt the rules later?"
MS. MARTIN answered that she is familiar in "broad strokes" with
the REAL ID requirements, and the proposed legislation allows
DOA to adopt regulations to address the federal requirements for
issuing compliant driver's licenses or ID cards.
7:27:20 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the forthcoming Amendment 4,
which would offer a "technical fix." He stated that if adopted,
Amendment 4 would fix a typographical error ("typo") by deleting
"served" on page 5, line 14, of Version U and replacing it with
"serve". He asked Ms. Martin to address lines 7-8 of the
forthcoming Amendment 4, [which would delete a reference to
federal regulations].
MS. MARTIN explained that staff tries not to refer to federal
regulations in statute. She relayed that "as amended" language
means that Alaska Statutes would change any time the federal
regulations are changed, because the statutes are being
incorporated by reference; therefore, a non-elected, non-
legislative body may make changes causing Alaska Statutes to be
changed. She referred to an Alaska Supreme Court decision
[Northern Lights Motel, Inc. v. Sweaney], dealing with reference
to technical electrical codes, which ruled that statutes by
reference may allow statutes to be changed without action by the
legislature.
7:29:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to questions brought forth in the
4/8/17 committee meeting. The first question was regarding
access to [military] bases with a temporary REAL ID compliant
card and whether access to bases varied with the different bases
and under different branches of the military.
7:30:46 PM
BRIAN DUFFY, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), relayed that
he has reached out to the leadership of installations in Alaska
and has not received a conclusive response. He commented that
without REAL ID legislation, the presence or absence of a
temporary driver's license would make no difference in an
individual's ability to receive unescorted access to a base,
because the license would be insufficient. He said that if REAL
ID legislation passes, the state will be given an extension for
implementation of REAL ID, which would offer people more time to
secure or renew an alternate form of ID for unescorted access.
He relayed that after a discussion with Ms. Thompson, his
understanding is that if Alaska allows the issuance of REAL ID
compliant driver's licenses, the temporary ID for the seven to
ten-day period will be a photocopy of the REAL ID that will come
in the mail. He maintained that in and of itself, that may be
sufficient for the installations to grant unescorted access to
bases; however, he is still trying to confirm that. He asserted
that very few people will have base issued passes expiring near
the implementation date and no other form of ID to access base.
7:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what a person would need to do if
he/she has a job on a base but no REAL ID card; she asked if
there was a [military] base card a person could get using a
birth certificate as documentation.
MR. DUFFY answered yes. He said that for people needing regular
access to an installation and who are without a U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD) issued ID card, the installation issues a
Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS) card. It is a
base issued one-year pass. He maintained that to get such a
pass, the current Alaska driver's license has been sufficient to
date; however, after June 6, if the state has not passed REAL ID
legislation, an Alaska driver's license will not be sufficient
to renew that pass. He offered that not all the DBIDS card will
expire on June 6.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what form of ID will be accepted for
someone to renew or obtain for the first time a DoD base pass,
if the proposed legislation has not passed.
MR. DUFFY responded that he is a State of Alaska (SOA) employee,
therefore cannot speak on behalf of the installations. He said
that he is part of an organization that is (indisc) and is
speaking from that perspective. He said that the expectation
will be for the individual to secure some other form of REAL ID
compliant ID sufficient to be able to get the one-year base
pass.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how the [military] base would
function in the event the proposed legislation does not pass and
needed workers cannot access the base.
MR. DUFFY replied that the long view is that the base will move
on to vendors and people that can access the base.
7:36:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Representative Johnson's
question to DMV asked during the 4/8/17 meeting: Has the DMV
received any federal grants to implement REAL ID?
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that Mr. Duffy did not receive an
answer from base commanders, who determine what constitutes
authorization. He maintained that he has some questions for Mr.
Duffy. He offered to submit his questions to Mr. Duffy in
writing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 2, Question 6, in the
letter from Deputy Commissioner Leslie Ridle, DOA, to the
committee chair, dated April 3, 2017, and included in the
committee packet, which read, "Have any state resources been
expended in outsourcing the manufacture of Alaskan IDs to
Indiana?" She relayed that the response states that DMV
received two grants from the federal government to cover the
cost of new cameras and information technology (IT) development
necessary to move to the central issuance: a $684,804 grant
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a $1.5
million grant from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) for software development, camera
equipment, and other productions costs.
7:39:47 PM
MS. THOMPSON confirmed that DMV did receive two grants from the
federal government in 2012, but the grants were not REAL ID
grants: one grant was from FEMA and the other from FMCSA. She
relayed that the grants were regarding [the production of]
secure cards.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked why references to these grants were
included in the letter and if the grants were intended to
facilitate REAL ID production.
MS. THOMPSON answered that the letter was in response to the
question, submitted by Representative Tuck. She said that the
answer to that question was that DMV received two grants to
cover the initial set up fees for producing driver's licenses.
She maintained that the funds were used to reduce costs, upgrade
technology, and improve customer service.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she wanted to ensure that no
grants were awarded to Alaska to comply with the REAL ID Act
that required the state to fulfill any REAL ID obligations; she
wanted to ensure that Alaska has not expended any funds for REAL
ID, which the legislature prohibited [through the passage of
Senate Bill 202 in the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature,
2007-2008].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Thompson if the State of Alaska
has any obligations under the grants received that would require
the implementation of REAL ID.
