Legislature(2001 - 2002)

02/15/2001 03:03 PM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 41-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #                                                                                    
CHAIR DYSON  announced the  committee would  hear HOUSE  BILL NO.                                                               
41,"An Act repealing the termination  date of changes made by ch.                                                               
87,  SLA 1997  and  ch.  132, SLA  1998  regarding child  support                                                               
enforcement and  related programs; repealing  the nonseverability                                                               
provision of  ch. 132, SLA  1998; repealing  certain requirements                                                               
for applicants  for hunting and  sport fishing licenses  or tags,                                                               
and  for  certain hunting  permits,  to  provide social  security                                                               
numbers  for child  support enforcement  purposes; and  providing                                                               
for an effective date."                                                                                                         
CHAIR DYSON  remarked that HB 41  is in danger of  sunsetting and                                                               
the Senate companion  bill, SB 19, has made it  out of the Senate                                                               
Health, Education  and Social  Services Standing  Committee (HES)                                                               
with some modifications.                                                                                                        
BARBARA   MIKLOS,  Director,   Central   Office,  Child   Support                                                               
Enforcement Division  (CSED), Department  of Revenue,  came forth                                                               
to discuss  HB 41.   She stated  that changes to  the legislation                                                               
were based  on congressional welfare  reform requirements.   When                                                               
Congress passed welfare  reform in 1996 changes were  made to the                                                               
public assistance  system as  well as  the child  support system.                                                               
It  was Congress'  expectation that  if  people are  going to  be                                                               
taken off of  welfare and public assistance there needed  to be a                                                               
way to  get more income  for them.   Three pieces  of legislation                                                               
were  passed  in Alaska  in  1996,  1997  and  1998 to  meet  the                                                               
requirements  of the  federal government  and avoid  the loss  of                                                               
federal money for child support  and public assistance.  When the                                                               
legislature, in 1997 and 1998,  passed those bills, they included                                                               
a  sunset clause  for  2001.   The  CSED  would  like the  sunset                                                               
provision  to be  removed so  the law  can continue.   Since  the                                                               
legislation  was  passed  the  CSED  has  dramatically  increased                                                               
collections  for child  support.   For  instance,  in FY  (fiscal                                                               
year) 1999  CSED was  collecting $81  million.   In FY  2000 that                                                               
increased to $85  million and this year  collections are expected                                                               
to be between  $90 and $92 million.  Therefore,  there has been a                                                               
dramatic increase in the amount  of money that's going to Alaskan                                                               
Number 0418                                                                                                                     
MS.  MIKLOS  said  that  CSED   also  provides  support  for  the                                                               
government; for  instance, if someone  were on  public assistance                                                               
right now  his or  her child  support would be  passed on  to the                                                               
government.  But,  with a reduction of the welfare  rolls more of                                                               
the  money being  collected is  going straight  to the  families.                                                               
Today almost  50 percent of  the money collected  and distributed                                                               
by CSED is going to families that were on public assistance.                                                                    
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Miklos  if welfare rolls are decreasing due                                                               
to  the success  of other  programs.   He also  asked if  CSED is                                                               
playing  a   part  in  that  since   increased  collections  from                                                               
respondents or  noncustodial parents  is successful,  which would                                                               
help people get off of welfare.                                                                                                 
MS. MIKLOS answered absolutely.                                                                                                 
CHAIR DYSON asked if she could provide some figures.                                                                            
MS.   MIKLOS  replied   that  54   percent  of   those  receiving                                                               
collections from CSED were at one  point in their lives on former                                                               
assistance.   About 12  percent are on  current assistance.   She                                                               
said  she  thinks that  the  reduction  in public  assistance  is                                                               
because of the  welfare reform legislation, not  because of child                                                               
support  [collections].   However,  she expressed  the hope  that                                                               
CSED is keeping people off  of public assistance and helping them                                                               
to support their families.                                                                                                      
CHAIR  DYSON  asked if  the  aforementioned  figures were  CSED's                                                               
collections.  He  also asked how much federal money  comes to the                                                               
MS. MIKLOS answered  that the figures are  CSED's collections and                                                               
that  CSED's budget  is  supported by  federal  funds, which  are                                                               
around $15 Million.                                                                                                             
CHAIR DYSON  asked how much  of that  money is general  fund (GF)                                                               
Number 0600                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS replied  that CSED has about $3 million  in GF program                                                               
