Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1996 09:30 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 98 - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
A draft CSSB 98 (Fin), version "B," 4/16/96, was
adopted. Amendment No. 1 was adopted and
Amendment No. 2 was adopted with clerical
corrections. Kelly Huber highlighted changes in
the new draft. Discussion was had with Senator
Green, Glenda Straube, Mike Tibbles, Kristen
Bomengen, and Michael Johnson. Senator Phillips
moved to delete provisions relating to obligations
of grandparents. Senator Frank objected, and the
motion was held for later consideration. Senator
Phillips moved to delete provisions relating to
license suspensions. The motion was pending when
the meeting was recessed for the Senate floor
session.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 98 be again brought
before committee for discussion and referenced a new draft
CSSB 98 (Fin) (9-LS0692\B, Lauterbach, 4/17/96). KELLY
HUBER, aide to Co-chairman Halford, came before committee to
speak to major changes between the previous and the current
draft:
1. The 3 percent ratable has been removed from the
present version.
2. CSED provisions pertaining to forfeiture of
licenses for child support arrearages remain in the
bill with two stipulations:
A. Provisions will only become effective if
federally mandated.
B. A two-year sunset provision has been added.
Senator Zharoff asked if an individual who loses his or her
license during the two-year period would get it back upon
sunset of the provision. Co-chairman Halford responded,
"It's the intention that they do." If the license is
suspended, the suspension is lifted when the authority to
suspend it is taken away via sunset. Senator Randy Phillips
asked what would happen should the federal government
mandate license forfeiture but the state does not. GLENDA
STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Dept.
of Revenue, advised that a penalty of 1 to 2 percent of all
federal funds for AFDC would be applied against the state.
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Dept. of Health and Social
Services, advised that the penalty would amount to $5 to $6
million.
3. Grandparent obligor provisions have been
simplified within Section 41 to require
determination by the courts. The court
must specify, in writing, why it
considers it to be appropriate to order
a grandparent to pay child support.
Senator Phillips advised that he had a problem with
grandparent provisions, saying that they should be removed
from the bill.
4. Section 50 contains new language relating to
redetermination of assistance levels.
Co-chairman Halford referenced interest in making welfare
reform a "non-entitlement," per federal action. There was
strong opposition to that from the administration. Section
50 represents a safety valve so that schedules are repealed
three years hence. If there is no action to extend them,
they are decreased if the total cost of the program is
increasing. If the proposed program is successful in
getting people off of welfare, the cost of the new program
will not exceed the cost of the previous program. However,
if the cost is increasing, schedules are reduced by the
ratio of the cost increase in the first three years.
In response to a question from Senator Sharp, Co-chairman
Halford referenced a built-in increase (based on population)
in the formula from the federal government. Senator Sharp
voiced need for "some kind of fence around the state's
portion to make sure it's no more than the fed's." The
contributions should remain 50/50. Co-chairman Halford
voiced his understanding that the department believes the
federal share will remain steady or increase. He
acknowledged that the provision suggested by Senator Sharp
could be added to the current bill as a precaution.
5. The program has been renamed the Alaska Temporary
Assistance Program.
6. The Alaska Native Organizations' Family Assistance
Program at Page 25 has been reworked.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a new provision requiring
that the Metlakatla Indian Community waive any claim of
sovereign immunity to participate in the program. There
should be no sovereignty or tribal questions with the other
organizations since they will be operating through non-
profit corporations under state law.
At this point in the meeting, MIKE TIBBLES, aide to Senator
Lyda Green, came before committee to speak to remaining
changes within the new draft:
7. Language dealing with time limits on benefits was
taken from last year's HB 78 and inadvertently does
not exclude some individuals that should be
excluded, such as those with a mental or
physical disability. The rewrite commencing
on Page 11 provides a hold harmless provision
for those individuals.
8. A two-year time limit on benefits has been
inserted in provisions relating to the family self-
sufficiency plan and participation in
work activities.
Mr. Tibbles directed attention to Page 21, line 15, and
noted the following rewritten language:
An Alaska temporary assistance program participant
shall, after the participant's family has received
a cumulative total of 24 months of assistance, or
sooner, if assigned to do so by the department,
participate in work activities . . . .
The federal government has set out requirements for
participation rates for job activities. The above language
requires recipients to be in a work activity within two
years. Senator Green added that the rewrite also brings
provisions into conformity with waiver language.
Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of the draft CSSB 98 (Fin)
dated 4/17/96. No objection having been raised, CSSB 98
(FIN) was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford next directed attention to proposed
amendments. Kelly Huber explained that Amendment No. 1 would
remove "compared to previous months" at Page 11, line 17.
The drafter removed the language in another section of the
bill and overlooked need for removal at Page 11 as well.
The amendment would also change "if" to "when" at Page 16,
line 23. Senator Phillips MOVED for adoption. No objection
having been raised, Amendment No. 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Halford next referenced Amendment No. 2. He
explained that CSED provisions within a prior draft of the
bill would have given the division the administrative
ability to change an arrearage calculation. Amendment No. 2
redrafts that provision, but it contains language calling
for action "upon a motion of the obligor." The Co-chairman
said he would not give the division blanket ability to
change an outstanding balance. Kelly Huber advised that the
proposed amendment would be inserted as a new section
between Sections 21 and 22. In response to a comment from
Co-chairman Frank that language within subsection (c) of the
amendment appears incomplete, Co-chairman Halford
acknowledged need for addition of the word "opportunity"
following the word "adequate" so that the subsection reads:
(c) Before an order may be vacated under (a)
or (b) of this section, the agency must send
notice of the intended action to the obligor and
the custodian and provide an adequate opportunity
for the obligor and custodian to be heard on the
issue.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for adoption of Amendment No. 2. No
objection having been raised, Amendment No. 2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Randy Phillips directed attention to Page 46,
Section 41, and MOVED to delete grandparent provisions
throughout the bill. Co-chairman Frank OBJECTED. He
explained that he had no problem with the concept of
grandparent responsibility. He expressed concern, however,
regarding application of percentages associated with
parental support to grandparents and suggested that a
schedule would be preferable. Some limitation must be in
place to gain support.
Senator Sharp asked if support refers to support for both
the minor mother and her child. Senator Green explained
that a minor child does not qualify for benefits unless she
is pregnant or has a child. The rate schedule is based on
the parent and one. Under the new waiver provision and new
comprehensive plan, the minor parent is required to live at
home, in foster care, maternity care, or a supervised
setting.
Senator Sharp referenced language at the top of Page 47 and
noted that the court can order child support payments not to
exceed the amount that would have been awarded if the
infant's parents (the juveniles) had the incomes of the
grandparents. He then noted that the support obligation
could be substantial if the grandparents have reached a
point in life when they have an extremely good income. He
then asked if the juvenile's income was considered. Senator
Green responded that the teen parents are involved and are
required to support their child. She stressed that, by law,
the parents of the teen mother are already involved in her
support. Language within the bill is a balancing mechanism
for involvement of the paternal grandparents. It is
anticipated that grandparent support would involve a "very
narrow window of time until either of the teen parents
reaches 18." Senator Sharp said he had no problem with
equal liability for both sets of grandparents. He voiced
concern about how provisions might be applied to teen
runaway situations.
Discussion of example situations followed involving teen
parents and grandparents with widely different incomes.
Glenda Straube advised of a support obligation calculated at
20 percent of income. She noted that the paternal
grandparents would only be responsible for the grandchild.
Co-chairman Halford suggested that, in the scenario
presented, one of the families could greatly increase its
income through support payments from the other family. He
then asked who would control the money. Ms. Straube
explained that the teen parents and their infant would be
receiving AFDC benefits. Support payments would flow to the
state as reimbursement of AFDC payments. She advised that
the division presently collects 20 percent of income from
material grandparents to cover the cost of AFDC payments to
a minor mother and her child. Co-chairman Halford voiced
his understanding that, as drafted, grandparent provisions
apply to all custody situations rather than to AFDC
situations alone. Ms. Straube said that the intent, when
the request for inclusion was made, was to apply it only to
AFDC. Senator Green stressed that involvement of paternal
grandparents would entail a court procedure.
Senator Sharp noted that bill language requires payment to
"an appropriate person." Co-chairman Halford expressed
concern that the adults in the household to which support is
paid would receive the money rather than the teen parent or
the infant.
In response to a suggestion by Senator Green, Glenda Straube
noted that the federal government has ruled that CSED cannot
base child support orders on AFDC standards.
Co-chairman Halford next inquired concerning visitation
rights for grandparents, particularly those who "pay the
bill." Ms. Straube explained that best interest findings on
behalf of the child are vested in the court system.
Discussion followed reiterating prior comments concerning
living arrangement requirements for minor mothers. Senator
Green pointed to a perception that present welfare law has
encouraged minor parents to live independently in settings
that, were they not the parent of a child, would not be
legal since they are not of sufficient age to sign up for
utilities and undertake lease obligations. Welfare reforms
require that they live in situations with adult supervision
and care and that they remain in school.
END: SFC-96, #85, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #85, Side 2
Co-chairman Frank voice his understanding that grandparent
support is for the grandchild, regardless of what living
arrangement is made for the minor parents. The remaining
issue is what is an appropriate level of support from both
custodial and non-custodial grandparents. Glenda Straube
explained that the court system has the authority to make
exceptions to the 20 percent rule. Co-chairman Frank
expressed a preference for specific language and an
established schedule. KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney
General, Human Services Section, Dept. of Law, referenced
language at Page 47, line 2, and noted that it says that the
amount determined by the court should not exceed the amount
that would be paid if the infant's parents had the income of
the infant's grandparents. The language indicates that
grandparent support should not exceed 20 percent.
Senator Randy Phillips inquired concerning the definition of
"grandparent." Glenda Straube voiced her assumption that it
would be based on blood relationship. Lengthy discussion
followed regarding the status of grandparents in divorce
situations, joint checking accounts, and pooled assets.
In response to suggestions from members that grandparent
provisions be removed, Co-chairman Frank reiterated need for
both maternal and paternal grandparents, rather than the
state, to bear responsibility for support of the infant
grandchild. He again stressed need for establishment of
reasonable rates and urged that that approach be worked on.
Senator Sharp took exception to the following sentence set
forth at Page 47, lines 9 through 11:
A grandparent ordered to pay child support under
this paragraph is considered to be a child support
obligor for the purpose of all laws, rules, and
regulations relating to child support obligors.
Co-chairman Halford advised that federal law would continue
to impose that obligation even if the foregoing language was
removed from the bill. He further voiced his understanding
that "anything we give the court the agency can do, under
federal law." Ms. Straube acknowledged that while the
division did not feel it has authority to do "everything the
court could do," recent conversations with the Dept. of Law
indicates "that we may very well be able to."
Senator Donley said he would not vote to remove grandparent
provisions but agreed that the language needs to be fixed,
and a definition of grandparent must be provided. Co-
chairman Frank asked that the proposed amendment be held
until later in the meeting to provide the administration an
opportunity to develop alternative language. Senator
Phillips subsequently agreed to hold his motion for removal
of grandparent provisions in abeyance until later in the
meeting.
Discussion of lack of effectiveness of enforcement
mechanisms associated with living arrangements for a minor
parent followed.
Senator Phillips directed attention to Section 22 (Pages 31
through 42) and MOVED to delete provisions relating to
occupational licenses. Co-chairman Halford reiterated that
provisions within the new draft only take effect if mandated
by federal law and, if so effected, would only be in effect
for two years. He voiced his belief that the provisions
would create tremendous complaint problems. They will also
increase enforcement and CSED collection problems. If the
$2.7 million in anticipated savings is achieved through
collections from those who do not want to lose their
licenses, there might be impetus for continuation. Co-
chairman Halford subsequently noted an error in drafting in
the current version of the bill. He directed that a
technical correction be made so that the two-year sunset
would take effect based on the effective date of state law
rather than the date of enactment of federal requirements.
Discussion of application to various licenses followed.
Glenda Straube explained that limited entry permits are not
included because the division may already access income from
the permits via processors or other fishing industry fee
agents. For other types of licenses, the division has no
access to the income.
Senator Sharp voiced support for license provisions, if
properly worded and mandated by federal law. He noted that
obligors would have a substantial amount of time to work
things out before the license would be revoked. Co-chairman
Frank concurred in need for incentive to pay and keep
current with child support. Senator Phillips remarked that
the provisions would deny obligors the necessary licenses
with which to make a living and pay support. Co-chairman
Frank said that would not be the case. Obligors would have
to address the arrearage situation and work things out.
They would no longer be able to ignore support obligations.
Senator Sharp noted that obligors working for wages have
their wages garnished if they do not pay. These new
provisions put licensed professionals on equal footing.
Co-chairman Halford voiced need to review the exemptions on
Page 37 prior to a vote on the motion for removal of license
provisions. He then asked if bill language would meet
federal law if exemptions remain listed. Glenda Straube
said that federal law is not specific. It speaks to
occupational, professional, driver's licenses, and
recreational licenses. Alaska is already not in
conformance. She said she did not know why certain
exemptions were listed. Discussion followed regarding
driver's licenses. Co-chairman Halford suggested that
state law should be as general as draft federal law.
MICHAEL JOHNSON, aide to Representative Davies, came before
committee to speak to exclusion of vessel and commercial
fishing licenses. He explained that a vessel license is not
an effective tool "to get at the person that was really
fishing." Agreements between CSED and the limited entry
commission are strong enough to capture delinquent obligors.
Responding to a question regarding the exemption for crew
member licenses, Glenda Straube attested to sale of such
licenses by fee agents throughout the state, particularly in
rural areas. It would be too difficult to "work with all
those little areas." Co-chairman Halford suggested that the
issue would have to be faced to meet federal law.
Both Co-chairman Frank and Senator Sharp expressed lack of
support for exemptions. Co-chairman Frank said the issue
has nothing to do with federal policy. People should simply
pay their child support.
Senator Rieger reiterated comments he made last year and
recommended that CSED be split into two agencies: one to
process child support payments for those who pay regularly
and another to pursue enforcement against those who do not.
Senator Green directed attention to statistics from states
that have implemented a similar program. Those efforts have
been extremely effective, and the number of actual
revocations has been small.
Senator Rieger referenced language at Page 31. line 29, and
suggested that provisions relating to "obligors who are not
in substantial compliance" should instead be applied to
obligors who are in "sustained, chronic non-compliance."
Kristen Bomengen noted that "substantial compliance" is
defined in the bill. It applies to arrearages in excess of
$2,500.00.
Senator Sharp inquired concerning family caps, particularly
with respect to additional children that might be born
during the 24-month period. Senator Green suggested that if
the parent goes to work within that time period, the impact
of an additional child in the system will not be as great.
The two-year period is intended to be as effective as a
family cap.
Co-chairman Halford noted that cost savings associated with
the bill are discretionary administrative actions. There is
no mandatory ratable reduction.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|