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.