Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

04/13/2009 08:00 AM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 192 CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ SB 96 CHILD SUPPORT/ CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 96(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 36 INITIATIVES: CONTRIBUTIONS/ PROCEDURES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
SB 96 - CHILD SUPPORT/ CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT                                                                                   
HB 192 - CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:06:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
a hearing on two bills:  CS  FOR SENATE BILL NO. 96(FIN), "An Act                                                               
relating to  nonpayment of  child support,  to the  definition of                                                               
the  term "state"  for  the purposes  of  the Uniform  Interstate                                                               
Family  Support  Act,  to  certain  judicial  and  administrative                                                               
orders for  medical support  of a child,  to periodic  review and                                                               
adjustment   of   child   support    orders,   to   relief   from                                                               
administrative   child   support   orders,   to   child   support                                                               
arrearages,  and to  medical support  of a  child and  the Alaska                                                               
Native  family assistance  program;  amending  Rule 90.3,  Alaska                                                               
Rules of Civil Procedure; and  providing for an effective date.";                                                               
and HOUSE BILL  NO. 192, "An Act relating to  nonpayment of child                                                               
support; relating  to certain judicial and  administrative orders                                                               
for medical support  of a child; relating to  periodic review and                                                               
adjustment  of  child support  orders;  relating  to relief  from                                                               
administrative child  support orders;  relating to  child support                                                               
arrearages;  relating  to medical  support  of  a child  and  the                                                               
Alaska  Native family  assistance  program;  amending Rule  90.3,                                                               
Alaska Rules of  Civil Procedure; and providing  for an effective                                                               
date."  [Before the committee was CSHB 192(HSS).]                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:07:32 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LYNDA   ZAUGG,  Staff,   Senator  Bettye   Davis,  Alaska   State                                                               
Legislature,  explained  on behalf  of  the  sponsor, the  Senate                                                               
Health and  Social Services Standing Committee,  which is chaired                                                               
by Senator Davis,  that SB 96 would bring  Alaska into compliance                                                               
with the  federal Uniform Interstate Family  Support Act (UIFSA),                                                               
which  requires states  to  establish  guidelines addressing  how                                                               
either  or both  parents will  provide for  a child's  healthcare                                                               
needs and  to include the  term "Indian tribe" in  the definition                                                               
of  "state".    These  two  conforming  changes  will  result  in                                                               
procedural  changes for  enforcement  and  modification of  child                                                               
support orders from other jurisdictions.   If a parent is ordered                                                               
to pay for healthcare, including  cash medical support, the Child                                                               
Support  Services  Division  (CSSD)   must  enforce  the  ongoing                                                               
medical support obligation  as well as collect  any cash medical-                                                               
support  arrears.   Including  the  term  "Indian tribe"  in  the                                                               
definition  of  "state"  will  not   expand  or  restrict  tribal                                                               
jurisdiction.  Failure to satisfy  these UIFSA requirements would                                                               
jeopardize  $85 million  in federal  funding  for Alaska's  child                                                               
support program  and the Temporary Assistance  for Needy Families                                                               
(TANF) program.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ZAUGG said  that SB  96 adds  the terms  "Indian tribe"  and                                                               
"United  States Virgin  Islands" to  the definition  of the  term                                                               
"state"  [as  used  in  AS  25.25];  adds  to  existing  law  the                                                               
authority for a  tribunal to order either or both  parents to pay                                                               
cash medical  support if  warranted; directs  the CSSD  to review                                                               
child  support orders  for modification  on a  federally-mandated                                                               
three-year cycle;  adds the  term "cash  medical support"  to the                                                               
definition of the terms "arrearage"  and "support order", thereby                                                               
enabling  the  CSSD to  use  its  existing enforcement  tools  to                                                               
collect  a  cash medical  support  obligation  on behalf  of  the                                                               
child;  and  removes  language   limiting  who  may  request  the                                                               
correction of  a clerical mistake  in an administrative  order or                                                               
request the vacation of an  administrative order that is based on                                                               
a default amount.  Senate Bill  96 would put Alaska in compliance                                                               
with  the  federal  requirements that  ensure  Alaska's  children                                                               
receive  the medical  support  to which  they  are entitled,  and                                                               
would ensure that Alaska receives  the aforementioned $85 million                                                               
in federal  funding for  Alaska's child  support program  and the                                                               
TANF program.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:10:05 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR  BETTYE  DAVIS,  Alaska State  Legislature,  speaking  as                                                               
chair  of   the  Senate  Health  and   Social  Services  Standing                                                               
Committee, sponsor, and  in response to a  question, offered that                                                               
CSSB  96(FIN)  now  contains some  legislative  intent  language,                                                               
which is supported by the department.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. ZAUGG added  that the intent language  addresses the proposed                                                               
