Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2002 01:56 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 02, 2002
1:56 PM
TAPE HFC 02 - 72, Side A
TAPE HFC 02 - 72, Side B
TAPE HFC 02 - 73, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:56 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative John Davies
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Representative John Coghill; Representative Drew Scalzi;
Danielle Serino, Staff, Representative Coghill; Karen
Pearson, Director, Division of Vital Statistics, Department
of Health and Social Services; Roger Painter, Alaska
Shellfish Growers Association, Juneau; Caren Robinson,
Juneau; Doug Mecum, Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game; Rick Thomspon,
Department of Natural Resources; Linda Sylvester, Staff,
Representative Pete Kott; Mary Marshburn, Director, Division
of Motor Vehicles, Anchorage
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Anne Harrison, Fairbanks; Jon Agosti, Seward; Julie Decker,
Juneau; Rick Thompson, Juneau; July Decker, Executive
Director, Southeast Alaska Diver Fisheries Association; Jon
Agosti, Chugiak Shellfish Association, Seward; Mary
Marshburn, Anchorage; Bob Lynn, Anchorage; Karen Vosburgh,
Alaska Right to Life, Matsu; Linda Sylvester, Staff,
Representative Pete Kott;
SUMMARY
HB 160 An Act requiring the reporting of induced
terminations of pregnancies.
CSHB 160 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal
impact note by the Department of Health and Social
Services.
HB 208 An Act relating to aquatic farming of shellfish;
and providing for an effective date.
CSHB 208 (RES) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with previously
published fiscal notes: DNR (#2), DFG (#3) and DFG
(#4).
HB 344 An Act increasing fees for driver's licenses,
instruction permits, and identification cards; and
providing for an effective date.
CSHB 344 (STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with previously
published fiscal note: ADM (#1).
HOUSE BILL NO. 160
An Act requiring the reporting of induced terminations
of pregnancies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, spoke in support of
the legislation. He noted that the legislation would
implement a reporting system on abortion. He observed that
the reporting system would provide information on teen
pregnancy while protecting confidentiality. The information
obtained through the provision would allow the state to
respond to policy issues ranging from contraception to
education. There would be a 30-day reporting period. An
annual report would come through the Bureau of Vital
Statistics. Most states have similar programs through their
Bureaus of Vital Statistics. There is a $78 thousand dollar
fiscal note. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) support the
legislation. The legislation would provide information on
the number of abortions, the number of abortions tied to
various health issues, percentage of abortions in each
trimester, and the number of abortions in rural vs. urban
areas.
Representative John Davies acknowledged protections to
confidentiality but questioned how the statistics would be
derived. Representative Coghill explained that the
legislation does not require comprehensive reporting, but
would be an additional tool to be used in assessing what is
happening in the state.
DANIELLE SERINO, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL provided
information on the legislation. In response to a question by
Representative Bunde, she clarified that Planned Parenthood
and the Alaska Right to Life organizations testified in
support of the legislation in previous hearings.
Representative Coghill observed that there are certain
monetary benefits to the state based on the number of
abortions, which would benefit Planned Parenthood. The
statistics could also be used to support a case for some
other public policy.
Ms. Serino explained that insurance would not be negatively
affected by definitions contained in section (b) of the
legislation.
Representative Coghill reiterated that the intent is to
determine the number of abortions in the state of Alaska
through the Department of Health and Social Services,
Division of Vital Statistics. He observed that there are no
reports at the current time, which include these statistics.
Live births, fetal deaths and some sexually transmitted
diseases are reported through the Bureau of Vital
Statistics. The category would be protected through
confidentiality.
KAREN PEARSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, spoke in support
of the legislation. She clarified that the legislation would
bring the state into compliance with the CDC guidelines and
maintain privacy protections. The change in the definition
of fetal death would not have any other implications beyond
statistical information. The Division concurs with the
fiscal notes.
