Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/28/1994 03:00 PM HES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE March 28, 1994 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair Rep. Al Vezey Rep. Pete Kott Rep. Harley Olberg Rep. Bettye Davis Rep. Irene Nicholia Rep. Tom Brice MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR SB 221: "An Act relating to arrest of a person for illegal possession, consumption, or control of alcohol; and providing for an effective date" PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE *HB 431: "An Act relating to the payment of aid to families with dependent children in the case of pregnant minors and minors who are parents." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 378: "An Act relating to the Older Alaskans Commission and staff of the commission; changing the name of the Older Alaskans Commission to the Alaska Commission on Aging and extending the termination date of the commission; relating to the Alaska Pioneers' Homes Advisory Board; relating to services and programs for older Alaskans;and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing.) WITNESS REGISTER JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide Sen. Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: (907) 465-3873 Position Statement: Testified in support of SB 221 JEFF BUSH, Attorney Alaska Civil Liberties Union 175 S. Franklin St., Ste. 318 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: (907) 465-4150 Position Statement: Testified in opposition to SB 221 NANCY USERA, Commissioner Department of Administration P.O. Box 110200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200 Phone: (907) 465-2200 Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 378 JAN HANSEN, Director Division of Public Assistance Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110640 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640 Phone: (907) 465-3347 Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 431 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 221 SHORT TITLE: ARREST OF MINORS FOR CONSUMING ALCOHOL SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Duncan,Miller,Pearce,Kelly, Leman,Little,Frank,Donley,Sharp,Halford,Zharoff; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Ulmer JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/03/94 2451 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/94 01/10/94 2451 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/10/94 2451 (S) HES, JUD 01/19/94 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 01/19/94 (S) MINUTE(HES) 01/24/94 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 01/24/94 (S) MINUTE(HES) 01/26/94 2597 (S) HES RPT 4DP 2NR 01/26/94 2597 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW, DPS, ADM-2) 01/31/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211 02/07/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211 02/07/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/09/94 2750 (S) JUD RPT 2DP 3NR 02/09/94 2750 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (COURT, DHSS) 02/09/94 2750 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS, LAW) 02/09/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 02/09/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 02/11/94 2786 (S) 3 RLS TO CALENDAR 1 NR 2/11/94 02/11/94 2798 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 02/11/94 2798 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 02/11/94 2798 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 221 02/11/94 2798 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN,MILLER, 02/11/94 2798 (S) PEARCE,KELLY,LEMAN,LITTLE, FRANK, 02/11/94 2798 (S) DONLEY,SHARP,HALFORD,ZHAROFF 02/11/94 2799 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 02/11/94 2799 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE 02/11/94 2807 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 02/14/94 2367 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/14/94 2367 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 02/14/94 2389 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ULMER 03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 431 SHORT TITLE: AFDC FOR CERTAIN TEENAGED PARENTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/02/94 2221 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/02/94 2221 (H) HES, FINANCE 03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 378 SHORT TITLE: REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/14/94 2072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/14/94 2072 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE 01/14/94 2072 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94 01/14/94 2073 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/24/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/24/94 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/03/94 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/04/94 2604 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 1DP 1NR 2AM 03/04/94 2604 (H) DP: G.DAVIS 03/04/94 2604 (H) NR: VEZEY 03/04/94 2604 (H) AM: KOTT, OLBERG 03/04/94 2604 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/14/94 03/28/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-62, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m., noted members present and announced the calendar. He brought SB 221 to the table. SB 221 - ARREST OF MINORS FOR CONSUMING ALCOHOL CHAIR BUNDE asked for public testimony. Number 050 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Aide to Sen. Robin Taylor, Prime Sponsor of SB 221, stated that SB 221 would amend AS 12.25.030 (b) to provide the ability for peace officers to arrest minors for consuming under the age of 21 without a warrant. If the peace officer has a reasonable cause to believe that a minor unlawfully possessed, consumed, and controlled alcohol, the bill has the power of overruling a recent Superior Court decision that requires a person be caught in the act of consuming before an arrest can be made. MR. AMBROSE indicated that the proposal does not have a fiscal impact because it returns the law to its former interpretation prior to the Superior Court's decision. Number 062 CHAIR BUNDE said he appreciated the zero fiscal note. (Chair Bunde indicated that Reps. Brice and B. Davis arrived at 3:10 p.m.) REP. OLBERG asked if the committee had previously seen the legislation in another form. MR. AMBROSE asserted that there is a companion measure in the House. CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the companion bill did not pass out of committee and suggested that the committee had an opportunity to pass SB 221. Number 092 REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Ambrose if a minor who has been cited for consuming has the right to go through a court proceeding. MR. AMBROSE said yes. He indicated that currently it is the district attorney's directive that officers who encounter minors under the influence should issue citations rather than make arrests. He said Sen. Taylor felt that the law never intended police officers to write a ticket to an intoxicated minor and then walk away. Number 125 CHAIR BUNDE asked for questions. Hearing none, he asked for further testimony. Number 126 JEFF BUSH, Attorney, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), testified in opposition to SB 221. He stated that he had a letter from the executive director of the AkCLU, RANDALL BURN, who was informed that the meeting was unable to be teleconferenced. He distributed the letter to the committee and asserted that the AkCLU is opposed to the legislation and any legislation that in any way restricts constitutional civil liberties. He said the bill obviously would expand search and seizure laws. Number 174 REP. TOOHEY asked Mr. Bush if it was against the law for a minor to consume alcohol. MR. BUSH said yes. REP. TOOHEY said the bill addresses a minor under the influence of alcohol or consuming alcohol. MR. BUSH explained that the AkCLU does not object to a minor consuming as being a crime or a minor driving under the influence of alcohol. He said the AkCLU's concern is that the proposal requires that an officer have reasonable cause, not probable cause, which is what the constitutional standard generally has been. He said he is opposed to the standard the police officer must meet in order to make an arrest. REP. TOOHEY asked if Mr. Bush condones alcohol consumption by a minor. MR. BUSH said no. REP. TOOHEY asked, if a minor is seen drinking, or has alcohol on his breath, or is staggering, would that be considered probable cause? Number 246 MR. BUSH said, "Well, I'm not going to sit here and play judge. If they see them drinking, it's clearly probable cause. In the past the courts have generally said that if you have an alcohol smell, but that might be enough for probable cause. That is where there is a dispute, at least among the courts. And, I, the AkCLU's position on that would simply be, it's up to the courts to decide where probable cause lies and not to simply say, `We're not going to require probable cause. We're going to require something less.'" REP. TOOHEY asked if a Breathalyzer test would be acceptable to the AkCLU. MR. BUSH said a Breathalyzer would be acceptable once there is legitimate probable cause to conduct the test. He said if a person walks down the street and stumbles, that should not be reason enough for an officer to take the individual to the station for a Breathalyzer. Number 282 REP. TOOHEY said if a person looks drunk and acts drunk, they're drunk. She said if they're not drunk they're having a "diabetic problem" and the officer needs to help them anyway. MR. BUSH asserted if the officer has probable cause to believe the minor has been drinking, there is no question that they could make an arrest. CHAIR BUNDE asserted that it was the court's interpretation that probable cause would mean actually seeing the minor consuming alcohol. MR. BUSH said it was his understanding that consuming is actually the simplest type of probable cause and speculated that if someone was stumbling down the street and smelled of alcohol, the court would say that was probable cause. He felt what the court said is that merely smelling alcohol on the breath or in the vicinity of the individual is not enough to constitute probable cause. He maintained that under SB 221 that would constitute probable cause. Number 324 REP. G. DAVIS maintained that if he saw a minor drinking, it would not be probable cause; it would be proof positive. He also indicated that the smell of alcohol on a person's breath would be reasonable and probable cause. He questioned as to whether or not the term "reasonable" should be used in the proposal and suggested that perhaps it should be probable cause. He said he had no problem either way. (Chair Bunde indicated that Rep. Nicholia arrived at 3:17 p.m.) CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions. REP. VEZEY asked Mr. Bush what would be considered probable cause if a person had consumed alcohol. MR. BUSH said the question should be answered by a judge or those with expertise in this area of the law. He said from what he understood, probable cause was deemed by the Juneau magistrate to mean more than just being able to smell alcohol in the vicinity. He said it disturbs the AkCLU when legislation says that probable cause is no longer necessary. He asserted that because there was one bad court decision, 200 years of constitutional law should not be thrown away because it is felt that probable cause is no longer needed. He said, "If you want to say that probable cause could consist of X, Y, or Z, the AkCLU would have far less concerns with that." Number 443 REP. VEZEY said the question is, "What is an acceptable amount of proof?", not whether there's probable or reasonable cause. MR. BUSH said he could not address that question. CHAIR BUNDE observed that there was no one from the Department of Law to offer the definition of probable and reasonable cause. REP. TOOHEY referred to page 1 of the court decision, that recounts the case of a minor found passed out with his pants down on a toilet located in the Senate building. She said the circumstance did not arise from an "overdose of Hershey bars," and said the case was thrown out because the minor was not caught consuming the alcohol. Number 501 REP. VEZEY asked, as reasonable people, where would the line be drawn; at staggering or at merely reasonable suspicion? He asked if merely smelling alcohol on a person's breath would be reason enough for a warrantless arrest. CHAIR BUNDE asked if Rep. Vezey's question was rhetorical. REP. VEZEY said yes. He said it was his understanding that if a person is incoherent and incapacitated, any police officer would have probable cause to make an arrest. REP. TOOHEY asserted that the legislation is aimed at that very problem. (Chair Bunde stated for the record that Rep. Kott arrived at 3:23 p.m.) Number 544 CHAIR BUNDE asked for further questions. There were none. He summarized the intent of the bill and then asked the pleasure of the committee. REP. TOOHEY made a motion to pass SB 221 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. REP. B. DAVIS asked if she could make a statement. CHAIR BUNDE said yes. REP. B. DAVIS asked if there was a definition in statute for reasonable cause. CHAIR BUNDE said he could not answer that question but said, "there is certainly a definition in the legal cannon, as to reasonable and probable." REP. B. DAVIS suggested that perhaps a definition should be crafted by Legal Services if there is no existing definition. CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Ambrose if the definition of reasonable exists in statute. MR. AMBROSE said he was sure the definition of reasonable is in statute. Number 601 REP. G. DAVIS referred to Statute 12.25.030 (b) and said the term reasonable cause is in statute. CHAIR BUNDE said the term is defined in current statute. REP. B. DAVIS asked what the statute says. CHAIR BUNDE asked the committee aide to find the correct statute. Number 655 REP. OLBERG stated that while the committee waited for the information, perhaps they could discuss Mr. Sivertsen's qualifications to be a magistrate. He said he would like to speculate. CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would have to contact Legal Services. REP. B. DAVIS suggested that her concerns could be addressed in the Judiciary Committee. CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any objections. REP. KOTT said House Judiciary would address that concern. CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objections, declared that SB 221 passed out of committee. He then brought HB 378 to the table. HB 378 - REVISE OLDER ALASKANS COMMISSION Number 711 CHAIR BUNDE asked Commissioner Usera to address the bill. Number 712 NANCY USERA, Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA), testified in support of HB 378. She stated that HB 378 is a companion piece to two other proposals that compose Governor Hickel's "seniors package." She explained that the legislation addresses many of the "housekeeping" issues for the development and efficient operation of the Division of Senior Services, which was created through administrative order. The new division houses both the Older Alaskans Commission and the Pioneer Home Advisory Board. She explained that the proposal would "clean up" several statutes associated with the merging of the commission and the board. COMMISSIONER USERA further stated that the legislation would change the name of the Older Alaskans Commission to the Alaska Commission on Aging, which is consistent with the nomenclature that is common to federal matching funds. She indicated that the committee substitute (CS) was the result of a difference of opinion regarding who should appoint the chairman of the two boards. She indicated that there would be better advocacy for the groups if the governor appointed the chairman. She said many of the senior's organizations supported the chairman being elected from the body. She further indicated, as amended, the legislation was supported by all the senior's organizations in the state. COMMISSIONER USERA said the bill will facilitate the one stop shopping services that the state is trying to foster for seniors. Number 770 CHAIR BUNDE asked if there were any questions. REP. OLBERG asked Commissioner Usera if the legislation had "anything to do with the Division of Senior Services?" COMMISSIONER USERA said yes. The Division of Senior Services houses both commissions, but because of the changes to their respective statutes, having them in a single division required housekeeping measures. She also indicated that the proposal would make the chairman of each board a member of the other board. She felt this would coordinate the two boards. Number 796 REP. B. DAVIS asked if there was further testimony or discussion. CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion. There was none. REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to pass the CS for HB 378 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. REP. VEZEY objected and then asked for a brief at-ease. Number 817 (Chair Bunde took a brief at-ease from 3:34 p.m. to 3:36 p.m.) CHAIR BUNDE indicated that there was an objection and called for the vote. Reps. Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, and Brice voted Yea. There were no Nay votes. Chair Bunde stated that CSHB 378 was so moved. He then brought HB 431 to the table. HB 431 - AFDC FOR CERTAIN TEENAGED PARENTS REP. PETE KOTT, Prime Sponsor of HB 431, stated that there is a higher rate of welfare dependency by teenage, single parents who set up their own residence than among those who remain at home. He said HB 431 would amend state AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) policy to exercise a federal option that would allow for an eligibility criteria based on the place of residence of a minor who is a parent. He said the intent is to encourage minor parents to live in a situation involving continued adult supervision. REP. KOTT asserted that the bill has the potential for reducing the cost of welfare in Alaska by moving minors back with parents who can provide financial support for the minor and the minor's child. He said it is inappropriate for the state to be providing financial support if the parents of the minor can support them. REP. KOTT maintained that there would be savings of $32,600 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and $109,000 in each year thereafter. Number 901 REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was assuming that the parents of the minor are not receiving AFDC. CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Hansen to come forward to answer questions. Number 905 JAN HANSEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), came forward and identified herself. REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Hansen how many checks a family would receive if the minor daughter of parents on AFDC gives birth. MS. HANSEN said that is a difficult question to answer. She said if the grandchild and mother live in the grandmother's home, it would be a single grant. REP. TOOHEY asked if the AFDC payment would cover one adult and two children. MS. HANSEN said yes. REP. TOOHEY asked if the legislation was requiring the minor parent who is living on her own to return home, thereby reducing the payment by approximately $800. Number 946 MS. HANSEN said in that example there would be no financial impact. She said if the minor parent is the only child and moves out, the mother of the minor parent would no longer receive AFDC. The minor parent and the infant child would then receive a grant and the other case would close. She indicated that the payment would then be somewhat less as it would cover only the minor parent and infant child in her new home as opposed to the grandmother, daughter, and grandchild in their home. Number 960 CHAIR BUNDE indicated that if there is more than one minor in the home of the grandparent and a minor parent moves out with the infant child, then not only would the state subsidize the grandmother and remaining children, but AFDC would then be granted to the minor parent who moved out. MS. HANSEN concurred. She said there would then be two AFDC payments. Number 976 CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the fiscal note for DHSS was $69,800. REP. KOTT explained that the figure reflects the cost of an investigator who would evaluate whether or not the minor should be returned home. He asserted that not every case would be automatically referred back to their home. CHAIR BUNDE further indicated that another DHSS fiscal note was for $12,800. REP. KOTT said the fiscal note pertains to eligibility criteria and speculated that it reflects the administrative processing of the cases. MS. HANSEN concurred. She stated that the bill would add a new eligibility requirement and each month an eligibility technician would need to check to ensure the eligibility of the household. Number 007 CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Kott, "Does your final negative fiscal note reflect those two positive fiscal notes?" REP. KOTT replied no. He said, "...the $147,000, that's why I mentioned in the opening remarks, the first year you take the 147.8 in savings (indiscernible)... you should come up with I think $37,000. And then subsequent years it multiplies up to $109,000." Number 020 CHAIR BUNDE referred to welfare situations where there are "phantom" husbands that come and go. He asked Ms. Hansen if she anticipated phantom children coming and going in regards to AFDC to minors living with their parents. MS. HANSEN said no. She indicated that the phantom husband problem was addressed when the DHSS changed policy to include two parent families. She explained that the division carefully monitors the families to assure that the child exists and is in the home. Number 047 CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the minor parent is required to live in the family home and shows up only on the days the investigator showed up. MS. HANSEN thanked Chair Bunde for the clarification. She said that situation is a real concern. CHAIR BUNDE said, "Of course, if they're off on their own, they don't collect AFDC. So, they're really not under our supervision, anyway." MS. HANSEN said it would be a requirement that the minor parents be at home more than 50% of the time. REP. TOOHEY pointed out that the minor would not benefit because the check goes to the guardian parent. Number 064 CHAIR BUNDE explained that the parent may have a vested interest in forcing the teen mother to come home once a month to please the investigator. Then the minor would return to his/her home. REP. TOOHEY asked how the minor would survive on their own without a check or without money. CHAIR BUNDE said they could work. REP. KOTT maintained that whether the minor parent is in or out of house, AFDC payments will still be made. He asserted that the bill targets single, minor parents who are living on their own and receiving AFDC benefits when their parents are financially capable of supporting them. He said he also wanted to ensure that the money is not being used for alcohol and drugs. Number 098 CHAIR BUNDE related a scenario where a family is not on AFDC and they have an emancipated teenager who moves out of the home and becomes pregnant. He asked if the teen would have to move back into the home to receive AFDC benefits. MS. HANSEN stated that in federal law it is an option to require the minor parent to live with her parents, unless certain conditions are met. If it has been determined by a social investigation that the home is not safe and appropriate, the minor would not be required to live there. She explained that the opinion of the Division of Family and Youth Services is that most of the minor children in these cases would not be required to move back to the parent's home because they left dysfunctional situations to begin with. Ms. Hansen stated that public testimony that was presented to a task force regarding the issue indicated that professionals in this field believe that most minor parents whose families are safe environments for them, actually live in those homes. And, those minors who had issues of violence, incest, or a severe falling-out, lived away from home. TAPE 94-62, SIDE B Number MS. HANSEN further indicated that additional investigation and case work would not result in any change in the young parents' circumstances. Number 016 REP. OLBERG asked if what he was hearing was that the epidemic of teen pregnancies is over and there are only a few having babies. MS. HANSEN said no and asserted that the legislation refers only to a small portion of pregnant teens who are under 17 years of age and who are not currently living in the home of their parents. She said a considerable amount of teen parents are currently living in the home of their parents or with a relative. She pointed out that another area that is not covered in the bill is the pregnant 18 to 19 year olds. REP. OLBERG said those teens are not minors, they are adults. Number 051 REP. KOTT asked Ms. Hansen to clarify how a pregnant teen would fall under the purview of the bill. MS. HANSEN explained that if a pregnant teen applies for assistance and is not living with her parents, the division would have a social worker conduct an investigation to determine whether the minor should live with the family. If the investigation found that the home is harmful for the teen, then she could be approved for AFDC and live away from home. She further indicated that if the home is not harmful for her, then in processing her application for AFDC, the division would review her parent's income. Number 093 REP. KOTT asked if the bill covers teenagers who are pregnant. MS. HANSEN said yes. REP. KOTT said, "So, while the tangible benefits are tantamount to a few dollars, $100,000, there's some nontangible benefits in the sense that there are perhaps, I'm being a little bit speculative here, teenagers out there who are pregnant, who get hooked on cocaine or alcohol, and there may be some nontangible benefits down the road. FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) let's say, if we can eliminate that one that saves us a bit." MS. HANSEN stated that a pregnant teen will only be eligible if she is single and in her third trimester or after the baby is born. She said it could be possible that the pregnant teen was receiving Medicaid prior to that time. Number 147 CHAIR BUNDE clarified by saying that perhaps the bill targets rebellious teens who get pregnant and move away from home so they can receive AFDC. He then explained that the teen would not take a pregnancy test and then apply for AFDC. MS. HANSEN said there are no cash grants at that time from AFDC. CHAIR BUNDE asked if money is granted by Medicaid upon proof of pregnancy. MS. HANSEN responded that no cash grants are given, but grants for medical coverage are allowed under pregnant women Medicaid at the time the pregnancy is verified. She said then it would be determined whether the teen meets the asset and income test. Number 200 CHAIR BUNDE noted there is no financial incentive to live outside the home under Medicaid and AFDC is not available until the third trimester. MS. HANSEN concurred. Number 204 REP. B. DAVIS asked if a pregnant teen is eligible for AFDC if she is living with her family and they are above the poverty level, or would the parents have to assume the responsibility for caring for the grandchild. MS. HANSEN indicated that the parent's income is a factor in whether or not the teen receives AFDC. She said if the family is a middle lower class income family, the teen will not qualify for Medicaid or AFDC. She explained that the savings is accounted for by a teen parent moving back with her parents who are above the poverty level. The parents are financially responsible for the medical bills for both the daughter and grandchild. REP. B. DAVIS clarified that the bill addresses those teen parents who live away from a stable home and the parents are above the poverty level. MS. HANSEN asserted that most teens live out of the home because it is unstable. REP. B. DAVIS said she understood that, but indicated that she personally knows that there are pregnant teens who have moved out of the family home specifically for the grant money. She said her concern is for those very teens who are aware of how the system works and abuse their grant money and neglect their children. She further indicated that there are states that have group home situations where they receive grant money, are supervised, and learn how to parent the child. She felt that concept is more beneficial than leaving the teens out on their own or forcing them to return to the family home. She said when the teen lives on her own, many times the state ends up placing the child in a foster home, anyway, and much damage has already been done to the child. Rep. B. Davis then asked how much it would cost to establish some type of group home situation. Number 366 MS. HANSEN said she could not speak specifically to the cost, but indicated that a group home setting is always more expensive. REP. B. DAVIS asked if Ms. Hansen felt there were enough cases across the state to warrant a group home. She felt that with the teen pregnancy rate as high as it is, there must be a great need for something of that nature. She also asked if it is known how many unmarried pregnant teens are on AFDC. MS. HANSEN maintained that there are a greater number of unmarried pregnant teens living with their families than there are living on their own. She said there are approximately 150 unmarried teens living on their own and that the numbers stay consistent. Number 439 REP. TOOHEY asked if the bill requires the division to investigate "specific places to put these teenagers" before AFDC payments are granted. MS. HANSEN said no. She explained that the division would investigate the family home. REP. TOOHEY questioned if foster homes, maternity homes, or other adult supervised living arrangements could be investigated and considered. MS. HANSEN said, "Those don't exist." REP. TOOHEY questioned if the Salvation Army has a maternity home. REP. B. DAVIS indicated that there are facilities, but only until the baby is born. REP. TOOHEY asserted that the Salvation Army has residential facilities for pregnant women. REP. B. DAVIS added that they must leave the facility shortly thereafter. Number 465 MS. HANSEN said the division would investigate what exists, but in general there are few alternatives. CHAIR BUNDE suggested that a teen mother may be kicked out of the home because they're too expensive. He then indicated that an amendment had been submitted. REP. KOTT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. He stated that the amendment removes AS 47.25.310 (c) which prohibits the DHSS from requiring residency in the family home. CHAIR BUNDE questioned the term residency. REP. KOTT said, "Living with parents as perhaps a condition of receiving AFDC." CHAIR BUNDE asked if there was further discussion or any objections. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. He then asked the pleasure of the committee. Number 540 REP. KOTT said the legislation is a start and indicated that there is a large problem with recipients abusing AFDC and neglecting their children. He said, "I might add that there are very few provisions granted to us by the federal government, which they have already given us the authority without the waiver to do something in this area." CHAIR BUNDE asked the pleasure of the committee. REP. KOTT made a motion to pass HB 431 out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. REP. B. DAVIS objected. Number 575 CHAIR BUNDE called for the vote. Reps. G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, Bunde and Toohey voted Yea and Reps. B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice voted Nay. HB 431 passed out of committee. Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.