Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/05/2001 01:32 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 19-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt the proposed CSSB 19(HES), labeled as
Version L, for the purpose of discussion. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
CHAIR GREEN explained that the findings and intent section in SB 19
was removed in the committee substitute. In addition, the sunset
provisions on the sections requiring that social security numbers
be provided by applicants for various licenses, court documents,
and to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, were reinstated. The five
year sunset provision was also renewed on the provisions allowing
the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to enter into
agreements with financial institutions for financial data matching.
She noted the provisions in the bill that were left as is (with no
sunset provision) were those that would be detrimental to the
state, CSED, or the people involved. One example is that the fine
for incorrect employer reporting will remain at $10 instead of
$1,000. She noted Senator Halford has asked the committee to
consider an amendment.
MS. JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, explained that Senator
Halford has had concerns about the CSED legislation that passed in
1997 and 1998. One concern was the new hire reporting requirement.
Small employers who hire people sporadically might not be aware of
the new hire requirement, therefore Senator Halford wants to
provide protection from liability for those employers for the wages
that should have been withheld. That protection would not apply to
employers who have been served with withholding orders. She noted
the statute would be clarified by adding, to the new hire reporting
section, the phrase, "Violation of this subsection does not give
rise to a private cause of action."
CHAIR GREEN asked for an explanation of "private cause of action."
MS. LUCKY explained that the employer could not be sued by a
private party, therefore the person who is owed the money could not
sue the employer. She clarified that a private cause of action is
not between CSED and the employer.
MS. DIANE WENDLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said her understanding of the amendment is that it will address
private liability to a custodial parent or someone else who is owed
child support and might attempt to hold an employer liable, outside
of statutory penalties, which are already in place. The federal
law requires certain statutory penalties, which will not be
affected by the amendment.
MS. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director of CSED, testified via teleconference
and said that as long as CSED remains in compliance with the
welfare reform requirements, she doesn't think the amendment will
do any harm.
MS. WENDLANDT said she doesn't believe the amendment will place
CSED out of compliance.
CHAIR GREEN announced her intention to pass the bill from committee
today. She noted she spent a lot of time going over all of the
provisions of the bill to create the new draft.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt Senator Halford's amendment (Version
L.1). There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to report CSSB 19(HES) as amended from the
Senate HESS Committee with individual recommendations and its
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
Number 774
MS. JULIA TENISON, testifying via teleconference from Chugiak, said
she would like to comment on the legislation to repeal the law
requiring the collection of social security numbers for CSED.
CHAIR GREEN explained that when the original legislation was passed
in 1978 and 1998, many sections contained a three year sunset
provision. CSED submitted legislation [SB 19] to remove all sunset
provisions, therefore none of the provisions would have been up for
review. The committee has removed three provisions from the bill
so that they will come back for review in five years.
MS. LUCKY noted that she was contacted by Ms. Tenison because she
had some problems receiving a driver's license due to the social
security number requirement. Ms. Tenison does not have a social
security number and has received several tickets for driving
without a license. Ms. Tenison is familiar with the legislation
and has done exhaustive research on the legislation that was passed
in 1997 and 1998.
MS. TENISON informed committee members that she has a case pending
before the Court of Appeals.
CHAIR GREEN asked if her situation is related to child support
enforcement.
MS. TENISON replied, "Only to the extent that the legislation
passed and the name of child support enforcement has reached out
and touched my life."
CHAIR GREEN said the CSED director was asked at the last meeting
about the impact on drivers' licenses. She thought that issue
would have to be taken up with the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV).
MS. WENDLANDT said her understanding is that there was some
confusion on the part of DMV but it has been cleared up.
Apparently, DMV thought if a person did not have a social security
number, he or she had to obtain one to get a driver's license.
That is not CSED's position. At this point, if a person does not
have a social security number, he or she does not have to obtain
one to get a driver's license.
Number 1052
MS. MIKLOS confirmed Ms. Wendlandt's statement and said she talked
to the director of DMV a few weeks ago. The director assured her
that she sent a letter to all field offices informing them that if
a person has never had a social security number, that person must
sign an affidavit saying so. She was not sure whether Ms. Tenison
has gone back to DMV since that time.
MS. TENISON said she has not. She pointed out her concern about
this law is that when she went to DMV, the office manager was
enforcing this legislation and handed her a copy of a direct quote
from the statute. Ms. Tenison was denied reissue of her driver's
license. Nothing in the law itself allows for correcting a big
error in the law after the fact. That is why she is in court and
does not have a driver's license. She stated the legislature
created a situation that needs to be looked at seriously,
especially the findings and purposes section, because the law is
unreasonable and unconstitutional. She believes the constitutional
issues surrounding this law are very serious and should not be
pushed aside.
Regarding DMV, MS. TENISON said she has not been contacted about
the change in policy.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Lucky to contact the director of DMV and put
her in contact with Ms. Tenison.
MS. LUCKY agreed and informed committee members that Ms. Tenison's
main concern is about the constitutionality of collecting social
security numbers.
Number 1187
CHAIR GREEN informed Ms. Tenison that most people in the room would
have fully agreed with Ms. Tenison 10 to 15 years ago when the
federal government forbade the use of social security numbers for
identification. Now the federal government has reversed that
decision and allows social security numbers to be required. The
new federal directive has changed the constitutionality question.
MS. TENISON responded that the federal law does not mandate
anything - it says states need to do things if they want to
continue to get money. Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (PL
93-579) says a person cannot be required to give his or her social
security number. She said she has done enough research to know the
law has not actually changed, even though the federal government
may say it has.
CHAIR GREEN said she would look into that.
MS. TENISON said if the committee is interested, Senator Halford's
office might be able to provide a copy of the legal research she
has done on the constitutional issues for her case before the Court
of Appeals.
CHAIR GREEN thanked Ms. Tenison, Ms. Lucky, and Ms. Wendlandt and
announced the committee would take up SB 2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|