Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/19/2015 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 | |
| HB93 | |
| HB68 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
8:14:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HB
106, 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."
8:14:38 AM
JERRY BURNETT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
presented HB 106 on behalf of the House Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor, by request of the governor. He explained
that HB 106 is proposed in order to adopt federally accepted
changes to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).
He said he would ask Ms. Steinberg and Ms. Beecher to present
the proposed legislation. Mr. Burnett stated the Child Support
Services Division serves approximately one-sixth of the people
in Alaska and receives approximately $20 million annually in
federal funding. He emphasized the importance of the passage of
HB 106 to the continued operation of the division.
MR. BURNETT, in response to Chair Lynn, said HB 106 would make
Alaska's international and interstate child support collections
laws consistent with that of other states. He deferred to Ms.
Steinberg and opined that every state, and a number of other
jurisdictions, have programs under Title IV-D of the Social
Security Act.
8:16:48 AM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Collections
and Support Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), in response to Chair Lynn's previous question,
related that the proposed legislation would bring Alaska's laws
and that of the other 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, under the same uniform law.
In response to a follow-up question, she said that all of the
other states currently have a version of UIFSA. She added that
12 states adopted the 2008 version, 19 states introduced
legislation that is pending, and the remaining jurisdictions are
currently drafting bills.
8:18:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how an amendment made by one state might affect
the legislation throughout the other states.
MS. STEINBERG answered that it would have a dramatic effect,
because a uniform law must be enacted without change.
CHAIR LYNN asked whether the legislation would have to go back
to the other states to address any changes made here.
MS. STEINBERG answered no. She related that the legislation was
recommended by the [National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws]. She continued:
It is important, because CSSD receives federal funds,
and to make sure this whole process works, they have
tied it to CSSD's funding - to continue [to] receive
federal funding.
MS. STEINBERG stated that because the U.S. signed on to The
Hague Convention, in order for it to be able to ratify the
convention, all its states and jurisdictions have to adopt
uniform laws to have processes in place necessary for
international child support cases. She said Ms. Beecher would
address this issue in more detail.
8:19:21 AM
MS. STEINBERG, in response to Chair Lynn, said Ms. Beecher would
give the committee an overview and Ms. Steinberg would follow
with a sectional analysis of HB 106.
8:19:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether a "no vote" would mean that
he was not going to go along with the other states or if it
meant something specifically related to CSSD.
MS. STEINBERG responded, "It does a couple different things."
She said The Hague Convention brought different countries
together to attempt effective enforcement of international cases
where people are moving to different countries. The U.S. signed
on to the convention, but the states must make changes in their
laws in order to ratify the treaty. She explained the purpose
of the proposed legislation is to make those changes in state
law, so the U.S. could ratify the treaty. She emphasized the
importance of Alaska's ability to enforce international cases to
the benefit of its citizens. Further, she emphasized how
vitally critical this issue is for the division, which receives
a 66 percent federal match totaling $19-$20 million. The
proposed legislation must be passed in order for the division to
continue to receive that federal funding, and it must be in
effect by July 1, 2015. She added that the proposed legislation
would also benefit Alaskans who may be involved in an
international child support case.
8:22:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he had no problem with the intent of
the bill, but said he could not help but be a little frustrated
that the only options for the proposed legislation is yes or no.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for confirmation that the option was
to pass the bill, as is, or not at all.
MS. STEINBERG answered that is correct.
8:23:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the committee was dealing
with an international treaty for child support that would
involve substantial changes in the way child support is
collected. He said only six or seven countries had ratified the
treaty, and noted a question about what the penalty if the
legislature does not adopt the legislation or adopts changes to
it. He reviewed, adoption of a uniform law doesn't have to be
word for word; it just has to be substantially similar and
uniform in its application. He said changes are annotated
within uniform law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he had asked "these folks" to have
a witness from the federal government who could personally
answer what [the Alaska State Legislature] could and could not
do and what the ramifications would be. He offered his
understanding that there would be two steps: [U.S. Congress]
must pass the uniform law and all the states must ratify the
treaty. If even one state does not adopt the law, then the
treaty cannot be ratified. He said he wanted first-hand proof
of that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled the former testifier had said
that 12 [states] had adopted the law, but he said he thought he
had been told that 38 had adopted it and wanted that clarified.
He indicated concern about rushing through the proposed
legislation.
CHAIR LYNN assured Representative Gruenberg that the committee
would not rush.
8:26:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further cautioned rushing into a
decision without knowing if every other single state would be
adopting the legislation or knowing whether there were enough
votes in the U.S. Senate to enter into the international treaty.
He reiterated that he would like some of these questions
answered directly regarding the restriction on making changes
and the July 1 deadline. He said he doesn't think the bill is
bad, but opined the legislature needs to know what discretion it
has in the matter. He asked whether he was substantially wrong
in anything he had just said in summary of the issue.
8:27:51 AM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Child Support Services Division (CSSD),
Department of Revenue, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
offered her understanding that approximately 33 countries had
signed on, including the European Union, which comprises 28
countries. She indicated that the other countries include
Hungary, Ukraine, Burkina Faso, and Albania.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he assumed that the [European]
Union's having signed on binds those countries. He offered his
understanding that there was a country in Africa that had
joined.
8:28:44 AM
MS. BEECHER announced she would give a general background on the
history of child support programs in the U.S. She relayed that
in 1975, child support programs were formed by the U.S. Congress
through [Title IV, Part D] of the Social Security Act. She said
the initial purpose was a recovery program for monies spent by
governmental entities for welfare programs. Over time the child
support program proved an effective way of keeping people off
welfare with the focus becoming family oriented. She stated
that the child support programs are funded 66 percent with
federal funds and 34 percent with state funds. She said all
states and U.S. jurisdictions were mandated to adopt UIFSA in
1996, and the jurisdictions had done so by 1998. She said there
are several versions that have had amendments applied; in 2007,
the U.S. signed on to The Hague Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.
She continued as follows:
The 2008 Uniform Law Commission then took the language
from that, as mandated by that treaty, and that is
what is incorporated in this version, in Article 7 of
this bill that you have before you.
8:31:05 AM
MS. BEECHER stated that the new Preventing Sex Trafficking and
Strengthening Families Act was passed in September 2014 and
signed by President Barack Obama. She said, it requires the
passage of UIFSA 2008 into law by the various states in the
Union during the first session of the legislature, and for
Alaska that is by July 1, 2015. She explained that this mandate
is tied to funding, which means that federal monies would be
lost if Alaska does not enact the law. She added that part of
the Act requires that [HB 106] be adopted verbatim.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Beecher was
saying that the law passed by Congress read that all state
legislatures must pass [the proposed legislation] by July 1,
2015.
MS. BEECHER answered that is correct.
8:32:40 AM
MS. STEINBERG clarified that existing federal law under 42
U.S.C. 666, read that all states had to adopt the 1996 version
of UIFSA. She said the [Preventing Sex Trafficking and
Strengthening Families Act] was just signed in September, and it
"updated and amended those sections to replace 1996 with the
2008 version of UIFSA."
MS. STEINBERG, in response to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins,
said she did not know what the vote total was, but could look up
the information.
8:33:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that Ms.
Beecher had said that Alaska "may" lose funding if it did not
comply with the mandate, and he asked her if she meant "may" or
"will."
MS. BEECHER advised that within the Uniform Commission documents
the word is "may."
CHAIR LYNN asked who the person [or group] would be to decide
whether to do it or not,
MS. BEECHER asked Chair Lynn if he was asking who decides
whether or not the mandate is that the legislation be adopted
verbatim.
CHAIR LYNN answered yes.
MS. BEECHER said she did not know, but could check with the
department's representative, who is part of the federal Office
of Child Support Enforcement.
8:34:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated three issues: verbatim versus
non-verbatim; may versus will; and what we're relying on. He
opined that when dealing with a treaty, the committee needs to
hear directly from "someone from the top." He said he thinks
this issue may be one of federal, or even international,
overreach. He said before Alaska gives away any of its
sovereignty, he wants to be sure it is necessary to do so.
CHAIR LYNN expressed his appreciation for what Representative
Gruenberg stated.
8:36:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that the requirement for all
states to be in agreement would put any one state in a position
of power. He asked whether that point had been considered.
MS. BEECHER answered that it had, and that all of the states
have uniform law commissioners "who had part in these amendments
and in the drafting of UIFSA 2008." She continued as follows:
The original UIFSA was put together by the states, and
... worked so well that the federal government decided
to mandate it in 1996. All of the states did sign on
to it within the two years. ... I'm sure part of that
is because of the tie to the federal funding.
8:37:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there were previous Acts, such as
the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, and
even though the Acts were tied to federal funding, that did not
mean [each state's corresponding legislation] had to be
verbatim. He said there is a large volume of bound books
entitled, The Uniform Laws Annotated, which list the Uniform
Acts and every change made by every state. He ventured that
many states had individual changes, but those changes neither
destroyed the uniformity in the Act nor disqualified those
states from federal funding. He asked Ms. Beecher if she knew
whether he was right.
MS. BEECHER answered she did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that was something else the
committee needed to know. He said normally a uniform act can be
enacted and changes can be made to it as long as those changes
do not destroy the uniformity. He said the [National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws] want to make them broad
so states adopt them.
8:39:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked whether that was the same as initiatives,
wherein regulations drafted cannot destroy the intent of the
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes, and talked about a method
by which Alaska adopts uniform rules. He said he was wondering
whether other countries felt constrained from not being able "to
change anything in their internal enactment of these things."
He said at times the state is asked to support various treaties,
and the question is whether the state can make changes in those
treaties. He opined that the Law of the Sea Treaty was brought
before the U.S. Senate with many changes, and President Ronald
Reagan did not like the treaty until changes were made. He
advised that this is not an easy issue.
8:41:37 AM
MS. BEECHER pointed out that the proposed legislation would
clean up some of the language in the 1996 version of UIFSA; it
would add definitions to include foreign countries. She said
the 1996 version was instrumental in clearing up the method of
determining jurisdictional issues and controlling orders between
states. Prior to that, someone could get an order in one state,
then move to another state and get another order there. As a
result, it was difficult for the families and the child support
agencies in the states to know which order to follow. Ms.
Beecher said interstate orders make up approximately 33 percent
of the child support orders dealt with by CSSD. She said the
bulk of "this version," which is 41 pages in length, adds
language addressing foreign countries. She relayed that Section
7 of UIFSA is new and addresses language adopted at The Hague
Convention. She stated that it is important to note that that
portion of this bill will not go into effect, it is not
something that they will be following - until the ratification
and the passage of this throughout all of the states.
8:43:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the rest of the bill, not
tied to The Hague Convention, would be effective immediately.
MS. BEECHER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how many countries would have to
ratify The Hague Convention before it became effective. He
clarified, "In other words, let us say only two countries had
ever ratified it. Would it have been effective for those two
countries?"
MS. BEECHER offered her understanding that the answer was yes.
She said, for those that have signed onto The Hague Convention,
it will be in effect for them. It will not be in effect for the
United States until all of the states have passed it so it can
be ratified and the instrument can be signed and ...
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected he was focused on
international, rather than the internal, application. He
offered a hypothetical situation wherein the relevant number of
states passed the Act, but the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the
treaty. He said it seemed to him that even under this scenario,
the states that had adopted the Act would be bound.
MS. BEECHER responded that she did not believe Representative
Gruenberg was correct. She continued as follows:
My understanding of the bill is that until it is
ratified by Congress, which cannot happen until all
the states and the territories pass the UIFSA 2008
bill in their various jurisdictions, that it will not
be in effect - the Article 7 component of it.
8:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that there
would be an immediate effective date, and he directed attention
to Sections 90 and 91, on page 41, of HB 106. He asked whether
there is something in Section 7 that says that that only takes
effect upon ratification of the treaty, and said he did not
recall seeing a special delayed effective date on Section 7.
MS. STEINBERG responded that under HB 106, the Act would take
effect immediately. She said she thinks part of the question
addresses the issue of treaties and the ratification process,
and she said she would like to do some research to find out
exactly what the process is. She opined that although the U.S.
had signed the treaty, in order for it to work, all the states
would have to pass the UIFSA 2008. She said the U.S. must agree
upon a central authority in each state with whom other countries
would interact, and that would have to be done at the state
level. She continued:
So, it's my understanding that although the U.S. has
signed it, all the states have to implement this law
so we have everything in place, that we have the
structure in place so the United States can then go
and ratify it and say, yes, we have in place all the
requirements that are necessary for us to sign on to
this treaty.
8:48:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked whether U.S. territories would have the same
requirements related to adoption.
MS. STEINBERG answered that was her understanding. She listed
the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia as the four that are part of the child support program.
8:48:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled an earlier discussion, in
which someone had said some of the states had adopted the
Uniform Act, but with the condition that it would become
effective only if the treaty were effective.
MS. STEINBERG answered that was correct, but offered her
understanding that those states that did that would have to
amend statutes, because now that language isn't the correct
language and that is not the situation with Alaska. In response
to Chair Lynn, she explained that since UIFSA 2008, some states
wanted to jump ahead and adopt it in advance, but they had to
have a provision that said it would not be effective until a
certain time. She said she would have to look at the specific
language to say whether that specific time was when the treaty
was signed or when it was ratified. She said she thinks
Minnesota was one of the states.
8:51:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how HB 106 would affect child support receivers
and providers who move from state to state.
MS. STEINBERG answered that one component addresses a parent who
continues to reside in the U.S., and there are provisions in HB
106 that would affect that. She explained that HB 106 includes
changes made to 2001 UIFSA, as well as 2008 UIFSA. The latter
focuses on international child support cases. She said there
are some changes that clarify the 1996 version of UIFSA. She
related that prior to UIFSA, there could be multiple orders with
which a parent had to comply. She stated that this law was
designed to effect a "one-order world," and this version
provides some additional changes detailing which state is
supposed to be the controlling order determination.
MS. STEINBERG reiterated that the 2008 version would make a
difference for parents who have international child support
cases, for example, when an Alaskan resident has an Alaskan
child support order, but one parent moves to another country.
She said it could also affect CSSD's efforts to enforce a
foreign child support order in Alaska, in a situation in which a
parent from a foreign country that has signed on to The Hague
Convention moves to Alaska. She emphasized that the 2008
changes provide an efficient method for enforcing these orders,
either here or overseas, and includes helpful provisions, such
as requiring the foreign country to provide a translation of the
order. She remarked that CSSD had a case recently where it had
an order from another country that had to translated, at a cost
of $500.
8:55:51 AM
MS. STEINBERG clarified that currently there are provisions in
the current UIFSA to provide for international cases, but the
process is not efficient. She said, "It basically says, 'Well,
if the foreign country has laws that are substantially similar
to ours, then, you know, Alaska can recognize that order.'" She
said each state has tried to have reciprocal agreements with
foreign countries - for example, CSSD has one with Germany - but
if you have 50 states, and each state is trying to set up
reciprocal agreements with a foreign country, it's not a very
efficient process.
MS. STEINBERG stated that the initiation of UIFSA increased
interstate support and resulted in more effective interstate
collection. She remarked that it wasn't until the '70s and '80s
that people really started moving among states. Under the old
law, often parents would jump from state to state to avoid their
child support, and sometimes it took up to a year just to get
child support set up. She added that there was a problem under
the old laws with "form shopping" in that sometimes a parent
would move to another state to determine where to get the best
support order.
MS. STEINBERG pointed out that it is more common now for people
to move between countries, especially in the European nations.
The resulting challenges in the collection of child support
cases include having to work with different time zones,
languages, and rules.
9:00:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked which countries in Central America were
participants in The Hague Convention.
MS. STEINBERG said she was not certain whether the countries in
Central America had been participants in The Hague Convention
and offered that none of them have signed onto The Hague
Convention at this point.
9:01:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a specific case in
recent history where someone attempted to escape international
law or boundaries in an effort to avoid complications.
MS. STEINBERG deferred to Ms. Beecher.
9:01:52 AM
MS. BEECHER said she could not give a specific case. She said
currently Alaska does not have a lot of international cases in
which one of the parties resides in a foreign country. She said
the division has many overseas military cases; however, those
cases are usually under a U.S. order. She expressed a
willingness to look for an example for Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins.
CHAIR LYNN asked who has jurisdiction.
MS. BEECHER answered the country in which the order was first
established.
9:03:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would like answers to the
following questions: how many yearly cases does the division
have in which the law would apply, and how much money comes to
the state that funds the CSSD. He opined there is zero general
fund (GF) impact, "because this is pretty much operated from
afar." He noted that some of his constituents have been
frustrated by the inflexibility and standardization of the laws
and he would like to know whether it is "just that block of
money to fund CSSD in Alaska."
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Beecher and Ms. Steinberg to respond to
those questions at an appropriate time during their
presentation.
9:05:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that when a military couple gets
divorced in Alaska with one stationed overseas and the other
stationed in another U.S. state, normally a case would go back
to the Alaska Superior Court for an order of enforcement or
modification. In the event an enforcement order is obtained, it
would be given to the military and attached to the payor's
paycheck. He asked Ms. Steinberg to confirm whether he was
correct.
MS. STEINBERG responded yes. She said a person in the military
maintains U.S. residency and the jurisdiction to modify the
orders can remain in Alaska. Further, the enforcement of the
order is fairly straightforward because CSSD can send a wage
withholding order, she explained.
9:07:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that if "we passed this and
country 'X' does not pass theirs," then Alaska would be bound by
the provisions, while country 'X' would not be, because they
would not be party to the treaty.
MS. BEECHER responded that CSSD would deal with those cases as
it currently does: if a country is not a signer of the treaty,
then CSSD makes a determination based on similar laws. She
added, "In the bill, if there was something ... abhorrent to
Alaska policy, ... we would not have to enforce that order with
that country."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the proposed legislation
would make some changes in the method by which foreign orders
would be enforced or how foreign countries would have to enforce
[Alaska's child support orders]. He reiterated that if the
proposed legislation was adopted, then Alaska would be bound by
it, while any country without a similar law would not be treaty-
bound. He continued as follows:
In other words, they could force us to enforce their
order under the provisions of this new state law, but
they would not be bound to enforce our order. It
would be a one-way door in that case.
CHAIR LYNN asked if that was correct.
9:09:11 AM
MS. STEINBERG answered that if a country has not signed the
treaty, it would not be covered under the proposed Article 7,
which provides "how we deal with countries who have signed on to
the treaty." She echoed Ms. Beecher's previous statement that
Alaska would deal with any country who does not sign the treaty
the same as it does currently. She said, "We would be enforcing
it for the parents, not for the foreign country." She said if
CSSD made requests of that foreign country, it may or may not
comply.
9:10:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that Section 7 states that
without limitation, "this is the way Alaska will treat that
order for enforcement." He reiterated that under HB 106, Alaska
would be bound by the provisions of the state law, while another
country that had no such legislation would not. He noted that
this bill provides very limited ability to challenge the order
and compared the situation to the Uniform Arbitration Act. He
said, "There are very few basis that you can challenge an
arbitration under Title 9," and added that this basically makes
that the same principle here. He reiterated that the foreign
country would not be treaty-bound.
MS. STEINBERG stated that Article 7 deals only with countries
that have signed on to The Hague Convention, only to Hague
Convention orders.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the citation.
CHAIR LYNN suggested Ms. Steinberg could provide that later and
asked the committee whether they were ready to hear a sectional
analysis.
9:14:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that in light of the significant,
unanswered questions asked, it would be a waste of time to
proceed with a sectional analysis.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that good questions had been asked and he
reiterated that the committee was not in a hurry to rush the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER echoed that there were a lot of questions
pending answers and it would be frustrating to go into detail
about the sections of the proposed bill.
CHAIR LYNN concurred.
9:16:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO indicated that the term "reciprocating
countries" was used in the proposed legislation, and he said he
was trying to connect the prior comments made by Representative
Gruenberg with the idea that "this" would be applicable only to
those connected with the agreement. He said answers to that
particular issue would be beneficial.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that, assuming [Ms.
Steinberg] was correct, then "that" would create two
international classes: those to whom the proposed legislation
would apply and "all the rest."
MS. STEINBERG confirmed that was correct; there would be one
class of international cases from countries that had signed on
to The Hague Convention, and one from those that had not.
9:18:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that The Hague Convention on
the International Abduction of Children had been helpful and
said the U.S. is a signatory, along with "almost every other
country." He questioned, "Do we need to be implementing that,
too?"
MS. STEINBERG responded that CSSD handles child support, but it
is not involved in child custody cases.
9:19:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how long the division needed to produce answers
to the questions asked during the hearing.
MS. STEINBERG answered she thought within a week the division
could supply answers to the committee's questions, as well as
finding someone to testify on some of these other areas.
9:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested any related reference
documents be provided for the committee in advance of the next
hearing, so that the committee could see the legal basis behind
testimony.
CHAIR LYNN ascertained there was no one on line to contribute to
testimony.
9:21:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether the US congressional
delegation from Alaska had been approached regarding this issue.
MS. STEINBERG said she did not know, but could inquire.
9:21:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN requested that the division contact the U.S. Senators
and Representative from Alaska to ascertain their thoughts on HB
106. He recognized the difficulty of coming up with answers to
so many questions right away because the legislation is
complicated and the committee must be careful to avoid
unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ inquired as to the number of cases CSSD
addresses and its time frame.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said from time to time the legislature
is asked to consider a treaty, and it should consider which
questions to ask. He said the committee is dealing with
international, federal, and state laws and expressed his hope
that the House State Affairs Standing Committee would remain
involved in the issue.
CHAIR LYNN indicated the relation of the proposed legislation to
state affairs. He offered his understanding that the next
committee of referral for HB 106 was the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
MS. STEINBERG thanked the committee and said she would advise
Chair Lynn's staff when the answers to the committee's questions
were obtained.
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 106 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 08 HB93 CSHB93 v.H.PDF |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| 01 HB106 ver A.PDF |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 02 HB106 Governor Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 03 HB106 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 04 HB106 Background from Uniform Law Commission.pdf |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 05 HB106 Fiscal Note Department of Law.pdf |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 06 HB106 Fiscal Note Department of Revenue.pdf |
HSTA 2/19/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |