HOUSE BILL NO. 78 "An Act relating to the maximum amount of assistance that may be granted under the adult public assistance program and the program of aid to families with dependent children; proposing a special demonstration project within the program of aid to families with dependent children and directing the Department of Health and Social Services to seek waivers from the federal government to implement the project." Representative Hanley was invited to join the Committee. He stated that HB 78 was his version of the welfare reform package. He briefly went through the bill. He stated that the first section of the bill relates to child enforcement division, giving them tools to allow for collecting more child support enforcement. It actually reduces the amount of money to be paid to AFDC since the extra child obligations come in and supplant AFDC payments. He noted that this may be imposed on Alaska, on a federal level, since it is part of the contract with America; and is involved in the package that the House sent to the U.S. Senate. The next major section dealt with minors with children. Requiring them to live at home with certain exceptions. This section was originally in the governor's bill and also in Senator Green's bill. He noted that he incorporated this into his bill as it was passed out. Basically, a minor who has a child, would have to live at home with their parents, unless there was an abusive situation or a few other exclusions included in the bill. Senator Sharp MOVED to ADOPT SCSCSHB 78 (FIN), version "U". No objections being heard, the working draft was ADOPTED. Rep Hanley continued through the bill. He stated that section 8 is a court rule change. In an attempt to equalize the situation dealing with a minor mother required to live at home with her parents, there is also a requirement for the minor father which requires his parents to take monetary responsibility. Rep Hanley, in referring to Section 10, involves a report that is required for the Child Support Enforcement Division, requiring information dealing with occupational and driver's licenses. Section 11 makes reference to the waivers in the bill. Whereby the state is required to request waivers from the federal laws to implement some of the demonstration projects that are in the bill. Section 12 starts with the waiver process. It also takes away some of the disincentives to work and provides incentives. Currently, under federal law a recipient of AFDC is allowed to keep only $50 of their earnings after the first three months. This bill changes that figure to $200, plus one-third of the remaining amount, which provides an incentive for the individual on AFDC. The state keeps two-thirds, which actually helps to offset the amount of money that the state is spending on the AFDC program. It also allows the combined equity in a motor vehicle used by the family to be raised from $1500 to $5000. There is a section dealing with the waiver for two parent family, whereby the law provides a 100 hour limit per month. Section 13 concerns the workfare issue. This section deals with exemptions but also says that if a person is able- bodied, there is a requirement of 15 hrs a week of paid employment or 21 hrs of uncompensated community service work, if assigned by the department. The reason being there may not be any volunteer services. Section 14 was originally in the governor's bill, it is an AFDC unemployed parent project that sets up a 2 year self- sufficiency development program. Section 15 is self- employment project. It allows individuals on AFDC to save money and not have that count against them, if they are going to use it to establish a business. Section 16 is called a diversion project. It allows the department the flexibility to give individuals a one-time lump sum payment. The dollar amounts are listed on page 28, lines 3-26. The intent is to find those individuals and give them the one time assistance. They would not be eligible for the AFDC payments. Co-chair Halford stated that the bill has received extensive hearings in the Senate under a senate bill. Senator Green was invited to join the committee. She began on page 13, with the senate changes to the bill. The section deals with ineligibility assistance, making it clear that upon conviction of welfare fraud, the recipient is ineligible for welfare benefits. She moved on to the section dealing with benefits for children going on welfare, page 14, line 6. She noted that it would not impact medicare or food stamps, but cash benefits only. Another change on page 14, line 18, notes that a person is not eligible to receive benefits for more than a total of 60 months. There is a five year time limit unless the person is permanently, totally, or physically disabled. There was considerable discussion regarding the needs for the parent in this situation. There was language developed to amend this portion. A motion was made to adopt a conceptual amendment on page 14, line 20. No objection being heard, the conceptual amendment was ADOPTED into the work draft. Senator Green advanced into section 4, stating the ratable reduction of 1.7% is included in this version. In section 6, she noted the time limit on benefits were changed. Section 12 deals with a two-tier system which she explained. Section 14 which deals with the AFDC unemployed parent project, provides for coordination within 2-years for self- sufficiency. The last revision is in section 26, dealing with the effective date. Senator Zharoff asked what the process for teen mother would be under this system? Rep Hanley responded that teen mother would have to live at home with their parents, unless there was an abusive situation or some of the other exceptions provided in the bill. That was a proposal by the governor's office and Senator Green, that he incorporated into the original bill, which is still in the current version. Senator Zharoff asked for clarity on the various time limits. Ms. Babcock responded that there is a five year time limit that applies to everyone including those on AFDC, those not permanently totally, physically or mentally disabled. Even if a recipient enters into a two year program, the five year limit is still imposed. If a recipient goes into a workfare, training, or jobs program and put on the 24-month time limit, once a job is found, after the 24-month, then the recipient has an 84 month period whereby you are not eligible to go back on AFDC. If the 84 month lapses and the recipient wants to go back on AFDC, they would have three more years left on the 5 year limitation. The time limits are not retroactive, it becomes effective March 1, 1996 if not prohibited by federal law. Senator Zharoff asked for an explanation on the ratable reduction. Ms. Babcock responded that the ratable reduction is 1.7%, similar to the House bill, that came out of finance and went to the floor. Page 15, lines 1-12 indicates the impact which is $102 to $100; $452 to $451; $821 to $806 and $514 to $505. The average is $15 month less with 1.7% ratable reduction. Senator Rieger asked for explanation on language on page 2. Ms. Babcock responded that the language refers to non- custodial grandparents, and their obligation to support the grandchild, in the same way a parent would insofar as their income is concerned. This is in the case where both parents are minors and living with the parents. Senator Zharoff asked if money could be set aside from the PFD and saved until the child was 18? Ms. Babcock stated it could be done, but it is currently not being done. There were questions at the table concerning encouragement of people to move to Alaska because of the good benefits. Co-chair Halford MOVED to change all time limits to March 1, 1996. No objection being heard, the conceptual amendment was ADOPTED. Section 23 would indicate that only Section 21 is immediate. No objection being heard, the conceptual amendment was ADOPTED. Senator Zharoff MOVED to adopt a letter of intent. The motion failed. With this, he then asked to adopt the original CSHB 78. A motion was made to rescind the "U" work draft. The motion failed by a show of hands. All opposed: Co-chair Halford, and Senators Rieger, Sharp, Phillips. Those in favor: Senator Zharoff. Senator Zharoff moved to adopt a conceptual amendment which deleted those portions in section 3, and added to the CS. After some discussion, he amended his motion to include the deletion of all of Section 3. By a show of hands the amendment FAILED. Senator Zharoff was in favor, and Co- chair Halford, along with Senators Sharp, and Rieger were opposed. Senator Phillips abstained. The motion failed 3 to 1. Senator Zharoff moved to remove the ratable reduction of 1.7%. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chair Halford, along with Senators Rieger, Sharp and Phillips. The motion failed 4 to 1. Senator Zharoff moved for the removal of the Time Limits on Benefits under Section 6, starting on page 16, line 31. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chair Halford, along with Senators Rieger, Sharp and Phillips. The motion failed 4 to 1. Senator Zharoff moved for the removal of portions of Section 12. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Sharp, Rieger and Phillips. The motion failed 5 to 1. Senator Zharoff moved to delete subsection (e) and (f) on page 23 of section 13. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co- chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Sharp, and Rieger. The motion failed 4 to 1. Senator Zharoff moved to change years in Section 14, page 24, line 4. Changing 2 years to three years and 24 months to 36 months. By a show of hands, the amendment FAILED. In favor was Senator Zharoff. Opposed were Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with Senators Phillips, Sharp and Rieger. The motion failed 5 to 1. Sherri Gore, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby testified in support of the House version of the bill. She stated that the committee has adopted a new approach which encourages abortions and limits those who are caring for totally disabled children. She asked to exempt parents of the totally disabled. Senator Phillips expressed concern about the parent caring for the totally disabled and indicated that additional language was needed to amend this area. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt new language on page 14. No objections being heard, an amendment to an earlier amendment was ADOPTED. Senator Sharp MOVED to adopt SCSCSHB 78 (FIN) with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes as listed. No objection being heard SCSCSHB 78 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass" from Co-Chair Halford and Senator Sharp. Senators Rieger and Phillips signed "no recommendations" and Senator Zharoff signed "do not pass". The accompanying fiscal notes are noted below: No Dept Date Amount 2 DH&SS (PA-Elg. Deter.) 5/7/95 170.4 3 DH&SS (PA-Admin) 5/7/95 283.0 4 DH&SS (PA-Data Proc.) 5/7/95 972.4 5 DH&SS (Ak. Work Prog.) 5/7/95 - 0 - 394.5 FY-97 6 DH&SS (Child Care) 5/7/95 - 0 - 152.0 FY-97 7 DH&SS (AFDC-Ratable Red.)5/7/95 (1,610.7) 8 DH&SS (PFD Hold Harm.) 5/7/95 (226.9) 9 DH&SS (FYS Central) 4/4/95 113.9 10 DH&SS (Med. Asst. Claims)5/7/95 40.0 17 DH&SS (EMS Training) 3/10/95 1.5 23 DEC (Palmer Lab.) 2/17/95 -0- 24 DH&SS (Med. Facilities) 5/7/95 (116.7) 25 DH&SS (Med. Non-Fac.) 5/7/95 (107.7) 26 DH&SS (AFDC) 5/7/95 (317.9) 27 DOLabor (Mech. Insp.) 3/30/95 & 5/2 53.7 28 DOLabor (Safety & Health)3/30/95 & 5/2 36.1 29 DC&ED (Banking/Corps.) 3/24/95 & 5/1 29.1 30 DC&ED (Occ. Licensing) 3/24/95 & 5/1 83.5 31 DC&ED (Ins. Operations) 3/24/95 & 5/1 26.0 32 DOR (Child Support) 4/4/95 & 5/2 519.4 33 DOE (Teacher Cert.) 3/24/95 & 5/1 20.8 34 DPS (Driver Services) 4/3/95 & 5/1 222.8 35 DOLabor (Wage & Hr. Admin) 5/2/95 -0- 36 Courts 5/5/95 80.8 NEW DH&SS (Hearings/Appeals) 5/7/95 -0- 65.6 FY-97 The meeting RECESSED at 2:00 p.m. End Tape #66, Side 1 Begin Tape #68, Side 1 The meeting RECONVENED at 3:45 p.m. Present were Co-chair Halford, along with Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp.