Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/24/2001 03:35 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 49-NO SOC SEC. # REQ'D ON HUNT/FISH LICENSE
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee meeting
to order at 3:35 p.m. and announced SB 49 to be up for
consideration.
MR. DARWIN PETERSON, aide to Senator Torgerson, sponsor of SB 49,
explained that it repeals the requirement for social security
numbers on hunting and fishing licenses in Alaska, which was
mandated when the 20th Legislature enacted HB 344 to comply with
the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996. One of the Act's requirements was the
collection of social security numbers on recreational license
applications. The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has been
required to provide these social security numbers to the Child
Support Enforcement Division (CSED) in Alaska or any other state.
MR. PETERSON said, "Effective October 1, 2000 the State of Alaska
was granted a three-year exemption from requiring social security
numbers on hunting and fishing license applications. SB 49 was
introduced in response to this federal exemption. Since it's
imposition, the people of the State of Alaska have been resentful
of this federal requirement as an invasion of privacy." SB 49 has
an immediate effective date.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt CSSB 49, 22-LS0390\C Lauterbach
1/19/01. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. PETERSON explained that the main difference is that the
original bill repealed three sections of statute (requiring ADF&G
to collect social security numbers on hunting and fishing license
applications). Language on lines 10 - 12 on page 1 of the CS also
deletes a requirement that the commissioner request those social
security numbers on the applications. It is a conforming
amendment.
Number 369
MR. KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Administrative Services, ADF&G,
supported SB 49. He pointed out that ADF&G has already issued a
half million licenses and would just send a letter to their vendors
letting them know it's no longer a requirement when the bill
passes. He said that the Internet license transactions were very
successful, but were built around the social security number, so
they would need to work on that. His goal is to find a way for
individuals to easily renew licenses over the Internet since it's
apparent that the need for these services will continue to grow.
MR. BROOKS wanted to know whether committee members would object to
leaving the social security number on the form as an optional
field. Currently social security numbers are used as primary
identifiers in the database. Using a different combination of name
and number, such as drivers' licenses, wouldn't work as well since
everyone doesn't have a driver's license. He'd like to find a way
to use the social security number in their database while
emphasizing improved customer service in Internet operations.
Number 556
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that, in his opinion, having the social
security data field on the license was acceptable as long as it was
clearly optional information. To reduce arguments between licensee
and issuer over whether or not all data fields on the license are
required, he suggested placards be placed on counters wherever
licenses are sold. The placards should make it clear that listing
social security numbers is optional.
MR. BROOKS agreed with that.
SENATOR LINCOLN wanted to know if Mr. Brooks was talking about
social security numbers being optional for future years or for this
year until new licenses are made.
MR. BROOKS said that it's a foregone conclusion for the current
year because 2001 licenses were already out. This discussion is
about future years. He went on to say that they might come up with
a different solution. He was just trying to explore options.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that she would object to having it as an
option because it isn't easy to make sure everyone would realize
that it's optional. She and Senator Taylor had heard that stealing
identities was done by using individuals' social security numbers.
She said that if it isn't a requirement she could see no reason to
put it in as an option. Although the number would be useful to the
department, it would only be useful for those that supplied their
number so she'd rather eliminate that data field.
MR. BROOKS replied that the only purpose for using the social
security number is to make it easier for those people who wanted to
purchase or renew licenses over the Internet. He has to balance
the security of personal data against the trouble of entering it
each time a license is issued or reissued.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked him to explain the transition period.
MR. BROOKS said that the number would be optional in the current
year, but that the department wanted to keep its options open in
future years. He favors the social security number being boldly and
clearly identified as optional.
SENATOR TAYLOR said if this law passes, he doesn't believe that it
would be discretionary for the commissioner to ask for social
security numbers. He agrees with Senator Lincoln, that after this
current year transition period, the social security data field
should be eliminated.
Number 811
SENATOR TAYLOR also wanted to know how you could swear under oath
on a computer.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that part would be removed.
