Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/2000 01:15 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 311 - NO SOC SEC. NUMBER REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE TAPE 00-59, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 311, "An Act eliminating a requirement that a social security number be provided by an applicant for a hunting or sport fishing license or tag." Number 0011 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR., Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 311, explained that the bill simply repeals the social security [number] requirement in relation to hunting and sport fishing licenses or tags. The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 requires the state to supply social security numbers for a variety of different licenses: drivers' licenses, occupational licenses, professional licenses, recreational licenses, marriage licenses, divorce decrees, paternity orders, support orders and death certificates. However, many people in his district had complained to him about the requirement for a social security number on hunting and fishing licenses; his subsequent search resulted in this bill. There is a federal mandate to "chase down deadbeat dads," Representative Coghill noted. The reason for the bill is related somewhat to privacy because many people are concerned about giving their social security number to a [hunting or fishing license] vendor - such as a gun shop or mom-and-pop grocery store - that doesn't know the parameters in relation to security. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the larger issue is that many people don't like social security numbers being used for identification purposes at all. However, he had introduced the bill to take on just the hunting and fishing license issue because that is the only area in Alaska now "vendored out" to collect social security numbers, and there is probably less professional security involved. A social security number could be lying around and accessible; even though there is a blackened- out spot on the [application], the impression is still there and the information is still accessible. New Mexico had removed a similar requirement for hunting and fishing licenses a year ago, he noted, without any significant challenge to that action, under the same [federal] law. This current bill simply repeals AS 16.05.330(e). Number 0164 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Coghill whether any money is tied to the federal mandate. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it is debatable. The whole Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act has money attached to it, but it has been challenged in court in other states, especially in relation to providing a social security number as identification for a driver's license. That number is not supposed to be used for identification, he noted, but he doesn't want to take on the whole system at this point. He believes that the best place to start is hunting and fishing [licenses] because of the security issue. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that other types of licenses that require a social security number "are under pretty good professional care," with no direct access to those numbers. The drafter of the bill [Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Legal Counsel] has indicated that the bill could result in a challenge with regard to the federal money. However, he believes that doesn't necessarily have to occur. "I think just having those hunting and fishing licenses in these various different vendors is cause enough," he added. Number 0257 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how much money [the bill] would put at risk and why there would not be a problem. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13) is the law that requires a state to comply. According to Ms. Lauterbach, noncompliance could possibly jeopardize [funding because of] that code. Number 0280 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Coghill whether he had an opinion from Ms. Lauterbach. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered to provide it to members. [The memorandum from Ms. Lauterbach to Representative Ogan, dated March 23, 1999, was provided soon afterwards. The bottom paragraph read: The state may choose to be out of compliance with 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13). Such an action would jeopardize not only the federal funds received for child support enforcement efforts but also federal funds received as block grant money for the TANF/ATAP program under AS 47.27. The Department of Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Services could provide more information about these amounts and/or the likelihood of federal sanctions, or you could authorize me to contact them on your behalf in regard to these matters.] REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he thinks that it is "worthy of some significant challenge" because of the privacy issue and because of the way that Alaska has chosen to have hunting and fishing licenses vended. Number 0297 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether a person's social security number is actually on a license or is blacked out. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that, according to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) personnel, the top copy of the application contains the person's social security number, and there is a blacked-out section on the carbon copy. [This statement was corrected a short while later; see Number 0347.] Testimony has indicated, however, that a social security number can still be read very easily from that. Number 0324 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the person and the ADF&G are the only ones who are actually supposed to have a copy of the application with the social security number on it. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that the forms could be changed so that a social security number isn't readable on a duplicate copy. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asserted that requiring a social security number as identification for a hunting and fishing license is a misuse of the number. Number 0347 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether that social security number is used primarily for child support issues and cases. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "Yes." He corrected his earlier statement by saying, "To answer Representative Kerttula's question, it has to be that the agency would retain a copy of that number, if that's the intended purpose. ... It must be that the vendor's copy is the only one blacked out." Representative Coghill said it had been almost a year since he had talked to ADF&G personnel about this. He restated that it [the social security number] is primarily used for identification to track down those who haven't paid their child support. Number 0390 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there have been any financial repercussions to New Mexico in terms of [the federal government's] withholding of child support, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) monies or anything like that. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "No, they haven't had any repercussions from removing it." Number 0413 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the committee recently had heard a bill relating to the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses electronically, with perhaps a "kiosk-type of concept." She wondered whether that type of a system would alleviate some of Representative Coghill's concerns because it would be more centralized. Number 0445 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that it would be that much more secure, but, logistically and practically, the state is a long way from that. Furthermore, it would not alleviate his objection to using a social security number for identification purposes. When he first began this journey, Representative Coghill told members, he did not realize the degree to which it was required by the U.S. code. However, he finds that this bill is appropriate because [social security numbers provided for hunting and fishing licenses] are probably less secure than other uses. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't want to risk the money, but it does irritate him that [the federal government] is requiring this. He inquired whether an effective date would be possible so that the legislature can watch what happens to New Mexico. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL at first said he would resist that. However, because the forms for hunting and fishing licenses have already been printed [for the current year], it may cost less to have a later effective date. "So, I would be open to that," he concluded. Number 0565 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he had heard the opposite argument in relation to a bill that would require a change in a form for voter information; in other words, it would be cheaper to delay the effective date in order to use up the old forms before switching to the new ones. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that it would be agreeable to the ADF&G. When he had talked to ADF&G personnel, they said that providing a social security number is a "hot button" for the department, and they would rather not deal with it or have to print other forms. He added, "My reply was, 'Simply just don't ask them to put it on there; it's not required anymore.'" Number 0603 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that Representative Coghill's suggestion is possible if the clerk who sells the license advises the purchaser of that. He pointed out, however, that these clerks may be 16 years old. Chairman Kott noted that a positive aspect of including an effective date of 2001 would be preventing the establishment of two classes of individuals: 1) those who already had applied for and received licenses, providing their social security numbers in doing so; and 2) future applicants who would discover somehow that there is no need to provide that number. It would be more beneficial, he thinks, to keep everybody under the same scheme. Number 0644 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL conveyed concern that his constituents would say he "wimped out" for extending [the current system] for another year, even though it makes more sense practically. He wondered how much money it would take to print a circular indicating that, as of a certain date, a person does not need to provide a social security number to apply for a hunting and fishing license. Furthermore, maybe the state should act proactively instead of watching to see what happens to the state of New Mexico. Other states are watching this issue, Michigan is going through the process right now, and there are several court cases going. He concluded that being proactive is probably better than waiting to see [what happens elsewhere]. Number 0717 CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested that even with an immediate effective date, if this were to pass both houses quickly, most Alaskans would have already purchased a fishing licenses. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL acknowledged that as a practical reason for extending the effective date. He said he could take the political "heat" for that, although this was no "small stir" in his district. Number 0790 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify in support of HB 311 as a cosponsor. He told members that sometimes it is not worth capitulating to federal demands placed upon a state's sovereignty. He explained that he had taken action the previous year that was misinterpreted; he had voted to concur with the Senate's changes to [HB 344], which required a person to provide a social security number. Although not in support of the bill itself, he had heard about it from constituents - many of whom are adamant hunters and fishermen - when he got home. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said this is an issue of privacy. The state constitution has a strong privacy clause that gives the legislature the authority to implement it, although they haven't done so but have left it up to the courts for interpretation. He again suggested that sometimes it is worth walking away from federal money, although he hopes that isn't necessary. The Child Support Enforcement Division [Department of Revenue] is, in his opinion, the most out-of-control state agency; his office fields many complaints about them. Representative Ogan pointed out that there are some "deadbeat mothers" as well, and it is more a matter of parents who don't support their children, regardless of what sex they are. He asked that members pass the bill out of the committee. Number 0935 CHAIRMAN KOTT recalled that most of the concerns he had heard regarding [HB 344] had related to providing a social security number for a driver's license. He suggested that the request to provide a social security number is a circular problem because in order to get a hunting and fishing license, a person has to provide identification, which most often is a driver's license that includes the social security number. Number 0962 AL WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HB 311. He told members that he won't allow himself to be identified by a number. A law requiring that would make him a criminal, and probably would overwhelm the criminal system. He urged members to pass the bill. Number 1043 ERIC WEATHERS, JR., Commercial Fisherman, testified via teleconference from Cordova in full support of HB 311. A fourth- generation Alaskan, he asked that commercial fishing permits and drivers' licenses be added to the bill. He noted that he hasn't been able to find in federal law a requirement to provide a social security number for identification purposes other than for a commercial drivers' license or a welfare program. In that regard, he is not a commercial driver or a welfare recipient and will not become one. Taking money from the government, he said, makes a person a servant. He cannot and will not give his social security number to anyone; at the same time, without one he cannot purchase a driver's license, fishing license or hunting license. Referring to testimony of Al Weathers, his brother, he urged members to keep those who choose to support themselves out of jail. Number 1099 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. [Eric] Weathers whether he applies for and receives the Alaska permanent fund dividend (PFD). MR. WEATHERS replied that he hasn't in the past. However, he applied for one this year and is having problems with it because the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] withholds about 30 percent if a person does not have a social security number. Number 1130 DENNY KAY WEATHERS, testifying via teleconference from Cordova, explained that 31 percent is withheld from the PFD if a person does not have a social security number. That person then has to apply to the IRS to have it returned. MR. [ERIC] WEATHERS added that he had just opted out of the social security system and the PFD [program] about two to three years ago. He has since reapplied for it [a PFD] but hasn't received it yet. Number 1179 MS. [DENNY] WEATHERS testified that HB 311 is a great piece of legislation. She requested that it be amended, however, to include non-commercial drivers' licenses, commercial fishing permits, and crew licenses. She pointed out that a commercial fishing permit includes a person's social security number, birth date and name. A commercial fishing permit must also go through a series of people for processing, some of whom are not even part of the state. In that regard, there is no security. She suggested that HB 344 was passed under duress from the federal government, which leads her to believe that legislators were opposed to it from the beginning and felt that they were being blackmailed. MS. WEATHERS referred to her written testimony and a copy of the "CRF" report from Congress, which she said illustrates a chronological development of the use of the social security number from 1935 to 1986. She noted that the 1986 requirement is the only one that she could find in relation to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, which gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to require the state to include a social security number on commercial vehicle licenses. She further indicated that the state is only required to get a social security number from those who receive federal benefits, are blood donors, or are seeking a commercial vehicle license. MS. WEATHERS noted that Michigan and New Mexico do not require a social security number for identification; from what she has been told, [those states] have not lost any of their federal money. Furthermore, the people of Montana currently are working on an initiative to repeal their state social security number [requirement], as well as a lawsuit against the state for taking away their privacy and forcing them "into a number." Ms. Weathers said the reason that the federal government cannot mandate a state to collect a social security number from everyone is because the federal constitution will not allow it under the Tenth Amendment. The person handling social security number issues in North Carolina has indicated that state isn't requiring a person's social security number for identification to obtain a learner's permit or driver's license, she reported. MS. WEATHERS told members that many [Alaskans] do not have a social security number; therefore, when they apply for something, they are told that they cannot have it. When she went to reapply for her driver's license, for example, she was handed a memorandum that said a person must provide a social security number. As a result, she had to turn her driver's license over, which she said makes her a criminal. Ms. Weathers challenged members to look for a federal law that requires a state to ask for a social security number. She can understand that a person would need a social security number to apply for a federally issued "thing," she said; however, someone applying only for a state-issued "thing" should not be forced into providing a social security number. Number 1677 MARK CHRYSON, Chairman, Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Legislative Information Office (LIO), noting that the AIP is the number-one third party in the United States. Regarding Representative Murkowski's comment about electronically obtaining a hunting and fishing license and HB 273, Mr. Cryson cautioned that as an Internet service provider he can affirmatively say that there would not be any security. Any information put on a website is public domain and can be accessed by a third party; in that regard, if the committee passes HB 273, he believes that they will have no choice but to pass HB 311. MR. CRYSON told members that the Privacy Act of 1974 indicates a social security number cannot be required unless it was done so prior to 1974. His driver's license reads 000-00-0000, he noted, and he has until 2003 before he has to worry about whether to continue to have a state-issued driver's license or to go to a Native group and have a driver's licensed issued by them; Native groups, he explained, don't require a social security number. He emphasized that people need their privacy. Alaska is the only state that has the right to privacy spelled out in its constitution; he encouraged committee members to live up to their oath in that regard. Number 1922 JAMES GARHART testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO as a private citizen. The issue of providing a social security number to obtain a driver's license has been in court, he said. The biggest problem is that magistrates are reluctant to make a decision because they will have to decide in favor of privacy. Section 7 of Public Law 93-579, known as the Privacy Act, basically says that anybody can ask a person for a social security number, but a federal, state or local agency cannot deny a person a right, benefit or privilege for refusal to disclose his/her number. MR. GARHART pointed out that Article VIII, Section 3, of the state constitution says, "Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." It doesn't say to provide a social security number. The agents of the state refuse to issue him a fishing license because he will not violate the terms of his contract with the Social Security Administration and provide his social security number, Mr. Garhart said. When he goes fishing, he could be cited and possibly suffer penalties. However, when he signed up for a social security number, it was clearly spelled out in the contract that it was not to be used for purposes of identification; it stated so, in big, bold, blue letters on the back of the card. MR. GARHART said he has never changed the terms of the contract with the Social Security Administration, and they have never sent him anything indicating the terms of the contract have changed. Therefore, he feels that using a social security number for identification purposes is an improper use of that number, punishable with a fine, imprisonment or both. He doesn't want to commit a crime in order to get a privileged-status fishing license, he said. Furthermore, when he went to apply for a fishing license, he noticed that there were three copies, but only one was blacked out - the copy that the vendor retains. One copy would go to him and the other would go to the ADF&G, but typically their copies aren't transferred to [the department] daily. In that way, a social security number is available for the clerks and anyone else. MR. GARHART offered his opinion that this whole issue started with the federal government's attempt to blackmail the state by threatening to withhold funds. He recalled that when the federal government did something similar in relation to a helmet law, the Hickel-Coghill Administration told [the federal government] to "take their helmet law and stick it"; as a result, the federal government did not pull any funds. Mr. Garhart likened it to standing up to the school yard bully. MR. GARHART turned attention to the state's constitutional right to privacy, suggesting that legislators have taken an oath to uphold the constitution; he believes that passing HB 311 would be in line with upholding that oath. He further stated that a fishing license is the same as a driver's license if it has a person's social security number and name on it: anyone could use it for identification and apply for credit cards, and so forth. Mr. Garhart said he has heard many stories of people who have tens of thousands of dollars in credit card bills because they had lost their drivers' licenses with their social security numbers on them. Number 2260 MR. GARHART noted that this is the judicial committee, and proposed that the only comprehensible judicial action is to move HB 311 out with a unanimous recommendation for approval. Regarding an effective date, federal regulations indicate that individuals who are asked to provide their social security numbers must be informed of whether providing the number is mandatory or voluntary, he added. In that regard, an agent would only have to advise a person that requiring a social security number has been repealed, and that it is now a voluntary act. [The rest of Mr. Garhart's testimony is almost indiscernible because of a fire alarm that went off while he was testifying and subsequent discussion. Because of the fire alarm, the committee was at ease from 2:52 p.m. to 3:01 p.m.] TAPE 00-60, SIDE A Number 0061 BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Central Office, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She told members that welfare reform legislation, passed by Congress in 1996, is part of the Social Security Act. Section 466(a)(13) of the Social Security Act indicates that each state must have in effect laws requiring the procedure