changes to the definition of the term "state".                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVIS,  in response  to a  further question,  offered her                                                               
understanding that  Guam would be  included under  the [existing]                                                               
definition of the term "state".                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
8:12:43 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JESSIE M.  ARCHIBALD, Staff Attorney, Tribal  Child Support Unit,                                                               
Central Council of the Tlingit  and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska                                                               
(CCTHITA), referred to Amendment 1,  and relayed that the CCTHITA                                                               
objects to  its language; Amendment 1  read [original punctuation                                                               
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, lin2 [sic] 5:                                                                                                      
     Insert new subsection:                                                                                                     
     (b)   The  proposed  changes made  in AS  25.25.101(19)                                                                    
     under  sec. 3  of  this Act  are conforming  amendments                                                                    
     that will  result in procedural  changes in  Alaska for                                                                    
     enforcement  and modification  of child  support orders                                                                    
     from  other jurisdictions.   UIFSA  does not  determine                                                                    
     the authority of  an Indian tribe to  enter, modify, or                                                                    
     enforce a  child support order.   In Alaska,  the scope                                                                    
     of  tribal authority  to enter,  modify,  or enforce  a                                                                    
     child  support order  is an  unsettled legal  question,                                                                    
     due in  part to the lack  of Indian country in  most of                                                                    
     the state.   In  adopting UIFSA  conforming amendments,                                                                    
     the legislature  does not intend  to grant  or restrict                                                                    
     tribal jurisdiction to enter,  modify, or enforce child                                                                    
     support orders,  and the  amendments are  not intended,                                                                    
     either directly  or impliedly, to  acknowledge, expand,                                                                    
     or restrict tribal jurisdiction.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ARCHIBALD said  the CCTHITA  believes that  the language  of                                                               
Amendment 1 is  unnecessary because the UIFSA is simply  a set of                                                               
procedures pertaining  to interstate processing of  child support                                                               
orders, and does  not confer jurisdiction to  the tribe; instead,                                                               
the UIFSA deals with the  contents of petitions, nondisclosure of                                                               
personal information,  special rules for  interstate transmission                                                               
of  evidence and  discovery,  streamlining interstate  processes,                                                               
and   allowing   for  child   support   orders   to  be   created                                                               
administratively  rather than  just by  the court.   Furthermore,                                                               
the UIFSA already has built-in  procedures for the non-registrant                                                               
to raise  objections about the issuing  tribunal's subject matter                                                               
jurisdiction,  personal  jurisdiction,  and  other  matters  that                                                               
might  limit  the recognition  and  enforcement  of an  order  by                                                               
Alaska's tribunals.   The language  of Amendment 1 would  set out                                                               
tribal  child support  orders for  particular scrutiny,  implying                                                               
that such  scrutiny should  be hostile,  and suggesting  that the                                                               
legislature  is prejudging  the  validity of  an objection  based                                                               
upon  unsettled jurisdictional  issues and  the nature  of Indian                                                               
tribes in Alaska.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ARCHIBALD  offered  her  belief  that  the  intent  language                                                               
essentially endorses  the principle that a  child support obligor                                                               
can get out  of paying his/her child support  simply by objecting                                                               
on the  basis of unsettled  jurisdictional issues and  the nature                                                               
of  Indian tribes  in  Alaska.   The  legislature should  instead                                                               
leave  those  issues  to individual  litigants  and  the  courts.                                                               
Collecting   child  support   is  hard   enough  without   having                                                               
legislative intent language that  could allow deadbeat parents to                                                               
get out of paying their  child support obligations.  The CCTHITA,                                                               
she  relayed, would  like to  propose  the following  alternative                                                               
legislative intent language [original punctuation provided]:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     (b)   The  legislature  recognizes  that child  support                                                                    
     enforcement  programs  are   administered  by  Federal,                                                                    
     State,   and   Tribal   entities   that   address   the                                                                    
     establishment of  paternity and enforcement  of support                                                                    
     orders  with  the  intent   of  promoting  the  general                                                                    
     economic  welfare and  the best  interest of  dependent                                                                    
     children.    UIFSA  provides a  vehicle  for  the  non-                                                                    
     registrant  to  raise   objections  about  the  issuing                                                                    
     tribunal's   subject   matter  jurisdiction,   personal                                                                    
     jurisdiction,  and  other  matters   that  may  make  a                                                                    
     specific   order  not   entitled  to   recognition  and                                                                    
     enforcement in  Alaska's tribunals.  The  intent of the                                                                    
     legislature is that tribal  child support orders should                                                                    
     be subject to the same  types of objections, and to the                                                                    
