Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/20/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR2 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 20, 2008
1:37 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:37:27 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Mary Nelson
Representative Bill Thomas Jr.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Les Gara
Representative John Harris
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes; Representative Nancy
Dahlstrom; Representative Bob Lynn; Peggy Brown, Executive
Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal
Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Sharleen Griffin, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Corrections; Duane Bannock, Self;
Matthew Kerr, Self; Kevin Brooks, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Administration
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Josh Fink, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration; Lisa Donnelley, Attorney,
Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 3 An Act relating to issuance of identification
cards and to issuance of driver's licenses; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 3 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 307 An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
HB 307 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 351 An Act relating to submission of fingerprints by
applicants for a concealed handgun permit; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 351 was SCHEDULED but not heard.
HJR 2 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska requiring an affirmative vote of
the people before any form of gambling for profit
may be authorized in Alaska.
CS HJR 2 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by
the Division of Elections.
1:38:03 PM
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska requiring an affirmative vote of the people
before any form of gambling for profit may be
authorized in Alaska.
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT work draft 25-LS0257\V,
Luckhaupt, 2/14/08, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
REPESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, SPONSOR, directed discussion
to the work draft, addressing concerns voiced by the
Committee. The work draft outlines potential affect on
gaming and charitable games, while at the same time does not
affect current existing operations.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, SPONSOR, added, the draft also
clarifies the voting process; initially, it had been
optional.
1:40:17 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze discussed appreciation for the changes
made, while requesting backup documentation from each
department affected, before the legislation moves to the
House Floor. He emphasized that it is especially important
because it is a proposed constitutional amendment.
Representative Dahlstrom replied, those concerns would be
addressed. She referenced Page 2, Line 6 of the \V version,
inquiring if there should be a period following the word
"law" for clarification purposes. Vice-Chair Stoltze
recommended that the Department of Law, Office of the
Attorney General, respond to that query. He reiterated the
written assurance stipulated by that Department.
Representative Crawford interjected that letters of support
had been requested, but have not yet arrived. He indicated
that the sponsors will continue to press for that
documentation.
1:43:57 PM
Representative Joule remembered that past attempts
encouraging statewide gaming, had been defeated through the
legislative process. He questioned why the resolution was
being placed before the people. Representative Crawford
explained that there is now an initiative on the ballot for
the August election, which would remove the decision from
the Legislature's preview. He and Representative Dahlstrom
hoped to see the proposed verbiage written in the
Constitution so that the Legislature will continue to have
in-put.
Representative Joule was not familiar with that specific
initiative but understood that initiatives passed by the
voters were in effect only for two years. Representative
Crawford acknowledged that in two years it could be
repealed, however, by then it could be more difficult to
undo what had been done, i.e. such as construction of
casinos. He reiterated, it would be difficult to reverse
any position. The resolution provides the populace the
ability to make the decision to expand gambling or not. The
initiative has been "marketed" more as a regulation of the
gaming industry; it does not include the reality of a five
member commission with the sole authority of expanding
gambling or not.
1:47:32 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked Representatives Crawford and
Dahlstrom if those voting on an initiative could really
understand what they were voting on. Representative
Crawford said it depends on the way in which it is sold.
Co-Chair Chenault explained the education piece of selling
an initiative. The people of Alaska should know what they
are voting on and the consequences associated with that
vote. Representative Crawford acknowledged that the weight
of advertising can change the mind of the voters and he knew
there would be a large amount of advertising against the
initiative. Co-Chair Chenault agreed that there is always a
pro and con to each issue and that regardless of the dollars
spent, the issue either fails or passes. He reiterated
concern that voters might not fully understand the concern.
Representative Crawford agreed & pointed out that is the
beauty of the constitutional amendment process.
1:50:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze addressed fiscal concerns, remembering
the attempt to take big money out of politics, which he
thought it could be an undo influence. He worried having
the gambling issue on a ballot measure proposing a
constitutional amendment, which is tied to "beating-back" a
citizen's initiative in the coming election. He questioned
if the legislation would be appropriate public policy.
Representative Crawford noted strong support for the
initiative process.
1:53:48 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that through the initiative
process, the crew ship head tax was passed, which taxes
gambling proceeds on the crew ships. He asked if HJR 2
would affect that. Representative Crawford advised that the
language of the resolution is explicit: "It does not
prohibit or restrict any form of gaming lawfully conducted
under Alaska law".
1:55:19 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HJR 2 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HJR 2 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Division
of Elections.
