04/20/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB181 | |
| HB164 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2007
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to traffic offenses and traffic offenses
committed in a school zone; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to reporting of vessel location by certain
commercial passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of
the state, to access to vessels by licensed marine engineers for
purposes of monitoring compliance with state and federal
requirements, and to the obligations of those engineers while
aboard the vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes committed at certain shelters and facilities."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: TRAFFIC OFFENSES: FINES/SCHOOL ZONES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
03/07/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/07 (H) HES, JUD
03/22/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/27/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/03/07 (H) Moved CSHB 181(HES) Out of Committee
04/03/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/07 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 5DP 1DNP 1AM
04/10/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, FAIRCLOUGH, SEATON, ROSES,
WILSON
04/10/07 (H) DNP: GARDNER
04/10/07 (H) AM: NEUMAN
04/10/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 164
SHORT TITLE: OCEAN RANGERS & REPORTING VESSEL LOCATION
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
02/28/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/07 (H) TRA, FIN
03/08/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/07 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/13/07 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/13/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/13/07 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/14/07 (H) TRA RPT 2DP 1DNP 3NR
03/14/07 (H) DP: KOHRING, JOHANSEN
03/14/07 (H) DNP: DOOGAN
03/14/07 (H) NR: FAIRCLOUGH, JOHNSON, NEUMAN
03/14/07 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED AFTER TRA
03/28/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/18/07>
04/18/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, JUD
02/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/27/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/01/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/06/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/06/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/07 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR
03/07/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, ROSES, LYNN
03/07/07 (H) DNP: GRUENBERG, DOLL
03/07/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, COGHILL
03/07/07 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
04/20/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 181.
ROBB MYERS, Intern
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 181 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Wilson.
BILL CHEESEMAN, Pupil Transportation Supervisor
Transportation Department
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged passage of HB 181.
LINDA JANOUSEK, Transportation Manager
Transportation Department
North Slope Borough School District (NSBSD)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
DENNIS COOK, Coordinator
Bus & Transportation Department
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD)
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
ROBERT "BOB" MYERS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 181.
RANDALL RUARO, Staff
to Representative Kyle Johansen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony during discussion of
HB 164 on behalf of the House Transportation Standing Committee,
which sponsored the bill and which is chaired by Representative
Johansen.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 164.
RUTH HAMILTON HESSE, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 164.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 3.
BILL SCANNELL
The Identity Project (IDP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 3.
MATTHEW KERR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 3.
ANASTASIA MIRONOVA
Salt Lake City, Utah
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 3.
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06:21 PM. Representatives Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, Holmes, and Ramras were present at the
call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 181 - TRAFFIC OFFENSES: FINES/SCHOOL ZONES
1:06:43 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to traffic offenses and
traffic offenses committed in a school zone; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 181(HES).]
1:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
relayed that HB 181 pertains to the safety of school children,
and that her staff would be presenting the bill.
1:08:04 PM
ROBB MYERS, Intern to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of Representative Wilson that
the legislature has already established double traffic fines for
violations occurring in either highway work zones or traffic
safety corridors, and that HB 181 will establish double traffic
fines for violations that occur in school zones so as to provide
extra protection to children. According to statistics, a child
traveling on foot who is struck by a motor vehicle has a 90
percent chance of surviving if the motor vehicle is traveling at
20 mph, and only a 55 percent chance of survival if the motor
vehicle is traveling at 30 mph. Nationwide, 20,000 children are
injured every year as a result of being struck by vehicles while
on foot, with up to half of those injuries requiring
hospitalization. Washington state recently adopted a measure
similar to what HB 181 proposes, and has experienced a decrease
of collisions in school zones since then.
MR. ROBB MYERS relayed that Section 1 adds the words "school
zone" to AS 28.05.151(d), and that Section 2 provides that
repeat offenders will be assessed double the points normally
assessed for such violations if a second or subsequent offense
occurs within 24 months of the first offense. Section 2 is
meant to provide an extra deterrent, since only providing for
elevated fines has not proven to be an effective deterrent.
Section 3 raises the maximum fine provided for in AS
28.90.010(c) from $300 to $1,000; he indicated that Legislative
Legal and Research Services requested this proposed change.
Section 4 pertains to signage requirements and allows for
automated technology, and Section 5 provides a definition of the
term, "school zone".
MR. ROBB MYERS offered that Section 4's definition acknowledges
distinctions between urban and rural school zone signage; for
example, the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) doesn't bother to put up school zone signs in many
rural areas because it fears that people will simply start
ignoring them and so would rather just put up signs in urban
areas. The DOT&PF currently uses three types of signs: one
type says "when flashing" [and has a flashing light], one type
says, "from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. schooldays", and one type says
"when children present". However, the department has indicated
that it is "moving away from those last two in favor of the one
with the flashing light," he added. Essentially, the fines and
penalties provided for by HB 181 would only apply during the
times/circumstances indicated on the signage.
MR. ROBB MYERS relayed that Section 6 annuls 13 AAC 02.325(d)
and 13 AAC 03.325(d), both of which provide a current definition
of "school zone" and set the speed limit at 20 mph. Section 7
provides an effective date of 7/1/2012 for Section 2 of the
bill, thereby allowing the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) time
to implement that provision.
1:15:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said he wants to ensure that a person can't lose
his/her driver's license for a single violation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether an assessment of points
also affects one's insurance rates.
MR. ROBB MYERS surmised that that is the case. In response to a
question, he again explained that Section 2 - providing for the
assessment of double points - pertains only to a second or
subsequent violation that occurs within 24 months of the initial
violation. Section 8 provides for a 7/1/07 effective date for
the remainder of the bill, thus allowing people time to become
aware of this new law before the next school year starts.
MR. ROBB MYERS, in response to comments and questions, explained
that municipalities often institute ordinances that mirror state
law - and offered some examples - and that although the vast
majority of speeding violations in school zones occur in
Anchorage, the sponsor feels that HB 181 will address a state-
wide problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how fast the DOT&PF will get all
the signs replaced with the type that have a flashing light.
MR. ROBB MYERS suggested that a representative from the
department could better address that question.
1:23:43 PM
BILL CHEESEMAN, Pupil Transportation Supervisor, Transportation
Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD),
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said he
wishes to encourage approval of HB 181. He opined that given
that the legislature has taken steps to safeguard highway
construction workers, it is appropriate to provide the same
protection to school children in school zones via similar
fines/penalties. In response to comments and questions, he said
that the MSBSD is attempting to get the type of signage that has
flashing lights installed at all of its school zones - currently
only about 50 percent of the signs are of that type - and that
some of its school zones do have signage marking the end of the
school zone.
1:28:24 PM
LINDA JANOUSEK, Transportation Manager, Transportation
Department, North Slope Borough School District (NSBSD),
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), relayed
that the same problem exists in the NSBSD - the end of a school
zone is not clearly marked - adding that the elementary schools
have signage with flashing lights but neither the high school
nor junior high school have such signage. She said that she and
27 others [in the NSBSD} support HB 181.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the North Slope Borough
could simply address this problem at the local level.
MS. JANOUSEK offered her belief that local enforcement and
prosecution would be more likely to occur if the proposed
fines/penalties were instituted at the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned who would be paying for
HB 181's associated enforcement and prosecution efforts.
1:33:48 PM
DENNIS COOK, Coordinator, Bus & Transportation Department,
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD),
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), said that
he is in support HB 181. In response to earlier questions, he
relayed that all of the FNSBSD's school zones that have signage
with flashing lights either have "end of school zone" signage
or, at the location where the flashing light signs instruct
those going in the opposite direction, signage listing the
regular posted speed. He explained that he has received
numerous complaints over the year, both from crossing guards and
parents, regarding vehicles speeding through the school zones.
Given the winter darkness, ice fog, and hazardous walking
conditions, he said he thinks HB 181 is a good idea and will
increase safety for the district's school children. He
mentioned that he has personally witnessed vehicles traveling
very fast through school zones, and opined that the threat of
double fines will help eliminate those occurrences.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether the state is currently
enforcing existing law with regard to speeding violations in
school zones.
CHAIR RAMRAS said that he is in favor of safer speeds in school
zones to protect children, but noted that he's received numerous
complaints from constituents regarding the lack of signage in
certain school zones. He indicated that he is concerned that
HB 181 won't actually solve the problem of inadequate signage.
MR. COOK said he would like to see signage with flashing lights
put up because that type of signage actually gets the attention
of drivers.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred, and surmised that the lack of clear
signage indicating the ending of school zones is also
problematic.
MR. COOK concurred, and reiterated that signage with flashing
lights will help drivers become aware that they are traveling
through a school zone.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the signage issue really needs
to be addressed, but surmised that HB 181 won't actually do
that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that HB 181 [be changed] such
that it provides school districts with financial assistance in
making school zones safer.
1:48:05 PM
ROBERT "BOB" MYERS said that as a father and grandfather, he
visits three different school zones each afternoon to pick up
his children and grandchildren, and travels through two other
school zones en route, and he is very alarmed by some of the
driving habits of others - speeding, tailgating, not stopping
for children in a crosswalk. It is just a matter of time, he
opined, before a child gets hit by a car in a school zone. He
said he also works for the school district and has been doing
duty as a crossing guard for eight years, and he feels that if
he weren't out there, the situation would be much worse than it
is currently, adding that even now he sees drivers speeding all
the time. He said he would like to see the types of drivers who
intentionally violate traffic safety laws in school zones
prosecuted.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred. He then read a portion of the fiscal
note analysis provided by the DOT&PF [original punctuation
provided]:
DOT&PF assumed that double fine signs will be
installed below current speed limit school signs. 148
double fine signs will be installed on state roads at
a cost of $80/sign. It is estimated that it will take
2 hours to install each sign with mobilization and
travel time.
Currently photoradar is not being used, however if it
were to be used, DOT would be required to replace the
already installed double fine signs with sings that
say "double fines and photo radar in use".
Additionally this fiscal analysis does not include the
cost of putting up double fine signs at schools that
are not on state roads. DOT estimates 256 signs are
needed for schools on non state roads.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he doesn't mind instituting double fine zones
for those school zones that are clearly marked at both ends but
not for those that aren't.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about what he
characterized as the over-breadth of Section 3; the proposed
fine increase to $1,000 appears to apply to everything from
jaywalking on down.
MR. ROBB MYERS explained that Section 3 was added because of a
concern that doubling the fines as Section 1 proposes would
exceed the existing fine cap, and so Section 3 proposes to raise
that cap, not actually raise all the fines. He also offered his
understanding that if a violation or an infraction only results
in the person being subject to a fine, a jury trial would not be
required.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding, though, that
in Baker v. City of Fairbanks, the court held that if there is a
possibility that a person could be incarcerated, be subject to a
substantial fine, or lose a valuable license, he/she would be
entitled to a jury trial.
1:58:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how many tickets have been issued
at the existing $300 limit, and how many injuries to, or
fatalities of, school children in a school zone during school
hours have taken place in Alaska and in the nation.
MR. ROBB MYERS said he doesn't have statistics regarding the
existing $300 fine limit, but in 2006, 433 speeding citations
were issued in school zones in Alaska with 284 of those being
issued in Anchorage and 61 and 69 being issued in Fairbanks and
Juneau respectively. Most other communities either had none
issued or just a few issued. Nationwide, there were
approximately 20 fatalities and 20,000 injuries; in Alaska, in
2004, there were four minor injuries and two major injuries.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that the question is whether increasing
fines and points assessed will result in better driving.
MR. ROBB MYERS, in response to comments, said he'd looked at
data pertaining to the doubling of fines in construction zones,
and that data - from 2002 through 2004 - indicated that the
number of accidents had dropped from 216 down to 143; during
that same time period, traffic accidents in general increased
from just under 6,000 to just over 7,000.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that in construction zones,
there are a lot of visual aids to notify drivers that they are
entering such zones, and so it is not a fair comparison to make
given that signage at school zones is still a big issue; proper
signage could prove quite effective in and of itself in reducing
this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG sought and received confirmation that
the department sets the amount of the fine for the various
infractions/violations. He then asked why Section 7 specifies
that Section 2 won't take effect for five years.
