SB1067 - Pro and Con

• Idaho kids deserve access to child support — Rep. John McCrostie

It's not right for Idaho children and families to lose their protections just to pacify nine far-right committee members.

The ham-handed Gang of Nine punished Idaho children and co-parents by stifling debate on an update to Idaho's existing Uniform Interstate Family Support Act that provides adequate and appropriate modifications to international standards for Child Support Enforcement (CSE).

Unfortunately, the Gang of Nine's actions remove securities for Idaho's kids.

While the committee did not end CSE in Idaho, the ability to enforce existing laws is severely hampered when Idaho loses access to federal systems. Lack of compliance actually makes Idaho a safe haven for deadbeat parents.

SB1067 is straightforward. Acceptance of child support guideline changes does not subject Idaho to international laws; it brightens the path for existing agreements among the 50 states and certain international countries with which the U.S. holds standing treaties.

When someone in Idaho has a foreign CSE order, SB1067 clarifies the existing avenue to recognize that order. It protects Idahoans, most notably, by allowing Idaho to refuse to recognize a foreign CSE order if "[r]ecognition and enforcement of the order is manifestly incompatible with public policy," including if the foreign court failed to provide due process under Idaho and U.S. law. Idaho cannot get stuck enforcing an incompatible foreign CSE order. It just can't.

Sharia law was mentioned repeatedly during the three-hour hearing. To falsely blame the media for accurately reporting public testimony and private emails is disingenuous at best.

Furthermore, the Gang of Nine appears to want to veto U.S. participation in the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support. And they chose not to alleviate their fears with further research.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, aka the Supremacy Clause, states that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Under centuries-old case law, the U.S. Supreme Court has final say on state court and federal law matters, including international treaties entered into by the U.S. Global law cannot supersede U.S. law. Ever.

SB1067 was poorly vetted because no discussion occurred among committee members. Extreme right-winged committee members resisted open dialogue without accepting or presenting an alternative.

The consequences of the Gang of Nine will remove $16 million in federal support of child support workers and $30 million in temporary assistance for needy families. And more than $200 million in private child support payments is jeopardized without a data management system. The Gang of Nine irresponsibly chose to play "Chicken" with the well-being of Idaho's youth.

We cannot afford ideological thoughtlessness. It impacts our entire state and makes us the laughingstock of America. Rather, we must endeavor together to find collaborative solutions that benefit all of Idaho citizens. With more dialogue and less ideologue, we can and will do better for the kids, families and citizens of Idaho.

Rep. John McCrostie (D) represents District 16.

• Thank goodness Idaho doesn't always twirl — Rep. Ronald Nate

Our dog, Boo, never twirls just because she wants to. But, when my daughter holds a treat in the air and says, "Twirl," Boo jumps to her hind legs and twirls.

For centuries now, the federal government has been getting states to "twirl" by offering our tax dollars back to us. One recent, stark example was the federal government dangling special-needs education money to force compliance regarding Common Core testing requirements. Madison School District finally twirled; it will administer the SBAC test, and keep its money.

Another example is the federal government threatening to punish Idaho children and ex-spouses for Idaho not signing onto a restrictive and problematic set of international standards for Child Support Enforcement (CSE).

The Idaho House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee was asked to do something ugly (bill S1067) for Idaho in order to secure CSE and other welfare money from the federal government (approximately $46 million). Fortunately, the majority on the committee (myself included) would not twirl.

To be clear, the committee DID NOT vote to end CSE in Idaho - those laws are still in place. The committee simply would not allow additional international mandates without protections. Idaho can and WILL STILL ENFORCE child support for children and ex-spouses.

S1067 is problematic - it requires Idaho to accept changes to its CSE guidelines that are verbatim and uniform to federal code, and subject Idaho to international laws. There are no allowances for adding amendments or language that protects Idaho from objectionable laws and provisions.

For example, when someone in Idaho has a foreign CSE order on them, S1067 says Idaho "...Is bound by the findings of fact on which the foreign tribunal based its jurisdiction; and... [m]ay not review the merits of the order." This means that Idaho could be stuck enforcing unfair and ill-gotten CSE orders made in foreign countries.

The committee wanted to add language to protect Idaho from enforcing objectionable foreign orders. That was not allowed by federal guidelines - the bill had to remain un-amended.

Furthermore, the Feds threatened that Idaho could hold up the entire 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support. All 50 states must adopt the specific provisions for the treaty to be ratified. Only 19 have complied so far. Once all 50 have signed on, the treaty is ratified, warts and all.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states, "...all Treaties made, ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."

So, even if we could apply protections in the law for Idaho children and families, the law is subservient to the terms of the treaty-which is supreme. Global law will supersede U.S. law. This issue is too important to pass without having a complete knowledge of the 2007 Hague (United Nations) Treaty.

Concerns were also raised over the sharing of Idahoans' data through a global data-sharing component of the treaty. The representative from Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), Kandee Yearsley, stated that even though they were not sure of what was in the treaty yet, she expected us to pass the bill. DHW was not prepared to answer many of our questions, and the Attorney General's counsel answered questions with statements like, "I believe..."

The bill was thoroughly vetted. The committee heard more than three hours of testimony and questions - but many of the answers were unsatisfactory and incomplete. The majority of the committee members were resistant to being bullied into accepting a bill without compromise, without proper protections, and without good, clear answers on what Idaho would become subject to - the committee tabled the bill.

It is true that Sharia law was mentioned once or twice in committee, but that was an absolute non-issue. None of the countries in the treaty have Sharia law. Of course, because the word was mentioned, the media is eager to report it as the key concern. It just isn't so.

What is clear though, is that the Feds threatened to put the treat ($46M) back in the bag. But, here's the thing. When Boo is just too tired to twirl, Maddie relents. She gives the treat without the twirl. The federal government is the same way - they don't pull the money (no states have lost their funding). Fortunately, Idaho is $88 million ahead in revenues this year. We can afford noncompliance.

But, we cannot afford to barter away our sovereignty every time a treat is dangled. Idaho is a state - not a lapdog of the Feds.

Rep. Ronald Nate (R) represents District 34.