1:56:07 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor
domestic violence offenses as felonies.
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, SPONSOR, explained that HB
307 seeks to increase penalties for repeat offenders by
rd
making a 3 misdemeanor case a felony. The bill is narrowly
crafted, pertaining only for crimes against a person
involving domestic violence. The repeat offenders will be
subject to felony charge after their first two misdemeanors.
The penalty will act as a deterrent for those persons who
are repeat offenders. She maintained that there needs to be
a serious deterrent to stop the cycles of violence.
Alaska has one of the highest domestic violence rates in the
nation. In 2005, there were over 6,000 reported cases of
st
domestic violence in the State. Alaska ranks 1 in the
Nation with the highest rate of female victims killed by
male perpetrators, many of which are in the context of
domestic violence.
rd
HB 307 clarifies that for the 3 actual conviction on a
domestic violence misdemeanor charge, a Class A misdemeanor
is increased to a Class C felony. Representative Holmes
clarified that the bill does not address the question of
filing a protective order. The bill targets only the repeat
offenders.
Representative Holmes urged support for the legislation.
1:58:51 PM
Representative Kelly asked how many other states have
adopted these recommendations. Representative Holmes
responded that 18 other states have the penalty in law.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if there were any retroactive
provisions included in the bill. Representative Holmes
advised that was the subject of debate in the House
Judiciary Committee. She understood that the bill was
prospective and that it requires the misdemeanor to have
been a domestic violence offense. As of now, domestic
violence has not been an element proven. To make it
retroactive would require proof that prior offenses were
domestic violence, which would be difficult. She
recommended the Department of Law address that.
2:01:05 PM
Representative Hawker mentioned that these issues raise a
personal conflict for him. He referenced the "sweeping"
definition of domestic violence in statute and listed
possible situations where there could be crimes categorized
as domestic violence. He thought the legislation might be
overly encompassing, worrying that after three strikes,
someone could be looking at a felony conviction.
Representative Holmes acknowledged that there has been in-
depth discussion with the prosecution and defense
encouraging that definitions be left broad enough that they
can be proven rather than convicting those not intended to
be taken. She agreed the issue is real. Currently, the
definition of domestic violence is in statute. She said she
shares concerns voiced by Representative Hawker, adding that
she is currently taking language into consideration to help
narrow the concern.
th
Representative Holmes referenced crimes of assault in the 4
degree and "fear assault", which is recklessly placing
someone in fear of imminent physical injury. She understood
st
that fear assault is not brought forward on a 1 time charge
but is used when there has been a pattern of actual physical
assaults. It is important to retain the language for the
purpose of the domestic violence context.
2:06:26 PM
Representative Hawker understood Representative Holmes
desire to "trust the system". He questioned the
consequences placed on the Department of Corrections. He
pointed out that without any new laws passed, the Department
is looking at a billion dollar General Fund commitment.
Representative Holmes acknowledged that there are a number
of pieces of legislation increasing penalties for offenders
and that HB 307 is one of them, which could lead to a
penalty range for a Class C felony from zero to five years
and might lead to longer jail sentences. HB 307 requires
conviction, not just the charge of three separate times.
She was comfortable with the request to increase penalties.
Representative Hawker acknowledged that the argument had
been compelling.
2:09:02 PM
Representative Nelson reiterated the bill charges only after
three separate incidences, noting her support for the
standard established through the legislation. By the third
offense, it is clear that there is a pattern of anger, rage
or abuse and that the offender needs treatment or
counseling.
Representative Joule inquired if the other eighteen states
had seen a deterrent with adoption of similar legislation.
Representative Holmes did not have those numbers.
Representative Joule discussed the impact to the operating
budget for the Department of Corrections; he worried about
the long-term effect on the budget.
2:12:46 PM
Representative Thomas hoped that any future abuser would
realize what they will be loosing, with a felony on their
record. He encouraged that if the legislation is
implemented, the public must be educated regarding possible
retributions.
Representative Holmes agreed that discussion is critical as
to what the extent is a deterrent and what extend is it
punishment. She stated that one goal is in conjunction with
the Task Force on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. The
issue that continually comes forward is the need for
education & awareness. She hoped that the legislation would
help change attitudes and not simply to lock people up. She
agreed that it is important that people know, the behavior
is not to be tolerated.
2:15:18 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a person could be arrested,
prosecuted & convicted for verbal assault, domestic
violence. Representative Holmes did not believe so;
however, there is something called fear assault, which
recklessly places another person in fear of imminent
physical injury. She deferred to the Department of Law.