MR. ROBB MYERS said that that effective date was provided for at
the request of the DMV to allow it time to develop tracking
codes and acquire a new computer system; also, it could be that
merely instituting the double fine scheme will be sufficient,
and so providing this extra time will allow the legislature to
see whether the double point assessment provision is still
needed.
2:04:36 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that public testimony was closed, and
noted that the committee would be holding the bill over in order
to give the sponsor time to address members' concerns,
particularly with regard to signage and perhaps an exemption
that would apply when signage is not adequate. He said he is
assuming the fiscal note would increase in instances where
posting the end of a school zone actually requires installing
signage, not just changing or adding to the signage that is
already in place, and where signage is installed on non state
roads.
[HB 181 was held over.]
HB 164 - OCEAN RANGERS & REPORTING VESSEL LOCATION
2:07:02 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to reporting of vessel
location by certain commercial passenger vessels operating in
the marine waters of the state, to access to vessels by licensed
marine engineers for purposes of monitoring compliance with
state and federal requirements, and to the obligations of those
engineers while aboard the vessels; and providing for an
effective date." [Left pending from the hearing on 3/28/07 was
the motion to adopt Amendment 1.]
CHAIR RAMRAS turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.
CHAIR RAMRAS withdrew Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0585\A.1, Kane,
3/28/07, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "vessels;":
Insert "creating the Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement fund and the Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement program;"
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 46.03 is amended by adding new
sections to read:
Sec. 46.03.483. Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement fund. (a) The Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement fund is established as a sub-account in
the commercial passenger vessel environmental
compliance fund established in AS 46.03.482.
(b) The sub-account established in (a) of this
section consists of the following, all of which shall
be deposited in the sub-account on receipt:
(1) money received by the department in
payment for fees under AS 46.03.480(d);
(2) money appropriated to the sub-account
by the legislature;
(3) money received by the department from
private sources to be expended on the Alaska ocean
protection and enhancement program established in
AS 46.03.484; and
(4) earnings on the sub-account.
(c) The legislature may make appropriations from
the sub-account to
(1) pay for the Ocean Ranger program
established in AS 46.03.476;
(2) fund grants under the Alaska ocean
protection and enhancement program established in
AS 46.03.484; and
(3) fund the activities of the Alaska Ocean
Protection and Enhancement Advisory Board established
in AS 46.03.484(b).
(d) Nothing in this section creates a dedicated
fund.
Sec. 46.03.484. Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement program. (a) There is established in the
department the Alaska ocean protection and enhancement
program. The commissioner may, in consultation with
the Alaska Ocean Protection and Enhancement Advisory
Board established in (b) of this section, award grants
to eligible applicants for
(1) studies to assess the effects from
vessel traffic on air quality, water quality, and
marine life in and near Alaska marine water and to
recommend mitigation and prevention of adverse
effects;
(2) activities to remediate or clean up
pollution or debris from vessel traffic in or near
Alaska marine water;
(3) educational programs designed to inform
the public about the importance of maintaining air and
water quality standards for Alaska's marine water; and
(4) other activities that the commissioner
determines will foster the protection and enhancement
of Alaska marine water.
(b) There is established the Alaska Ocean
Protection and Enhancement Advisory Board consisting
of not more than seven and not fewer than five
members, as determined by the commissioner. The
governor shall appoint the board members. The governor
shall appoint at least two members of the board from
nominations provided by the owners or operators of
large commercial passenger vessels and at least two
members from nominations provided by nonprofit
corporations eligible to receive grants under this
section. Members of the advisory board serve without
compensation but are entitled to per diem and travel
expenses as authorized under AS 39.20.180.
(c) The department shall adopt regulations for
the administration of the Alaska ocean protection and
enhancement program, including
(1) additional criteria for eligible
applicants and eligible projects;
(2) application forms and deadlines for
receiving applications;
(3) grant evaluation criteria; and
(4) audit and other procedures to ensure
proper expenditure of grant funds.
(d) In this section, "eligible applicant" means
(1) a nonprofit corporation organized under
the laws of this state if the corporation has been in
existence for at least two years at the time of the
grant application and has as one of its purposes the
promotion of air or water quality in Alaska marine
water or the protection of marine life in Alaska
marine water;
(2) a municipality that demonstrates
potential effects from vessel traffic in the marine
water within the boundaries of the municipality;
(3) an entity under federal law that
demonstrates potential effects from vessel traffic
within the areas of subsistence use; or
(4) other entities that the commissioner
determines are affected by effects of vessel traffic
in Alaska marine water."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:10:05 PM
RANDALL RUARO, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf the House Transportation
Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 164, relayed that the
legislature's broad power to amend an initiative is granted by
Article XI, Section 6, of the Alaska State Constitution, though
any such amendment must not amount to a repeal of the
initiative. He suggested that the common understanding of
"amend" is "to change" and is what was meant by the voters who
ratified the Alaska State Constitution by a two to one vote, and
opined that the minutes from the constitutional convention
provide insight regarding how the framers viewed the power to
amend.
MR. RUARO then offered some historical background on that
constitutional provision, as well as on Alaska Supreme Court
cases, Warren v. Thomas and Warren v. Boucher, both of which
pertain to initiatives and the legislature's broad power to
amend them or replace them. In conclusion, he opined that the
legislature does have the authority to amend - via HB 164 - the
recent ballot initiative regarding cruise ship taxation,
regulation, and disclosure, and urged passage of the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS spoke of other legislation proposing to amend a
ballot initiative, of testimony provided by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) regarding discharges from land-
based facility, and of a ballot initiative that he sponsored.
Remarking that many provisions of statute were changed by the
recent ballot initiative regarding cruise ship taxation,
regulation, and disclosure, he said he feels comfortable that
the legislature does have the right to amend that initiative
regardless of whether any such amendments coincide with the
intent of the initiative's prime sponsors. He indicated that he
doesn't want the cruise ship industry to have to comply with
higher standards than those which land-based facilities must
comply with.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that the House Finance
Committee will address how the $4 per-passenger per-voyage fee
[to fund the Ocean Ranger program] is to be handled. Pointing
out that the State is attempting to reduce the number of its
employees, he said he is a little offended by the proposal to
hire 80 people to monitor the cruise ship industry, particularly
given that the DEC has demonstrated, to the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) satisfaction, that it is capable of
managing all land-based facilities for less money and with fewer
people.
2:24:37 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), in response to a request for
information, relayed that the department regulates a number of
different types of industrial and municipal wastewater
discharges, and this regulation is based on the same water
quality standards as would be applied to the cruise ship
program. The department also has an existing program that
regulates discharges from cruise ships, and the recently
approved ballot initiative will now require large vessels to
have wastewater discharge permits much like those required of
other industries regulated by the DEC.
MS. KENT, in response to questions, offered details regarding
its monitoring of land-based facilities; said that absent the
ballot initiative, the department would have continued to
implement the existing cruise ship program, which has effluent
limits as well as monitoring and reporting requirements;
indicated that because she is only familiar with the
department's oversight of other types of wastewater discharge
permits, she is unable to comment on how aggressive the
monitoring program as proposed by HB 164 as it is currently
written would be compared to land-based facility monitoring;
mentioned that both the ballot initiative and HB 164 require
more than simply monitoring wastewater discharges; and offered
her understanding that advanced wastewater system technology is
very effective at treating the domestic wastewater discharges of
those cruise ships that employ that technology.
2:30:19 PM
RUTH HAMILTON HESSE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), in
response to a question, confirmed that there already are
criminal and civil liability statutes in place concerning the
cruise ship program. For example, for civil liability, for
penalties of not less than $500 or more than $100,000, there can
be an assessment for those amounts for a violation of permit or
regulation for commercial passenger vessels, and no more than
$10,000 for each day after that first day on which the violation
first occurs. This provision would also cover violations
including unauthorized wastewater discharges or failure to
report as required by applicable regulation. Also, under AS
46.03.760(f), penalties for falsifying a registration or report
are not less than $5,000 nor more than $100,000 in a civil
action for the initial violation, nor more than $10,000 for each
day thereafter on which the same violation occurs.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE relayed that this would also include a
failure to report as required by applicable regulation, permit,
or by submittal of a false report. Criminal liability for
cruise ships also applies. A person, including an organization,
acting with criminal negligence may be found guilty of a class A
misdemeanor. An individual so convicted can be subject to a
fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or sentenced to not more than a
year in prison. An organization can also find itself convicted,
and can be subject to a fine of no more than $200,000 or an
amount twice the pecuniary damage for a lost cause by the
defendant to another or property of another. Also, a person can
be held accountable, under the criminal statute, for a class C
felony if the person, with criminal negligence, is found guilty
of discharging 10,000 or more barrels of oil, which is a
catastrophic release, and that applies to cruise ships as well.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE noted that there is also a standard used to
determine whether someone has been criminally negligent pursuant
to the criminal negligence statutes. That standard is, when a
person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a provision of law defining the
offense when the person fails to perceive a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the
circumstance exists, the risk must be of such a nature and
degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person
would observe in the situations. Furthermore, there are other
statutes that could apply for holding somebody criminally or
civilly liable. She offered to get that latter information to
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the DEC supports HB 164.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE offered her understanding that the DEC is
doing its best to interpret the ballot initiative as written,
and implement those laws on the book.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to language on page 2, lines
2-8, and asked whether the first sentence in that proposed
provision would allow a marine engineer to come on board while
the vessel is at sea in Alaska waters.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that the second sentence of
that proposed provision allows a marine engineer to board the
vessel at times while the vessel is in port, asked whether it is
necessary to retain that second sentence or whether the ability
to board a vessel while it is in port is implied within the
first sentence.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE suggested that perhaps Mr. Ruaro could better
respond to that question.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pondered whether maritime law makes a
distinction between being underway and being at port.
2:37:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the language being
deleted via Section 2 and Section 3, said those changes appear
to be an attempt to delete the authority to ensure protection
from improper sanitation, health, safety practices, and health-
related operations. He asked what jurisdiction is being removed
from the marine engineers referenced in those sections.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE acknowledged that there is some question,
under current law, regarding who may have primacy over certain
of the functions that are covered under Section 2. She said
that the change proposed to AS 46.03.476(a)(2) appears to intend
to allow the Ocean Ranger to confirm whether the vessel is
complying with an approved U.S. Coast Guard security plan; so to
some extent the duty that is being asked of the Ocean Ranger
under this proposed change would perhaps limit the larger,
somewhat unknown duties that might be imposed under current law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what is within the phrase,
"improper sanitation, health, and safety practices" or within
the phrase, "engineering, sanitation, and health related
operations of the vessel" that is not included within the
phrase, "approved United States Coast Guard security plan" or
the phrase, "registration, reporting, record-keeping, and
discharge functions required by state and federal law". What is
being done via these proposed language changes? What abilities
are the Ocean Rangers being divested of?
MS. HAMILTON HESSE surmised that those changes are an attempt at
refining the kinds of the things that Ocean Rangers must be
alert for.
MR. RUARO offered his understanding that the proposed deletions
from current law will remove from the Ocean Rangers' scope of
duties the ability to go on the bridge and interfere with the
operation of the vessel or normal engineering operations. Also,
the "sanitation" and "health" language is being deleted because
the vessels are already inspected by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and federal public health
inspectors, and records reflect that [the cruise ship industry]
passed 398 out of the last 403 inspections, and so Ocean Rangers
need not be saddled with that particular duty. In response to
the question of whether the language on page 2, lines 5-8 -
regarding boarding the vessel while it is in port - is really
necessary, he said that it is his understanding that that
language simply modifies the language directing owners and
operators to allow a marine engineer on board; instead of
reading it as either/or, it simply modifies when the Ocean
Ranger must be allowed on board the vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that it just broadens
the time and clarifies that a marine engineer may board a vessel
either while it is in port or while it is at sea.
