Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/03/2015 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 | |
| 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 |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2015
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative David Talerico
Representative Liz Vazquez
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) STA, JUD
02/19/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/15 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/15 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/03/15 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CAROL BEECHER, Director
Anchorage Central Office
Child Support Services Division (CSSD)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and responded to questions during
the hearing on HB 106.
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Collections and Support Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
106.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:09:55 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:09 a.m. Representatives Gruenberg,
Keller, Stutes, Talerico, Vazquez, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
8:10:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the state,
registration and proceedings related to support orders from
other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign
tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries;
relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing
for an effective date."
8:11:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 29-GH1897\W, Glover, 3/2/15, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version W was before the
committee.
8:12:28 AM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child Support
Services Division (CSSD), Department of Revenue (DOR), noted
that at the [2/19/15] hearing on HB 106, the committee had asked
questions and requested a letter and written documentation in
response. She indicated that she had provided those answers
with the documentation, and she offered to answer any further
questions regarding the federal documents after her presentation
of HB 106.
8:13:46 AM
MS. BEECHER offered the background behind HB 106, as follows:
Alaska's Child Support Program began in 1976. It is
authorized under Title 4(d) of the Social Security
Act. The program is federally matched: 66 percent
federal; 34 percent state. In [fiscal year 2015] (FY
15), the federal match was $19 million. In 2014, the
Child Support Services Division collected
approximately $112 million, of which 90 percent goes
directly to families, so approximately $100 million to
families. The other 10 percent goes to reimburse the
federal and state government for foster care and other
forms of public assistance.
Alaska passed the original version of [the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act] (UIFSA) into law in
1996. UIFSA was written by the [National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws] ("Uniform Law
Commissioners") to provide a clear framework and a
mechanism for enforcing orders between states. This
was necessary to ensure that one order was
controlling, and it cleared up problems with the
multiple, jurisdictional issues and orders where
sometimes families would have multiple orders
depending on what state they lived in. The Act has
been instrumental in providing a uniform method for
enforcing child support orders. The theme of UIFSA is
essentially one order at one time in one place.
UIFSA was amended in 2001 and again in 2008. Alaska's
uniform law commissioner at that time, Debra Behr,
attended the 2008 convention and took part in the
amendment process. The main change of the 2008
amendments is the addition of a new section, which
deals with the child support enforcement between the
countries ... [that] have signed the convention.
Other changes largely consist of cleanup language and
added definitions and clarification. The amended
version, which is known as UIFSA 2008, will greatly
improve child support services when one parent lives
outside of the United States.
When Alaska passed the law in 1996, all other U.S.
jurisdictions passed the law by 1998. In 2007, the
United States signed The Hague Convention on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other
Forms of Family Maintenance. This treaty is known as
"The Convention." In 2008, the Uniform Law Commission
amended UIFSA to incorporate changes mandated by The
Convention. This version is known, again, as UIFSA
2008. In 2010, the [U.S.] Senate provided a
resolution of advice and consent to ratification. In
September 2014, Public law 113-183, Preventing Sex
Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, was signed
into law. This law requires that all [Title] 4(d)
child support programs pass UIFSA 2008 by the next
legislative session, which for Alaska is by July 1,
2015.
8:16:50 AM
MS. BEECHER continued as follows:
Federal funding of the [Title] 4(d) child support
program is a condition of passage, which means $19
million to CSSD. Further, the language of UIFSA 2008
is not allowed to be amended, in order to ensure the
uniformity in language and forms. And we are
continuing to work closely with the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement to ensure the bill wording
is in compliance; hence the amended version you have
before you today.
Once passed, the new section of the bill, Article 7,
will not go into effect until all U.S. jurisdictions
have passed UIFSA 2008 and the final steps of the
ratification process are completed. To date, 12
states have enacted UIFSA 2008, and 23 states have
legislation pending. The other states are in the
drafting stage.
8:17:41 AM
MS. BEECHER stated that regardless of the federal funding laws,
there are several reasons that the State of Alaska should pass
this law. She continued as follows:
It is a very good bill. UIFSA 2008 will allow U.S.
children to receive support when the other party
resides in a treaty country. Currently, the United
States' programs do process child support orders from
foreign countries, but it's a one-way street: We have
no mechanism in place to ensure that the foreign
countries enforce our orders. Many will not process a
foreign order in the absence of a treaty obligation.
2008 changes were limited to those necessary to
accommodate The Convention, and passage will ensure a
uniform method of enforcing child support orders
between countries.
8:18:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked what change, if any, the legislature could make
to the proposed bill without endangering the overall treaty with
other countries.
8:19:38 AM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Collections
and Support Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, said the substance of the Uniform Act must stay the same,
because it is critical that before the U.S. can take the final
steps toward ratification, the President can say all the states
have the implementing language in place. She said UIFSA 2008 is
the vehicle to ensure that every state has the correct language
and substantive law to be able to "enforce these orders in
accordance with the convention terms."
CHAIR LYNN asked what the consequence would be for a non-
American party that fails to live up to the treaty.
MS. STEINBERG answered that there are provisions under The
Convention that must be honored; however, she said she would
have to do some research to ascertain what the consequences
would be for failing to comply.
CHAIR LYNN emphasized he is a strong proponent of child support,
but said he is concerned about the sovereignty of the U.S. and
Alaska. He asked if he was wrong to be concerned.
MS. STEINBERG responded that the Office of the Attorney General
does not have those same concerns. She said currently there are
provisions in Article 6 for enforcing foreign orders, and "this
makes it slightly different for convention orders."
CHAIR LYNN asked, "So, this new version would not change what
already is, significantly, is that correct?"
MS. STEINBERG answered in the affirmative.
8:22:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recollected having read language in HB 106
that would change how interstate orders are applied. He asked
Ms. Steinberg to confirm she was saying "it has no effect on
that whatsoever."
MS. STEINBERG replied that in general, she did not see those
changes; however, she would need to compare a non-Convention
country under Article 6 with a Convention country under Article
7. She said one slight difference is a provision in Article 7
that gives a person living in a foreign country up to 60 days to
respond to an order registered in Alaska, whereas she opined
that under Article 6, that time is somewhere between 20 and 30
days.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked upon the length of Version W,
which he said the committee had just received, and he expressed
his hope that HB 106 would be held over in committee to allow
time for further information.
8:24:00 AM
MS. BEECHER, in response to a question from Representative
Keller, reviewed that 10 percent of the revenue collected in
CSSD goes to foster care and to Temporary Aide for Needy
Families (TANF) as reimbursement to DHSS.
8:24:58 AM
MS. STEINBERG said this area can get complicated. She explained
that if the child goes into foster care, then the child support
actually belongs to the State of Alaska because the child was in
the state's custody. Similarly, within Child Custody Services,
a custodial parent that begins to receive assistance assigns
his/her right to child support to the state because the state
would be paying that parent. She said that is another form of
the reimbursement within which the 10 percent falls.
8:25:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his assumption that the same
standards are applied in foreign orders and the reason for the
proposed legislation is to so that Alaska's orders are enforced
in the foreign country. He offered his understanding that it
would mean Alaska would have access to the foreign bank account
under court order that otherwise the state could not access. He
said he was still troubled by Alaska's enforcement of foreign
orders even though the proposed legislation does not directly
address that issue.
8:27:16 AM
MS. BEECHER responded that when Alaska has an order in another
state, it asks that state to enforce the order. Similarly, in a
child support case involving another country, Alaska would not
dip into the foreign bank; the foreign country's child services
entity would take care of the enforcement processes as the
central authority and then send the money to CSSD to process
through its "dispersement unit."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what happens when the order
originates from the foreign country.
8:28:29 AM
MS. STEINBERG answered that in terms of foreign orders, under
current law a "state" can be a state in the U.S. or a foreign
country whose standards are similar to Alaska's standards. She
offered details about the process. She said the process would
be much easier under Article 7, if the foreign country was a
"Convention country," because then Alaska would be assured that
the country already had those processes as it must have them in
order to sign on and ratify the Convention. Currently, she
said, Alaska has the provision in statute to be able to enforce
a foreign order, but it has to consider whether the country has
similar standards. She said orders are registered with the
Alaska Superior Court and parents have the ability to look at
the order and object if they feel they were not given due
process.
8:30:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that Ms.
Steinberg was saying that it is up to CSSD to determine whether
there are similar standards, but beyond that there are no
further checks or balances other than giving the parents the
chance to respond after the order is registered with the Alaska
Superior Court.
MS. STEINBERG stated that CSSD, the court, and the parents are
involved in the process.
8:32:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how many foreign countries were involved.
MS. BEECHER answered that currently 33 countries had signed on,
and 23 of those are in the European Union. She named Burkina
Faso and Bosnia as two of the countries that had signed on to
The Convention. In response to follow-up questions from Chair
Lynn, she said no Asian or South American countries had signed
on yet. She added that they were part of the discussion in the
treaty, but did not yet have the internal structure required by
The Convention. She said there were no Middle Eastern Countries
signed on.
8:33:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a letter, dated February
25, from Kate Glover of Legislative Legal and Research Services,
which states that under the federal Act, the states must adopt
verbatim UIFSA 2008. He asked on what page Section 301 could be
found in the report.
CHAIR LYNN handed the gavel to Vice Chair Keller
MS. STEINBERG answered that Section 301 was on page 7 of the
Senate report, which she indicated was the top of page 44 in the
exhibit included in the committee packet.
8:35:48 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER explained that Representative Gruenberg had
introduced a letter that had been given out in the past and was
not yet distributed.
MS. STEINBERG clarified that the document to which
Representative Gruenberg referred was called, "The Supporting
At-Risk Kids Act," which she said was from the U.S. Committee on
Finance report number 113-137 from the 113th Congress and
pertained to Senate Bill 1870. She said, "This is an exhibit
that was attached to a letter that Ms. Beecher and myself had
prepared for the committee, in response to some of the questions
that we received at the last committee hearing."
8:37:35 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:37 a.m.
8:39:54 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER offered clarification regarding the document
to which Representative Gruenberg had referred and he suggested
there had been some confusion about the numbering of pages
between the report and the exhibit.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that there was a second letter from
Ms. Glover in the committee packet.
VICE CHAIR KELLER offered his understanding that Representative
Gruenberg was discussing the letter dated February 25. He noted
that Ms. Glover was available to answer questions.
8:41:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the middle
paragraph on page 44, and read as follows: "States would be
required to adopt the 2008 amendments verbatim to ensure
uniformity of procedures, requirements, and reporting form." He
offered his understanding that the report was written by Senate
staff and signed off on by Senators. He noted that the quote
was from the report, and he asked Ms. Steinberg to show the
committee where that language is written in statute.
MS. STEINBERG offered her understanding that the language
Representative Gruenberg had just read originated in Senate Bill
1870 in which. She indicated that under 42 U.S.C. 666(f),
states were mandated to pass 1996 UIFSA. She reviewed the
chronology of UIFSA, which Ms. Beecher had previously covered.
8:43:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked for confirmation that this was in
reference to the Senate Bill, and that in the House Bill that
passed there was no such report.
MS. STEINBERG answered that's correct. Regarding the Preventing
Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, she said the
bill that passed Congress was different from "this bill that the
report was on," but had the same language. She explained that
there were approximately six different bills that contained this
language, and ultimately one was passed. She said she could not
find any committee reports for that one, but related that the
House had passed it in June, and the Senate had unanimously
passed it in August.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the language regarding "verbatim"
would have applied in the House bill.
MS. STEINBERG answered yes, because the language was not
changed.
8:44:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG sought further clarification regarding
the word verbatim, which he opined was not in current federal
law. He said he wanted to know what the operative language in
law currently was. In response to Ms. Steinberg, he said he
understood that Congress changed the adopt-by date to September
30, 2008, but said he wanted to know where, in the previous Act,
the language regarding "verbatim" was, or if that prior law
simply mandated the adoption of UIFSA. He said a Uniform Act
can be adopted with changes; it does not have to be verbatim.
MS. STEINBERG responded that 42 U.S.C. 666(f) requires states to
adopt the 2008 version of UIFSA, not a variation of 2008, in
order to receive continued federal funding. She said that is
what makes this law different from other Acts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it sounded as if HB 106 proposed
adoption of an updated version of UIFSA 2008, and that the
federal law required Alaska to adopt the 2008 version.
8:51:05 AM
MS. STEINBERG stated that was not correct; the states must adopt
UIFSA 2008, which is the current federal version. She explained
that Version W to HB 106 was necessary to address oversights in
drafting language, so that the proposed legislation matched the
changes required in UIFSA 2008. She ventured that her earlier
reference to minor changes may have caused confusion. She said
not every state calls its agency for child support by the same
name, and explained that one minor change would be for each
state to change the name of its agency for accuracy. She
emphasized that the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
had been closely involved in ensuring that the language Alaska
created to update UIFSA would meet the federal requirements.
She said she thought the changes made in Version W were
stylistic, not substantive.
8:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if, at the time UIFSA was adopted
in 2008, it was known that the states would have to adopt it
also in order to continue getting federal funds.
MS. STEINBERG answered that the Uniform Law Commissioners met in
2008 specifically to amend the Uniform Law to provide for The
Hague Convention provisions. She said the President, at that
point, had already signed The Convention, but there needed to be
the implementing language adopted by the states, through UIFSA,
in order for The Convention to be ratified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his question.
MS. STEINBERG said that was her understanding. She said she had
provided, in one of the exhibits, the commissioners' commentary
to UIFSA, which explained the addition of Article 7. She said
they did discuss the treaty and the necessary steps states would
have to take.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the focus of the committee was the
implementation of a treaty implemented by a federal law. He
expressed concern that the federal government adopted a Uniform
Act six years ago, but the Alaska State Legislature was not
informed until last year, which meant that the state would have
only one, 90-day session to move a bill through four committees.
He emphasized the importance of having the time to "do it
right."
8:57:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ remarked upon all the paperwork was given
to the committee after 5 p.m. the evening before the meeting.
8:58:45 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER noted that some of those documents were
provided in the last hearing; however, he said he identified
with Representative Vazquez' remarks. He assured the committee
that his intent was to hold HB 106.
8:59:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that at the committee's last
hearing on HB 106, there had been interest expressed in hearing
from someone at the federal level. She asked if anyone was
available.
MS. BEECHER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if anyone from the Alaska
delegation to U.S. Congress was available.
MS. STEINBERG answered no, but said, "The Senate has already
provided its advice and consent on the treaty."
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that the committee needed to hear
from the Alaska delegates in regard to HB 106.
MS. STEINBERG said she was not sure they would be available.
VICE CHAIR KELLER said he thought Representative Vazquez'
request was reasonable, and he suggested that Chair Lynn could
be asked to make that invitation.
9:01:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ, regarding a previous comment by
Representative Gruenberg, said she would also like to see the
federal law that requires verbatim adoption.
MS. STEINBERG said the law was provided in the packet of
exhibits. She offered her understanding that Exhibit 6 showed
the Congressional Act that changed federal statute to require
states to adopt UIFSA 2008, and Exhibit 7 was 42 U.S.C. 666(f).
9:02:05 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER noted that Exhibit 6 contained Public Law 113-
183.
9:02:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Steinberg to cite the exact
location of the language that would require the adoption of
UIFSA.
MS. STEINBERG directed attention to [the sixth page of the
Exhibit 6 handout]. In response to Representatives Gruenberg and
Vazquez, she identified the page as reading "treaty country"
at the top and "STATE LAW REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE UNIFORM
INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT (UIFSA)" [two-thirds of the way]
down the page. She highlighted paragraph (1), subparagraph (C),
which read: "(C) by striking 'and as in effect on August 22,
1996,'; and". She said the actual law was then found in Exhibit
7: 42 U.S.C. 666. She said the pages were numbered, and on
page 11, about a quarter of the way down, was subsection (f),
which basically states that in order to satisfy 654(20)(A) - the
statutes pertaining to CSSD - the states must adopt UIFSA. She
said Public Law 113-137 "struck the language in here to make it
say, 'as of 2008.'" She noted that further down the page, under
"AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION (F)", was the reference to Public Law
113-137.
9:06:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that the heart of the matter
was 42 U.S.C. 666, which required adoption of UIFSA on or after
January 1, 1998, and Alaska had UIFSA, thus was in compliance.
Then, he said, because UIFSA was amended, the federal law also
had to be amended, and the 2008 version was referenced, which
included Article 7 - The Hague Convention. He said normally a
Uniform Act can be adopted with a number of variations to it, as
long as those variations do not destroy its uniformity. He said
a key point is that it is the commissioners that decide whether
the Act remained uniform. He questioned if - since this Act
involved the federal government, a state department, and a
treaty - the commissioners would still be in charge of deciding
the issue of uniformity.
MS. STEINBERG said there was a Uniform Law Commissioner on line,
who could respond. She emphasized that [CSSD and DOL] work
closely with the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to
ensure Alaska's law meets the requirements necessary to maintain
federal funding.
9:10:50 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER suggested that it would probably be more
valuable to hear from a commissioner when there was also someone
from the federal contingency to take part in the discussion.
9:11:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the 2008 amendments would not
apply until every state had adopted UIFSA, but the question was
in what form? He questioned why, if it was the federal
government's intent that it would apply immediately, would the
federal government leave it up to any of the 50 states to
essentially veto UIFSA. He said, "If it was going to be a
federal mandate, then they would say it applies now."
VICE CHAIR KELLER stated that Representative Gruenberg's
question would be appropriate to ask someone from the federal
Office of Child Support Enforcement.
9:12:57 AM
MS. STEINBERG suggested also asking the question of the
aforementioned commissioner.
VICE CHAIR KELLER clarified his point was that it would be
better to wait to ask the question until such time as those
people may be gathered to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG likened this issue to an onion with
many layers. He said there could be two federal agencies, each
trying to exert a different interpretation.
VICE CHAIR KELLER, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
reiterated his intention to wait on further questions.
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced that HB 106 was held over.
9:15:35 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:15
a.m.