receipts.    The  money  being  collected  for  people  on  pubic                                                               
assistance is  being used to enhance  the budget.  The  CSED only                                                               
has about  $118,000 of pure  GF; they're supported either  by the                                                               
GF or the money brought in from the public assistance cases.                                                                    
CHAIR DYSON requested that Ms.  Miklos talk about the money being                                                               
brought in by public assistance cases.                                                                                          
MS. MIKLOS explained  that if someone is on  public assistance he                                                               
or she is  required to cooperate with CSED  unless there's danger                                                               
to someone,  such as  a custodial  parent or  a child.   Assuming                                                               
that's not  the case,  the person  should let  CSED know  who the                                                               
noncustodial  parent  is  and  provide  as  much  information  as                                                               
possible, then  CSED sets  up a  child support  case.   The money                                                               
collected on  those cases  is returned  to the  state government,                                                               
with a percentage also going to the federal government.                                                                         
CHAIR DYSON asked what amount goes to CSED.                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS replied that money only  comes to the CSED through the                                                               
General Treasury.                                                                                                               
CHAIR   DYSON  questioned   why  money   CSED  collects   from  a                                                               
noncustodial parent  shouldn't go  to the welfare  agency instead                                                               
of CSED.                                                                                                                        
Number 0707                                                                                                                     
MS.  MIKLOS  answered  that  the  money did  go  to  the  welfare                                                               
agencies, but  the legislature  changed that  about two  or three                                                               
years ago.   She explained  that part  of the federal  money that                                                               
CSED collects is  called incentive money, which was  once used to                                                               
be based on  how many public assistance cases CSED  had.  Now the                                                               
incentives  have been  changed  to performance  measures.   About                                                               
three years  ago, nationally, there  was a gigantic crash  in the                                                               
incentive  payments  brought  in,   and  therefore  there  was  a                                                               
gigantic crash in the child support  budget.  At that time it was                                                               
thought that it  was better to use the program  receipts to shore                                                               
up  [the  CSED]   budget.    The  plan  was   instigated  by  the                                                               
legislature because  CSED had  to come in  for a  large [funding]                                                               
supplement.   Therefore,  having  performance measures  prevented                                                               
that from happening.                                                                                                            
CHAIR DYSON  asked if there  is any financial incentive  for CSED                                                               
to get more child support cases.                                                                                                
MS. MIKLOS answered no, not at all.                                                                                             
Number 0790                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS  added that  the total amount  that CSED  collects has                                                               
not been appropriated; that's based on what the budget is.                                                                      
Number 0815                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  recounted that Ms. Miklos  mentioned that                                                               
the  CSED would  be collecting  $90 million  from collections  in                                                               
2001,  of which  about $45  million  goes to  families on  public                                                               
assistance.  He asked how that has changed over the years.                                                                      
MS. MIKLOS replied that she is  unsure of the exact numbers right                                                               
now but the  trend has been that  in the early '70s  CSED was set                                                               
up to recoup  public assistance.  Now more of  the money is going                                                               
directly to the family.                                                                                                         
Number 0894                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS continued  that in there's five sections  under HB 41.                                                               
The first  was an  intent section.   The second  section repealed                                                               
the sunset and  nonseverability provisions that were  part of the                                                               
1998 legislation.   Provisions said that if part of  this bill is                                                               
found   to  be   unconstitutional,  then   the  entire   bill  is                                                               
unconstitutional.   At that time  CSED was concerned  because the                                                               
programs that  are defined in the  bill are very different.   For                                                               
example,  one  could be  about  how  to  deal with  families  and                                                               
domestic  violence while  another  could be  about the  financial                                                               
data match  program.  Sections  4 and  5 are the  effective dates                                                               
for the  various sections.   She  stated that HB  41 is  a simple                                                               
piece of legislation that reflects a complex piece of statutes.                                                                 
Number 0978                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS  explained that  the legislation  made sure  that CSED                                                               
had access to various records  such as vital statistics, property                                                               
records, licensing  records and motor  vehicle records.   Some of                                                               