2:17:32 PM
JOSH FINK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PUBLIC ADVOCATE,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there could be a prosecution
without acquiescence of the victim in a situation where the
victim recants or does not want to press charges. Mr. Fink
responded that it is not uncommon to see a victim recant and
the State still move forward. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if
that would count as one of the misdemeanor convictions. Mr.
Fink replied it could if the State obtained a conviction.
2:19:52 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if in a case where the wife and
children were verbally or physically assaulted, how many
misdemeanors could that one incident total. Mr. Find
understood that it would be one occasion of conduct and
would be one strike.
Representative Thomas asked the number of times Mr. Fink saw
a recanting domestic violence situation. Mr. Fink thought
about 15%-20% of the assault cases recant. There are cases
in which the person does not realize that situation
constitutes domestic assault.
2:22:27 PM
PEGGY BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, noted that the Network is not
in total consensus & support for the bill. The Network does
support the intention 100%, however, worries about the
unintended consequences. She commented on the number of
domestic violence charges that are actually convictions,
which is a difficult number to obtain because they are not
tracked in the small communities. These are the areas that
the Network "worries" the most about unintended
consequences.
Ms. Brown commented that mandatory arrests have created the
need for training resources to help determine the physical
aggressor. She maintained that the unintended consequences
might be severe and hoped to see them tracked.
2:26:06 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
2:26:37 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked the approximate number of offenders
that recant.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
acknowledged that the Department does prosecute cases in
which the victim has recanted and the decision to do so
depends on the available evidence.
2:28:10 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze addressed the profound consequences
associated with the bill.
Co-Chair Chenault reiterated his previous query regarding an
assault on a family & the number of counts charged if more
than one family member was involved. Ms. Carpeneti stated
that the bill specifies that a conviction must be based on
two or more convictions & occasions. That is common
language in three strikes legislation.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if there could be a felony charge if
the perpetrator assaulted his wife the first day and his
children the next. Ms. Carpeneti explained that each
assault would have to be a conviction for crimes and be on
two or more separate occasions.
2:31:21 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired about the retroactivity
potential. Ms. Carpeneti advised that would be applied only
prospectively as there is no formal fact-finding for prior
offenses at the present time.
Representative Holmes agreed that was the original intent
application. She offered to provide clarifying language.
2:32:19 PM
Representative Thomas asked if the perpetrator would receive
counseling after the first offense. Ms. Carpeneti referred
that question to Department of Corrections, adding that if
they were incarcerated as a result of a conviction, she
imagined that services would be available. She thought it
would depend on the circumstances.
Representative Thomas thought it was important that the
perpetrator seriously understand the consequences of a
felony charge. Ms. Carpeneti elaborated it would be the
person's third time through the judicial system and that
they should have had an attorney appointed to represent them
for the first two offenses. The presumptive range for a
first Class C felony offense is zero to two years. That
length is not "set in stone" for incarceration for a first
time offense. There is a mandatory minimum for a domestic
violence misdemeanor charge.
Representative Thomas explained that living in a rural area,
often, the person does not load size for those attorneys.
Sometimes, it is easier for the charged person to assume a
guilty plea. Representative Thomas wanted a guarantee that
they receive the necessary counseling. Representative
Holmes recommended the question be directed to the Office of
the Public Defender; the bill could change the way that
agency counsels their clients. She thought that the
legislation could address prevention & supported counseling
being factored into the defense council.
Representative Thomas addressed to the pride that comes from
having a job; he worried how high unemployment aggravates
problems in the rural areas.
2:36:25 PM
Representative Joule asked the definition of counseling and
the financial obligation that would create for the State.
Representative Holmes addressed comments made by
Representative Thomas regarding counseling and education.
She agreed that counseling is a separate issue.
2:38:18 PM
Representative Hawker questioned the "factual findings" made
in the Court process for a crime of domestic violence. He
asked if it would be sufficient to place intent language in
the bill for the Courts. He indicated concern that there
was no fiscal note from the Court System. He asked if the
Legislature could direct the Courts though the use of intent
language & uncodified law.
Ms. Carpeneti understood the bill's intent language
differently. She believed the language indicates that
judges should not be accepting pleas of guilty without
factual bases. She pointed out that some people plead
guilty just to get out of jail even if they are not. With
regard to "fact finding", the Department assumes it will
become an element of the defense and proven without
reasonable doubt.
