ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2013
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Doug Isaacson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 1
"An Act relating to issuance of drivers' licenses."
- MOVED CSHB 1(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to allowable absences from the state for
purposes of eligibility for permanent fund dividends; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 52 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, HAWKER, CHENAULT, JOHNSON
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) STA, JUD
01/29/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 52
SHORT TITLE: PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) STA
01/29/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
FORREST WOLFE, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 1 on behalf of Representative
Lynn, a joint prime sponsor.
SHELLY MELLOTT, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
1.
AMY ERICKSON, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 1.
EARLING JOHANSEN, Assistant Attorney General (AG)
Labor & State Affairs Section
Civil Division - Anchorage
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HB 1.
BRIAN ROSS
Okinawa, Japan
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 52.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 52, as sponsor.
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 52 on behalf of Representative
Feige, sponsor.
HILLARY MARTIN, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
52.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:47 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins,
Gattis, Keller, Isaacson, Millett, Hughes, and Lynn were present
at the call to order.
HB 1-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
8:04:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to issuance of drivers' licenses."
8:05:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Version 28-LS0008\U [the
original bill version].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, at the request of the chair, objected
for the purpose of discussion.
8:05:42 AM
FORREST WOLFE, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 1 on behalf of Representative Lynn, a
joint prime sponsor. He noted that in a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 1, [Version 28-LS0008\C,
Strasbaugh/Martin, 1/23/13], "by mail" [on page 1, line 11 of
the original bill] would be removed.
8:06:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN, as a joint prime sponsor, made introductory comments
regarding HB 1. He stated that under HB 1, the Division of
Motor Vehicles would be authorized to issue a driver's license
for a period of less than five years for someone who has a legal
presence in the United States for less than five years.
Currently, a visitor to the U.S. whose visa will expire in two
weeks can walk into the DMV and get a driver's license that does
not expire for five years. The proposed legislation would link
the duration of the driver's license to the duration of the visa
or any other legal-presence document. If the legal presence
document is for some indefinite or provisional period, such as
for someone seeking asylum, then under HB 1, the driver's
license could be issued for one year but renewed each year
thereafter for a period up to five years at no additional
expense. Chair Lynn noted that similar legislation has been
passed in other states, and he asked that the committee support
the proposed legislation.
8:07:20 AM
MR. WOLFE stated that determining how long a foreign national is
allowed to stay in the U.S. is the purview of the Department of
Homeland Security; the State of Alaska should not be issuing
official or legal documentation that outlasts a person's legal
presence in the U.S. The proposed legislation would enable the
DMV to issue a driver's license for less than five years so that
a visitor's license expires at the same time as their visa or
other authorized length-of-stay document. He said HB 1 reflects
what is considered best practice by the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Currently, he reported,
36 other states, as well as the District of Columbia, have these
similar policies in statute or regulations.
MR. WOLFE said the Alaska DMV already requires a new applicant
of a driver's license to prove legal presence, as is the case in
all but four other states. The proposed legislation, he said,
merely fine-tunes existing law to ensure that a driver's license
reflects the documentation that is currently submitted to the
DMV. Further, the proposed legislation would allow an
international visitor to renew his/her license without an
additional fee if his/her visa or legal-presence-document is
extended for a period of up to five years - the same extension
time that is currently permitted for nearly all Alaskans. The
renewals can be done in person, by mail, and possibly soon by
Internet, and ensures that visitors will not incur extra fees.
Mr. Wolfe repeated Chair Lynn's remark that in the rare instance
that a visitor has a provisional, pending, or indefinite length
of stay, he/she would renew the license each year, but with no
additional fees.
MR. WOLFE stated the intent of the joint sponsors was to keep
the proposed bill as simple as possible, which is why HB 1 does
not address state identification (ID) cards. He said the DMV
already has the authority to issue state ID cards for less than
five years; it does not have the same authority for driver's
licenses. He reiterated that HB 1 would not change how
Alaskan's obtain a driver's license. Further, there is no
requirement under HB 1 that people present any immigration
documentation as proof of ID when applying for a driver's
license. However, if a person does use such documents, the DMV
would consider the expiration date.
MR. WOLFE related that HB 1 is essentially the same as
legislation carried last year that garnered a House vote of 33-
2, with 5 excused absences. He noted that there were people
from the DMV and the Department of Law available to answer
questions.