MS. THOMPSON responded no.
7:42:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Representative Knopp's question
asked during the 4/8/17 meeting: How long will it take to
verify source documents to obtain a REAL ID?
MS. THOMPSON answered that the goal is to have the validation
process completely integrated into the DMV data system so that
validation can be done while the applicant is at DMV. She said
if the request for a driver's license or ID can be processed,
DMV will give the applicant a copy, and the applicant will
receive the original in the mail in seven to ten days.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if a birth certificate or passport
would be validated "while I'm standing there."
MS. THOMPSON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if those documents would be scanned
and kept on file.
MS. THOMPSON replied yes, that is correct; it would be required
for REAL ID compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if the validation of just one
document would be sufficient for obtaining a REAL ID.
MS. THOMPSON responded that other documents would be required,
but the passport and the birth certificate are considered
primary documents, and one or the other would be required. She
said that if someone presented a visa or another document on the
list [of acceptable documents], copies would have to be made.
She said, "Same thing that we do today, it's just with REAL ID
they require you to keep copies."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if any other documentation would be
required besides a primary document.
MS. THOMPSON answered that both a primary document and a
secondary document would be required, but the secondary document
could be a driver's license.
7:45:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if a primary document could be a
driver's license, a passport, or a birth certificate, and the
secondary document would be another one of those three.
MS. THOMPSON replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if two documents would be needed.
MS. THOMPSON answered, "It depends on your situation." She
suggested that a person might bring in a foreign passport and a
visa allowing him/her to be in the U.S. She said, "Each ...
situation requires the different documents depending on what the
person brings in."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether any two of the three documents
he mentioned would work, if the applicant is an American citizen
and nothing else is required.
MS. THOMPSON maintained that for an applicant applying for a
brand-new driver's license, there are other documents that would
verify residency in Alaska. She offered to give the committee
the link to the website listing the other documents.
7:47:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to another question posed during
the 4/8/17 committee meeting: Is there a list of requirements
or an authoritative U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum
("memo") from DOJ stating what constitutes compliance and non-
compliance under the federal REAL ID Act? He stated that the
DHS staff he contacted declined to participate during the
hearing on HB 74. He offered his understanding, based on
exchanged emails with DHS staff and Mr. Magdanz's reading of the
REAL ID Act, that the REAL ID compliance of a state is
adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
MR. MAGDANZ confirmed that DHS staff indicated that there is no
document of the type the committee had requested; the
authoritative document [regarding REAL ID compliance] is the 6
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 37, which is about 16
pages in length.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated the question being addressed:
Is there some kind of authoritative document regarding REAL ID
compliance that clearly states the requirements. He said that
for the answer to that question, one must consult the
regulations, and DHS interprets the regulations to determine the
compliance of a state.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if that question encapsulates the
question on the minimum requirements for a two-year [REAL ID]
waiver.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that the question on the waiver is a
separate question but can be posed to DOA during the hearing.
7:50:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his understanding that the base
commander, not DHS or DoD, determines what IDs are required to
access base. He asked what forms of ID are accepted on base
currently. He relayed that four IDs were mentioned in the Joint
Armed Services Committee meeting [3/23/17]. He stated that he
assumed the passport and the DBIDS card were two of them but
does not know the other two.
MR. DUFFY answered that installations do not determine on their
own which forms of ID are sufficient or insufficient. He stated
that installations comply with elements of the REAL ID Act; the
REAL ID Act has a list of a dozen or more forms of ID:
passports, passport cards, immigrations status cards,
transportation worker ID cards, and others. He relayed that
currently the IDs on the list are acceptable, and other forms of
ID from states with an approved [REAL ID compliance] extension
are acceptable through June 6, including the current Alaska
driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his understanding that a DBIDS
card constitutes a one-year pass and card holders would be
required to renew, if HB 74 passes. He asked whether a person
could use an old DBIDS card as documentation to renew for
another year, if HB 74 does not pass.
MR. DUFFY offered a scenario as explanation: An Anchorage
School District (ASD) employee working at a school on base
received a DBIDS card in September 2016 using his current Alaska
driver's license as a form of ID, which is sufficient for a one-
year pass. The DBIDS card will continue to be valid until
September 2017, at which time he would need to renew it. If HB
74 passes, the June 6 expiration date will be extended to allow
the state to implement REAL ID. If no action is taken on the
bill by June 6, the employee would not be allowed to renew the
DBIDS card with his current Alaska driver's license but would
need another form of ID - a passport, a passport card, or other
REAL ID compliant ID. He would not be able to use an old DBIDS
card as an ID to get a new DBIDS card.
7:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 74, labeled 30-GH1781\U, Martin, 4/10/17, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version U was
before the committee as a work draft.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the proposed Amendment 4 to
Version U, which read:
Page 3, line 6, following "fee.":
Insert "An identification card may be renewed by
mail or on the department's Internet website, except
that an identification card may not be renewed by mail
or on the department's Internet website if the most
recent renewal of the applicant's identification card
was by mail or on the department's Internet website."
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "and 6 C.F.R. Part 37, as amended"
Page 5, line 14:
Delete "served"
Insert "serve"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said that the proposed amendment would
correct a typo and eliminate the reference to federal
regulations, as recommended by LLS.