KAREN VOSBURGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RIGHT TO LIFE,
MATSU, testified via teleconference in support of the
legislation. She questioned if there would be data regarding
the cause, age of mother, work status, location (outpatient
or office) or the trimester that the abortion takes place.
Representative Coghill explained that the report form would
note the type of abortion (whether it was a live birth),
gestational period, and national origin or race status.
Ms. Serino explained that the report would have much of the
information mentioned but noted that personal information
would not be available to the public. The patient would not
be identified. The final report would have the summation of
the statistics. Representative Coghill observed that the
statute only requires a report of the fact that there was a
termination of pregnancy. Ms. Vosburgh expressed concern
that death of the mother be reported.
ANNE HARRISON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference in
support of the legislation. She noted that the statistics
could be used for scientific and research purposes, but
expressed concern regarding lapses in confidentiality. She
referred to section 6: "fetal death" means death before the
complete expulsion. She questioned if any sign of life in
the fetus after the abortion would put the provider in legal
jeopardy. She referred to section 8 line 2 and stated that
she would add a period after: "induced termination of
pregnancy" means the purposeful interruption of an
intrauterine pregnancy." She felt that the remainder of the
section was redundant: "with the intention other than to
produce a live-born infant, and that does not result in a
live birth, except that "induced termination of pregnancy"
does not include management of prolonged retention of
products of conception following fetal death." She felt that
the language was emotionally charged and should be
clarified.
Representative Coghill observed that the language was copied
from the Family Planning Prospective Volume 30, Number 5,
Appendix B.
BOB LYNN, PRESIDENT, ALASKA RIGHT TO LIFE, ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference in support of the legislation.
He maintained that more and better information can do
nothing but help regardless of one's stance on the issue. He
observed that governmental policy makers and health
providers could use the data for a multiple of purposes. He
observed that some studies have shown an association between
induced abortion and breast cancer. Adequate reporting of
abortion, linked to the reporting of breast cancer could
resolve important questions.
Representative John Davies questioned the necessity of
language on page 4, lines 3 - 6. Ms. Serino explained that
induced definition of pregnancy is used by the CDC and felt
that the language should remain. She added that "does not
include management of prolonged retention of products of
conception" relates to DNC procedures following abortions.
Representative Coghill stated that if the language were
changed that he would recommend the inclusion of the
language by Planned Parenthood, which is more encompassing.
Ms. Pearson explained that the definition is intended to
prevent the classification of the procedure where the fetus
has terminated prior to the expulsion, in order to get an
accurate account of what areas actually induced
terminations, as opposed to procedures needed to deliver a
fetus that is no longer alive.
Co-Chair Mulder referred to the fiscal note. He MOVED to
report CSHB 160 (JUD) out of Committee with the accompanying
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 160 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Health and Social Services.
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
An Act relating to aquatic farming of shellfish; and
providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW SCALZI, SPONSOR, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 208. He explained that the
legislation would change the way the Department of Fish and
Game develops mariculture sites. Under the current statutory
provision, applicants locate sites that they believe are
applicable to developing mariculture. A problem arises when
they locate a site only to find out when they return to the
department that it conflicts with an earlier use. Under the
legislation, the department would find sites and make them
available: predisposing problems. The department would
locate 90 sites; the Department of Fish and Game and
Department of Natural Resources would set the criteria. The
90 sites would be divided: 60 suspended cultures such as
mussels, oysters; 20 clams sites; and 10 geoduck sites. The
sites would be available annually until taken; a ten-year
lease would be required. Farmers must abide by the sustained
yield principle in harvesting. The farming would not
interfere with the established commercial, subsistence, or
personal use fisheries. Upon expiration of the lease the
permit holder must return the site in the condition that
mirrors the population estimates that were in existence when
the lease started. The bill is the first step by the state
in supporting the development of shellfish farming in
Alaska, since enactment of the Aquatic Farm bill of 1989.
The demand for Alaska shellfish in the market place cannot
be met with the small amount of farms that are now present.
Shellfish farming is an excellent opportunity for displaced
fishermen or fishermen that need to supplement their income.
