Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/02/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 1993
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
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Eldon Mulder
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 136: "An Act relating to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath
test; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 67: "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments
of public assistance; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 156: "An Act establishing the educational facilities
maintenance and construction fund; and providing
for an effective date."
NOT HEARD
*HB 157: "An Act making special appropriations to the
educational facilities maintenance and
construction fund and the mental health trust
income account; and providing for an effective
date."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
JUANITA HENSLEY
Chief of Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0020
Phone: (907) 225-4335
Position Statement: Available to answer questions on HB 136
DANA LATOUR
Legislative Liaison
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
Phone: (907) 465-3454
Position Statement: Available to answer questions on HB 136
JAN HANSEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
(907) 465-2680
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 67
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: DRUNK DRIVING & BREATH TEST OFFENSES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
TITLE: "An Act relating to the offenses of driving while
intoxicated and refusal to submit to a breath test; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/93 238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/05/93 238 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of
public assistance; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 86 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 86 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SS,
JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/15/93 86 (H) -6 FNS (6-DHSS) 1/15/93
01/15/93 86 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/10/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/10/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/22/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOLS & PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND
BILL VERSION: SSHB 156
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act establishing the educational facilities
maintenance and construction fund; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 346 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 346 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/15/93 346 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
2/15/93
02/15/93 346 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/22/93 411 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-NEW TITLE
02/22/93 411 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/93 411 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
2/22/93
02/22/93 411 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: PUBLIC SCHOOLS/FACILITIES FUND
BILL VERSION: SSHB 157
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act making special appropriations to the
educational facilities maintenance and construction fund and
the mental health trust income account; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 347 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 347 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/15/93 347 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/22/93 412 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-NEW TITLE
02/22/93 412 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/93 412 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-27, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.,
announced he would chair the meeting, and noted members
present. He announced the calendar and that the meeting
would be teleconferenced to Anchorage, Bethel, Delta
Junction and Mat-Su. He also noted that staffers from the
Division of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Health and
Social Services' (DHSS) Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
were on-line via teleconference. He then brought HB 136 to
the table.
(Rep. Olberg arrived at 3:10 p.m.)
HB 136: DRUNK DRIVING AND BREATH TEST OFFENSES
Number 040
REP. VEZEY said he supported the bill, but the state might
need to explore more creative ways to deal with drunken
drivers. He then moved passage of the House Health,
Education and Social Services (HESS) committee substitute
(CS) for HB 136 from the committee with individual
recommendations.
REP. BRICE objected, saying that he had an amendment to the
bill.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Brice to read his amendment, but
immediately reversed himself, saying that there was a motion
on the floor that the committee needed to deal with first.
REP. B. DAVIS disagreed with Chair Bunde, saying that if the
motion passed, there would be no chance to consider
amendments to the bill before the committee.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee either had to defeat the
motion on the floor to take up the amendments, or Rep. Vezey
could withdraw his motion.
Number 086
REP. VEZEY said he had no desire not to consider other
amendments and withdrew his motion.
REP. NICHOLIA referred to an amendment to HB 136 she had
distributed to committee members. She read the amendment,
the individual elements of which are listed as number one
through eight, which are on file in the committee room.
Number 185
CHAIR BUNDE asked if anyone would move the amendment.
REP. BRICE moved passage of the amendment listed by Rep.
Nicholia.
REP. TOOHEY asked if that was an appropriate time to voice
objections to the amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would let Rep. Nicholia speak to her
amendment, after which he would entertain questions and
probably comments from the bill's sponsor, Rep. Mulder.
Number 197
REP. NICHOLIA spoke to her amendment. She said some alcohol
treatment programs last as long as a year, and as long as a
person was attending such facilities and complying with
their requirements, that should be acceptable. She said the
bill would affect Bush Alaskans and she wanted people to be
able to attend treatment programs in the Bush, which might
be as long as a year. She said some offenders might need
limited driver's licenses not to get to work, but to care
for sick relatives. She expressed concern about her rural
constituents.
Number 239
REP. TOOHEY expressed concern with the problem of people
being arrested for multiple driving while intoxicated (DWI)
violations, and said the state should have to pay for only
one. She said all of the amendment's provisions would
unacceptably raise the cost of HB 67. She added that
someone with sick relatives should spend their money on
their relatives, not on liquor. She said alcohol was no
respecter of geographical differences.
REP. NICHOLIA asked the committee to disregard the question
of a DWI offender needing to drive a mother with cancer to
the hospital, and suggested the committee discuss the
amendment as it concerned compliance with alcohol treatment
programs.
Number 261
REP. VEZEY stated the amendment was contrary to the intent
of the bill, and he did not equate enrollment into or
compliance with an alcohol treatment program with completion
of a program. He therefore opposed the amendment.
