Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1996 03:06 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
April 27, 1996
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 98(RLS)
"An Act making changes related to the aid to families with
dependent children program (AFDC); relating to the duties of the
Department of Health and Social Services; establishing a workfare
pilot project for AFDC recipients; establishing a diversion program
for AFDC applicants; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to seek waivers of applicable federal laws; establishing
and relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program and
repealing the AFDC and job opportunity and basic skills programs
upon the establishment of federal welfare reform; relating to work
activities required under the Alaska temporary assistance program;
authorizing qualified entities to contract with the state to
administer all or part of the Alaska temporary assistance program;
relating to child support; relating to certain licenses and
applications for a license for persons who are not in substantial
compliance with orders, judgments, or payment schedules for child
support; relating to an exemption to the State Procurement Code for
certain services and contracts under the Alaska temporary
assistance program; relating to disclosure of information that
relates to day care assistance and the Alaska temporary assistance
program; relating to eligibility for day care benefits administered
by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs; amending Rule
90.3(c) and (h)(2), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing
for an effective date."
- PASSED HCS CSSB 98(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 98
SHORT TITLE: WELFARE REFORM: TEMPORARY ASSIST. PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/23/95 385 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/23/95 385 (S) HES, FIN
03/08/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/08/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/10/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/95 (S) HES AT 10:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
03/13/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/15/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/15/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/17/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/22/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/24/95 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/24/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/95 (S) HES AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/25/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/27/95 (S) HES AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/28/95 809 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
03/28/95 809 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.HES)
04/06/95 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/95 (S) FIN AT 2:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/95 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/95 (S) FIN AT 2:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/96 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/13/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/96 (S) FIN AT 3:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/15/96 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/16/96 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/17/96 (S) FIN AT 5:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/18/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/22/96 3406 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/22/96 3407 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO CS (REV, DOE,
LABOR-2,
04/22/96 3407 (S) DPS, DCED-3, F&G-2, DHSS-13
04/22/96 3407 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LABOR, DHSS-2)
04/24/96 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/24/96 3490 (S) RLS RPT CS & CALENDAR 4/24
NEW TITLE
04/24/96 3491 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (REV, DOE,
LABOR-2, DPS,
04/24/96 3491 (S) DCED-3, F&G-2, DHSS-13)
04/24/96 3491 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LABOR, DHSS-2)
04/25/96 3552 (S) ZERO FN TO RLS CS (F&G)
04/24/96 3521 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/96 3522 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/24/96 3522 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/24/96 3522 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/24/96 3522 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 98(RLS)
04/24/96 3523 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
04/24/96 3524 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/24/96 3524 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/24/96 3524 (S) R.Phillips NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/25/96 3578 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/25/96 3580 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/96 4033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/26/96 4034 (H) HES, FINANCE, MAJORITY LEADER'S
DESK
04/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of CSSB 98(RLS)
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
CURT LOMAS
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3382
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 98(RLS)
DON SHIRCEL, Director
Family Services
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
HEIDI DRYGAS
P.O. Box 70167
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 488-6001
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
JULIE CHANG
1500 Carr Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 456-7466
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-6804
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
MIKE TIBBLES, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3762
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 98(RLS)
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 98(RLS)
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on CSSB 98(RLS)
LOUISE CHARLES
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 98(RLS)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-47, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by CO-CHAIR CON BUNDE at 3:06 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, G.
Davis, Robinson and Brice.
SB 98 - WELFARE REFORM: TEMPORARY ASSIST. PROGRAM
Number 037
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, Sponsor of CSSB 98(RLS), said the metamorphoses
version of SB 98(FIN) came through quite a process and there had
been a number of work sessions in the Senate. Earlier in the
legislative session, discussions took place with the Department of
Health & Social Services who requested there be a combination
comprehensive waiver bill. Work began on that, but the department
came back and indicated that probably wouldn't work because the
Welfare Reform Act was not going to pass. They came back later and
said it was going to pass and they wanted the comprehensive and the
waiver package together. She directed the committee's attention to
the graph and said many of the provisions under the column marked
"In HB 78" were in the legislation last year; also, some of the
language in the Governor's bill was usurped and included in the
waiver portion of the legislation and some of the penalties were
applied to the comprehensive portion of CSSB 98(RLS). She
explained that the check marks in the far right hand column
indicated the sections of the bill that provided savings; perhaps
not this year, but next year.
SENATOR GREEN pointed out that some of language in the waiver
portion of the bill was repeated in the comprehensive section to
the extent possible. She began her sectional analysis saying that
Section 1 is simply the waiver application and the workfare
project. Only one control is required this year and three
experimental groups, which was at the request of the Department of
Health & Social Services. That basically sets up the workfare
program.
SENATOR GREEN said Section 47.25.302 is the earned income
disregard, waiver of the 100 hour rule and the increase in the
amount of the value of the auto which was all taken directly from
HB 78.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY inquired as to the make-up of the three groups.
SENATOR GREEN thought it was population areas.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it was the same as HB 78.
SENATOR GREEN responded that it was basically the same. She
directed the committee's attention to page 2, lines 17-23, which
speaks to the make-up of the experimental groups. The requirements
for people to be in the workfare program begin on page 3 and
continue on page 4. The diversion program begins on page 6, which
is sort of an emergency status. For example, if a person is ready
to begin a job but doesn't have everything in place and has a need
for some temporary assistance, that person could earn the
equivalent of two months benefits but the person forgoes the right
to come back and apply for long-term benefits. If they do however,
what has been paid to them is prorated as a deduction over the next
12 months.
Number 457
CO-CHAIR BUNDE inquired if the person who applied for a lump-sum
forgoes the right to come back for a year.
SENATOR GREEN confirmed that. She explained the thinking behind
that was a person may need some assistance to get them into the job
very quickly, but doesn't have enough money to get their family
through to the first paycheck.
SENATOR GREEN continued her analysis with Section 2, Ineligibility
for Assistance. She said the first revision on disqualification
for welfare fraud was similar to HB 78, however, there was a
permanent disqualification for welfare fraud in HB 78 and that
particular waiver had not been approved nationwide. The
legislation was redrafted so for the first disqualification there
is 6 months, 12 months for the second disqualification and
permanently for the third disqualification. She pointed out this
applies to people who are convicted of welfare fraud. She didn't
think there were a lot of people convicted, but at least this is a
standard for the department.
Number 553
SENATOR GREEN said one of the things that had been added that she
had a lot of trouble with was an annual income check. For example,
individuals who work seasonally or have a profitable job for a few
months out of the year, choose not to work anymore, stash the money
and/or assets and apply for assistance later on because they don't
have a job, are not held responsible for the large sum of money
earned earlier in the year. She noted this seems to be a rather
cumbersome and difficult thing to do. Although the person is
questioned and has to attest to income earned and assets held, this
legislation includes language that if anyone knowingly and
intentionally transfers their assets to another, that individual
will be disqualified with penalties. She explained the job quit
penalties apply to an individual who quits a job without good cause
and are one month for the first refusal or separation without good
cause, six months for the second refusal or separation without good
cause, and 12 months for the third and subsequent refusal or
separation without good cause.
SENATOR GREEN referred to page 9, line 15, Assistance to Minors
with Children, and said this goes back to the language in HB 78,
the Governor's bill and the original SB 98 and is the language
where minor parents would be required to live in approved adult
settings; preferably with their own family, but if not, there are
alternates and choices. She pointed out that if a minor had lived
apart from their parents for a year prior to the pregnancy, this
requirement can be waived. She added that a provision on page 10,
line 12, states the department can waive the requirements if the
department otherwise determines under regulations that there is
good cause. For example, if a minor is nearly 18 years of age,
they would not have to move back in with an adult.
Number 720
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if emancipated children were taken into
consideration?
SENATOR GREEN responded they were included.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE informed individuals standing by on teleconference
that testimony would be heard after Senator Green concluded her
briefing. He asked if the above section included a provision for
those situations when it was in the best interest of the child not
to go back to the adult living situation.
SENATOR GREEN confirmed that and added there were many alternate
choices given.
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG arrived at 3:17 p.m.
SENATOR GREEN said the department had brought up the issue of
accumulated benefits, where a person had gone to every agency and
taken advantage of every possible benefit. She noted there are
shelter allowances, utility provisions, etc. At this point, an
individual on benefits can get housing assistance, utility
assistance or other types of assistance and get the same amount of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as the individual
who is getting no other types of assistance. She explained that
with certain provisions for the shelter allowance built in, this
legislation says that the shelter allowance will be deducted.
There will be a substantial savings once this is implemented by the
department.
Number 923
SENATOR GREEN referred to page 11, line 11, which states in part,
"the department shall, for the months of July, August, and
September, reduce by 50 percent the maximum assistance for which
the family is otherwise eligible for assistance if the family's
eligibility for assistance is based on the unemployment of the
family's principal wage earner." This deals with the two-parent
family and the assumption is that there are more job opportunities
as well as opportunities to hunt, fish or whatever, to make the
total amount of money necessary for existence during that time.
She commented there are less expenses in most of Alaska and more
job opportunities to two-parent families during that time period.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that the commissioner may decide that is
not warranted.
SENATOR GREEN said there is some "wiggle room" and it has to do
with temporary economic conditions. For example, if for some
reason there was a temporary, unexpected economic condition, the
commissioner may decide that it was not feasible to fully implement
this provision.
SENATOR GREEN said under the Time Limits on Benefits section, a
family is not eligible for more than 24 months of assistance during
any 60 consecutive months that occur after the effective date of
this section.
Number 1025
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the two-year time limit included
individuals who participate in the workfare or jobs program, as
well as individuals who do not participate.
SENATOR GREEN responded it is to participants in the waivers to the
workfare and the jobs program. She noted this was under the waiver
portion, but it applied to all in the comprehensive portion. She
added, "When I say all, that's with a certain number of waivers
available." There are waivers in this section on the top of page
12 for people who would not be required to go off from assistance
after 24 months and include: (1) an individual who is a caretaker
or spouse of a caretaker of a dependent child or who is a pregnant
woman and is determined to be physically or mentally unable to
perform a gainful activity or a parent who is providing care for a
child who is experiencing a disability; (2) an individual who has
cooperated in every way, but has failed to meet the requirements or
has a temporary and verified physical condition that prohibits them
from attaining and maintaining employment, etc. She said there is
enough room for exceptions.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page 12, line 8, and asked under what
circumstances would an individual fall into this category of having
cooperated with the department.
SENATOR GREEN replied it could be someone who has been required to
go to school or a training activity.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced page 12, line 19, and said it was his
understanding that a person has to earn approximately $15 per hour
to equal the benefits from assistance. He questioned if page 12,
lines 22-25, implied that a person making less than $15 per hour
could stay on assistance.
SENATOR GREEN deferred that question to the Department of Health &
Social Services.
Number 1190
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department
of Health & Social Services, said basically that's a provision that
applies in situations where there are no employment opportunities
available.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented the way he read it was "or if there was an
employment opportunity where an individual would make less than
what they would make on assistance."
MR. NORDLUND responded that's correct, but he thought Co-Chair
Bunde was incorrect in his assumption that $15 an hour is the level
of assistance paid in this state. He thought perhaps Co-Chair
Bunde was referring to the Cato study released earlier in the year
that indicated that Alaska's equivalent benefit level equals $15 an
hour. He said that is not accurate. The department has done a
response to that report pointing out the flawed methodology that
exists in the report and according to the department's
calculations, the benefit levels would be more on the order of $6
an hour.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that an individual who doesn't make more
than $6 per hour would then probably fall under the provision.
Number 1285
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for a copy of the department's
response to that report.
MR. NORDLUND responded he would make that available for the
committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked that assistance is similar throughout the
state, so geographic differences wouldn't matter.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE pointed out that it depends on the size of
the family, as well.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE offered the larger the family, the larger the wage
before falling out of compliance.
MR. NORDLUND said this would not be employed in a situation where
it would be an either/or. It would be a situation in which there
might be some earned income that's available to the family that
could help supplement the benefit and with the earned income
disregard provisions that would take effect in this bill, there are
situations in which a family will be allowed to save more of their
earned income without seeing a reduction in their benefit to a
certain level. He added that's one of the primary incentives in
this legislation for encouraging individuals to go to work. He
said, "I don't believe this provision would ever be employed in a
situation in which an individual say for example, could earn $4 an
hour on a job wouldn't be required to take that job just because it
didn't earn whatever you think the benefit level would be worth,
for example $6 an hour." But the benefit would supplement to make
up the difference for the person working in a $4 an hour job.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he supported the provision that allowed an
individual to keep more of the wages earned. He asked Mr. Nordlund
if it was his understanding that people would be working at
whatever work was available.
MR. NORDLUND replied that was right and if there was simply no work
available, there is a provision that allows for them to not come
under this section. Mr. Nordlund asked Curt Lomas to join him at
the witness table.
Number 1403
CURT LOMAS, Welfare Reform Program, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health & Social Services, verified that what Mr.
Nordlund and Senator Green had said was essentially correct. He
noted there is another section of the bill that ties in with this
which requires people to accept a job if it is available to them
and there is a penalty if they do not. The department expects to
have a number of people in their caseload that are working but not
earning enough to earn their way out of the caseload. He commented
this provision adds an incentive for people to continue to
cooperate and to try to achieve employment that will eventually
allow them to leave the caseload without penalizing them for
accepting whatever is available. If a person is working full time
at a minimum wage job, their assistance may be extended as long as
they play by the rules. There is a requirement tied to this on
page 12, line 8, so essentially there is a clause for families
where the adults play by the rules and do whatever is required of
them under the work programs, but they are still unable to earn a
wage that would support their family at the level of the AFDC
grant.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said, "Again, just for the record, this is in your
view allowing people -- requiring people to work at what work is
available and then allowing benefits to supplement what they earn
and this is not at all to be viewed as someone, say, who turned
down a job, can be eligible for benefits because the job would not
pay as much or more as benefits."
MR. LOMAS said, "No, there are other provisions that disqualify
someone from turning down a job without good cause. The fact that
the wage is not sufficient really wouldn't be good cause under
these provisions and the supplement of the AFDC grant would be
available to them. As Mr. Nordlund pointed out, the increased
earned income disregards would allow them to retain more of their
earnings, so we would expect that under the regulations that were
established that if someone could only find part-time work or full
time work that wasn't sufficient, they would be expected to remain
in the job."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that was his understanding and he
certainly supports what is trying to be achieved. He added that he
wanted it clear on the record so that some time in the future an
individual wouldn't say the job didn't pay enough so he/she wished
to remain on assistance.
Number 1536
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with the language because
there is a clear recitation of the words "total net income and
equal to the level of income." He asked if this wouldn't require
the department to have an ongoing formula in place to make that
judgment?
MR. NORDLUND said the department already does that with current
recipients who have some earned income. He explained there is a
calculation currently that causes a certain reduction in the
benefit to account for that earned income.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed that it was already in place and
would not be a burden on the department.
MR. NORDLUND said with the provisions in this bill, the department
would have to reprogram that formula so it allows individuals to
keep a little bit more.
MR. LOMAS interjected that currently people in the caseload who are
working are required to submit verification of income. Basically,
a person has to submit all of their pay stubs, so the department
has ready access to that information.
MR. NORDLUND added there are quite a few system changes that are a
result of this entire welfare reform effort that have been
reflected both in the department's budget request this year and in
the fiscal note on the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG assumed that apparently there was a
threshold number that could have an impact on benefits.
Number 1608
SENATOR GREEN said the next section was on school attendance. A
system was worked on last year whereby parents would be held
responsible for their children to be in school. That seemed to be
kind of a hassle to work through, so this year it was modified to
be the teen parents (indisc.) in school and there will be mandatory
school attendance, as defined in regulations of the department.
She added the department feels they can regulate and monitor that
with the primary concern being first the child and that the minor
parent finish their education which would be high school at a
minimum.
Number 1653
SENATOR GREEN pointed out that Section 7 begins the comprehensive
reform provisions and includes part of the Governor's bill. The
Senate, in reviewing the Governor's bill, had some trouble with
some of the provisions so they were dropped; however, they had
tried to take the most important issues from the Governor's bill.
This section is called the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program.
The first section describes the duties of the department as they
start to put the program into place.
Number 1693
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS brought up the issue of school attendance
as opposed to school enrollment. To him, attendance is interpreted
as attending but he noted there is home schooling and under the GED
program a student can study at home and just go in and take the
tests.
SENATOR GREEN said discussions had taken place and added that
enrollment might be a better word. The idea is not to have
someone enrolled only, but working toward the high school diploma
whether in a school building, in the home, or with a tutor, and the
progress be shared with the department who would be the determining
factor. If the student is not continuing with their education, the
benefits for the student would be disregarded but the benefits for
the infant would continue.
MR. NORDLUND said their attorney from the Department of Law looked
at this language and indicated that school attendance in this bill
is interpreted broadly to not necessarily mean physical attendance
in the building, but also included individuals pursuing a GED or
doing home schooling.
SENATOR GREEN referred to page 14, line 17, Disqualifying
Conditions, and said that a family may not receive assistance for
more than five cumulative years; a family is ineligible if
determined to be fleeing to avoid prosecution; and a family is
ineligible 120 months following conviction for fraudulently
misrepresenting their state of residency. She commented those are
some of the situations for which a person would not be allowed to
be eligible. There are other reasons why a person would not be
eligible such as leaving employment without good cause,
transferring of assets with the intention of qualifying for
benefits, and other fraud cases. In each of those cases, there is
a set penalty.
SENATOR GREEN continued that the Application and Requirements for
Assistance on page 16, beginning on line 6, is basically procedural
for the department and outlines what is required. She directed the
committee's attention to the family self-sufficiency plan, which is
new. She commented that hopefully, this will be developed between
case managers and the applicants for assistance. It will be very
specific, setting benchmarks and time lines. This gives the
department the ability to set more finely tuned goals for an
individual and get away from the "one size fits all" operation.
She noted there had been concern expressed on the Senate floor
about people in rural areas and added there might be a different
set of self-sufficiency plans for someone in an urban area versus
someone in a rural area. The goal is that it will be more
individually based.
Number 1908
SENATOR GREEN said the Family Assistance Section, taken from HB 78,
basically sets out the amounts. She referred to page 17, line 23,
and said this is where the 50 percent maximum assistance comes in
for July, August and September. She noted that it was a little
less than a 50 percent deduct because not all of it is considered
for deduction.
MR. LOMAS interjected that in essence, it is capped at 50 percent
of the maximum during the other months. Therefore, it would be 50
percent for some cases, but something less for others.
SENATOR GREEN said again, there is the shelter cost provision
deduction so people wouldn't get two kinds of benefits instead of
just the one. She said the diversion payment is included where a
person is job ready, but needs some assistance and can stay off the
long-term program by getting some temporary help. Again, there is
the Assistance to Minors Section relating to teen parents. She
thought the language was very much the same as it was in the Waiver
Program Section of the legislation. Page 20, line 19, Family Self-
sufficiency Plan, sets out the steps taken to develop and sign a
family self-sufficiency plan. Page 21 indicates what the plan will
do, and the time period may not provide for any more than a total
of 60 months of assistance under this program, which is basically
a person's life-time total. The time period for receiving
assistance may not exceed a cumulative total of 24 months unless
the person meets the exclusions set out on page 21, lines 9-14.
SENATOR GREEN said there is a work requirement under the
Participation in Work Activities Section. After receiving a
cumulative total of 24 months of assistance, the participant in the
temporary assistance program shall participate in work activities
as assigned by the department in order to continue to receive
assistance or services from the department under the Alaska
temporary assistance program, unless the participant is exempt from
the work participation requirements under the exemptions listed in
Section 47.27.035(b)-(d).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Senator Green to explain the provision
on page 17, line 21.
SENATOR GREEN said generally, under the program only an adult with
a child is qualified for this particular kind of assistance, but
this provision is for an eligible, pregnant woman who may not
already have a child.
MR. LOMAS said the current program provides for assistance in the
last trimester of pregnancy for a woman who has no other children.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted the use of the word "family."
SENATOR GREEN responded she, the pregnant woman, is the family.
MR. LOMAS commented that it is a woman with child.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS clarified that she is not with her family; she
is the family.
SENATOR GREEN responded that was correct.
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was curious about the stipulated
dollar amounts of benefits and the relationship to current
schedules, future schedules or adjustments and asked if there was
anything else provided for that in the bill.
MR. NORDLUND said there was a provision toward the end of the bill
which he would comment on later. He noted this pretty much adopts
the existing benefit structure.
MR. LOMAS interjected there was one major exception. He explained
the current payment increment for the second adult in a two-parent
family is eliminated unless the second parent is somehow
incapacitated.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the present circumstance is for
that situation?
MR. LOMAS said the present circumstance is that if there is a two-
parent family, both parents' needs are included in the grant. In
the increment for the second parent it is $102 more than if there
was only one parent in the family. The change is that all families
would receive the same amount of benefits if there was one or two
parents and based on the number of children in the family, with the
single exception that if the second parent had a medical
incapacity, there would be a payment increment for the second
parent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired if it would be like a
developmentally disabled parent.
MR. LOMAS said the incapacity tests are not quite as strict as the
Social Security definition. Basically, people who meet that
definition are in another program and would not have their needs
covered under the AFDC program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired if there would be a savings
effect.
MR. LOMAS said it would be substantial. He added the department
has about 2,000 families a month that fall into the category that
would have the payment increment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said all things being equal, they would
lose about $102 a month from existing benefits.
MR. LOMAS said that was right.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if the need was based on poverty level?
MR. LOMAS said it was based on a number of tests related to assets
and income.
SENATOR GREEN said the Participation in Work Activities Section on
page 21 sets the 24 month time limit that a person would (indisc.).
Number 2191
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "Under the diversion payment with the
60-month total assistance -- a person gets for the diversion
project, a two month benefit handed out to them and they are not
eligible for another year, does that two month benefit count
towards one year in checking off for the life-time benefit?"
SENATOR GREEN said the total amount would be the same.
MR. NORDLUND said, "The one year is that you're not eligible for
another diversion payment for another year."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired if the two months only would be
counted.
MR. NORDLUND responded the person would get two months worth of
benefits as a diversion payment. That is counted against the
person basically, if the person needs to come back onto the
program. If the person does come back on the program, that two
months of payments is prorated over a three month period, so
essentially the program is back to even.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented so it's almost as if the person
didn't use that against their 60-month total.
SENATOR GREEN referred to the Participation in Work Activities
Section again and said after 24 months of assistance, people will
be in work activities and there are some exemptions. For example,
a person who has a child under 12 months of age, if a person is
taking care of a person with a disability, medical reasons with
medical documentation, an unreasonable hardship on the family, if
a person demonstrates an inability to obtain needed child care for
a child under 6 years of age and if the parent is the sole
custodial parent for a child under 6 years of age. Again, if
everything is in line for a participant who chooses not to
participate in the work activity, that person loses eligibility.
SENATOR GREEN explained that under the Assignment of Support
Rights; Cooperation with Child Support Enforcement Agency Section,
if a person receives any child support rights while on benefits,
those benefits go into the child support.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it would be added or subtracted.
SENATOR GREEN said it would go in as a repayment.
SENATOR GREEN noted that one of the things worked on last year was
the establishment of paternity.
TAPE 96-47, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR GREEN pointed out this legislation stresses that
establishment of paternity is important in trying to find the
rightful person to assist with the support of the children. If
information is provided which helps with the identification of that
person, the department may distribute to an Alaska temporary
assistance program participant $50 per month from a monthly child
support payment, or the amount of the child support payment if it
is less than $50, received by the child support enforcement agency
for the support of a child. She explained that if regular payments
are made through the Child Support Enforcement Agency to the mother
by the father of the child, they would get an extra $50 a month.
SENATOR GREEN referred to the Grants and Contracts for Services
Section on page 23, beginning on line 16, and said it is not
anticipated that state agencies will be doing every function, but
there would be grants and contracts for these programs.
Number 043
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what happens when there is noncooperation of
the teen mother as to the identity of the father.
MR. LOMAS said this mirrors what is currently in law. In effect,
when an individual is not cooperating with the Child Support
Enforcement Agency, and paternity establishment is one element
under Child Support Enforcement, it is a penalty against the grant.
Basically, the needs of the noncooperating individual are removed
from the grant which amounts to about a 50 percent reduction in
assistance until they cooperate.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON sought clarification regarding good
cause for noncooperation; for example a victim of sexual abuse
would not be forced to cooperate.
MR. LOMAS said there are provisions in current law that allow for
good cause exemptions for situations where either the mother or the
child's life or health would be endangered because of cooperation.
The department would intend to continue a similar policy.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 23, lines 8-12, and asked if
a father is making child support payments of $50 a month or less,
the participant of the temporary assistance would receive an
additional $50?
SENATOR GREEN said only the amount that is paid. She added there
was a general provision that when the noncustodial parent was
regularly paying the child support, there would be a bonus to the
custodial parent of $50 per month. There are times when the child
support is less than $50 per month; therefore, there is no
guarantee of receiving a $50 bonus, but it would be no more than
the amount paid if it is less than $50.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY inquired if that amount would be deducted from any
arrearages.
MR. LOMAS responded this currently happens under existing law; this
merely authorizes it under the new program. In effect, whenever a
collection is made against a current obligation, the custodial
parent is allowed to retain the first $50 of the payment against
current obligations. Collections against arrearages generally
would not fall under this provision.
SENATOR GREEN continued with her analysis that municipalities,
other political subdivisions of the state, nonprofit corporations,
churches, and incorporated and unincorporated businesses operating
within the state that meet the requirements established by the
department could be included under the Grants and Contracts For
Services Section. She explained there are many communities in
Alaska where local agency representatives are not available and
this provision allows the opportunity for communities to provide
those services.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there had been some discussions in the
legislature to get tribal sovereignty and IRA organizations
qualified for grants to become incorporated under state law.
SENATOR GREEN noted the language in this section had been designed
to include incorporated and unincorporated businesses operating
within the state that meet the requirements. She thought this was
in current statute.
SENATOR GREEN said the Agency Collaboration Section basically
states the Department of Health & Social Services will operate with
other departments in using programs that are available so services
are not duplicated.
SENATOR GREEN stated the Alaska Native Organizations' Family
Assistance Programs Section was structured to include the 13
recognized regional corporations. The first 12 listed are
incorporated; the Metlakatla Indian Community is accepted only if
the community waives any claim to sovereign immunity with respect
to matters involved with the family assistance program. She
pointed out that Section 47.27.070(b) states, "The department may
cooperate with the Alaska Native organizations named in (a) of this
section to propose program criteria to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services in order to promote
programs comparable to the state program in the same area."
Section 47.27.070(c) further states, "Notwithstanding other
provisions of this section, the department may coordinate with an
Alaskan Native organization under (a) of this section only if, for
purposes of this chapter, the Alaska Native organization
incorporates a nonprofit entity under state law and the nonprofit
entity is active and in good standing, as determined by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development." She commented
this language was drafted to address the concerns expressed by
Representative Rokeberg. She remarked the department needs to have
the ability to move forward in working with the 13 regional
corporations and their nonprofit entities to develop programs if
federal welfare reform is passed. Under the federal welfare
program, there would be the opportunity for the money to go
directly to any of the regional corporations, but only 50 percent
of what they now receive because it would be minus the state match.
She thought the commissioner would rather see this coordinated and
be a statewide program through which the department is involved and
has the ability to work with the regional corporations to have a
consistent program throughout the state.
Number 297
SENATOR GREEN referred to the Emergency Account Established and
said it is anticipated that at times there will be extra monies
coming through from the federal government that may not be expended
in the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. This section
allows that money to be set aside.
SENATOR GREEN remarked that the Appeals; Dispute Resolution Section
is under existing law. The Sanctions; Recovery of Costs Section is
the repayment and recovery of cost if a person fails to heed and
work in the Work Activities or Self-sufficiency Plan. Subsection
(b) establishes the penalties for applicants who fail to cooperate
with establishment of paternity. Subsection (c) allows the
department to recover assistance and services that were paid to
participants who were not entitled to receive them. She commented
this basically restates some of the language in existing law.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the language under the Sanctions
Section on page 26, line 23, "fails to comply with a condition of
the family self-sufficiency plan" and said that appears to be
inflexible in the sense that it doesn't take into consideration the
weight of the condition in the plan as a whole.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY pointed out the language reads "without good
cause."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if that was unnecessarily rigid?
SENATOR GREEN noted that the applicant would be involved in
developing their self-sufficiency plan. She anticipated there
would be a method by which at some point the applicant could amend
the self-sufficiency plan, with the idea being that there are still
time frames for waiver provisions and exemptions. She thought this
would apply to the person who refuses to meet the conditions of the
plan.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought there was flexibility in the wording
"without good cause."
MR. NORDLUND pointed out the family self-sufficiency plan is
developed in a collaborative way between the recipient and the case
worker to set a course of action that is truly achievable. He
added the plan is available to being amended if the circumstances
of the individual change. The department believes, however, there
needs to be some sanctions for an individual who is unwilling to
cooperate.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said his concern was for the individual who
may want to amend their plan with respect to changing curriculum
from an associates degree to a bachelors degree, for example.
MR. LOMAS remarked the department views the self-sufficiency plan
as a living document that can be amended if circumstances change
and the department recognizes that not everything is going to work
out exactly according to the plan. He added that before an
individual was declared out of compliance, the department would
give that person the opportunity to respond to a noncompliance
notice and allow the person to negotiate an amendment to the plan.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked the individuals standing by on teleconference
if they wished to testify on a section of the legislation that
Senator Green had addressed.
Number 573
DON SHIRCEL, Director of Family Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference
(TCC), said that prior to the debate on welfare reform and even
before the Alaska Native Commission report which calls for
fundamental changes in programs which foster dependency, TCC area
tribes initiated the first regionwide program to require all
recipients of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) general assistance to
work for the benefits they receive, allowing reasonable exemptions
for only those individuals who were disabled or infirmed. When the
administration was transferred from the BIA to TCC, the program
went from 100 percent recipients receiving a monthly check to 98
percent of all recipients participating in work that needed to done
in their village. This transfer occurred with no additional
administrative costs to the BIA and after the third year of
operation, the program reported a 5 percent reduction in cost
without reducing household benefits. The program helps get
everybody to work and helps get things done in the villages at a
lesser cost than when the BIA merely doled out monthly checks. He
said tribally-administered job programs, the jobs opportunity and
basic skills programs around the state have successfully provided
families on welfare with training and support, thereby moving
tribal families off welfare and into jobs.
MR. SHIRCEL said TCC wishes to support the efforts put forward by
the legislature and by the Administration in crafting state welfare
reform legislation. There remains, however, four major issues that
TCC feels need to be addressed before they can fully support SB 98.
First and foremost is the issue of tribally operated assistance
programs. He stated that page 25, line 26, calls for the
department to cooperate with the Alaska Native organizations named
to propose program criteria to the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services in order to promote
programs comparable to the state program in the state area. Under
the anticipated federal law, tribes through these Alaska Native
organizations named will receive 50 percent of the funding
currently paid to eligible households. He noted that is the
federal share, as was mentioned. Without assurances in this
legislation that the state will transfer matching funds, it would
be impossible for the Native organizations to provide the services
that would promote programs comparable to the state program in the
same area, as stated in CSSB 98(RLS). For that reason, TCC
recommends that line 26 be changed from "may" to "shall" and insert
"and is authorized to transfer state matching funds" on line 28
following Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore,
Section 47.27.070(b) would read as follows: "The department shall
cooperate with the Alaska Native organizations named in (a) of this
section to propose program criteria to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services and is authorized to
transfer state matching funds in order to promote programs
comparable to the state program in the same area."
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY stated she appreciated the proposed language
offered, but she would make no comment until it had been reviewed
by the Department of Health & Social Services or by the Legal
Services Division to make sure the language was compatible or that
it hadn't already been addressed.
MR. SHIRCEL continued TCC's second area of concern deals with
Section 44 which amends current law to hold natural and adoptive
grandparents responsible for child support in cases where the
child's parents are minors. Tanana Chiefs Conference supports the
position of the National Association of Social Workers on this
issue and recommends that Section 44 be deleted entirely from the
legislation. He remarked that in some rural communities,
grandparents have already adopted their grandchildren because they
have been orphaned or the parents have relinquished their parental
rights. In such cases, under this bill as written, great
grandparents could be responsible for child support payments of
their great grandchildren. Likewise, this section of the bill as
written, would discourage potential adoptive parties from
considering teen-age children who are difficult to adopt, given the
increased liability created under this section. In general, the
assumption that parents can regulate the sexual activity of
adolescent children is without basis and TCC suggests deleting that
particular section until further thought is given to the issue.
Number 829
MR. SHIRCEL said TCC's third issue deals with confidentiality.
Tanana Chiefs Conference supports the position of the Alaska
Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers which
recommends that Section 35 and 36 be deleted and TCC shares their
concern that to allow legislators access to an actual list of names
of (indisc.) assistance beneficiaries is an undue infringement by
the government on an individual's privacy.
MR. SHIRCEL stated TCC's final concern was Section 3, page 11,
particularly the waiver dealing with two-parent households that
would have their benefits decreased by 50 percent, and asked that
it be reconsidered and the word "and" be deleted and "or" be
inserted on line 17 to allow for greater flexibility on behalf of
the commissioner to deal with situations that were previously
mentioned. He commented the legislation already includes adequate
incentives for the commissioner to keep all waivers to a minimum or
risk having to implement ratable reductions across the board. This
suggested change would assure that no Alaskan families or children
truly in need, especially as the children are getting ready to go
to school, would have to fend for themselves and it would maintain
the overall integrity of the bill to assure that the commissioner
would not make undue waivers.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Shircel to hold further testimony until
Senator Green had completed her sectional analysis because he was
expressing concern with portions of the bill that had not yet been
addressed. She inquired if any of the other individuals had
testimony relating to any of the sections already covered by
Senator Green's sectional analysis.
HEIDI DRYGAS testified from Fairbanks via teleconference. She
referenced page 11, lines 11-19, regarding the 50 percent reduction
for two-parent households in July, August and September and said it
didn't make sense that a family's income should be reduced just
because it's the summer months. She commented the assumption that
a person won't need as much income if they find a job is
inappropriate. She added that available jobs may be filled with
other members of the village.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said the discussion had been that subsistence and
jobs were plentiful, less heat was required, child care was
available because school was out, and basically there was just an
overall reduction in needs for a family during the summer months.
MS. DRYGAS understood that jobs were available during the summer
months, but they are taken by other people looking for a job also.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Julie Chang wished to testify at this
time.
Number 1032
JULIE CHANG testified from Fairbanks also addressing the 50 percent
reduction for two-parent households. She noted that Co-Chair
Toohey had spoken about subsistence and less heat being required in
the summer, but that didn't support the children's needs of shoes
and/or clothing. She commented there may be more jobs available in
the summer but if a person travels to another area for a job, they
have to pay for housing, etc.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thanked Ms. Chang for her testimony and asked
Senator Green to continue with the sectional analysis.
SENATOR GREEN resumed her sectional analysis explaining there were
several pages of definitions. She pointed out that every reference
to AFDC and aid had been changed to assistance and to the Alaska
Temporary Assistance Program. She continued that Section 12, Rate
of Interest, states there will be rate of reduction from 12 percent
to 6 percent a year or a lesser rate when the amount is being
collected for arrearages. She noted this was requested by the
Child Support Enforcement Division.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if that was simply not "getting blood out of
a turnip?"
SENATOR GREEN thought the interest rates were much higher when that
provision was initially established. She noted that the Child
Support Enforcement Division could do this on their own, but they
really wanted it in statute so it wouldn't fluctuate up to a higher
rate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to what the interest was being
charged for.
SENATOR GREEN responded for arrearages on child support payments.
SENATOR GREEN said Sections 14 and 15 were basically technical
changes for the new program. She directed the committee's
attention to Section 22, Relief from Administrative Order and said
this section allows CSED to administratively vacate an order based
on a default amount upon the motion of an obligor. Upon the motion
of an obligator, the agency may, at any time, vacate an
administrative support order that was based upon a default amount
rather than on the obligor's actual ability to pay. She said,
"There are established amounts for any individual in the state,
we'll call it amount X and if someone has not come forward with
their payroll stub or given them the information about the amount
of money they make, they base this money on -- say it's $1,000 a
month -- that's what you're going to owe, but if that person comes
forward later and says you miscalculated what I owe, even though I
wasn't willing to come in and talk to you about the situation, but
I only got $600 a month, they could recalculate and lower or fix
the amount." She noted this had been changed in the Senate to
"upon the motion of an obligor." Previously, the agency, the
obligor or the obligee could do this. She added this can now be
done by the division but questioned Glenda Straube if the division
had to go to court?
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, responded yes.
SENATOR GREEN said this has been presented by CSED as an obligor's
dream. There are some individuals in the Senate who doubt this
alleged description and asked Ms. Straube to address that.
MS. STRAUBE said the division is carrying about $110 million in
arrears that are based on default judgments. She hastened to
correct that the division has over $300 million in arrearages, but
approximately one-third are based on default judgments. The
obligor broke the law by not letting CSED know how much they made,
and the division recognizes that. She commented the division
doesn't want to be seen as rewarding people, but at the same time
the division recognizes that when people see a document that is too
overwhelming it may end up getting thrown away, ignored or whatever
they do with it, but in any case, no one is benefitting because
when the delinquencies reach $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 people
don't pay anything at all. She noted the court already has the
right to do this, but CSED would like to have an aggressive program
to encourage people to meet with the division, to fix the meeting
and to begin paying on the delinquencies. She added the division
really wants to get the amounts down to represent what those people
really made during that period of time.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE recalled a fact sheet circulating around regarding
the 99 worst defaulters or "deadbeats" and the amounts were all
over $100,000. He asked if that was still an accurate assessment
of individuals who have not paid their child support?
MS. STRAUBE said there were numerous cases over $100,000.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if Ms. Straube was saying that some of those
cases were over $100,000 not because of what they actually made,
but because someone decided that is what they should pay?
MS. STRAUBE said many of them are. She added that less than half
represent people who live in rural and Bush Alaska, but
approximately one-half of the money owed is by rural and Bush
Alaskans.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said it puzzled him to hear about no work or no
jobs, but yet the majority of the money owed is from rural Alaska.
He questioned why there were such huge amounts of arrearages.
MS. STRAUBE replied because people don't read the division's forms
or just throw them away. She said the division is actually more
lenient than the courts, who often set the amount of the support at
$1,000 per month.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE surmised the amount had to be based on some
assumption of income.
MS. STRAUBE said if that's the maximum for one child and it's a
default, it's almost like the courts have held it as a punishment.
In other words, if the person won't talk and cooperate, the court
will default the person with that amount. She noted the division
has finally taken a look at the Department of Labor's Alaska
average wage standard, but that may still be much higher than some
people's wages. She said the problem comes down to what do you do
when people won't talk to you? The division is torn by this, but
they think in the long run it will be good for the children and the
division will not have to carry the caseload they've been trying to
collect on which any business would have written off years ago.
There was discussion regarding time schedules for committee
members.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON mentioned she had three amendments to
address.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented he would like to address three of
the four issues brought up by the Tanana Chiefs Conference.
SENATOR GREEN said with respect to the first concern expressed by
TCC, Mr. Shircel is indeed right; they can go directly to the
federal government and get the 50 percent. She noted this concerns
the state because it is hoped that the standards and the system
developed through this plan will be implemented statewide and there
will not be a multitude of different standards working on
essentially 50 percent of what they would have now. Otherwise, the
Native organizations will have to work with the department to
implement the state match. They would have a self-sufficiency plan
or a similar system approved by the department before it is
implemented. She noted it is imperative this section stay as it is
currently written. She understood TCC's facility and program is
wonderful; however, there are concerns that with a 50 percent
budget, about August or September there will be needs that will not
be met. She emphasized the importance of a unified statewide plan.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE recalled the second suggestion by the Tanana
Chiefs Conference was changing "and" to "or" on page 11, line 17.
The sentence would read, "However, if the commissioner determines
that temporary economic conditions have resulted in decreased
employment opportunities during those months or a reduction in
assistance would impose an undue hardship on a family, the
department may waive application of this paragraph with respect to
that family." In other words, there would be two conditions that
would have to be met: (1) temporary economic conditions; or 2) a
reduction in assistance would impose an undue hardship on a family
during the months of July, August and September. Those two
conditions would have to be met before the commissioner would have
the ability to waive the application of this paragraph. Tanana
Chiefs Conference is asking that either one or the other condition
is able to be met.
SENATOR GREEN explained the trigger is the reduction in decreased
employment opportunities. She explained this program is designed
where there are two healthy adults in the family; one of whom can
render child care and assistance, while the other is free to work.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the section being addressed was the
AFDC UP Program or was it straight AFDC program? He expressed
confusion because there was no enumeration for shelter costs or
costs of utilities, etc., nor was there any mention of two-parent
families.
Number 1917
MIKE TIBBLES, Legislative Assistant to Senator Lyda Green, pointed
out that language had been added on page 11, line 13, to ensure
that this section would apply to only two-parent families.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that the principal wage earner in a
family could be a single parent with two children.
MR. LOMAS commented this language is straight from existing federal
law which defines eligibility for two-parent families in terms of
the unemployment of a principal wage earner. Given this is an
amendment under waivers to the existing AFDC program, the
department would read it as only applying to two-parent families.
There is a similar provision in the comprehensive provisions under
the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program which does not use that
term because it would no longer be a term of art under the new
federal law which quite specifically points toward two-parent
families. In effect, this language points only toward the AFDC UP
program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested maybe AFDC two-parent families
should be specified to avoid confusion.
MR. LOMAS thought that should be avoided because we don't want this
to apply to two-parent families in which the second parent is
medically incapacitated. Part of the reason the language reads as
such is to imply only those families where there are two able
bodied parents.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Representative Brice wanted to propose an
amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he wanted to know if the committee feels
comfortable leaving the language vague in this area.
TAPE 96-48, SIDE A
Number 026
SENATOR GREEN said that Kristen Bomengen from the Department of Law
could review the issue. She didn't mind referring to a statute,
but she didn't want it to be all encompassing of all two-parent
families, it would have to be very specific. She noted she would
not agree to the language change from "and" to "or", because that
was very carefully crafted to be designed to do exactly what it is
doing.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the other issue raised by the Tanana
Chiefs Conference related to confidentiality.
SENATOR GREEN said this section was designed because of concerns
expressed by various legislators after being contacted by
constituents about their individual case or the management of their
case and the legislators were unable to get any information
regarding the case. She added that particularly happens in the
case of a minor who runs away, then qualifies and gets assistance
for Medicaid. The parent then gets the bill from CSED and doesn't
know why the child should be qualified for anything, but the parent
is unable to get any information from AFDC because of
confidentiality. The legislation is drafted so that with proper
safeguards and to the extent that the legislature is held to very
high standards, this would be a very specific request about a very
specific person the legislator had been asked to check on. She
said, "Another one is on behalf of fraud. As we implement the
information designed to highlight fraud, how can we be kept
abreast, to a very high level of confidentiality. You can be
charged - you can be put in jail - you can have a misdemeanor -- I
don't know what all the other things are -- if you violate that."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired if under this section, he as a
legislator could request names and addresses of all people in his
district for the purpose of mailing.
SENATOR GREEN responded no.
MR. NORDLUND said he would feel more comfortable if this issue was
addressed by the representative from the Department of Law.
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "The way this is worded and because it
relates to another section - Section 36, Disclosures to
Legislators, and that is (indisc.-coughing) talks about the
confidentiality, and to me it's a bit reversed where unless it
specifically said that it's not confidential (indisc.-coughing)
confidential and can be disclosed, I think it should be
automatically confidential and then if you want to disclose it,
come back and unclassify it. You can do it both ways, but I want
to make sure that things are confidential unless it... There's
more of a problem of something being disclosed without an
indication of it being confidential than there is if it is
automatically confidential, then you have to come back, there's
less of a chance of a mistake I think in that fashion as opposed to
the way it's stated here."
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, agreed this was a very troublesome section. She
noted this language was a conceptual amendment and in fact, it does
in a sense undermine the confidentiality protections that were put
in the previous sections. She thought the Department of Law would
prefer to see this changed so it doesn't work in this kind of
inverse way that Representative Davis identified.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 31, line 27, Relief from
Administrative Order Section, and said he agreed with that. He
said if the department is able to do it, there is a high likelihood
of reducing the court's docket which he felt was a positive step.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY called for an at-ease at 4:45 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY called the meeting back to order at 4:49 p.m. She
asked Ms. Bomengen to continue with her testimony.
MS. BOMENGEN said in response to Representative Brice's previous
question about the request of lists from the department, some
language that had appeared in previous versions of the bill
suggested that the circumstance he described could happen, but the
current language limits itself to financial information concerning
an eligibility determination of a person applying for or receiving
assistance. She thought it anticipates that someone would be
providing the name and then getting information in response to that
name being provided.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there was any other statute that
allowed legislators the right to receive information of such a
confidential nature?
MS. BOMENGEN didn't know of any other circumstance specifically.
She knew that under some limited circumstances for confidential tax
information, there were agreements that could be signed by
legislators in order to receive information. As far as personal
information that would affect an individual, this is probably a
very unusual provision.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if it would be strictly for information
regarding the finances?
MS. BOMENGEN said yes, it was discussed before another committee
that there really is a great deal of other information contained in
a personal file; e.g., medical information, child abuse reports,
and things of that nature. She added that isn't to minimize the
importance of the privacy interest in financial information,
because that is certainly important to an individual as well.
However, it was intended to specifically include any medical-
related matters or other matters of a sensitive nature.
Number 660
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she had never had any problem
trying to work out a problem on behalf of a constituent when there
had been a misunderstanding or lack of communication. If there
was a problem however, she thought it might be okay if the
constituent could sign a waiver granting the legislator the right
to talk with the department. She asked if that was correct?
MS. BOMENGEN confirmed that. She added that presently a legislator
who was sought out by a constituent to help them with a problem,
could get a waiver and receive any of the information necessary to
follow up on that case. This does raise a circumstance in which a
constituent could report a neighbor and the legislator would
potentially be seeking information concerning a constituent's
neighbor.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how that would be tracked.
MS. BOMENGEN said currently, information is very much limited under
federal law. In fact, under current federal law this provision
would not be allowed at all. Currently, a legislator can receive
any information that a constituent would like a legislator to
receive by securing a waiver from the constituent and then inquire
into the case and receive information from the department under
that circumstance. The circumstance also allowed by the provision
in this legislation, is for a constituent to call about a neighbor
and the legislator could inquire into that circumstance.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Bomengen really thought that would
happen?
MS. BOMENGEN responded, that in fact, was explicitly one of the
interests that was expressed. The inadvertent result has to be
that that information would remain confidential; therefore, the
legislator would be able to get access to that information but
would not be able to disclose it to the constituent. That could
leave a legislator in an awkward set of circumstances.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented that legislators have that provision
currently. For example, a constituent could call to advise that a
neighbor who is on AFDC had just bought a new car.
MS. BOMENGEN responded she didn't believe a legislator would
necessarily be able to find out any information about the neighbor.
While it would be appropriate to report it, the department could
investigate it, but the legislator couldn't look into specifically.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she now understood the difference.
MS. BOMENGEN remarked this would be a departure from current
practice.
Number 869
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to Ms. Bomengen's remark that this
language is not in compliance to federal law and asked if the
language wouldn't be unconstitutional?
MS. BOMENGEN said it is not in compliance with the current federal
restrictions that explicitly require safeguards to prohibit the
disclosure of identifying information to a legislative body. That
is current law; this provision appears in the new law and the
current federal law provision will go away and a new one comes into
place that says that we have to assure that all reasonable steps
necessary are taken to assure the confidentiality of the
information because the specific guidelines are looser under the
new law. This provision only takes effect if we look at the
effective date provisions under the new Welfare Reform Act.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked how the department felt about this and
how they handle a specific request by a legislator under current
law.
Number 940
MR. NORDLUND said the department opposes the provision that allows
legislators to have access to this information largely because a
legislator is not in a position to effectuate any remedy. The
legislator can only have information for their own knowledge, but
can't do anything about it. It is really up to the department to
pursue a fraud investigation or take whatever action is necessary
to alleviate the problem that had been called to the department's
attention. He remarked the department always looks out for the
privacy interests of recipients in a program and they feel the
disclosure of this information does not merit the advantage it may
have to a legislator.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the salaries of all other state employees
were public information? He noted the salaries of legislators are
public information.
The response was inaudible.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE remarked so it is only welfare recipients that get
privacy, but the salaries of people working for a living are
available to the public.
Number 1011
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood this was basically
getting a person's financial information. She added one thing to
keep in mind is that if a constituent signs a waiver, the
legislator can get all the information.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked again why this language was inserted in the
bill.
SENATOR GREEN responded the ability to get information from the
department was discussed a great deal in the Senate and frustration
was expressed. The feeling was that if the legislature is supposed
to be responsible for a program with respect to funding, there
should be some way that information could be obtained. She added
it is basically to follow up on inquiries; it is not a witch hunt.
She didn't think it was unreasonable for a legislator to be able to
follow up on complaints and inquiries. She emphasized the level to
which a legislator is held on doing anything with the information
is very high; it can't be shared, it can't be published, etc.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked for verification that if a constituent comes
to a legislator regarding a problem with the welfare department and
provides information, that is a doable situation currently. This
section would allow a legislator to go to the department and get a
copy of the constituent's file to see if the information is
accurate.
SENATOR GREEN replied no, because she didn't think anyone would
want a copy of the constituent's file. She thought it was more in
the line of what the constituent qualified for or why the
qualification wasn't met. She added that several legislators had
made inquiries to the department that they did not feel were
adequately answered and wanted access to the information.
Number 1205
CO-CHAIR BUNDE agreed that free flow of information was important;
however, he surmised that the information being sought as to
someone's personal finances and how much money they made last year
would be germane if a person is applying for welfare, but he didn't
know if that information was necessary to determine if they were
treated fairly by the department.
SENATOR GREEN thought it was not so much to do with the financial
history, but rather the benefit the person was receiving now.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE replied his initial reaction was that it was state
money and how much money was being paid to a recipient. He wasn't
sure about the sacredness of the benefit amount, but added that a
person is certainly entitled to privacy relating to their personal
finances.
Number 1484
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY remarked that there wasn't a great deal of personal
income, other than what the state was contributing, for a family on
welfare so she didn't think there would be a plethora of
information.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that she would like to continue with the
sectional analysis and then take up the amendments.
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that as far as what people are
receiving in AFDC benefits, the maximum amount was established in
statute. His concern was this leaves a certain doorway open for
legislators that may be more appropriate for the fraud unit in the
Public Assistance Division to be involved with as opposed to
bringing legislators into the picture. He felt it would be more
appropriate for a legislator to call the fraud unit if neighbor A
is calling to report that neighbor B who is on welfare is driving
a new car.
SENATOR GREEN agreed and added there was nothing to prevent the
neighbor from contacting the fraud unit.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE remarked it comes back to the question of
whether this is really necessary.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY personally didn't think there would be a whole lot
of abuse of this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Nordlund to explain how under
current law he would handle a call from her reporting that neighbor
X said neighbor Y was doing thus and such.
MR. NORDLUND said he would thank Representative Robinson for her
inquiry, advise her that the fraud unit would follow up on it
and that action would be taken if appropriate. He noted that it
would be public knowledge if there was a criminal investigation.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought it would more apt to be people calling and
saying they were not being treated fairly by AFDC or the
department. In other words, people would want her to intercede
between them and the department.
MS. BOMENGEN said this section does not create that anew.
Currently, any legislator could act on behalf of a constituent and
receive the information necessary as long as the constituent
consented to that information going to the legislator without any
of the changes in Section 33, 35 or 36.
SENATOR GREEN commented she would like the assurance that she could
find out if there had been action taken or if there had been some
follow up to a fraud report or investigation. She felt that if
legislators were going to be responsible for writing legislation
for the programs, they need to be able to get the information that
assures the programs were being administered like the legislature
wanted them to be.
Number 1500
SENATOR GREEN continued her sectional analysis and said Section 23,
Adverse Action Against Delinquent Obligator's Occupational License,
was in last year's HB 78. This is a CSED provision that people who
have been in noncompliance and held to be in default would receive
notice that their license to certain activities would be either
suspended, revoked or nonissued. There are time frames established
for notice, response and for action to be taken. This also applies
to a delinquent obligor's driver license. This section is
basically to address people who are not contacting the department
or not talking to them. This has been found to be a great
deterrent in other states.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if this section includes nurses, doctors,
lawyers, etc.?
SENATOR GREEN responded affirmatively. She added that people who
receive a regular paycheck are fairly easy to find and impact.
Individuals who are self-employed or have other types of
arrangements are more difficult to impact.
SENATOR GREEN said Section 54, Redetermination of Assistance
Levels, was the next major section following all the repeals and
reference changes to the program. She remarked they have been
trying to find an equitable, fair and just method to address the
rates paid in Alaska that are set in statute. Other states are
making up to 26 or 27 percent reductions in payments and this has
not been met with a great deal of cooperation in Alaska. She said
futuristically, we are trying to find a way that gets and
encourages the desired effect from the changes being implemented
through this bill; that being the caseload begins to drop and the
net amount spent on benefits each year will tend to fall off.
There will be a baseline year used for comparison and the year 1999
will be compared to it. If, on the first day of the legislative
session in the year 2000, it is determined that the total amount
spent for this program in 1999 is less than the program in 1997,
there will be no downward adjustment to the benefits paid out.
However, if there has been incremental increases in the amount paid
out in 1999 for this program based on a comparison to 1997, the
decrease will compare to the increase in those two years. There is
basically a sunset provision in that year and the department and
those agencies involved felt this is reasonable. It is the
anticipated goal that everything will have had time to be
implemented, the programs will be in effect and there will start to
be reductions.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said this doesn't take into account any
increases in population that may result and asked what happens if
for example, a gas pipeline or other project transpires that
results in a population growth.
SENATOR GREEN thought that would be the best of all worlds.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that may not necessarily be true because
it could be two or three years before people go to work and there
could be a big fluctuation in AFDC payments.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented the hope is that the federal government
will have implemented their program by the year 2000 and the state
waiver will be history.
SENATOR GREEN pointed out this is part of the Comprehensive Plan;
this is federal welfare reform.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said regardless of what the federal government
does, this situation could occur without any consideration of those
factors.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY interjected that if a person from another state who
has been on welfare for four years comes to Alaska, that person
only has one year on the program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is not the point. He said, "The
point is when we're talking about the aggregate expenditure without
any consideration of circumstances as compared to the aggregate
expenditure in 1999 - the difference between 2000 and 1999..."
SENATOR GREEN pointed out that under the waiver portion of the bill
or the comprehensive plan, there is a two year time limit on
benefits. That is anticipated to start rolling people off from
1996 to 1998; we would be beginning the final countdown
qualification. It is not anticipated that number will go back up
to meet that current number.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected that may be true unless something
happens to the population that causes a dramatic increase.
Number 1860
MR. NORDLUND said this is a section, in the spirit of cooperation
and compromise, the department has agreed to go along with, but it
is not language they originally supported or proposed. The
department does have some concerns about it. He thought
Representative Brice's concern was a valid concern and said this
provision does not take into account if the economy goes down in
the state which results in more unemployment and a natural rise in
the caseload. Also, there is no provision that will help
compensate for an exceptional growth rate in the state. He noted
that both those circumstances were addressed in the federal law
however, and they anticipate the states will be given additional
funds under the contingency that the unemployment rate goes beyond
a certain threshold or if there is exceptional growth in the state.
He commented this version is a bit shortsighted in that way.
However, the fact that there is going to be federal money available
though to the state of Alaska if we face either one of those
circumstances, will help alleviate some of the budgetary impact the
department would see in the program. Also, because of the
availability of some federal contingency money, both for the growth
and for the unemployment as well as under the federal law, if the
state is able to successfully reduce the out-of-wedlock pregnancy
rate for AFDC recipients, the state will be eligible for additional
federal funds. He noted the department attempted to make it clear
in the Senate Finance Committee that this provision when comparing
the benefit levels from FY 97 to FY 99 year, only pertains to state
funds. He thought it was important for the record to further
clarify it is the department's understanding that it is total state
operating funds, not capital funds being factored into that
equation because the department is looking at hopefully a steady
decreased growth of the program on the operating side; capital
funds gyrate from year to year depending on the capital needs and
shouldn't be included in this equation. He commented it is
something the department is willing to live with and they are
banking on the fact that the entire welfare reform effort will be
successful and there will be a drop in the caseload. If there is
a drop in the caseload, this provision will never take effect. On
the other hand, if circumstances beyond anyone's control happen, as
discussed by Representative Brice, then the state may be in the
situation of having to employ an automatic ratable reduction to
meet the budget targets suggested in the legislation. From the
department's standpoint it is a bit of a gamble, but he pointed out
that one thing in the operating budget that will make it easier for
the department to meet those targets and to actually see a
reduction in the caseload is the money the department has asked for
in the operating budget for child care and job training. Without
those tools, it will be very difficult for the department to see
the decreased caseload that will alleviate having to do the ratable
reduction. He said while that is in another vehicle and part of
another debate, it is very important and the department will
continue to ensure that it is on the priority list as the
legislature adjourns this year.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if interest on the child support payments
goes directly into the general fund?
MS. STRAUBE said that one-half of the money CSED collects on an
AFDC case goes to the federal government and the other half goes
back into the Public Assistance Program.
MR. LOMAS clarified that it goes into the general fund and then
gets appropriated to the Public Assistance Program.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referenced Section 54, page 50, line 5,
which states that if the First Regular Session of the Twenty-First
Alaska State Legislature does not enact a bill that adjusts the
payment structure and asked if that wasn't another safety valve in
case there was a positive or negative economic activity that had
been mentioned previously.
SENATOR GREEN assumed that was true.
MR. NORDLUND said, "The discussion I had about the effect of this
comparison of FY 97 to FY 99 is the default position -- is what
happens if based upon the results of the needs study the department
is required to do is not considered and a new law enacted that sets
up a new benefit structure by the legislature - if that action
isn't taken, then the default position is this -- if the amount of
money in 1999 was greater than 1997, then there is that automatic
ratable to bring the overall appropriation level down to the 97
level."
Number 2089
SENATOR GREEN pointed out the thought was that if all the work was
being done to structure a program that was supposed to work to
reduce spending, reduce the caseload, and to make their work harder
to begin with but more streamlined as the program goes on, there
should be reductions.
Number 2122
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Department of Health & Social Services,
said in her opinion this was one of the most important sections of
the bill. She noted the legislature would need to look long term
at the federal contingency requirements. There was a huge debate
among states about what happens if economies go down because these
are the very programs that are needed when economies are down, but
the state can't afford to pay for them. There are requirements
that will be placed on the department for maintenance of effort in
order to tap into the millions of dollars of federal contingency
monies. She thought one of the things the legislature would have
to look at very carefully in 1999 is whether or not by lowering the
payment rate, the state will be precluding ourselves from
participating in the federal contingency funds. The second issue
is child support collections. Commissioner Perdue thought the
spirit of the Senate Finance Committee's provision was to not
penalize the state for gathering funds, so they changed the wording
from total funds to state funds. She submitted that the state
needs to be careful about the issue of child support revenues as
well because they are state funds. She doesn't want to see a
situation where the state was penalized by creating a ratable for
collecting more child support revenue. The department had
originally proposed the word "general funds" as opposed to "state
funds" because again, the whole spirit is to lower the state's
investment, not to create disincentives to collect other revenues.
Number 2200
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was a need for a change in the
language?
SENATOR GREEN thought that was the preferred language.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE said there wasn't a lot of time for discussion
in the committee, but she thought it was a very important question
of whether it should be general funds or state funds because the
department is trying to lower their dependence on the state budget.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY suggested that the Finance Committee may be the
appropriate place to address this issue.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there were other questions from committee
members. She invited Louise Charles from Fairbanks to testify at
this time.
Number 2238
LOUISE CHARLES from Tanana Chiefs Conference testified from
Fairbanks that she administers the Job Opportunities (indisc.)
Program at Tanana Chiefs. She said she supports this legislation
with the changes outlined by Mr. Shircel, but she wanted to address
the reinvestment fund for tribal jobs and programs that will allow
continued success of the clients that her program serves, and
would allow AFDC recipients to achieve self-sufficiency. She
stated they have realized an increase in the caseload at TCC Jobs
due to an increase in the number of referrals from the Division of
Public Assistance, especially over the last four to six months.
She wanted the committee to understand that tribal entities have
not had matching funds. They have received a 25 percent decrease
in Jobs Program funding and their grant funds for this year is
$109,000 which has to be used to serve Fairbanks, 42 villages in
the Interior and 9 villages on the North Slope. She pointed out
some of the successes of the Jobs Program lately. In October 1995
and March 1996 they had 14 people who took certified nurses aide
training.
TAPE 96-48, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. CHARLES continued that everyone was certified and 9 out of the
14 are now employed and in the transition period of getting off
from AFDC and the others are presently searching for jobs and have
some good leads. She encouraged the continued support for jobs and
state matching funds. In conclusion she said that if this bill is
going to do what it is supposed to, there must be education funds
and training funds available to help people become self-sufficient.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify?
Hearing none, she closed public testimony. She noted there were
three amendments before the committee and asked Representative
Robinson to introduce her amendment.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Amendment 1 was a simple change to the
language which deletes "and who have received" and inserts "The
agency may not include an obligor on the list unless the agency has
sent to the obligor, at the obligor's most recent address on file
with the agency, written" on page 32, line 17. She felt the
department could have some problems if they didn't know for certain
that an obligor had received the notice.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that he didn't object to detailing it, but
he asked Ms. Straube if notices were sent by certified mail?
MS. STRAUBE said it depends on what the process is; sometimes it
has to be done by certified mail, otherwise it's just by regular
post. She pointed out that the language relating to occupational
licenses and driver licenses states "delivered personally to the
applicant or deposited in the United States mail..." She said the
Child Support Enforcement Division has a number of obligors who
refuse service, which has worked to the obligors' advantage.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted this amendment says the notice has to have
been sent, so by sending it out, the department has made a good
faith effort and the obligor's name can then be added to the list.
He asked Ms. Straube if it would be a challenge for the division to
prove that the obligor had actually received the notice without the
amendment.
MS. STRAUBE said that was correct, but many of the people simply
did not pick up their mail.
Number 214
CO-CHAIR BUNDE withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what Senator Green's opinion was of
the amendment?
SENATOR GREEN said she didn't have any great problem, but added
that she didn't know how it would be received by the Senator who
had originally requested the language contained in CSSB 98(RLS).
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had attempted to contact the
Senator, but was unable to discuss it with him at this point.
MS. STRAUBE noted she had spoken with Senator Reiger when he added
this language and she didn't have a problem with it because the
division already does this; they let them know all the time that
they are delinquent. Secondly, this is just to put an obligor's
name on the list; they still have all the due process rights to
disagree with being on the list.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 1. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted. She asked
Representative Robinson to speak to Amendment 2.
Number 269
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Amendment 2 was on page 45 and she
felt there needed to be some real compelling reasons for the
legislature to have powers that others don't have to get
information on individuals receiving AFDC. She noted that
currently if she is contacted by a constituent who wants her
assistance in getting information, the constituent merely has to
sign a waiver and she is able to get all the pertinent information
from the department. Also, if a constituent expresses concern that
someone is misrepresenting their financial situation and receiving
benefits, a legislator can contact the department who in turn will
look into the situation. She said quite frankly, she didn't know
what legislators would do with the information if they did receive
it because they don't have the power to do anything. She didn't
know of any compelling reason why legislators should have access to
the information and expressed concern about the potential abuse.
Number 387
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Senator Green what her thoughts were
regarding the amendment?
SENATOR GREEN responded this was a very important provision to the
Senate. It was part of the package and she would not like to see
it removed. She thought the standard to which legislators are held
is high and she didn't think it would be worth the penalty for
disclosing or misusing the information.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that he didn't share Senator Green's
opinion as to the high standard some legislators are held to. He
remarked that in a perfect world he would vote to remove this
section because he didn't see the use of it for him personally and
it's information that he wouldn't want to be held responsible for.
But because of the importance to other people and knowing that this
bill is a long series of compromises, he maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON emphasized her beliefs that the legislature
was over-stepping their bounds with this provision. She thought
the issue would be brought up in the House Finance Committee and
probably on the House floor. She recognized there had been a lot
of work done on the bill and a lot of compromising, but it was
presently before the House HESS Committee and there were 40
legislators on the House side that would have to explain to the
public why they felt they deserved to have a special privilege of
getting confidential information that no one else, except the
department, is able to retrieve.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would object to the amendment. He had
strong concerns and he personally did not envision himself
utilizing any of this information. He felt legislators should
listen to the public, and the one thing that a lot of legislators,
including himself, hear from the public about is the welfare
system. Some of the public's concerns relating not only to this
department, but every department is the power of the bureaucracy
and this addresses the power of the bureaucracy. This gives the
legislature access to how the bureaucracy does business and how
well they're doing their business.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
Amendment 2 were Representatives Brice and Robinson. Voting
against the amendment were Representatives Davis, Rokeberg, Toohey
and Bunde. The amendment failed to be adopted.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 3.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Amendment 3 would delete "sec. 57" and
insert "sec. 61" on page 52, line 4. She understood that the two
year sunset would begin upon the enactment of this legislation.
This section is the occupational license and driver license
section; however, occupational licensing provisions would only go
into effect after the passage of the federal welfare reform. That
could mean the state may not even have two years in which to try
the program. The sunset date starts the day the bill goes into
effect, but the occupational licensing program won't go into effect
until the federal law is passed. With this amendment, the sunset
clock won't start until the program goes into effect; it shifts the
provisions to allow some time to see if the program is something
the state wants to keep in effect.
SENATOR GREEN said the legislation was written as planned; it was
not an error.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE verified that Senator Green wanted this to run out
sooner rather than later.
SENATOR GREEN said that was the intention. She said the provision
goes into effect October 1 if the Federal Welfare Reform Act has
not passed. If the Federal Welfare Reform Act has passed, this
goes into effect. So there would be 18 months if the Act goes in
place by that time. If the Federal Welfare Reform Act does not go
into effect before the state legislature convenes their next
session, this will have to be addressed again. She reiterated this
only goes into effect if the Federal Welfare Reform Act goes into
effect. It was not intended that this be two years after the
Welfare Reform Act becomes effective. She believed this provision
had been amended in Senate Finance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was of the opinion that everyone wanted a
two year period in which to see if the program was going to work.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it was a fair statement that if the Federal
Welfare Reform Act does pass, then the legislature wants a clean
slate rather than having their hands tied for two more years before
adjustments could be made.
SENATOR GREEN said that was correct. She remarked it is
anticipated that it is a requirement to come back and look at it in
two years from the passage of this legislation.
MS. STRAUBE said with regard to the occupational and driver
licenses, that was one of the parts of the federal welfare reform
that had been in every bill the same way. The only difference is
that the federal legislation is a little harsher than this
legislation. The thought was to get the state's in effect first
and then it would take a long time before we might have to change
it to do what the federal government wants. She added the federal
government wants recreational licenses, too. Speaking as a
bureaucrat, she said there are concerns only because she knows how
long it takes to get a program up and running and this one is going
to be operating with numerous other agencies. She said the
division didn't say much about the amendment because they wanted
the bill to move and they were pretty happy with most of the bill.
She was concerned that it would be hard to prove whether the
program was worth anything if they only had six months or a year in
which to prove it. She added no one knows how long they will have
because it's all up in the air depending on when federal welfare
reform passes.
SENATOR GREEN said it was this language and this provision of the
bill that allowed occupational licensing and driver licensing to
stay in the bill.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
Amendment 3 were Representatives Brice and Robinson. Voting
against the amendment were Representatives Rokeberg, Davis, Toohey
and Bunde. Amendment 3 failed.
Number 900
CO-CHAIR BUNDE made a motion to move HCS CSSB 98(HES) from
committee. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY adjourned the meeting of the House Health,
Education and Social Services meeting at 6:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|