Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
04/05/2008 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB202 | |
| SB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 202-PROHIBIT STATE SPENDING FOR REAL ID ACT 11:11:52 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was SENATE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to expenditures in aid of or to implement the provisions of the federal Real ID Act." 11:11:57 AM SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, introduced SB 202 as prime sponsor. He said the proposed legislation would prevent the state from spending money to implement the [federal] Real ID Act. He said there were some concerns as to whether or not HB 202 would impact the good business practices of the Division of Motor Vehicles and may impact other bills before the legislature. 11:13:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the proposed HCS (House committee substitute) for SB 202, Version 25-LS1145\M, Luckhaupt, 4/1/08, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version M was before the committee. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated, "To the extent that other ... legal presence bills are not implemented solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Real ID, then this bill has absolutely no impact on those." Furthermore, he said HB 202 would have no impact on the ability of the Division of Motor Vehicles to implement good business practices. Digital identification (ID) cards would still be permitted. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI related that there is a shared concern regarding the sharing of data with other states and the security risk that doing so may expose Alaskan citizens to. He said, "That's the essence of what this goes to." Another issue the bill addresses is state sovereignty and responding to the federal government dictating to Alaska how its driver's license and ID card should look. 11:14:44 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, in response to Representative Doll, said federal law is under siege; 36 states have said no to the Real ID Act. There is every expectation that the federal government will back off, but if it does not, all states must comply by December of 2009. 11:16:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he has struggled with the idea of having a straight-out prohibition of using any money, and he said he thinks lining out what the requirement would be would create a much larger bill. He stated for the record that his expectation is that the legislature would be able to make a judgment call as to what the requirements would be. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI confirmed that would be the case. He said there has been a lot of discussion in the Senate on this issue, because the Senate does not want to do anything to impede the good business practices of DMV, for example, the technological advances that would make licenses more secure. He said listing what can and cannot be complied with is "a dangerous route." He concluded, "So, I think this is a very fair compromise that the chair has worked out." 11:17:28 AM CHAIR LYNN, in response to a question from Representative Johansen, indicated that [Version M] came primarily from his office after speaking with the bill sponsor. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI confirmed that the chair came to his office with concerns that the legislature not "hamstring" the Division of Motor Vehicles. He said this issue was broached by the Senate, and the states of Maine, Montana, and Washington - who have similar pieces of legislation - were contacted. Those states did not list specific items and said that has had absolutely no impact on their ability to have good business practices. He said Alaska's legislation actually goes further to give "wiggle room" to keep from preventing good business practices of DMV. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, in response to Representative Johansen, said there is no "funding hammer" involved, which is a problem. The Real ID Act will cost the state tens of billions of dollars, and the federal government will provide only about $80 million total in funding for the states. He reviewed that the Real ID Act requirements are that a Real ID must be shown any time a person enters a federal building or boards an airplane; therefore, the federal government could tell a person [without that ID] that he/she must be subjected to "secondary security" in order to enter a federal building or board a plane. 11:20:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON interpreted that Version M guts the intention of the bill by specifying, "A state agency may not expend funds", then using the term, "solely for the purpose of". He said, "A good bureaucrat could find two reasons to do something - one being Real ID and one being anything else." 11:21:00 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he had the same concerns, but talked to several attorneys who are helping out nationwide regarding the Real ID Act, and they support SB 202 and feel comfortable with the language. He added that he would rather have the language of the first draft, but thinks Version M is a fair compromise. 11:21:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL talked about the extremes of allowing the federal government to issue a federal ID and letting Alaska make a state license that turns into a federal passport. He said he would like the state to be able to implement aspects of the Real ID Act. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated, "I still think if I'm a good bureaucrat, I could implement anything in Real ID I wanted to just by saying it's also for something else." He offered examples. 11:24:09 AM CHAIR LYNN stated that he has concerns about the Real ID Act "from the other side of the coin." He indicated that [Version M] is the draft that was arrived at in an attempt to see the bill moved out of committee. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated that his concerns had been the same as Representative Johnson's, and he outlined the thought process involved in arriving at an acceptable draft: The policy is clearly there; we passed the resolution [that shows] we don't want to spend money as a state on Real ID. Now, if the federal government decides to give us money for Real ID, ... they way the grants are written, ... the federal government would give us a grant and say, "This grant is for the purpose of implementing Real ID; it's for 'x,' 'y,' 'z.'" And so, under this bill, ... people back in [Washington, D.C.] who specialize in this ... say we would not be able to expend those funds to do that. So, there's a block. Then you've got the state with a state statute, and with a resolution, saying, "No money for Real ID." So, that's a second block. And then ... we have the appropriation power. So, I think a finance committee that went ahead and implemented money to go ahead and enact a Real ID law, they'd probably have a lot of angry phone calls from people out there. And I didn't try to get people to call in today, but I can tell you that in the committees that I've sat on in the past on this issue, there are people [that] are very concerned about this. So, I think this does provide adequate protection, and I'm satisfied with it. 11:26:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, regarding Representative Coghill's comments, questioned if the bill would tie the state's hands from choosing to use portions of the Real ID Act that it likes because the language specifies that a state agency may not spend money solely for the purpose of "implementing or aiding in the implementation of, the requirements of the federal Real ID Act". REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that there are "two ways to look at it." One is when Alaska decides for itself which procedures it wants, wherein some procedures may be the same, and the other is "a top down mandate from the feds." 11:29:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said some states have opted out of the Real ID Act through legislation, while others have opposed it. She asked how the proposed legislation would be categorized. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI confirmed that SB 202 would mean Alaska was opting out. 11:30:12 AM PATRICK DALTON testified on behalf of himself in support of SB 202. He described the ways in which the Real ID Act is poor. First, he said, it "trashes" individual rights, including the right of privacy, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant and probable cause, and the right to practice religion freely. Second, he said the Real ID Act is poor in relation to states' rights, on which Mr. Dalton said the committee is focusing currently. Third, he said is the overlooked issue of national sovereignty. Mr. Dalton explained that he thinks the Real ID Act is stripping the nation of its sovereignty. He said if more people realized that, then there would be an increasing amount of people against the Act. MR. DALTON speculated that the idea for the Real ID Act began within the United Nations. He related that all 27 European nations have agreed to implement similar measures. He stated, "So, really this is a United Nations global umbrella that we're submitting ourselves to if we go along with this." He urged the committee to consider that "what we're doing is we're falling into the first part of a global government if we accept the Real ID [Act]." 11:33:25 AM ZEFFORAH DALTON echoed the testimony of Mr. Dalton that the Real ID Act violates certain rights relating to freedom of religion, freedom from search without cause, and the right of privacy, states' rights, and sovereignty. Regarding the Real ID Act, she concluded, "It's not a national ID; it's a global ID." 11:34:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he had just come from an Administrative Regulation Review (ARR) meeting dealing with the legality of a regulation that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has put forth. The question is whether or not DMV can, without statutory authority, require social security numbers. He noted that litigation was taking place regarding that issue. He said "the bill" was cited in that discussion and the term "funds" was used to mean federal funds. Representative Gruenberg asked the sponsor if the term "funds" in the bill relates to state funds, federal funds, or both, and if specification is needed. 11:35:48 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his intent is that "funds" mean both state and federal funds. He said the issue was discussed with the bill drafter, and he offered his understanding that "expending funds means any funds." 11:36:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like an amendment that clarifies that language. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he thinks the language is clear the way it is. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he does not want anybody to think the bill refers to only federal funds. 11:36:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows: On page 1, line 6, between "expend" and "funds": Insert "state or federal" REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the committee was still hearing public testimony. CHAIR LYNN confirmed that public testimony was still open, and he asked Representative Gruenberg to hold Amendment 1. CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony. 11:38:07 AM KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration, regarding a previous point raised regarding the use of funds, said he also was at the ARR meeting and heard the chair refer to funds as being federal; however, he said the administration understands that "funds" means [state and federal funds]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [withdrew Amendment 1]. MR. BROOKS continued. He stated that there are certain things that DMV does that make good business sense. Overall, the goal is to ensure that when a license is issued to someone, he/she is who he/she claims to be. He said there are "many things that we do that you could find in the regulations that have been promulgated on the Real ID Act," such as using digital photos instead of Polaroid photos. Another important issue is ensuring that people have a legal presence in the state. He stated that "we" don't want to be precluded from doing something that is a good idea. He indicated that Version M allows for that. CHAIR LYNN said, "And so, you'd want to have good practices, whether it's what we do here, or Real ID, or whatever - as long as the state agrees." MR. BROOKS confirmed that is right. 11:41:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if the practices that the state is involved in will also meet the federal government's requirements. MR. BROOKS responded that there is no single practice that will make the state compliant with the Real ID Act. In response to a follow-up comment by Representative Doll, he stated his belief that [adopting new practices] will be done by point-by-point compliance. He said data sharing, for example, is a point "that we probably are always going to have some heartburn about." 11:42:49 AM WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration, concurred with the comments of Mr. Brooks and offered to answer questions of the committee. 11:43:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "Is there anything in the Real ID Act that couldn't be considered dual purpose?" For example, a requirement to have a photo ID, which then could also be used for criminal investigation, or using a birth certificate requirement to obtain a license to also prove a person is a citizen. 11:44:22 AM MR. BROOKES deferred to Ms. Brewster. 11:44:40 AM MS. BREWSTER responded that requiring verification with other states electronically "would be solely for Real ID." She added, "I can't think of, at this time, any other purpose for that ...." 11:45:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked, "Couldn't you want to verify that someone didn't live in another state for an election's purpose?" MS. BREWSTER replied, "I don't know that the Division of Elections verifies that information through the DMV." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posited that the division could do so. MS. BREWSTER conceded that it would be possible. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concluded, "So then, it wouldn't be solely for the purpose of Real ID." He stated, "I can't see a single reason in the Real ID Act that is solely for Real ID, and therefore [it] can be used for another purpose. And I think this bill, basically, does nothing to prevent the Real ID Act from being implemented." CHAIR LYNN remarked that Senator Wielechowski would not be sponsoring the bill if that were the intent. 11:46:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, after ascertaining that it was the intent of Chair Lynn to move the bill out of committee, reiterated his concerns about Version M, warning that it would not have the end result desired by the committee or expected by the public. 11:47:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HCS SB 202, Version 25- LS1145\M, Luckhaupt, 4/1/08, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 11:48:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to a query from Chair Lynn, stated that he would not object to the motion, since he does not think it would "do any good," and since he had already stated his opinion for the record. 11:48:16 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no further objection, HCS SB 202(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|