HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT; PARENTAGE  9:22:46 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the final 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." 9:23:21 AM CAROL BEECHER, Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child Support Services Division (CSSD), Department of Revenue (DOR), noted that, in response to a request made by the committee on 3/3/15, three individuals were available to testify: Yvette Riddick from the Office of Child Support Enforcement; Battle Robinson, a commissioner on the Uniform Law Commission; and Linsey Beaver, the legislative council for the Uniform Law Commission. 9:24:36 AM YVETTE RIDDICK, Director, Division of Policy and Training, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stated that the 2008 amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) represented a collaborative effort among the Uniform Law Commission, federal and state child support officials, and representatives of national child support organizations that standardized the rules for enforcement and modifications of family support orders - both domestic and international. She said UIFSA 2008 built upon important 2001 amendments. She emphasized that [UIFSA 2008] would be wonderful for all citizens of the U.S., including Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER told Ms. Riddick there had been questions raised at the prior hearing as to whether the law would have to be adopted verbatim. He offered his understanding that the opinion of Alaska's Department of Law was that verbatim adoption was not a requirement under federal law. MS. RIDDICK relayed [her office] worked closely with the Uniform Law Commission, and since its initial adoption in 1992, UIFSA had provided Universal and Uniform Rules for family support orders in the states. She explained it was that uniformity that had helped make interstate case processing so much better than it used to be prior to UIFSA 1996 and the 2001 and 2008 versions that followed. Without uniformity - "non-verbatim" - the process was dragged down. She cited Section 466(f) of the Social Security Act, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: (f) In order to satisfy section 454(20)(A), on and after January 1, 1998, each State must have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, and as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any amendments officially adopted as of such date by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. MS. RIDDICK said when referencing Public Law 113-183, her office interpreted official adoption of UIFSA 2008 as verbatim. She said the office looked at previous congressional reports and reported to committees at the federal government level. For example, she stated that the National Child Support Enforcement Association provided testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee on March 20, 2012, and on page 7 of the report regarding how The Convention would be implemented, the opening paragraph read that the intent for Congress was to require states to adopt the 2008 UIFSA amendments verbatim or lose federal funding for the state federal child support enforcement programs. More recently, Congressional Research Services referred to Public Law 113-183, which included provisions to implement The Convention and other UIFSA treaty obligations, and which required states to adopt UIFSA 2008 amendments verbatim to ensure uniformity of procedures, requirements, and reporting forms. She stated, "If it was not verbatim, it would not serve the purpose that we would like for it to serve, which is to provide a ... streamline process for both domestic and international case processing." 9:30:58 AM MS. RIDDICK said her office issued guidance to the states on a regular basis. She relayed that on February 17, 2015, the office issued Action Transmittal 1501 to all State of Alaska child support programs. She said the office wanted to show sensitivity to state codes and things that might be a little different in state laws; therefore, in the action transmittal, the office indicated that states must enact UIFSA 2008 verbatim, by the effective date noted in Public Law 113-183, but - as with UIFSA 1996 - states may replace bracketed language with terminology that was appropriate under state law. For example, she said the word "tribunal" could be replaced by the word "court." She said states were not required to adopt the same numbering of the Uniform statute, because the numbering system under state code was sometimes different. Also, where a statute referred to other laws or statutes, even if the article or section number was not included in brackets, the state may replace the references with the appropriate article or section number of that state's statute. She said the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) would review "minor, non- substantive, and trivial" deviations between UIFSA 2008 and state law, on a case-by-case basis. She said all states were involved with passage of UIFSA 2008, and her staff was in the process of doing reviews and providing technical assistance. She said the OCSE had been able to "weigh local format to real changes"; however, she said significant changes to the core words of UIFSA 2008 legislation would have a negative impact on interstate case processing. 9:33:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that the word verbatim had caused problems for the committee. He mentioned proposed amendments that would not change the meaning or focus of the bill. 9:34:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for written testimony from Ms. Riddick, if available. MS. RIDDICK said she was not reading from a written statement, but could send some documents. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized the importance of Ms. Riddick as a witness from the federal government. He brought up federal overreach. He talked about the commissioner's decisions regarding uniformity of law, and said it was unusual to have a Uniform Act interpreted by another body - the federal government. He asked who, in this case, would be deciding uniformity. MS. RIDDICK responded that the OCSE, as the administer of child support at the federal level, was in partnership with local state child support entities and programs and provided 66 percent federal funding for states to use in running their child support programs. She said each state was required to have a state plan, a contract between that state and the OCSE that the state would manage its programs in compliance with federal law and adopt procedures required by the federal government. Once a state was in compliance, which Alaska was, the OCSE would continue the 66 percent funding, and there was an audit process in place. When legislation was passed, it would become a state plan requirement if it was mandatory or "if it's actually put in." She said the aforementioned Action Transmittal 1501 contained a requirement of an amended state plan page, which indicated adoption of UIFSA [2008]. The page would be sent to the OCSE, and if it was approved, then there would be no risk of loss of federal funding. She indicated that in FY 12, the federal government partially funded the child support program and reimbursed the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program the amount of approximately $60 million. She said, "With UIFSA 2008, we'll be monitoring that under the umbrella of the state plan, and ... the staff here, along with our attorneys, right now, I think, are reviewing proposals from the states to ensure that they're verbatim or, if they are not verbatim, that they are within the parameters of the description that I just provided a few minutes ago." 9:42:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the committee was focusing on the federal aspect in an effort to determine its limitations of power, and he requested that Ms. Riddick could remain available on line. 9:43:18 AM LINDSAY BEAVER, Legislative Council, Uniform Law Commission, said she was in support of HB 106. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that usually there was some latitude to allow variations between states. He asked Ms. Beaver if UIFSA 2008 gave less than normal latitude to allow variations between the states. 9:44:08 AM MS. BEAVER responded that from "a Uniform perspective," the commissioners were focused on uniformity and conforming to the true intent behind the law. A second factor was whether or not the legislation introduced by states was sufficiently close to verbatim, so as to satisfy the federal legislation and the OCSE. She said the verbatim analysis was stringent and was also tied to federal funds; therefore, the focus of the law had been on whether or not the law was verbatim. 9:45:08 AM BATTLE ROBINSON, Uniform Law Commission, stated that "this legislation" would implement a federal treaty. She said when a federal government entered into an international treaty, it drafted, proposed, and adopted the implementing legislation. She said however the treaty was implemented, if it was done by federal law, it would be binding on all the states. She offered her understanding that this was the first time that the effort was being made to implement the treaty through uniform state legislation. The reason it was being done this way was that UIFSA was the very familiar child support statute, which all agencies, attorneys, and litigants used. She said the states were really being asked to implement the international treaty that the federal government had entered into. She said it was important to consider the alternative: without UIFSA [2008], states would probably have a federal Act that would bind the state to all its terms. CHAIR LYNN remarked, "It sounds like blackmail." 9:47:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this was the first time he had seen the commissioners having to bow to a more stringent interpretation of uniformity from the federal government. He said it sounded as if Ms. Robinson was saying the commissioners were comfortable doing so. He indicated that the language of Section 466(f), UIFSA, would use "the normal standard of uniformity and not to require a standard of verbatim." He questioned whether this was done properly through the adoption of federal regulation or through an administrative interpretation. MS. ROBINSON responded that she thought the requirement was one of the OCSE, which had supervisory functions, as well as joint functions to run the country's child support programs. She concurred with Ms. Beaver that whether or not the Uniform Law Commission believes a particular act was uniform was a separate issue. She stated that when this law was developed, it was drafted from many interested people from many states, including judges, lawyers, representatives of child support agencies, and the federal government. 9:50:23 AM CHAIR LYNN, in response to Representative Keller, said there would not be time during the present meeting for a sectional analysis, and the bill would be held over. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that previous testimony indicated this is unique in that the legislature is being asked to implement a treaty setting a precedence, which causes him pause. He noted that he needs time to consider the issue as this is something to be analyzed in light of the legislature's normal treaty implementation process, and the potentials of where this may go if the committee does something "novel." CHAIR LYNN said he shared some of that concern. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed thanks to all the testifiers. CHAIR LYNN reiterated that the committee was not yet finished with its discussion on HB 106. 9:53:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ emphasized her desire to hear from someone within Senator Lisa Murkowski's office because she would not be comfortable passing out HB 106, without having input from someone in our federal delegation. CHAIR LYNN said he thought that was a good idea. 9:54:28 AM MS. STEINBERG said "a congressional delegation in Senator Murkowski's office" had been contacted for input, and no one was available to testify; however, the office would be sending written testimony. CHAIR LYNN said he would like someone on line to speak to the committee, at the invitation of both the administration and the House State Affairs Standing Committee. MS. STEINBERG said, "We could continue to try." CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 106 was held over.