HB 137-PFD/CHILD SUPPORT  5:00:52 PM CHAIR GRAY announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act relating to permanent fund dividends for individuals owing child support; and relating to applications and qualifications for permanent fund dividends for individuals owing child support." 5:01:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved Amendment 1 to HB 137, labeled 34- LS0758\A.3, Nauman, 4/16/25, which read: Page 2, line 13, following "support.": Insert "For purposes of AS 29.45.030(f), AS 36.10.005, AS 37.10.210(b)(2), AS 43.23.005(h), AS 43.40.092(b)(1), AS 43.82.230, or another state benefit, receipt of a dividend applied for under this subsection is not evidence of eligibility for, or receipt of, a permanent fund dividend under AS 43.23.005 or residency in this state. A dividend recipient under this subsection is not a dividend applicant for purposes of AS 43.23.101." CHAIR GRAY objected. 5:01:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID explained that Amendment 1 would make clear that receipt of a dividend under this policy is not evidence of eligibility or residency. 5:02:21 PM CHAIR GRAY asked Representative Carrick to provide a recap of the HB 137 and how Amendment 1 would impact it. 5:02:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE ASHLEY CARRICK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, said HB 137 would allow the state to apply for the permanent fund dividend (PFD) on behalf of eligible residents who are behind on child support and have not filed a PFD application by the deadline. In response to a question that was asked during a previous hearing, she reported that there are 30,000 child support cases, of which 20,000 would be eligible for garnishment. 5:03:49 PM GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Carrick, prime sponsor, explained that Amendment 1 would be a safeguard to protect the State of Alaska from any potential legal issues. 5:05:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the state is truly that concerned about someone losing their benefits in another state if they are not supporting their child on a criminal level in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK agreed with the sentiment. She noted that Amendment 1 was drafted by request of a senator who is working on the companion bill to address the slim possibility that the state may be liable [when applying for the PFD on behalf of individuals] who are not considered residents of Alaska by another state. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP sought to confirm that Amendment 1 is not a matter of making it easier to receive benefits in other states. CHAIR GRAY shared his understanding that the proposed amendments would remove the state's liability for applying for a dividend on behalf of a resident who is not eligible for the PFD. He asked whether that's correct. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked to hear from Legislative Legal Services. She opined that Amendment 1 would undermine every standard for receiving a dividend. Further, she opined that a dividend should not be provided unless the recipient is an eligible resident. CHAIR GRAY asked whether Representative Carrick was comfortable with the bill moving out of committee without Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK said she's not clear on all the statutes referenced in Amendment 1 and suggested that it be withdrawn to be considered in a future committee. 5:11:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved to withdraw Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was withdrawn. 5:12:03 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 5:12 p.m. 5:13:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved Amendment 2 to HB 137, labeled 34- LS0758\A.2, Nauman, 4/5/25, which read: Page 1, line 14, following "dividend.": Insert "The agency shall notify the department when an individual on the list provided under this subsection is no longer in arrears." Page 2, line 13, following "support.": Insert "The department shall retain the amount of a dividend that is more than the amount owed for child support payments in arrears and shall include that amount in a child support payment in a subsequent year under this subsection. If the agency notifies the department that a child support obligation has been paid in full, the department shall deposit the remaining amount of a dividend from a prior year into the permanent fund." CHAIR GRAY objected for purposes of discussion. 5:13:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID explained that Amendment 2 would clarify that if a portion of someone's PFD is garnished for backpay on child support, the remaining funds would go back into the Alaska Permanent Fund "the fund". CHAIR GRAY sought clarification on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK explained that under current law, if someone owes child support and a portion of their PFD is garnished, the remainder is distributed to the applicant. In contrast, Amendment 2 would apply to those dividends being applied for by the state and clarifies that any remainder would go back into the fund. CHAIR GRAY sought to confirm that Amendment 2 would incentivize people to apply for their own PFD, as they would receive the remainder owed after garnishment. [Representative Carrick nodded in the affirmative.] 5:16:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested that if the amount of child support crosses into criminal negligence, the parent could be eligible for the Victims Compensation Fund. He stressed that he would only want the state going after people who are in Alaska and eligible for the dividend. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK deferred the question to the Department of Law. 5:19:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether it would be possible to make an individual who's owed child support a recipient of [the crime Victim Compensation Fund] if the amount crosses the threshold into criminal negligence. Secondly, he asked whether it would be illegal for the state to apply for a dividend on behalf of an ineligible individual. 5:21:35 PM JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), clarified that he was here to testify on a different bill and did not know the answer. REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK pointed out that if obligators are out of state, they would not be added to DOR's list of applicants for back owed child support. 5:23:02 PM CHRIS TRAN, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), described the division's screening process for PFD garnishment from people in arrears on child support. 5:24:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Amendment 2 would raise constitutional concerns based on the remaining amount after garnishment not being returned to the individual, and instead deposited back into the fund. 5:25:13 PM EMILY NAUMAN, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, said by not applying, the individual has foregone their interest in receiving the dividend. Therefore, the state would be garnishing the money before ever reaching that person. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the department applies for dividends on behalf of felons in the same manner. MS. NAUMAN offered to follow up with the specifics of the Restorative Justice Program. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she wants to ensure that the proposal is based on precedent and legally sound. 5:27:46 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 5:27 p.m. 5:28:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved to withdraw Amendment 2. There being no objection, Amendment to was withdrawn. CHAIR GRAY announced that HB 137 was held over.