Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2001 02:27 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2001
2:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and instructional permits;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 110(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to offenses involving operating a motor
vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or controlled substance; relating to implied
consent to take a chemical test; relating to registration of
motor vehicles; relating to presumptions arising from the amount
of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE:SOCIAL SECURITY # & DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/05/01 0241 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/05/01 0241 (H) STA, JUD
02/15/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/20/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/01 0383 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP 1NR
02/21/01 0384 (H) DP: WILSON, STEVENS,
CRAWFORD, JAMES,
02/21/01 0384 (H) FATE, COGHILL; NR: HAYES
02/21/01 0384 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
03/13/01 0579 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/14/01 (H) JUD AT 2:15 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed an amendment to SB 102, the
companion bill to HB 110.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with presentation of HB 110 and
answered questions.
DENNY WEATHERS
PO Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 110, provided
comments on requirements of social security numbers for
licenses.
ERIC WEATHERS
PO Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 110, provided
comments on requirements of social security numbers for
licenses.
MARY MARSHBURN, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 110 and the
proposed amendments.
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
PO Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 110 and proposed
Amendment 1.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:27 p.m. Representatives
Rokeberg, Coghill, Meyer, and Berkowitz were present at the call
to order. Representative James arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 110 - SOCIAL SECURITY # & DRIVER'S LICENSES
[Contains discussion of SB 102, the companion bill.]
Number 0085
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hear HOUSE
BILL NO. 110, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and
instructional permits; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 110(STA).]
Number 0102
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor, said that HB
110 would take social security numbers off of the face of
driver's licenses. He added that he had been dealing with this
issue in a number of ways because of reluctance, on his part, to
have social security numbers continually used as an
identification number. He pointed out that though the social
security number would still have to be given on the application,
individuals would not have to have it on the face of driver's
licenses, thus providing a certain amount of security to those
individuals. Furthermore, HB 110 will allow for an affidavit
for those who don't have a social security number so that those
folks could pursue a driver's license. He noted that the
legislation is to become effective immediately. He also noted
that this would also apply to identification cards. The
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has assured him that the
policy for a driver's license would be directly related to those
identifications.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL informed the committee that Senator
Therriault is the sponsor of a similar bill. Therefore, he had
requested Senator Therriault's presence so that he could discuss
an amendment [to SB 102] that occurred in the Senate.
Number 0249
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, said that he
and Representative Coghill had been coordinating on this issue.
Before he discussed the amendment, he asked if the proposed
commercial driver's license (CDL) language is going to be
considered as an amendment or a committee substitute (CS).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL answered that it would be considered a
friendly amendment.
SENATOR THERRIAULT provided the committee with the language
adopted by the Senate committee, which he said should also work
for HB 110. Senator Therriault informed the committee that a
Juneau man had related the following story to him. This man had
a CDL that had his social security number on the face of it, and
he lost his wallet a few years ago. Shortly after recovering
his wallet, he realized that someone was using his social
security number to assume his identity. At the time, Senator
Therriault told the man that although he thought the social
security number on the CDL was a federal requirement, he would
look into the issue.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that according to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration regulations [Section 383.153]
(d)(1), a driver applicant must provide his or her social
security number on the application of a CDL, and [under Section
383.153 (d)(2)] the state must provide the social security
number to the CDL information system. Further clarification
came from a publication, used by states seeking direction from
the federal government, which said, according to [Section]
383.153, that a social security number did not have to be on the
CDL, simply on the application if the applicant is domiciled in
the United States. Senator Therriault said it is clear that the
federal government requires a social security number to be
provided on the application, which then gets submitted to the
federal tracking system, but the social security number does not
have to be on the CDL.
Number 0510
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to Amendment 1, 22-LS0556\C.1, Ford,
3/12/01, and said it was intended to clarify, in Alaska Statute,
what would be required on a CDL by the federal government. Like
on a regular driver's license, a social security number must be
provided on the application but does not have to be printed on
the face of the license. Amendment 1 reads as follows:
Page 2, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 28.33.100(b) is amended to read:
(b) In addition to the information required
under AS 28.15.111, a commercial driver's license
shall include information determined by the United
States Secretary of Transportation to be appropriate
to identify the licensee [, INCLUDING THE LICENSEE'S
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he would provide the committee with the
written information from the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, on another point, referred to page 2,
lines [15-16], and inquired if the exception language should be
deleted.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he did not think that would be
necessary. He explained that inclusion of the exception
language would allow flexibility; should the federal government
change its policy and require a social security number on CDLs,
then Alaska Statute would not have to be changed to accommodate
new federal regulations.
CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested that keeping the aforementioned
exception language in would make the statute more confusing for
the public.