MR. MAGDANZ confirmed that the proposed amendment would delete
the reference to federal regulations on page 3, line 27 and
correct the typo on page 5, line 14. He stated that the
language proposed in lines 1-5 of Amendment 4 constitutes a
technical conforming change requested by Legislative Legal and
Research Services. He explained that Version J had erroneously
referred to "identification card" in the statutes addressing
driver's licenses; in Version U the mention of "identification
card" was moved from Title 28 to Title 18, but some of the
necessary accompanying language was omitted. Amendment 4 would
add that language back into Version U, [page 3, line 6,
following "fee".]
7:56:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 30-
GH1781\U.4, Martin, 4/10/17]. There being no objection,
Amendment 4 was adopted.
7:57:34 PM
MR. MAGDANZ referred to the proposed Amendment 1 [to Version U],
which read:
Page 3, line 29, following "sharing.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 6:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) The department shall take all steps
necessary to obtain from the entity an agreement that
the state need not convey, distribute, or communicate
social security numbers, in whole or in part, to
participate in the database, index, pointer system, or
other system.
(c) The department shall submit an annual report
on the results of the efforts required under (b) of
this section to the senate secretary and chief clerk
of the house of representatives on or before
January 31 of each year and notify the legislature
that the report is available."
Page 8, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 28.05.068(c) is repealed June 30,
2021."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 22:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 14 and 15"
Page 8, line 23:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 16"
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the amendment was drafted in response to
concerns about the sharing of Social Security numbers (SSNs)
with AAMVA. He relayed that subsection (b) would require DOA to
take all steps necessary to obtain from the entity, referenced
in Section 4, an agreement that the state need not convey,
distribute, or communicate SSNs, in whole or in part, to
participate in the database, index, pointer system, or other
system. He continued by saying that subsection (c) would
require DOA to provide the legislature an annual report every
year until 2021 of its progress toward meeting the goal [of an
agreement]. By 2021, REAL ID would be fully implemented; if by
2021 Alaska has not been successful in convincing AAMVA that
Alaska does not need to share SSNs, subsection (c) would be
repealed in order that Alaska not continue to submit the annual
reports.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his understanding that DOA already
shared Alaska SSNs in January 2017. He stated that he didn't
understand how the system works - if there is or is not a
database. He offered his understanding that there is an
exchange of information between states. He said that he
appreciates the proposed amendment because the Social Security
Administration (SSA) has recommended that SSNs not be used for
this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if Amendment 1 has been reviewed by
DOA, meets with its approval, and does not interfere with the
intent of the proposed legislation.
8:00:13 PM
MR. STANKER expressed his concern that language in the proposed
amendment could create unintended consequences in the future.
He said his understanding is that the intent of the language is
to direct DMV to use its best efforts to try and change its
reporting of SSNs; however, if unsuccessful at effectuating the
change, then the reporting would still occur. He maintained if
that is the intent, there may be no reason for concern; if not
the intent, there may be future consequences.
8:02:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP questioned why Alaska would be willing to
provide SSNs, considering it is not a mandate of the REAL ID Act
but of AAMVA.
MR. STANKER replied that the REAL ID Act specifies certain
minimum information, such as name and address. He said that 6
CFR 37.33 is the [federal] regulation that requires DMV to
maintain the state database, and the state database requires the
SSN. He maintained that prior to REAL ID, DMV was still
required to retain the SSN. The Federal Child Support
[Enforcement] Program (FCSEP), in which Alaska participates,
requires the reporting of the SSN to obtain a driver's license,
if the individual has an SSN. He reiterated that SSNs are
required for the DMV database regardless of the state's
compliance with REAL ID.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that the reason SSNs are included
in the DMV database is to enable FCSEP to track employment to
garnish wages. He asked if DMV "holds" the database for FCSEP.
MR. STANKER replied yes, currently DMV is required to capture
the SSN of an applicant for a driver's license and make that
information available to FCSEP. He maintained that the
requirement to report SSNs is not limited to driver's licenses,
but many professional licenses require SSNs through those same
FCSEP laws, such as a license to practice law.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed his concern that Alaska must allow
other states access to information in DMV's database. He asked
what other data other states can access and if Alaska can build
a "firewall" allowing access to only certain data. He asked for
the Alaska statute that requires DMV to hold information for
FCSEP, and "what statutes it is for the ... Social Security and
occupational licenses for child support?"
MR. STANKER replied that he would provide that information.
8:06:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 30-
GH1781\U.1, Martin, 4/10/17]. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:07:19 PM
MR. MAGDANZ referred to the proposed Amendment 2 [to Version U],
which read:
Page 3, line 29, following "sharing.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 6:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) The department shall take all steps
available to work with other states, the United States
Department of Homeland Security, and any multistate
entities in which the state participates to secure a
means of compliance with P.L. 109-13, Division B (REAL
ID Act of 2005), including through an interstate
compact, that does not involve the storage or sharing
of social security numbers, in whole or in part, with
an interstate database, index, pointer system, or
other system.
(c) The department shall submit an annual report
on the results of the efforts required under (b) of
this section to the senate secretary and chief clerk
of the house of representatives by January 31 of each
year and notify the legislature that the report is
available."