A 10-acre farm could produce 435,000 pounds of clams worth
$1.1 million dollars annually. Alaska's largest seafood
wholesaler estimates the clam market in Anchorage at over
one million pounds a year.
Representative Hudson referred to fiscal notes.
Representative Scalzi estimated that over a 10-year period
the collection would pay for the costs.
ROGER PAINTER, ALASKA SHELLFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU,
testified in support. He referred to section (b)(2): Before
offering leases for aquatic farming sites under (a) of this
section, the commissioner of natural resources shall solicit
nominations of sites suitable for aquatic farming of clams,
geoducks, and other shellfish from the aquatic farming
industry in the state and the public." The Alaska Shellfish
Growers Association is actively working with the University
of Alaska on assessments of candidate sites. Under the
current program the burden is on the applicant to provide
site-specific information, which keeps the cost of the
current program low. He suggested that nominated sites be
required to provide site-specific information to keep the
costs of the program down. He felt that the Department of
Fish and Game's fiscal note could be reduced. He observed
that the fiscal notes by the Division of Commercial
Fisheries and Habitat Restoration were predicated on
observations at the site. During a normal opening the
Department of Fish and Game does not visit sites or conduct
dive surveys. He maintained that the burden to provide the
information should be on the industry.
Representative John Davies questioned why not operate under
the statutes. Mr. Painter explained that the sites would be
located in areas of low conflict in areas where the industry
is being encouraged. He referred to interaction with the
Prince of Wales community, which is working to support
industry. The cost to amend current land use plans, conduct
public hearing on the Prince of Wales project is $140
thousand dollars, which would result in a small number of
sites. The legislation would allow applicants to go into
areas where there would be a high probability of farming. He
emphasized the difficulty of locating sites that can be
approved. There was one applicant for all of Southcentral in
1999. The legislation would open doors by pointing people
into areas that would be successful. Representative John
Davies questioned why the department would have more
success. Mr. Painter responded that the department's role
would not be to identify sites but to evaluate sites
proposed by industry for points that would cause them to be
rejected.
Representative Scalzi referred to the Katchemak Bay area
where there are a lot of home sites. The Administration can
deal with relationships between user groups and expedite the
process.
TAPE HFC 02 - 72, Side B
Representative Hudson questioned if sites would be available
by road or boat. Mr. Painter explained that they were close
to the road but require a 2-mile boat ride. Representative
Hudson questioned the cost of providing road access to the
site. Mr. Painter noted that he flies all of his product
from his farm site, even though it is relatively close to
the road. He produces between a 1,000 and 2,000 pounds a
week. He would like to work with other farms in the area to
truck the product out as roads and ferry service is
improved.
Co-Chair Mulder observed the fiscal costs and questioned why
the industry is not willing to pay for the up front costs to
begin the program. Mr. Painter acknowledged that industry
should pay a greater portion of the up front costs and
reiterated that the fiscal notes could be reduced. The
industry can complete surveys for less money than the state.
He asserted that it would cost the department 50 times more
than industry to deliver the data.
Representative Lancaster asked for an example of the cost to
survey a site. Mr. Painter noted that they surveyed 100
miles of coast at a cost of $4 thousand dollars. He added
that he has worked with the Department of Community and
Economic Development to develop a spreadsheet that
demonstrates the flow of revenues back into the state
treasury from the passage of the legislation. He explained
that they visited clam sites and collected samples that
allowed them to analyze the number of clams available, took
soundings and salinity levels, and looked for sensitive
habitat and other problems. The Department of Natural
Resources has stated that 80 sites were permitted before the
program was abandoned.
DOUG MECUM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, provided information on the
legislation. He noted that the department testified in
support of the legislation. He had not heard any criticism
on the fiscal note previously. He stressed the need to fund
the program in order to jump-start the industry. The
legislation would double the size of the industry. The
department would do the work to find sites that are suitable
and free of conflict. He emphasized that the funding is
needed to do the work. He observed that no statutory change
is necessary to keep the burden on the industry, but the
department supports the approach taken in the legislation
[to shift the burden to the department].
Representative Lancaster questioned if the sites had been
previously surveyed. Mr. Mecum stated that they do not do a
lot of surveys on suspended culture sites, but that they
have been involved in surveying on bottom farm sites. He
noted that the department is involved in litigation
regarding geoducks, which are highly viable. Goeducks are
worth $10 - $20 dollars a pound on the Asian live market. He
noted that there were 40 applications put in during the last
application period, 19 of which were ground bottom sites.
The department surveyed the sites at their cost, which was
expensive. He stressed the cost of "firing up" a research
vessel with divers to survey sites with scuba gear to do
actual quantitative surveys and estimates of the existing
biomass and populations. He disagreed that the industry
could provide the services cheaper and estimated the costs
for one site at $20 thousand dollars. The legislation
anticipates nine sites that could be anywhere in the state
of Alaska.
Representative Hudson questioned if there was conflict
between the diver fisheries and the set aside sites. Mr.
Mecum affirmed and acknowledged that potential dive sites
would have to be taken into consideration for a third of the
sites. He clarified that the intent of the legislation was
for the agencies to do the public process and biological
surveys to find areas that would have a reasonable
expectation for approval.
RICK THOMSPON, STATEWIDE AQUACULTURE PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, testified via teleconference in support
of the legislation. He noted that the Department of Natural
Resources has worked closely with the industry, sponsor and
Department of Fish and Game to resolve issues.
Representative John Davies asked if the number of sites and
the potential of the industry expansion to all of the sites
made available were practical. Mr. Thompson stated that he
was not qualified to speak to the industry's capability to
expand. He noted that the department is responsive and would
work to eliminate conflicts. He stressed the need to build
in efficiencies. There may be areas that can support 10 - 15
sites. He thought that it would be good to identify sites,
when and where there are resources available.
JULY DECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA DIVER
FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference in
support of the legislation. She did not think that the
legislation would be detrimental to the dive fisheries.
JON AGOSTI, CHUGIAK SHELLFISH ASSOCIATION, SEWARD, testified
via teleconference in support of the legislation. He noted
that he is also the president of the Qutekcak Shellfish
Hatchery. He emphasized the importance of the legislation to
his and other state hatcheries. They provide four new
species of shellfish cultured in the state in an attempt to
diversify and grow the industry. The legislation is critical
to help jump-start the industry. Grant funding is not going
to continue. The two-year application process, which has
less than a 50 percent chance of success, is a detriment to
the industry. It is a large cost in time and money for
unsuccessful applicants, which also acts as a deterrent.
CAREN ROBINSON, THE SHELLFISH MARKET, JUNEAU, testified in
support. She noted that she is a partner in a shellfish
company located on Prince of Wales Island. She distributes
the majority of oysters in Southeast Alaska and her biggest
fear of each week is whether there will be enough product to
meet demand. She noted that there is not enough to send out
of state.
Representative Hudson asked if the legislation extends the
length of the lease and questioned if longer contracts would
aid industry. Ms. Robinson agreed that it would be helpful
to do anything to extend and simplify the lease process.
Representative John Davies asked if the level of effort is
reasonable. Ms. Robinson thought that the number was
reasonable. She reiterated that she is unable to meet
demand, yet it is a difficult industry to get started in.
In response to a question by Representative Davies,
Representative Scalzi could not provide additional
information regarding the amount of public interest. He
noted that if all 90 sites were released that the state
would receive $58,000 annually, based on the assumption that
all sites were released. He felt that there was an extensive
level of interest.
Representative Whitaker reviewed the fiscal notes:
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial
Fisheries $90 thousand dollars, and the first year;
Department of Natural Resources, $98.3 thousand dollars the
first year; and Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Habitat for $72.5 thousand dollars the first year. He
emphasized that the funding would spur economic development.
