SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2 Relating to certification of the Alaska State Legislature's opposition to requiring suspension of a driver's license for drug offenses. Upon convening the meeting, Co-chairman Frank directed that SCR 2 be brought on for discussion. SENATOR SHARP referenced a draft Senate Finance Committee Substitute (8- LS0631\J) and MOVED for adoption for discussion purposes. No objection having been raised, IT WAS SO ORDERED. Senator Sharp explained that the Senate Finance version is intended to "take care of the problem of the federal mandate on highway funds." The state was faced with the option of passing either a bill or a resolution. The Finance version cleans up and eliminates objectional phrases in the original resolution. A resolution containing the same wording as the Finance version is presently making its way through the House. There is an April 1 deadline on passage. Federal law requires that states must have enacted and be enforcing a law that provides for revocation or suspension of an individual's driving license upon conviction of possession of a controlled substance or any drug offense. SB 133 (REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE) was introduced to meet that requirement. The proposed resolution is an alternative to passage of SB 133. The alternative provides that states submit to the Secretary of Transportation a certification stating that the Governor is opposed to enactment or enforcement of the required revocation, and the legislature has adopted a resolution expressing its opposition as well. The administration has indicated it will support either approach. Penalties are severe if the state does not meet the statutory requirement. Approximately 5% of its federal highway apportionment for FY 94 will be withheld. That percentage would also be withheld in FY 95. Thereafter, commencing with FY 96, 10% would be withheld. The fiscal note demonstrates what would be lost if the federal mandate is not met. Many states have opted to proceed with a similar resolution because they resent federal government intervention and philosophically disagree with proposed enactment and enforcement of law. Sixteen states have passed statutes, but only three have met the federal mandate. The fiscal note evidences the cost of a 5% reduction for the first two years of ISTEA based on the anticipated $212 million Alaska is likely to receive. Senator Sharp next directed attention to a proposed amendment and explained that it would change October 31, 1993, to October 1, 1993, at page 1, line 10. The change is needed to meet the federal mandate. Co-chairman Frank called for objections to adoption. None were forthcoming, and AMENDMENT NO. 1 WAS ADOPTED. Senator Sharp then directed attention to the following intent language: It is the intent of the Alaska State Legislature, in enacting SCR 2, that the State of Alaska continue to vigorously enforce laws prohibiting illegal drug use, while avoiding unnecessary entanglement with the federal government over which method is most effective to prevent illegal drug use. It is also the intent of the Legislature that the State maintain its sovereign right to enact legislation punishing illegal drug use and that the enactment of criminal laws applicable to illegal drug use in the state be reserved to the legislature. Co-chairman Frank called for objections to adoption of the intent. No objection having been raised, the LETTER OF INTENT WAS ADOPTED. Senator Kelly MOVED that CSSCR 2 (Finance) pass from committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying letter of intent. No objection having been raised, CSSCR 2 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with the Senate Finance letter of intent and zero fiscal notes from the Dept. of Public Safety and Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. All members signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation with the exception of Co-chair Pearce who was not present at the meeting.