In response to Representative Hawker, Ms. Carpeneti
explained that in changes of plea proceedings, judges
generally require the prosecutor to provide a factual
basis for the plea. He thought that was the intent of the
language. The concern is that there may be some who do not
want to wait until the attorney makes the contact to inform
them of their options.
2:42:48 PM
Representative Hawker discussed situations where the State
would not be negotiating a plea but instead, conducting a
court process to its conclusion. He asked if it was
necessary there be factual findings when a person is
convicted. Ms. Carpeneti responded that if the bill is to
pass, the Courts would have to initiate the procedure so
that there would be a definitive factual finding that the
crime against the person was domestic violence.
Representative Hawker understood that it would be incumbent
upon the Court to adopt the policy procedure; he asked if it
was derived from the three strikes check list. Ms.
Carpeneti responded that it could result from the Courts
looking and interpreting that language. Representative
Hawker pointed out that for the Courts to comply with the
spirit and intent, they would have to change their
procedures. Ms. Carpeneti replied yes.
2:45:20 PM
Representative Hawker referenced the fiscal notes, pointing
out that there was no representation from the prosecutorial
authority. Ms. Carpeneti advised that a late note had been
submitted by the Department of Law. Representative Hawker
apologized.
2:46:34 PM
Co-Chair Chenault indicated concern with the indeterminate
fiscal notes received from Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Corrections, & the Public Defender Agency.
The Department of Corrections anticipates between one to
three offenders as a result of the legislation. There is an
estimated impact of two to six beds annually. He requested
actual dollar amounts included in the notes rather than an
indeterminate indication. He said that he agreed with the
intent of the bill, however, worried about the fiscal impact
to the State.
2:50:13 PM
SHARLEEN GRIFFIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, explained how the
Department determined that one to three offenders could
create the need for the two to six beds annually. Ms.
Carpeneti added, it would depend which felony the conviction
was for on that offender - the first, second or third and
then the severity of that crime.
Ms. Griffin clarified that the span of the costs depend upon
the out-of-state offender population and if there exists
sufficient in-State bed space. Co-Chair Chenault inquired
cost differences between housing in & out of State. Ms.
Griffin explained that the amounts in the note were not
reflective of those differences.
2:52:42 PM
Representative Hawker addressed base-costs for offenders
having serious medical conditions. Ms. Griffin acknowledged
that costs would skyrocket and that there are catastrophic
cases, which happen every year. The population is generally
not healthy and the costs are unpredictable.
2:53:29 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the language indicated on Page 2,
Lines 6-8, should be deleted since it has been determined
that the legislation will be prospective.
"APPLICABILITY. AS 11.21.100, added by sec. 2 of
this Act, applies to offenses committed on or after the
effective date of this Act. References to previous
convictions include convictions before, on or after the
effective date of this Act."
2:54:44 PM
Representative Holmes assumed if the determination was made
that the legislation is only prospective, there should be
changes made to the language. Vice-Chair Stoltze
interjected that he hoped to "push the envelope" with
whatever the Court System will allow. He asked the
sponsor's intent.
Representative Holmes noted she did not have that intent
when the debate began, understanding it would be difficult
to include prior offenses. The language as currently
drafted, leaves it opens to return to prior offenses. She
reiterated it would be difficult. Vice-Chair Stoltze
suggested it only requires a good prosecutor.
2:57:02 PM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the bill would be held in
Committee to review the fiscal notes. Co-Chair Chenault
recommended that the Alaska Court System submit a note.
Representative Hawker referenced previous testimony during
the House Judiciary Committee. When the bill passed from
that Committee, Representative Coghill had requested the
bill be amended. He asked what those concerns had been.
Representative Holmes recalled discussion regarding whether
the language should be prospective or not. Representative
Hawker was not surprised.
2:59:17 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if a case were plea bargained, would
it remain a misdemeanor. Ms. Carpeneti replied that if the
person agreed to plead guilty & it was a domestic violence
offense, then it would stay a misdemeanor.
Representative Nelson supported the language of the bill
being retroactive. It is not difficult to track convictions
in domestic violence on the Court's database. She directed
comments to the impact of the fiscal note, elaborating that
the loss of life is a much bigger concern & should trump the
concern with dollar costs. She observed that it is not
appropriate for the State to allow misdemeanor after
misdemeanor in cases of domestic violence. Studies show
that in domestic violence situations for most perpetrators,
their actions tend to escalate. By the third time that
there is a conviction, the path is set. She agreed that the
bill has a high priority.
