SB 34-DRIVER'S LICENSE & ID CARDS & REAL ID ACT  5:31:01 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced the consideration of Senate Bill (SB) 34. He noted that public testimony was heard and closed during the previous meeting. [Version 30-GS1781\O was adopted 3/21/17.] He provided an overview of the bill's status as follows: We have before us a revised Senate State Affairs, Department of Administration (DOA) and Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) indeterminate fiscal note. The original capital request has been deleted. It is the intent that the implementation of REAL ID would be self-supporting by utilizing the funds raised by the additional fees that have been set for federally compliant licenses and ID cards; in other words, this bill will go forward with the understanding that the state will not be paying for this, but the applicants that go for the cards will. He asked if there were any amendments from committee members. 5:31:52 PM SENATOR WILSON moved conceptual Amendment 1 to the CS for SB 34, version O. CHAIR DUNLEAVY objected for purposes of discussion. SENATOR WILSON detailed conceptual amendment 1 as follows: On page 1, line 10, I would like to move the increase from $5 to $15; and then on page 5, line 31, I would like to move the increase from $10 to $20 and the rational is for the purpose of increased fees to help underwrite the cost associated with shifting the production and distribution for licenses back to Alaska. CHAIR DUNLEAVY removed his objection. He announced that without objection, conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 5:32:43 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SB 34, work order 30-GS1781\O as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 5:32:53 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY objected and made the following statement: I'm going to object to make a statement that I think is very important. I think it's probably no secret that myself and I'm sure others find this process by which the federal government, I believe, is coerced other states and is coercing our state into complying with issuing, or at least being part of the issuance of a new type of ID. Currently there are several different types of IDs, passports and various cards that can be used nationwide in various forms, but this is going to be an additional ID card that the federal government wishes to have. When I say it is distasteful and it is coercive, the fact of the matter is that the federal government itself could do these cards if they wanted to, but they wanted the state to and the coercive part is that we have caught in between the state and the federal government are contractors, state workers, businesses, etcetera that are somewhat in limbo, meaning that unless there is a methodology or a way for the workers and the contractors, etcetera to be able to access federal bases or other federal property that require these IDs or something similar, it's going to be very difficult for them to do that and I feel bad for contractors, I feel bad for the workers. Again, I don't really feel bad for the federal government, I think this is problematic. I don't think this is going to be the end of the federal government's continual overreach. Everybody always seems to have a great idea coming from the federal government to "help," but in the end most often at the least it's a hindrance, at the most we lose a little bit of our rights. Although we put a CS together to try and mitigate some of these issues, and we will be watching this to make sure there are firewalls between the State of Alaska driver's license and what I and some others consider to be basically a federal ID trap, we're going to have to keep an eye on this because I don't think we are going to see an end, I think this is just a beginning. I appreciate the committee's indulgence with the CS and with the understanding that the applicants will have to fit the bill that the state should not fit the bill for this, and this is going to be going on to another committee of referral so more eyes can be on it for the people of Alaska before it gets to the floor. I'll add one more comment to this, it's been asked of me why would I move a bill that is distasteful. I've always had somewhat of a philosophy as a chair that if you table a bill, you kill a bill, etcetera, the public never gets an opportunity to see it, the committee is never really given an opportunity to really work it over, and the legislators don't really get an opportunity to be able to look at it, ask the questions, and finally vote on something on the floor. I wouldn't want some bills that I've had to be held hostage, this is one that it's a tough one for me as a committee chair to let go to the next committee of referral. I'm not going to support it because of the course of actions by the federal government, but I understand the situation if someone were a contractor or workers are in and I can sympathize with that; but none the less, I think it's somewhat heavy-handed, I think the best way to describe it is distasteful. 5:36:38 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY removed his objection. He announced that seeing no objection, CSSB 34(STA) moved out of committee with individual recommendations and attached revised Senate State Affairs fiscal note(s).