Page 8, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 14. AS 28.05.068(c) is repealed June 30,
2021."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 22:
Delete "Sections 13 and 14"
Insert "Sections 14 and 15"
Page 8, line 23:
Delete "sec. 15"
Insert "sec. 16"
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that Amendment 2 would address similar
issues as Amendment 1. The difference between the two is that
Amendment 1 contemplates the interstate system - State to State
(S2S) - currently being piloted by AAMVA, whereas Amendment 2
addresses a larger system and requests DOA to take all steps to
work with other states, DHS, and any multistate entities in
which the state participates to secure a means of compliance
with the REAL ID Act that does not involve the storage or
sharing of SSNs with an interstate database, index, pointer
system, or other system. He maintained that the Amendment 2 has
the same reporting requirement and the same repeal of the
reporting requirement as does Amendment 1.
8:08:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the annual report, referenced in
Amendment 1 and the proposed Amendment 2, would be audited
annually.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that the report would be
delivered to the legislature and would be like statutorily
mandated progress reports from other agencies.
8:09:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "What does this do to the fiscal
note?"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for comments from DOA and DOL on the
proposed Amendment 2.
MR. STANKER stated that the proposed Amendment 2 is like
Amendment 1 in purpose; therefore, his previous comment applies.
If the intent is for DMV to use its best efforts to change the
requirement for reporting SSNs but failing to do so results in
no subsequent consequence for REAL ID compliance, then there
would be no reason for concern; but if the intent is to hamper
REAL ID compliance, then DMV failing to change the SSN sharing
requirement would result in the amendment being problematic.
8:10:47 PM
LESLIE RIDLE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), asked for confirmation that the committee would adopt
either Amendment 1 or Amendment 2, but not both.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS replied no, it's both.
MS. RIDLE maintained that both amendments are to the same lines
of Version U.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that Legislative Legal and Research Services
relayed that both amendments could be adopted, and the chair
could make a statement directing Legislative Legal and Research
Services to make technical and conforming changes to the final
version of the CS.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS confirmed that is what he would do, if the
committee decides to adopt both amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked, "How does that work?" He asked if
on page 4, line 6, there will be two subsections labeled (b) and
two subsections labeled (c). He asserted that two identical
paragraph descriptors would not make sense.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that if both amendments are adopted, asking
for "conforming technical changes" would allow Legislative Legal
and Research Services to rename the subsections; the additional
subsection would become subsection (d) in the final version.
8:12:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that if the proposed Amendment 2 is
moved for adoption, he will object. He maintained that
Amendment 1 is sufficient, and legislators do not need any more
annual reports for "the recycle bin." He asserted that DOA does
not need this report and it would not benefit legislators.
8:13:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the major difference between the
two amendments is that Amendment 1 addresses entities like AAMVA
and Amendment 2 addresses entities like DHS. He maintained that
AAMVA is the entity to which Alaska would prefer not to share
SSNs.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS relayed that Amendment 1 addresses the
possibility of Alaska leveraging its position on the AAMVA
governance board to reform the S2S system so that it would
change its requirement for the last five digits of the SSN. He
said that Amendment 2 addresses the fact that S2S is the only
system that complies with the REAL ID Act. Amendment 2 suggests
that Alaska join with other states to express interest in
another system were it to exist. If the number of states
expressing that interest reaches a critical mass, then all those
states together could advocate for another system requiring less
private data or information.
8:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the perspective of the Identity
Project on this issue, other ideas on an alternate system, and
how states might form a compact on this issue.
8:16:56 PM
EDWARD HASBROUCK, Identity Project, relayed that AAMVA, the S2S
system, and the State Pointer Exchange Services (SPEXS) database
have been kept largely and deliberately out of the debate as it
has occurred in state legislatures. He stated that DHS
continues to say very publicly and prominently that the REAL ID
Act is not creating a national database; yet, he maintained that
it is - in the form of the SPEXS database. He asserted that
when DHS denies that there is a national database, it becomes
difficult for legislators to scrutinize the nature of the SPEXS
database. He relayed that to the extent there has been
discussions within other state legislatures, his sense is that
there is much skepticism and justifiable concern about what
control the state will continue to exercise over the data once
it is in the hands of a private third party; there is no
guarantee that Alaska would even be aware of the FBI requesting
the data. He asserted that there is concern in other states
regarding the loss of control that this scenario entails.
MR. HASBROUCK, in response to the question about other options
for a database system, reminded the committee of how difficult,
costly, and slow the process [of creating the S2S database] has
been. When the REAL ID Act was enacted, the expectation was
that the system would be implemented in all states by 2008 -
within three years. He stated that it took ten years - until
2015 - before the first state and the pilot program for S2S came
online. Even now only about 15 percent of the country's
residents are in the database, and it will be several more years
until the rest of the residents are online. He asserted that
the database system has already taken ten years longer than
initially anticipated; anyone attempting to create an
alternative system would need to commit a great deal of money to
the effort and it would take a long time. He maintained that
setting up a national database system is a major undertaking.
MR. HASBROUCK declared that if Alaska does not like the current
database system, the realistic pathway is not to agree to
comply; there is no realistic expectation that either AAMVA will
change, given the time and expense already invested, or a third
party would be able to invest the amount of money that DHS has
invested in the system. He maintained that the total budget for
the project is not readily known because the funding has been
fragmented into block grants to states, then reassembled by
AAMVA and paid to Clerus Solutions - the revolving door
contractor founded by former AAMVA executives - to operate the
system. He reiterated that the Identity Project does not know
the total budget, but the funds are from DHS money and DHS has
no reason or desire to fund an alternate system giving it less
access to the data.
8:20:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK declared that he supports Amendment 2, and
the report required by the amendment could be added to the
report required under Amendment 1. He reiterated that if
Amendment 2 is adopted, the subsections would be "re-lettered"
accordingly.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 30-
GH1781\U.2, Martin, 4/10/17].
8:21:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for the purpose of discussion.
She asked to know when legislators would be advised of the
additional fiscal cost under Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. She
asked if there will be a revised fiscal note with the proposed
legislation for the next committee of referral.
MS. RIDLE opined that there would not be much cost to
implementing the amendments; the DOA would be asked to make
efforts to change the data system [requirements] and prepare a
report to the legislature. She mentioned that she did not
expect the report to expend many resources, but she maintained
that if the committee moves Version U, with Amendment 1 and
Amendment 2, out of committee, DOA would include a new fiscal
note for the House Finance Standing Committee, if necessary.
8:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if Amendment 2 would constitute a
one-time effort or a continuing effort to create a compact with
other states.
MS. RIDLE answered that she views the effort under Amendment 2
to be a continuing effort and would involve working with the
AAMVA governance board to change the system.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that the AAMVA governance board
is not the entity with which to work for changing or replacing
the database system through a compact with other states.
8:24:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the scenario in which two people
had the same name and date of birth; the last five digits of
their SSNs would differentiate the two people. He asked what
could be used if not the SSN for that verification.
MS. RIDLE offered that the verification would most likely
involve a review of other identifying data over the phone with
another state, and it would most likely slow the process.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that other identifying data could
include city of birth, mother's maiden name, and other
identifying factors which could be verified without access to
the other state's database.
MS. RIDLE replied yes, they would be factors that could be
discussed in a phone call.
8:26:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 2. There being no further objection, it was so
ordered.
8:26:52 PM
MR. MAGDANZ referred to the proposed Amendment 3 [to Version U],
which read:
Page 3, line 1, following "not":
Insert ", without the consent of the applicant,"
Page 4, line 18, following "not":
Insert ", without the consent of the applicant,"
MR. MAGDANZ relayed that Amendment 3 was drafted in response to
concerns from DOA and possibly the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). He explained that Version U requires that for
noncompliant ID cards and driver's licenses, DOA may not copy,
scan, or retain in any form a document other than an
application. He relayed that under Version U, if an Alaska
resident visited his/her DMV and requested a noncompliant ID
card or driver's license, DMV would verify his/her identity
using the documents offered but would not be permitted to retain
the documents in any form. He stated that DOA personnel
indicated that it does retain copies of source documents, and
Alaskans find that practice valuable in the event their
documents are destroyed or lost. He maintained that Amendment 3
would allow DMV to continue storing source documents upon
consent of the applicant.
8:28:57 PM
DAN LOWDEN, Captain, Deputy Commander, Division of Alaska State
Troopers (AST), Department of Public Safety (DPS), opined that
Amendment 3 would not offer DPS sufficient ability to reconcile
records or verify identity if consent is required [for document
retention]; some records would be retained, and some would not.
He maintained that the Criminal Records and Identification (R&I)
Bureau [DPS] often must merge records when a person has more
than one record or differentiate similar records. He said that
if DPS has partial records, it would not be able to achieve that
goal.
8:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the scenarios of someone's house
burning down or someone losing his/her license. He maintained
that when he lost his license, it was easy to get a duplicate
from DMV. He asked if in the case of someone losing his/her
license who had not consented to have his/her documents
retained, DMV would have retained a record of the license but
not the affiliated documents.
MS. RIDLE replied correct and explained that DMV would not have
the records on hand to issue a duplicate license. The person
would have to reapply for a driver's license and again bring in
the documents for identification.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that he lost his license years ago
and was able to obtain a new license. He asked if that was
possible because DMV stored his supporting documents, because he
submitted documentation to DMV for the new license, or because
it happened so long ago.
MS. RIDLE replied that it was possible because DMV stored his
documents: personnel were able to look up his identifying
records, possibly ask him some questions, and look at his
picture on record.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL summarized that under Amendment 3, if
someone not consenting to the retention of his/her records at
DMV loses his/her license, he/she must submit the source
documents for a duplicate driver's license. If that person
loses all his/her documents, such as in a fire, he/she could
have a real problem replacing the driver's license.
MS. RIDLE said, "You're correct." She added that DMV also could
not offer online renewal.
8:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if birth certificates have always
been required.
MS. THOMPSON responded that DMV has always checked birth
certificates but just recently has been taking copies due to the
existence of scanners. She maintained that people are not
always truthful about their intentions; they may be attempting
to steal someone's identity; and the DMV's goal is to retain the
information to make it as easy as possible for the customers.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained that she got her driver's
license when she moved to Alaska in 1978 or 1979; she did not
believe she had a birth certificate at the time but showed her
driver's license from another state to obtain a license. She
asked if she would have needed a birth certificate to replace
her driver's license.
MS. THOMPSON explained that it would depend on the situation and
the documents that a person offered. She conceded that DMV does
not have copies of birth certificates yet for many people
because it didn't have the ability to make copies; therefore,
people applying for REAL IDs would need to bring in their birth
certificates.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if currently a person would be able
to get a duplicate license from DMV, if DMV did not have the
person's birth certificate and he/she lost his/her license.
MS. THOMPSON agreed that currently the person could do that,
because Alaska is not compliant.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX mentioned that she understood Ms. Thompson
to tell Representative Wool that a person would need to bring in
his/her birth certificate to obtain a duplicate record, if the
birth certificate was not on file; she suggested that Ms.
Thompson may have been referring to what would be required if
Alaska were compliant with REAL ID.
MS. THOMPSON reiterated that it depended on the situation; there
may be a birth certificate on file for someone who obtained
his/her license in the past ten years. She said that currently,
while Alaska is still noncompliant, DMV would ask for other ID
and many questions to validate identity.
8:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the scenario of losing one's
documents in a house fire and asked if DMV could issue a
duplicate ID using only an image. He asked how duplicate IDs or
driver's licenses are currently issued for someone with no
supporting documents.
MS. THOMPSON answered that it would depend on the documents the
person offered originally. Regarding the family whose house
just recently burned, if they had obtained their driver's
licenses from Alaska DMV and had submitted ID to obtain them,
DMV personnel would be able to view their pictures on file and
validate the other information according to what is on file.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether a person could get a copy of
his/her birth certificate from DMV after his/her identity has
been verified.
MS. THOMPSON opined that the DMV most likely would not do that,
and the birth certificate would be a copy and not be certified.
8:38:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired whether retaining documents from
some applicants but not others would create an administrative
"nightmare" for DMV.
MS. RIDLE responded yes.
8:39:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 30-
GH1781\U.3, Martin, 4/10/17].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected. She reiterated that Amendment 3
would cause an administrative nightmare for DMV. She asserted
that it is not DOA's obligation to retain copies of documents.
If a person is worried about losing his/her documents in a fire,
he/she should store them in a bank vault.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL clarified that without the adoption of
Amendment 3, anyone who obtains a noncompliant ID will not have
his/her records retained by DMV; anyone who obtains a compliant
ID will have his/her records stored; and it is that disparity
and duality which would be troublesome.
MS. RIDLE answered that the difficulty arises any time DOA has
procedures that are not uniform, and personnel must explain
different options. She maintained that explaining compliant and
noncompliant IDs will be easy because of all the written
materials that will be provided; however, adding a third option
- the retention of documents - increases the complication.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asserted that the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Alaska supported the original version of HB 74,
because people who want noncompliant driver's licenses do not
want their data to be exchanged in any way. He stated that he
did not support Amendment 3.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Knopp, and
Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives
Tuck, Wool, LeDoux, and Birch voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4.
8:43:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.
She referred to page 6, lines 14-15, of Version U and explained
that Conceptual Amendment 1 would delete "may" on line 14 and
insert "shall" and delete "one year" on line 15 and insert
"eight years".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. MAGDANZ recommended that a conceptual amendment also be
introduced to amend the language on page 3, lines 10-11, which
addresses identification cards and mirrors the language that
would be amended by Conceptual Amendment 1.
MR. STANKER prefaced his remarks by saying that he is not an
immigration attorney and immigration law is a complex and
technical body of law. He stated that there are a few
"indefinite" immigration statuses: a student visa is an
indefinite status; people seeking asylum have an indefinite
status; and permanent residents obtaining green cards at some
point in the 1980s and before, whose green cards did not expire.
He pointed out that by requiring DMV to issue all people with
indefinite status an eight-year license, it may issue one to
someone requesting asylum whose request is rejected in 60 days
and then must leave the country.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how a DMV employee would be able to
determine whether an immigration status is indefinite forever or
indefinite for 60 days.
MR. STANKER replied that in reviewing AS 28.15.101(d), he
discovered that during the hearing on House Bill 1 during the
Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature, 2013-1014, there was
significant committee discussion on that very point. Ultimately
the language was written such that DMV would issue regulations
to provide additional specificity; however, it was determined
that for most immigration documents, DMV would be able to
determine the duration of the stay. He stated House Bill 1
provided for the license to be issued for one year for someone
with an indefinite stay. He recommended incorporating
flexibility in the sentence on page 6, lines 14-15, allowing DMV
to issue a license for up to eight years, which may better
accomplish the intent of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
8:48:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
She explained that Conceptual Amendment 2 would delete "may" on
page 6, line 14, of Version U, and insert "shall" and delete
"one year" on page 6, line 15, and insert "up to eight years".
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered that he believes that the proposed
amendment addresses his concern and would give DOA flexibility
to use its discretion in making determinations regarding the
issuance of driver's licenses.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. He
stated that he agreed with Representative Birch's assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that page 3, line 11, be amended
as well.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what the duration of a license would
be for someone with a student visa.
MR. STANKER offered that a student visa is in effect while the
holder is a student. A school has an immigration liaison office
to ensure that the proper documentation is submitted to federal
authorities for the individual to remain in lawful status in the
U.S. He expressed his belief that the language in the proposed
amendment would give DMV the flexibility to issue a license for
up to eight years; and DMV regulations can provide further
guidance explaining the appropriate duration of the license for
each of the immigration status categories.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3.
She explained that Conceptual Amendment 3 would delete "may
issue the identification card with a validity of one year", page
3, line 11, of Version U, and insert "shall issue the
identification card with a validity of up to eight years".
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that under Version U, Section 3,
subsection (o) would be a new subsection; he asked whether
currently immigrants are able to get ID cards.
MR. MAGDANZ replied that the state was issuing ID cards with
shorter terms, and the proposed legislation would create a
"cleaner" process.