The total cost would be $272 thousand dollars. The
Department of Environmental Conservation withdrew their
fiscal note. He spoke in support of the legislation and
emphasized that it would help a fledgling industry.
Representative Lancaster pointed out that a hatchery was
built in Seward that just delivered its first commercial
product last fall, which could be used to support the
industry.
Representative Hudson questioned how many jobs would be
involved in each project. Representative Scalzi observed
that there are 14 members in the Katchemak Bay collective
involved. Mr. Painter stated that there are four full time
employees at their site. The site next to them has 2 full
time partners with a few part-time workers.
Representative Hudson estimated that there would be 270
individuals employed on the additional sites.
Co-Chair Mulder spoke in support of the legislation. He
asked the sponsor to work with industry and the department
to look for funding efficiencies.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to report CSHB 208 (RES) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 208 (RES) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
notes: DNR (#2), DFG (#3) and DFG (#4).
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
An Act increasing fees for driver's licenses,
instruction permits, and identification cards; and
providing for an effective date.
LINDA SYLVESTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, HB 344 was
introduced by the House Rules Committee at the request of
the Division of Motor Vehicles. Passage of HB 344 does two
things:
ΠFees for non-commercial drivers licenses and ID cards
will increase by $5.00. Learner's permits will increase
by $10.
Considering the approximate 180,000 original issues and
renewals processed annually, the increase translates into
an additional $750,000 to $900,000 per year. Also,
ΠThe fee increase enables DMV to implement a conversion
to a digital license system. The Division seeks
$500,000 to implement the IT system to support the
digital system. They already have the capital funding
for the equipment.
Ms. Sylvester read a prepared statement:
Alaska is one of 3 remaining states that has yet to
abandon the Polaroid system. By moving beyond 1950's
era technology, Alaska steps up efforts to insure the
integrity of this nation's individual identification
system. Since September 11, considerable attention has
focused on the integrity of this system.
Keep in mind that the driver's license and ID cards are
considered "breeder" documents. Once in hand they can
be parlayed into other documents like airplane tickets,
passports, checking accounts, fire arms permits, credit
cards, among others. Just like that, a new or false
identity is set up. The driver's license is the
cornerstone of the identity theft phenomenon. Last
year, this little problem resulted in losses of over $7
billion dollars.
Less glamorous but indicative of a larger "day to day"
problem for the restricted sales industry is underage
kids fraudulently obtaining or manufacturing id's.
You'll notice resolutions from the Municipality of
Anchorage and from Alcohol Retail Beverage Association
and a letter in support from CHARR that speak to that
issue.
The driver's license is far more than evidence that you
passed your road test. It has become a critical
component to our society's security both personal &
financial.
As such the government has a HUGE responsibility to
ensure the integrity of that system.
Think about how Alaska lives up to that responsibility.
The license you carry in your pocket relies on
technology that is unchanged since 1954.
Think of the ways one might fraudulently obtain a
license. It takes two documents with your name on it
to get a duplicate license. No photo identification is
required. Someone could steal mail, walk into a DMV
office and potentially walk out with a license with
someone else's identifying information is now matched
to their photo. Right now, DMV lacks the ability to
keep an electronic image of the individual. That means
they can get that person's checking account, credit
card, etc., etc., etc.
Another creative idea was shared by a staffer for a
Finance Committee member. In college, their friend,
commercial art major created a large poster of an exact
replica of an Alaska Driver's license. He had people
stand in front, in front of the 'yellow curtain' and
took a Polaroid snapshot, laminated it and a driver's
license was created.
Alaska's license is uniquely old fashioned. I've heard
anecdotal stories about bars or airlines balking at
accepting them because it looks too low tech, too
homemade. The license is a dinosaur. Other problems:
Alaska's DMV cannot electronically transmit a copy of
the driver's license nor can they retain an electronic
image. If you are traveling, have your wallet what
would you do? DMV can only manufacture a duplicate
license with an empty space where your photo should be.
