02/20/2001 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2001
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to driver's licenses and instructional permits;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 110 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12(title am)
Urging the United States Congress to amend the tax code to
eliminate the marriage penalty.
- MOVED SJR 12(title am) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 72
"An Act relating to an assistant adjutant general for national
missile defense in the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs."
- MOVED HB 72 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE:SOCIAL SECURITY NO. & DRIVER'S LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/05/01 0241 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/05/01 0241 (H) STA, JUD
02/15/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
02/20/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 12
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/01 0246 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/01 0246 (S) STA
02/05/01 0278 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN, TAYLOR,
KELLY,
02/05/01 0278 (S) GREEN, WARD, PEARCE, COWDERY,
02/05/01 0278 (S) AUSTERMAN, HOFFMAN, HALFORD
02/06/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/06/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/01 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/01 0300 (S) STA RPT 3DP
02/07/01 0300 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
DAVIS
02/07/01 0300 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
02/08/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/08/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/08/01 0308 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/8/01
02/08/01 0311 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/08/01 0311 (S) AM NO 1 TITLE AM ADOPTED UNAN
CONSENT
02/08/01 0311 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/08/01 0311 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR
12(TITLE AM)
02/08/01 0311 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY
02/08/01 0311 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
02/08/01 0315 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/09/01 0276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/09/01 0276 (H) STA
02/09/01 0287 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): OGAN
02/14/01 0329 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): COGHILL
02/19/01 0375 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE
02/20/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 72
SHORT TITLE:ASST. ADJUTANT GEN. FOR MISSILE DEFENSE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0113 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0113 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
01/17/01 0114 (H) FN 1: (MVA)
01/17/01 0114 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/06/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
02/06/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/01 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/07/01 0261 (H) MLV RPT 6DP
02/07/01 0262 (H) DP: GREEN, MURKOWSKI, HAYES,
CISSNA,
02/07/01 0262 (H) KOTT, CHENAULT
02/07/01 0262 (H) FN1: (MVA)
02/20/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 110.
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 110.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 12.
ROBERT F. SRAMEK, Certified Public Accountant
Sramek-Hightower CPAs
4341 B Street
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 12.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 72.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James, Fate, Stevens, Wilson, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order.
HB 110 - SOCIAL SECURITY NO. & DRIVER'S LICENSES
Number 0076
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act relating to driver's licenses and
instructional permits; and providing for an effective date." He
noted that there had been questions raised about how HB 110
might affect criminal investigation.
Number 0092
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified that the standard policy when a law enforcement
officer stops a person is to get that person's identification --
what is called the "ID Lic" (an abbreviation for
"identification/license number"). When the Department of Motor
Vehicles issues an identification card for a person who [might
be] 15 years old, that person is given a number. If the person
later gets a driver's license, the license will have the same
number. If an officer stops somebody, that number should pull
up the person's record. Others way of doing that are to search
under the person's name, Social Security number, or date of
birth.
MR. SMITH said those in law enforcement prefer to have all the
information they can gather about somebody, but the ID Lic can
be used to access additional information.
Number 0322
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern about the possibility
of an officer stopping someone for [driving with] a light out or
some minor thing, letting the driver go, and finding later that
the person was wanted in another state. Representative Stevens
said he just wanted to be reassured by the Department of Public
Safety that the absence of a Social Security number on the
license would not cause any difficulty for law enforcement
officers; it wouldn't allow somebody to slip through without
being identified.
MR. SMITH said he didn't know how he would verify a [person's]
Social Security number even if he had it.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS explained that HB 110 says the Social
Security number would not be there [on the face of the license].
He summarized, "So what you're saying is that that driver's
license number, that ID [licence], would be sufficient. Adding
the Social Security [number] to that information you already
have would not be an advantage for you."
MR. SMITH replied that [the absence of the Social Security
number] wouldn't necessarily be a disadvantage. If the officer
had a driver's license number from Florida, that could be run
through the [Federal Bureau of Investigation's] National Crime
Information Center to see if there were any outstanding warrants
[on that person]. He said:
I can't see a situation where that would affect what
you were able to do or [would help to] identify the
person at that point. The Social Security number and
other identifiers help later on when you're trying to
sort things out. If you've got two people by the name
of Bob Stevens and you're trying to figure out who
they are, you could query them about their Social
Security number or those [other] things. So it is
helpful to have [the Social Security number] available
someplace down the pike, but it's not absolutely
imperative that you have it on a driver's license at
the time of a stop.
MR. SMITH told the committee that he had queried some of his
fellow law enforcement officers in the past few days. "As I
said earlier, all of us like to gather all the information that
we can," he repeated. "We would prefer to have it on there,
[but] would [the absence of a Social Security number] allow ...
a criminal to slip through our fingers? I doubt it."
Number 0525
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that public safety officials have
access to all the identification [on record]. It probably would
be a convenience if they had [the Social Security number] right
in front of them. But part of his emphasis in HB 110 is the
public safety in another arena, that of identity theft, and
balancing that concern [against an officer's need for
information]. He wanted to be certain that the latter would not
be compromised, and asked Mr. Smith if it was accurate to say it
would not.