Number 0725
SENATOR THERRIAULT countered that letting the exception language
remain would allow Alaska to stay in compliance with federal
regulations even if those regulations changed in the future. If
Alaska did not remain in compliance because of federal
regulation changes, then Alaska's CDLs might not be recognized
in other states. The legislature would then have to convene and
alter the statute in order to comply with new federal
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he was not opposed to that
scenario, should it need to occur.
Number 0752
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, assisted with the presentation of HB 110.
She said she thought Senator Therriault's interpretation of the
aforementioned exception language was correct. Currently, the
Secretary of Transportation does not require a social security
number on CDLs; therefore, the exception language could remain
without violating the intent of HB 110.
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that the federal regulations document
provided by Senator Therriault appeared to require a social
security number on the CDL if the applicant had an air brake
restriction.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that that interpretation was not
correct. The language in the federal regulations document
merely required that a social security number had to be supplied
on the application, and it was [the air brake restriction that
must be indicated on the CDL].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that a social security number was
required to be provided on the application for a regular state
driver's license as well.
CHAIR ROKEBERG returned to the point of the exception language
[on page 2, lines 15-16]. He inquired if Senator Therriault
recommended keeping it in HB 110.
SENATOR THERRIAULT advised that keeping the aforementioned
exception language would be prudent. If the exception language
was removed from HB 110, and the federal government started
requiring social security numbers on CDLs, Alaska's Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) would not be able to comply; thus Alaska's
CDLs would be valid only in Alaska. This scenario would
negatively impact long-haul truck drivers who routinely use the
Alaska-Canada Highway (Alcan) because their CDLs would not be
valid in the Lower 48. In response to a query from Chair
Rokeberg, Senator Therriault said that he thought CDL holders
would understand the requirements on the CDL application
regarding social security numbers, though he suspected that
probably no one reads the entire statute prior to applying.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that given the current high-
tech methods of information transfers, "identity theft" was
becoming a bigger issue. He said he thought the [social
security] number has become too much of an identifier, and
philosophically, he would not mind standing up to the federal
government, although he acknowledged the need to go in
incremental steps. Getting [the social security number] off the
face of [driver's] licenses and fishing licenses would assist in
protecting an individual's identity. He also noted that even
his legislative ID card included his social security number on
it, and he would be taking up this same issue with the
Legislative Affairs Agency. He concluded by saying his intent
with HB 110 was to protect the public from identity theft.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that his social security
number was not on the face of his driver's license because he
expressly asked DMV not to include it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that people can make that
request but most people do not know of that option.
Number 1059
DENNY WEATHERS testified via teleconference. She said that she
and her husband had wanted to participate in the meeting [on SB
102] held yesterday, but were precluded from doing so because
her husband had been arrested for not having a driver's license
and, therefore, had to go to court. She said that when she and
her husband went to go renew their driver's licenses, they were
denied because they "did not have a social security [number], or
would not give a social security [number]." She added that they
had been fighting this [situation] since HB 344 went into effect
in 1998. She said that in 1999 they were denied their licenses
when they went to renew them because the legislature created HB
344 under duress from the federal government. She also said
that she felt that the legislature had taken away her rights and
had tried to force her to get a federal ID number.
MS. WEATHERS referred to SB 19 and HB 41 and said that although
they appeared to be good legislation, they were both going to
extend the sunset provisions regarding social security [number]
requirements. She said she felt that the legislature did not
seem to care about the public; instead, the legislature wanted
the federal dollars. She expressed the opinion that while the
legislature was supposed to represent the people, the
legislature was only [in Juneau] to make money for itself. She
concluded by saying that although she has never received any
response to her inquiries, she still wanted to know how many
people owe child support versus how many people don't. She
added that she knows very few people who actually owe child
support, and she felt that the legislature was causing problems
for those who do not owe child support in order to get
additional funds through the court system. She also said she
felt that what the legislature was doing was a treasonable
offense.
Number 1259
ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference. He said he felt he
was being made a criminal over the social security [number]
issue. He said he believed it was directly due to the Child
[Support] Enforcement Agency and over the $70 million. He added
that he will have been in court three times as of tomorrow for
the charge of driving without a license. He postulated that the
$70 million would be used up in trial cases. He said he would
really like to see "you throw it out and take this oppression
off of it." Mr. Weathers clarified, for Representative
Rokeberg, that he was arrested for driving without a license,
and he was denied a license because "I didn't have a social
security number." He added that Representative Coghill's office
had a copy of everything and all his prior testimony.
Number 1394
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, testified via teleconference. She said
Senator Therriault was correct: federal law requires the
collection and retention of social security numbers for both
commercial and non-commercial driver's licenses. However, there
are not any federal requirements to display the social security
number on either license. She also said that neither HB 110 nor
proposed Amendment 1 would have any effect on either DMV or
DMV's zero fiscal note. She added that the division's
collection of social security numbers, as required by federal
law, would not be prohibited.
