AUGUSTA – A pair of bills aimed at restricting welfare benefits sparked an outpouring of testimony during public hearings before the Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday.

One, sponsored by Rep. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, would implement a 90-day state residency requirement for General Assistance eligibility. The other, sponsored by Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, would provide a tax credit for employers hiring welfare recipients and impose a 60-month lifetime limitation on food stamps for adults, in addition to a 90-day residency requirement.

Knight said people can too easily come to Maine and receive benefits.

“My bringing this forward today is a direct request from many, many of my constituents who believe that welfare and General Assistance programs are out of control and need serious tightening, especially as this state grapples with a very serious recession,” Knight said. “We feel that we should first of all take care of our own citizens who are hurting and in need of public help.”

Cebra submitted a more than 2-inch-thick stack of individual written testimonies from Mainers in support of his bill. Many said they were concerned with Maine’s apparent reputation as a haven for welfare and General Assistance benefits.

Alysia Melnik, public policy counsel for the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said residency requirements for welfare benefits from other states had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“(The bills) violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by creating an impermissible classification between short- and long-term residents not justified by a compelling state interest,” she said, summarizing the court’s ruling.

Also testifying against the bill were representatives from the Maine Community Action Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Equal Justice Partners, the Maine Women’s Lobby and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.

“Residency requirements are a reaction to a myth in Maine that people move to our beautiful state just to receive our state subsidies,” said Laura Harper of the Maine Women’s Lobby. “Data from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services shows that more people receiving assistance are actually leaving than coming into the state.”

Kate Dufour of the Maine Municipal Association testified neither for nor against the bills, but said adding a state residency requirement would only place an additional burden on municipalities.

“What’s going to happen is, when people show up at our door, we’re going to help them; that’s just the way it’s going to happen,” she said. “And we’re going to expend municipal dollars funds to help those in need. If there’s a residency requirement, we’re not going to benefit from the state share and so you are shifting more burden to the taxpayers.”

Dufour said municipal officials take heat from both sides about the amount of aid they administer, by taxpayers for being too generous and by advocates for the poor for being too miserly, and wouldn’t mind certain changes to the laws.

“Municipal officials believe that the ability to point to elements of the law that build accountability into the system may help address any frustration the public might have,” she said.

The bills are scheduled for a work session Thursday.

Copy the Story Link