Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/10/2015 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska State Commission for Human Rights | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT; PARENTAGE
9:22:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the state,
registration and proceedings related to support orders from
other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign
tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries;
relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing
for an effective date."
9:23:21 AM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child Support
Services Division (CSSD), Department of Revenue (DOR), noted
that, in response to a request made by the committee on 3/3/15,
three individuals were available to testify: Yvette Riddick
from the Office of Child Support Enforcement; Battle Robinson, a
commissioner on the Uniform Law Commission; and Linsey Beaver,
the legislative council for the Uniform Law Commission.
9:24:36 AM
YVETTE RIDDICK, Director, Division of Policy and Training,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
stated that the 2008 amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA) represented a collaborative effort among the
Uniform Law Commission, federal and state child support
officials, and representatives of national child support
organizations that standardized the rules for enforcement and
modifications of family support orders - both domestic and
international. She said UIFSA 2008 built upon important 2001
amendments. She emphasized that [UIFSA 2008] would be wonderful
for all citizens of the U.S., including Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER told Ms. Riddick there had been questions
raised at the prior hearing as to whether the law would have to
be adopted verbatim. He offered his understanding that the
opinion of Alaska's Department of Law was that verbatim adoption
was not a requirement under federal law.
MS. RIDDICK relayed [her office] worked closely with the Uniform
Law Commission, and since its initial adoption in 1992, UIFSA
had provided Universal and Uniform Rules for family support
orders in the states. She explained it was that uniformity that
had helped make interstate case processing so much better than
it used to be prior to UIFSA 1996 and the 2001 and 2008 versions
that followed. Without uniformity - "non-verbatim" - the
process was dragged down. She cited Section 466(f) of the
Social Security Act, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(f) In order to satisfy section 454(20)(A), on and
after January 1, 1998, each State must have in effect
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved
by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993,
and as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any
amendments officially adopted as of such date by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws.
MS. RIDDICK said when referencing Public Law 113-183, her office
interpreted official adoption of UIFSA 2008 as verbatim. She
said the office looked at previous congressional reports and
reported to committees at the federal government level. For
example, she stated that the National Child Support Enforcement
Association provided testimony to the House Ways and Means
Committee on March 20, 2012, and on page 7 of the report
regarding how The Convention would be implemented, the opening
paragraph read that the intent for Congress was to require
states to adopt the 2008 UIFSA amendments verbatim or lose
federal funding for the state federal child support enforcement
programs. More recently, Congressional Research Services
referred to Public Law 113-183, which included provisions to
implement The Convention and other UIFSA treaty obligations, and
which required states to adopt UIFSA 2008 amendments verbatim to
ensure uniformity of procedures, requirements, and reporting
forms. She stated, "If it was not verbatim, it would not serve
the purpose that we would like for it to serve, which is to
provide a ... streamline process for both domestic and
international case processing."
9:30:58 AM
MS. RIDDICK said her office issued guidance to the states on a
regular basis. She relayed that on February 17, 2015, the
office issued Action Transmittal 1501 to all State of Alaska
child support programs. She said the office wanted to show
sensitivity to state codes and things that might be a little
different in state laws; therefore, in the action transmittal,
the office indicated that states must enact UIFSA 2008 verbatim,
by the effective date noted in Public Law 113-183, but - as with
UIFSA 1996 - states may replace bracketed language with
terminology that was appropriate under state law. For example,
she said the word "tribunal" could be replaced by the word
"court." She said states were not required to adopt the same
numbering of the Uniform statute, because the numbering system
under state code was sometimes different. Also, where a statute
referred to other laws or statutes, even if the article or
section number was not included in brackets, the state may
replace the references with the appropriate article or section
number of that state's statute. She said the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) would review "minor, non-
substantive, and trivial" deviations between UIFSA 2008 and
state law, on a case-by-case basis. She said all states were
involved with passage of UIFSA 2008, and her staff was in the
process of doing reviews and providing technical assistance.
She said the OCSE had been able to "weigh local format to real
changes"; however, she said significant changes to the core
words of UIFSA 2008 legislation would have a negative impact on
interstate case processing.
9:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that the word
verbatim had caused problems for the committee. He mentioned
proposed amendments that would not change the meaning or focus
of the bill.
9:34:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for written testimony from Ms.
Riddick, if available.
MS. RIDDICK said she was not reading from a written statement,
but could send some documents.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized the importance of Ms.
Riddick as a witness from the federal government. He brought up
federal overreach. He talked about the commissioner's decisions
regarding uniformity of law, and said it was unusual to have a
Uniform Act interpreted by another body - the federal
government. He asked who, in this case, would be deciding
uniformity.
MS. RIDDICK responded that the OCSE, as the administer of child
support at the federal level, was in partnership with local
state child support entities and programs and provided 66
percent federal funding for states to use in running their child
support programs. She said each state was required to have a
state plan, a contract between that state and the OCSE that the
state would manage its programs in compliance with federal law
and adopt procedures required by the federal government. Once a
state was in compliance, which Alaska was, the OCSE would
continue the 66 percent funding, and there was an audit process
in place. When legislation was passed, it would become a state
plan requirement if it was mandatory or "if it's actually put
in." She said the aforementioned Action Transmittal 1501
contained a requirement of an amended state plan page, which
indicated adoption of UIFSA [2008]. The page would be sent to
the OCSE, and if it was approved, then there would be no risk of
loss of federal funding. She indicated that in FY 12, the
federal government partially funded the child support program
and reimbursed the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
program the amount of approximately $60 million. She said,
"With UIFSA 2008, we'll be monitoring that under the umbrella of
the state plan, and ... the staff here, along with our
attorneys, right now, I think, are reviewing proposals from the
states to ensure that they're verbatim or, if they are not
verbatim, that they are within the parameters of the description
that I just provided a few minutes ago."
9:42:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the committee was focusing on the
federal aspect in an effort to determine its limitations of
power, and he requested that Ms. Riddick could remain available
on line.
9:43:18 AM
LINDSAY BEAVER, Legislative Council, Uniform Law Commission,
said she was in support of HB 106.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that usually there was some
latitude to allow variations between states. He asked Ms.
Beaver if UIFSA 2008 gave less than normal latitude to allow
variations between the states.
9:44:08 AM
MS. BEAVER responded that from "a Uniform perspective," the
commissioners were focused on uniformity and conforming to the
true intent behind the law. A second factor was whether or not
the legislation introduced by states was sufficiently close to
verbatim, so as to satisfy the federal legislation and the OCSE.
She said the verbatim analysis was stringent and was also tied
to federal funds; therefore, the focus of the law had been on
whether or not the law was verbatim.
9:45:08 AM
BATTLE ROBINSON, Uniform Law Commission, stated that "this
legislation" would implement a federal treaty. She said when a
federal government entered into an international treaty, it
drafted, proposed, and adopted the implementing legislation.
She said however the treaty was implemented, if it was done by
federal law, it would be binding on all the states. She offered
her understanding that this was the first time that the effort
was being made to implement the treaty through uniform state
legislation. The reason it was being done this way was that
UIFSA was the very familiar child support statute, which all
agencies, attorneys, and litigants used. She said the states
were really being asked to implement the international treaty
that the federal government had entered into. She said it was
important to consider the alternative: without UIFSA [2008],
states would probably have a federal Act that would bind the
state to all its terms.
CHAIR LYNN remarked, "It sounds like blackmail."
9:47:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this was the first time he had
seen the commissioners having to bow to a more stringent
interpretation of uniformity from the federal government. He
said it sounded as if Ms. Robinson was saying the commissioners
were comfortable doing so. He indicated that the language of
Section 466(f), UIFSA, would use "the normal standard of
uniformity and not to require a standard of verbatim." He
questioned whether this was done properly through the adoption
of federal regulation or through an administrative
interpretation.
MS. ROBINSON responded that she thought the requirement was one
of the OCSE, which had supervisory functions, as well as joint
functions to run the country's child support programs. She
concurred with Ms. Beaver that whether or not the Uniform Law
Commission believes a particular act was uniform was a separate
issue. She stated that when this law was developed, it was
drafted from many interested people from many states, including
judges, lawyers, representatives of child support agencies, and
the federal government.
9:50:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN, in response to Representative Keller, said there
would not be time during the present meeting for a sectional
analysis, and the bill would be held over.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that previous testimony
indicated this is unique in that the legislature is being asked
to implement a treaty setting a precedence, which causes him
pause. He noted that he needs time to consider the issue as
this is something to be analyzed in light of the legislature's
normal treaty implementation process, and the potentials of
where this may go if the committee does something "novel."
CHAIR LYNN said he shared some of that concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed thanks to all the testifiers.
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that the committee was not yet finished
with its discussion on HB 106.
9:53:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ emphasized her desire to hear from
someone within Senator Lisa Murkowski's office because she would
not be comfortable passing out HB 106, without having input from
someone in our federal delegation.
CHAIR LYNN said he thought that was a good idea.
9:54:28 AM
MS. STEINBERG said "a congressional delegation in Senator
Murkowski's office" had been contacted for input, and no one was
available to testify; however, the office would be sending
written testimony.
CHAIR LYNN said he would like someone on line to speak to the
committee, at the invitation of both the administration and the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
MS. STEINBERG said, "We could continue to try."
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 106 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Resume Hummel.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
Governor Appointment - DMVA - Hummel |
| Human Rights - Lunceford.pdf |
HSTA 3/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
Governor Appointment - HUMAN RIGHTS - Lunceford |