MR. RUARO disagreed and said the language is meant to stipulate
that the marine engineer will be allowed onboard while the
vessel is in port.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned, then, why the first
sentence is being changed to say "operating in the marine waters
of the state". "You couldn't get to the port unless you were
operating within the marine waters of the state; that's the only
way you get to the port," he added.
MR. RUARO concurred, but argued that the point of these changes
is to move away from having to put Ocean Rangers on board the
vessel the moment it crosses the international boundary line and
comes into Alaska waters.
2:45:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't have a problem with
that concept, but said it seems to him that that language change
would clearly allow boarding while the vessel is at sea within
the territorial waters [of Alaska]. If the point is to prohibit
that, then the first sentence should be deleted entirely, he
surmised.
MR. RUARO clarified that the intent is to only allow marine
engineers on board a vessel while it is in port in Alaskan
waters.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that that intent is not clear
from the language.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Ruaro whether he meant to say that
the goal of the changes proposed to subsection (a)(2) of Section
2 and to Section 3 is to prevent the Ocean Rangers from
inspecting anything regardless of how, where, or when they got
on board the vessel.
MR. RUARO said he'd not meant to say that. He offered that what
he was trying to say was that an Ocean Ranger couldn't perform
engineering, sanitation, and health-related operations on the
vessel, but could continue to monitor registration, reporting,
record-keeping, and pollution discharge functions required by
state and federal law. These changes will narrow the scope of
an Ocean Ranger's duties but won't eliminate them.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for further clarification regarding
what Ocean Rangers will be prevented from doing.
MR. RUARO opined that Ocean Rangers won't be allowed to perform
ordinary engineering functions, interfere with the Captain, or
perform the health- and sanitation-related duties currently
being performed by the U.S. Public Health Service. In response
to another question, he reiterated that under the bill, Ocean
Rangers will be permitted to monitor registration, reporting,
record-keeping, and pollution discharge functions required by
state and federal law - as outlined on page 2, line 20.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that the ballot
initiative's language said that a marine engineer must be on
board the vessel at all times while it is in Alaskan waters, and
that the bill's language is intended to stipulate that a marine
engineer can be on board a vessel only while it is in port.
MR. RUARO concurred.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he'd not seen anything in the voter pamphlet
indicating that the ballot initiative intended to exclude small
cruise ships and ferries.
MR. RUARO indicated that he hadn't either. In response to a
question, he opined that HB 164 honors the will of the voters
that want better management and oversight of wastewater
discharges from cruise ships.
2:50:48 PM
MS. KENT, in response to the question of whether the DEC
supports HB 164, said that the DEC is working diligently to
implement the changes brought about by the voters' approval of
the ballot initiative as it was written, and is prepared to
implement any further changes to the law via HB 164 or other
legislation, but is not taking an active position on HB 164
either way.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the DEC is not supporting
HB 164.
MS. KENT said it is because the DEC believes that any changes to
existing law constitute a policy decision, which needs to be
made by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked how the DEC would interpret the
language of proposed AS 46.03.476(a). Would that language only
allow a marine engineer to come on board a vessel while it is in
port? Or would a marine engineer be allowed to board a vessel
while it was underway.
MS. KENT said that the DEC reads that language to mean that a
marine engineer could get on board while the vessel is in port,
but because the bill is silent with regard to when the marine
engineer is supposed to disembark the vessel, the DEC asked the
sponsor's staff who in turn indicated that it is the sponsor's
intent that a marine engineer only be on board the vessel while
it is in port. She relayed that the DEC's fiscal note makes
that same assumption.
2:54:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he likes the concept of having Ocean
Rangers on board vessels at least some of the time while they
are underway, not just while they are in port, and would
therefore like to see some changes along that line before the
bill is heard on the House floor because it would come closer to
the intent of the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred. She said that when looking at
a ballot initiative, she considers two questions: is it
constitutional, and is it the right thing to do. She remarked:
"I think it's too big a leap to go from a language that requires
a marine engineer to be on board at all times while in Alaska
waters, to go to language that's intended to say they can never
be on board unless they're in port, and for me that is too big a
leap that I'm not willing to make."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that the discussion pertains to
"Ocean Rangers," not "Port Rangers," and that amendments offered
on the floor can be difficult to debate; therefore, he is not
comfortable passing the bill out of committee as it is currently
written.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked:
I've expressed my concerns, here. First, it's very
clear to me that the first sentence [of proposed AS
46.03.476(a)] clearly allows the person to board at
sea. I think it's an unsupportable reading not to
allow that to be done, and it's completely at odds
with the second sentence. Secondly, what they've done
here, in the bill, is significantly, as a policy
matter, undercut the scope of the allowable function
of the Ocean Rangers. And I would second what
Representative Holmes has said: there's a
considerable leap between what was in the initiative
and the very great distance this particular measure
goes.
We haven't had a very good discussion of what the term
"engineering" means. I spent two years as a deck
officer at sea. Engineering relates to the
engineering system, the engineering department, the
boilers, the evaporators, the generators, and the
turbines down in the engineering spaces, but it
doesn't normally relate to ... what goes on, on the
bridge, and structural kinds of things as well.
"Sanitation" is very broad, and "health" is extremely
broad. I was under the impression that these Ocean
Rangers were going to be properly trained to handle
all of those functions, and we don't have testimony as
to whether the fact that [cruise ships] ... passed
inspections necessarily means that it is at the level
the voters intended when they passed the initiative.
So that part of this concerns me as well.
Of course there's a considerable difference between
having a marine engineer on board and allowing them to
be on board. The concept I've heard discussed,
whether you have to have 24/7, because people only
work 8 hours a day under the labor laws, it doesn't
require 24/7. It says, "have a marine engineer"; it
doesn't say, "have 24/7 coverage". I wouldn't have
read it as 24/7 coverage the way it was previously
written. It's not the function of the [House Finance
Committee to] rewrite legislation; they look at the
finance aspects, we look at the legal aspects, here.
3:00:14 PM
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM said she's heard requests from members
regarding a possible amendment that would address the concerns
brought forth in committee. She offered her belief that it
would be in the best interest of the sponsor to have that
amendment prepared and brought back to this committee for
review, thus allowing the House Finance Committee to just
address the fiscal issues associated with the bill.
MR. RUARO agreed to try to have such an amendment prepared
[soon].
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM expressed disfavor with the concept of
simply assuming that the bill's problems will be fixed in the
next committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is satisfied with the
constitutional issue and doesn't need to hear more testimony on
that point.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM relayed that HB 164 would be set aside.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
HB 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
3:02:40 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to issuance of identification
cards and to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an
effective date."
The committee took an at-ease from 3:04 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
3:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as the sponsor, said that HB 3
requires persons to show documentary evidence that they have a
"legal presence" in Alaska and that they are who they say they
are. House Bill 3 also provides that a license expires when a
person's legal presence in Alaska expires. He remarked, "I
don't know why should someone have the privilege of driving a
car down the street when they don't have a legal presence to
walk down the same street." He pointed out that although HB 3
is not the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, it may bring Alaska into
compliance with certain provisions of that federal Act; for
example, allowing Alaskans to use their Alaska driver's license
or identification (ID) card to enter federal buildings or board
airplanes. After mentioning that there is pending legislation
opposing the federal Act, he asked that HB 3 be judged on its
own merits. In conclusion, he said that if members believe as
he does that a "legal presence" in the state of Alaska should be
required for the privilege of driving in Alaska, and that a
driver's license and ID card should constitute proof that a
person is who he/she says he/she is, then members should vote
for HB 3.
3:15:00 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), relayed that HB 3 provides
that only U.S. citizens and several other groups of people are
eligible to obtain Alaska driver's licenses. Also, an
international customer, such as a foreign exchange student, for
example, can now, because of statutory requirements, obtain a
driver's license or state ID card valid for a five-year period
regardless of how long he/she may legally reside in the U.S.,
and so HB 3 provides that such a license or ID card shall expire
on the date that the person's legal presence in Alaska expires.
He then offered a specific example of an international customer
who obtained an Alaska driver's license valid for five years
even though that person's temporary visitor status was set to
expire in just a few days.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question regarding that
international customer, relayed that under current law, the
Alaska DMV was not required to look at that person's visa and
instead needed only to see that person's New York driver's
license.
3:19:53 PM
BILL SCANNELL, The Identity Project (IDP), after relaying that
he is an American by birth, an Alaskan by choice, and a U.S.
Army veteran, said he opposes passage of HB 3. He then noted
that the original sponsor statement said [original punctuation
provided]:
On May 11, 2005 President Bush signed into law the
Real ID Act. Provisions of this legislation improved
security for driver' licenses and personal
identification cards as well as set uniform standards
for state driver's licenses and identification cards.
HB 3 is designed to bring Alaska into compliance with
the new federal Real ID Act.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that sponsor statements can be
fallible and are subject to revision.
MR. SCANNELL, in response to a question, said he is opposed to
both the federal REAL ID Act of 2005 and to HB 3. He remarked:
Mr. Chairman, if you allow HB 3 to pass out of your
committee, you will have ... in fact voted for
Alaskans to have a national ID card and to participate
in that. You will have, in fact, granted Duane
Bannock and the DMV, carte blanche, to set any ID
standards that he wants, and he'll never have to come
back to this committee or this legislative body ever,
ever again. ... This whole business about this being
about illegal immigrants, ... from my perspective, ...
is a smokescreen because this bill only affects
Alaskans - it does not affect foreign immigrants at
all.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that Mr. Scannell is giving Mr. Bannock
more authority than the legislature has granted him.
MR. SCANNELL referred to similar legislation from last year that
would have granted the director of the DMV a number of rights to
implement the REAL ID Act, and offered his understanding that
HB 3 contains those same provisions even though [such rights]
are currently the subject of litigation. He said he is hoping
that the committee will realize its authority to set standards
and not simply delegate that authority, forever, to the director
of the DMV. The REAL ID Act of 2005 and HB 3, he opined,
constitute a multi-billion dollar boondoggle.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in response to a comment and a question,
mentioned that he is actually in favor of the REAL ID Act of
2005.
MR. SCANNELL said that if it were up to him, he would name HB 3
the Alaskan REAL ID Enabling Act because that is exactly what it
does - it enables the director of the DMV to set driver's
license standards. This is going to cost the state a lot of
money, he opined, and offered his belief that the director of
the DMV has not yet provided that information.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that the DMV's fiscal note for the bill
estimates a cost of $20,000.
MR. SCANNELL argued that according to the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, the cost to the states to implement the
federal Act will be $14.6 billion, and thus he finds it very
difficult to believe that Alaska will be able to implement the
HB 3 components of the REAL ID Act of 2005 for only $20,000. He
added:
This is going to also cost the tax payors of Alaska a
lot of time - a waste of time - because we're all
going to have to go back, whether we've had driver's
licenses for 50 years or we're getting it for the
first time, ... and provide the original
documentation, whether it be our passport, birth
certificates - all of these documents. If you don't
have them, and you don't have the right seals on them,
then ... [if you came from someplace else as did a lot
of Alaskans] that costs money.
It's a backdoor gun registry because a lot of states
that don't believe in the Second Amendment as much as
we do ... tie their driver's licenses to their state
gun registries, and it will create a de facto national
gun registry that we currently would not be
participating in, but all it would take is someone to
scream about the children, and, yes, we would. It's
also a threat to not only our identity, but a threat
to our country because it will enable bad guys -
criminals and terrorists - to be able to have easier
access [to] all of these breeder documents and all of
this.
MR. SCANNELL concluded:
And, overall, it's a threat to freedom. This military
ribbon I wear on my lapel, sir, I earned as an
intelligence officer in West Berlin - I worked as a
reporter in eastern Europe throughout the '80s and
'90s - and I do not like the whole "Papers, please"
(indisc - foreign language) society. That's not
America. And finally, ... as I believe HB 3 is in
fact the "REAL ID enabling Act," I do not believe that
there is any way that one can support HB 3, let it out
of committee, and at the same time support the very
well written [HJR 19] ... that opposes [the federal
REAL ID Act of 2005]. ...
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Scannell whether he believes that
a person's license should expire when his/her legal presence
expires.
MR. SCANNELL replied that the purpose of the DMV is to keep the
roads safe and make sure people know how to drive cars - not
play the role of homeland security, immigration officer, or
border patrol.
3:29:29 PM
MATTHEW KERR, after relaying that he is an independent computer
contractor with 13 years of professional database system design
experience who last year worked on a state IT contract, said he
opposes HB 3, which he characterized as part of Alaska's
implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005. Mr. Kerr
offered his recollection that Mr. Bannock has testified for the
last two years that the DMV will implement this bill by scanning
and retaining electronic copies of the personal identity
documents of everyone in the state who applies for a driver's
license or ID card; this would result in the DMV having more
documentation about each person than the U.S. passport office
currently retains. As a database programmer and as an Alaskan,
he remarked, he believes [such a practice will be] invasive, a
grave security risk, and result in a loss of privacy and in an
increase in the size of government without any corresponding
benefit.
MR. KERR opined that HB 3 does nothing to prevent illegal
immigration and is instead more likely to promote it; [HB 3] is
a bad idea. He added:
My security concerns are well-founded. In 2005 alone,
... three states reported successful data thefts of
personal information from their DMVs. One laptop
found by police in an Oregon methamphetamine house
contained DMV records on a half million people. If
this trend continues, there's a 60 percent chance that
our state would be compromised sometime in the next 10
years. I have worked on IT contracts for the State of
Alaska - if I was a dishonest person, I could have
walked out of the department I worked in with
sensitive information on thousands of Alaskans. There
are many people in positions like mine. A DVD filled
with authentic images of our birth certificates,
passports, and social security cards would sell for a
pretty good sum in Tijuana, and all it would take is a
single employee with a chip on his or her shoulder.
There's nothing that makes Alaska somehow more immune
to this than Oregon, Georgia, Nevada, or North
Carolina. The supporters of this bill claim that it
is only about illegal immigrants. I also oppose
illegal immigration, but this bill does nothing
against it - foreign licenses are valid in Alaska
regardless of the holder's legal presence. This bill
doesn't remove any privileges or benefits from illegal
aliens except perhaps the ability to obtain
reasonably-priced car insurance. It's also redundant;
we already don't give license to illegal aliens. On
the other hand, House Bill 3 adds significant security
risk, privacy loss, red tape, and bureaucracy to our
state government. The DMV doesn't need special
legislation and a new document tracking system [in
order] to make a phone call about a suspected illegal
immigrant applying for a license.
MR. KERR, noting that the sponsor has said he values [personal]
privacy, offered his hope that Representative Lynn would
therefore support amendments to restrict the DMV's identity
document collection to only non U.S. citizens and residents. If
HB 3 is only intended to address length of legal presence, then
why does the DMV need to keep copies of U.S. citizens' papers,
particularly given that citizenship doesn't expire.
3:33:25 PM
ANASTASIA MIRONOVA relayed that she is a foreign student from
Russia, is currently in Salt Lake City obtaining a Ph.D. in
scientific computing and a master's degree in geophysics, has
graduated from the University of Alaska Anchorage with two
degrees - one in mathematics and one in computer science - and
is working for "a large oil company with significant activity
[on] the North Slope." She went on to say:
My presence in the United States is legal. However, I
only have an expired visa and an expired passport
because the United States does not issue visas
domestically. Under the proposed [legislation], I
would not be able to convince a DMV agent of my
eligibility for [an] Alaska driver's license. I am
permitted to travel internationally within North
America and legally return to the United States with
my expired visa and my passport. I once had an
extensive debate about this with an airline agent who
nearly refused to allow me on board even though I had
copies of the immigration rules and the federal
regulations themselves.
This experience was very unpleasant, bureaucratic,
time consuming, and most extremely frightening. I
honestly cried most of the flight back to the United
States. The airline agent verifies ... travel
documents every day as part of her job, yet even she
was clueless about the rules of my legal presence.
This situation would be at least as difficult for me
as (indisc.). My Russian driver's license is still
valid. I applied for an Alaskan license for only two
reasons. The first one was to obtain cheaper car
insurance rates, and the second was because my Alaskan
driver's license was smaller and easier to carry
around.
If I had experienced the same kind of hassle as I did
with the airlines at [the] Alaska DMV, I would have
never taken [an] Alaska driver's license driving test
... and I would be still using my Russian driver's
license despite the higher insurance rates. I assure
that there already exists an enormous amount of
paperwork and hassle in being a foreign student in
this country. Thank you for listening to my
testimony.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Ms. Mironova whether she has plans to pursue
U.S. citizenship.
MS. MIRONOVA said she is not permitted to officially answer such
a question in public.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Ms. Mironova whether she thinks that another
person in similar circumstances would be interested in
performing terrorist activities.
MS. MIRONOVA said she doesn't believe so, and surmised that
people who come to the United States to study are only
interested in studying, getting their degree, and then moving on
with their careers. When a person is issued an American visa,
she relayed, there is now a process in place that provides for
background checks and other security checks to ensure that the
person is not coming to the country to commit terrorist
activities, and visa applications specifically ask a lot of
questions in that regard.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he is inclined to vote "yes" on HB 3 because
Ms. Mironova's testimony illustrates to him that currently
people with bad intentions would have too easy a time moving
around the country with only an Alaska driver's license.
MS. MIRONOVA concluded by saying that if the procedures provided
for in HB 3 were in place, she would simply rely on her Russian
driver's license, obtain insurance, and be perfectly legal -
there would be no point in obtaining an Alaska driver's license.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with that concept.
3:41:24 PM
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (AkCLU), noted that some of the documents
provided in members' packets acknowledge that HB 3 does, in
fact, bring Alaska closer to compliance with the REAL ID Act.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred that the fiscal note provided by the DMV
does indicate that, as well as that the funds outlined in the
fiscal note would only be used to update the DMV's database and
that additional funds might be needed for full compliance with
the federal Act.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL explained that for those opposed to the REAL ID
Act, the strategy, nationally, is to try to garner support in
all of the states affected by the Act and express opposition to
it through any means possible, for example, via resolutions such
as Alaska's HJR 19. But, to the extent that any state takes
steps that tend to implement the federal Act, those steps could
be viewed as an expression of support for the Act. So if states
choose not to implement pieces of the REAL ID Act - and HB 3
will comply with it in part - or delays doing so or expresses
disapproval of it, that can be viewed as further opposition to
the Act which may help efforts in Washington, D.C., to repeal or
significantly modify it. He mentioned that there are bipartisan
measures before both houses of Congress to do just that.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL offered, though, that there are other reasons
to oppose HB 3, as prior testimony has indicated. He asked the
committee to consider what the DMV's mission is and whether it
should become the enforcement arm of the federal immigration
process. If the committee thinks that the DMV should be
checking immigration status as part of its licensing process,
then why not also grant the DMV the authority to check on
someone's legal tax status or on whether someone's committing
welfare fraud, or on any number of other things relating to
somebody's legal activities before issuing a license? In other
words, why should the DMV only be given the authority to check
on somebody's immigration status? He offered his belief that
the DMV's mission is that of making sure that drivers know the
rules of the road, that drivers are legally licensed and are
eligible for insurance, and that the roads of Alaska are filled
with drivers who know how to drive.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL offered that the one thing that is known about
those that would be excluded from the licensing process by HB 3
is that they will drive anyway - "you have to drive in this day
and age in order to do what you're going to do." Isn't it
better for everyone to have drivers on the road who are licensed
and insured? In response to a question regarding "serial drunk
drivers," he said that if there is a legitimate class of people
that ought to be prevented from getting licenses, it would be
those who have demonstrated their inability to drive safely, and
that is what the DMV is supposed to do. There is a qualitative
difference between serial drunk drivers and people who merely
have a limited time to be in the country legally.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said that via HB 3, the Division of Motor
Vehicles - which is supposed to determine a person's
qualifications to conduct himself/herself safely on the roads of
Alaska - is instead being asked to make a determination
regarding a person's immigration status. And while it is
possible to establish a connection between the DMV's current
duties and precluding a serial drunk driver from obtaining a
license, there is not the same logical leap regarding the DMV's
current duties and precluding someone from obtaining a license
simply based on his/her immigration status. "So that, I think,
is one of the real key distinctions, here, about why we should
not be assigning this role to the [Division of Motor Vehicles],
he added.
CHAIR RAMRAS countered that as an alcoholic beverage licensee,
he could view the dominate purpose of a driver's license to be
that of indicating whether someone is old enough to consume
alcoholic beverages, and thus once a person's age is
established, a license need never expire.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL pointed out, though, that there has been a
policy determination that one is eligible to drive at a
particular age and presumably that policy decision is wrapped up
in determinations of when is somebody able to safely operate a
motor vehicle, thereby establishing an age criteria and
requiring the DMV to verify that age as part of the licensing
process - again, there is a rational connection in this case.
CHAIR RAMRAS argued that even serial drunk drivers are probably
safe drivers when they are sober.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL concurred, and offered his understanding that
there have been number of efforts to try to figure out ways to
limit the operability of motor vehicles by somebody who's unable
to pass a breathalyzer test. However, he opined, it is not
possible to state that there is any direct connection between
somebody's legal presence in the country and his/her ability to
drive a car safely. Again, he remarked, to him it seems that
one of the key functions of the DMV is to make sure that those
who are driving on Alaska's roads are qualified to drive, rather
than that they are qualified to be in the country; if the DMV is
tasked with ensuring the latter, that would significantly expand
the scope of the DMV's mission. And if that is the will of the
legislature, so be it, but it constitutes a very big jump in the
DMV's mission, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that having a driver's license
bears no relationship with how safe a driver one might be.
3:52:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL - noting that under HB 3, the DMV is
authorized to promulgate regulations outlining what constitutes
valid documentation - asked what type of documentation would be
considered sufficient for obtaining a license and what would be
done with those documents.
MR. BANNOCK said the main documents the DMV sees on a regular
basis are original birth certificates and social security cards,
adding that the DMV is statutorily charged with verifying a
person's identity, and pointing out that ID cards, which the DMV
is responsible for issuing, have nothing to do with driving.
Repealing all [non-driving related] statutory provisions would
enable to the DMV to focus simply on ensuring driver competence.
Other documentation that is currently acceptable, he continued,
are court records and passports. He offered his understanding
that under a specific provision of HB 3, the DMV will be able to
accept a person's current valid driver's license as sufficient
documentation; thus, as long as a person's driver's license is
not expired, canceled, revoked, or suspended, he/she won't have
to [provide any other form of documentation]. He also relayed
that the DMV does have a plan for eventually retaining
electronic copies of the aforementioned documents, but that plan
has not yet been implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what documentation is required of a
person now if his/her license expires, and what documentation
will be required under HB 3 if a person's license expires.
3:56:12 PM
MR. BANNOCK said that under HB 3, the person will have to
reestablish who he/she is [via additional documentation] because
the DMV will not accept an expired, canceled, revoked, or
suspended license as sufficient documentation. Under current
law, a person coming in with an expired license needn't provide
any additional identifying documentation. He mentioned that
statutorily, a person may renew his/her driver's license up to
12 months in advance.
CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony on HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether passage of HB 3 would
enable [the DMV] to later implement the federal REAL ID Act
without requesting further statutory changes.
MR. BANNOCK indicated that no further statutory changes would be
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding, however, that
certain appropriations might be required.
MR. BANNOCK concurred.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that state compliance
with the REAL ID Act would come at considerable expense.
MR. BANNOCK concurred, and, in response to a question, relayed
that he doesn't yet know what it would cost the state to become
completely compliant with the REAL ID Act.
[HB 3 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|