for the use of a person's social security number for any recreational license to be recorded on the application. In that regard, the legislature had passed HB 344 about two years ago to meet the requirement. MS. MIKLOS reported that as far as the division can tell, there is no definition of "recreational license" in statute. However, in consulting with the federal government, they said it means recreational hunting and fishing licenses. For that reason, subsistence and personal use licenses are excluded. Ms. Miklos noted that when HB 344 was passed, there was a great deal of deliberation and concern, but the federal government told the state it would lose approximately $77 million - $14 million for child support and $63 million for public assistance. Ms. Miklos said that is why HB 344 was ultimately passed. MS. MIKLOS explained that when Congress passed welfare reform, it was their intent to help give more tools for child support enforcement because they wanted those who "got off welfare" to have resources. Those tools have been very helpful to the division in collecting additional money. She reported, however, that the data from a hunting or fishing license is not that useful because by the time the division obtains a copy of the license, the data has probably already changed. The division has many better ways of getting data about those who owe child support. In her mind, she said, it is important that the requirement be maintained so that there isn't a loss of funding. MS. MIKLOS offered to work with the committee in trying to determine a way to delete the requirement of a person's social security number for a recreational license so that it doesn't hurt the funding. However, the requirement of a person's social security number for other licenses is really helpful in collecting child support. In closing, Ms. Miklos noted that a congressman has introduced legislation to delete the requirement to provide a social security number for recreational licensing from the Social Security Act. That is the best proposal, she said, because then the state wouldn't have to worry about a loss of funds. Number 0355 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Miklos whether Idaho had lost its funding in relation to social security numbers and recreational licenses. MS. MIKLOS replied that there were many provisions of the federal welfare reform Act with which Idaho indicated it would not comply. As a result, Idaho had received a letter from the federal government threatening to pull its funding; the Idaho legislature, in response, passed necessary legislation to preclude that. Meanwhile, Alaska was deliberating on its bill. After consulting with Idaho, Alaska passed a bill that only met the minimum requirements of the federal government. Number 0488 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Miklos to reiterate what the monetary loss would be. MS. MIKLOS replied that it would be about $14 million for child support and $63 million for public assistance. Number 0517 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Miklos whether she is aware of the two states that have passed legislation in relation to social security numbers and recreational licenses. MS. MIKLOS replied, "No." She said she didn't know that New Mexico had actually repealed its law, but she would look into it. She wondered whether Michigan was one of the states that fell behind in its time line, when the federal law was passed, in relation to when its legislature meets. She restated that the division is not really using the information provided from the recreational licenses, and she is aware that it is creating a great deal of problems and controversy in the state. Wisconsin and Minnesota are having trouble with the issue as well. Number 0611 RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Jr., Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee on behalf of the sponsor. She handed out a document from New Mexico titled "Minutes of the State Game Commission Meeting, April 8, 1999"; she indicated it related to the philosophy behind the decision to repeal the collection of social security numbers for recreational licenses. She noted that it had been a situation in which prison inmates were tabulating the collected data. Number 0716 CHAIRMAN KOTT, indicating there were no further testifiers, closed the meeting to public testimony. Number 0722 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told fellow members that he would like to have an effective date to allow the legislature to fully see what is happening in other states, and to allow the finance committees to plan for a potential $77 million gap in funding. An effective date of 90 days from now would be when the legislature is not in session, he noted. An effective date of July 1, 2001, doesn't meet the concern of starting on the first of January so that all licenses have the same requirement, but he thinks that the main concern is related to the potential monetary loss. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT proposed an effective date of July 1, 2001, as an amendment [Amendment 1]. Number 0822 MS. MOSS pointed out that Representative Coghill had more in mind the calendar year because of the way hunting and fishing licenses are issued. The state has also admitted that there is no compelling interest in collecting social security numbers [from recreational licenses]. She requested, on behalf of Representative Coghill, that the effective date be January 1, 2001. Number 0858 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he is not stuck on July 1, 2001, but it makes more sense. An effective date of January 1, 2001, doesn't seem to help the legislature because it is before session. Most people agree that this is an onerous requirement. Even Ms. Miklos has indicated that the CSED does not use the data from the recreational licenses that much, and there are a lot of people in the state, including himself, who are angry about having to provide a social security number. The main reason the legislature had passed HB 344 under duress was because of the money. It boils down to a money issue, which is why he wants to tie the effective date to the fiscal year, not the calendar year. Number 0913 MS. MOSS responded that New Mexico and Michigan, which have "called the feds' bluff," have not had any repercussions or threats from the federal government in relation to funding, and a whole year has passed for New Mexico. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that the federal government sometimes works slowly and could be preparing a "hammer." In that regard, it would be prudent to have a somewhat-delayed effective date that fell on a "calendar year," so that the legislature would have an idea on what might happen. Number 0991 CHAIRMAN KOTT offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 1 of an effective date of January 1, 2001, which he believes would avoid any protection issues and would give the legislature some time. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed that an effective date of January 1, 2001, would give time, but it wouldn't give the legislature the ability to do anything about it without a special session. Number 1029 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that an effective date should not impact those who issue the licenses. It is unfair and inequitable to require only half of the citizens to provide a social security number [during the changeover year]. Number 1055 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that there already is a group who won't provide a social security number, and who will continue to not provide it. Furthermore, an effective date of July 1, 2001, would work well for hunting season, but it would not work as well for fishing season. Number 1076 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told fellow members that she doesn't think the state will lose any money. Number 1108 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated an effective date of January 1, 2001, is fine. If the "hammer falls," he said, the legislature would be in session shortly thereafter "to do a quick fix." Number 1124 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked: Why not make the effective date January 1, 2002? In that way, more time would have elapsed so that there would be more security about what might happen to the $77 million. Number 1140 CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that he had heard from the sponsor that a January 1, 2002, date would not be acceptable. Furthermore, he thinks that an effective date is making a statement to the federal government that the state is no longer going to be blackmailed. He suspects that the legislation introduced in Congress to eliminate this requirement will happen this year; he believes the issue is that important. Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to the amendment to Amendment 1. She specified that she wants to keep the effective date as July 1, 2001. CHAIRMAN KOTT requested a roll call vote. Representatives James, Croft, Green and Kott voted "yea." Representatives Murkowski and Kerttula voted "nay." Therefore, by a vote of 4-2, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1241 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to Amendment 1, as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1254 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move HB 311, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached negative fiscal note. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, for the record, that it is his understanding that the committee does not want to delve any further into eliminating the requirement of a social security number for any other license. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the sponsor has theoretical troubles with providing a social security number for other licenses, but those are slightly different in that there are federal requirements involved. This issue is a different type of duress in that it is related to funding. Number 1317 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed concern that HB 311 does not have a House Finance Standing Committee referral, especially given that there is a potential for the state to lose $77 million. At the same time, she doesn't want to hold the bill up. Number 1352 CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed with Representative Murkowski. He said he is sure that the last committee of referral will see that it belongs in the House Finance Standing Committee. Number 1367 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she sees no reason to have a person's social security number on a recreational license. As a tax preparer, she has come into contact with individuals who don't want to use their social security numbers for anything, but she thinks that they don't have a clue as to what would happen if they didn't use their social security numbers and birth dates to identify themselves. In fact, even while using a social security number, a person can get "mixed up" with others; there are people born with the same name on the same date, for example, which can cause unsolvable problems. In that regard, she is not in favor of removing a person's social security number from a driver's license, unless she can be convinced otherwise. Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she thinks this is a concern with regard to the social security number per se, not really a concern in relation to privacy. The committee has heard testimony that the data provided from the recreational licenses is not that helpful. She also thinks that the legislature should not behave too cavalierly about the threat of a loss of $77 million in funding. She spoke in support of having a House Finance Standing Committee referral. Number 1468 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was any objection to the motion to move HB 311, as amended, from the committee. There being no objection, CSHB 311(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.