MR. STANKER responded that under AS 18.65.310, there is no
expiration date provided for ID cards; however, the statute
states that ID cards shall be like driver's licenses but without
driving privileges. He mentioned that in Title 28, driver's
licenses and ID cards are used interchangeably. He explained
that a previous draft of AS 28.15.101(d) had been amended to
read "driver's license or identification card"; however, after
discussion with Legislative Legal and Research Services, it was
decided to take the language from AS 28.15.101(d) regarding the
duration for driver's licenses and insert it into AS 18.65.310,
applying only to ID cards.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that the language in Section 3 of
Version U aligns statutes regarding ID cards with statutes
regarding driver's licenses. He suggested that in the past,
because ID cards were issued like driver's licenses, driver's
license statutes were applied to the issuance of ID cards.
MR. STANKER responded that ID cards are issued by DMV, and
Version U does "clean it up."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3.
8:56:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for the purpose of discussion. He
asked if the requirements for issuing ID cards under [Title] 18
includes DMV and any other state issued card.
MR. STANKER answered that Title 18, Chapter 65, addresses state
ID cards and specifies that DOA will administer them; the DMV,
which is within DOA, performs the work [of ID card issuance].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there are state ID cards issued
outside of DMV.
MR. STANKER replied that he is aware only of ID cards issued
under AS 18.65 by DMV; he stated he is not aware of any other
cards the state issues or whether employee cards or prisoner
cards constitute ID cards.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that his question addresses whether
the addition of Section 3, subsection (o) would require all ID
cards issued by the state be REAL ID compliant.
MR. STANKER answered no. What is being discussed under Version
U are only the ID cards issued under AS 18.65; any other cards
issued by the state are not issued under that Title and Chapter.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the legislative IDs fall under
[Title] 18.
MR. STANKER replied that he is not familiar with the legislative
ID, but the IDs issued under AS 18.65, are issued by DMV.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 3 was adopted.
9:00:53 PM
MR. HASBROUCK testified in response to a question posed during
the 4/8/17 committee meeting, which was whether a person is or
will be required to show ID for airplane travel. He asserted
that it is the threat of not being allowed to fly that is
driving the potential adoption of HB 74. He relayed that
currently there is no federal law or regulation that requires an
ID for airplane travel; he added that DHS has not been able to
identify such a law or regulation. He stated that the REAL ID
Act sets standards for the types of ID that are acceptable if an
ID is required, but it does not itself require an ID for
anything. He stated that the requirement for an ID to access a
military base is up to DoD, and the requirement for an ID to fly
is the prerogative of the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). He maintained that TSA has not been able to point to any
such regulation.
MR. HASBROUCK relayed that the clearest statement of the
requirement for an ID to travel by airplane was the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth
Circuit") in Gilmore v. Gonzales - a case brought forth by John
Gilmore, who founded the Identity Project. He stated that in
that case, the Ninth Circuit judges were able to review "in
camera" the "secret" security directives instructing TSA
operatives. After reviewing those documents in camera, the
Ninth Circuit concluded and publicly ruled that the ID policy
then in effect - which was after the REAL ID Act had been
adopted - allowed people either to show an ID or to submit to a
more intrusive search before getting on an airplane.
MR. HASBROUCK maintained that no legislation has been introduced
since [the Ninth Circuit] ruling to change this; no notice of
proposed rule-making has been promulgated by DHS or TSA to
change this. He declared that any statement about whether
people would be prevented from getting on airplanes would be
speculation: speculation about some as yet unintroduced
legislation that Congress is not even talking about; speculation
about some future regulations that have not even been proposed;
or speculation about what would be a completely arbitrary act by
DHS - an act clearly vulnerable to legal challenge - not only to
deny people the right to travel but to arbitrarily single out
citizens of some states, such as Alaska, in preference to
citizens of other states by interfering with the right [of
Alaskans] to travel. He maintained that would be vulnerable to
a host of justifiable legal challenges on equal protection
grounds that Alaskans are entitled to the same rights as the
residents of any other state.
9:04:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned the Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA) performed on the SPEXS program, which was posted on the
Identity Project website.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for committee comments on the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined that Version U is not ready to be
moved out of committee. He questioned whether all the issues in
the 4/5/17 letter from DOA, included in the committee packet,
were addressed. He stated that committee members were not able
to ask their questions regarding the valuable information
presented by Mr. Hasbrouck. He maintained that there are more
questions that have not been answered. He expressed his belief
that the process is not good, and the proposed legislation needs
more time.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that the proposed legislation is not
perfect, but there has been ample testimony and discussion on
the "pluses" and "minuses" of REAL ID. He expressed his belief
that the committee made a good faith effort in drafting the
proposed legislation; the administration advanced a proposal
allowing residents the option of either a compliant ID or
noncompliant ID; and the legislature has asked the Congressional
delegation for an exemption for several years with no success.
He stated that he is encouraged by the dialogue and energy of
the committee and his desire is that the proposed legislation
move out of committee.
9:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that the proposed legislation still
has issues even after a great deal of debate. He expressed his
disappointment in not being given the opportunity to offer his
amendment and to ask all the questions he needed to ask. He
opined that more time was needed for additional conversation and
needed fixes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that she agrees with the concerns
expressed by the other committee members. She opined that the
concerns were not "belaboring an issue" but are legitimate
concerns. She maintained that the proposed legislation involves
Alaska's participation in a new, big database - bigger than
anything seen in the history of the U.S.; all states are
contributing to it; and she is uncomfortable with her facial
image and SSN shipped out to an out-of-state location. She
claimed that the database is a national database and is the
"golden egg" that any hacker would want to access to penetrate
the security of the U.S. and banking information. She
maintained that hackers would be concentrating their efforts on
this database. She asserted that she would like some assurance
that the data is secure, and she claimed she has not received
that. She lamented that not taking the extra time to address
the questions is disappointing. She opined that the debate and
information are being limited. She stated that she will vote
"no" for many reasons, but particularly because she believes the
process was not properly followed.
9:13:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that there are issues with the
proposed legislation: some that could be addressed, some that
could never be addressed, and some that constitute fundamental
problems for some committee members regardless of changes to the
proposed legislation. He expressed his belief that the chair
did entertain opposing views and invited testimony from
different organizations, including not only state agencies but
other groups with very opinionated positions. He maintained
that the committee chair amended the proposed legislation to
accommodate "a lot of people" - possibly to the chagrin of the
administration. He mentioned that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee moved [HJR 15] from committee [on 3/28/17]
opposing the REAL ID Act of 2005. [HJR 15 passed in the Alaska
House of Representatives on 4/16/17.] He relayed that
amendments were added to prevent certain data transmissions. He
conceded that the public "has data out there everywhere" - Home
Depot, Bank of America, SSA, DHS - and he wants data security as
much as anyone. He maintained that testimony indicated that
what would result is not one big central database but an
exchange of verification pointers. He asserted that if a person
does not want to obtain a REAL ID driver's license or ID, he/she
can opt out and get a passport to travel.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that even though legally and
technically one may not need an ID for airplane travel, for all
practical purposes, one does. He stated that if no one traveled
with an ID, it would be a real problem for the "system" and may
result in a federal law mandating an ID for airplane travel. He
reminded the committee that the REAL ID Act originated with [the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001] and the fact that the
attackers had fake driver's licenses, which has not been
mentioned in the committee hearings. He maintained that the
attackers obtained these driver's licenses quite easily;
obtaining a fake driver's license used to be easy to do. He
opined that the motivation for the Act, at the end of the day,
is security.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that Representatives Knopp and
Tuck should be given the opportunity to introduce their
conceptual amendments and that discussion and testimony continue
as needed.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP declined to offer a conceptual amendment.
9:18:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the PIA performed by Clerus
Solutions and stated that the Mississippi Department of Public
Safety (DPS) has included the requirement of a PIA in its
contract with AAMVA. He suggested that Alaska include such a
requirement in its contract with AAMVA. He referred to a Clerus
Solutions document [document not provided] which refers to the
E-Government Act of 2002 mandating a PIA on any substantially
revised or new information system. He maintained that DOJ, not
AAMVA, requires that the PIA be disclosed. He said that because
the PIA is a disclosed document, he recommends it be performed
on a regular basis. He suggested that Legislative Legal and
Research Services draft an amendment to mimic the language in
Mississippi's contract with AAMVA.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that "followers want expediency." He
maintained that through the proposed legislation, Alaska would
be following, not a mandate of the federal government, but a
requirement of a group of former AAMVA employees, who set up a
system for which they receive sole source contracts from the
federal government, as stated in the PIA. He said that Jay
Maxwell is the founder of Clerus Solutions; served as technical
advisor to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee staff while the
REAL ID Act was being drafted; and currently has a sole source
contract through AAMVA to manage the program. Representative
Tuck said that having no competition "is probably the reason why
he took ten years, but it would be interesting to see how much
money."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated, "I think this is a shakedown, simply
put, on the American people, and I do not like the way this is
going on. I don't like that our attorney general is not
fighting this; our attorney general is rather rolling over and
having DOA roll along with ... this." He opined that the threat
of not being able to travel by air is a scare tactic, and it has
been proven false. He opined that the threat of not being able
to access base is also a scare tactic, because it is obvious
that a person can access base. He claimed that "this is nothing
more than this organization trying to funnel all this money to
themselves and we're getting shaken down to do that; and we're
getting shaken down from the administration; and we're getting
shaken down from the federal government; and we're getting
shaken down from this Homeland Security."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained that [participating in REAL ID]
introduces many privacy issues. He said that the Tenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited [by] it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the public. He asserted that the handling
of driver's licenses and ID cards has always been Alaska's
[prerogative]. He stated, "If you want to circumvent checks and
balances, if you want to take care of your buddies by passing a
bill in Congress that then gives all that authority and they can
willy-nilly change things as they want to, and there is nothing
that the states can do about it once a bill like this is passed;
... and you hang out long enough, you wait 12 years, so it just
brews and festers; and then finally when you get your SPEXS up
and you get your database up, and everything else, then you can
go ahead and put the clamp down on states." He said, "That's
basically how I see this is going on. I'm a little bit
disgusted by it, and I'm not happy with it, and I think it's ...
almost a threat - if you do not follow these lines, then you
will not go to work, and you will not fly - and I think that's a
false threat."
9:23:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report the proposed CS for HB 74,
Version 30-GH1781\U, Martin, 4/10/17, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Birch, Wool,
LeDoux, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB 74, as
amended, out of committee. Representatives Johnson and Tuck
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB74(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|