this  CSED already  had access  to voluntarily  from the  various                                                               
agencies,  but HB  41 codified  it.   She  said that  one of  the                                                               
things that was  not part of the federal requirements,  and was a                                                               
legislative add-on, was  language that said if a  person is going                                                               
through  occupational and  driver's  license  programs and  shows                                                               
that he  or she  is meeting the  requirements of  these programs,                                                               
then he  or she  will not  lose those licenses.   She  noted that                                                               
CSED agreed with that.                                                                                                          
MS. MIKLOS remarked that another  piece of the legislation stated                                                               
that the child support agencies in  each of the states would be a                                                               
central repository  for all  of the various  orders, even  if the                                                               
agencies  were not  enforcing  those orders.    This provides  an                                                               
opportunity for  Alaska to know  if there is  an order out  or if                                                               
another state wants to know if there  is an order in Alaska.  One                                                               
of the more minor pieces  of legislation, which just changed some                                                               
definitions  in order  to  be  consistent with  the  rest of  the                                                               
states,   enhanced  some   due  process   requirements.     These                                                               
requirements mandate CSED and financial  institutions to set up a                                                               
financial  data match  program,  which  will automatically  match                                                               
CSED's caseloads with caseloads from financial institutions.                                                                    
Number 1094                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS continued,  stating that the CSED  already had income-                                                               
withholding requirements.   She  noted that  HB 41  requires that                                                               
the  child support  agency get  the  check out  within two  days.                                                               
Furthermore,  HB  41  shortens  the  time  the  employer  had  to                                                               
actually  start the  withholding  to  seven days.    In terms  of                                                               
liens, the  legislation says that  CSED would put full  faith and                                                               
credit to  liens in other  states, as  long as they  followed the                                                               
process in Alaska.  Moreover, HB  41 requires that the state give                                                               
the parties  in the case the  chance to modify their  order every                                                               
three years.   She stated  that HB  41 requires all  employers in                                                               
the state to  report all new hires and rehires  within 20 days to                                                               
CSED.   This piece of  legislation, she  said she thinks,  is the                                                               
number  one reason  the  CSED has  increased  collections.   This                                                               
information used to  be received from the Department  of Labor at                                                               
the end  of a quarter,  now CSED  receives it much  more quickly.                                                               
She acknowledged  that not  all of  the employers  are complying,                                                               
but  CSED  has taken  the  position  of  not being  punitive  and                                                               
working with the employers in order to get them to comply.                                                                      
MS. MIKLOS pointed out that  this legislation clarified who would                                                               
enforce  the  penalties   under  the  law  if   those  on  public                                                               
assistance  did  not   cooperate  and  work  with   CSED.    This                                                               
legislation changed  the way that  CSED discloses  information on                                                               
cases.  She informed the  committee that the emphasis in Congress                                                               
was  if  the  child  support agency  had  information  about  the                                                               
children's  whereabouts and  the  noncustodial  parent wanted  to                                                               
know that, CSED  would release that information  unless there was                                                               
evidence of danger  to the family.  In the  past Alaska's law was                                                               
such that  CSED would  only release  the information  if somebody                                                               
were caught up on his or her  child support.  She said she thinks                                                               
that changing  this law put  the emphasis  on safety and  less on                                                               
MS.  MIKLOS  remarked  that  this  legislation  changed  the  way                                                               
paternity  orders are  done.   Alaska has  a voluntary  paternity                                                               
program,  where  the  father  may   voluntarily  sign  the  birth                                                               
certificate at the hospital.  However,  under HB 41 the father is                                                               
now informed of his rights and  responsibilities, so by law he is                                                               
required to provide  child support if his family  is not together                                                               
or he is  not supporting the children.  The  CSED provides videos                                                               
that  offer  information fathers  need  on  these orders  to  the                                                               
hospitals and the birthing centers.                                                                                             
MS.  MIKLOS  continued,  saying the  legislation  gave  CSED  the                                                               
ability to  seek work orders, which  it has chosen to  do through                                                               
the  court only.   Many  of the  requirements of  social security                                                               
numbers  were  changed,  including requiring  people  to  provide                                                               
social   security  numbers   on  various   applications.     This                                                               
legislation  gave  CSED  the   authority  to  subpoena  financial                                                               
records, which had  been done through the  commission of revenues                                                               