     same extent, as child  support orders from tribunals of                                                                    
     other  jurisdictions.     It  is  the   intent  of  the                                                                    
     legislature is  [sic] to  provide a  procedural vehicle                                                                    
     for Tribal child  support orders for such  orders to be                                                                    
     registered  in  Alaska  state  tribunals  in  the  same                                                                    
     manner child  support orders  from other  tribunals are                                                                    
     registered.    This  legislation  is  not  intended  to                                                                    
     prejudge  the validity  of any  specific  order or  the                                                                    
     validity of any objections to a specific order.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
8:19:40 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  ARCHIBALD said  that the  CCTHITA's goal  is to  ensure that                                                               
Tlingit and  Haida children receive  the financial  and emotional                                                               
support of  both their parents, and  that the UIFSA's goal  is to                                                               
provide for  efficient, streamlined  processing of  child support                                                               
orders.  However, the CCTHITA is  of the opinion that the current                                                               
language of Amendment  1 will instead result in  Alaska being out                                                               
of  compliance with  the UIFSA,  and  thus not  eligible for  the                                                               
aforementioned federal funding.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  offered his belief that  Amendment 1 just                                                               
preserves the status quo and therefore doesn't really matter.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. ARCHIBALD,  in response to  comments and  questions, provided                                                               
further  information about  the  UIFSA, and  reiterated that  the                                                               
CCTHITA objects to the current  language of Amendment 1 believing                                                               
it to be both unnecessary and  likely to be used by child support                                                               
obligors to get out of paying their child support orders.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
SENATOR DAVIS expressed a preference  for leaving the language of                                                               
SB 96  as is, without  the language  Amendment 1 is  proposing to                                                               
add.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to  a question, said that the language                                                               
in Amendment  1 regarding the  UIFSA is unnecessary  because it's                                                               
only  stating the  already-known  fact that  the  UIFSA does  not                                                               
determine the authority  of an Indian tribe to  enter, modify, or                                                               
enforce a  child support order;  furthermore, the  statement that                                                               
there  are  unsettled legal  questions  in  Alaska regarding  the                                                               
scope of  tribal authority is  problematic because  child support                                                               
obligors could use that legislative  intent language to refuse to                                                               
pay a child  support order from the tribe on  the basis that even                                                               
the legislature thinks that tribes  don't have clear jurisdiction                                                               
to  issue such  an order.   Again,  the language  in Amendment  1                                                               
could  be used  by  those  wishing to  get  out  of paying  child                                                               
support.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  expressed   a  preference  for  adopting                                                               
Amendment 1, offering his belief  that it would provide necessary                                                               
clarification regarding  the proposed  changes to  the definition                                                               
of the term "state".                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  suggested that Amendment  1 be amended  by deleting                                                               
the language that reads, "UIFSA  does not determine the authority                                                               
of an Indian  tribe to enter, modify, or enforce  a child support                                                               
order".                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. ARCHIBALD, in  response to a question, said  she also objects                                                               
to the language of Amendment 1  that reads, "In Alaska, the scope                                                               
of tribal authority to enter,  modify, or enforce a child support                                                               
order  is an  unsettled legal  question".   Again, that  language                                                               
could give a child support obligor  a chance to get out of paying                                                               
his/her  child support  order.   Regardless  that  there is  some                                                               
jurisdictional  conflict,  child  support obligors  shouldn't  be                                                               
given any ammunition  to say, "Well, the  legislature even agrees                                                               
that we're not sure you have  any authority, so why should I have                                                               
to  pay my  child  support?"   With  regard  to  the language  of                                                               
Amendment  1 that  reads,  "the legislature  does  not intend  to                                                               
grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction",  she pointed out that the                                                               
legislature  doesn't  have the  authority  to  grant or  restrict                                                               
tribal jurisdiction,  and thus  that language  is incorrect.   In                                                               
response to a  question, she again reiterated  that the CCTHITA's                                                               
view is that Amendment 1 is unnecessary.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
8:36:07 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 1 [text                                                               
provided previously].                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
8:36:49 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GINGER  BLAISDELL,  Director, Administrative  Services  Division,                                                               
Department  of   Revenue  (DOR),  in  response   to  a  question,                                                               
explained that  the Department  of Revenue  (DOR) sent  a request                                                               
that intent language,  made up of two paragraphs, be  added to SB
96.   The  first  paragraph was  added to  CSSB  96(FIN) but  the                                                               
second paragraph  - the language  now contained in Amendment  1 -                                                               
was left out because the  drafter thought it merely described the                                                               
first paragraph.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered  his  understanding  that  the                                                               
language of Amendment 1 is not supported by Senator Davis.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:38:23 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PETER  PUTZIER,  Senior  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Opinions,                                                               
Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department of Law                                                               
(DOL), in response to a question,  relayed that the intent of the                                                               
language in Amendment  1 is simply to preserve the  status quo of                                                               
the  State  not  taking  a   position  on  the  scope  of  tribal                                                               
jurisdiction.   Such  jurisdiction, particularly  with regard  to                                                               
domestic  relations,  is  being   contested  in  court  and  will                                                               
continue  to  be contested.    The  concern, therefore,  is  that                                                               
without  clarification, the  State would  have to  spend time  in                                                               
superior court  arguing the legislative  intent of the  bill, and                                                               
that's  not something  the  State wants  to do.    He added  that                                                               
Amendment 1's language  is not intended to address  how the UIFSA                                                               
is enforced or to change the UIFSA's processes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether  the language of Amendment 1                                                               
would call into  question the authority of a  tribe to administer                                                               
child support orders.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER  indicated that the  language is simply  stating that                                                               
the legislature is  not taking a position on the  scope of tribal                                                               
jurisdiction, thereby leaving  that issue to be  addressed by the                                                               
courts.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL again expressed  a preference for adopting                                                               
Amendment  1,   characterizing  its   intent  language   both  as                                                               
necessary  and as  neutral with  regard  to the  issue of  tribal                                                               
jurisdiction.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
8:44:09 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER, in  response to a question, explained  that AS 25.25                                                               
doesn't speak to the authority of a particular tribunal.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether not adopting  Amendment 1                                                               
would change the DOR's position.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER  said it would  not, but cautioned that  not adopting                                                               
Amendment 1  could make the  State's position  significantly more                                                               
difficult to defend.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked Mr.  Putzier if he  would support                                                               
Amendment 1 if it were amended  to say [in part], "UIFSA does not                                                               
determine the authority of the  State of Alaska to enter, modify,                                                               
or enforce a child support order on Indian land".                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER  pointed out that  there isn't any Indian  country in                                                               
Alaska except  for Metlakatla and potentially  some allotments or                                                               
other  kinds of  lands  not at  issue.   In  response to  further                                                               
questions, he indicated  that if the correct term  were used, and                                                               
if  the  new language  said  that  the  bill  doesn't add  to  or                                                               
subtract from the  State of Alaska's authority,  he doesn't think                                                               
such language  would be  objectionable, though  he would  have to                                                               
look at the specific language first to be sure.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  surmised, then,  that the DOL  would be                                                               
amenable  to language  that says  the  bill does  not modify  the                                                               
State's authority over Alaska Native villages.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER  said he is  unable to confirm that  because language                                                               
regarding  Indian  law  issues  must be  very  precise,  and  the                                                               
suggested change is not yet that precise.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  questioned  whether  the  language  of                                                               
Amendment  1  that  now  reads,  "In  adopting  UIFSA  conforming                                                               
amendments, the legislature does not  intend to grant or restrict                                                               
tribal jurisdiction  to enter, modify,  or enforce  child support                                                               
orders, and the  amendments are not intended,  either directly or                                                               
impliedly,   to   acknowledge,   expand,   or   restrict   tribal                                                               
jurisdiction"  ought  to instead  read  [in  part], "In  adopting                                                               
UIFSA conforming  amendments, the legislature does  not intend to                                                               
grant or restrict  the State's jurisdiction to  enter, modify, or                                                               
enforce  ...".   In other  words, should  Amendment 1  be amended                                                               
such  that  it addresses  the  State's  jurisdiction rather  than                                                               
tribal jurisdiction?                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PUTZIER indicated  that that's  difficult to  answer because                                                               
such  language  would raise  the  question  of whether  it's  the                                                               
State's  jurisdiction within  Alaska that's  being addressed  via                                                               
Amendment 1.  He added, "The  state of tribal jurisdiction in the                                                               
State of  Alaska, where there's  not Indian country -  except for                                                               
Metlakatla and  certain other  exceptions - in  play here  -- the                                                               
situation you're talking about just doesn't exist."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  expressed a preference for  holding the                                                               
bill  over in  order  to  further research  Amendment  1 and  the                                                               
issues it raises.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
8:48:19 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER,  in response  to a question,  said he  doesn't agree                                                               
that  the current  intent language  of Amendment  1 is  improper;                                                               
"it's straightforward  and it says  that the State is  not taking                                                               
...  [a  position on]  either  expanding  tribal jurisdiction  or                                                               
restricting it."   In response  to other questions,  he indicated                                                               
that  altering Amendment  1 such  that it  says the  bill is  not                                                               
intended to expand or restrict  either the State's or the tribes'                                                               
jurisdiction  could potentially  result in  the status  quo being                                                               
maintained in the  event of litigation.  The goal  is to have the                                                               
intent language clarify  that the bill is  only making conforming                                                               
amendments in response to a federal requirement.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES  offered   her  understanding   that  the                                                               
language  in Amendment  1 that  reads, "In  Alaska, the  scope of                                                               
tribal authority  to enter,  modify, or  enforce a  child support                                                               
order is an unsettled legal  question" is more controversial than                                                               
the  rest  of Amendment  1's  language.   She  asked,  therefore,                                                               
whether deleting  that sentence would  undermine the goal  of the                                                               
proposed intent language.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. PUTZIER offered  his belief that if the  language that reads,                                                               
"In adopting  UIFSA conforming  amendments, the  legislature does                                                               
not intend  to grant  or restrict  tribal jurisdiction  to enter,                                                               
modify, or enforce  child support orders, and  the amendments are                                                               
not  intended,  either  directly or  impliedly,  to  acknowledge,                                                               
expand,  or  restrict  tribal jurisdiction"  were  to  remain  in                                                               
Amendment 1,  then the aforementioned sentence  could probably be                                                               
deleted while  still maintaining  and advancing the  overall goal                                                               
of the proposed intent language.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. BLAISDELL, referring  to SB 96, relayed that  it requires the                                                               
obligor to either  provide medical insurance for  children in the                                                               
custody of a custodial parent or  to pay cash medical support; it                                                               
requires a  three-year review [of  support orders] -  this change                                                               
wouldn't impact the CSSD and  typically such a review occurs more                                                               
frequently  anyway; it  contains  technical changes  so that  the                                                               
CSSD can make  clerical corrections to child  support orders; and                                                               
it adds  the term "Indian  tribe" to  the definition of  the term                                                               
"state".                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on SB 96.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
8:57:03 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES made  a motion  to amend  Amendment 1,  to                                                               
delete the language  that reads, "In Alaska, the  scope of tribal                                                               
authority to enter,  modify, or enforce a child  support order is                                                               
an unsettled legal question.".                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES   offered   her  belief   that   amending                                                               
Amendment 1 as  she is proposing  would not undermine  the effect                                                               
of  the   proposed  intent  language,   but  would   address  Ms.                                                               
Archibald's concern that the proposed  intent language could give                                                               
people additional  ammunition for  refusing to comply  with child                                                               
support orders.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said  he does not object  to the amendment                                                               
to Amendment 1.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GATTO  offered   his   understanding  that   Ms.                                                               
Archibald had characterized that sentence as unnecessary.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  said  her   understanding  is  that  that                                                               
characterization was instead directed at  the language that read,                                                               
"UIFSA does  not determine  the authority of  an Indian  tribe to                                                               
enter, modify, or enforce a child support order".                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Amendment 1 was amended.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  offered his  belief  that  the issue  of                                                               
jurisdiction needs to be  addressed carefully, particularly given                                                               
that not  speaking to  the issue  will, in  and of  itself, raise                                                               
still further questions.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  mentioned that she would  be following the                                                               
wishes  of  the  bill's  sponsor   and  thus  be  voting  against                                                               
Amendment 1, as amended.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   said  he  opposes  Amendment   1,  as                                                               
amended,  because  he  is  concerned   that  including  it  would                                                               
jeopardize  the  whole bill,  and  he  believes  that it  is  not                                                               
essential,  particularly given  that the  bill passed  the Senate                                                               
without it.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
9:01:54 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Coghill,  Gatto,                                                               
Lynn, Dahlstrom,  and Ramras  voted in favor  of Amendment  1, as                                                               
amended.  Representatives Gruenberg  and Holmes voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 1,  as amended, was adopted by a  vote of 5-                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
9:02:22 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  moved  to   report  CSSB  96(FIN),  as                                                               
amended,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  zero fiscal  note.   There being  no objection,                                                               
HCS CSSB 96(JUD)  was reported from the  House Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee.  [CSHB 192(HSS) was held over.]                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects