Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/14/2001 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19(HES)
"An Act relating to federal child support enforcement
requirements regarding social security number
information, employer reports about employees, and
certain kinds of automated data matching with financial
institutions; 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 uncodified laws relating to ch. 87, SLA
1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998; and providing for an
effective date."
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, explained that the governor initiated SB 19
in order to repeal sunset provisions that were put on legislation
that was passed due to welfare reform. She indicated that in 1996
Congress passed welfare reform legislation and at that time it was
their intent to help people support their families once they were
off welfare. At the same time that they passed that legislation in
terms of the child support requirements they also put out sanctions
that if the states did not pass laws consistent with the
Congressional mandate than the states would be in jeopardy of
losing federal child support and public assistance money, which is
a substantial amount of money, approximately $70 million. She
pointed out that the Alaska legislation was passed in three
different years in order to meet compliance; it was passed in 96,
97 and 98. She noted that the 97 and 98 legislation had sunset
provisions for 2001.
Mrs. Miklos further stated that they believe the legislation has
been very helpful with regards to child support over the last few
years; there has been a dramatic increase in the funding. For
instance, in FY99 they raised $81 million in child support, in FY00
they raised $85 million and now they are expecting between $99 and
$2 million. She further noted that they believe a lot of it is due
to the fact that they have additional tools, particularly the new
hire reporting program, which is one of the provisions in the
legislation. They also believe that they can show that the number
of complaints and the number of problems with regards to child
support have decreased, because they have put more energy into
customer service.
Mrs. Miklos pointed out that CS SB 19 (HES) put some sunset
provisions back on the bill. She explained that a lot of the
provisions in the original legislation had to do with social
security numbers; therefore, in the Senate Health, Education and
Social Services (HESS) Committee sunset dates were put back on
those provisions. In fact, she noted, that in Sections 1 through 13
of the committee substitute there were sunset provisions put back
on for 2006. She indicated that the thought there was for them to
be able to come back and see if the program was working. She
referred to Section 14 where it removes the nonseverability clause.
She explained that in the original legislation it was stated that
if part of the law were found to be unconstitutional than the
entire law would be unconstitutional and that language was removed.
She added that for everything but the social security numbers and
the financial data-match program it would take effect immediately.
She also said that they worked closely with the HESS Committee and
they agreed with the changes.
Senator Ward referred to the fiscal note from the original bill, in
the analysis, where it changes from losing approximately $80
million to $70 million.
Mrs. Miklos explained that since the time that they originally
offered the bill they found that the money the Division of Public
Assistance gives to the public assistance grant is not at jeopardy
and is no longer a part of the sanction.
Senator Hoffman requested clarification on Section 11.
Mrs. Miklos explained that it was an amendment added in the HESS
Committee. In Section 11 of the bill it states that employers are
required, by law, to report to the agency and it was amended so
that if an employer did not report they would not be held for a
separate civil action; it was a protection for employers.
Senator Hoffman wondered what the reason was for that action.
Mrs. Miklos responded that it was to make sure that there would be
no separate civil action.
Senator Hoffman wondered if there had been civil action prior.
Mrs. Miklos replied that there had not been.
Senator Hoffman wondered why there was the need for Section 11.
Senator Ward said, "It was not the intent to put liability up on a
private employer and so it was to eliminate frivolous lawyering."
KEVIN SHORES, Assistant Attorney General, Department of law,
remarked that Senator Ward's explanation was accurate as to why the
language was in there. He further explained that there was a
concern that an employer might get entangled in a private domestic
suit where one party tries to use the employer to put pressure on
the other party. He said that it makes it clear that this statute
does not set up a private cause of action and reiterated that the
purpose of the language is to protect the employer.
Senator Olson speaking from the standpoint of a small business
owner he said that he could see why the language was necessary.
Senator Ward wondered if federal law has always required the social
security number. He applauded the fact that somebody is trying to
do away with it.
Mrs. Miklos indicated that originally the requirement was for
social security numbers on hunting and fishing licenses, but they
obtained a waiver. She explained that the conditions of the waiver
were that the data was not good data and there is better data
someplace else. She noted that they could show that the data from
hunting and fishing licenses was not good data, because so much of
it they got so late and they already had data that was better. She
pointed out that they used the permanent fund. She specified that
this was one thing that was taken out of this bill and was being
taken care of in another bill. She said that the law specifically
states that they require that the various agencies have social
security numbers and that people will put social security numbers
on applications. Further, she referred to the Privacy Act and
indicated that if the federal government requires the social
security number than it is not in violation of the Privacy Act.
Co-Chair Donley wondered if Senator Green was happy with the title
of the bill. He noted that the sunset provisions were not
specifically stated in the title.
Senator Green wondered if there were any sunset provisions in the
original bill.
Mrs. Miklos responded no, but there was a change to the title by
the legislative drafters.
DIANE WENDLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, Collections and
Support Services, Department of Law, stated that the changes made
to the title were consistent with the changes made in the version
of the bill.
Co-Chair Donley inquired as to whether there was something that the
HESS Committee or other Committee's felt strongly about with
regards to the title.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that it was his intent to HOLD the bill in
Committee.
Co-Chair Donley said, along those lines, that he spoke with Ben
Stevens and he represented that this money would only be used for
housing or lodging expenses. He made a commitment that if they did
not need the full amount of money than that money would be returned
to the state. He asked of the committee members that if anybody
has ideas for accountability in the legislation that they submit
that information.
Senator Green wondered if Senator Donley intended to go back and
review the original request that came to the legislature a couple
of years ago.
Co-Chair Donley expressed that he had not intended to do that,
because it was his general understanding that they ended up with a
guarantee that if they fell short the state is responsible for up
to $4 million.
Senator Green indicated that it might be a good idea.
[HEARD AND HELD]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|