HB 67 An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public assistance; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 67 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no recommendations" and with nine fiscal notes by the Department of Health and Social Services. HOUSE BILL 67 "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public assistance; and providing for an effective date." Representative Brown WITHDREW the previous amendment which 4 she provided at the last meeting. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn. She provided the Committee with three new amendments. [Attachment #3 - #5]. SHERRY GOLL, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, JUNEAU, ALASKA, provided the Committee with information regarding how other states gauge decisions relating to COLA. Alaska's automatic COLA is an unique program but not unusual in trying to keep payments level with the inflation factor. In 1992, there were seven other states which increased their payment level due to inflation. Alaska 2.8% Arizona & Hawaii 4% Washington 3% Alabama 10% She noted in twenty-seven other states there are two optional programs not existing in Alaska. These states "special needs" include: 1. High shelter costs; 2. High fuel or utility costs; 3. Burial costs; 4. Clothing; 5. Expenses due to natural disasters or eviction. Ms. Goll added, thirty states operate "emergency assistance" programs designed to provide short term cash aid to house holds in crisis. Emergency assistance payments are used for such purposes as preventing eviction by paying rent arrears, preventing utility shot off by paying past due utility bills, deposits, repair replacements, and enabling homeless families to move to an apartment. States set their own budget priorities. These priorities can reflect a commitment to protecting their poorest residents from large cuts or they can plunge those whose incomes already fail to meet society's standard for a minimal level of subsistence still deeper into poverty. The federal government has followed the explicit principle of putting such cuts off limits, and in 1985, most major low-income benefit programs were exempted from the across the board cuts triggered under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget act when deficit targets are missed. Co-Chair Larson questioned the State's responsibility to those persons on AFDC who misuse their state money. Ms. Goll stated that concern would be dealt with by the Department of Health and Social Services. 5 JAN HANSEN, DIRECTOR, ADULT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, commented that the majority of the persons on AFDC and APA are using their monthly checks appropriately. She stated that the Department does not do anything to determine how the allowance is used. The program is there to foster responsibility in individuals for managing their lives and money. She felt that there was little abuse of the money, as the Department is trying to operate the most cost effective program. Discussion followed regarding the possibilities establishing additional systems which would be more effective. Ms. Hansen noted that the primary strategy has been to cut costs by creating a rigorous eligibility program. Co-Chair MacLean questioned the impact of the proposed amendments to the legislation. Ms. Hansen addressed Amendment #2, Attachment #4, which would establish a minimum floor from which AFDC payments would not fall. This payment would be determined as a percentage of the federal poverty guideline. (Tape Change, HFC 93-92, Side 1). Ms. Hansen stated the poverty guideline in the federal statutes at this time would provide the Alaskan AFDC claim 81% of the poverty level. The bill would provide a floor of 75%. She continued, for the Adult Public Assistance, the poverty guideline for one person is $725 dollars per month. The payment made at the FY 92 level would be 108% of the federally established poverty level. Ms. Hansen pointed out that Amendment #4, the COLA provisions in current statute remain with the exception of an appropriation made specifically for it. The language states that the state "shall" award the COLA if the federal government makes an increase subject to appropriation funds. The Committee discussed if Amendment #2 or Amendment #4 would be best for the poor of the State while maintaining the budgetary cap and economic development in rural areas. Representative Brown reiterated that the APA program often suffices as the rural Alaskan retirement program because those people worked at jobs in which retirement benefits were not available. She urged the Committee not to cut the COLA adjustments for the poorest. An APA recipient often pays 70% of their income for rent. Representative Brown requested the Committee to adopt Amendment #2 and Amendment MARY GUTHRIE, ALASKA NATIVE SISTERHOOD, KLAWOCK, ALASKA, 6 spoke in opposition to HB 67. She noted her concern with alleviating the COLA for the Adult Public Assistance. BARBARA C. LEWIS, ALASKA NATIVE SISTERHOOD, HAINES, ALASKA, spoke in opposition to HB 67, representing the small rural minority areas. (Tape Change, HFC 93-92, Side 2). JENNY BELL, DIRECTOR, AWARE, CAMP - 2, ALASKA NATIVE SISTERHOOD, JUNEAU, ALASKA, noted that subsistence was the pension plan for the older rural Alaskans. She spoke in opposition to HB 67. She urged the Committee to consider other solutions than cutting the COLA and instead offering incentive programs to help the poor. Representative Brown MOVED Amendment #2. Co-Chair Larson OBJECTED for further discussion. Representative Therriault OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Brown, Foster, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Martin, Navarre, Larson, MacLean. OPPOSED: Therriault, Parnell. Representative Hanley was not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED, (8-2). Representative Hoffman MOVED Amendment #4. Representative Martin OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Brown, Foster, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Navarre, Parnell, Therriault, MacLean. OPPOSED: Martin, Larson. The MOTION PASSED, (8-2). Representative Hoffman MOVED to report CS HB 67 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 67 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "individual recommendations" and with nine fiscal notes by the Department of Health and Social Services.