Number 271
REP. G. DAVIS expressed opposition to the amendment. He
said courts have discretion to allow for an individual's
personal circumstances in sentencing a DWI offender to
treatment programs of varying lengths and locations. He
also objected to the amendment for requiring various written
proofs of enrollment, compliance with, and completion of an
alcohol treatment program, as such provisions would add to
the bill's administrative burden.
Number 290
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF OF DRIVER SERVICES IN THE DIVISION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, testified from
Anchorage via teleconference, making herself available to
answer questions on HB 136.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether Ms. Hensley could comment on the
impact of Rep. Nicholia's amendment on the fiscal notes for
HB 136.
MS. HENSLEY said she did not believe that the two elements
of the amendment (identified as numbers one and two in the
committee files) would have any fiscal impact on the
Division of Motor Vehicles. In fact, the bill would help
with some of the work burden the division has had since
1991.
Number 311
REP. NICHOLIA corrected an earlier statement by Rep. G.
Davis', saying her amendment required proof of compliance
with, not completion of, an alcohol treatment and education
program. She also noted that HB 136 as written included
requirements for completion of a treatment program "when
appropriate," and asked for a definition of "appropriate."
She also said requiring people to attend such programs would
cause unemployment.
CHAIR BUNDE invited the sponsor of the bill to address Rep.
Nicholia's amendment.
Number 324
REP. ELDON MULDER said he did not feel strongly either way
about the amendment. He agreed with the section of Rep.
Nicholia's amendment equalizing the costs borne by offenders
incarcerated in community residential centers across the
state, as he did not intend for some offenders to pay more
simply because they lived in an area of the state with
higher costs. He said he believed the state should limit
limited driver's licenses to those convicted of one DWI, as
the Division of Motor Vehicles had asked. He said the
division's current requirement that an offender complete an
alcohol treatment program where appropriate would remain
intact under HB 136. He left the decision on the amendment
up to the committee.
Number 348
CHAIR BUNDE said he believed accepting enrollment in an
alcohol treatment program as sufficient for receiving a
limited license could be too large a loophole and enrollment
did not guarantee any benefit.
REP. BRICE asked how long alcohol treatment programs
generally last.
REP. MULDER deferred to Ms. Hensley.
MS. HENSLEY said the length varied, but a first-time
offender is normally referred to an eight-hour alcohol
information school. She said she had spoken with Emily
McKenzie of the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) in
Anchorage who said that patient compliance with the ASAP
program had risen drastically, and fewer people were forced
to return to court for noncompliance, since state law was
changed to require completion of an alcoholism
rehabilitation program.
(Rep. Kott arrived at 3:27 p.m.)
Number 386
REP. BRICE asked whether treatment programs other than the
eight-hour instruction program vary in duration.
MS. HENSLEY answered yes.
REP. BRICE asked if the programs lasted as long as one, two
or five months.
MS. HENSLEY said since January 1, 1991, when the Division of
Motor Vehicles began issuing limited licenses and requiring
proof of completion of programs, no first-time offender who
had completed an alcohol program within 30 to 90 days after
his initial license revocation had been denied a limited
license, to her knowledge.
Number 405
CHAIR BUNDE invited a representative from the Department of
Corrections to testify.
Number 410
DANA LATOUR, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, testified in Juneau, saying she was available
to answer specific questions.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether the department had a position on
the amendment and on the possibility that a person might
have to wait up to a year to receive a limited driver's
license while completing an alcohol treatment program.
MS. LATOUR said, "Chairman Bunde, I have met with about 52
legislators, along with the commissioner, who feels very
strongly about this bill and opportunity to provide alcohol
programming to people while they are incarcerated. And if
licenses are limited following the first conviction, then
he's assuming that if they're with us for 20 days or more
there would be an opportunity at that point to have alcohol
counseling provided through their CRC placement."
Number 422
REP. NICHOLIA asked if the state, by granting limited
licenses only to those who completed alcohol treatment
programs, would be discouraging people from attending 30-day
treatment centers. She also asked whether a 30-day program
was not better than a seven or a ten day program.
MS. LATOUR said she was not an expert on alcohol treatment
and could not answer.
REP. NICHOLIA said maybe Ms. Hensley could answer the
question.
Number 440
MS. HENSLEY said she was not an alcohol counselor and could
not answer the question. She said an existing statute
required completion of an alcohol treatment program before
the issuance of a limited license.
CHAIR BUNDE said the amendment would allow the division to
grant limited licenses upon enrollment in and compliance
with, not completion of, an alcohol education and treatment
program. He said the definition of compliance was the crux
of the issue for him.