authority, and  now it is  a direct  authority.  Finally  some of                                                               
the legislation  changed to be consistent  with UIFSA, (Uniformed                                                               
Interstate Family Support  Act).  She concluded that  this is the                                                               
underlying pinning of what HB 41 would unsunset.                                                                                
CHAIR DYSON asked if a court  order from other states would put a                                                               
lien  on   Alaskan  property.     He  also  asked  if   the  same                                                               
notification  requirement would  apply  with  the garnishment  of                                                               
wages or cease and disperse funds.                                                                                              
Number 1335                                                                                                                     
DIANE WENDLANDT, Assistant  Attorney General, Commercial Section,                                                               
Civil  Division,  Department  of   Law,  replied  that  the  same                                                               
requirements apply.                                                                                                             
CHAIR DYSON asked what the requirements for notice are.                                                                         
MS. WENDLANDT  answered that seizing  a bank account  is normally                                                               
done through an  administrative withholding order.   The order is                                                               
sent to the  bank, and a notice  of this is sent  to the obligor.                                                               
All the information  from the bank is sent to  the obligor's last                                                               
known  address.   She related  her understanding  that with  bank                                                               
sweeps the banks provide notice  to their customer once they have                                                               
received it, and the bank holds the money for 14 days.                                                                          
CHAIR DYSON asked if there's  a procedure that the respondent can                                                               
challenge the out-of-state lien or seize and disperse order.                                                                    
MS. WENDLANDT  responded that before  any money is paid  out, the                                                               
obligor  would have  an opportunity  to contest  that withholding                                                               
order.   The only  way this  can be done,  under Alaskan  law, is                                                               
through a  withholding order issued  by a court  or by CSED.   An                                                               
agency from  another state  could not  send a  direct withholding                                                               
order to a bank, and if a bank  were to honor one of those orders                                                               
it  could be  liable to  its customer  for having  done so.   The                                                               
other state would  have to ask CSED to take  that action for them                                                               
and once CSED and the banks  send the notices, the obligor has an                                                               
opportunity   to  attest   through  the   agency.     There's  an                                                               
administrative process  by which they  contest, or if  an obligor                                                               
chooses, there's  a separate  statute that allows  him or  her to                                                               
skip the administrative  process and go straight  to the Superior                                                               
CHAIR DYSON  asked if  CSED has  a handout that  is given  to the                                                               
MS. MIKLOS answered  that they give out  information, required by                                                               
state  and federal  law,  regarding what  would  happen once  the                                                               
obligor is  involved with  CSED.   The CSED  is also  required to                                                               
send  out information  to  the  obligor if  the  obligee goes  on                                                               
public assistance.                                                                                                              
CHAIR DYSON asked if the handout was user-friendly.                                                                             
MS. MIKLOS  replied that the  CSED is  working on making  it more                                                               
Number 1498                                                                                                                     
CHAIR DYSON  noted that  the handout  explains what  is happening                                                               
and why  the state has  the right to do  this.  The  handout also                                                               
specifies  the  timelines,  and   the  remedies  and  rights  the                                                               
biological parents have at every step of the way.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  STEVENS asked  for a  clarification of  the terms                                                               
obligor and obligee.                                                                                                            
MS.  MIKLOS  answered that  the  obligor  is  the person  who  is                                                               
obligated  to pay  the  child  support, and  the  obligee is  the                                                               
person who is the custodial parent.                                                                                             
Number 1590                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms.  Miklos to explain the penalties                                                               
of not complying with the federal government's incentives.                                                                      
MS. MIKLOS answered that the penalty  is $70 million to the State                                                               
of  Alaska, which  is all  the child  support funding  and public                                                               
assistance the State of Alaska  receives.  What's now excluded is                                                               
the  money  that   the  state  is  putting   into  tribal  public                                                               
assistance grants.                                                                                                              
Number 1697                                                                                                                     
AURORA HAUKE, Staff, Senator Lyda  Green, came forward to address                                                               
the CSSB 19 (HES), the companion bill  to HB 41.  She stated that                                                               
the  findings  and  intent  language  were  removed  because  the                                                               
committee didn't  feel it  was important enough  to be  placed in                                                               
the books.   A five-year sunset replaced the  provisions that had                                                               
