Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/2000 01:15 PM House JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 13, 2000 1:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Joe Green Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Jeannette James Representative Lisa Murkowski Representative Eric Croft Representative Beth Kerttula MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 273 "An Act relating to the disclosure of subscriber information by Internet service providers." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 311 "An Act eliminating a requirement that a social security number be provided by an applicant for a hunting or sport fishing license or tag." - MOVED CSHB 311(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 425 "An Act relating to misrepresentation and false claims made against the state or a municipality; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for inflation proofing, and to require a vote of the people before changing the statutory formula for distribution that existed on January 1, 2000. - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 273 SHORT TITLE: INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/10/00 1891 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/00 1/10/00 1891 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/10/00 1891 (H) L&C, JUD 3/24/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 3/24/00 (H) Moved CSHB 273(L&C) Out of Committee 3/24/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 3/27/00 2709 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 4NR 3/27/00 2709 (H) DP: MURKOWSKI, CISSNA; NR: HARRIS, 3/27/00 2709 (H) BRICE, HALCRO, ROKEBERG 3/27/00 2709 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 3/27/00 2710 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 3/27/00 2717 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 4/13/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 311 SHORT TITLE: NO SOC SEC. NUMBER REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/24/00 1986 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/24/00 1986 (H) RES, JUD 1/26/00 2019 (H) COSPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT 4/10/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 4/10/00 (H) Moved Out of Committee 4/10/00 (H) MINUTE(RES) 4/10/00 2980 (H) RES RPT 1DP 6NR 4/10/00 2980 (H) DP: COWDERY; NR: BARNES, MORGAN, 4/10/00 2980 (H) HARRIS, WHITAKER, KAPSNER, MASEK 4/10/00 2980 (H) FISCAL NOTE (REV) 4/13/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 425 SHORT TITLE: FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR MUNI. Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/28/00 2334 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 2/28/00 2335 (H) CRA, JUD, FIN 2/28/00 2335 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 2/28/00 2335 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 2/28/00 2335 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 3/07/00 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 3/07/00 (H) Moved CSHB 425(CRA) Out of Committee 3/07/00 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 3/15/00 2493 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 1DP 5NR 3/15/00 2493 (H) DP: KOOKESH; NR: DYSON, HALCRO, HARRIS, 3/15/00 2493 (H) MORGAN, JOULE 3/15/00 2493 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 2/28/00 3/15/00 2493 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 2/28/00 4/05/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/05/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 4/13/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HJR 49 SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: PERM FUND INCOME DISTRIBUTION Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/31/00 2044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/31/00 2044 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 2/02/00 2075 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 2/11/00 2188 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MASEK 2/21/00 2259 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT 4/04/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/04/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 4/06/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/06/00 (H) Moved CSHJR 49(STA) Out of Committee 4/06/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/07/00 2913 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 1DP 4DNP 2NR 4/07/00 2913 (H) DP: OGAN; DNP: JAMES, SMALLEY, KERTTULA 4/07/00 2913 (H) HUDSON; NR: GREEN, WHITAKER 4/07/00 2913 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 4/07/00 2913 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY 4/13/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER DAVID J. PORTE, Vice President & General Manager Internet Services, GCI 2550 Denali Street, Suite 1000 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2781 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 273, Version K; supports maintaining confidentiality of consumers' private information but has concerns regarding the mechanisms; suggested deleting subparagraph (g)(7)(B). PETER GOLL (No address provided) Haines, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 273, Version K; suggested tightening the scope of what can be released and giving special attention to the rights of administrative agencies in accessing information without the same restrictions that apply to personal, private, privileged information. JOHN BARNHARDT GCI 2550 Denali Street, Suite 1000 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2781 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 273, Version K; answered questions and agreed no information should be divulged without a customer's consent. PETER TORKELSON, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 104 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to cosponsor of HB 273, asked question of Mr. Barnhardt (GCI) with regard to "spidering." REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR. Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 416 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 311. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 432 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as cosponsor of HB 311 and as sponsor of HJR 49. AL WEATHERS (Address not provided) Cordova, Alaska 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311. ERIC WEATHERS, JR., Commercial Fisherman (Address not provided) Cordova, Alaska 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311; requested that commercial fishing permits and drivers' licenses be added. DENNY KAY WEATHERS (Address not provided) Cordova, Alaska 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311; requested that it be amended to include non-commercial drivers' licenses, commercial fishing permits, and crew licenses. MARK CHRYSON, Chairman Alaskan Independence Party 2140 Wolverine Circle Wasilla, Alaska 99654 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311; suggested that passage of HB 273 will also require passage of HB 311. JAMES GARHART 2480 Green Forest Drive Wasilla, Alaska 99654 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director Central Office Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311. RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Jr. Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 416 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311 on behalf of the sponsor. JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General Governmental Affairs Section Civil Division (Juneau) Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 425 and a proposed amendment. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-59, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Croft and Kerttula. Representatives Murkowski, Green and James arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 273 - INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to the disclosure of subscriber information by Internet service providers." [Before the committee was CSHB 273(L&C). However, there was a draft committee substitute (CS), Version K, dated 4/11/00.] Number 0090 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, speaking as the sponsor of HB 273, noted that Bill McCauley, Acting Manager, Data Processing, Legislative Affairs Agency, was at the hearing to answer technical questions. Acknowledging that she isn't a computer expert, Representative Kerttula explained that the bill was born out of concern from constituents about the privacy of their information. Drafted "under our right to privacy" to be able to protect people, the bill essentially does four things. First, it adds disclosure of subscribers' information by an Internet service provider (ISP) to the list of unlawful practices under the consumer protection laws. Second, it prohibits ISPs from disclosing a subscriber's personal information except in certain situations - such as those involving law enforcement, Internet hacker attacks or internal network maintenance - unless the subscriber gives consent; Representative Kerttula emphasized that it is an opt-in situation. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that third, the bill will require ISPs to notify subscribers about what subscriber information would be disclosed, and how. She commended Representative Dyson's office for their work on this legislation, pointing out that one of Representative Dyson's bills had been rolled into HB 273 in the House Labor & Commerce Standing Committee; therefore, the bill now is both hers and Representative Dyson's. Finally, the bill provides for penalties when an ISP discloses the subscriber's information if that subscriber has not opted in. Number 0246 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that there have been some changes made in the bill since it came out of the House Labor & Commerce Standing Committee. She explained: We've tried to be responsive to some of the Internet service providers' concerns, in terms of allowing them to get information to protect on hackers. We've broadened the definition of ["affirmative] consent," the opt-in, so you can give it by Internet. We've also defined "subscriber information." And we've also heard information that might lead to an amendment, if the committee wants to consider it, about allowing billing information, in a delinquent account referred to a collection agency, to be allowed to be given out. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA concluded by saying this is a broad area and has been a learning experience for her. Concerns have been raised on both sides: by ISPs concerned about their ability to deal with their affiliates appropriately, and by those concerned that the bill may not go far enough in protecting people. Number 0385 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt as a work draft Version K [1-LS1156\K, Bannister, 4/11/00]. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0420 DAVID J. PORTE, Vice President & General Manager, Internet Services, GCI, testified via teleconference from an off-net site in Anchorage. He stated: We at GCI really support this effort to maintain the confidentiality of consumers' private information. ... Our concerns are not over the goal that this is trying to achieve. However, we just have a few concerns over the mechanisms, one which has been addressed with [Version] K, which we appreciate. However, there [are] a few other items that we have concerns about. One is that ... we understand that the legislature doesn't want to place a burden on Alaskan businesses that national providers can just ignore; and there's a good chance that the national Internet service providers will ignore this effort because ... it's a very difficult enforcement, on the back end, regarding the privacy of information. However, one concern that we do have is that ... if the notification provisions don't have (indisc.), the local Internet services providers like GCI or Internet Alaska or Chugach Electric would comply with these; however, the national Internet service providers would not because there is no penalty for [their] not complying with the notification procedures. So we urge the legislature to revisit this, and look and see ... if there should be penalties for ... non-notification. We feel that unless this provision does have monetary penalties associated with a lack of notification, ... the national providers ... could very easily ignore the law .... Number 0547 One of the other difficulties is that the Internet has a consumer product. A lot of the interaction in setting up an account takes place over the telephone. In the course of business, many wholesale ISPs or ISPs that are using the facilities of another carrier, such as using (indisc.) system to provide Internet ... across the other providers' facilities, you need to communicate - with that other company - the person's address and telephone number, so that the underlying service can be provisioned. It's very difficult to obtain a written consent from the individual to provision these services because they would have to visit your office. Likewise, it would be difficult to obtain ... electronic permission because many times they're just getting signed up for the Internet. We feel that with some minor changes in language, this could be taken care of very easily. Once again, this could be covered by either obtaining the customer's assent telephonically to share this information or with a change in the language defining "third party" .... Currently it says a definition of "third party" to mean a person who is not the ISP, an employee of the ISP or the subscriber. By adding that the ISP can share this information with a provider of business or (indisc.) services to the ISP, that would then allow an ISP to share the necessary information with that company to get that person service. Finally, we feel that the text in section (g)(7)(B), which defines a third party as "an entity that controls, is controlled by, or [is] under common control" with the ISP, ... should probably be deleted. The reason why is because ... it makes it difficult within the definition - not so much for GCI because GCI is a single company, but if strictly applied, we would not be able to tell the cable or entertainment departments of GCI the address of the customer that wants a cable modem to be provisioned for them without getting their written or electronic consent. And this would just delay the consumers' ability to get these services. Once again, we very much support the legislature protecting the privacy of the individual. However, that needs to be balanced against the ability for the companies to deliver service in a manner that people now running on "Internet time" are used to dealing with. And, really, the work we did with Representative Kerttula's office ... in some of the other areas were covered in [Version] K. Number 0793 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Porte to restate the section that he thought should be deleted. MR. PORTE specified that it is subparagraph (g)(7)(B) [page 4, lines 27-28], which defines a third party as an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the ISP. As an example, he said that many times the local exchange carrier, because of regulations, has to maintain certain assets in a different company; usually they maintain a common database. Under this provision, however, it would be difficult to maintain a common database of customers because there would be information shared across departmental lines. Number 0867 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked Mr. Porte for working with [her and Representative Dyson]. Referring to the last issue raised by him, she asked if he could provide an example of the kinds of information transmitted right now. For example, when she calls GCI and requests only Internet service, what happens at that point? Is information transmitted to other areas of the company or not? MR. PORTE answered: In most multi-service companies, we maintain a single customer billing system. So, when you sign up with GCI for Internet, you get a GCI bill, and that bill comes out of the same billing system as your local service or long distance. And so, there's only one database for your name, telephone number and address. ... GCI's just one company, so we're not really sharing it with another company because it's all one company. ... But in other cases, for example, ... we do our cable and entertainment billing out of a different system. So let's say you signed up for a cable modem. We would have to enter your name, telephone number and address in the cable billing system, because that's how we track the inventory of the cable modems, because that's tied to your ... cable subscriber ID [identification]. And then we would also add it ... into our integrated billing system, so we would bill your Internet on the integrated billing system. ... That's really the sharing that goes on, is that ... businesses are trying, more and more, to consolidate to single systems, especially integrated companies. And I can't speak for any of the other companies that are out there. Another example of it is that ... a wholesaler - someone who provides wholesale ... Internet access through GCI - enters the person's billing information on our system, because we allow them to bill through us, ... and as your bill allows for. With informed consent, and currently with either written or electronic consent, ... we can continue to do this without a problem. What I'm concerned about is that that would dilute the power of this bill because, basically, all the Internet service providers would have to have all their customers consent to all sharing of information. ... That would kind of defeat the purpose, I believe, behind this, in that you would want to be able to keep ... people's personal information from being sold to other companies or provided to marketing firms or just ... used without those people's consent for something other than the purpose of providing ... Internet access. Number 1119 PETER GOLL testified via teleconference from an off-net site in Haines. He noted that he had discussed this legislation before the House Labor & Commerce Standing Committee, testifying on behalf of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union and himself, as an interested business person who utilizes Internet commerce, as a citizen concerned with privacy, and as a former legislator and former chair of this very committee. MR. GOLL told members that he strongly supports the comments made by the previous witness. He believes it is in the common interest of all people to guarantee the privacy of Internet communication, whether it is Internet traffic to websites, e-mail or subscriber information that should not be disclosed to marketers without the subscriber's consent, for example. He said he is grateful that the legislature, in a bipartisan fashion, is supporting that concept. MR. GOLL offered specific recommendations and volunteered to work with the committee's staff or the sponsor to deal with the specific language. First, he recommended looking at disclosure of privileged information as a whole, with the goal of simplifying the language in the bill. For example, the issues defining a third party might best be treated as exceptions rather than by stating who third parties might be. The Division of Family & Youth Service, when there is an investigation of a child abuse case, is prohibited from disclosing information to anyone, he pointed out, but there are specific exceptions to that. Similarly, the use of "third party" on page 1, line 12, and in the definitions might be replaced by simply saying that "no disclosure may take place except under the following circumstances," with a list of those. In a sense, it is clerical, he said, but he believes it would be useful for the bill to begin by simply stating that the information defined as subscriber information is simply prohibited from disclosure. Number 1290 MR. GOLL next addressed the standards for disclosure. He referred to page 4, beginning at line 21, which defines "subscriber information" under paragraph (6). That language read: (B) does not include the subscriber's name, the subscriber's electronic mail address, and aggregated date that cannot be used to identify a subscriber; MR. GOLL said this is an important point: to him, it suggests that the subscriber's name and e-mail address may be disclosed to telemarketers the moment the person signs up with a given ISP. Some people have suggested to him that this information is available anyway. However, he does not believe that to be the case anymore than with a person's telephone number, which someone can request to have listed or unlisted. Keeping it in the control of the subscriber is very important, and it should not be an exception. Signing up with an ISP should not mean that the person's e-mail address is suddenly public domain. He respectfully suggested that the committee look at that issue. Number 1351 MR. GOLL drew attention to what he suggested are more important issues on page [3], noting that the language at the top half of the page describes circumstances [under which the network administrator or network contractor of the ISP is permitted to review the contents of the subscriber's e-mail or website traffic]. He proposed that the contents of e-mail should be included, as should be anything electronically noted or available due to one's activities on the Internet. All of this is privileged, private information, he emphasized, and should be treated with great care. MR. GOLL offered examples. If a person has an arrangement with a telephone company and makes telephone calls, those specific telephone numbers that have been called are not generally available; there are restrictions on government agencies and private entities with regard to accessing that information. Mr. Goll said he believes that those same restrictions should apply here. Likewise, if someone goes to a library and asks what a patron has been reading, the library will not disclose that; laws and court decisions protect one's privacy in that regard. Number 1430 MR. GOLL discussed further examples. If British Petroleum is engaging in Internet commerce, this bill, on line 9 [page 2], suggests that if a government agency is involved in some sort of inquiry for statistical purposes, that agency could demand or request from an ISP all of that oil company's correspondence - or, at least, Internet traffic - that has been used through that ISP. Likewise, if a legislator is engaged in research or communication on the Internet, Mr. Goll said this suggests to him that the Office of the Governor has 100 percent access to that legislator's Internet traffic with constituents, with government agencies and with any other private activity that occurs on the Internet, "violating not only your privacy as legislators but the privacy and integrity of communication to constituents." He explained: This is tremendously different from your letters or your phone calls. If the Department of Administration decides it wants to know whom you're writing to, they have to come and ask you. But here, it would suggest that they can simply invade your Internet records by making a request, under this bill, to your Internet service provider, and basically have access to everything you've been doing on the Internet .... MR. GOLL proposed that there should be a court order prior to an ISP giving personal information about a client, subject to both legal and clerical research. If there are circumstances where one wishes there to be less than a court order, such as when a crime has been committed and a police officer comes to one's home, the law and regulations provide legal protections all around. He suggested having that same standard provided to Internet commerce. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel," Mr. Goll added, noting that the same standard applies to library activity. What is needed is to determine that all of this information is privileged except upon an order of the court. And where information can be released without a court order, it should be very specifically stated. MR. GOLL specified that regarding criminal investigations, that language could be determined through existing laws dealing with criminal investigation and access to privileged correspondence like letters. Mr. Goll added, "When can a police officer read my mail, and when not? And that same standard should be applied here to your activities on the Internet." With regard to civil or administrative proceedings, he suggested taking a very stringent look at that, "because there you basically are saying 'any government agency that has a proceeding in place, whatever that means, has a right to invade ... the privacy of your Internet activity.'" He reiterated the suggestion that no information should be disclosed without a court order except under specific exceptions, to be developed along lines similar to those that exist for invading one's mail, library records or the privacy of one's personal life in general. Mr. Goll explained: Right now, I see too many loopholes in the language, and I think that if the legislature wishes ... to have privacy in Internet commerce and private communication, it needs to use the existing standards and not create language that implies that there is a lesser standard here just because it happens to be on that Internet, that ... that happens to be the utility that is being utilized. MR. GOLL suggested that omitting the name and e-mail address from the bill was an oversight. "Knowing you have a phone number is one thing," he said. "But requiring a phone company to divulge the phone number is another." He likened that to allowing an ISP to reveal a person's e-mail address to telemarketers; he said that is something over which he, as a subscriber, should have control. Number 1697 MR. GOLL concluded by saying the scope of what can be released should be tightened, and special attention should be given to the rights of administrative agencies in accessing this information without the same restrictions that apply to accessing one's personal, private, privileged information, whether it involves a person's doctor, correspondence, or discussions with one's legislator. Mr. Goll informed members that he has a lot of information on specific language issues that he could offer to the committee's staff. He emphasized the importance of acting promptly because everyone right now is subject to almost 100 percent invasion of the privacy of correspondence without some sort of protective statute in place. He again thanked members for taking a bipartisan approach. Number 1792 JOHN BARNHARDT, GCI, testified from an off-net site in Anchorage, noting that he was there in case Mr. Porte had had to leave prior to giving testimony. Mr. Barnhardt said he would reinforce what Mr. Porte had stated, and he commended legislators for taking up this necessary matter. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Barnhardt how the system works now regarding a person's name and address. MR. BARNHARDT responded: I would tend to agree with ... the previous speaker, as well, in that that information should certainly be ... a decision that the consumer can make as to whether they want to make that information publicly available or not. Currently - I can speak specifically for GCI - we don't divulge customer e-mail addresses or names to anyone outside of our company, for any reason whatsoever, ... unless we're subpoenaed by ... the legal authorities or anybody like that. But it is quite possible, given the way that the Internet works, for people to determine -- once you start to interact with public servers and services on the Internet, it gets much grayer in terms of people being able to determine your e-mail address, for example, without anybody explicitly giving it out. So while I think most Internet service providers would keep that type of information close to the vest and would not, in fact, divulge it on any type of publicly available forum, or ... divulge it, by request, to anybody who ... didn't have a subpoena for it, it is rather simple for external third parties to determine that information. ... Many of our customers have an e-mail address that ends in "gci.net," and then their particular user name is pre-appended to that portion of it. Some people will go through and just blanket-send e-mails to every three-letter combination of initials at gci.net. ... And they can accomplish some fairly effective bulk mailings or what we call "spamming" customers in this fashion because the computers that they use to generate the messages are capable of processing hundreds of thousands or millions of messages .... It's an easy task for them to accomplish. So there are ... some sort of work-arounds that make it difficult to always determine whether an e-mail address has been divulged by someone or whether it's just been determined out of luck or brute force on the Internet. ... I would tend to agree that it is appropriate to require that that information not be divulged in any manner by the Internet service provider, and, in fact, can't see ... any good reason to make that publicly available, certainly without the consent of the subscriber. Number 1942 [Julia Coster of the Department of Law informed the committee that she was online to answer questions.] REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested that Mr. Torkelson come forward to clarify a point. Number 1980 PETER TORKELSON, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, directed a question to [Mr. Barnhardt] of GCI in order to clarify the e-mail issue: Do you have external services "spidering" your server ... to build up ... their web search databases? And, if so, couldn't you ascertain someone's e-mail address just based on their website address? For instance, ... the way that your website is laid out is ... home.gci.net\tilde and then your user name, but that user name is really your e-mail address at gci.net. Is that something that you can control? Or is that just something that's done? Number 2006 MR. BARNHARDT responded: That's a good question. I can give you two answers to that. The first is, the actual address of a person's website - and, again, I should make it clear that what I'm talking about here is the very specific way that we've chosen to configure our Internet services; it could vary significantly from provider to provider, but the fundamental plumbing is the same - in any case, the user name that people on our web service use is not necessarily the same as their e-mail address. So you can choose to have ... exactly the same one as your e- mail address and your dial-in user name, or you can choose a unique ... identifier for that. Either way is fine; it doesn't really matter to us. So ... if that was a concern, there is certainly a way that's within the customer's control to not have publicly available any portion of a user name that would make it easy to guess their e-mail address. Having said that, I believe that most customers do tend to make their e-mail address, their website name, and their dial-in authentication user name the same. And in that scenario, yes, it is definitely possible for third-party "spiders" - or "robots," they call them - that actually comb through publicly available websites, searching for e-mail address references .... It gets a little tricky there because the very nature of the World Wide Web is as a public entity .... If it is the choice of the user, the customer, to publish information on that public forum, ... we could control who accesses that, but then you're limiting its functionality, and ... that's really up to the user; they can say, "I don't want these services to be available" ... or they could have to log in before you could use them. That's totally up to the user. But, in general, most of the content on the web is just available publicly. As soon as it's available publicly, and assuming ... the reference has your e- mail name as part of the URL that you use to reference the site, then it is certainly quite possible for somebody to comb through that information, make some fairly easy guesses as to what your e-mail address may be, and then utilize that information ... in whatever fashion they would choose to. Now, we can take steps. ... Right now, we do have a page that provides links to all of our customers' websites, which we establish at the request of our customers. So it lists everybody who has a website hosted on GCI's server and says ... "click here to go to this one, click here to go to this one, click here to go to this one." So, ... it's one compact location where somebody could go and get a list of all these websites that may or may not translate directly into an e-mail address. We could certainly eliminate that piece. However, the websites are still available. ... As soon as there's a link anywhere on the Internet, essentially, to that information, then it becomes possible for somebody else to try to dig through that information and determine their e-mail address from it. ... That's [going to] be one that it's virtually impossible ... to completely eliminate. We could certainly take measures to make it slightly more difficult. ... If we were to do that, it would be something we'd want to get input from our customers [about], if that was at all possible, to see what their preferences were .... I guess, actually, the other way to do it would be we could say, "We will be happy to list your website up on this page as available; if you don't want us to, no problem." And then we would have absolutely no problem with that type of scenario either. Number 2164 MR. TORKELSON offered his summary of the foregoing testimony: We need to be very careful in holding an ISP responsible for disclosing an e-mail address when that person may have unknowingly just put up a web page and thereby divulged the essential contents of the e-mail address on the World Wide Web without meaning to. Maybe they don't know that, but it did occur. We really can't hold the ISP responsible for that, so it's just a touchy, touchy area. MR. BARNHARDT responded: I think that's a good clarification. We've tried to be as forthright with our notification process, when somebody initially gets signed up - that, ... "Here's the context you operate in; this is the type of information that is out there; if you publish your website, this is how it'll show up" - and certainly have no problem taking that even further, if that was appropriate. Number 2206 MR. GOLL pointed out that the problem just discussed goes beyond that, too. So many commercial entities are selling lists of people with whom they do business, and if that business happens to be an Internet business, then logically that business is selling e-mail addresses as well as telephone numbers and mailing addresses. Clearly, he said, the ISP cannot be held responsible for the wide range of possible disclosures that could take place. However, this legislation has a very specific point, "which is that when you sign up with your Internet service provider, just as the gentleman from GCI made so clear with the phone companies, you retain control as to the linking of your e-mail address and your actual name and who you are." Mr. Goll added: I believe that the point here - and I'm hoping that it might narrow some of the concerns a little bit - is that in the process of engaging the utility, if you will, to handle your e-mail traffic and your Internet traffic, that signing up with that utility does not automatically lead to the disclosure and linkage of your e-mail address and your personal name and information, my point being that these inadvertent disclosures, of course, need to be understood, and one cannot hold an ISP responsible for those. But the specific disclosure of not only the e-mail (indisc.-- coughing) but the association of the address with the name of the subscriber, I think, is the issue here. And it would be my hope the bill could be narrow enough to make that clear. Number 2284 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then closed public testimony. He commented that one sees advertisements, especially in Anchorage newspapers, that offer a computer at a drastically reduced rate if one signs up and subscribes through an ISP for a period of two or three years. He surmised that the company makes money from selling advertisement space to someone advertising a product, which the purchaser of the computer will see whenever the machine is turned on. He asked Representative Kerttula how the bill addresses that, if it does. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered: The bill only goes to when someone's actually signing up for Internet service. So if they were signing up for the Internet service, ... the provider wouldn't be able to disclose subscriber information without the affirmative consent. So you'd have to be asked, "Do you want us to provide that information?" And if you said "yes," like I do when I get on the Internet and want to be able to get a broad bunch of information back, then your information would go. But if you said "no," you probably won't get the computer. Number 2376 CHAIRMAN KOTT responded, "I'm not sure ... they even acknowledge that, in order to get that computer at this rate, this is what's going to happen. But I heard that, but, again, I can't confirm that." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that for her private Internet sign-up at home, the providers gave a lot of information and warnings. However, she didn't read it or understand it, which is why she had thought it would be better to do it up-front, and to have people opt in to this system. In some ways, it is just a right to know, so that people recognize what they're doing and what will happen. The second part of this - and Representative Dyson's [first] concern - was that information would be provided about where the information goes; his bill, a little broader, was therefore incorporated. Representative Kerttula said she appreciates the hearing and believes that the issues raised by the witnesses are substantive and difficult. She proposed working on it and hammering out some compromises. Number 2442 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that this is what e-commerce has brought about. He agreed that the issues appear to be workable. He inquired whether it is Representative Kerttula's intent to consult with Mr. Goll, for example. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA specified that she would like to consult with the witnesses, put out some proposed language, and see whether they can come up with a proposal for the committee's consideration. She thanked the witnesses for their input. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that HB 273 should be held over. He indicated it would be brought up again if a solution were found. CHAIRMAN KOTT called an at-ease at 2:03 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 2:07 p.m. HB 311 - NO SOC SEC. NUMBER REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE TAPE 00-59, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 311, "An Act eliminating a requirement that a social security number be provided by an applicant for a hunting or sport fishing license or tag." Number 0011 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR., Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 311, explained that the bill simply repeals the social security [number] requirement in relation to hunting and sport fishing licenses or tags. The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 requires the state to supply social security numbers for a variety of different licenses: drivers' licenses, occupational licenses, professional licenses, recreational licenses, marriage licenses, divorce decrees, paternity orders, support orders and death certificates. However, many people in his district had complained to him about the requirement for a social security number on hunting and fishing licenses; his subsequent search resulted in this bill. There is a federal mandate to "chase down deadbeat dads," Representative Coghill noted. The reason for the bill is related somewhat to privacy because many people are concerned about giving their social security number to a [hunting or fishing license] vendor - such as a gun shop or mom-and-pop grocery store - that doesn't know the parameters in relation to security. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the larger issue is that many people don't like social security numbers being used for identification purposes at all. However, he had introduced the bill to take on just the hunting and fishing license issue because that is the only area in Alaska now "vendored out" to collect social security numbers, and there is probably less professional security involved. A social security number could be lying around and accessible; even though there is a blackened- out spot on the [application], the impression is still there and the information is still accessible. New Mexico had removed a similar requirement for hunting and fishing licenses a year ago, he noted, without any significant challenge to that action, under the same [federal] law. This current bill simply repeals AS 16.05.330(e). Number 0164 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Coghill whether any money is tied to the federal mandate. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it is debatable. The whole Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act has money attached to it, but it has been challenged in court in other states, especially in relation to providing a social security number as identification for a driver's license. That number is not supposed to be used for identification, he noted, but he doesn't want to take on the whole system at this point. He believes that the best place to start is hunting and fishing [licenses] because of the security issue. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that other types of licenses that require a social security number "are under pretty good professional care," with no direct access to those numbers. The drafter of the bill [Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Legal Counsel] has indicated that the bill could result in a challenge with regard to the federal money. However, he believes that doesn't necessarily have to occur. "I think just having those hunting and fishing licenses in these various different vendors is cause enough," he added. Number 0257 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how much money [the bill] would put at risk and why there would not be a problem. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13) is the law that requires a state to comply. According to Ms. Lauterbach, noncompliance could possibly jeopardize [funding because of] that code. Number 0280 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Coghill whether he had an opinion from Ms. Lauterbach. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered to provide it to members. [The memorandum from Ms. Lauterbach to Representative Ogan, dated March 23, 1999, was provided soon afterwards. The bottom paragraph read: The state may choose to be out of compliance with 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13). Such an action would jeopardize not only the federal funds received for child support enforcement efforts but also federal funds received as block grant money for the TANF/ATAP program under AS 47.27. The Department of Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Services could provide more information about these amounts and/or the likelihood of federal sanctions, or you could authorize me to contact them on your behalf in regard to these matters.] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thinks that it is "worthy of some significant challenge" because of the privacy issue and because of the way that Alaska has chosen to have hunting and fishing licenses vended. Number 0297 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether a person's social security number is actually on a license or is blacked out. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that, according to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) personnel, the top copy of the application contains the person's social security number, and there is a blacked-out section on the carbon copy. [This statement was corrected a short while later; see Number 0347.] Testimony has indicated, however, that a social security number can still be read very easily from that. Number 0324 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the person and the ADF&G are the only ones who are actually supposed to have a copy of the application with the social security number on it. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that the forms could be changed so that a social security number isn't readable on a duplicate copy. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asserted that requiring a social security number as identification for a hunting and fishing license is a misuse of the number. Number 0347 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that social security number is used primarily for child support issues and cases. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "Yes." He corrected his earlier statement by saying, "To answer Representative Kerttula's question, it has to be that the agency would retain a copy of that number, if that's the intended purpose. ... It must be that the vendor's copy is the only one blacked out." Representative Coghill said it had been almost a year since he had talked to ADF&G personnel about this. He restated that it [the social security number] is primarily used for identification to track down those who haven't paid their child support. Number 0390 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there have been any financial repercussions to New Mexico in terms of [the federal government's] withholding of child support, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) monies or anything like that. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "No, they haven't had any repercussions from removing it." Number 0413 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the committee recently had heard a bill relating to the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses electronically, with perhaps a "kiosk-type of concept." She wondered whether that type of a system would alleviate some of Representative Coghill's concerns because it would be more centralized. Number 0445 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that it would be that much more secure, but, logistically and practically, the state is a long way from that. Furthermore, it would not alleviate his objection to using a social security number for identification purposes. When he first began this journey, Representative Coghill told members, he did not realize the degree to which it was required by the U.S. code. However, he finds that this bill is appropriate because [social security numbers provided for hunting and fishing licenses] are probably less secure than other uses. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't want to risk the money, but it does irritate him that [the federal government] is requiring this. He inquired whether an effective date would be possible so that the legislature can watch what happens to New Mexico. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL at first said he would resist that. However, because the forms for hunting and fishing licenses have already been printed [for the current year], it may cost less to have a later effective date. "So, I would be open to that," he concluded. Number 0565 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had heard the opposite argument in relation to a bill that would require a change in a form for voter information; in other words, it would be cheaper to delay the effective date in order to use up the old forms before switching to the new ones. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that it would be agreeable to the ADF&G. When he had talked to ADF&G personnel, they said that providing a social security number is a "hot button" for the department, and they would rather not deal with it or have to print other forms. He added, "My reply was, 'Simply just don't ask them to put it on there; it's not required anymore.'" Number 0603 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that Representative Coghill's suggestion is possible if the clerk who sells the license advises the purchaser of that. He pointed out, however, that these clerks may be 16 years old. Chairman Kott noted that a positive aspect of including an effective date of 2001 would be preventing the establishment of two classes of individuals: 1) those who already had applied for and received licenses, providing their social security numbers in doing so; and 2) future applicants who would discover somehow that there is no need to provide that number. It would be more beneficial, he thinks, to keep everybody under the same scheme. Number 0644 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL conveyed concern that his constituents would say he "wimped out" for extending [the current system] for another year, even though it makes more sense practically. He wondered how much money it would take to print a circular indicating that, as of a certain date, a person does not need to provide a social security number to apply for a hunting and fishing license. Furthermore, maybe the state should act proactively instead of watching to see what happens to the state of New Mexico. Other states are watching this issue, Michigan is going through the process right now, and there are several court cases going. He concluded that being proactive is probably better than waiting to see [what happens elsewhere]. Number 0717 CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested that even with an immediate effective date, if this were to pass both houses quickly, most Alaskans would have already purchased a fishing licenses. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that as a practical reason for extending the effective date. He said he could take the political "heat" for that, although this was no "small stir" in his district. Number 0790 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify in support of HB 311 as a cosponsor. He told members that sometimes it is not worth capitulating to federal demands placed upon a state's sovereignty. He explained that he had taken action the previous year that was misinterpreted; he had voted to concur with the Senate's changes to [HB 344], which required a person to provide a social security number. Although not in support of the bill itself, he had heard about it from constituents - many of whom are adamant hunters and fishermen - when he got home. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said this is an issue of privacy. The state constitution has a strong privacy clause that gives the legislature the authority to implement it, although they haven't done so but have left it up to the courts for interpretation. He again suggested that sometimes it is worth walking away from federal money, although he hopes that isn't necessary. The Child Support Enforcement Division [Department of Revenue] is, in his opinion, the most out-of-control state agency; his office fields many complaints about them. Representative Ogan pointed out that there are some "deadbeat mothers" as well, and it is more a matter of parents who don't support their children, regardless of what sex they are. He asked that members pass the bill out of the committee. Number 0935 CHAIRMAN KOTT recalled that most of the concerns he had heard regarding [HB 344] had related to providing a social security number for a driver's license. He suggested that the request to provide a social security number is a circular problem because in order to get a hunting and fishing license, a person has to provide identification, which most often is a driver's license that includes the social security number. Number 0962 AL WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HB 311. He told members that he won't allow himself to be identified by a number. A law requiring that would make him a criminal, and probably would overwhelm the criminal system. He urged members to pass the bill. Number 1043 ERIC WEATHERS, JR., Commercial Fisherman, testified via teleconference from Cordova in full support of HB 311. A fourth- generation Alaskan, he asked that commercial fishing permits and drivers' licenses be added to the bill. He noted that he hasn't been able to find in federal law a requirement to provide a social security number for identification purposes other than for a commercial drivers' license or a welfare program. In that regard, he is not a commercial driver or a welfare recipient and will not become one. Taking money from the government, he said, makes a person a servant. He cannot and will not give his social security number to anyone; at the same time, without one he cannot purchase a driver's license, fishing license or hunting license. Referring to testimony of Al Weathers, his brother, he urged members to keep those who choose to support themselves out of jail. Number 1099 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. [Eric] Weathers whether he applies for and receives the Alaska permanent fund dividend (PFD). MR. WEATHERS replied that he hasn't in the past. However, he applied for one this year and is having problems with it because the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] withholds about 30 percent if a person does not have a social security number. Number 1130 DENNY KAY WEATHERS, testifying via teleconference from Cordova, explained that 31 percent is withheld from the PFD if a person does not have a social security number. That person then has to apply to the IRS to have it returned. MR. [ERIC] WEATHERS added that he had just opted out of the social security system and the PFD [program] about two to three years ago. He has since reapplied for it [a PFD] but hasn't received it yet. Number 1179 MS. [DENNY] WEATHERS testified that HB 311 is a great piece of legislation. She requested that it be amended, however, to include non-commercial drivers' licenses, commercial fishing permits, and crew licenses. She pointed out that a commercial fishing permit includes a person's social security number, birth date and name. A commercial fishing permit must also go through a series of people for processing, some of whom are not even part of the state. In that regard, there is no security. She suggested that HB 344 was passed under duress from the federal government, which leads her to believe that legislators were opposed to it from the beginning and felt that they were being blackmailed. MS. WEATHERS referred to her written testimony and a copy of the "CRF" report from Congress, which she said illustrates a chronological development of the use of the social security number from 1935 to 1986. She noted that the 1986 requirement is the only one that she could find in relation to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, which gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to require the state to include a social security number on commercial vehicle licenses. She further indicated that the state is only required to get a social security number from those who receive federal benefits, are blood donors, or are seeking a commercial vehicle license. MS. WEATHERS noted that Michigan and New Mexico do not require a social security number for identification; from what she has been told, [those states] have not lost any of their federal money. Furthermore, the people of Montana currently are working on an initiative to repeal their state social security number [requirement], as well as a lawsuit against the state for taking away their privacy and forcing them "into a number." Ms. Weathers said the reason that the federal government cannot mandate a state to collect a social security number from everyone is because the federal constitution will not allow it under the Tenth Amendment. The person handling social security number issues in North Carolina has indicated that state isn't requiring a person's social security number for identification to obtain a learner's permit or driver's license, she reported. MS. WEATHERS told members that many [Alaskans] do not have a social security number; therefore, when they apply for something, they are told that they cannot have it. When she went to reapply for her driver's license, for example, she was handed a memorandum that said a person must provide a social security number. As a result, she had to turn her driver's license over, which she said makes her a criminal. Ms. Weathers challenged members to look for a federal law that requires a state to ask for a social security number. She can understand that a person would need a social security number to apply for a federally issued "thing," she said; however, someone applying only for a state-issued "thing" should not be forced into providing a social security number. Number 1677 MARK CHRYSON, Chairman, Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Legislative Information Office (LIO), noting that the AIP is the number-one third party in the United States. Regarding Representative Murkowski's comment about electronically obtaining a hunting and fishing license and HB 273, Mr. Cryson cautioned that as an Internet service provider he can affirmatively say that there would not be any security. Any information put on a website is public domain and can be accessed by a third party; in that regard, if the committee passes HB 273, he believes that they will have no choice but to pass HB 311. MR. CRYSON told members that the Privacy Act of 1974 indicates a social security number cannot be required unless it was done so prior to 1974. His driver's license reads 000-00-0000, he noted, and he has until 2003 before he has to worry about whether to continue to have a state-issued driver's license or to go to a Native group and have a driver's licensed issued by them; Native groups, he explained, don't require a social security number. He emphasized that people need their privacy. Alaska is the only state that has the right to privacy spelled out in its constitution; he encouraged committee members to live up to their oath in that regard. Number 1922 JAMES GARHART testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO as a private citizen. The issue of providing a social security number to obtain a driver's license has been in court, he said. The biggest problem is that magistrates are reluctant to make a decision because they will have to decide in favor of privacy. Section 7 of Public Law 93-579, known as the Privacy Act, basically says that anybody can ask a person for a social security number, but a federal, state or local agency cannot deny a person a right, benefit or privilege for refusal to disclose his/her number. MR. GARHART pointed out that Article VIII, Section 3, of the state constitution says, "Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." It doesn't say to provide a social security number. The agents of the state refuse to issue him a fishing license because he will not violate the terms of his contract with the Social Security Administration and provide his social security number, Mr. Garhart said. When he goes fishing, he could be cited and possibly suffer penalties. However, when he signed up for a social security number, it was clearly spelled out in the contract that it was not to be used for purposes of identification; it stated so, in big, bold, blue letters on the back of the card. MR. GARHART said he has never changed the terms of the contract with the Social Security Administration, and they have never sent him anything indicating the terms of the contract have changed. Therefore, he feels that using a social security number for identification purposes is an improper use of that number, punishable with a fine, imprisonment or both. He doesn't want to commit a crime in order to get a privileged-status fishing license, he said. Furthermore, when he went to apply for a fishing license, he noticed that there were three copies, but only one was blacked out - the copy that the vendor retains. One copy would go to him and the other would go to the ADF&G, but typically their copies aren't transferred to [the department] daily. In that way, a social security number is available for the clerks and anyone else. MR. GARHART offered his opinion that this whole issue started with the federal government's attempt to blackmail the state by threatening to withhold funds. He recalled that when the federal government did something similar in relation to a helmet law, the Hickel-Coghill Administration told [the federal government] to "take their helmet law and stick it"; as a result, the federal government did not pull any funds. Mr. Garhart likened it to standing up to the school yard bully. MR. GARHART turned attention to the state's constitutional right to privacy, suggesting that legislators have taken an oath to uphold the constitution; he believes that passing HB 311 would be in line with upholding that oath. He further stated that a fishing license is the same as a driver's license if it has a person's social security number and name on it: anyone could use it for identification and apply for credit cards, and so forth. Mr. Garhart said he has heard many stories of people who have tens of thousands of dollars in credit card bills because they had lost their drivers' licenses with their social security numbers on them. Number 2260 MR. GARHART noted that this is the judicial committee, and proposed that the only comprehensible judicial action is to move HB 311 out with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Regarding an effective date, federal regulations indicate that individuals who are asked to provide their social security numbers must be informed of whether providing the number is mandatory or voluntary, he added. In that regard, an agent would only have to advise a person that requiring a social security number has been repealed, and that it is now a voluntary act. [The rest of Mr. Garhart's testimony is almost indiscernible because of a fire alarm that went off while he was testifying and subsequent discussion. Because of the fire alarm, the committee was at ease from 2:52 p.m. to 3:01 p.m.] TAPE 00-60, SIDE A Number 0061 BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Central Office, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She told members that welfare reform legislation, passed by Congress in 1996, is part of the Social Security Act. Section 466(a)(13) of the Social Security Act indicates that each state must have in effect laws requiring the procedure for the use of a person's social security number for any recreational license to be recorded on the application. In that regard, the legislature had passed HB 344 about two years ago to meet the requirement. MS. MIKLOS reported that as far as the division can tell, there is no definition of "recreational license" in statute. However, in consulting with the federal government, they said it means recreational hunting and fishing licenses. For that reason, subsistence and personal use licenses are excluded. Ms. Miklos noted that when HB 344 was passed, there was a great deal of deliberation and concern, but the federal government told the state it would lose approximately $77 million - $14 million for child support and $63 million for public assistance. Ms. Miklos said that is why HB 344 was ultimately passed. MS. MIKLOS explained that when Congress passed welfare reform, it was their intent to help give more tools for child support enforcement because they wanted those who "got off welfare" to have resources. Those tools have been very helpful to the division in collecting additional money. She reported, however, that the data from a hunting or fishing license is not that useful because by the time the division obtains a copy of the license, the data has probably already changed. The division has many better ways of getting data about those who owe child support. In her mind, she said, it is important that the requirement be maintained so that there isn't a loss of funding. MS. MIKLOS offered to work with the committee in trying to determine a way to delete the requirement of a person's social security number for a recreational license so that it doesn't hurt the funding. However, the requirement of a person's social security number for other licenses is really helpful in collecting child support. In closing, Ms. Miklos noted that a congressman has introduced legislation to delete the requirement to provide a social security number for recreational licensing from the Social Security Act. That is the best proposal, she said, because then the state wouldn't have to worry about a loss of funds. Number 0355 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Miklos whether Idaho had lost its funding in relation to social security numbers and recreational licenses. MS. MIKLOS replied that there were many provisions of the federal welfare reform Act with which Idaho indicated it would not comply. As a result, Idaho had received a letter from the federal government threatening to pull its funding; the Idaho legislature, in response, passed necessary legislation to preclude that. Meanwhile, Alaska was deliberating on its bill. After consulting with Idaho, Alaska passed a bill that only met the minimum requirements of the federal government. Number 0488 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Miklos to reiterate what the monetary loss would be. MS. MIKLOS replied that it would be about $14 million for child support and $63 million for public assistance. Number 0517 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Miklos whether she is aware of the two states that have passed legislation in relation to social security numbers and recreational licenses. MS. MIKLOS replied, "No." She said she didn't know that New Mexico had actually repealed its law, but she would look into it. She wondered whether Michigan was one of the states that fell behind in its time line, when the federal law was passed, in relation to when its legislature meets. She restated that the division is not really using the information provided from the recreational licenses, and she is aware that it is creating a great deal of problems and controversy in the state. Wisconsin and Minnesota are having trouble with the issue as well. Number 0611 RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Jr., Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee on behalf of the sponsor. She handed out a document from New Mexico titled "Minutes of the State Game Commission Meeting, April 8, 1999"; she indicated it related to the philosophy behind the decision to repeal the collection of social security numbers for recreational licenses. She noted that it had been a situation in which prison inmates were tabulating the collected data. Number 0716 CHAIRMAN KOTT, indicating there were no further testifiers, closed the meeting to public testimony. Number 0722 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told fellow members that he would like to have an effective date to allow the legislature to fully see what is happening in other states, and to allow the finance committees to plan for a potential $77 million gap in funding. An effective date of 90 days from now would be when the legislature is not in session, he noted. An effective date of July 1, 2001, doesn't meet the concern of starting on the first of January so that all licenses have the same requirement, but he thinks that the main concern is related to the potential monetary loss. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT proposed an effective date of July 1, 2001, as an amendment [Amendment 1]. Number 0822 MS. MOSS pointed out that Representative Coghill had more in mind the calendar year because of the way hunting and fishing licenses are issued. The state has also admitted that there is no compelling interest in collecting social security numbers [from recreational licenses]. She requested, on behalf of Representative Coghill, that the effective date be January 1, 2001. Number 0858 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he is not stuck on July 1, 2001, but it makes more sense. An effective date of January 1, 2001, doesn't seem to help the legislature because it is before session. Most people agree that this is an onerous requirement. Even Ms. Miklos has indicated that the CSED does not use the data from the recreational licenses that much, and there are a lot of people in the state, including himself, who are angry about having to provide a social security number. The main reason the legislature had passed HB 344 under duress was because of the money. It boils down to a money issue, which is why he wants to tie the effective date to the fiscal year, not the calendar year. Number 0913 MS. MOSS responded that New Mexico and Michigan, which have "called the feds' bluff," have not had any repercussions or threats from the federal government in relation to funding, and a whole year has passed for New Mexico. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that the federal government sometimes works slowly and could be preparing a "hammer." In that regard, it would be prudent to have a somewhat-delayed effective date that fell on a "calendar year," so that the legislature would have an idea on what might happen. Number 0991 CHAIRMAN KOTT offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 1 of an effective date of January 1, 2001, which he believes would avoid any protection issues and would give the legislature some time. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that an effective date of January 1, 2001, would give time, but it wouldn't give the legislature the ability to do anything about it without a special session. Number 1029 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that an effective date should not impact those who issue the licenses. It is unfair and inequitable to require only half of the citizens to provide a social security number [during the changeover year]. Number 1055 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there already is a group who won't provide a social security number, and who will continue to not provide it. Furthermore, an effective date of July 1, 2001, would work well for hunting season, but it would not work as well for fishing season. Number 1076 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told fellow members that she doesn't think the state will lose any money. Number 1108 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated an effective date of January 1, 2001, is fine. If the "hammer falls," he said, the legislature would be in session shortly thereafter "to do a quick fix." Number 1124 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked: Why not make the effective date January 1, 2002? In that way, more time would have elapsed so that there would be more security about what might happen to the $77 million. Number 1140 CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that he had heard from the sponsor that a January 1, 2002, date would not be acceptable. Furthermore, he thinks that an effective date is making a statement to the federal government that the state is no longer going to be blackmailed. He suspects that the legislation introduced in Congress to eliminate this requirement will happen this year; he believes the issue is that important. Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to the amendment to Amendment 1. She specified that she wants to keep the effective date as July 1, 2001. CHAIRMAN KOTT requested a roll call vote. Representatives James, Croft, Green and Kott voted "yea." Representatives Murkowski and Kerttula voted "nay." Therefore, by a vote of 4-2, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1241 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to Amendment 1, as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1254 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move HB 311, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached negative fiscal note. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, for the record, that it is his understanding that the committee does not want to delve any further into eliminating the requirement of a social security number for any other license. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the sponsor has theoretical troubles with providing a social security number for other licenses, but those are slightly different in that there are federal requirements involved. This issue is a different type of duress in that it is related to funding. Number 1317 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed concern that HB 311 does not have a House Finance Standing Committee referral, especially given that there is a potential for the state to lose $77 million. At the same time, she doesn't want to hold the bill up. Number 1352 CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with Representative Murkowski. He said he is sure that the last committee of referral will see that it belongs in the House Finance Standing Committee. Number 1367 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she sees no reason to have a person's social security number on a recreational license. As a tax preparer, she has come into contact with individuals who don't want to use their social security numbers for anything, but she thinks that they don't have a clue as to what would happen if they didn't use their social security numbers and birth dates to identify themselves. In fact, even while using a social security number, a person can get "mixed up" with others; there are people born with the same name on the same date, for example, which can cause unsolvable problems. In that regard, she is not in favor of removing a person's social security number from a driver's license, unless she can be convinced otherwise. Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she thinks this is a concern with regard to the social security number per se, not really a concern in relation to privacy. The committee has heard testimony that the data provided from the recreational licenses is not that helpful. She also thinks that the legislature should not behave too cavalierly about the threat of a loss of $77 million in funding. She spoke in support of having a House Finance Standing Committee referral. Number 1468 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to the motion to move HB 311, as amended, from the committee. There being no objection, CSHB 311(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HB 425 - FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR MUNI. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 425, "An Act relating to misrepresentation and false claims made against the state or a municipality; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor. Before the committee was CSHB 425(CRA).] Number 1541 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, explained to members that the bill would enact a false claims statute for Alaska. Although there is the skeletal form of a false claims statute now, it doesn't have some of the provisions that would be particularly helpful in at least one current case involving the Bank of America. The allegations in that case are that the bank retained a substantial amount of bond funds which were placed in their hands by state and municipal governments. Alaska's lack of a false claims statute was brought to [the department's] attention by the State of California, which recently used its false claims statute to bring to a successful conclusion the claims that it had against the bank, thereby receiving a settlement of $188 million. MR. BALDWIN specified that Alaska's skeletal statute is in AS 37.10.090, which basically makes it unlawful for a person to illegally pay or divert state or municipal funds. The version of the bill before the committee [CSHB 425(CRA)] was copied closely from the California false claims statute. It provides for treble damages if someone files a false administrative claim with a public officer. There are various forms of that, Mr. Baldwin explained. The claim has to be in excess of $500, and certain types of claims are excluded, such as claims for welfare-type benefits or unemployment. Also, the tax code and permanent fund dividends are excluded because those have established statutes that provide for penalties for filing false claims under those particular statutory schemes. MR. BALDWIN illustrated the magnitude of the Bank of America case by noting that in Alaska, state and municipal issuers had placed in the hands of the bank about $22 billion in bond proceeds. It was determined, by using a sampling technique in California, that of the bearer bond proceeds - which anyone can show up and claim who is holding the bearer paper, because they aren't issued in anyone's name and the bank doesn't really has this paper - 0.392 percent of that money remained unclaimed in the hands of the bank; that figure times the $7 billion of unclaimed bearer paper is a large number. [The State of Alaska] would like to have this kind of enforcement tool, Mr. Baldwin explained, to be able to successfully prosecute the Bank of America case and other potential cases against other custodians of large amounts of state and municipal money. Number 1715 MR. BALDWIN noted that when he had spoken with Chairman Kott's staff about this, he was shown a memorandum from the Legislative Affairs Agency [from Theresa Bannister, Legislative Counsel, dated March 8, 2000] about the bill. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that the memorandum contained comments about the bill's title and some other provisions that might involve court rules. Thus he was offering a written amendment for a title that would tighten it up and be more descriptive about the contents; the amendment also would alter provisions relating to service of and by municipal and state attorneys, which would avoid a change in the civil rules. That draft amendment read [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, lines 1 and 2: delete all material (the title) and insert the following new material to read: "An act creating a right for the state or a municipality to recover civil damages against a person who makes a false administrative claim for payment or approval from a state or municipal officer for payment of money or property or who knowingly receives the benefit of a false administrative claim presented to a state or municipal officer; and providing for an effective date." Page 4, line 25: delete "serve" insert "provide" in its place line 26: delete "on" and insert "to" in its place Page 5, line 2: delete "serve" insert "provide" in its place line 3: delete "on" and insert "to" in its place MR. BALDWIN provided a copy of that amendment and offered to answer questions. Number 1765 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there were questions; none were offered. He then asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. He announced that HB 425 would be held over. He indicated there would be a new committee substitute (CS) drafted, which would incorporate the concerns that had been identified. [HB 425 was held over.] HJR 49 - CONST AM: PERM FUND INCOME DISTRIBUTION Number 1799 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for inflation proofing, and to require a vote of the people before changing the statutory formula for distribution that existed on January 1, 2000. [Before the committee was CSHJR 49(STA).] Number 1838 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, came forward to present HJR 49, noting that it is a companion measure to a Senate resolution [SJR 35]. He suggested that constitutionally protecting the permanent fund dividend (PFD) program is the only way that Alaskans will be comfortable with allowing the legislature, without serious repercussions, to use any earnings from the dividend program. Representative Ogan noted that he was around when the permanent fund was put into place, and he remembers well the Zobel case regarding equal protection; he believes that history has proven the Zobels right. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN emphasized that the permanent fund is a "rainy day" account. Referring to discussion in the legislative halls and the September 14 [advisory] vote, Representative Ogan said he got a message loud and clear, in his district, that the legislature should keep its hands off of the PFD. This resolution accomplishes that, he pointed out. It constitutionally protects the existing [PFD] program, inflation- proofing and the formula. Mentioning discussion about whether the formula is good at this point, he informed members that most of the naysayers with regard to this resolution have said it could cause the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rule that [the fund] is no longer for a public purpose, thereby making the permanent fund itself taxable. Therefore, to alleviate that concern, the effective date for the resolution is whenever the IRS issues a final decision that the corpus of the permanent fund is, indeed, not taxable. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN urged members to pass the resolution out and keep the discussion going. He conveyed his belief that this resolution will instill trust in people that their dividend program will be protected. He also suggested that it is pessimistic to assume that the existing program will go away in a few years. He said he believes in the State of Alaska. Pointing out how young the state is, he suggested there is no need to act like teenagers with a trust account or to think that the state has reached its senior years and, therefore, must use its retirement account. For example, he believes that the possibilities of developing [petroleum reserves] in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are greater than ever before; furthermore, there is still a lot of natural gas on the North Slope. Therefore, he doesn't share the fatalistic view that Alaska is in financial dire straits. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN concluded by noting that there have been calls to use the earnings of the permanent fund for a number of years. Because that has been delayed, there is almost $30 billion in the permanent fund now. He expressed the belief that it is in the state's best interest to not be hasty about using the earnings or to depreciate the potential of that account, "because the longer we wait, the more that's [going to] build up." Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 30 [the proposed section of Article XV of the constitution to be added by Section 3 of the resolution]. He said he does have a concern that the IRS might decide this [the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation] should be taxed, as a corporation. He read in part from the first sentence of proposed Section 30, which said: Section 30. Effective Date of Permanent fund Amendment. The 2000 amendment to the Alaska permanent fund (art. IX, Sec. 15) takes effect on the day after the date of a final decision by the Internal Revenue Service deciding that, under the language of the 2000 amendment, the income of the permanent fund will not be subject to federal taxation while it is under the control of the State or an entity of the State. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the IRS makes these final decisions. He said he thought it was more that the IRS hadn't taxed the State yet but could at any time. He asked whether there is a decision now that it is not to be taxed, or if the IRS has just not done so. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered: All we're doing is enshrining the existing program in place. ... I'm not a tax attorney, and I'm certainly ... not an IRS person, and don't think like them. But it would seem to me if the existing program ... was taxable, they would have done it by now. The reason I put this in is because of the gas pipeline situation, with the pipeline mayors' port authority situation. If I'm not mistaken, they requested a ruling from the IRS [as to] whether or not that would be taxable, and the IRS said that would be tax-free. So, if we can do it with that, we can do it with this. Number 2143 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said it was important to "the gas group" to know one way or the other. However, he isn't sure that the state wants to ask the IRS. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied: I think it will be asked of the IRS, frankly. The people that are opposed to doing this will have raised the issue, and I think it will come to a head. So, I'm not afraid of the decision. ... If they say ... that if we passed this constitutional amendment and made this as a constitutional right that people get this dividend, that that would make it a taxable situation, then I wouldn't want the amendment to take effect. And I'm not afraid of that. That's why, I guess, we do this, as a way to address that question. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested confirmation that those determinations can be appealed to superior court and the supreme court eventually. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the law and regulations can change as well. Nothing is set in concrete. He suggested that if it were appealed, certainly the legislature would want to take it up and repeal the constitutional amendment, which he doesn't believe would be a problem because people would probably go along with it. Number 2208 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that if there were an adverse IRS ruling, the state would certainly want to appeal it to the courts. He read from the second sentence of proposed Section 30, regarding the effective date, which said: In this section, "final decision" means a ruling, order, or decision that cannot be appealed to the Internal Revenue Service because the ruling, order, or decision may not be appealed to the agency, all possible appeals to the agency have been taken, or the time for taking an appeal to the agency has expired without appeal. He asked, "What if it can be appealed somewhere else?" REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that it could be, feasibly. Someone could appeal it to the circuit courts, or to the district court and then the circuit court and all the way to the supreme court. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that isn't what "final decision" means here, however. It means that it cannot be appealed to the IRS. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that it was a policy call he made after discussion with Tamara Cook [Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency]. His choice had been whether to go with a supreme court ruling or the IRS decision. He believes that there probably won't be a lot of opposition if the IRS rules that it is tax-free. Furthermore, going to the supreme court takes an indefinite amount of time. He mentioned not wanting to wait a long time for this to take effect, then said that if the state's financial needs are such that the earnings of the permanent fund need to be used, this is the bottom line. People won't sanction use of the permanent fund earnings until they know that the PFD program is taken care of, and off the table. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that former Governor Hammond, who had emphasized the need to take the PFD question off of the table, hadn't specifically supported this measure but had said this appears to do that. Although perhaps the approach in [HB] 411 might be better, Representative Ogan said he honestly hasn't been able to make that judgment call. Whatever approach the legislature takes, having the PFD program off the table will open up the possibility of using the earnings; he isn't advocating doing that, but it is already in the constitution that those earnings can be used [with a simple majority vote] rather than needing [a two-thirds' majority vote]. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that for all practical purposes, the legislature hasn't touched a penny other than to recapitalize the permanent fund; that is because when people hear "earnings of the permanent fund," they equate it with the PFD check. Representative Ogan reiterated the desire to take that PFD check off the table in order to open the possibility, when it is appropriate, for the legislature to utilize those funds. Number 2395 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that he would like to see a "MOMA run" on some of this. When talking about this the previous year, he noted, there were scenarios under which the current dividend structure would crash because of how it is calculated and how the stock market has been performing. Seeing whether the risk is significant or insignificant would be appropriate. To that end, he proposed having testimony from the [Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation] with regard to the effects of setting in stone the current PFD program, under a variety of circumstances. He stated his assumption that nobody from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation was at the hearing to testify. Number 2421 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested that the average voter, when reading [the language regarding the effective date] at the ballot box, would ask why the state hadn't checked with the IRS first. She conveyed her understanding that one can get a preliminary ruling from the IRS, although it isn't final. She surmised that perhaps a preliminary ruling hasn't been requested for the reason suggested by Representative Croft: maybe the state doesn't want to know what the answer is. TAPE 00-60, SIDE B Number 0023 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she has heard conjecture that the IRS will look at this and rule that there are tax consequences. She asked whether Representative Ogan had received advice from legislative legal counsel about getting a preliminary ruling. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered that he had received a legal opinion from Tamara Cook, who said she wasn't the right person to ask because she isn't a tax attorney. In this case, the only opinion that really matters will be from the IRS. He added: The urgency that I keep hearing about the permanent fund and our state finances and whatnot - time simply doesn't allow for us to ask for a ruling and get it back in time for this to go on a ballot, this November, and for the people to decide. And so I realized that without some kind of a circuit breaker on here, this legislation was probably as good [as] dead over the speculation of a tax liability. So we tried to build something in there that would ... [pop the circuit breaker] if the IRS said, "Nope, we're after you." Number 0085 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked, "If this were to pass, would you propose to try to ... get a preliminary ruling, even before the vote, so that you could at least tell people that we've requested one and it's in the process?" REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes, he believes that would be very prudent. He cautioned about carefully framing the question to the IRS, but noted that the IRS is no doubt aware of Alaska's permanent fund and the [PFDs]. He suggested that if the IRS were interested, they probably would have already [taxed it]. Number 0130 CHAIRMAN KOTT reported that Ms. Mary Griswold of Homer [the only person signed up to testify] was no longer on teleconference but had provided a copy of her written testimony. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Ms. Griswold doesn't support the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked to hear from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation at some point, even if other public testimony is closed. Number 0173 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA informed members that she had received an opinion from [attorney] Ron Lorensen, who was working with the permanent fund and had testified in one of the finance committees about this issue. She suggested it would be worthwhile for Mr. Lorensen to appear before the committee as well. CHAIRMAN KOTT concurred with keeping the hearing open for both the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation and Mr. Lorensen. He thanked participants. [HJR 49 was held over.] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|