SENATOR ELTON said he understands that if it isn't optional to ask
for social security numbers, then the current service of licensing
over the Internet would be jeopardized.
MR. BROOKS said that a unique identifier was needed so individuals
didn't have to reenter their personal information every year.
Number 938
SENATOR ELTON asked why an individual's name and birth date
wouldn't work instead of the name and social security number.
MR. BROOKS said that they were running various combinations in an
effort to find a suitable alternative for names and social security
numbers. The last name and last four digits of the social security
number might be a good alternative.
MR. ERIC WEATHERS, Cordova resident, said that several years ago he
rescinded his social security number and now is unable to get a
driver's license, a hunting license, or a sport fishing license.
This doesn't mean that he no longer hunts or fishes. It just means
that he no longer pays for licenses. He'd like drivers' licenses
and commercial fishing licenses to be included in this bill as
well.
Number 1005
MS. DENNY KAY WEATHERS, Cordova resident, testified that she didn't
have a social security number either and that she supported SB 49.
She requested that it be amended to include non-commercial drivers'
licenses, commercial fishing permits and crew licenses. Ms.
Weathers went on to say that when she went to renew her driver's
license she found that an October 21, 1998 State of Alaska
memorandum said HB 344 makes a social security number mandatory for
renewal. Although she has been a licensed driver since she was a
teenager, she is now unable to get a drivers license. She noted
that an alien on a non-work status can get an Alaska driver's
license but she cannot. She closed by saying that she supports
Senator Lincoln's suggestion to remove the social security data
field from license forms.
MR. DEAN CURRAN supported SB 49. He doesn't want his social
security number on his hunting and fishing license. He said that a
federal identification number for social security purposes has no
business appearing on any State of Alaska documents. He would like
to have the social security field removed from all state documents.
This is particularly important now that individual identities are
being stolen more frequently by using social security numbers.
Number 1193
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Mr. Brooks to comment on his proposed
amendment on page 1, line 12. As Senator Taylor pointed out, an
authorized officer currently swears in fishing license applicants
when a license is purchased.
MR. BROOKS said that his department supported removing the "swear
in" requirement on licenses. When an individual fills in personal
information on license forms, they are attesting to the correctness
of that information. The Department of Law does review this
information and false information is prosecutable. As a practical
matter, issuing stations, such as Carrs and Fred Meyers, have not
been requiring sworn statements and it's a housekeeping matter to
remove the item from the statute.
Number 1278
SENATOR PEARCE suggested removing the small print saying, "I hereby
subscribe and swear that the information provided is true." Then
ADF&G could no longer ask that question and would lose the ability
to prosecute if the information is incorrect.
MR. BROOKS thought she raised a legitimate point.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON suggested deleting "before an officer authorized
to administer oaths in the state," on line 13 and leaving, "Each
applicant shall be subscribed and sworn to by the applicant." This
would leave the disclaimer on the bottom.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that, in essence, is what has been done.
Contract offices or businesses have agents or employees selling
licenses. That agent gives the applicant a license application to
fill out. In signing the application, the applicant is testifying
to the correctness of the information. The language requiring sworn
testimony before an authorized officer means a notary public. He
agreed with Senator Pearce that this is somewhat arcane.
SENATOR TAYLOR went on to say that he thought there was a subtle
distinction between a false swearing and giving false information
on an application. He thought Chairman Torgerson's suggestion was
good, but that it's important to be able to prosecute for false
information on an application. He thought the attorneys should look
carefully at the wording, but that he would be happy to go along
with the chairman's recommendation.
Number 1595
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said it was clear that license applicants
weren't being sworn before an authorized officer of the state. He
then asked if someone would offer the amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved that the words on line 13 be removed. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR ELTON said that the sense of the committee is that Mr.
Brooks will check with attorneys on language and bring it before
the next committee of referral.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 49 (RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|