SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE April 22, 1998 3:50 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Bert Sharp Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Robin Taylor Senator John Torgerson COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 252 "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." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(RES) "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 252 - See HESS minutes dated 3/2/98, 3/4/98 and 3/20/98. HB 204 - No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Ms. Juli Lucky, Staff to Senator Halford State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed draft CSSB 252(RES) Ms. Barbara Miklos, Director Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES) Dan Branch, Assistant Attorney General Human Services Section Department of Law 100 Cushman St., Suite 400 Fairbanks, AK 99701-4679 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sectional analysis on CSSB 252(RES) Darrell Watson, Operations Manager Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on CSSB 252(RES) ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-33, SIDE A Number 001 SB 252 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:50 p.m., and noted the presence of Senators Lincoln, Leman, Green and Halford. CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought SB 252 before the committee, and explained the reason the Resources Committee is looking at the bill is because it relates to licenses that apply to resource issues. He said the legislation had a major rewrite in the 1997 legislative session, and virtually everything that was in last year's bill is in the present version. He noted there was a draft committee substitute that was not complete, and he asked Ms. Lucky to speak to the committee substitute. JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, directed attention to CSSB 252(RES), version "F." The first change in the committee substitute is that all references to sport fishing and hunting licenses have been removed. The reasoning behind this is that the federal law requirement is revocation of occupational and recreational or sport licenses, and Alaska hunting and fishing licenses are required for subsistence hunting and fishing, and it was felt that subsistence was neither recreational or occupational. In Section 2, paragraph (3) adds a court determination for contempt revocation of occupational licensing and driver's licensing. CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that this was an administrative action in the previous bill. Ms. Lucky said Sections 3 through 7 is a proposed amendment from the Alaska Court System relating to keeping social security numbers private in pubic court documents. She explained there are certain court documents relating to marriage and divorce and family that are open to the public, and by making this amendment, the social security numbers will no longer be on those papers. In Section 14, subsection (g), it exempts employers who have fewer than five employees. She said there was a lot of concern about the employer reporting requirements being onerous to small businesses that may not be aware of the requirements, as well as those having temporary employees or very few employees. Sections 21 through 33 relate to a topic brought up in last year's legislation, which is a best efforts provision, and relates to people who are making an effort to comply with their child support arrears or orders. This amendment came from the department and through other private concerns. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this provision is protected by confidentiality, and MS. LUCKY acknowledged that it is. MS. LUCKY further explained that Sections 21 through 26 refer to occupational licensing, and Sections 27 through 33 refer to driver's licensing. She said the subpoenas and warrants language is being taken out, and it leaves substantial noncompliance as the criteria for license revocation. MS. LUCKY said the remainder of the bill is the HESS version of SB 252. CHAIRMAN HALFORD summarized that basically the categories addressed in the Resources CS are: the court system, small employers, license revocation and requiring court action versus administrative action, and omission of references to sport fishing and hunting licenses. CHAIRMAN HALFORD invited Barbara Miklos and Dan Branch to the table to go through the bill section by section. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, said the legislation was introduced this year because the provisions were required by the Welfare Reform legislation passed by Congress in 1996. Much of the work was done last year in SB 154, but, as far as the federal government was concerned, SB 154 was in effect and it met many of the requirements of Welfare Reform but not all of them. MS. MIKLOS said when this year's legislation was introduced, it was the intent that every single provision be something that was exactly required the Welfare Reform legislation, but in hearings on SB 252 in the Senate Health, Education and Social Services Committee, it was found that there were some provisions that weren't necessary and they were deleted. She said the resulting HESS CS was their best estimation of what is exactly required by the federal government. MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the federal Welfare Reform legislation requires all employers to report. She checked with the feds on this earlier in the morning and they reiterated that it must be all employers. She also inquired if hunting and fishing could be viewed as something other than recreational, and was told again that was not true and needed to be in the legislation. Number 255 DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Department of Law, explained that Section 2 amends the civil contempt statute to allow a court, if it finds somebody in contempt of court, to suspend or revoke for a period of one year a driver's license or an occupational license, if relevant. That is only if the person is a natural person; the contempt is one under AS 09.50.010(4)-10); and the court, sitting without a jury, finds by a preponderance of evidence that the contempt relates to failure to pay money in connection with child support or failure to comply with a subpoena or warrant relating to paternity or child support. He said, as he understands this and the sections dealing with AS 25.27.244 and 246, that it is the intent of the drafters of this working draft to basically remove from a more formal driver's license and occupational license system that was in place as a result of SB 154 the provisions from those sections that would allow a driver's license to be revoked and move them to the civil contempt section. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it is required to have that done administratively within the agency, or can it go through the civil process. MR. BRANCH replied that he thinks it can. He added that after SB 154 was passed, the federal government indicated that the state had some flexibility in regards to how it implements this standard. He noted the HESS CS would have provided the same treatment for fish and game licenses. CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that there are some hunting and fishing licenses that are obviously recreational licenses, but there are also some, equally required by state law, that are required to be able to subsistence hunt or fish that are neither recreational or occupational. MR. BRANCH said after passage of SB 154, Congress made some technical amendments to these mandates, and one of the amendments they did add was language to the license suspension statute that included the word "sporting" licenses. It states that Alaska must have procedures in law under which the state has and uses in appropriate cases authority to withhold and suspend or restrict the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreation and sporting licenses of individuals owing overdue support or failing, after receiving adequate notice, to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings. He said the argument can no longer be made to the federal government that sport fishing or hunting in Alaska is not a recreational activity because, clearly, by its terms, it is a sporting activity. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the problem is that to harvest for subsistence requires a hunting or fishing license, and that hunting license or fishing license says sport fishing or sport hunting, which is referring more to methods and means rather than the purpose. MR. BRANCH asked Chairman Halford that if it is possible to draft a piece of legislation that would affect sporting licenses but not personal use or subsistence activities, would he consider an amendment to the draft committee substitute that would allow something that would meet federal mandates and still take care of his concerns. CHAIRMAN HALFORD repled that he would, but the way the system works is it requires a sport license to engage in subsistence; it's not just personal use and it's not just a low income subsistence license. If you don't meet the income guideline and do qualify, whether it is rural or all state, it still requires a hunting license or a fishing license to engage in the activity. MR. BRANCH said he understands his concerns and will try to come up with some language that won't interfere with personal use and subsistence. Number 377 MR. BRANCH said Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all new amendments that were put forth by the Court System to make it easier for them to honor the federal requirement that social security numbers be kept confidential. SB 154 required that social security numbers be provided in the pleadings and domestic relations cases and paternity cases, etc. It would be costly to seal all these records or retract the social securities numbers, so it would require that these numbers be in otherwise public documents and that they be placed in a separate file which would be made available to the Child Support Division in Alaska and other states. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Administration has a problem with this provision. MR. BRANCH suggested they would like to see a provision that insures that CSED has the right to get those numbers from the Court System, and he has drafted some proposed language. SENATOR LINCOLN noted that Section 38 contains language that states that the department shall provide a social security number to CSED, and she questioned if this is contradicting what is attempting to be done in Sections 3 through 7. MR. BRANCH pointed out that Section 37 and 38 relate to driver's license. Continuing with his sectional overview, MR. BRANCH directed attention to Sections 8 and 9, and he explained that both of them are proposed amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which is an Act that enhances the ability of states to have their orders enforced in another state, and to ensure that child support can be collected from people when they leave Alaska. After passage of SB 154, the federal government issued an action transmittal stating there had to be a verbatim version of the federal act, and the changes in the two sections will provide a as close as possible verbatim version. Sections 10 and 11 make amendments to allow another state agency to request high-volume automated administrative enforcement of their child support orders. Section 11 also adds a subsection which is designed to clarify which law an Alaskan employer should follow when it receives a withholding order from another child support agency. Section 12 is a technical amendment to AS 25.27.062(e) so that income withholding orders may be served on non-employers who provide the child support obligor with earnings as defined in AS 25.27.900. TAPE 98-33, SIDE B Number 585 Because there were numerous questions on Section 12, DARRELL WATSON, Operations Manager, Child Support Enforcement Division in Anchorage explained the process of withholding orders. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that he would like to see that section constituted in some way that it doesn't stop the agency from using first-class mail, but the first-class mail is not what constitutes legal notice for purpose of assessing penalties. Number 496 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if CSED uses withholding orders for people that are paid up, or do they only use the withholding order for people who are behind in their payments. MS. MIKLOS explained they use withholding orders for everyone, which is something the federal government changed about three or four years ago just to make it very routine that the money is withheld. MR. BRANCH added that there is an option that the court can provide that there will not be immediate income withholding, but the parties have to establish that certain facts exist, and the provisions state that once the person slips into arrears, then the withholding order kicks in. Continuing his overview, MR. BRANCH said Section 13 is the section that will amend the medical support order provisions. It provides that if the child support agency receives notice that a child support obligor has changed or will be changing employment and under that new employment is eligible for family health coverage, the agency will then send the employer a medical support order. Section 14 is the employer new hire information section, and MR. BRANCH said it was his opinion that this working draft would place the state out of compliance with federal requirements because it would not apply to an employer who has fewer than five employees. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thinks that federal requirement is going to be a real problem for the small employers because it reaches the entire bureaucracy at the lowest level of one single employee, and will be a disincentive for hiring any of these people. SENATOR LEMAN agreed with Chairman Halford's concern, saying he thinks it is something that will drive people to contract work. MR. BRANCH explained Section 15 would allow CSED to go to court and ask for a hearing where a person who received a child support subpoena of this state or another state failed to comply with the subpoena. CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned if this was a federal provision. MR. BRANCH answered that it is a way to meet a federal provision which requires a provision for enforcing the child support subpoenas of other states. He pointed out that there would have to be a finding that a person had notice of subpoena and they had the opportunity and the ability to comply with it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he had concern with the terminology "compel obedience" in that section. MR. BRANCH said he didn't think there would be a problem with changing that wording to "failure to comply." MR. BRANCH said Section 16 would clarify that, in the course of an administrative action to establish paternity, the department could enter a default of order of paternity if the punitive father, or the person who is thought to be the father, fails to appear and comply with a paternity testing order or fails to respond to a paternity testing order. CHAIRMAN HALFORD thought the 20-day period in which to respond to the paternity testing order was too short a period of time, and he suggested changing it to 30 days. MS. MIKLOS said there are some federal time frames and there are places in statute that this may be spoken to, but she would look into the possibility of changing it. MR. BRANCH said Section 17 allows CSED to ask the court to find that somebody is in contempt for failing to follow a genetic testing order issued by this state or the tribunal of another state. He noted this is also a federal requirement. TAPE 98-34, SIDE A Continuing his overview, MR. BRANCH said Sections 18, 19 and 20 are all sections which would change the lien law to bring the state into compliance with federal requirements. Section 18 would allow the assertion of a lien if an arrearage occurs. Section 19 would provide that a lien arising in another state would be given full faith and credit in this state, and it would be asserted in the same way that a lien in Alaska would be asserted against property of a child support obligor. Sections 21 through 33 are all sections that were added to this working draft by committee staff, and they are designed to remove from the process created by AS 25.27.244 and AS 25.27.246 people who have their names on a list because they didn't comply with a child support subpoena or a paternity subpoena. Section 34 would amend AS 25.27.250, the income withholding statute, to provide that income withholding could begin if there is an income withholding order issued by the court providing for immediate income withholding, or if there is an arrears on a child support order, or if it has gone past 30 days after the issuance of an administrative support order or a paternity decision. Sections 35 and 36 provide definitions. Section 37 requires that the social security of an applicant for a motor vehicle license be provided on the application, but it does not mean that it has to be on the license itself. Section 38 would provide the Department of Administration to provide social security numbers that are in the motor vehicle records to child support agencies. Section 39 would repeal the sunset of SB 154. Section 40 is an applicability section which would clarify that AS 25.27.075, the employer hire provisions, only affect the hiring, rehiring, or return to work that occurs after the effective date of the Act. CHAIRMAN HALFORD referenced Section 35 and asked what a support order issued by a tribunal includes. He wondered if such an order could be from an outside tribal entity on a reservation, as well as if there are any interactions between this and the Indian Child Welfare Act. MR. BRANCH said Alaska's version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) does not define states as including Indian tribes, so if a tribal court entity issued a child support order and they sought to have it enforced, it could not be enforced under the terms of UIFSA. MS. MIKLOS said she thinks this is something that needs to be looked into because Welfare Reform has provisions for tribes to take over child support enforcement. It is her understanding that there are tribes in Oregon and Washington that are already doing child support enforcement, so she thinks this is an important question. She added that CSED is working with the Department of Health and Social services and the Alaska tribes, however, so far no one in Alaska has expressed interest in taking over child support enforcement. There being no further testimony on SB 252, CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.