MS. MARSHBURN clarified that it is a federal requirement, not a
state requirement, to collect a social security number on a
driver's license application. The collection of the number on
the application was required, but the display of the number on
the face of the license was not. She said this federal
requirement came from the child support law. She explained that
if someone had never been issued a social security number, then
that person could complete a sworn affidavit to that effect and
would be issued a driver's license or be allowed to renew one.
If, however, a person has ever been issued a social security
number, then DMV is required by the federal government to
collect it. The Social Security Administration does not rescind
social security numbers, she noted.
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired whether the requirement of the
sworn affidavit could be fulfilled at the DMV office.
MS. MARSHBURN said yes, it could. In addition, every DMV office
has a sign that informs the public that display of the social
security number on the face of the license is optional.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to [paragraph] (4). He said
he thought that the objective of the statement "this paragraph
does not apply to a person who affirms by a sworn [affidavit]"
could be accomplished by saying: "this paragraph only applies
to a person who has been issued a social security number". He
questioned why the burden was on people who do not have a social
security number to come forward and affirm that fact. He
suggested amending HB 110 [on page 1, line 14, and page 2, lines
1-2] to read: "this paragraph only applies to a person who has
been issued a social security number". The same end would be
accomplished, and it would avoid the problem of affirmatively
requiring somebody who does not have a social security number to
do something.
MS. MARSHBURN responded that this issue would be best posed to
the Department of Law. She had, however, received
communications from the federal government on this very issue,
which directed DMV to do just the opposite of Representative
Berkowitz's suggestion. In order for DMV to issue a license,
the applicant must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of
perjury, that he or she has never had, has never been issued,
and has never used a social security number. She said
affidavits are to be kept on file with DMV, although to date, no
affidavits have been filed.
CHAIR ROKEBERG added that according to a letter from David Gray
Ross, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement, United
States Department of Health and Human Services, states were
advised to require the sworn affidavits. He acknowledged that
he did not know exactly what that meant, whether it was just the
commissioner's opinion, or if there was a regulatory foundation.
Number 1637
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ argued that the interpretation language
in the aforementioned letter suggested a course of action that
was distinctly different from requiring someone who does not
have a social security number to affirmatively do something. He
also noted that the legislature did not have to follow the
advice of the federal government.
CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that had Mr. Weathers used the sworn
affidavit, he might not have found himself before the bar. On
another point, he asked Ms. Marshburn if any DMV systems
required social security numbers.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that social security numbers were
another piece of information. The key pieces of information for
use in the DMV systems were the names and driver's license
numbers.
SENATOR THERRIAULT presented the following scenario: a person
had already supplied his or her social security on a prior
driver's license application, and when he or she came into the
office to renew the license, refused to provide the social
security number again. Senator Therriault asked if the DMV had
the flexibility to use information already on file, rather than
deny the renewal.
MS. MARSHBURN confirmed that the DMV would be able to use
information already on file. She added that the only people who
risk being denied a driver's license are people that are getting
an Alaskan driver's license for the first time or people whose
social security number cannot be located in the database. She
noted that most people of her generation (mid-fifties) would
have a social security number, but people of her children's
generation might be more likely to not have one.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that if a person had a
social security number but claimed to not have one, then that
person would be guilty of "unsworn falsification," a criminal
offense.
MS. MARSHBURN noted that in such a case, the DMV would ask the
person to sign the affidavit. If the person signs the
affidavit, a license is issued; if the person does not sign the
affidavit, a license is denied. She added that both the federal
government and the Office of the Attorney General advised the
DMV to take this course of action. She also acknowledged that
the DMV did have ways of determining if a person had committed
unsworn falsification.
Number 1896
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (AkCLU), testified via teleconference. She simply said
that she was in support of HB 110 and proposed Amendment 1.
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to language [on page 2, lines 15-16] and
inquired of Ms. Marshburn if there was any prospect that the
federal government would change its policy anytime soon and
start requiring social security numbers on the face of CDLs. He
wanted to know how stable the federal regulations were in this
area.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that there was not any prospect at this
time for change in the federal regulation regarding CDLs. She
added, however, that she wouldn't rule such a change completely
out, and the language [on page 2, lines 15-16] was designed to
allow flexibility in case such a change occurred. If that
language were removed and such a change did occur in federal
regulations, Alaska would be found out of compliance. She added
that noncompliance meant decertification of the state's CDL
program, which would, in turn, prevent CDL holders from driving
in other states, and would also cause about a 5 percent loss of
highway funds, or approximately $17 million.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that typically, the [U.S.] Department of
Transportation gives states a transition period in which to
implement changes in state statute in order to comply with new
federal regulations.