If your not there in person to have your picture taken,
no picture exists. This is a crisis for a traveling
Alaskan negotiating their way through the tough as
nails security and airport agents in the nation's
airports. If Alaska had a digital license, a completely
intact, functional duplicate license could be expressed
to the sorry traveler.
If nothing I've said has impressed you with the
importance of converting to the digital drivers license
system, I've got one more compelling reason for your
consideration. Last year the Polaroid filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy. In February at the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators was informed that
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy was likely to follow. Chapter 7
meaning selling off of the business assets. Once
digital cameras hit the consumer market, the end of
Polaroid photography became a foregone conclusion.
Already, the cameras used by DMV are no longer
manufactured. It is just a matter of time before the
film can no longer be purchased either.
MARY MARSHBURN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in support of the
legislation. She observed that Alaska is one of three
remaining states that does not use digital licensing. The
passage of HB 344 would help to move forward for a much-
needed change in the Alaska system. She observed that Alaska
uses a manual process with preprinted forms, which are
laminated. All of the items are subject to theft, fraud and
alteration, though she did not think it would be as simple
as indicated by the previous testifier. Within the past
four-months, five individuals have been arrested for
fraudulent attempt to alter or obtain a license. Computer
generation are significantly more difficult to alter or
replicate. There are no preprinted forms, pouches or photos.
Computer generation allows more complex and secure features
on the license. A digital picture is stored and used to
verify identity for renewal or law enforcement. She
concluded that digital licenses would benefit consumers. It
is more difficult to alter and more secure. If a current
license were lost it could not be replaced with a picture if
the holder were out of state. Digital licenses could be
reprinted and sent to the consumer. She noted that there is
wide support among law enforcement agencies and industry.
She addressed the fiscal notes, which would provide $500
thousand dollars in capital funds for system development
testing and deployment. Funding would support integration of
the database, license generation and data issuance, image
storage capture, and storage of the transmission for law
enforcement use. It would also test the system and deploy it
statewide, integrate with other users, and provide support
software. Alaska currently has over the counter licensing
issuance. She spoke to centralizing the function. Pictures
would be taken at the Division of Motor Vehicles, which
would take the picture and application, but the license
would be mailed from a central facility.
TAPE HFC 02 - 73, Side A
Ms. Marshburn stated that centralization would be more
expensive than over the counter issuance. Personnel costs
would be the biggest factors. There would be a $5 dollar
increase to the license and duplication fees. Instruction
permits would be increased by $10 dollars. Fees in Alaska
are currently at the low end of the national scale; raising
the fee would bring Alaskan fees to the middle to low end.
The Division does not recommend raising commercial licensing
fees. The last increase to drivers licensing fees was 10 or
more years ago and they think the increase is reasonable.
Licenses should remain affordable to maintain safety and
encourage licensing.
Representative John Davies asked if there would be an
increment to maintain accuracy. Ms. Marshburn emphasized
that they currently require proof of birth and proof of
identity. Previous photos can be retrieved when there are
questions, but they are not instantly recallable.
Representative Lancaster questioned if the Division looked
into any technologies other than Polaroid. Ms. Marshburn
observed that Polaroid would be eligible to bid, but she
thought that it was likely that another vendor would receive
the bid.
Representative Lancaster referred to national identification
cards. Ms. Marshburn noted that discussions on national
identity cards envision a single card issued by a single
agency, such as the federal Department of Transportation.
Improving state licensing could help defer the issue of a
national identity card.
Representative Hudson questioned if the renewal would have
to occur at a division office. Ms. Marshburn observed that
there would be no changes in the basic process of issuing or
renewing licensing. Individuals would still be eligible for
renewal by mail after the initial five-year period.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Williams, Ms Marshburn
explained that the Division estimates $900 thousand dollars
in revenue would be generated with the increase of licenses.
The Division is asking for $500 thousand dollars to be
appropriated to develop the system.
Representative John Davies MOVED to report CSHB 344 (STA)
out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 344 (STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published fiscal
note: ADM (#1).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|