3:01:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer recalled concerns in the attempt to make the
legislation retroactive. Ms. Carpeneti advised that there
are constitutional reasons when increasing the penalty for
the conviction after the fact. The problem exists that
there has not been a formal, factual, finding of domestic
violence in cases up to now. To date, there has been no
formal procedure for proving it. The Department of Law
agrees it would be good to be retroactive, however,
reiterated it would be difficult to prove.
Co-Chair Chenault addressed concerns voiced by
Representative Nelson regarding whether the State can afford
the costs. He responded that the Legislature is charged
with protecting the State's finances. He agreed that even
one offense is too many but reiterated that the citizens of
Alaska voted legislators into office with the obligation of
law and money management. Costs must be listed.
Discussion was concluded on HB 307.
HB 307 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
3:04:09 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and
to issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, testified in support of HB
3. He stated that the bill requires:
· An applicant for an Alaska driver's license to have
a legal presence in the United States (U.S.) and by
extension, a legal presence in the State of Alaska.
· The legislation makes a license expire when the
legal presence in Alaska State expires.
Representative Lynn pointed out that HB 3 offers safeguards
that will insure that Alaska license or identification (ID)
card holders are who they say they are. He emphasized that
the bill is not the Federal Real ID Act. The Alaska
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has the statutory mandate
to determine if an applicant has the necessary documents to
receive a license. He urged the Committee's support of the
bill.
3:08:34 PM
DUANE BANNOCK, SELF, spoke in favor of HB 3. He claimed the
bill is about the Alaska Statutes mandating that illegal
aliens are not allowed to obtain or have an Alaska driver's
license or identification card (ID). It is not about the
national databases, tracking chips, a gun registry or
constitutional rights protecting free travel or privacy. He
stated that through the drafting and committee hearings,
there has been meaningful discussion on good public policy
of the proposed legislation.
3:11:32 PM
Representative Hawker requested Mr. Bannock's qualifications
for the record. Mr. Bannock explained he had testified for
himself; however, indicated he had served as the Director of
the Division of Motor Vehicles from 2003-2007. Through
various versions, the bill has been a piece of priority
legislation and the Senate companion bill passed in 2006.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the bill as written would bring
Alaska into compliance with provisions and security
requirements of the Federal Real ID Act. Mr. Bannock
responded that is partially true, noting that last year, he
had testified in the House Judiciary Committee on that point
& as defined under the Real ID Act, legal presence is the
tenant of real identification. HB 3 is drafted to be a
legal presence bill; however, the "grandfather" clause is
missing from the proposed bill. Under HB 3, there is a
presumptive clause in which the person is presumed to have
met the test if they currently have an Alaska driver's
license and that is not consistent with federal regulations,
mandating every driver's license be renewed. When HB 3
becomes law, for Alaska to become fully Real ID compliant,
the measure will require another legislative visitation to
the statute.
3:15:28 PM
MATTHEW KERR, SELF, testified against HB 3. He acknowledged
that although the bill does not fulfill 100% of the Federal
Real ID Act, the bill's language is very close. He
acknowledged that most Alaskans probably support the illegal
presence requirements, however, oppose the Real ID Act.
Mr. Kerr pointed out that Alaska already has an illegal
presence requirement in regulation. The net result of the
bill allows the State to implement the Real ID Act, which is
why he opposes the bill.
Mr. Kerr continued, as the bill is written, it will cause
potential problems for those people that are legally
residing here and have little affect on those that are not.
Illegal residents will not be deterred by a driver's
license. If the bill is intended to pass, he recommended
changes to be made to preserve the intent.
· It is possible to copy the existing legal presence
regulation into statute, which would require a legal
presence with no Real ID issues and costing nothing.
· It is possible to be legally present in the United
States without being in possession of documentary
evidence. The U.S. Immigration Service is not
known for efficiency, good communication or
expedience. He proposed that a grace period be
added to the bill.
· It is important to clarify that the license expires
on the end of someone's legal status or on the
expiration date of their visa, whichever is later.
Visa validity and legal status are different terms
under Immigration Law.
· Those citizens from certain countries that qualify
to enter the country under the federal visa waiver
program, should be exempt from the regulations.
Mr. Kerr concluded that even though the bill is not the Real
ID Act, the only required statute change needed could permit
the Real ID Act to be implemented. He reiterated there is
already a legal presence requirement in regulation. He
added there are necessary changes needing to be made in the
bill to prevent causing trouble for people that are legally
present.
3:20:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked about Mr. Kerr's comments regarding the
ability to accomplish the legislation's intent through
regulations. Mr. Kerr pointed out, there is an existing DMV
regulation that requires someone applying for an original
license, have legal presence in the United States. That is
current existing practice.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if someone applied for a driver's
license and had only a one year visa, would their license be
good for the full five years. Mr. Kerr explained that there
is a difference between the visa and a legal presence. If
they have a one year visa with a 30-day entry period, under
HB 3, their license would be valid for 30-days. He
recommended language be clarified if the bill were to pass,
the expiration date be set to either the visa or the
expiration date, whichever is greater.
Co-Chair Chenault asked why a person would have a one year
visa when they have only a 30-day limit to be in the
country. Mr. Kerr explained that a visa under the
Immigration Law provides permission to enter the U.S.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired why immigration service would
allow someone to come into the country on the last day of
their visa and then provide them a 30-day extension. Mr.
Kerr clarified that would not be an extension. He explained
that foreign students typically receive a visa for one or
two years, although they are permitted to stay until the
completion of their four year program. Under U.S. Federal
law, the visa document is permission to apply to the U.S.
The actual date of the legal presence is decided by an
immigration officer at the port of entry.
3:23:44 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked how it would be addressed when a
student comes to U.S. for four years and they only have a
two year visa. Mr. Kerr replied that would not be the case.
The document that establishes the legal presence as a
foreign student is granted by the university [I-20 form] and
as long as the student remains enrolled at the university,
they are permitted to stay in the U.S. without a current
visa, although if the student departs from the country, then
they would have to reapply for a new visa to be able to
return.
3:25:04 PM
LISA DONNELLEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to HB 3. She noted that she
is an immigration attorney in Anchorage. She commented that
many of her clients are businesses in Anchorage that sponsor
foreign workers but indicated that she was not testifying on
behalf of those clients. She echoed comments made by Mr.
Kerr.
Ms. Donnelley explained the difference between a visa and
legal status. A visa is a document that allows a person to
make an application for admission into the United States.
Once at the port of entry, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security determines how long a person is allowed to stay in
the country. Upon expiration of the status, the person may
apply for an extension, which could take up to seven months
to receive. During that waiting time, the person may not
have any documents to verify that they have legal status in
this country. In many cases, it is the employer that is
filing the document of application of status. She
emphasized that the bill could have an adverse effect on
legal immigrants and employers. She advised the bill's
verbiage is imprecise and ambiguous when it refers to visas.
Visas are not an indicator of legal status.
Ms. Donnelley pointed out that the bill fails to list all
the classes of aliens who should be entitled to obtain a
drivers license. She mentioned "withholding of removal" ,
granted by an immigration judge to someone who is likely to
be persecuted if returned to their home country. These
people are not included in the list. They are entitled to
indefinitely reside in the U.S.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if he understood correctly that U.S.
Department of Homeland Security determines who is legally
able to enter the U.S. Ms. Donnelly said yes.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about the I-20 forms. Ms. Donnelley
explained that an I-20 form is the form issued by the
university to the foreign student. Co-Chair Chenault asked
if at the point that the I-20 form is completed and approved
by the university, would the university control how long the
visa lasts rather than the Department of Homeland Security.
Ms. Donnelly responded, it is more complicated than that.
The I-20 form is issued by the university and allows the
student to apply for the visa. Once the student receives
the visa, they can then apply for admission into U.S. At
that point, the Department of Homeland Security will admit
them into the U.S. for usually, the duration of that status.
The I-20 form normally stipulates the length of the program,
providing a 60-day grace period.
3:30:17 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, stated the Administration is supportive of
efforts to pass HB 3. He noted it provides DMV the
flexibility to issue a driver's license with a flexible
termination date. He added that the regulations attached to
the Real ID Act as issued in January 2008, carries a
component for a legal presence. The bill in and of itself,
does not make the State compliant with the Real ID Act. He
noted that the Department has submitted a request for an
extension and received approval of that through December
st
31, 2009, as it relates to the entirety of the Federal Real
ID Act.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if that was the target date for the
State to be in compliance with the Act. Mr. Brooks imagined
that there could be another opportunity for an extension,
however, to obtain a second extension, the State would have
to be in substantial compliance and working toward final
compliance.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the bill places the State in
compliance. Mr. Brooks responded that the legislation makes
sense and that it had been offered in 2003, prior to the
Real ID Act of 2005.
3:33:49 PM
HB 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|