MS. MARSHBURN confirmed that that would be the case, but
cautioned that the length of the notification period can vary.
She mentioned that the [federal] Drivers Privacy Protection Act
[of 1994] had a seven-month notification period, which required
the legislature to act quite quickly.
Number 2080
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the public hearing on HB 110 was
closed.
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the aforementioned
Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which is as follows:
Page 2, line 1,
delete: "does not apply to a person who affirms
by sworn affidavit that the person has not"
insert: "only applies to a person who has"
[The result would be that paragraph (4), starting on page 1,
line 14, and continuing on page 2, lines 1-2, would read: "(4)
contain the applicant's social security number; this paragraph
only applies to a person who has been issued a social security
number; and".]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, as the sponsor, stated he had no
objection to Conceptual Amendment 2. He added that
notwithstanding the federal government's advice regarding the
sworn affidavit, he agreed with the concept of "putting the
burden where it belongs."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added that in the aforementioned letter
from David Gray Ross, paragraph 3 says that Section 466(a)(13)
of the Social Security Act is interpreted "to require that
States have procedures which require an individual to furnish
any social security number...." He argued that Conceptual
Amendment 2 was just such a procedure. He added that as long as
[the legislature] complied with the intent, nothing more was
needed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that although he agreed with the
remarks of Representative Berkowitz, he also acknowledged that
the federal government intended to require an affidavit from
individuals who do not have a social security number. He added
that he thought the [DMV] could continue to collect affidavits
without the requirement being in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that he did not want the
state to be collecting affidavits from people who are exercising
their rights. He referred to Mr. Weathers' case and suggested
that requiring people to affirm that they do not have a social
security number is making criminals out of people who are simply
doing what they feel is right.
Number 2300
CHAIR ROKEBERG countered that if Conceptual Amendment 2 were
adopted, anyone could claim that he or she did not have a social
security number and, therefore, would not be required to furnish
it on the application.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added that there was not any way to
check on the validity of claims made by people that they do not
have a social security number.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that that did not seem to be problem
currently, but cautioned that if statutory permission were
given, then it could become a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he could see three classes of
people that would not provide a social security number: those
that did not wish to divulge it, those who did not have one, and
those that were trying to evade the law. He added that
individuals who were trying to evade that law would be caught
some other way, not through a sworn affidavit. He noted that
unsworn falsification is a crime with far reaching effects.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that the state would be running afoul of
federal law by not providing the social security number, if in
fact an individual did have a social security number but did not
divulge it on the application. He added that with the adoption
of Conceptual Amendment 2, the DMV clerk who would have no
recourse if a person lied about having a social security number.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ countered that honest people would be
breaking the law by not providing a social security number if
they had been issued one.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that it appears to him that the
federal government is requiring people to swear, by affidavit,
that they do not have a social security number, and he said he
believes that to be coercive. He also said he did not believe
the burden of proof should be there because it could be
construed as coercing people to get a social security number.
[CHAIR ROKEBERG maintained his objection to Conceptual Amendment
2. This statement is not found on the tape but was recorded in
the log notes.]
TAPE 01-32, SIDE B
Number 2499
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Meyer, and
Berkowitz voted for Conceptual Amendment 2. Representative
Rokeberg voted against it. Representatives James, Ogan, and
Kookesh were absent during the vote. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted. [After the roll call vote, the
committee questioned quorum requirements. Chair Rokeberg's
staff confirmed that according to Legislative Legal Services,
Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.]
Number 2427
CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3,
which is as follows:
Page 2, lines 15-16,
delete: "Except as provided under AS
28.33.100(b) for commercial driver's license, a"
insert: "A"
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of
clarification
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that notwithstanding Senator
Therriault's arguments, he did not want to create additional
confusion within the statute by putting in an exception for a
situation that did not as yet exist. Chair Rokeberg further
explained that the adoption of Amendment 1 made the exception
language listed in proposed Conceptual Amendment 3 superfluous.
MS. MOSS commented that the exception language, if left in HB
110, would allow the DMV to comply with any changes imposed by
the federal government regarding CDLs. She added that if the
exception language was removed, as is proposed by Conceptual
Amendment 3, the state would still have time to comply with any
forthcoming changes from the federal government because a
notification period would be given.
Number 2240
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted there was no further objection. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained, for the benefit of Representative
James, who had recently arrived, the amendments made to HB 110
thus far.
Number 2129
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she agreed with
Representative Rokeberg's reasons for objecting to Conceptual
Amendment 2. She said [the legislature] should not open the
door for people to lie and cheat.
Number 2101
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report CSHB 110(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 110(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
[Blank tape for approximately 2 seconds.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|