MR. SMITH confirmed the accuracy of Chair Coghill's summary.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he had received an e-mail indicating
concern about another type of identification card. He asked if
that card, the precursor to the driver's license, had the Social
Security number on it.
MR. SMITH explained that a state ID card is issued if a person
does not have a driver's license or does not want a driver's
license in Alaska, but still wants a state government
identification card. He did not know the Department of Motor
Vehicles rules concerning that ID card, but he thought HB 110
was also addressing the printing of Social Security numbers on
the ID card as well [as on the driver's license]. He explained
that a person's ID number would become that person's driver's
license number if the person later obtained a license.
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that two of his children had obtained
state ID cards, and that their Social Security numbers appeared
on those cards. He asked Charles Hosack to address the
question.
Number 0712
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), testified by teleconference. He testified that as
required by statute, DMV issues an identification card identical
to the motor vehicle operator's license. Currently, the ID card
bears the Social Security number as does the driver's license.
He said DMV applies the same rules to the ID card as to the
driver's license. If the person objects, DMV leaves off the
Social Security number. If HB 110 passes in its current form,
even though it does not address ID cards, DMV would apply the
same policy to the ID card because of the existing statutory
requirement.
Number 0785
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 110 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 110 was moved out of the
House State Affairs Judiciary Standing Committee.
SJR 12 - ELIMINATE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY
Number 0828
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12(title am), Urging the United
States Congress to amend the tax code to eliminate the marriage
penalty.
Number 0842
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as prime
sponsor of SJR 12. He explained that under the federal tax
code, married couples pay more than they would if they were
single people living together. He called it "a basic unfairness
that Congress has been trying to address." Last year,
legislation passed by Congress was vetoed by the president.
Senator Leman said it appears that Congress intends to deal with
the marriage penalty again, and that the issue remains one of
United States Senator Frank Murkowski's priorities.
SENATOR LEMAN estimated that 67,000 couples, or about 134,000
people in Alaska, are affected by the marriage penalty. The tax
code is complex, and there are about 60 provisions in it that
either contribute toward or affect the penalty. The two main
reasons for the marriage penalty are the standard deduction and
the graduated rate structure.
SENATOR LEMAN directed attention to a table in committee packets
that showed how the penalty affects people in various income
categories. He explained that the basic problem is that when
two people are earning income, the standard deduction for joint
filers is less than twice that for a single filer, thereby
creating the penalty. In addition to the smaller standard
deduction, income tax rates are higher for married joint filers.
He noted that this not only affects those in the higher income
levels, but people at all income levels, including those in the
lower levels who receive earned income tax credit.
SENATOR LEMAN voiced his opinion that the tax code should not
penalize marriage. "In fact," he said, "we ought to do
everything we can to encourage it. I believe marriage provides
a societal good and the tax code should at least be neutral
toward it."
Number 1144
ROBERT F. SRAMEK, Certified Public Accountant, Anchorage,
testified by teleconference. He explained a third way in which
the marriage penalty affects taxes, saying many income tax
deductions are reduced and phased out as a person's adjusted
gross income increases. Among them are the deductions for
interest paid on student loans and for contributing to
Individual Retirement Accounts. Married people filing jointly
have a proportionately higher adjusted gross income, so the
amount that they lose accelerates.
MR. SRAMEK said another area in which Alaskans are impacted is
in the taxation of dependent children's Permanent Fund
dividends. Any dependent who has an income above $1,400 is
taxable. If the child is under 14 years old, anything in excess
of that $1,400 is taxed at the parents' incremental rate. "And
so," he said, "we have one-year-old kids being taxed ...[at
rates] all the way up to 39.6 percent on a portion of their
Permanent Fund dividend, which obviously is not real fair."
MR. SRAMEK then described an area of concern to senior citizens:
the more income a person has, the greater the probability that
the person's Social Security monies will become taxable. For a
single individual, the amount of income [at which Social
Security income becomes taxable] is $25,000; for a married
[couple], the amount is $32,000. When a person has income in
excess of that amount, then that person's Social Security monies
become taxed as well [as other income]. He mentioned a trend
toward senior citizens choosing to live together instead of
marrying simply because of the negative tax consequences of
marriage.
MR. SRAMEK said he has heard there are more than 60 areas in the
federal tax code in which there are these kinds of disparities.
He said he'd be surprised if there are only 60, because there
are so many provisions that are either impacted by adjusted
gross income or in which there's a definite difference in the
way a married person is taxed as compared with a single person.
So it's not just a young person's issue and it's not just an old
person's issue, it's everyone's issue, he concluded.
CHAIR COGHILL quoted the part of SJR 12 that read, "[Further]
Resolved that this legislation equalize the standard deduction
...." He asked if equalization would bring the proper parity.
MR. SRAMEK replied, "It would be Step One," adding, "The
internal revenue code is now larger than the Bible. To correct
all of the inequity would be a major undertaking. This [SJR 12]
would be a first step, but it would not resolve all of it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thanked Senator Leman for sponsoring SJR
12.
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report SJR 12(title am) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, SJR 12(title am) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 72 - ASST. ADJUTANT GEN. FOR MISSILE DEFENSE
Number 1584
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next item of business would be
House Bill NO. 72, "An Act relating to an assistant adjutant
general for national missile defense in the Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs."
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (MVA), came forward
to testify. She said HB 72 is a simple bill that would give MVA
the authority to have one more assistant adjutant general, this
one being for national missile defense. If authorized, the
position would be paid totally by the federal government. The
concept is that the new officer would be a member of the Alaska
National Guard in the traditional sense and a full-time employee
of the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office.
MS. CARROLL EXPLAINED that HB 72 is before the committee because
only state legislatures have the authority to create these
positions. The federal government, Congress, has the authority
to create all other general officer positions. There are a
limited number of general officer positions in the United
States, and creating this state position is about the only way
to get a general officer in Alaska for the National Missile
Defense System.
MS. CARROLL testified that MG Phil Oates, Adjutant
General/Commissioner, believes this would be a very valuable
position. It would be the state's military representative
during the development and the deployment of the National
Missile Defense System.
Number 1705
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Carroll to define the parameters of this
position's authority, considering that the position is created
by [state] statute but employed and paid by the federal
government.
MS, CARROLL replied that this would be a state position. "We
would have to have a memorandum of understanding with the Joint
Program Office on what the duties of the position would be, but
we would have joint interview and approval of the position," she
said. The governor would have to concur and the legislature
would have to confirm the position [because it always confirms
the rank of any of the general officers in the Alaska National
Guard].
CHAIR COGHILL surmised, "So this would be the first step in
securing the position, and then the authority would be defined
afterwards, even though this sets out why we're doing it."
MS. CARROLL said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked to whom this individual answers.
"Will he answer to General Oates, will he be of the same rank,
what's the ranking system of this, and who does he answer to?"
MS. CARROLL replied that this position would answer to General
Oates in [the new officer's] traditional Alaska guardsman role.
He will be a brigadier general. He will be the site commander
in Alaska for the development and deployment of the National
Missile Defense System. In that role, he will answer to the
Joint Program Office, and that's the federal military part.
It's a dual role.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked what his duties would be, "taking into
consideration the fact that most of this is going to be a
federal project?"
MS. CARROLL replied that he would be the site commander for
National Missile Defense development and deployment.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked, [and] "From the Alaska National Guard
side?"
MS. CARROLL replied, "He would then be a traditional guardsman
and that is the same role as any traditional guardsman plays:
... you are required to go to annual training two weeks out of
the year, you are required to perform a weekend duty ... at
least one month a year; and in that role, [the new officer]
would be under the command of General Oates.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if in that regard, he would also
command a small force, as in other National Guard areas.
MS. CARROLL was uncertain of that and told Representative Fate
she would have to ask General Oates to get back to him on that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would like to know the answer
"simply because there's a cost attached to it."
Number 1914
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that those participating in the
discussion kept saying "he," and asked if [the new officer's
gender] was a foregone conclusion.
MS. CARROLL acknowledged, "I made that mistake, didn't I?"
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS recognized the importance of the
position, alluding to discussions about potential changes in
national defense [involving Alaska]. "But should that not come
to pass, should Alaska not be the major player in that ... is
this premature? Will we still need this position if North
Dakota is selected ...?"
MS. CARROLL explained, "We are setting up the structure to be
able to act if these things do happen. So if they don't happen,
the structure will be there, but it will not be used."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired, "So if it does not happen, you
will not fill this position?"
MS. CARROLL replied, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized: "So you're putting things in
place in case this happens. If it doesn't happen, then we
aren't going to fill it at all .... Is that correct?"
MS. CARROLL confirmed that it was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if anything currently was being done
to bring this [National Defense Missile] system to Alaska.
MS. CARROLL said there are many efforts being made right now to
try to bring this system to Alaska. We have interaction with
the Joint Program Office, but only on the National Guard side.
In addition, there is a state position that was approved by the
legislature last year for National Missile Defense that is
investigating all of the civilian spin-offs that can benefit the
citizens of the state such as technology, fiber optics, how we
can use those things on our civilian side. So there is a lot of
activity that is occurring."
Number 2052
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried, "This is all at no cost to the
state now? Do you foresee down the line if this does happen, is
this going to be all federal dollars ... or are we going to
eventually be picking up part of the tab?
MS. CARROLL emphasized, "We are not going to pick up the tab for
the position. That's why ... the bill that you have before you
says it will be federally funded. There is no intent for the
state to ever fund this position."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that was not what she meant. "If
because this position is here ... there will be offshoots of
this. Then is it going to be costly to the state or is it all
federal dollars still?"
MS. CARROLL restated the question to clarify before she answered
it: Will the National Missile Defense System have a state cost
whether matching in our facilities or anything like that? No."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON confirmed that was what she had wanted to
know.
Number 2116
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 72 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
He added, however, that he would still like an answer regarding
whether there would be a command under this position.
MS. CARROLL promised to get that information for him.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would appreciate that.
Number 2143
CHAIR COGHILL noted that there was no objection to reporting HB
72 out of committee. Therefore, HB 72 was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee was adjourned at 8:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|