Number 447
MS. HENSLEY noted that the law covers only first-time DWI
offenders who agree to take a breath test. She questioned
whether the state would want to grant a limited license to a
person whose breath test showed he exceeded legal blood
alcohol content limits and who was shown to have an alcohol
problem. She said she considers a person's non-driving
related alcohol history in deciding whether to grant a
limited license. The state superior court has declared that
public safety outweighs even the limited driving privileges
of an individual. She asked whether the state wanted people
who were bad off enough to require eight-hour or ten-day
alcohol treatment on the road at all.
Number 464
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether first-time DWI offenders often
need more than an eight-hour class.
MS. HENSLEY said she had no records to rely on in answering
the question, though the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
might. She said that in calendar year 1992, there were
5,700 DWI arrests in Alaska, of which 1,200 were for second
offenses, and the average blood-alcohol content of those
arrested was 0.19 percent, while the state legal limit is
0.10 percent.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that lowering the limit to 0.08
percent would be going against the tide.
REP. TOOHEY asked whether it was fair to assume that any of
the 1,200 repeat DWI offenders had already attended an
alcohol treatment program.
MS. HENSLEY said the treatment program requirement for
limited licenses only began in 1991, but the courts have
required treatment of drivers arrested for DWI through the
ASAP program. She said, therefore, that the second-time
offenders would have to have gone through some type of
alcohol program.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee needed more information
from alcohol counselors.
Number 492
REP. VEZEY said he did not feel a need for additional
testimony and called the question.
REP. B. DAVIS said the amendments needed more attention
before a vote than they had received. She said that it
would be appropriate to have a representative from the
Division of Alcohol (Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
in the DHSS) available to answer some of the committee's
questions. Rep. B. Davis also said that the sponsor's
willingness to let the committee deal with the amendments
might make it desirable to refer the bill to a subcommittee
which could work with the sponsor and the Division of
Alcohol. She said the committee must consider the bill's
effect on rural as well as urban Alaskans.
Number 508
REP. G. DAVIS said he saw some validity to the amendment.
He agreed with part of the amendment that would have the
Commissioner of Corrections set the costs of imprisonment in
a CRC, but hoped it could be possible to allow such prices
to be changed outside the normal regulation-setting process.
Rep. G. Davis also suggested the committee have the
amendments reviewed by experts on alcohol and the law.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Rep. Vezey had called the question,
and asked for a roll call vote on the amendment presented by
Rep. Nicholia. Those voting yea were Reps. Toohey, Bunde,
G. Davis, B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice. Those voting nay
were Reps. Vezey, Kott and Olberg. The amendment PASSED
6-3.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the amendment had been adopted
and that the committee was thenceforth discussing CSHB 136
(HES) as amended.
Number 540
REP. G. DAVIS MOVED passage of CSHB 136(HES) from the
committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIR BUNDE called for objections.
REP. TOOHEY asked if there could be discussion.
CHAIR BUNDE answered yes.
Number 545
REP. TOOHEY objected, saying she wanted to have an expert on
alcohol treatment come before the committee. She expressed
opposition to allowing people on the road who might kill
others. She said she would like to have a subcommittee and
discuss the amendments with the author of HB 136.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the motion to move the bill out of
committee with individual recommendations remained on the
floor.
Number 555
REP. G. DAVIS recommended moving the bill because its next
committee of referral was the Judiciary Committee. He said
there had been discussion in the last month about how to
make changes to bills. He said he had no problem in
establishing a subcommittee to study the bill, though it
would be the committee's first of the session. He said the
amendment, the sponsor's reactions to it, and the HESS
Committee's concerns could be dealt with in the Judiciary
Committee.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee could attach a letter of
intent to the bill. He repeated that a motion had been made
to move the bill from committee with individual
recommendations. He said that the objections had been
noted, and asked for further discussion. Hearing none, he
asked for a roll call vote on whether to pass CSHB 136(HES)
from the committee. Those voting yea were Reps. Toohey,
Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott, Olberg, Davis, Nicholia and
Brice. There were no nays. Therefore, CSHB 136(HES) was
MOVED FROM THE COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
Number 577
CHAIR BUNDE asked the committee whether it wanted to attach
a letter to the bill recommending further discussion.
REP. VEZEY said he believed such an action was the chair's
prerogative.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would presume to do so.
REP. KOTT stated that, as a member of the Judiciary
Committee, he strongly encouraged Chair Bunde to do so.
REP. B. DAVIS told Chair Bunde that the committee could not
pass along the bill before bringing a letter of intent back
before the committee for its approval.
Number 580
REP. OLBERG said he believed any member of the committee
members could send a memo to the chairman of the committee
of next referral expressing points of interest.
CHAIR BUNDE said his notice would not be a formal letter of
intent, but rather a notification of individual concerns.
REP. TOOHEY commented if there were any question, the
committee could pass along relevant verbatim testimony to
the next committee.
CHAIR BUNDE brought HB 67 to the table and asked for a two
minute limit on each individual's testimony.
TAPE 93-27, SIDE B
Number 000
HB 67: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
CHAIR BUNDE noted that JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, was available to answer questions. He said
there was an amendment to the bill.
REP. VEZEY stated that, as the committee had not yet adopted
the committee substitute for HB 67, he moved the committee
adopt the committee substitute.
CHAIR BUNDE noted objection to the motion, but did not name
the member objecting. He asked Rep. Vezey to speak to his
motion.
Number 089
REP. VEZEY said the committee substitute was simple,
deleting existing language in AS 47.25.320 paragraph B,
which requires the department (of Health and Social
Services) to apply the cost of living adjustment (COLA)
annually to the Adult Public Assistance (APA) program.
REP. BRICE said he had not been given an amendment, but a
House bill. He asked whether the specific lines and pages
affected by the amendment had been broken out.
CHAIR BUNDE said that it was his error. He remarked that
the committee had a committee substitute.
REP. BRICE said he had the CS, but had no way of
(unintelligible).
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee needed first to adopt the CS,
then could amend it. He repeated the motion to adopt the CS
for HB 67.
Number 106
REP. B. DAVIS said she had just received the CS which was
the subject of the vote. She asked the chair if he was
asking for a vote on the CS for discussion purposes only, or
for a vote to adopt a CS that had only been provided to the
committee a few minutes earlier. She said she had lots of
amendments prepared for the old bill and that the new CS did
not address some things she wanted. If the committee was
going to have a new CS, she said, it seemed to her like it
should be discussed with the committee to see what all
members would want drafted. She said the CS was identified
as coming from the HESS Committee, and asked if Chair Bunde
had requested it.
CHAIR BUNDE answered no, it was a CS proposed by Rep. Vezey
for the committee's discussion.
REP. B. DAVIS said she did not believe it was done properly.
If Rep. Vezey had wanted to bring a draft in for discussion,
it should have been brought in by him and not the committee.
She said that a designation of a HESS CS indicated that
Chair Bunde had it drafted.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that when the bill then before the
committee left the committee, it would be a bill drafted by
the committee.
REP. B. DAVIS repeated that the bill before the committee
said HESS, not Rep. Vezey.
CHAIR BUNDE said that, for the sake of expediting the
discussion, Rep. B. Davis should consider the bill before
the committee a HESS CS. He said, "Before us is the
question of adopting this CS for discussion and action."
REP. B. DAVIS remarked, "Did you say for discussion?"
CHAIR BUNDE replied, "And action."
Number 080
REP. KOTT asked for a brief explanation of the subsequent
changes. He said the accompanying letter said to delete
Section 2, add Section ...
CHAIR BUNDE interrupted, saying that was an amendment to the
CS and that he should ignore it at the time, as the
committee was discussing only the CS for HB 67. He asked
Rep. Vezey if he could answer the questions.
Number 089
REP. VEZEY said the CS was the same as the original bill,
except that it deleted Section 2 of the original bill and
renumbered the sections. Section 6 of the CS repealed AS
47.25.320 (D). It also repealed AS 47.25.320 (E), which was
also repealed in the original HB 67. He said that,
therefore, the only difference was that the CS eliminated
the COLA provision for the assistance program.
Number 106
REP. B. DAVIS stated that the new CS repealed the COLA,
whereas the original HB 67 just suspended the COLA. She
wanted Rep. Vezey to explain what Section D of the CS would
do, because she did not know what it was.
REP. VEZEY said Rep. B. Davis was correct, the CS for HB 67
deleted Section 2 of HB 67 by adding in Section 6 of the CS
the statement that AS 47.25.320 (D) was repealed. He agreed
that the new CS repeals the existing COLA provision and the
proposed language that was in Section 2 of the original
HB 67.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for further discussion.
REP. B. DAVIS asked questions about what was being deleted
in the CS.
REP. VEZEY responded, "Paragraph E was repealed in the
original bill. I do not remember the wording in paragraph
E."
REP. B. DAVIS asked, "What is D?"
REP. VEZEY stated, "..Paragraph D in existing statutes is
the existing COLA provision. The committee substitute
proposes that that be deleted, and it also does not include
the proposed revisions to paragraph D that were in the
original HB 67. So the committee substitute repeals any
provision for a COLA in the assistance program."
REP. B. DAVIS asked Chair Bunde to have someone from the
Department of Health and Social Services speak to the
changes.
CHAIR BUNDE agreed. He called a two-minute at-ease so he
could look up the specific section and share it with the
committee. He called the meeting back to order and invited
Jan Hansen to testify.
Number 160
JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, said she could
speak to Section D, but could not remember Section E.
CHAIR BUNDE asked her to speak to Section D, and said he
would look up Section E.
MS. HANSEN stated, "Mr. Chairman, in Section 6 of the
committee substitute bill, AS 47.25.320 D is the section
that was in the original bill as Section 2. In that section
of the statute there is the allowance for the cost of living
allowance, and for the suspension of the cost of living
allowance during FY94."
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Section D, then, suspends COLA for one
year?"
MS. HANSEN replied, "Mr. Chairman, that's correct. Section
D, as proposed in the original bill, prior to that, Section
D provides for the cost of living increase."
Number 180
CHAIR BUNDE said Section E would be before the committee in
a moment and called a brief at-ease.
REP. B. DAVIS said she would like to continue to question
Ms. Hansen.
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting back to order and said the
questioning would continue.
REP. B. DAVIS asked Ms. Hansen the fiscal impact of
repealing COLA instead of suspending it for a year, as
called for in the original HB 67. She also asked whether
the department's intention had not originally been to
suspend COLA for one year.
MS. HANSEN said there would be no fiscal impact of
suspending COLA in FY94, as that was the intent of the
original bill, but the impact would be felt in later years.
She offered to comment on the issues at hand.
CHAIR BUNDE invited her to proceed.
Number 200
MS. HANSEN said the Department of Health and Social Services
had proposed suspending COLA for a year because of the need
to contain costs of ever-growing welfare programs so as to
have enough money to provide to those in need as much as the
state could afford to pay. The department also had an
obligation to look after the poor and unable to care for
themselves, she said. Five years later, as the cost of
living increased, recipients would be receiving benefits
that were significantly lower than the poverty level, lower
even than the current benefits, which, after allowing for
the cuts contained in the bill and the suspension of COLA,
would be 70 percent of the federal poverty level. She said
the CS version of HB 67 would eliminate the state mechanism
by which the state maintains benefits at a certain
percentage of the poverty level.
MS. HANSEN proposed alternatives that had been under
discussion, including suspending the COLA for two or three
years, or requiring COLA in years in which benefits would
fall below a certain percentage of the federal poverty
level. She said she did not want to slow down progress of
the bill, but it was important to express her concerns that
the AFDC benefits met recipients' basic needs for the brief
time most people received benefits. She said if the benefit
level fell to an unlivable level, families in crisis would
be unable to do what they needed to find jobs and move off
welfare.
Number 252
CHAIR BUNDE said future legislatures could increase AFDC
payments if they wanted to, to address any situation in
which benefit payments fell dangerously below the federal
welfare level.
MS. HANSEN agreed.
Number 261
REP. OLBERG asked whether other states had COLA for welfare
programs.
MS. HANSEN said Alaska was alone in providing such a COLA
benefit.
REP. OLBERG asked how other states handled changes in
benefit amounts.
MS. HANSEN said that in most states, the state legislatures
raise and lower rates through the regular legislative
process.
REP. OLBERG asked Ms. Hansen to explain elements of the bill
which appeared to reflect increases in the welfare benefit
levels.
MS. HANSEN answered that the bill reads strangely because it
amends the benefit levels set out in an original statute
passed in 1982. While repeated COLAs since 1982 have
significantly raised the amount of welfare payments actually
made, the payment standards in statute remain the same.
REP. OLBERG asked whether he understood her to mean that the
bill would bring the law up to date, based on the amounts
that have grown due to COLA.
MS. HANSEN said that was correct. While it looked like an
increase, it actually represented a rollback, she said.
REP. OLBERG commented that HB 67 would leave welfare rate
increases to the legislature.
MS. HANSEN agreed that the bill removes the automatic COLA
increases. She also noted that the committee substitute
would repeal COLA for Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), but not for COLA for APA.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked her for pointing that out.
REP. G. DAVIS said he felt cold enough about HB 67, and that
the CS would create too many roadblocks to the bill. He
said COLAs are provided for many state government programs,
and if it was necessary in any area, it would be for welfare
recipients.
(Rep. Olberg departed at 4:13 p.m.)
Number 330
REP. TOOHEY asked whether state employees would continue to
receive COLAs for their wages under the bill.
(Rep. Olberg returned at 4:15 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE said state workers received COLA as a negotiated
benefit in their employment contracts. He passed out
sections of state statutes concerning welfare payments.
REP. BRICE asked how the AFDC program was funded.
Number 353
MS. HANSEN answered that the state and federal governments
split the cost of the AFDC program evenly, and the COLA
benefit provided by the state increased the federal matching
grant.
REP. BRICE asked if that meant the state was declining
federal money by cutting COLAs.
MS. HANSEN answered that the bill would lower the amount of
federal participation per individual, but the state would
actually receive $124 million in matching funds for AFDC
from the federal government in FY94, compared to $120 in
FY93.
Number 370
REP. BRICE said repealing COLA for AFDC might prevent the
state from receiving federal funds in future years.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether Rep. Vezey would comment on the
information that his amendments would cut COLA for AFDC, but
not for APA.
REP. VEZEY said he intended to propose amending CSHB 67 to
repeal COLA for APA as well, if the amendment removing COLA
for AFDC passed.
Number 382
REP. BRICE asked Rep. Vezey whether he knew that APA
provided service to the blind, disabled and aged, who were
generally unable to work.
REP. VEZEY said yes.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated Rep. Vezey's motion to adopt the CS
version of HB 67, and hearing no further discussion, asked
for a roll call on the motion. Those voting yea were Reps.
Vezey, Kott, Olberg, Toohey, and Bunde. Those voting nay
were Reps G. Davis, B. Davis, Nicholia, and Brice. The
motion PASSED 5-4.
REP. VEZEY moved an amendment to CSHB 67, to page 2, line
25, which would insert a period after the word "recipients"
and delete language through to page 3, line 1, ending with
the phrase "USC 13.81 through 13.85." He said the intent of
the amendment was to repeal the COLA provisions for the
Adult Public Assistance program.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for objection to the amendment, and
hearing objections from at least two members, asked Rep.
Vezey to speak to his amendment.
Number 400
REP. VEZEY said he believed legislatures had the prerogative
to appropriate funds, and no future legislature could be
bound by past legislatures, and if the funding for APA were
to be increased it should be by legislative action.
REP. BRICE asked Ms. Hansen how the cuts in COLA for APA and
AFDC and the other cuts in welfare programs in CSHB 67 would
cost the state in federal funds over the next five years.
Number 410
MS. HANSEN said she could not make such projections because
she could not determine what elements of federal funding
might be directly attributable to not granting COLA. She
could only refer to FY94 figures, which showed a greater
total outlay of federal funds. She expressed the hope that
there would be smaller caseloads in the future, but, with
the increasing levels of need, the amount of federal money
coming to the state for the programs would be the same as or
greater than they were at that time. She agreed, though,
that the federal money would not include federal matches for
COLA, and she did not know how much the potential loss would
be.
REP. BRICE said that while the way to cut caseloads was to
get people to work, programs supporting that aim, such as
day care or child care assistance, were being cut. He said
that was a contradictory situation.
Number 438
REP. B. DAVIS stated that the legislature had the authority
to suspend COLA already, but there was no guarantee that any
future legislature would increase the rates. She said the
committee's earlier action would further impoverish women
and children on welfare, and the committee was about to do
the same to impoverished elderly and handicapped people.
She encouraged the committee not to continue in the
direction it had set out, and to vote down the amendment.
She said the votes showed not that the legislators were
fiscal conservatives, but that they were willing to balance
the budget on the backs of women and children and those who
could not speak for or help themselves.
Number 452
REP. B. DAVIS said, "I am totally against this, and I want
to go on the record saying that I know that we all ran on
the proposal to come down and do something about the budget,
and there's lots of things that need to be done about the
budget. And I'm even willing to try to compromise to the
point that I might even would have said, `Well, maybe we
would suspend some of the COLA, or maybe we'd do some other
things.' But to do all of these things is just, will be so
harmful to people that can't help themselves, that I can't
go along with the amendment that's on the floor."
REP. TOOHEY asked Rep. B. Davis how the legislature could
suspend COLAS. She also asked if there were other federal
programs or funds available to those blind or impaired APA
recipients who would see COLA cut from their benefits so
that they could continue to eat. She directed the question
to Ms. Hansen and to Rep. B. Davis.
Number 466
MS. HANSEN answered that federal funds for AFDC go to the
state, which distributes them to recipients. Recipients of
APA receive supplemental security income from the federal
government first, a benefit which has a cost of living
allowance included. Recipients also receive a state
supplement. Therefore, elderly people receive federal
payment which still has a cost of living allowance included.
REP. TOOHEY asked a clarifying question, that if the state
cut COLA for APA, then recipients would remain at the same
level of benefits, receiving federal funds and state funds
in addition.
Number 478
MS. HANSEN said that cutting COLA would not reduce the
current level of benefits. She said APA recipients would
receive a slight increase, because if their federal benefits
increased through federal COLA, the state could not cut back
its contribution.
REP. B. DAVIS answered Rep. Toohey's earlier question about
how the legislature could suspend COLA. She said it could
be done by passing a bill. She said that cutting COLA would
mean less money for welfare recipients to spend on food,
clothing and shelter, regardless of any compensatory
increase in federal benefits.
Number 500
CHAIR BUNDE called the question, whether to delete the COLA
provisions for Adult Public Assistance, as Rep. Vezey moved
in his amendment. He called for a roll call vote. Those
voting yea were Reps. Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Kott and Olberg.
Those voting nay were Reps. G. Davis, B. Davis, Nicholia and
Brice. The motion PASSED 5-4.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee was then considering CSHB 67
as amended.
Number 505
REP. B. DAVIS introduced an amendment to set the AFDC
benefits at the 1992 level instead of at the 1991 level as
contained in CSHB 67.
REP. G. DAVIS asked her to detail the changes in the bill
caused by her amendment.
REP. B. DAVIS detailed the changes her amendment would make
in the benefit levels.
CHAIR BUNDE asked where a particular change would go.
REP. VEZEY answered his question. He asked for help in
following the amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE read through the changes.
REP. B. DAVIS said she wanted to replace the amount of $98
with $102, and the amount of $792 with $821, and the amount
of $497 with $514. She made other comments to help other
committee members understand her amendments.
TAPE 93-28, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. TOOHEY asked what effect the amendment might have.
MS. HANSEN stated, "Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have it also. If
any committee members have previous handouts we have it in a
chart, I'm going to try to look at this chart and see the
... As proposed in the bill now, the total reduction would
have been $10.7. This would create a reduction of $6.022
million. I would have to do a subtraction to - it's the
difference between those two figures which is the additional
cost."
CHAIR BUNDE commented, "Ballpark $4 million."
MS. HANSEN responded, "Ballpark is about $4 million, $4.7."
Number 020
CHAIR BUNDE said he believed it would be necessary to see a
fiscal note on the amendment before passing it out of
committee. He called for further discussion on the
amendment, and hearing none, asked for a roll call.
Number 025
REP. BRICE asked for a brief at-ease.
CHAIR BUNDE obliged, calling an at-ease at 4:33 p.m. He
called the meeting back to order at 4:38 p.m. and noted the
amendment remained on the floor.
Number 045
REP. B. DAVIS spoke to her amendment. She said she came to
the meeting prepared with a series of amendments in hopes of
compromising with the committee, agreeing to suspend the
COLAs but eliminate the planned ratable reductions in
benefit levels. But after seeing present and future COLAs
stripped from the programs, and given the bill's provisions
to roll back benefit rates to the 1991 levels, she said it
would be fair not to have to realize all of the bill's
savings in one year.
REP. B. DAVIS said, "And rather than base the COLAs on the
91, I think they should be based on 92, to give a little bit
more of a buffer to the people who have to live on welfare.
We say we do this to welfare recipients, but we do it to
children, because most of the people that's being served in
public assistance are children. This is one way to show
that we feel that we have to have some cuts across the
board, and yet not take everything away."
Number 077
REP. TOOHEY asked Rep. B. Davis how close her numbers come
to the 1992 benefit figures.
REP. B. DAVIS answered that her numbers were the same as the
1992 figures.
Number 082
REP. NICHOLIA spoke in support of Rep. B. Davis' amendments,
saying that the bill would hurt her constituents, who live
in rural areas where living costs are high. "What you have
done today is very, is detrimental to children. Once again,
two-thirds of the people that are going to be impacted by
what we do with this bill are children. And please remember
that. Because you're not doing it to me, you're not doing
it to anybody here. You're doing it to the children and
those people that really depend on this money that's coming
into their home."
Number 101
REP. TOOHEY repeated that rolling back welfare benefits to
the 1992 levels instead of the 1991 levels would still save
$4 million.
MS. HANSEN said that the difference between rolling back
benefits to 1991 levels and 1992 levels was about $4.7
million.
REP. TOOHEY asked again whether the state, by sticking to
1992 level benefits, would still save $4 million in FY94.
MS. HANSEN said the FY94 budget was built assuming that
welfare payments would be rolled back to the 1991 levels, as
proposed in HB 67. If HB 67 were amended to include a
lesser rollback, that would mean the current budget as
presented would not be enough to completely fund the AFDC
program.
Number 128
CHAIR BUNDE said he would not want the bill passed out
without a fiscal note if the amendment passed. He announced
that the committee would not be able to get to HB 156 and
HB 157, and apologized to those in the audience who had been
waiting. He said the committee would notify them as soon as
those bills were rescheduled, at the top of some future
committee meeting calendar.
REP. TOOHEY said she was still confused by Ms. Hansen's
explanation of how cutting COLA would bring more federal
money.
REP. OLBERG said the department budget reflected a ratable
reduction to 1991 levels.
MS. HANSEN said the reductions were to the 1991 levels for
AFDC, and to 1990 levels for APA.
REP. OLBERG said the fiscal notes showing savings of $6
million reflect those reductions.
Number 155
REP. BRICE said asked if it was not presumptuous for the
governor's budget to assume the legislature would make
budget cuts even before the legislature had met to consider
those cuts.
MS. HANSEN said it was still possible to change the budget
if necessary.
REP. BRICE said it seemed like the department was putting
the cart before the horse by not passing the bills cutting
budgets before writing the budgets.
Number 173
CHAIR BUNDE noted that Rep. B. Davis' amendment, then on the
floor, called for reductions in welfare benefits to 1992
levels, instead of 1991 levels, as called for in CSHB 67.
REP. NICHOLIA said the role of the House Health, Education
and Social Services Committee was to weigh the impact of
legislation on people, not the budget.
Number 180
CHAIR BUNDE called for a roll call vote on Rep. B. Davis'
amendment. Those voting yes were Reps. Nicholia, B. Davis
and Brice. Those voting nay were Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G.
Davis, Vezey, Kott and Olberg. The amendment FAILED 3-6.
Number 196
REP. BRICE introduced an amendment to delay the effective
date of the bill until 90 days after the Department of
Health and Social Services mailed notification of the
changes to welfare recipients.
REP. G. DAVIS said welfare recipients should be notified of
any impending changes in their benefits as soon as possible.
Number 229
REP. OLBERG asked whether the amendment would make the
bill's effective date 90 days after the mailing of notices
to recipients.
REP. BRICE said, "Section 11 references Section 9, which
references 30 days after June 1993."
REP. OLBERG read Section 11 of Rep. Brice's amendment.
REP. BRICE read Section 9 of his amendment.
Number 246
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Brice what he intended by the
requirement in section 11 of his amendment regarding the
revisor of statutes.
REP. BRICE said that was a good question, and it would
probably be necessary to pose it to the revisor of statutes.
Number 255
REP. OLBERG said it would probably affect the effective date
of the bill. The revisor would plug in the effective date
after the department mailed to welfare recipients the
required notices of changes in benefits, he said.
CHAIR BUNDE said the issue had been highly publicized to
date.
REP. G. DAVIS asked Ms. Hansen whether the department had
considered how to notify welfare recipients of changes in
their benefits.
MS. HANSEN answered that the department planned to notify
clients 30 days before the reductions took effect, but no
notice had been made to date, as the changes were only
proposed and had not been passed by the legislature.
Number 287
REP. BRICE said it could be late May or early June by the
time a bill were passed and signed into law by the governor,
leaving inadequate time for notice. He said it would be
humane to provide adequate notice of benefit changes.
Number 300
CHAIR BUNDE said the department would be remiss to wait
until such changes were passed by both houses of the
legislature before beginning steps to notify recipients.
REP. G. DAVIS said he understood the amendment would delay
the effective date of the bill by 90 days, which would mean
the loss of three months' worth of the cost savings intended
in the bill.
REP. BRICE said the department could respond to that with
some kind of estimate.
Number 318
REP. TOOHEY asked Ms. Hansen for a ball-park estimate of how
much a three-month delay would affect the proposed savings.
MS. HANSEN explained if CSHB 67 were delayed by three
months, that would mean a 25 percent cut in the bill's cost
savings, or about $2.5 million.
Number 325
CHAIR BUNDE asked the will of the committee on Rep. Brice's
amendment. Hearing a call for the question, he asked for a
roll call vote. Those voting nay were Reps. Toohey, Bunde,
G. Davis, Vezey, Kott and Olberg. Those voting yea were
Reps. B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice. The amendment FAILED
3-6.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that CSHB 67 was before the committee,
and asked the will of the committee. He heard a call for
the question.
REP. BRICE objected, saying that he had a proposed
amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would pass the bill out of
committee that day.
Number 333
REP. BRICE said he understood, but wished to propose an
amendment to delay the effective date of the bill from July
1, 1993, to January 1, 1994. He moved passage of the
amendment. He said he intended to extend the COLA benefits
to welfare recipients until the time when adjustments to the
rate due to COLA would have otherwise taken effect.
CHAIR BUNDE said that, as three months' delay in the bill's
effective date had earlier been shown to represent $2.5
million, then Rep. Brice's amendment represented $5 million.
REP. OLBERG asked whether COLA was based on a calendar year.
MS. HANSEN answered that it was.
Number 353
REP. BRICE said the intent of the amendment was to establish
the starting date of the bill's effects at the start of the
calendar year as well.
CHAIR BUNDE repeated Rep. Brice's amendment to delay the
effective date of CSHB 67 from July 1, 1993, to January 1,
1994. He called for a roll call vote. Those voting nay
were Reps. Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, Kott and Olberg.
Those voting yea were Reps. B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice. The
amendment FAILED 3-6.
REP. G. DAVIS moved passage of CSHB 67 out of the committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIR BUNDE noted objections to the motion and called for a
roll call vote. Those voting yea were Reps. Toohey, Bunde,
G. Davis, Vezey, Kott and Olberg. Those voting nay were
Reps. B. Davis, Nicholia and Brice. The amendment PASSED
6-3.
CHAIR BUNDE declared CSHB 67(HES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. He apologized again to
those in the audience who had waited to testify on HB 156
and HB 157 and said the bills would be taken up at the
committee's earliest convenience. He then ADJOURNED the
meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|