8:10:02 AM
SHELLY MELLOTT, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Administration (DOA), in response to a
question from Representative Keller, stated that currently the
DMV will renew [a driver's license] one time via mail. In
response to a follow-up question, she said the DMV anticipates
having to adopt regulations to accommodate HB 1.
8:12:08 AM
MS. MELLOTT, in response to Representative Isaacson, offered
details regarding the renewal process of a license, including
that the DMV verifies the information provided by the applicant
from his/her last document of issue, in order to verify the
applicant's identity. Following that, she said, the DMV goes
through a process to verify the applicant's eligibility. Upon
meeting both criteria, the applicant prints out the completed
document, signs it, mails it into the division with payment, and
the division issues the applicant a new card, reusing the
photograph, and then mails the card to the applicant.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered his understanding that the
intent of HB 1 is to allow the division to issue a license for
less than five years, while the secondary intent is to not allow
an immigrant to have a document that says he/she is legal in
Alaska. He asked how the bill would meet the secondary intent.
For example, he said a person could request an extension on a
license without showing proof that his legal presence document
allows him to be in the U.S. He asked if his remarks are on
target.
8:14:41 AM
MS. MELLOTT said the division would need to develop regulations
to require someone who has a license that is issued for a period
of less than five years to submit proof of extension of his/her
legal presence at time of renewal.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON observed that under HB 1, only certain
people would need to be asked for proof of legal presence, and
he questioned whether that would be discriminatory.
MS. MELLOTT reiterated that under HB 1, the division would be
authorized to adopt regulations to carry out statute. She
deferred the question regarding discrimination to the division's
attorney.
8:16:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked, "What does the DMV do now with those same kind
of documents?"
MS. MELLOTT responded that the DMV looks at those documents
every day; however, once a person receives an original license,
he/she never again has to show that proof document again. She
stated that it is not uncommon for people to come into the DMV
with documents that are about to expire, but are valid at the
time they bring them in.
8:17:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked how many driver's licenses are
issued to people with visas in Alaska.
MS. MELLOTT said she does not know if the division documents its
records in a way that would facilitate her giving an answer
today. In response to a request from the chair, she estimated
that the division issues several driver's licenses per day to
people with visas.
8:18:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for conformation that the sole
purpose of the proposed bill is to align the expiration of both
the driver's license and a person's visa to the same date.
MS. MELLOTT answered that is correct.
8:18:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted that the committee had received
correspondence expressing concern about the DMV redoing federal
documentation; however, she offered her understanding that the
DMV already deals with that type of paperwork. She asked for
further information regarding how many types of documents the
division sees and how clear the expirations dates on them are.
MS. MELLOTT replied that the DMV staff undertakes extensive
fraudulent document training and addresses daily a wide variety
of documents issued by [the U.S. Citizen and Immigration
Services (USCIS)]; therefore, the only change under HB 1 would
be the expiration date on the driver's license.
8:19:45 AM
MS. MELLOTT, in response to Representative Gattis, said HB 1
would have no effect on international licenses. In response to
a follow-up question, she stated that the DMV does not accept
international licenses as proof documents when issuing Alaska
driver's licenses.
CHAIR LYNN related that when he served in the military, he was
issued an international driver's license.
8:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if the original application [for a
driver's license] asks for a person's citizenship.
MS. MELLOTT responded that other than a question about U.S.
citizenship geared toward voter registration, the answer is no.
She said the division can determine by the documents presented
whether a person is a U.S. citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked, "So, ... those folks who currently
have the five-year licenses, who have already expired past their
expiration date, as far as when they should be here, they could
apply by mail and, based on the fact that they had a prior
license, would there be anything that would be red-flagged on
your end from the original application where they indicated "no"
- that they were not a U.S. citizen - so that then you would
request additional documentation?"
MS. MELLOTT said the DMV does ask for date of birth, and from
that could ask for additional information.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked Ms. Mellott if she foresees the
division developing regulations such that it would require
additional information from those applicants who indicate a
birth place outside the U.S. or do not indicate that they are a
U.S. citizen and are applying for a five-year license.
MS. MELLOTT indicated that would be a possibility. In response
to a follow-up question, she said that after passing a legal
presence bill, many states have required any applicant who is
not a citizen of the U.S. to bring documentation into the entity
that issues driver's licenses to determine if the person has
naturalized at that point or received a permanent resident care
or is still in temporary visitor status or does not have valid
documents to be in the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked Ms. Mellott to clarify that her
expectation is the division would request additional information
from someone who is not a U.S. citizen, as other states have
done.
MS. MELLOTT answered that she thinks that would be a best
practice on the part of the division.
8:25:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Mellott to confirm his understanding that
HB 1 does not change policy regarding who gets a license; it
only makes a change related to expiration date.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES answered that is correct.
8:25:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he does not understand how
affective HB 1 could be in providing the division the ability of
issuing a driver's license for less than five years when it is
possible for a [non-U.S. citizen] in possession of a document
allowing him/her to be in the U.S. for two years to simply renew
his/her driver's license at the end of the two years by mail or
over the Internet, thus ending up with a five-year driver's
license, with no requirement to verify legal presence in the
U.S. to get that license.
8:26:54 AM
MS. MELLOTT responded that currently under statute the division
has no ability to issue any license for less than five years,
unless it is a temporary license. She said the proposed
legislation would give the division the ability to adopt
regulations to issue licenses that for some reason should have
an expiration date of less than five years.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON remarked that those licenses could still
be renewed and "circumvent the original purpose of having less
than five years."
MR. WOOLFE offered his understanding that in a case where a
person's legal presence document expires in two years, that
person's driver's license would also expire, and in order to
renew the driver's license, he/she would need to provide
documentation - for example, a student visa - showing his/her
legal presence has been extended.
8:30:08 AM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
Representative Millett, confirmed that the Division of Motor
Vehicles supports HB 1.
CHAIR LYNN noted that there is a zero fiscal note attached to
the proposed legislation.
8:30:38 AM
EARLING JOHANSEN, Assistant Attorney General (AG), Labor & State
Affairs Section, Civil Division - Anchorage, Department of Law
(DOL), stated that as an attorney who represents the DMV, he
sees no constitutional issues with HB 1. He relayed that he had
done a legal check related to legal presence and driver's
licenses and found no cases across the country that had
challenged "this." He said the issue is not one of driver's
license denial; the applicants would be issued a license
consistent with the term of their authorized stay. He said HB 1
is not a bill that challenges the federal government's right to
regulate immigrations. He concluded, "The DMV's activities
based on this bill follow the federal determinations."
8:32:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 1.
8:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT removed her prior objection.
8:32:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 1 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. He commented that the bill would be heard by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee. There being no objection, HB 1
was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
[The committee returned to HB 1 later in the hearing.]
8:33:31 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:33 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.
HB 52-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
8:37:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to allowable absences from the
state for purposes of eligibility for permanent fund dividends;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR LYNN announced that he would change the usual order that
the committee hears bills to accommodate a person calling from
Japan to testify.
8:37:34 AM
BRIAN ROSS stated that he is a life-long resident of Alaska. He
referred to a letter he wrote to the legislature, [dated January
28, 2013, included in the committee packet], in support of HB
52. He said he has been working to remove the 10-year rule that
applies to the permanent fund dividend (PFD) and Alaska career
military personnel. He relayed that he has been involved in
court cases and appeals all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court,
but he has been continually denied the PFD. He expressed hope
that his personal story and his thoughts on how the 10-year rule
unfairly penalizes those in the military will convince [the
legislature] to support HB 52. He said, "I want to be able to
point out that the testimony I provide today is [in] no way
endorsed by the [U.S.] Department of Defense or constitutes an
endorsement by the Marine Corps; ... I'm testifying as a private
citizen, too."
8:39:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
introduced HB 52. He noted that similar bill language made it
most of the way through the process in the 27th Legislative
Session as House Bill 190. He said a few years ago, the
legislature received an e-mail from Lieutenant Commander Tiko
Crofoot, a Navy Seal currently active in the fight against
terrorism worldwide and an Alaskan who has been stationed
outside of Alaska for his entire military career. Like the
previous testifier, Lt. Commander Crofoot is a career military
officer who has been an Alaska resident from the beginning of
his career and is running up against the statutory 10-year
limitation in receiving a PFD, even with an allowable absence
away from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said the state cannot single out a
particular class of people to receive one benefit or another.
He explained that the proposed legislation focuses on a person's
intent to return to Alaska after an allowable absence.
Currently, he related, there are 16 allowable absences in
statute for which the Permanent Fund Division assumes that the
recipient intends to return to Alaska after the first five
years. He said those allowable absences fall under certain
categories: service to the nation or the state in the case of
military service; being the spouse of a military member; leaving
the state for medical reasons or to take care of a sick
relative; and being out of state for education purposes. Under
HB 52, a person would have to prove he/she intends to return to
Alaska in order to qualify for a PFD beyond the current
allowable absence period. He said the proposed legislation
would incorporate current regulation into statute, which would
give more specific direction to administrative law judges for
the appeals process. Further, it would remove the 10-year limit
on being able to receive a dividend because of an allowable
absence, which, for example, would make it possible for someone
to pursue a military career and continue to receive the benefits
that all Alaska residents receive in the form of the PFD.
[The committee returned to HB 52 later in the hearing.]
8:44:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:44 a.m. to 8:46 a.m.
HB 1-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
8:45:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN returned the committee's attention to HB 1.
8:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to rescind the committee's previous
action Committee in moving HB 1 out of committee. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 1, Version 28-LS0008\C,
Strasbaugh/Martin, 1/23/13, as a work draft, and to "make the
recent vote on passage of the bill from committee apply to
Version" [C]. There being no objection, Version C was before
the committee and CSHB 1(STA) was moved out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR LYNN inquired, "And the previous testimony we heard will
apply to this current version. Is that correct?"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER responded, "That's correct."
HB 52-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
8:46:35 AM
CHAIR LYNN returned the committee's attention to HB 52.
8:46:36 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 52 on behalf of Representative Feige,
sponsor. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate how
allowable absences have been handled by the state since the
inception of the PFD. He said as of 1982, the PFD had six
specific allowable absences, [including] the ability of the
commissioner to establish an allowable absence by regulation.
In 1997, there were four allowable absences added to statute,
the ability of the commissioner to add allowable absences
through regulation remained in statute, and the definition of a
state resident was adjusted, incorporating other portions of
Alaska statute. He noted that AS 01.10.055 pertains to a
standard condition of residency in the state.
MR. PASCHALL relayed that in 1998, statutes were essentially
revamped, but the definition of residency remained the same. He
indicated that allowable absences were reworded to address legal
issues, but said that most of the allowable absences did not
actually change in terms of what they allowed. He said there
were additional items added as allowable absences, including the
eligibility of someone to accompany someone else who is on an
allowable absence. New language was added to statute to clarify
that no one could be absent from the state for more than 180
days unless he/she qualified for one of the current 12 allowable
absences. If an individual claimed allowable absence for
educational reasons, they could only be absent 120 days outside
of that allowable educational allowance. Further, once any of
the other allowable absences ended, an individual covered under
one of them could only be absent for an additional 45 days. In
order to claim an allowable absence, a resident had to be a
resident for six consecutive months before leaving the state.
Mr. Paschal said this was an addition that occurred prior to
1998. Anyone on an allowable absence could only receive that
allowable absence for ten years, except for members of Congress,
their staff, and their families. He pointed out that this
provision did not impact anyone until [2008].
MR. PASCHAL stated that what appears to be an unintended
consequence from the point of view of the sponsor is that
someone in the military serving Alaska loses his/her dividend.
He offered his understanding that there has been only one
individual who qualified for the dividend after the ten years
under AS 43.23.008(c).
8:51:40 AM
MR. PASCHALL said 2012 saw the addition of allowable absences
for those: accompanying an individual serving in the military,
such as a spouse, a minor dependent, or a dependent child;
serving under [foreign or] coastal articles of employment in the
U.S. Merchant Marine; serving as a volunteer in the Peace Crops;
training or competing as a member of the U.S. Olympic Team; and
participating in a student fellowship. Further, Mr. Paschall
related, the definition of "family member" was added.
8:53:15 AM
MR. PASCHALL said under HB 52, the 10-year rule, under Section C
in statute, would be removed.
8:53:43 AM
MR. PASCHALL, in response to Representative Millett, offered his
understanding that members of Congress and their family members
were exempted from the ten-year rule in 1998, when the original
10-year rule was put in place.
8:54:28 AM
MR. PASCHALL said under HB 52, statute would require that the
state assume an individual who has been out of the state for
more than five years does not intend to return to Alaska;
presently that assumption is outlined only under regulations.
He stated that the bill sponsor believes that putting the
requirement in statute will make it more effective.
Furthermore, HB 52 would change from regulation to statute the
30-day rule that requires a person to return to the state. In
response to Representative Keller, he said the sponsor did not
choose to make many significant changes, and the 30-day rule has
to do with an individual who is out of state for a certain
number of days. He deferred to a representative from the
division to offer more specific details. He said the five-year
rule pertains to the original five years in which there are less
requirements for a person to prove his/her intent to return to
the state. In response to Representative Isaacson, he
reiterated that the five-year rule is presently in regulation.
He said with most allowable absences, after five years' time the
person - for example, a college student - should have been able
to return to Alaska. In response to Representative Isaacson, he
indicated that the division would be able to evaluate whether or
not a person, who had continued on to graduate school with plans
to matriculate, had no plans to become a life-long student.
8:57:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to language on page 3,
line 23, of HB 52, which read, "the department shall consider",
and he asked if that language was taken from regulations. He
questioned whether the legislature should "put some weight on
these."
8:58:10 AM
MR. PASCHALL said HB 52 adopts current regulation, with some
adjustments to "make it a little stronger." He said the
criteria considers how long someone has been absent from the
state compared to the length of time he/she was physically
present in the state. For example someone who was in the state
for 18 years prior to being absent for 5 years might have much
stronger ties to the state than someone who was in the state for
3 years before being absent for 5 years. Another consideration
is the frequency and duration of return trips to the state
beyond the minimum 30-day required days and whether the
individual is making choices that would improve his/her ability
to return to the state versus decisions that keep him/her out of
the state, such as the previous example of the life-long out-of-
state student.
MR. PASCHALL listed the following demonstrations that an
individual has established ties with the state or another
jurisdiction: maintenance of a home; payment of resident taxes;
registration of a vehicle; registration to vote and voting
history; acquisition of a driver's license, business license, or
professional license; and receipt of benefits under a claim of
residency in the state or another jurisdiction. He said the
sponsor and the division envisions a scoring system that could
be used by the division in determining a person's intent to
return to Alaska.
9:00:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested consideration be given to those
who have never been a resident of another state, because they
essentially would be "without a home state" when "they hit that
10-year mark under the current law."
9:01:29 AM
MR. PASCHALL clarified, "This isn't residency in Alaska; it's
residency for the purposes of a permanent fund dividend. So,
they don't become a nonresident after 10 years." Regarding
Representative Hughes' suggestion, he said he thinks the
division would have the authority to consider whether someone
had ever been a resident of another state as part of its
criteria, but it may be necessary to consider the equal
protection clause in the Constitution [of the State of Alaska].
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she wondered about "that very same
thing."
9:02:23 AM
MR. PASCHALL said the last criteria under HB 52 would address
employment and career choices and provide some flexibility to
the division in that regard.
9:02:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON directed attention to language shown in
the PowerPoint, which read: "(5) the priority that the
individual gave the state on an employment assignment preference
list, including a list used by military personnel;" He asked,
"Does the military give the dream list to the state?"
MR. PASCHALL offered his understand that that is correct or that
the individual has to provide some type of documentation to the
division. He deferred to the division for further clarification
of its procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON questioned whether the language would
create an expectation by some military members that they could
have documentation given to them by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) that the DoD might not release.
MR. PASCHALL said this language is already in regulations, and
he does not think putting it into statute would cause a problem
for the division in terms of verification.
9:03:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES observed that it was contact from military
personnel that instigated the proposed legislation. She asked,
"Is there any other type of area ... that might be impacted by
this change to get beyond that 10-year mark other than
military?"
MR. PASCHALL answered that he does not want to speculate too
much, because what is being considered here is not "whether they
are on an allowable absence," but "whether they are likely to
return to the state." He said that the sponsor does not want to
exclude a particular criterion "for that purpose." He said
there also have been questions about equal protection as it
relates to exclusions. He related that the Alaska Supreme Court
case, Ross v. State, "did change that ... a little bit," but
said, "... we didn't feel like we wanted to go back and make
changes to fill and raise that question."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if those who reached the 10-year
mark in the past and have maintained their residency would,
under HB 52, be able to apply for the 2013 PFD.
MR. PASCHALL directed attention to Section 4 of the proposed
legislation, which addresses application for the 2013 PFD for
certain individuals. He said those who are ineligible because
of the 10-year rule, which would be repealed under HB 52, would
have 90 days from enactment of the proposed legislation to
apply.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for clarification that someone who,
for example, reached the 10-year mark in 2008, but would
otherwise be eligible, would be eligible to apply during that
90-day period.
MR. PASCHALL answered that that is the intent of the proposed
legislation.
9:06:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she had not previously understood
that. She declared a conflict of interest, because HB 52 could
result in direct benefit to her adult son who is active military
and hit his 10-year mark in 2009.
9:07:18 AM
MR. PASCHALL, in response to Representative Isaacson, said the
exclusion for members of Congress, their staff, and their
families, has applied to only one individual. In response to a
follow-up question, he said the number of military personnel who
could be affected by HB 52 may be slightly over 100.
9:08:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON directed attention to the following
language in the PowerPoint: "(6) whether the individual made a
career choice or chose a career path that does not allow the
individual to reside in or return to the state." He asked, "By
doing this, does this allow us to actually expend more money
than we're anticipating to give folks who have the idea that
they're coming back another 10 years to collect the permanent
fund [dividend] only to find them retiring at their last duty
station and not returning anyway?"
MR. PASCHALL stated that the intent under HB 52 is that over
time it would become increasingly more difficult for an
individual to show his/her intent to return. He said a person
who has been in the military for 18 years should have some
reason to return to Alaska and should be able to illustrate that
reason. For example, the person may have purchased a retirement
home in the state. He said the focus under HB 52 is for the
division to look for proof that a person intends to come back to
the state.
9:10:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that some states require that a
person register his/her vehicle with that state. He asked how
that might affect the division's decision, when that person also
may not own a home in Alaska. He questioned whether this may be
getting too complicated for the division.
MR. PASCHALL responded that the division is already using "these
items" through regulation, and the intent of the proposed
legislation is to give the division "the opportunity to score
these items." The idea is to give the division the opportunity
to develop something that is more objective and less subjective
in the evaluation process. Regarding vehicle registration, he
offered his understanding that no member of the military on
active duty is forced to change his/her car registration or
residency.
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the bill sponsor was
nodding his head in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON clarified, "Not change their state of
residency, but they may be required to change their vehicle
registration." He said that happened to him.
9:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT remarked that under HB 52, the burden of
proof would be on the applicant.
MR. PASCHALL responded that is correct. He said the division's
responsibility is in ensuring that the documents provided by the
applicant have not been falsified.
9:12:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted that there is a zero fiscal note.
She questioned whether the workload of the division would be
increased under HB 52, and asked how many people would be
impacted on an annual basis "if they don't prove that they'd
fall off the rolls as far as eligibility."
MR. PASCHALL reiterated that the division is already using most
of these criteria; however, he stated, "They sometimes lose on
an administrative appeal." He indicated the reason for changing
regulations to statute is "so that they're stronger in their
presence once it goes to an appeal." He said approximately
13,000 people "in a given year" are beyond the five-year
[allowable absence period]. In response to a follow-up
question, he said one of the things that cannot be determined is
how many people will end up not returning to the state.
9:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS referred to the aforementioned language in
the PowerPoint: "receipt of benefits under a claim of residency
in the state or another jurisdiction;" She offered her
understanding that according to this language, a military person
living in another state could become a resident of that state
for "homestead exemption purposes" and still qualify for the
PFD.
MR. PASCHALL clarified that anyone who takes any benefits by
claiming residency in another state would lose his/her
eligibility to receive the PFD. The PFD program is for
qualified residents of Alaska, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS noted that her husband is an international
airline pilot, and "there was a time that the PFD was not
allowed to him because he's gone for 180 days a year or more."
She expressed appreciation that the bill sponsor is attempting
to "tighten it up for those that are intending to continue being
residents and coming back." In response to the chair, she said
the issue was cleared up so that her husband is now able to
receive the PFD.
9:17:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed appreciation to the sponsor for
bringing the proposed legislation forward. He again directed
attention to language on page 3, line 23 [text provided
previously], and asked if it is specific enough. He expressed
unease about the subjective nature of the criteria we're laying
out. He said he can see that the division may be comparing one
person's coming back to the state 20 times versus someone else's
coming back 3 times. He said he would like to hear from
Legislative Legal and Research Services that the proposed
legislation would not result in litigation for the state.
9:19:49 AM
HILLARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, to Representative Keller's
stated concern, said she thinks the [division] would have to
consider "all of these factors" when looking at an application.
She said she is not sure how much tighter the language could be.
9:21:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:21:20 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:21 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.
9:23:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee is the only committee of referral for HB 52
before it is heard on the House floor.
9:23:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 52 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 52 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:24:38 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:25
a.m.