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.