Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/27/1998 01:18 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 344 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT Number 0229 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address HB 344, "An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support; relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor. Number 0330 BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, came before the committee to explain HB 344. She said the legislation was introduced in order to comply with federal welfare reform requirements. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and ended welfare as we know it. They realized at the time that if they were going to get people off welfare permanently, poor families needed assistance in achieving self-sufficiency. One of the ways that self-sufficiency has been achieved is through child support. She explained they made many changes in child support legislation, and then required the states to comply with those changes. Last year, SB 154 passed the legislature, which made a lot of the changes, but the complete package was not passed. Ms. Miklos informed the committee that HB 344 finishes the package. Some of the provisions weren't included because people realized we had more time to comply. She noted there has been technical amendments, and many of the requirements were changed with the technical amendments. The department has attempted to put only things in the bill that are required by welfare reform. She said, "There are a couple of things that we realize that we can take out afterwards and would be glad to talk to you about those things." Ms. Miklos stated that if the legislation is not passed this year, the federal government has said they would penalize the state of Alaska approximately $15 million by ending all federal funding for child support, and eventually ending the Tannif (ph) bock grant, which is about $63 million to the state of Alaska. She urged the committee to pass the legislation. Number 0404 MS. MIKLOS indicated she would review the highlights of the bill. The legislation requires that all employers report all new hires or rehires within 20 days to CSED. The legislation gives the courts the authority to revoke sport fishing and hunting licenses in some criminal cases and in contempt of court cases. She said the bill mandates that social security numbers be provided for child support purposes on applications for drivers licenses, and hunting and sport fishing licenses. It gives the child support liens from other states the same standing as Alaskan liens. The bill gives the courts the authority to hold a person in contempt for failing to honor an administrative child support subpoena. The rest of the changes are technical changes in definitions or changes to make things consistent. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a license revocation and said if that license is used in a person's livelihood, is there a legal problem with that? Number 0499 DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, responded that he doesn't believe so. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if we assume the same lien that would be applied if a person has moved to Alaska from another state, does that, in any way, cause any problem with Alaska accepting other state's laws? He said sometimes there are conflicts with laws between states. MR. BRANCH indicated he doesn't believe there would be a problem. He said the lien would have to be valid in the law of the state in which it's issued. Every state has to meet the same federal mandates. Every state will be required to give every other state child support liens (indisc.) and credit. Mr. Branch pointed out that the way the legislation is drafted, the department would expect that the lien would be recorded in the same way that our child support liens are recorded. Basically, it would open a door, for example, for Montana to record one of its child support liens in Alaska. At that point, it would be treated as if it were a child support lien of Alaska. CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "And by so accepting, we wouldn't necessarily imply anything that we might not accept from say Montana. Maybe they have helmet law that's different, or some other law that has nothing to do with this. This acceptance would not create any kind of an implied (indisc.)." MR. BRANCH said he doesn't believe it would be any type of waiver of state sovereign powers. Number 0604 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the opportunity is for reciprocity using the Montana example. He asked how many other states might accept Alaska's liens. MR. BRANCH responded, "Every single one." He stated all the states are mandated by the same federal laws to have legal procedures that allow for Alaska's, and every other state's, child support liens to be treated as if they arose in their state. Mr. Branch stated they are all looking for the same penalties. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if Alaska was to lose $10 million, that would be a significant amount of money. He pointed out that perhaps there are some states where that wouldn't be such a big issue. He asked if the dollar amount is $10 million to each state that doesn't comply, or is it proportional to something else like population. MS. MIKLOS responded that it is all the federal money that goes into child support. A bigger state would have more money. She noted it is all the federal money that goes into public assistance block grants. Number 0735 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she has absolutely no problem making people who owe child support to pay their child support. Her objection to the legislation relates to several issues, but mostly it is a demand from the federal government for us to do this or they'll take away our money. She stated, "And I guess I'm as far to the right as you can get on that, Mr. Chairman, because it doesn't make any difference to me if it's child support or any of the other issues. I am up to here with the federal government telling me I must do it their way or they'll take back their money. And I say take the money and go home and we'll do it our way." She indicated she will be a "no vote" on the bill. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ referred to the references in the bill to social security numbers and said the way he reads the bill is that even people who aren't subject to CSED's jurisdiction would have to provide a social security number. MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative and noted it would be on the applications. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said currently on an application for a fishing license the social security number is optional. He asked if he would be required to include his social security number if the legislation becomes law. MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if even people who aren't subject to CSED's jurisdiction would have to include their social security numbers on a license application. MS. MIKLOS said, "Yes, according to the federal welfare reform legislation passed by Congress, ... and then those social security numbers are to be maintained. There is still privacy protections on those numbers and released as requested by Child Support Enforcement." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "When I go down to the store and buy my license, it's on a blank slate or essentially on a sheet that anyone can read through. And there is no provision, in most places, for protecting that kind of privacy information. I'm comfortable with people having, to some extent, knowing the details that are on my fishing license. But if I want to protect my social security number, you're telling me my choice is either no fishing license or what would happen?" Number 0905 MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game has agreed that next year, if the bill were to become law, they would be willing to black out the two copies of the fishing license. The copy the person receives and the one the store receives wouldn't have a social security number on it. The only one that would have a social security number would be the copy that is sent to the Department of Fish and Game. Another option is that a person may apply directly to the Department of Fish and Game for a license. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it seems to him that the federal government is being granted more authority than they need to have. He said you could require the people, who are subject to CSED jurisdiction, to include their social security number on their licenses, but he doesn't see how that would prevent somebody unless there is an immediate check when the license is issued. He said he doesn't see how it would require him to make payments or how it's related to his CSED payment. Representative Berkowitz said in a way, it's almost easier to come back retrospectively through CSED and see who has fishing licenses and pull them that way, rather than going the other way around. MS. MIKLOS said one of the requirements is that you must have some sort of sanction that requires withholding a sporting license. She said they have tried to make that the least onerous that they can by making it a court proceeding. In order to determine if someone had one, the way CSED would find that out is by social security number. She said CSED would ask the Department of Fish and Game if a person had a license. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he understands the thrust of the argument and the maintaining of the privacy. While that notion is universally assessable, it frustrates him. He said it is his understanding that if he paid certain national organizations $35, he could obtain anyone's social security number within a day. He asked if that statement is accurate. MS. MIKLOS stated that she didn't know that. She informed the committee that CSED has found existing places where there are violations of the privacy act regarding social security numbers. They are supposed to be completely confidential according to federal legislation passed in 1990. Nothing in the bill changes that and they will be maintained as confidential. It is a federal crime if you don't keep social security numbers confidential, whether your a storekeeper or an employee of CSED. In that sense, there are many protections still built into the system. She noted she didn't know people could obtain social security numbers the way Representative Bunde discussed. Number 1108 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Is it the concept of this ... reasoning that it's so much easier to -- or is it because of uniformity of the other states that you would use a (indisc.) social security number other than searching the fish and game records? I mean those licenses all have a number on them too." MS. MIKLOS said she believes it was Congress' intent to try to make finding people as easy as possible. She referred to Representative James' comment about federal mandates and said she thinks that a lot of people probably feel that same way. Ms. Miklos informed the committee that the idea of the legislation was to help collect child support, and in order to do that, they've also made some mandates. Social security numbers are much more of a consistent identifier than anything else we have. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has found that people who get sport fishing and sport hunting licenses quite often, not always, have a tendency to be law abiding citizens. He said there would be a lot of people who would slip through the net because they're not fishers or hunters. MS. MIKLOS referred to implementing the welfare reform legislation and said there was a large net because there is other ways to find people. In terms of legislation passed last year, it included occupational licenses, drivers licenses and new-hire reporting. Hunting and fishing licenses is another way, but it's not the only way. She noted that in an article in the New York Times that the new-hire reporting has found 100,000 people, since it was implemented in most states, who have not been paying child support. Number 1290 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I don't have the full text here but the briefing I have here seems to indicate that this is written in a conjunctive 'and,' and the applicants for licenses and individuals who are subject to court order and anyone who's died is really nothing to worry about. Those folks have to put their social security number down. And it seems to me that we can comply with the federal requirement with - instead of stating, 'Everyone who applies for a license has to provide a social number,' it's simply stating, 'everyone subject to a court order has to provide a social security number.'" MR. BRANCH said he disagrees. He stated he believes that in federal language an intent is to require that anyone who applies for any of these licenses provides a social security number, whether or not they have child support obligations. Mr. Branch said he isn't condoning that, but that is what he believes that Congress mandated, which is very clear. He said, "We have to have legal proceedings requiring that social security numbers of any applicant for a professional license, drivers license, occupation license, recreational licenses, marriage license, be recorded on the application. And any individual who has died be placed in the record relating to the death and be recording a death certificate." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that it's "and" and not "or." They're not drawing a distinction between the three classes of applicants and the three categories. He said because it's "and," his interpretation of what they're saying is, "If you're applying for a license and you're subject to a support decree, then you have to put you're social security down." MS. MIKLOS responded, "It says any applicant who applies for a recreational license." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "But then -- that's subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 2 it says, ';' at the end of subparagraph 1, so paragraph 2 '; and', not '; or'. And the way we interpretate our statutes here is if you have a laundry list, if it's laundry list and then an 'or', it's any of those individual items. But if it's the 'and', then they have to all come together." MR. BRANCH said he disagrees with that interpretation. He said the use of the gammer indicates that the social security numbers of the applicants, for any those licenses, and the social security numbers of any individuals subject to a domestic relations order, and anyone who's died, that their social security number be placed on the death certificate. Number 1625 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three proposed amendments. The first amendment is by Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected to the adoption of the Amendment 1, for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT explained he has spoke to the Administration about the protecting social security numbers. He said he had been worried that it would set up an ideological conflict. As it often happens, you're able to find a practical accommodation. He said, "What they said is, 'Our problem is it's one form and the social security number is on it. It has to be confidential by federal law.' And I found further support for that in a memo from Dan Branch, of the AG's (Attorney General) office, talking about which federal provisions require it to be confidential. So it is required to be confidential now, but it's difficult the way the bill is written for the department to do it. And if they have the authority to separate, keeping the same file but separate the other information from the social security number, then they can easily give that other information and keep the social security number confidential. I'm not sure what exactly in the bill prevents - or even current law, prevents them from doing it now, but if we can enable them to do that it might help some of the legitimate privacy concerns that some people have." Number 1720 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how difficult this could be and what the fiscal impact would be. MS. MIKLOS stated the amendment is in conjunction with an amendment that was requested by the court system. She pointed out that last year in SB 154 there was actually language that said the social security number would go on the divorce or disillusion papers. At that time, people didn't take into account that those were public documents. Ms. Miklos said when they started looking into the whole social security number issue, it became clear that it would be onerous to the court system for them to have to make those papers confidential. She said the solution that was worked out was that they would develop this extra form, as described by Representative Croft, and then this amendment allows them to give CSED the information in that form. She stated to two amendments kind of go together. Number 1722 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came before the committee. He explained that under the current provisions, they transmit the information to CSED that they need on the forms. Mr. Wooliver said the amendment is a technical amendment. It still allows the Alaska Court System to transmit the numbers, but since those numbers aren't on the forms any longer, other language is needed, which is included in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE inquired about the fiscal impact. MR. WOOLIVER explained the fiscal impact was incurred in SB 154, as that is the bill that required the changing of forms. He stated they still have to collect and transmit social security numbers per federal law. The amendment would allow the changing of the form. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Amendment 1 allows for that internal transfer with social security numbers. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the Alaska Court System and CSED will still have the social security numbers, but both groups will have them separate from any documents that the public would see. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there is a proposed Amendment 2, E.5. He then called for a brief at-ease. Number 1830 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the divorce and disillusion documents and said you can separate the social security numbers, and thereby not cause the Alaska Court System so much of a problem in something that is a public document which, under federal law, would have to be kept confidential because it has a social security number on it. Number 1867 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. MR. WOOLIVER explained that amendment would allow the court system to segregate the social security numbers from the public document. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 3, line 16, of Amendment 2, and said it talks about listing social security numbers for each child whose rights are addressed in the judgement. He asked if that would apply to people who may not be under CSED auspices. He said, "Does this create a problem for possible -- cousin Berkowitz, for example, who would not like his social security number automatically out in the public and he's not under CSED, but he may have been a child, 17-year-old or something, that's going to go into the service, or 18, something in that range. I'm stretching a point, I'm just trying to..." REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER stated it is existing law. CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is existing law that they would have their number listed as well. Number 1963 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that just because someone has a disillusion of marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to need to be attended to by CSED. She said she would really object to having her name and social security number being reported to CSED, because she doesn't ever plan and maybe never ever would have the need for services of CSED. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a further objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there were two further amendments by Representative Rokeberg, who wasn't in attendance. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered Amendment 3, E.3, Lauterbach, 4/20/98, on behalf of Representative Rokeberg. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion. Number 2060 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She explained the amendment was offered by Representative Rokeberg to address a concern a constituent has. Under current statute, modification of child custody or visitation, the court may consider a parent's failure to pay child support. The amendment goes further by telling the courts that they may not modify the custody or visitation rights if the parent arrears have increased after the date of the final support order. She stated that it doesn't take visitation rights away, it just says that the court may not modify the custody or visitation rights if the parent's arrears have increased, unless the custodial parent agrees. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if that would be for any reason. He questioned what would happen if there are some other compelling reasons to modify the visitation right such as the parent that is in arrears is in jail. MS. SEITZ said the amendment does contain the language "best interest of the child" lanugage in the amendment, so that would be considered by the court. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "May not modify custody or visitation rights if they've been arrears and it's been increased even in -- I guess we're assuming, in one direction, that it would go in a way that was -- this doesn't seem to put it - to limit it to only one direction. That is what if there were an order that cut off or limited the visitation rights of the nonpaying parent and the court wanted to do that, but this says I cannot - 'you're not paying as well as other conduct, I want to modify your visitation rights, but I find that it has increased.' It seems to me if that's the direction it's going, it would be phrased in the one direction, not sort of both. I can't help -- I can't hurt the parent in arrears under this provision. I know that was poorly stated but I was trying to get...." MS. SEITZ referred to the case where the noncustodial parent keeps threatening the custodial parent and said the noncustodial parent hasn't paid the child support but he/she keeps telling the custodial parent that they're not going to pay child support, they are going to go to court and get visitation rights modified or increased, or they are going to get the custody arrangement changed. She said the amendment is an attempt to suggest to the court that they "may not" unless they determine the modification is in the best interest of the child, until those arrears are taken care of. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The way I read it if the court said, 'We've had enough of your nonpayment, as well as other actions, including threats, we want to cutoff or drastically reduce your visitation rights,' I think this limits the court's discretion to do that. I think I understand the problem that Representative Rokeberg was trying to address, but I worry sort of the idea of unintended consequences -- that we could hamstring a court who finally said -- who wanted to discipline that in arrears party." Number 1963 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she supports the amendment. She said her experience with the public is that the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent is a plus for the child, not a negative. The amendment says the failure to grant the modification would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. That is an important part of this issue. The best interest of the child should demand the case and nothing else should interfere with that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he tends to agree with Representative Croft's reading of the amendment. He asked if it would satisfy the sponsor's intent if new language said something like, "The court may restrict the custody or visitation rights of a parent with respect...." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Unless the other parent consents in writing to the modification -- so it may be that if it goes in the other parent's direction, you just have to get their, 'I like this - this modification.' So if we're going to restrict the visitation on the parent in arrears, maybe they have to go through that additional hoop of getting the custodial parent, in this case, to do it." He stated this is an area for discretion of the court. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the amendment read, "Visitation is not granted unless it's in the best interest of the child." It would allow the court the maximum freedom to decide, even if somebody is in arrears. It would be a matter in the best interest of the child. Number 2345 CHAIRMAN GREEN called for an at-ease. He called the meeting back to order and announced Amendment 3 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he is satisfied with the way the amendment was presented unless somebody can tell him otherwise. He said, "It is his understanding of the nature of the amendment was that, because it cut both ways, in order to overcome harassment and the argument that I'm going to -- if the noncustodial parent was threatening the custodial parent, that they could indicate that no matter what you do, if you threaten to go back and get visitation rights or custody changed, it's not going to change anyway, whether you're in arrears or not. And also, it protects somebody who is in arrears from losing their custody or visitation rights the way I took it." CHAIRMAN GREEN said "may not" means "no," as opposed to "may" or "shall" where there is not a "not" behind it. He stated his concern is that if he is the custodial parent, this would prevent him from getting a change in the order because "deadbeat" isn't paying. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the amendment is offered on the behalf of a custodial parent to overcome, what she believes, is the threat of harassment. He said he is trying to use the law as protection for people, but he noted he doesn't want to do anything with unforseen consequences. TAPE 98-71 , SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the section that is being modified, AS 25.21.010, adds new language in (b). He stated that (a) sets the general standard and (a) says, "an award of custody of a child, the visitation of a child, may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstance requires a modification and the modification is in the best interest of the child." He said that puts it in permissive language, but it is basically the same as saying it cannot be modified unless you find these two things, a change in circumstance that is significant enough to modify it, and the best interest. Representative Croft said, "Given that the best interest is the touch-tone of both of these, I'm not sure what it adds. And I think it limits the way we were talking about. And I've been thinking more about this, 'unless the other parent consents.' In the classic two-parent divorce situation, that might be an effective back door way to cure it. Say, "Well if you're going to reduce their visitation because they've been in arrears - they haven't paid, then I'm okay with that and I'll sign as the other parent." He noted that there are other situations as custody could be given to someone else besides the other parent. The amendment says the other parent consents in writing. He said the custodian consents, whoever it is. Number 0075 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern with the issue is that in the first part of the section, which is existing law, it seems to say in the first four lines that the court can consider whether or not the noncustodial parent is paying child support when they're determining what the visitation rights, et cetera, are. She said it seems to her that it shouldn't be automatic to deny a parent visitation rights for not paying child support because we don't know the circumstances of why they have not paid. She said it shouldn't be assumed that they're a deadbeat parent as there could be other reasons. Representative James stated, "The conflicting or confusing part of it is that unless the other parent consents in writing to the modification of the court, that seems to be out of place in this issue. But unless the failure to grant modification be detrimental to the best interest of the child, I think, makes a lot of sense." CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well my problem, though, is if you've said you may not modify this order, even if the arrears change go up, they're further behind unless you get the parent to say yes or it's in the best interest of the child. How could that be in the best interest of the child if the arrearage gets bigger?" Number 0153 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there may be circumstances beyond the control of the noncustodial parent who was paying the support that couldn't pay. He said one of the impacts with the way the amendment is drafted is it did cut both ways because it's after a final support order is (indisc.), therefore, the ground rules would be known. If there is a request for change of visitation custody, the fact that there was an arrearage wouldn't come into play. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if a father quits working, but still wants visitation, the court couldn't change that even if he doesn't pay anything. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said generally, when you take away the discretion of the court and allow another parent to give approval, generally, what happens is you subject that other parent to extraneous pressures which might not necessarily be in the best interest of protecting the process. When you require the other parent to consent to modification, you might be undermining the court's authority and the ability to do what's best for the child. Number 0217 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew the amendment as he still has some concerns with it. Representative Rokeberg then moved that Amendment 4, E.4, be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it came to his attention that there was a lack of communication, or there were some obstacles to communicating, between two different departments of our government. Because of a relatively recent change to our statute regarding vital statistics, the vital statistic about the act of marriage, the marriage certificate, itself, is sealed for 50 years. Apparently the application and registry is available at our vital statistics information service. You cannot get somebody else's marriage certificate. He stated, "It came to my attention was a situation where spousal support or alimony is being paid by the individual under a court order that indicated it would cease at the time that his ex-wife got remarried. Well this occurred in this fact pattern and the individual stopped paying the spousal support, but then after a month or so was being done by child support enforcement for failure to pay the support when, in fact, his formar spouse had gotten married. Then there on added interest to another month and it became a real Mexican hat dance has happened, when, in fact, this person is running around trying to get a copy of the marriage certificate -- perhaps didn't get the right information from vital statistics where he could have gotten a record of the registry apparently. But nevertheless, then asked the department to do it and they said they couldn't do it, didn't have authority, it's against the law from a statute." He stated that in the circumstance that he is aware of, the ex-husband went to the new husband after a period of two or three months and he was kind enough to give him a copy of the marriage certificate. He said the department was wasting time and money collecting money that wasn't due. There is one group not talking to another group. He said Amendment 4 takes care of that situation and will, hopefully, help out the department and the level of communication between the various departments to make sure they're meeting their responsibility. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he supports the amendment. Number 0384 CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew his objection to the adoption of Amendment 4. He asked if there was further objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 344, as amended, out of committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual recommendations. Number 0398 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted his concern about the social security language and urged that the next committee narrow the language regarding social security numbers. He said he would like to see a more substantial amount of thought go into it. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Bunde, Berkowitz, Croft, Porter, Rokeberg and Green voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative James voted against moving the bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN announced CSHB 344(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|