Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1995-06-27 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1995-06-27 House Journal Page 2294 HB 78 The following letter dated June 16, 1995, was received: "Dear Speaker Phillips: Under the authority of art. II, sec. 15 of the Alaska Constitution, I have vetoed the following bill: CONFERENCE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 78 "An Act relating to certain licenses and applications for licenses for persons who are not in substantial compliance with orders, judgments, or payment schedules for child support; relating to the duty to support children of minor parents; relating to the program of aid to families with dependent children, including the payment of aid in the case of pregnant minors and minors who are parents; 1995-06-27 House Journal Page 2295 HB 78 proposing special demonstration projects within the program of aid to families with dependent children and directing the Department of Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the federal government to implement the projects; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3; and providing for an effective date." I exercise my constitutional right of veto with considerable regret. As you recall, this bill had previously passed the House of Representatives with unanimous bipartisan support and after extensive work with the Administration. At the time, I hailed the House action as a significant step forward on the road to meaningful welfare reform in Alaska; reform that would train people for work--put them to work--keep them working--and make it pay to work. Unfortunately, subsequent amendments resulted in a bill that would be irresponsible and have drastic impacts on children in Alaska. This bill still includes some very positive ideas that deserve to be part of our long-term strategy for welfare reform. The provisions of the bill relating to revocation of occupational and drivers licenses for persons in arrears on their child support payments are particularly desirable. With the continued support of the legislature for strengthening our child support enforcement efforts, I look forward to signing legislation on this subject next year. Unfortunately, the bill now includes some provisions that are ill- advised and premature, given pending Congressional action on federal welfare reform. Some provisions of this bill require changes in federal law that may never occur. Some of the benefit restrictions of the bill, like the lifetime limit on benefits, are more extreme than the most restrictive policies we are likely to see adopted by Congress or any other state because of the risks these policies would pose for children. I favor the use of time limits that are carefully crafted to encourage persons to move from welfare to work; but I am troubled by the provisions of the bill which establish a 60 month lifetime limit on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. Although the lifetime limit included in the bill appears to be based on a related provision in federal legislation recently passed by the United States House of Representatives, there is a critical difference between the two provisions. 1995-06-27 House Journal Page 2296 HB 78 The federal legislation, which may or may not become law, would place a cap on benefits for a "family of an individual, who, after attaining 18 years of age, has received benefits under the program....for 60 months..." In contrast, the bill before me today states that "a person is not eligible to receive benefits...for more than a total of 60 months..." The effect of this provision bars a child whose parents use the program from ever receiving help again in his or her lifetime. This implies that it is the desire of the Legislature to limit children to a lifetime total of 60 months of benefits--regardless of the childs circumstances. While I can understand the logic of the federal legislation which is at least arguably designed to encourage able bodied adults to move off the welfare rolls to support their families, I cannot understand how this logic applies to children. Surely the state should not punish children throughout their lifetime for the actions of their parents. The 60 month lifetime limit also fails to acknowledge the reality of the Alaskan economy. While I am optimistic about the potential for economic growth in Alaska in the years to come, my optimism is nevertheless firmly rooted in a realistic assessment of where we are today. Alaskan families who find themselves suddenly unemployed due to sudden changes in our basic industries--the recent closure of the Wrangell mill, for example-- should not find themselves ineligible for assistance due to inflexible time limits. An absolute time limit on public assistance benefits makes sense only if there are jobs available for people to support their families. Many rural communities suffer from chronic unemployment and urban Alaska, with its history of boom and bust economic cycles, cannot necessarily provide the number of new jobs needed to absorb a sudden increase of Alaskans who may have no means to support their children when they have exhausted their AFDC benefits. It would likely fall to local governments and local taxpayers to deal with the consequences of this shortsighted policy. In addition, another provision of the bill establishes a 24 month limit on benefits for families participating in the JOBS program. Given the 60 month lifetime limit, a significant disincentive is created for clients 1995-06-27 House Journal Page 2297 HB 78 to engage in those activities most likely to result in long term self- sufficiency--vocational training and other educational activities. This simply makes no sense. The legislature also disregarded the fiscal implications of this bill. The Department of Health and Social Services provided the legislature with a detailed analysis of the costs as well as the savings generated by the bill. The legislature arbitrarily doubled the savings generated by the bill and reduced the costs of the bill by approximately one-half. The fiscal notes approved by the legislature for the first year are simply inadequate to implement the program. Finally, I fully recognize the need to contain costs in our public assistance programs and I truly believe that those who are able to work should work. However the underlying assumptions which seem to have led the legislature to adopt this bill in its final form--the belief that our public assistance programs are the object of widespread abuse by able-bodied adults who simply will not work--prompt me to once again point out a simple fact that is all too often forgotten in the welfare reform debate. The fact is that most of the people receiving AFDC benefits for food, shelter and clothing are children--26,000 of them. Next year, after reviewing Congressional actions, I plan to propose a comprehensive set of publicly debated and carefully considered program recommendations on how best to contain the costs of the AFDC programs and encourage clients to seek, obtain and maintain employment, while continuing to provide a safety net for our neediest children and families. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor"