Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/15/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Cliff Davidson
Representative Jim Nordlund
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 113 "An Act regulating the solicitation of
contributions by charitable organizations and paid
solicitors and the solicitation of sales by
telephonic means; and amending Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure 79 and 82."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 67 "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments
of public assistance; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RON LARSON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3878
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 113
JIM FORBES, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 269-5100
Position Statement: Discussed HB 113
JAN HANSEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P. O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3347
Position Statement: Described provisions of HB 67; Supported
HB 67 as introduced
ELLEN NORTHUP, Director
The Glory Hole
P. O. Box 21997
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 586-4159
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
DONNA BAXTER
213 Dunkel Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-2857
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
HOSANNA LAHAIR-LEE
1902 Logan
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: not available
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
ANNIE WHITNEY
1281 Beluga Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-5558
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
ELAINE LOOMIS-OLSEN
P.O. Box 3581
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-6860
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
CHERYL PHILLIPS
P.O. Box 933
Haines, Alaska 99827
Phone: 766-2626
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
CINDY SMITH
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-3650
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
SANDRA BAXTER
213 Dunkel Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-2857
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
VIANN EWE
670 West Fireweed, Suite 105
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-5410
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
DIXIE ARMSTRONG
P.O. Box 1487
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-2423
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
CHERYL TROJOVSKY
3537 Spruce Cape
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-6072
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
TOM SCHELL, Director
Parent And Family Center
Catholic Community Services
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 463-3933
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
MARY KAY BROWN
Arctic Alliance for People
619 Hillcrest Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 457-1934
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
KATHERINE BASTEN
104 Heintzleman Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone: 272-5410
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
South Peninsula Women's Services
P.O. Box 2328
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-7712
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
DOTTIE REIKIE
P.O. Box 3330
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-4810
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
CAREN ROBINSON
League of Women Voters
P. O. Box 33702
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 586-1107
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
JUDY BUSH, Attorney
Alaska Legal Services Corporation
763 Seventh Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-5181
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
PUDGE KLEINKAUF
4201 McInnes
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: 561-7113
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
MARILYN SCHODER
P.O. Box 2043
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-6223
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
MEAALOFA TOFAEONO
P. O. Box 2127
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-1790
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
SHERRIE GOLL
Alaska Women's Lobby
KIDPAC
P. O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-6744
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
MARY LOU CANNEY
1441 22nd Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-4666
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
ROBERT JAMES
247 South Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-1346
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
JOHN THOMAS
1021 West 16th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 272-3005
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
ROBIN WICKHAM
3550 Airport Way Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-9123
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
SHEILA WOODS, Family Services Technician
Tanana Chiefs Conference
1302 21st Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 456-1702
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
ANGELA SALERNO
National Association of Social Workers
1727 Wickersham Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Phone: 561-7970
Position Statement: Opposed HB 67
GAYLE HORETSKI, Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Explained CSHB 67 (JUD)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 113
SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 113(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LARSON
TITLE: "An Act regulating the solicitation of contributions
by charitable organizations and paid solicitors and the
solicitation of sales by telephonic means; and amending
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/93 199 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/01/93 199 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/10/93 290 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED, FOLLOWING
L&C
03/04/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/05/93 542 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
03/05/93 542 (H) DP: PORTER,SITTON,MULDER,GREEN,
HUDSON
03/05/93 542 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
3/5/93
03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 67
SHORT TITLE: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
BILL VERSION: SCS CSHB 67(FIN)(EFD FLD)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of
public assistance."
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
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/05/93 541 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 3DP 3DNP 3NR
03/05/93 542 (H) DP: VEZEY, BUNDE, OLBERG
03/05/93 542 (H) DNP: B.DAVIS, BRICE, NICHOLIA
03/05/93 542 (H) NR: KOTT, G.DAVIS, TOOHEY
03/05/93 542 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (HES) 3/5/93
03/05/93 542 (H) -4 PREVIOUS FNS(DHSS) 1/15/93
03/15/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-33, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:13 p.m., on March 15, 1993. A quorum was
present. Chairman Porter announced that HB 113, Charitable
and Telephonic Soliciting/Sales, would be addressed by the
committee first. The Chairman noted that the meeting was
being teleconferenced.
HB 113: CHARITABLE & TELEPHONIC SOLICITING/SALES
Number 044
REPRESENTATIVE RON LARSON, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 113, said
that charities throughout the nation had problems with "look
alike" organizations, unconnected with the charity, which
solicited "charitable" donations. He said that a bill
similar to HB 113 had been introduced late last session.
Representative Larson noted that Assistant Attorney General
Jim Forbes had worked extensively to develop HB 113.
Number 114
JIM FORBES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He worked for the Fair
Business Practices Section of the Department of Law (DOL).
He said that probably every legislator had encountered
situations in which their constituents had been "taken" by a
high-pressure telephone sales person. He noted that the
telephone sales industry was currently virtually unregulated
in Alaska.
MR. FORBES said that the problem of charitable solicitation
fraud was fairly widespread, and resulted in diminished
contributions to legitimate charities. He commented that
HB 113 would help the DOL catch violators, and would serve
as a deterrent to violators. He said that HB 113 would also
improve the state's ability to prosecute high-pressure
telemarketers.
MR. FORBES noted that HB 113 contained a number of
exemptions, which he was confident covered legitimate
telemarketing operations.
Number 214
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER mentioned that a number of proposed
amendments to HB 113 had been brought to the committee's
attention. He wanted to have the amendments incorporated
into a Judiciary Committee substitute for the bill. He said
that HB 113 would be rescheduled for a hearing as soon as
possible.
Number 229
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated that when HB 113 was
heard again, she would like further explanation of one
amendment regarding telephone sales of securities.
Number 241
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS liked the portion of the bill
which mandated a "cooling off" period for written contracts.
She asked why funeral home directors and embalmers were
exempted from the provisions of HB 113.
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked if the language on page 6,
lines 7-9 of HB 113 only pertained to charitable
organizations that wished to solicit contributions over the
telephone.
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the language to which
Representative Nordlund had referred pertained to charitable
organizations that wished to solicit contributions by any
means.
Number 276
MR. FORBES said that the language pertained to any
organization which solicited contributions from the public.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if a charitable organization
which raised funds through auctions and raffles would have
to register with the DOL, under HB 113's provisions.
Number 288
MR. FORBES responded that organizations engaging in that
sort of fund raising would be required to register with the
DOL.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked what the registration process
would entail. He noted that charitable organizations
generally already registered with the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development (DCED).
Number 295
MR. FORBES commented that HB 113, as currently drafted,
would require charitable organizations to register with the
DOL, in addition to the current requirement of registering
with the DCED. He was looking at ways to reduce paperwork
requirements, through the regulatory process. He said it
was possible that registration with the DCED might be deemed
sufficient, by regulation, to meet HB 113's requirements.
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that streamlined registration
procedures would assist small charitable organizations
already overburdened with paperwork.
Number 324
MR. FORBES agreed.
HB 67: ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Number 329
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 113 would be held, and
that the committee would turn its attention to HB 67,
Eligibility for Public Assistance. He commented that people
in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Homer, and Juneau wished to testify
on the bill. He asked those wishing to testify, with the
exception of the representative from the Division of Public
Assistance, to limit their comments to two minutes, if they
were addressing the policy contained in HB 67.
Number 359
JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DPA),
described the provisions of HB 67. She called the members'
attention to a green-covered document entitled "FY 94 Budget
Overview," which she had distributed. (A copy of the FY 94
Budget Overview may be found in the House Judiciary
Committee Room, Capitol Room 120, and after the adjournment
of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature,
in the Legislative Reference Library.) She noted that the
document contained a number of graphs and charts relevant to
discussion of HB 67.
MS. HANSEN said that the DPA was attempting to restructure
welfare in the state, in an effort to contain the growing
caseload. She mentioned that both nationally and in Alaska,
there had been unprecedented growth in the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.
MS. HANSEN said further that the DPA, in an effort to
contain the cost of the program, put resources into the
front-line eligibility staff, so that payments were only
being made to those applicants who qualified. She said that
her agency was working with the federal government to change
federal welfare law. She said that her agency was directing
resources toward a "Welfare to Work" program, in which
welfare recipients could get training which would put them
to work and get them off of welfare.
MS. HANSEN wanted the committee to look at HB 67 in the
context of what the DPA was doing to restructure welfare and
contain costs. She said that HB 67 addressed the payment
structure for AFDC and the Adult Public Assistance (APA)
programs.
MS. HANSEN explained HB 67's impacts on the AFDC program
first. She said that the program comprised of 50% federal
funds and 50% state funds. Federal criteria were used to
determine eligibility, she noted. She commented that the
state sets the standard of need for a household, as well as
the payment level.
MS. HANSEN stated that under current law, the state could
set the need and payment amounts, and increase those amounts
by the federal Social Security Administration cost-of-living
allowance (COLA) on January 1 of each year. She said that
the original version of HB 67 would suspend the COLA for one
year, so that on January 1, 1994, payment amounts would not
increase. However, she noted that the House Health,
Education, and Social Services (HESS) Committee had repealed
the COLA provision entirely in the committee substitute it
recently adopted.
MS. HANSEN clarified that the changes made by the HESS
committee created additional budget reductions. She said
that the governor's budget, as submitted, already contained
the dollar effect of the original HB 67. She noted that the
savings shown in the attached fiscal notes pertaining to the
original HB 67 had already been included in the budget. She
commented that the COLA suspension would result in a $2.1
million dollar savings for fiscal year 1994.
MS. HANSEN stated that the second change for the AFDC
program in HB 67 pertained to "ratable reductions," which
referred to grants being reduced by a percentage amount.
She noted that the federal government required the state to
set a standard of how much money a poor individual needed.
The state then determined how much it would pay. She said
that Alaska had historically and by statute paid 100% of the
need standard. She said that HB 67 would reduce AFDC
payments by approximately 6.3%.
MS. HANSEN commented that in the case of a family comprised
of a mother and two children, the bill would result in a
reduction from $950 per month to $890 per month. She noted
that one positive effect of paying less than 100% of the
need standard was allowing a working client to keep a little
bit more of their earned income. She said that under HB
67's provisions, AFDC payments would be rolled back to
payment levels in 1991.
MS. HANSEN noted that the third major change for the AFDC
program in HB 67 created an equity of payments between two
categories of AFDC recipients. She said that currently, the
state provided different payments to three-person families
consisting of two parents and one child and three-person
families consisting of one parent and two children. She
stated that HB 67 would reduce the payment now made to
three-person families consisting of two parents and one
child, by about $90 per month.
MS. HANSEN stated that another, slight change would be made
to the AFDC program, under HB 67's provisions. She said
that there were a small number of households in which a non-
parental relative did not receive a welfare payment, but the
child in her or his custody did. The federal government had
determined that Alaska was out of compliance with federal
standards regarding these payments; HB 67 would change the
way that those grants were determined. She said that
households with two children would receive a decreased
welfare benefit, and households with one child would receive
an increased benefit.
MS. HANSEN went on to describe changes made by HB 67 to the
APA program. She commented that two of the changes were
similar to those made to the AFDC program. The first change
pertained to the COLA, which under the original bill was
suspended for one year, and under the HESS committee
substitute was repealed. The second change, she said, dealt
with the ratable reduction, and the impact was less severe
than the AFDC ratable reduction, due to the manner in which
the APA payment was calculated.
MS. HANSEN said that blind, aged, and disabled people were
those who received APA benefits. She said that they
received a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment from
the federal government, as well as a state supplement. She
said that the COLA reduction would affect only the state
supplement portion of the APA payment. With regard to the
ratable reduction, Ms. Hansen noted that payments would be
rolled back to 1990 levels. She said that the resulting
out-of-pocket difference for APA clients was somewhat less
than that for AFDC clients. She commented that the average
monthly reduction for an APA household would be $42.
MS. HANSEN said that HB 67 also affected the interim
assistance program for APA clients. She mentioned that
disabled persons who applied for welfare benefits had to be
determined by the federal government to be "disabled." She
noted that they had to apply for federal SSI funds. She
said that the process for meeting the disability criteria
took an average of eight months to complete. While a
person's application was pending, she said, the state paid
an interim assistance grant of $280 per month.
MS. HANSEN commented that currently, at the end of the
interim period, when a person was determined to be disabled,
the federal government sent a payment to the individual for
all of their SSI, retroactive to the month in which they
applied. The state also made a payment to those
individuals, she said, to bring their benefit up to the full
level for which they qualified under the APA program.
MS. HANSEN noted that HB 67 would change the process for the
interim assistance program by having the federal government
send a lump sum check to the state when an individual was
determined to be disabled. The state would, therefore, be
reimbursed for its $280 per month interim assistance
payments, send the remainder of that check on to the client,
and start the state supplement payment from that date
forward. She noted that this was a common procedure in many
other states.
MS. HANSEN mentioned that each provision of HB 67 would
result in a considerable cost savings to the state. She
called the members' attention to cost savings figures on
page 12 of the "FY 94 Budget Overview." She reiterated her
earlier comment that the cost savings of HB 67 were already
reflected in the governor's budget, as submitted.
MS. HANSEN stated that the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) supported HB 67 as introduced, with the one-
year suspension of the COLA. She mentioned the DHSS'
concern that the new version of HB 67 might create too large
a gap between the poverty level and the size of the payment
welfare recipients would receive in the future. She noted
that typically, AFDC recipients stayed on the program for
less than two years. She said it was important that, during
those two years, the state pay enough so that the recipient
could get his or her life in order and become self-
supporting.
MS. HANSEN noted that HB 67 allowed the DHSS to adopt
regulations immediately, but made the changes contained in
the bill effective on July 1, 1993.
Number 684
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the DHSS had notified
welfare recipients of the pending reduction in their
benefits.
Number 687
MS. HANSEN replied that the DHSS had not formally notified
its clients of the pending change. She said that the DHSS
intended to notify clients when HB 67 passed the
legislature, without waiting for the governor to sign the
bill into law. She said that under that scenario, clients
would be notified by May 15, at the latest.
Number 697
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed his opinion that six
weeks' notice was not sufficient time for welfare recipients
to plan for how to deal with a reduction to an already-tight
budget.
Number 705
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that it would be difficult to
notify recipients prior to HB 67 passing the legislature, as
the DHSS would not be able to tell them what sort of
reductions would be made to their monthly payments.
Number 709
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND responded that a delayed effective
date would give recipients more time to plan for reduced
monthly benefits.
Number 712
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what would happen if a person
was receiving interim assistance from the state, pending a
federal determination that she or he was disabled, and the
person ended up not being declared disabled.
Number 720
MS. HANSEN replied that when the state was notified of the
federal government's determination that an individual was
not disabled, state payments to that individual would end.
She noted that most applicants were deemed "not disabled"
the first time around. She called the federal process for
determining disability complex and arcane, and added that
most applicants were determined to be disabled when the
rulings were appealed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Hansen to address Representative
Green's original question regarding what would happen in the
event that a person was deemed not disabled.
MS. HANSEN did not think that persons deemed to be not
disabled were required to repay interim assistance benefits.
Number 745
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if persons over the age of 65 had
to prove they were disabled in order to receive SSI
benefits.
Number 751
MS. HANSEN replied that persons over 65 only needed to prove
their financial need for benefits, not that they were
disabled. The process for determining financial need was
much shorter than the process for proving disability, she
noted.
Number 766
ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR, THE GLORY HOLE, a homeless shelter
in Juneau, testified in opposition to HB 67. She was
appalled that HB 67 was even introduced. She was
particularly concerned about those clients that she saw most
often: Those disabled individuals between the ages of 45
and 65. She cited the lack of housing available for poor
people, and noted that Alaska did not even have an income
tax, yet it was cutting benefits to its poorest citizens.
She asked committee members to follow their consciences when
voting on HB 67.
Number 813
DONNA BAXTER, testifying via teleconference from Fairbanks,
said that the loss in income to welfare recipients would be
a detriment to businesses in the Fairbanks area. She
expressed her opinion that passage of HB 67 would result in
more unemployment, and would throw the state into a
recession. She complained that APA and AFDC recipients had
not even been formally notified that HB 67 had been
introduced.
Number 830
MS. BAXTER stated that $280 per month was not sufficient to
support a person. She expressed an opinion that a doctor's
declaration ought to be enough to qualify a person as
"disabled." She commented that the Social Security
Administration should be penalized for not acting on
applications for disability in a timely manner.
TAPE 93-33, SIDE B
Number 000
HOSANNA LAHAIR-LEE testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She had worked her way off of welfare, but was
back on welfare due to a disability. She was unable to
work, but did volunteer work helping other low-income
people. She felt that the welfare system should be reformed
so as not to encourage fraud. She commented that public
assistance recipients had the right to know about HB 67, and
said that most recipients had not been notified of the
pending changes to their monthly payments. She supported
freezing benefits, but not dropping them. She urged the
committee to listen to AFDC and APA recipients.
Number 130
ANNIE WHITNEY testified via teleconference from Homer. She
said that she was a teacher at the alternative high school,
and that many of her students were AFDC recipients. She
commented that the state was taking advantage of the
disenfranchised, and called the state's actions "morally
unjustifiable." She complained that HB 67 contained no
incentives for recipients to go to work or school.
Additionally, she said that the bill did not address the
needs of the chronically unemployed.
Number 190
ELAINE LOOMIS-OLSEN testified via teleconference from
Kodiak. She said that she was a coordinator of a single
parent project at Kodiak College. She commented that 2/3 of
the project's members were on the AFDC program. She said
that the project's members were determined to be free from
welfare. She noted that HB 67 did not follow the welfare
reforms proposed by President Clinton. She stated that the
bill would make the road to self-sufficiency even longer.
Number 250
CHERYL PHILLIPS testified via teleconference from Haines in
opposition to HB 67. She said that she was a single mother,
and did not know how she would manage on a decreased monthly
income. She implored the committee to find ways other than
cutting welfare benefits to save money.
Number 303
CINDY SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, spoke in opposition to HB 67.
She was concerned about HB 67's impact on the immediate
safety of domestic violence victims. She said that women
wanting to separate from violent partners would likely go on
AFDC for a time. She was of the opinion that HB 67 would
result in more homelessness. She said that the cut to
welfare benefits was counterproductive to job readiness.
Number 340
MS. SMITH commented that with the repeal of the COLA, there
was no longer a state policy regarding "how poor is poor
enough?" She said that with no standard in place, poor
people would fall further and further behind. She was of
the opinion that welfare recipients needed to be notified
that their benefits would be cut, so that they could
adequately plan for the future.
Number 384
SANDRA BAXTER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She said that being on welfare caused people to feel
depressed. She called HB 67 unrealistic.
Number 420
VIANN EWE testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 67. She is the Family Services Coordinator
for the Southcentral Foundation's Head Start program. She
said that the bill would negatively impact children in the
Head Start program. She called the bill counterproductive.
Number 441
DIXIE ARMSTRONG testified via teleconference from Homer in
opposition to HB 67. She volunteered for a program which
distributed food to low-income people in her community. She
said that if HB 67 was enacted, she did not see how her
program could maintain a supply of food for the needy people
in Homer.
Number 454
CHERYL TROJOVSKY testified via teleconference from Kodiak.
She said that when she was able to get work, she was only
paid the same amount that she could get on public
assistance. She also stated that when she worked, she
usually could not get health insurance as an employment
benefit. She commented that HB 67 would be an impediment to
welfare recipients who were trying to get off of welfare.
She requested that the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
(JOBS) Training Program be implemented in her community.
Number 487
TOM SCHELL, DIRECTOR, PARENT AND FAMILY CENTER in Juneau, a
part of CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, said that HB 67 would
affect the neediest senior citizens, disabled persons, and
children. He commented that HB 67 did not promote greater
self-sufficiency, independence, or empowerment among welfare
recipients. He said that the bill merely reduced an already
"extremely spartan" monthly benefit. He urged the committee
to identify societal problems leading to the need for public
assistance, instead of cutting aid to public assistance
recipients.
MR. SCHELL expressed his organization's opposition to HB 67,
because other options had not yet been exhausted.
Number 539
MARY KAY BROWN, representing the ARCTIC ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLE,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to
HB 67. Her organization was comprised of representatives
from Fairbanks non-profit agencies that worked with welfare
recipients. She said that the cuts proposed in HB 67 would
not be cost-effective in the long run, as they would
increase the very types of social problems that her group
was working to counteract. She commented that HB 67
penalized the disenfranchised. She urged the committee to
oppose HB 67, and instead emphasize job training programs
and job placement.
Number 560
KATHERINE BASTEN, an AFDC recipient, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She said that she was a
single parent who had left an abusive marriage. She
commented that she struggled to support herself and her
three children on her monthly public assistance benefit.
Number 590
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH PENINSULA WOMEN'S
SERVICES, testified via teleconference from Homer. Her
organization helped victims of family violence. She noted
that her organization unfortunately could not contain its
caseload. She was of the opinion that HB 67 would lead to
more family violence in Alaska. She said that one major
reason women remained in abusive relationships was a woman's
concern about her inability to support herself and her
children. She noted that in some cases, a perpetrator of
family violence would use the family's finances as a control
mechanism.
MS. ANDREEN commented that people on public assistance had
no "fat" to cut from their household budgets. She also read
the written testimony of Joe Lawlor. Mr. Lawlor said that
it was unfair to roll welfare benefits back to 1990 levels
unless all other state payments, including state employee
salaries, were also rolled back to the 1990 level. He said
that HB 67 amounted to the legislature picking on people
with little political power and who would suffer greatly as
the cost of living increased.
Number 632
DOTTIE REIKIE testified via teleconference from Kodiak. She
is a 19-year-old single mother on AFDC. She expressed her
desire to get off welfare, and said that she was currently
working to attain her high school diploma.
Number 645
CAREN ROBINSON, representing the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,
expressed her organization's strong opposition to HB 67.
She said that people had to wait nearly six months to get
low-income housing in Juneau, if they were homeless, in a
violent relationship, or living in tremendously unsafe
conditions. Other people might have to wait two to three
years to get into low-income housing, she said.
MS. ROBINSON cited the national League of Women Voters'
position that government should promote self-sufficiency
among individuals and their families. The national League
also felt that the most effective social programs were those
that worked to prevent or reduce poverty, she said. She
added that the national League felt that persons who were
unable to work, whose earnings were inadequate, or for whom
jobs were not available, had the right to an income and/or
services sufficient to meet their basic needs for food,
shelter, and access to health care.
Number 684
JUDY BUSH, ATTORNEY, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She commented
that a disabled adult currently received $808 per month;
under HB 67's provisions, however, that same adult would
only receive $717 per month. She noted that HB 67 would
result in some APA recipients losing health care benefits.
Ms. Bush mentioned that HB 67 would require disabled people
to repay their state interim assistance payments, but
ironically would not require people found not to be disabled
to repay those benefits.
MS. BUSH next spoke about HB 67's impact on the AFDC
program. To her knowledge, the state of Alaska had no
documentation for its present need standard for the AFDC
program. She commented that the need standard needed to be
reassessed, but noted that HB 67 did not require a
reassessment of the standard. She said that the present
need standard clearly did not reflect the cost of decent,
safe living conditions.
MS. BUSH stated that child support was a key component of
reducing welfare costs. She said that currently, the Child
Support Enforcement Division only collected 18.6% of what
the state paid out in AFDC benefits. She noted that HB 67
did not address child support enforcement, but merely
penalized children and custodial parents. She said that if
the legislature passed HB 67, she would feel ashamed to
collect a permanent fund dividend check.
Number 770
PUDGE KLEINKAUF testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
TAPE 93-34, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KLEINKAUF said that in the interest of fairness, if AFDC
and APA recipients' COLAs were going to be cut, then state
employees' COLAs should also be cut. She commented that the
savings that would result from HB 67 was only one-half of
general fund monies. The other half was federal money, she
said. She added that there were ways to address the high
cost of welfare without financially penalizing recipients.
She noted that the state needed to get much tougher about
collecting child support. She also proposed granting tax
credits to businesses that hired welfare recipients.
Number 095
MS. KLEINKAUF said that the state government itself should
take the lead in hiring welfare recipients. She said
further that there was no COLA that came via a federal route
to AFDC recipients. Therefore, she said, AFDC recipients
who had their state COLA cut would not be able to receive
any other COLA. But, she said that APA recipients who were
also on Social Security and/or SSI would continue to receive
the federal COLA. She mentioned the "gap" which had been
referred to earlier, and commented that as many welfare
recipients were not working, they would not be able to fill
the "gap." She concluded by saying that she strongly
opposed HB 67.
Number 142
MARILYN SCHODER testified via teleconference from Homer.
She volunteered for two programs which assisted the poor.
She said that if legislators had to cut the budget, they
should cut many programs a small amount, instead of making
severe cuts to a few programs.
Number 188
MEAALOFA TOFAEONO testified via teleconference from Kodiak.
She is part of the single parent program at Kodiak College,
and an AFDC recipient. She said that she had worked at a
cannery, but received no health insurance. She said that
she had applied for AFDC benefits to get health insurance.
She commented that HB 67 would make it more difficult for
welfare recipients to get off of public assistance.
Number 219
SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY and
KIDPAC, testified in opposition to HB 67. She asked
committee members, when considering HB 67, to look at the
budget as a whole and to see if any other sector of the
budget was being cut by $17 million. She commented that
22,000 children would be affected by HB 67, as would 4,137
elderly people, 5,438 disabled adults, and 89 blind adults.
She said that the state needed a plan to reduce its caseload
growth, through job placement and child support enforcement.
She commented that the original HB 67 had been made even
harsher by the HESS committee changes.
MS. GOLL recommended that the House Judiciary Committee look
at the original bill, which she said included every possible
cut ever considered by an administration over the last ten
years.
Number 302
MARY LOU CANNEY, an AFDC recipient, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. She said that she would
probably be off welfare within the next year. She stated
her opposition to HB 67, saying that the cuts in it were
harmful. She asked the committee to think carefully about
the people who would be affected by HB 67. She said that
those people needed support, and expressed her opinion that
HB 67 was not a supportive bill, but rather a harmful bill.
Ms. Canney commented that HB 67 amounted to child abuse.
Number 347
ROBERT JAMES said that he opposed HB 67. He commented that
government could do a much better job than the one it was
currently doing. He mentioned that the U.S. government sent
money to other countries, even those with which we had been
at war, yet there was so much need in our own country. He
said that he was too proud to apply for welfare, because he
was able to work at times. He commented that the
legislature could find other ways in which to cut the
budget, rather than cutting benefits to poor people. He
said that budget cuts always hit the poor people.
MR. JAMES noted that people were not living on the street
because they wanted to.
Number 415
JOHN THOMAS testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
supervised a program which dealt with people who would be
affected by HB 67. He commented that the SSI program did
have a COLA, but that in 1992, that COLA only amounted to
$12. He said that the AFDC program contained an inherent
disincentive to work, and he would like to see the AFDC
program changed, so that it would give parents an incentive
to work, by ensuring that they continued to receive interim
child care and health insurance benefits. He urged the
committee to look at the long-term economic ramifications of
HB 67.
MR. THOMAS stated that the legislature should look at
eliminating waste, not social programs. He said that the
23,000 children who would be affected by HB 67 could not
vote, and were therefore an easy target for the legislature.
Number 491
ROBIN WICKHAM testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
in opposition to HB 67. She had many concerns about the
bill, but noted that the savings contained in HB 67 resulted
in less money for food, shelter, clothing, and utilities for
poor people. She did not see a savings resulting from
legislation that would create more homeless, hungry, and
destitute people. She commented that the state needed to
beef up the Child Support Enforcement Division's collection
capabilities.
Number 520
SHEILA WOODS, FAMILY SERVICES TECHNICIAN, TANANA CHIEFS
CONFERENCE, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
She opposed HB 67. She said that the bill would create an
economic hardship for families which already faced such
hardship.
ANGELA SALERNO, representing the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, testified via teleconference from Anchorage
in opposition to HB 67. She noted that during two different
hearings on HB 67, there had been unanimous opposition to
the bill. She commented that HB 67 would not give people an
incentive to go to work.
Number 551
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked committee counsel, Gayle Horetski, to
discuss the proposed House Judiciary committee substitute
for HB 67.
Number 555
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute dated March 11, 1993. She said that
the original HB 67 had been referred to the HESS Committee,
which had removed the COLA. She mentioned a memorandum from
Terri Lauterbach of the Legislative Affairs Agency's Legal
Services Division, which pointed out a technical problem in
the HESS Committee's substitute for HB 67. Ms. Horetski
said that the draft Judiciary Committee substitute made a
technical change only. She noted that the effect of the
HESS Committee substitute and the proposed Judiciary
Committee substitute were the same.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the DHSS had seen the
technical amendment.
MS. HANSEN had reviewed the proposed committee substitute,
and agreed that the technical change accomplished what it
set out to accomplish. She noted that the DHSS did not
support the COLA repeal, however.
Number 599
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 67
(JUD).
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND OBJECTED. He had some amendments,
based on the HESS Committee substitute, to offer. He did
not object to adopting CSHB 67 (JUD), but noted that his
amendments would have to be altered to comport with the new
document.
Number 622
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON expressed his intent to offer
an amendment which would change the bill back to how it was
originally written.
Number 633
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if the technical amendment
would result in a reduction of APA benefits.
Number 639
MS. HANSEN understood that the technical amendment had no
impact, other than to clean up the language of the statute.
Number 655
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopting
CSHB 67 (JUD). He had a great deal of trepidation about
HB 67, and said that in general, he did not support the
bill. However, he was offering his first amendment as a
compromise. The amendment, he said, allowed for a
suspension of the COLA for both APA and AFDC recipients for
one year. Additionally, he said, the ratable reduction in
the amendment was rolled back to the 1992 level, as opposed
to the 1991 level in the HESS committee substitute. He
commented that his amendment would still result in a
reduction in AFDC and APA benefits, as well as a reduction
in the cost of the programs to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that the only difference
between the effect of his amendment and the governor's bill
was that the ratable reduction would be less severe under
the provisions of his amendment.
Number 703
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON noted that Representative Nordlund's
amendment would not provide for a permanent rejection of the
COLA, but just a one-year suspension. He spoke in favor of
the amendment, citing the testimony that the committee had
heard. He hoped that the legislature could find other ways
in which to make financial survival less painful. He urged
his colleagues to support the amendment.
Number 718
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what would happen after the COLA
was suspended for one year, under the provisions of
Representative Nordlund's amendment.
Number 722
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND replied that the intent of his
amendment was to suspend the COLA for one year, and then
automatically grant a COLA the following year.
Number 726
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDSON noted that the amendment would
result in a permanent lessening of the COLA.
Number 735
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND understood Representative Davidson
was correct.
Number 738
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how the effects of HB 67, as
proposed to be amended, could be determined.
Number 743
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that in his opinion, based on
the testimony he had heard today, people would likely not be
very supportive of his amendment. However, he said that his
amendment would result in a less severe reduction in
benefits than would the HESS Committee substitute for HB 67.
Number 754
MS. HANSEN said that the HESS Committee substitute for HB 67
would result in a $60 per month reduction for a family of
three, whereas Representative Nordlund's amendment would
result in a $27 per month reduction for the same family.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS OBJECTED to ADOPTING Representative
Nordlund's AMENDMENT. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Davidson, Nordlund, and Green voted "YEA."
Representatives Phillips, James, and Porter voted "NAY."
And so, the AMENDMENT FAILED.
Number 770
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he had another amendment
to offer.
Number 775
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that due to the late hour, he would
reschedule HB 67 to a time uncertain, to address additional
amendments to the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|