to  do  with  social  security numbers  in  licensing  and  vital                                                               
statistic  documents,  such  as  death  certificates,  and  court                                                               
documents,  including dissolution  of  marriage and  divorce.   A                                                               
five-year  sunset  provision was  also  placed  on the  financial                                                               
institution  data-matching program.    The last  change that  was                                                               
made  was if  a  business  failed to  comply  with  the new  hire                                                               
reporting, it would not be liable in a civil case.                                                                              
CHAIR  DYSON  remarked  that the  social  security  number  issue                                                               
concerning privacy is certainly controversial.   He asked if this                                                               
issue were  not revisited in five  years would the use  of social                                                               
security numbers go away.                                                                                                       
MS. HAUKE answered that was correct, it would be repealed.                                                                      
CHAIR DYSON asked if an  employer didn't comply was that employer                                                               
not subject to  a civil action by the recipient  of the custodial                                                               
MS. HAUKE answered that was correct.                                                                                            
CHAIR  DYSON asked  if  the employer  could  still be  prosecuted                                                               
criminally if he or she didn't comply.                                                                                          
MS. MIKLOS answered that it would be a $10 fine.                                                                                
CHAIR DYSON asked what constrains an employer to obey the law.                                                                  
Number 1850                                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS  said that CSED  has been working with  the employers,                                                               
who  have been  doing it  on a  voluntary basis.   Under  the old                                                               
statute  the penalty  was $1,000  and  then was  reduced to  $10.                                                               
There are  still many  employers that  aren't complying,  but the                                                               
word is getting out to them and most are very receptive.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked  Ms. Miklos what her  reaction is to                                                               
the change by the Senate that there be no civil reaction.                                                                       
MS. MIKLOS  said that it  wouldn't affect  CSED at all;  it would                                                               
just mean that  private parties couldn't use this as  a cause for                                                               
civil action.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  JOULE  asked if  civil  action  was pursued  very                                                               
MS.  MIKLOS  replied  that  it  had not  been  at  all,  but  her                                                               
understanding is that this change was added as a protection.                                                                    
CHAIR DYSON  asked if the  department feels harmed with  what has                                                               
been done in Senate HES.                                                                                                        
MS. MIKLOS  stated that  CSED worked  with Senator  Green, Aurora                                                               
[Hauke], and the committee and accepted the changes.                                                                            
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the  deletion of the intent and finding                                                               
language had any effect.                                                                                                        
MS. MIKLOS said  that she doesn't think that  made any difference                                                               
because the language was just  an introduction describing why the                                                               
bill was introduced.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  CISSNA   asked  if  the  changes   would  make  a                                                               
difference with the CSED's collections.                                                                                         
MS. MIKLOS  answered that it would  not.  The difference  is that                                                               
five years from now CSED will ask to unsunset the changes.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  JOULE asked  if, in  accepting the  changes, CSED                                                               
would still be in compliant with the federal government.                                                                        
MS. MIKLOS answered absolutely.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   noted  his   intention  to   have  that                                                               
discussion in two  years instead of five.  He  said that if there                                                               
is going  to be a  sunset, then legislative  representatives need                                                               
to be aware of what is being done.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  stated that  he would offer  an amendment                                                               
to require a certified letter when a case is closed.                                                                            
Number 2147                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  DYSON called  an  at-ease  at 3:49  p.m.    He called  the                                                               
meeting back to order at 3:52 p.m.                                                                                              
CHAIR  DYSON informed  the committee  that it  has the  option to                                                               
adopt a  conceptual amendment incorporating  the changes  made to                                                               
SB  19  in  the  Senate Health,  Education  and  Social  Services                                                               
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE  made a  motion that  the committee  adopt a                                                               
conceptual  amendment that  would  incorporate  CSSB 19(HES),  22                                                               
GS1002\O,  into HB  41.   [No objection  was stated.   Therefore,                                                               
CSHB 41  mirrors CSSB 19(HES)  and thus CSSB 19(HES)  was treated                                                               
as the committee substitute.]                                                                                                   
Number 2222                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion  to amend the effective date                                                               
on page 6, line 3 of [CSHB 41] from "2006" to "2003."                                                                           
Number 2225                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOULE  inquired as  to  the  implications of  the                                                               
changes.  He asked if this is something that can be done.                                                                       
MS. MIKLOS answered  that CSED would still be  in compliance with                                                               
federal law for  the next two years, until the  sunset date.  The                                                               
major effect on  the agency is with the resources  needed to move                                                               
the bill  through again as opposed  to focusing on the  work that                                                               
CSED has to do.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE acknowledged the  desire for the legislature                                                               
to know  what's going on in  the next couple of  years.  However,                                                               
he questioned whether there is  another way of doing this without                                                               
CSED using other resources.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said if CSED  dropped all the requirements                                                               
for  the  social   security  numbers  this  year   then  he'd  be                                                               
satisfied.  He reiterated his desire  to keep track of the use of                                                               
social security numbers,  as an issue, by bringing  it before the                                                               
legislature every time there is a new body meeting.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON asked  if  the social  security number  or                                                               
something  else  is  used when  tracking  [finding  the  obligor]                                                               
across the nation.                                                                                                              
MS.  MIKLOS  answered generally  the  social  security number  is                                                               
being tracked.                                                                                                                  
Number 2310                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON asked  if it  is a  nationwide issue  that                                                               
makes the social security number necessary.                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS answered yes.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that it  is a nationwide issue, but                                                               
noted  that many  nationwide issues  are  first dealt  with at  a                                                               
local level.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS  asked Ms.  Miklos whether the  removal of                                                               
social security  numbers would cause difficulties  in getting the                                                               
right person and getting the payments to the state.                                                                             
MS. MIKLOS answered absolutely.                                                                                                 
CHAIR  DYSON commented  that when  social  security numbers  were                                                               
first instituted in the 30s, as  a package deal with the economic                                                               
depression, there was  a commitment made that they  never be used                                                               
for any other purpose.                                                                                                          
TAPE 01-15, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 2334                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  DYSON remarked  that the  fact  that they  have become  an                                                               
almost   universal  identifying   number  is   contrary  to   the                                                               
commitment  and  promise  that  was made  when  it  was  started.                                                               
There's a  significant amount of  people concerned with  both the                                                               
use and  lack of privacy that  comes from [that use].   He stated                                                               
that although a couple of  people view social security numbers as                                                               
being of  great value in making  sure the right person  is found,                                                               
there is also a downside.                                                                                                       
Number 2298                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  CISSNA expressed  that  finding  the obligors  to                                                               
make sure that  they meet their obligations is a  very high order                                                               
of  requirement by  the state.   She  stated that  she personally                                                               
feels   strongly  that   governmental   programs   can  be   held                                                               
Number 2210                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING made  a motion to amend  the [Amendment 2]                                                               
so that  it would  become affective  "immediately" as  opposed to                                                               
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Coghill  if he would accept that                                                               
as a friendly amendment.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL replied  no, because  the reason  for the                                                               
amendment  is because  he  thinks  it is  not  realistic for  the                                                               
legislature  to  take  on  a  $70  million  "animal"  this  year,                                                               
although the issue needs to be continually discussed.                                                                           
Number 2099                                                                                                                     
CHAIR   DYSON   stated  that   the   committee   would  vote   on                                                               
Representative   Coghill's    amendment   and    then   entertain                                                               
Representative Kohring's amendment separately.                                                                                  
A roll call was taken.   Representative's Dyson, Coghill, Stevens                                                               
and   Kohring   voted   in   favor    of   amending   the   bill.                                                               
Representative's  Wilson,  Cissna  and Joule  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore,  Amendment   2  was  adopted  by   the  House  Health,                                                               
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.                                                                               
Number 2041                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KOHRING  restated   his  amendment,  which  would                                                               
change the effective  date from "2003" to  "immediately" upon the                                                               
passing of the legislation.  He stated:                                                                                         
     I'm  just  worried about  the  use  of social  security                                                                    
     numbers  as  being  kind of  a  forerunner  to  further                                                                    
     invasion of  one's privacy and  if you believe  in some                                                                    
     of the writings  of the Bible perhaps it  might lead to                                                                    
     something that's  close to the  reference of  666 which                                                                    
     is the  Mark of  the Beast. I  worry that  perhaps this                                                                    
     could  also lead  to identification  to  the extent  of                                                                    
     even electronic  chip related technologies.   I am very                                                                    
     concerned about what  this could lead to  in the future                                                                    
     as  far as  keeping  track of  people  and taking  away                                                                    
     their individual liberties.   I think we owe  it to our                                                                    
     constituents to  put a stop  to this thing  A.S.A.P and                                                                    
     that's why I  would like to see  this thing implemented                                                                    
     immediately.   And  I have  many constituents  who have                                                                    
     brought this concern to my  attention.  Frankly there's                                                                    
     some people that I have  talked to that intend to leave                                                                    
     Alaska over this issue.                                                                                                    
Number 1944                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Miklos  what would happen if this                                                               
amendment were on the bill.                                                                                                     
MS. MIKLOS answered one, CSED  would be out of federal compliance                                                               
requirements and two, CSED does use  the number to make sure they                                                               
have the right person when finding someone.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that he would object to the motion.                                                                 
CHAIR DYSON clarified that this refers to page6, line 2,                                                                        
changing "July 1, 2003" to "immediately".                                                                                       
Number 1883                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said he wanted to go on record in noting                                                                 
his objection.  He stated:                                                                                                      
     I  recognize there  isn't the  political  will in  this                                                                    
     body here,  either in the  House or the Senate  to pass                                                                    
     it.  There's a lot  of things that really disappoint me                                                                    
     about  this  legislature  where  they  don't  have  the                                                                    
     courage to  act on  issues that  many, in  their heart,                                                                    
     know are right  but they are too afraid  to act because                                                                    
     of political consequences.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS in response stated:                                                                                      
     With  due  respect  with what  the  representative  has                                                                    
     said, I don't think of  myself as someone who is afraid                                                                    
     to  act,  or  feel  I  am not  in  compliance  with  my                                                                    
     constituents.   I'm ready  to make  a decision  on this                                                                    
     and resent the implication  that somehow I'm fearful in                                                                    
     taking this stance.                                                                                                        
CHAIR DYSON expressed there are people who will vote their way                                                                  
on this issue not, in his opinion, out of fear.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated:                                                                                                    
     I recognize  the importance  of each  of us  having our                                                                    
     own position  on things  and opinions  on things  and I                                                                    
     respect that.  And that's,  I think, the beautiful part                                                                    
     of our  system, that we  can express those.   We should                                                                    
     be able  to express  those and  vote accordingly.   And                                                                    
     for those people  who do not like  this system, believe                                                                    
     me, the right of privacy on  both sides of the aisle is                                                                    
     a big issue, and if  people are leaving, they are going                                                                    
     back to  the Lower  48 they are  not running  away from                                                                    
     social  security numbers  and  if they  are going  into                                                                    
     other countries they  are going to run  into things far                                                                    
     worse than social security.                                                                                                
Number 1800                                                                                                                     
A roll call was taken.  Representatives Coghill and Kohring                                                                     
voted in favor of amending the bill.  Representatives Dyson                                                                     
Wilson, Stevens, Cissna, and Joule voted against it.  Therefore,                                                                
Amendment 3 was not accepted by the House Health, Education and                                                                 
Social Services Standing Committee.                                                                                             
Number 1733                                                                                                                     
CHAIR DYSON stated that HB 101 would be before the committee on                                                                 
Tuesday, February 20, 2001.                                                                                                     
[HB 41 WAS HEARD AND HELD.]                                                                                                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects