Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
231560880
label
Welfare Reform Implementation [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
231560880
contentType
document
title
Welfare Reform Implementation [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Diana Fortuna's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
231560880
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367458-20180525S-021-008-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fa4e83b1058de70e
ocrText
Welfare Reform Talking Points
For Internal Use Only
A broken system. When President Clinton ran for president four years ago, he pledged to end welfare
as we know it. Since taking office, President Clinton has done everything in his power to transform the
welfare system into one that rewards work, protects children, and promotes parental responsibility.
Although we've given 78 waivers to 43 states, the President has emphasized from the start that we need
national legislation to help build a better future for the women and children now trapped in poverty.
0
A much improved bill. We've come a long way in this debate. Last year the Republican majority in
Congress sent President Clinton legislation that had its priorities backward: it was soft on work, and tough
on children. It failed to provide adequate child care and health care. It imposed deep and unacceptable
cuts in school lunches, child welfare, and help for disabled children. The bill came to President Clinton
twice and he vetoed it twice. This new bipartisan legislation is significantly better than the bills the
President vetoed.
o
Rewarding work. The new law is strong on work. It provides almost $4 billion more for child care, and
it gives states powerful performance incentives to place people in jobs. It requires states to hold up their
end of the bargain by maintaining their own spending on welfare. And it gives states the capacity to create
jobs by taking money now used for welfare checks and giving it to employers as income subsidies, as
incentives to hire people, or to create community service jobs. When combined with the EITC and the
minimum wage increase won by this Administration, it means that the typical welfare recipient will be
better off working than on welfare. In Colorado, for example, a mother with two children will increase
her income by more than 50 percent -- from $8,000 to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the
minimum wage. Plus, she'll receive health care, Food Stamps, help in collecting child support, and child
care assistance if she needs it.
o
Protecting Children. This new law is better for children than the two bills President Clinton vetoed. It
maintains the national nutritional safety net by eliminating the Food Stamp cap and the optional block
grant. It drops the deep cuts and devastating changes in school lunch, child welfare and help for disabled
children. It allows states to use federal money to provide vouchers to children whose parents can't find
work after the time limits expire. It helps protect children by maintaining health and safety standards for
day care. It allows the 43 states with existing welfare reform demonstrations to use their own work
requirements and time limits. And it preserves the national Medicaid guarantee for poor children, the
disabled, pregnant women, and the elderly.
o
Demanding responsibility. The law requires teen parents to stay in school and live at home, and it
includes the tough child support enforcement measures President Clinton proposed -- the most sweeping
crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. We can now say to parents, if you don't pay the child support
you owe we will garnish your wages, take away your driver's license, track you across state lines and if
necessary make you work off what you owe. Over 10 years, the child support improvements in this bill
will provide an additional $24 billion for America's children.
o
Parts of the law still need to be fixed. Parts of the legislation are wrong, and the President has pledged
to fix them. The law still cuts Food Stamps deeper than it should, mostly for working families with
children who have high shelter costs. In addition, the law includes provisions that will hurt legal
immigrants, denying medical and other help to families with children who fall on hard times through no
fault of their own. This Administration is committed to changing these provisions.
o
A record of accomplishment. Over the past three and half years, the Clinton Administration has given
43 states the flexibility they need to promote work and protect children. The Administration has also
required teen mothers to stay in school and cracked down on people who owe child support and cross state
lines. As a result, child support collections are up 40 percent to $11 billion, and there are 1.6 million
fewer people on welfare today than when President Clinton took office.
For Internal Use Only
A NEW SYSTEM UNDER WELFARE REFORM
The Current Welfare System
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is a cash assistance program, providing aid to poor single
mothers and their children, as well as to a few poor two-parent families. As of May 1996, 12.5 million
individuals received AFDC -- down from 14.1 million when President Clinton took office. Of those 12.5
million people, approximately 4 million are adults.
Medicaid pays for health care for AFDC recipients and all pregnant women and children up to age 6 with
family income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line. Medicaid coverage is also being phased in for
poor children under age 19 by the year 2002. The Food Stamp program provides nutrition assistance to all
poor Americans, including AFDC recipients, the elderly, and many poor working families.
The elderly, blind, and disabled also receive public assistance, primarily through the Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) program, which provides monthly cash benefits, as well as through the Medicaid and Food Stamp
programs.
Changes under Welfare Reform
Under the new law, federal AFDC funds will be delivered to states in the form of fixed block grants, and
adults will be limited to 5 years of cash assistance (states will be able to exempt 20 percent of the caseload
from the time limit). In addition, recipients will be required to work within two years of receiving assistance,
through activities such as unsubsidized or subsidized employment, on-the-job training, or community service.
These changes build on the reforms already taking place in 43 states under waivers granted by the Clinton
Administration. (For example, 30 states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of time limit
in place). The new welfare law preserves Medicaid coverage for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women,
the elderly, and people who would have qualified under the previous AFDC rules. It also maintains the Food
Stamp program, preserving the national nutritional safety net. It includes new funding for child care and
several measures to increase child support collections.
The law also includes provisions opposed by the Administration that would deny SSI and Food Stamps to most
legal immigrants for five years or until they attain citizenship. States would have the option to deny Medicaid
and AFDC benefits to legal immigrants. Future immigrants would be ineligible for 5 years for most federal
means-tested programs, including Medicaid. The President has pledged to fix the provisions in the bill that
would deny assistance to legal immigrants and cut back on-Food Stamp assistance for working families.
A Fundamental Improvement over the Status Quo
This comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform legislation will change the nation's welfare system into a
transitional assistance program that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The law contains
strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state
maintenance of effort requirements, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including
increased funding for child care and guaranteed Medicaid coverage. It also includes tough new child support
provisions which will increase collections by $24 billion over 10 years. As the President has said, this
legislation gives us a chance "to transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence
to one that emphasizes work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not
a welfare check."
Combined with the EITC and the minimum wage increase won by this Administration, the new, transitional
welfare system will help move AFDC recipients from welfare to work. In Colorado, for example, a mother
with two children will increase her income by more than 50 percent -- from $8,000 to $12,600 -- even if she
works part-time at the minimum wage. Plus, she'll receive health care, Food Stamps, help in collecting child
support, and child care assistance if she needs it.
VETOED BILL
CURRENT BILL
Guaranteed Medicaid
NO
YES
Block Grants Food Stamps
YES
NO
Block Grants Foster Care
YES
NO
Cuts Funding for Foster Care
YES
NO
Block Grants Adoption Assistance
YES
NO
Cuts Funding for Adoption Assistance
YES
NO
Cuts Funding for Investigation of Child Abuse
YES
NO
20% Exemption From Time Limit
NO
YES
Adequate Child Care Funding
NO
YES
Child Care Health and Safety Standards
NO
YES
80% Maintenance of Effort Required
NO
YES
Teens Required to Live at Home
YES
YES
Performance Bonus for States
NO
YES
Child Support Enforcement
YES
YES
Cuts Cash Assistance by 25% for Some Disabled Children
YES
NO
For Internal Use Only
Questions and Answers on Welfare Reform
August 21, 1996
Q:
Why did the President sign the welfare reform bill?
A:
The President signed this bill because it will change the nation's welfare system into a transitional
assistance program that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The bill contains
strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into
jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and
supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care and
guaranteed Medicaid coverage. As the President has said, this legislation gives us a chance "to
transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that
emphasizes work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not a
welfare check."
Combined with the EITC and the minimum wage increase won by this Administration, the new,
transitional welfare system will help move AFDC recipients from welfare to work. In Colorado, for
example, a mother with two children will increase her income by more than 50 percent -- from
$8,000 to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. Plus, she'll receive
health care, Food Stamps, help in collecting child support, and child care assistance if she needs it.
The President has pledged to fix the provisions in the bill that would deny assistance to legal
immigrants and cut back on Food Stamp assistance for working families. As the President has said,
these provisions are wrong, and his Administration will work to correct them.
Q:
Isn't it true that the President only decided to sign the bill because of political concerns?
A:
Not at all. This is a President who has always stood on principle. Our opponents have criticized
his children's tobacco initiative, but he has not backed down. They have criticized his success at
getting handguns off the street, but he has not wavered. Reforming the welfare system is something
that he's always been committed to, and he believes it is important to begin changing the failed
system as quickly as possible.
Overall, there is more good than bad in this bill. Child care spending, for example, is almost $4
billion above current law. The child support enforcement provisions -- all included at the request
of the Administration -- will bring in $24 billion for America's children and free up billions more
in welfare payments that can now be used for job training. This legislation makes other significant
improvements over the bills the President vetoed -- it drops the deep cuts and devastating changes
in foster care, adoption assistance, child abuse prevention programs, the school lunch program, and
aid to disabled children.
Q:
Isn't it true that all of his policy advisors recommended a veto?
A:
No. Some Administration officials have expressed concerns about the final bill, but that's not new.
The official letters sent to Congress have always expressed concerns.
But the Administration believes that there is more good than bad in this bill. Child care spending,
for example, is almost $4 billion above current law. The child support enforcement provisions --
all included at the request of the Administration -- will bring in $24 billion for America's children
and will free up billions more in current welfare payments that can now be used for work activities.
Every Administration official also knows that this bill is much improved from the legislation the
President vetoed last year. It's still not perfect, but it's imperative that we move away from the
failed status quo.
Q:
But won't this bill result in more poverty? How can you say that you care about children, and still
sign this bill?
A:
Very few bills are perfect, and this bill does have some flaws. However, it's important to remember
how many victories the President has won since he vetoed the previous bill. This legislation does
not dismantle foster care, adoption assistance, child abuse prevention programs, or the school lunch
program. It does not deny cash assistance to disabled children. And it includes more funding for
child care.
Overall, the Administration believes that there is more good than bad in this bill. Child care
spending, for example, is almost $4 billion above current law. The child support enforcement
provisions -- all included at the request of the Administration -- will bring in billions of dollars for
America's children and free up billions more in welfare payments that can now be used for job
training.
It's also important to remember that this Administration expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit,
and convinced Congress to increase the minimum wage. Together with the work incentives in this
bill, those actions will make many low-wage families better off, and will make work a better deal
than welfare. In Colorado, for example, a young mother with two children receives only $8,000 a
year in welfare and Food Stamps, and may never be encouraged to look for work and become
independent. But with our new strategy, she will increase her income by more than 50 percent
to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll still receive health care
for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get help collecting child
support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs it.
Q:
Studies, such as the Urban Institute study, have indicated that this reform package will force millions
of kids into poverty. Is this true? What are you going to do ensure that it does not force children
into poverty?
A:
Let's not forget that millions of children and their parents are trapped in poverty now. No computer
model can predict with 100 percent accuracy how individuals will respond when the system is
fundamentally transformed. We believe that many women on welfare want to work and will do so
if they can find child care for their children. We believe that when society demands that absent
parents pay child support, they will do so. Under the new welfare law, people will be required to
move into jobs, but they will also receive the supports they need -- like child care and health care -
- to move from welfare to work. The legislation also contains tough child support enforcement
measures that will increase collections by $24 billion over ten years providing an enormous amount
of money for children's food, clothing, and shelter. It's also important to note that the Urban
Institute study did not include the minimum wage increase the Administration recently won, which
will have a significant impact for many of these working families.
We strongly believe that work is better than welfare. In Colorado, for example, a young mother
with two children now receives only $8,000 a year in welfare and Food Stamps, and may never be
encouraged to look for work and become independent. But with our new strategy that includes the
EITC and the minimum wage increase won by this Administration, she will increase her income by
more than 50 percent -- to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll
still receive health care for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get
help collecting child support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs it.
Q:
Why has the Administration granted other states' waivers, but still hasn't acted on Wisconsin's?
A:
Some states have asked HHS to go ahead and approve their waivers, even though they may not be
necessary under the new law. There is no special treatment here for any other state over Wisconsin
- these states' requests have been pending longer and are simpler (some states simply submitted
amendments to a currently operating demonstration).
(Background: Hawaii's waiver request was received on 5/7/96; Indiana's on 12/14/95, with
additional amendments received on 2/6/96; Maryland's request was received on 4/26/96; Minnesota's
AFDC waiver was received on 4/4/96, with amendments received on 5/28/96, and Minnesota's Work
First waiver was also received on 4/4/96. Kansas' waiver request was received on July 26, 1994,
with amendments received on April 30, 1996. DC and Idaho submitted fast-track waiver requests
on August 6 and 8, respectively. Wisconsin's official waiver request was received on 5/29/96).
Q:
What are the Administration's plans for the Wisconsin waiver since Congressional legislation has
now been passed?
A:
In fact, no action may be necessary, since the new federal law appears to give Wisconsin all of the
flexibility it needs to move forward on its reforms. We won't know for sure until we've carefully
reviewed the final bill and report language.
Q:
But Governor Thompson says he still does need the waiver, and is accusing the President of reneging
on his promise to grant it. Is he right?
A:
It appears that the new federal law gives Wisconsin all of the flexibility it needs to move forward
on its reforms, so the waiver request may be moot. However, the new law is quite complicated, and
we'll need to carefully review the final bill and report language before we'll know for sure.
Q:
How will the federal government monitor the states under the new program? How can the federal
government ensure that recipients are protected from unfair treatment or discrimination resulting in
loss of benefits?
A:
Although states will receive considerable flexibility under the Personal Responsibility and Work Act
of 1996, the law provides some level of federal oversight and protection for recipients from unfair
treatment. The law requires states to submit plans outlining how they will implement the new
provisions. These state plans must include objective criteria for delivering benefits and ensuring
equitable treatment for recipients. States must also provide opportunities for recipients who have
been adversely affected to be heard in a state administrative or appeal process.
In addition, the new law penalizes states that fail to meet bill requirements or misuse federal money
by removing a portion of their block grant funding. States that are penalized must expend additional
state funds to replace federal grant reductions.
Q:
How do you justify removing the federal guarantee from women and children, particularly when the
President is so far ahead in the polls? What will be the safety net for women and children who fall
on hard times?
A:
President Clinton signed "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996" into law because the current system is broken, and because Congress made many of the
changes he sought under welfare reform. His judgement was based on policy, not politics.
The new law will provide protections for women and children who fall on hard times, including
time-limited cash assistance, child care, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and nutrition assistance, while
helping recipients move toward work and self-sufficiency. It also contains the toughest possible child
support enforcement -- which will provide new resources for children's food, clothing, and shelter.
And, unlike the vetoed bill, it maintains the open-ended federal commitment to Food Stamps, foster
care, and adoption services.
Q:
What makes you think this dramatic shift will make a difference?
A:
As the President said, this law gives us a chance to reform our broken welfare system. The law is
strong on work. It provides almost $4 billion more for child care so that mothers can move from
welfare to work, and protects their children by maintaining health and safety standards for day care.
It gives states powerful performance incentives to place people in jobs. It requires states to hold up
their end of the bargain by maintaining their own spending on welfare. And it gives states the
capacity to create jobs by taking money now used for welfare checks and giving it to employers as
income subsidies, as an incentive to hire people, or to create community service jobs. The law also
includes the child support enforcement measures the President proposed two years ago -- the most
sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. And it preserves the national guarantee of
health care for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women, the elderly, and people on welfare.
This Administration has already given 43 states the flexibility to reward work, and created millions
of new jobs. Welfare rolls have already dropped by 1.6 million since 1992, and we think that
progress will continue. Finally, because of the EITC and the minimum wage increase won by this
Administration, the typical welfare recipient will be better off working -- even 20 hours per week -
- than she was on welfare. In Colorado, for example, a young mother with two children receives
only $8,000 a year in welfare and Food Stamps, and may never be encouraged to look for work and
become independent. But with our new strategy, she will increase her income by more than 50
percent -- to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll still receive
health care for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get help collecting
child support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs it.
Q:
The President has acknowledged the diversity of welfare recipients. Are there provisions in the bill
to take into consideration the special circumstances women often face?
A:
Yes. The new law enables states to allow women with children under age six to work only 20 hours
per week, and exempts single parents with children under age six from the work requirements and
penalties if they are unable to find child care. States can also exempt women with children under
age one for a total of 12 months. In addition, the bill allows states to exempt 20 percent of welfare
recipients from the time limit.
Q:
How will the Administration ensure that women are aware of the exemptions they may be allowed,
such as in cases of battering or abuse? What must women do to prove that they fall into these
categories?
A:
The law provides several avenues through which women can be made aware of any exemptions for
which they may qualify. For example, states will provide this information in their state plan, which
will be a public document. States will have the option to establish procedures for the screening of
domestic violence situations, as well as for referral to appropriate counseling. States may also waive
other program requirements (such as time limits) in such cases. For all states, we anticipate that the
state plan will specify the exemptions which the state has elected. The Administration plans to issue
some guidance to states on this subject.
The statute requires that states set forth objective criteria for the delivery of benefits, determination
of eligibility, and for fair and equitable treatment. As part of these criteria, it must explain the
administrative or appeals process which will be available to individuals adversely affected by state
agency decisions. The Administration believes this provision is critical to ensuring that individuals
within each state receive the benefits and protections available under the state program.
Q:
Isn't it unfair that people with disabilities will be affected so adversely by this legislation? Won't
the long-term impact be greater for individuals who are forced into institutions as result of being cut
off from SSI?
A:
Under the new law, most legal immigrants will be ineligible for SSI until citizenship. The
Administration opposes this provision, and the President has pledged to fix this flaw in the bill. The
President has said that immigrant children and disabled immigrants who need help should get it.
(The law narrows SSI's definition of disability for children. However, over 95 percent of these
children who would lose SSI are expected to qualify for Medicaid, through the phase-in of poverty-
level children or other mechanisms).
Q:
How will the children of mothers who are cut off from Food Stamps get fed?
A:
If a mother were to hit the time limit, she and her family would continue to receive Food Stamp
benefits, and the Food Stamp benefits would slightly increase to offset some of the loss in cash
assistance. And everyone in the family would continue to receive Medicaid. Children of mothers
cut-off from Food Stamps for failing to meet work requirements will continue to receive Food Stamp
benefits. In those rare cases, the USDA will redetermine the families' eligibility excluding the
mothers' needs in calculating total benefits.
Q:
How is the additional $4 billion for child care distributed? Who gets the money?
A:
The new law increases child care funding by nearly $4 billion over 6 years, allowing more mothers
to leave welfare for work. States will receive an initial allotment each year from a fund of
approximately $1.2 billion. To access additional funds, states must maintain their own spending at
100 percent of their FY 1994 or 1995 spending on child care (whichever is higher). Additional
funding will be available for state match at the 1995 Medicaid rate. By contrast, the bill the
President vetoed increased child care funding by just $300 million over current law, and did not
require states to meet child care maintenance of effort requirements to access additional federal child
care funding, allowing states to lower their own spending.
Q:
How do the expanded child support enforcement measures work?
A:
The new law includes the child support enforcement measures President Clinton proposed in 1994
the most sweeping crackdown on non-paying parents in history. These measures could increase
child support collections by $24 billion and reduce federal welfare costs by $4 billion over 10 years.
Provisions include:
National new hire reporting system. The law establishes a Federal Case Registry and National
Directory of New Hires to track delinquent parents across state lines. It also requires that employers
report all new hires to state agencies, which will then report to the National Directory of New Hires.
The law also expands and streamlines procedures for withholding child support from wages.
Streamlined paternity establishment. The new law streamlines the legal process for paternity
establishment, making it easier and faster to establish paternities. It also expands the voluntary in-
hospital paternity establishment program, started by the Clinton Administration in 1993, Individuals
who fail to cooperate with paternity establishment will have their monthly cash assistance reduced
by at least 25 percent.
Uniform interstate child support laws. The new law provides for uniform rules, procedures, and
forms for interstate cases.
Computerized state-wide collections. The new law requires states to establish central registries of
child support orders and centralized collection and disbursement units. It also requires expedited
state procedures for child support enforcement.
Tough new penalties. Under the new law, states can implement tough child support enforcement
techniques. The new law will expand wage garnishment, allow states to seize assets, and enable
states to revoke drivers and professional licenses for parents who owe delinquent child support.
"Families First." Under a new "Family First" policy, families no longer receiving assistance will
have priority in the distribution of child support arrears. This new policy will bring families who
have left welfare for work about $1 billion in support over the first 6 years.
Access and visitation programs. In an effort to increase noncustodial parents' involvement in their
children's lives, the new law includes grants to help states establish programs that support and
facilitate noncustodial parents' visitation with and access to their children.
Q:
What are individual development accounts? Are they optional or included in every state?
A:
The new law explicitly allows states to use block grant money for programs to fund individual
development accounts for recipients. These accounts would not be counted as income in determining
benefits, and could be used by individuals to finance a small or micro-business, to pursue post-
secondary education, or to purchase their first home. Twelve states have already done something
similar under waivers we've granted.
Q:
Why are you still granting waivers to states? Is this a way to undermine the work requirement
provisions of the new law?
A:
Although most states will no longer need waivers to implement welfare reform under the new law,
HHS is continuing to grant waivers to states that have requested them. Some states with pending
waiver requests asked HHS to either approve the entire waiver request or to extract provisions that
would apply under the fast track waiver approval process. A few states without waivers already
approved or pending have also submitted applications under the fast track approval process. The
Clinton Administration has already approved 78 demonstrations for 43 states, and we're continuing
our commitment to state flexibility.
This is not going to undermine the work requirements in the new law. The welfare reform
legislation includes a provision that would give states the option to continue their welfare reform
demonstrations. Also under this provision, states would not have to follow the new legislative
mandates if those features were inconsistent with the state's demonstration, which include defined
work activities, time limits, etc. HHS, along with the states, is seeking to clarify the language of
the bill with respect to this provision. However, it is the department's understanding that all states
would have to meet the work participation rates in the legislation.
Q:
How does the exemption from the time limit work? Is it 20 percent over a year or at any one time?
A:
The law states that the number of exempt families for a fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the
average monthly caseload. HHS will issue further guidance on calculation of this limit in the future.
However, it is important to note that the welfare bill vetoed by the President contained only a 15
percent exemption, and the Administration worked very hard to ensure that the welfare legislation
included adequate exemptions from the time limit. We believe that the 20 percent exemption in the
new law is adequate.
Q:
Do you have any estimates on how many states will make use of the domestic violence exemption?
Does this exemption apply to the work requirements as well as to the time limit?
A:
We do not have estimates on how many states will make use of the time-limit exemption, which is
optional. We will have that information when the states submit their plans.
The law does not include a specific exemption from the work requirements. However, the bill does
allow states to waive program requirements for victims of domestic violence, and allows states to
exempt 20 percent of welfare recipients from the time limit. States may also take this factor into
consideration in developing individual responsibility plans and in making decisions about how to
reach the participation rates specified in the bill.
Q:
Now that Medicaid will be separate from AFDC, how will the Medicaid eligibility be determined?
What will happen to the families who are no longer eligible for AFDC under the new system?
A:
President Clinton insisted that welfare reform not end guaranteed health care coverage for pregnant
women, poor children, the disabled, and the elderly -- and the new law preserves the Medicaid
guarantee. In general, individuals who would were eligible for Medicaid before welfare reform will
still be eligible for Medicaid under the new law. In addition, families that lose cash assistance
eligibility due to the time limit will remain eligible for Medicaid. The new law also provides one
year of transitional Medicaid for families that leave welfare because of increased earnings, and
maintains the current law provision of four months of transitional Medicaid for families who leave
welfare due to increased child support.
States do have the option to end Medicaid coverage for some adults -- except pregnant women -- who
lose their cash assistance eligibility because they failed to meet work requirements. (This is similar
to current law, which denies Medicaid to adult recipients who refuse to cooperate with paternity
establishment). However, children will retain Medicaid eligibility even if their mother is deemed
ineligible.
Q:
In the past, SSI has been the gateway for certain individuals to receive Medicaid and Food Stamps.
Will those deemed ineligible for SSI under the new legislation still be eligible for Medicaid or Food
Stamps?
A:-
For current legal immigrants, states have the option to eliminate Medicaid assistance along with SSI,
but we don't expect states to do so. Immigrants who arrive in the future will be barred from
Medicaid for five years. The President opposes these provisions, and will work to change them.
As the President said, "This provision has nothing to do with welfare reform; it is simply a
budget-saving
measure,
and
it
is
not
right I am convinced when we send legislation to Congress
to correct it, it will be corrected." In any case, immigrants will still be eligible for emergency
medical assistance and other limited kinds of care, such as immunizations.
The law narrows SSI's definition of disability for children. However, over 95 percent of these
children who would lose SSI are expected to qualify for Medicaid, through the phase-in of poverty-
level children or other mechanisms.
Q:
How will this legislation impact legal immigrants and when?
A:
Under the new law, most legal immigrants will be ineligible for SSI and Food Stamps until
citizenship. Current recipients may lose eligibility for these programs immediately at the time of
regular redetermination for eligibility. States have the option to make most current legal immigrants
ineligible for Medicaid, AFDC, Title XX Social Services, and state-funded assistance until
citizenship. Future immigrants will be ineligible for five years for most federal means-tested
programs, including Medicaid, but these immigrants will be eligible for Head Start and the Job
Training Partnership Act.
All applicants for most federal, state, and local programs will be subject to new verification
requirements to determine if they are "qualified" or "non-qualified." Qualified immigrants will
include legal permanent residents, refugees, asylees, immigrants whose deportation has been
withheld, and immigrants who have been granted parole status by the INS for a period of one year.
Non-qualified immigrants would be ineligible for benefits (except emergency medical, school
lunches/breakfasts if they are eligible for a free public education, short-term disaster, limited public
health assistance, non-profit, in-kind community services such as shelters and soup kitchens, and
certain housing benefits).
Future sponsors and immigrants would be required to sign new, legally binding affidavits of support.
For these future immigrants, the new law extends deeming to citizenship, changes deeming to count
100 percent of a sponsor's income and resources, and expands the number of programs that are
required to deem, including Medicaid.
The President opposes these provisions, and will work to change them. As the President said, "This
provision has nothing to do with welfare reform; it is simply a budget-saving measure, and it is not
right
I am convinced when we send legislation to Congress to correct it, it will be corrected."
In any case, immigrants will still be eligible for emergency medical assistance and other limited kinds
of care, such as immunizations.
Q:
When will you propose legislation to reverse the discrimination against legal immigrants? What will
that legislation look like? Where will the funding come from to provide assistance for these
individuals?
A:
The President has said that he will work to fix the Food Stamp and legal immigrant problems in the
bill, and the Administration is working on legislative proposals to remedy these flaws. We do not
have a timeline yet for this process, but we'll work with Congress and the states to get it done. The
President has said that legal immigrants who fall on hard times through no fault of their own and
need help should get it, although their sponsors should take additional responsibility for them. The
Administration's proposals will still save money over current law.
Q:
One hundred and twenty-three Democratic members of Congress supported this package. Did they
understand the impact of the provisions affecting legal immigrants, and did they support these
provisions, or did they support the bill in spite of those provisions?
A:
Democrats and Republicans voted for this legislation because they know that the current welfare
system is broken and must be fixed. Like the President, many members of Congress are concerned
about the provisions affecting legal immigrants, and they are supportive of the Administration's plan
to fix this flaw in the law. Let's remember that this bill is much better than what the President
vetoed. That legislation was soft on work and tough on children. It failed to provide adequate child
care and health care. It imposed deep and unacceptable cuts in school lunches, child welfare, and
help for disabled children. The bill came to President Clinton twice and he vetoed it twice. This
new legislation is much improved. Congress has removed many of the worst elements the President
objected to, and has included many of the improvements the President called for.
Q:
What specifically is the Administration planning to do to address the flaws in the legislation? And
when? What about the AFDC portion of the legislation?
A:
The President has said that he will work to fix the Food Stamp and legal immigrant problems in the
bill, and the Administration is working on legislative proposals to remedy these flaws. We do not
have a timeline yet for this process, but we'll work with Congress and the states to get it done. In
terms of the AFDC provisions, states will be able to use their block grant funds, which initially
provide most states with more resources than they currently receive, to move people into jobs and
help employers create new positions for welfare recipients. Additional child care funding, new
resources from child support enforcement, and the guarantee of nutrition assistance, foster care and
adoption services, and health care coverage will work together to help families move from
dependence to self-sufficiency. We will closely monitor the states to be sure that they are rewarding
work and meeting the goals of the legislation. This new law gives states powerful performance
incentives to place people in jobs. We also know that 43 states are already promoting work and
protecting children under welfare waivers granted by the Clinton Administration.
Remember, the minimum wage and EITC improvements we've won for will make work pay. In
Colorado, for example, a young mother with two children receives only $8,000 a year in welfare and
Food Stamps, and may never be encouraged to look for work and become independent. But with
our new strategy, she will increase her income by more than 50 percent -- to $12,600 -- even if she
only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll still receive health care for herself and her
children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get help collecting child support. And she'll get
help with child care if she needs it.
Q:
When does the new welfare system take effect?
A:
The new law goes into effect on July 1, 1997. States are required to submit plans by that date
detailing how they will meet the law's provisions, and these plans will be reviewed for completeness
by HHS. Upon completion of their plans, states will be able to draw down block grant funds.
Q:
How will states address such needs as transportation and job training? Where will the resources
come from?
A:
Most states will initially receive more funding under the cash assistance block grant than they
currently receive -- resources that will enable states to provide transportation, job training, and other
work-related services to move people from welfare to work. And, as rolls continue to shrink, states
will also be able to use money now used for welfare checks to provide these work-related services,
community service jobs, or income subsidies for employers to hire people.
Q:
What is the President's position on Senator Wellstone's resolution calling for a continued safety net
for battered women? This did not pass as part of the welfare reform bill -- will the President work
to have it reintroduced as legislation when Congress comes back into session?
A:
The Administration has not yet decided what would be included in a legislative package to improve
the welfare legislation Congress passed.
Q:
How will you protect teen mothers who are required to live at home but are at risk of being sexually,
physically, or emotionally abused in those settings?
A:
The law requires teen parents to live at home or in an adult-supervised setting in order to receive
assistance. States will be required to locate alternative living arrangements for those teens who may
be at risk of abuse in their homes.
Q:
There is a two-year limit for women to find jobs -- where will these jobs come from?
A:
This bill gives states the ability to create jobs by taking money now used for welfare checks and give
it to employers as income subsidies, as an incentive to hire people, or to create community service
jobs. It also builds on the reforms taking place in 43 states under waivers granted by the Clinton
Administration. Some of these states are securing private sector jobs for welfare recipients by
providing wage subsidies and forging new private/public sector partnerships. In other states,
employers are providing work place mentoring for participants and contributing to special accounts
that recipients can later use to increase their education and training. The new law requires that adults
be engaged in work activities within two years, but allows states some flexibility in defining those
activities. Private sector jobs, volunteer activities, and community service jobs all count as "work,"
and welfare recipients initially have to work only 20 hours per week to meet the requirements.
Q:
Some Democrats have said that this legislation is just the beginning of needed reforms to the welfare
system. Do you agree? What do you plan to do to build on this, and when?
A:
This welfare legislation is a critical step in transforming our broken welfare system into one that
requires work and promotes parental responsibility. The new law will make sweeping changes to
the welfare system -- through time limits, work requirements, child care resources, and the toughest
ever child support enforcement. When combined with an increased minimum wage and the EITC,
we expect that it will make a fundamental difference in moving people from welfare to work. In
Colorado, for example, a young mother with two children now receives only $8,000 a year in
welfare and Food Stamps, and she may never be encouraged to look for work and become
independent. But with our new strategy, she will increase her income by more than 50 percent --
to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll still receive health care
for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get help collecting child
support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs it.
The President is also planning to take other steps to increase the availability of jobs for welfare
recipients, which he will announce soon.
Q:
Did you speak with the people who will be affected most by these changes?
A:
The President and other members of the Administration have met with welfare recipients to discuss
their experiences and ways to best change the system. The President also met with welfare recipients
at the Blair House meeting on welfare reform last year. As the President said in his 1995 State of
the Union Address, "I may be the only President who has had the opportunity to sit in a welfare
office, who's actually spent hours and hours talking to people on welfare. And I am telling you, the
people who are trapped on it know it doesn't work."
Q:
For those who have not completed high school, lack sufficient language skills and are functionally
illiterate, what kind of work can they expect to get?
A:
The new law requires that adults be engaged in work activities within two years, but allows states
some flexibility in defining those activities. Private sector jobs, volunteer activities, and community
service jobs all count as "work," and welfare recipients initially have to work only 20 hours per
week to meet the requirements. We strongly believe that work is better than welfare. In Colorado,
for example, a young mother with two children now receives only $8,000 a year in welfare and Food
Stamps, and may never be encouraged to look for work and become independent. But with our new
strategy that includes the EITC and minimum wage increase won by this Administration, she will
increase her income by more than 50 percent to $12,600 even if she only works part-time at the
minimum wage. She'll still receive health care for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food
Stamps. She'll get help collecting child support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs
it.
Q:
Will children of legal immigrants be denied school lunches under the new law?
A:
All children, including those of legal immigrants, who are eligible for public school will continue
to receive free school breakfasts and lunches under the new law.
Q:
How does this reform affect public housing?
A:
This new law does not affect public housing -- the Clinton Administration is maintaining our
investment in housing for poor families. Poor families will also continue to receive Medicaid and
Food Stamp benefits.
Q:
Who will create and fund the needed job training programs?
A:
Most states will initially receive more funding under the cash assistance block grant than they
currently receive -- resources that will enable states to provide transportation, job training, and other
work-related services to move people from welfare to work. And, as rolls continue to shrink, states
will also be able to use money now used for welfare checks to provide these work-related services,
community service jobs, or income subsidies for employers to hire people.
Q:
The social services agencies that deal with child abuse and neglect, teen pregnancy, and juvenile
crime, are already overwhelmed. Will this legislation result in an increased need for these services
without providing funding?
A:
This legislation preserves the foster care, adoption, child welfare, and family preservation programs -
- the federal government and the states will continue to work to meet the needs of children and
families at risk. In addition, the legislation contains new funds for teen pregnancy prevention and
abstinence programs, and it requires at least 25 percent of communities to have teen pregnancy
prevention programs in place.
Q:
If corporate America has been laying off employees and downsizing, and the job market is filled with
skilled laborers, how will unskilled workers fit in?
A:
Since taking office, the Clinton Administration has created 10 million new jobs and provided new
employment opportunities for workers of various skill levels. And, as welfare rolls continue to
shrink, states will be able to use money now used for welfare checks to provide work-related
services, community service jobs, or income subsidies for employers to hire welfare recipients.
For Internal Use Only
Work Will Pay More Under Welfare Reform
People On Welfare Who Work Will Be Better Off
Because of the changes we've proposed in the minimum wage and the EITC, the typical welfare
recipient will be better off working -- even 20 hours per week -- than she was on welfare.
In Colorado, for example, a young mother with two children receives only $8000 a year in
welfare and Food Stamps, and may never be encouraged to look for work and become
independent. But with our new strategy, she will increase her income by more than 50 percent -
- to $12,600 -- even if she only works part-time at the minimum wage. She'll still receive health
care for herself and her children. She'll still receive Food Stamps. She'll get help collecting
child support. And she'll get help with child care if she needs it.
People Who Move From Welfare To Work Will Be Better Off
Because of the EITC and minimum wage increase, single parents who are already working will
also be better off. A woman working 20 hours a week will see her take-home pay increase from
$10,000 to $12,600. And a woman working full-time will see her earnings increase from
$12,680 to $15,700 -- an increase of 25 percent.
HHS FACT SHEET
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
August 1996
Contact:
HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
On August 22, President Clinton signed into law "The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan that will
dramatically change the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-
limited assistance. The bill contains strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward
states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements,
comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work
-- including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage.
Highlights of "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996" follow.
MAKING WELFARE A TRANSITION TO WORK
o
Work requirements. Under the new law, recipients must work after two years on
assistance, with few exceptions. Twenty-five percent of all families in each state must be
engaged in work activities or have left the rolls in fiscal year (FY) 1997, rising to 50
percent in FY 2002. Single parents must participate for at least 20 hours per week the first
year, increasing to at least 30 hours per week by FY 2000. Two-parent families must work
35 hours per week by July 1, 1997.
o
Supports for families transitioning into jobs. The new welfare law provides $14 billion in
child care funding -- an increase of $3.5 billion over current law -- to help more mothers
move into jobs. The new law also guarantees that women on welfare continue to receive
health coverage for their families, including at least one year of transitional Medicaid when
they leave welfare for work.
o
Work Activities. To count toward state work requirements, recipients will be required to
participate in unsubsidized or subsidized employment, on-the-job training, work experience,
community service, 12 months of vocational training, or provide child care services to
individuals who are participating in community service. Up to 6 weeks of job search (no
more than 4 consecutive weeks) would count toward the work requirement. However, no
more than 20 percent of each state's caseload may count toward the work requirement solely
by participating in vocational training or by being a teen parent in secondary school. Single
parents with a child under 6 who cannot find child care cannot be penalized for failure to
meet the work requirements. States can exempt from the work requirement single parents
with children under age one and disregard these individuals in the calculation of
participation rates for up to 12 months.
A five-year time limit. Families who have received assistance for five cumulative years (or
less at state option) will be ineligible for cash aid under the new welfare law. States will be
permitted to exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the time limit, and states will
have the option to provide non-cash assistance and vouchers to families that reach the time
limit using Social Services Block Grant or state funds.
Personal employability plans. Under the new plan, states are required to make an initial
assessment of recipients' skills. States can also develop personal responsibility plans for
recipients identifying the education, training, and job placement services needed to move
into the workforce.
State maintenance of effort requirements. The new welfare law requires states to
maintain their own spending on welfare at at least 80 percent of FY 1994 levels. States
must also maintain spending at 100 percent of FY 1994 levels to access a $2 billion
contingency fund designed to assist states affected by high population growth or economic
downturn. In addition, states must maintain 100 percent of FY 1994 or FY 1995 spending
on child care (whichever is greater) to access additional child care funds beyond their initial
allotment.
Job subsidies. The law also allows states to create jobs by taking money now used for
welfare checks and using it to create community service jobs or to provide income subsidies
or hiring incentives for potential employers.
Performance bonus to reward work. $1 billion will be available through FY 2003 for
performance bonuses to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs. The
Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the National Governors' Association (NGA) and
American Public Welfare Association (APWA), will develop criteria for measuring state
performance.
State flexibility. Under the new law, states which receive approval for welfare reform
waivers before July 1, 1997 have the option to operate their cash assistance program under
some or all of these waivers. For states electing this option, some provisions of the new
law which are inconsistent with the waivers would not take effect until the expiration of the
applicable waivers in the geographical areas covered by the waivers.
PROMOTING RESPONSIBILITY
Comprehensive child support enforcement. The new law includes the child support enforcement
measures President Clinton proposed in 1994 the most sweeping crackdown on non-paying
parents in history. These measures could increase child support collections by $24 billion and
reduce federal welfare costs by $4 billion over 10 years. Under the new law, each state must
operate a child support enforcement program meeting federal requirements in order to be eligible
for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants. Provisions include:
o
National new hire reporting system. The law establishes a Federal Case Registry and
National Directory of New Hires to track delinquent parents across state lines. It also
requires that employers report all new hires to state agencies for transmittal of new hire
information to the National Directory of New Hires. This builds on President Clinton's
June 1996 executive action to track delinquent parents across state lines. The law also
expands and streamlines procedures for direct withholding of child support from wages.
o
Streamlined paternity establishment. The new law streamlines the legal process for
paternity establishment, making it easier and faster to establish paternities. It also expands
the voluntary in-hospital paternity establishment program, started by the Clinton
Administration in 1993, and requires a state form for voluntary paternity acknowledgement.
In addition, the law mandates that states publicize the availability and encourage the use of
voluntary paternity establishment processes. Individuals who fail to cooperate with paternity
establishment will have their monthly cash assistance reduced by at least 25 percent.
Uniform interstate child support laws. The new law provides for uniform rules,
procedures, and forms for interstate cases.
Computerized state-wide collections. The new law requires states to establish central
registries of child support orders and centralized collection and disbursement units. It also
requires expedited state procedures for child support enforcement.
o
Tough new penalties. Under the new law, states can implement tough child support
enforcement techniques. The new law will expand wage garnishment, allow states to seize
assets, allows states to require community service in some cases, and enable states to revoke
drivers and professional licenses for parents who owe delinquent child support.
o
"Families First." Under a new "Family First" policy, families no longer receiving
assistance will have priority in the distribution of child support arrears. This new policy
will bring families who have left welfare for work about $1 billion in support over the first
six years.
o
Access and visitation programs. In an effort to increase noncustodial parents' involvement
in their children's lives, the new law includes grants to help states establish programs that
support and facilitate noncustodial parents' visitation with and access to their children.
Teen Parent Provisions
Live at home and stay in school requirements. Under the new law, unmarried minor
parents will be required to live with a responsible adult or in an adult-supervised setting and
participate in educational and training activities in order to receive assistance. States will be
responsible for locating or assisting in locating adult-supervised settings for teens.
o
Teen Pregnancy Prevention. Starting in FY 1998, $50 million a year in mandatory funds
would be added to the appropriations of the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant
for abstinence education. In addition, the Secretary of HHS will establish and implement a
strategy to (1) prevent non-marital teen births, and (2) assure that at least 25 percent of
communities have teen pregnancy prevention programs. No later than January 1, 1997, the
Attorney General will establish a program that studies the linkage between statutory rape and
teen pregnancy, and that educates law enforcement officials on the prevention and
prosecution of statutory rape.
IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE VETOED BILL
President Clinton vetoed the previous welfare reform bill (H.R. 4) submitted by Congress because
it did too little to move people into jobs and failed to provide the supports -- like child care and
health care -- that families need to move from welfare to work. "The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" includes several improvements over the vetoed bill,
including:
Guaranteed medical coverage. The new law preserves the national guarantee of health
care for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women, the elderly, and people on welfare.
H.R. 4 would have ended the guarantee of Medicaid coverage for cash assistance recipients.
Increased child care funding and mandatory child care maintenance of effort. The new
law provides $14 billion in child care funding -- an increase of $3.5 billion over 6 years --
allowing more mothers to leave welfare for work. States will receive an initial allotment
each year from a fund of approximately $1.2 billion. To access additional funds, states
must maintain their own spending at 100 percent of their FY 1994 or 1995 spending on
child care (whichever is higher). By contrast, H.R. 4 increased child care funding by just
$300 million over current law, and did not require states to meet child care maintenance of
effort requirements to access additional federal child care funding, allowing states to lower
their own spending.
Incentives for states to move people into jobs. The new law includes a $1 billion
performance bonus to reward states that meet performance targets. H.R. 4 did not contain a
cash performance bonus.
Preservation of nutrition programs. H.R. 4 would have given states the option of block
granting food stamp benefits. The bill would have also capped federal food stamp program
expenditures, limiting maximum benefit increases to 2 percent per year, regardless of
growth in need for assistance. The new law maintains the national nutritional safety net by
eliminating the block grant option as well as the food stamp cap.
Current law child protection and adoption. Unlike H.R. 4, the new plan maintains
current law on child protection and adoption, and does not reduce funds for child welfare,
child abuse, foster care and adoption services.
Improved contingency fund. The new law includes a $2 billion contingency fund to
protect states in times of population growth or economic downturn. H.R. 4 included a $1
billion contingency fund.
Current law child care health and safety standards. The new law protects children by
maintaining health and safety standards for day care. H.R. 4 would have eliminated health
and safety protections.
Protection of disabled children. H.R. 4 would have cut SSI by 25 percent for many
disabled children. The new law eliminates this proposed two-tier system.
Optional family cap. Under the new law, states have the option to implement a family
cap. H.R. 4 required states to deny cash benefits to children born to welfare recipients
unless the state legislature explicitly voted to provide benefits.
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
President Clinton has stated that the new law requires several improvements. Specifically, he has
pledged to fix two provisions of the welfare bill which he believes have nothing to do with welfare
reform.
o
Food Stamps. According to President Clinton, the new law cuts deeper than it should in
Food Stamps, mostly for working families who have high shelter costs.
o
Legal Immigrants. The law includes provisions that would deny most forms of public
assistance to most legal immigrants for five years or until they attain citizenship. The
President has said that legal immigrants who fall on hard times through no fault of their own
and need help should get it, although their sponsors should take additional responsibility for
them.
BUILDING ON THE PRESIDENT'S WORK TO END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT
Even before Congress passed welfare reform legislation acceptable to President Clinton, states were
acting to try new approaches. With encouragement, support, and cooperation from the Clinton
Administration, 43 states have moved forward with 78 welfare reform experiments. The Clinton
Administration has also required teen mothers to stay in school, required federal employees to pay
their child support, and cracked down on people who owe child support and cross state lines. As a
result of these efforts and President Clinton's efforts to strengthen the economy, child support
collections have increased by 40 percent to $11 billion in FY 1995, and there are 1.6 million fewer
people on welfare today than when President Clinton took office. "The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" will build on these efforts by allowing states
flexibility to reform their welfare systems and to build on demonstrations initiated under the Clinton
Administration.
More Than Half the Nation Enacting Welfare Reform Under the Clinton Administration
The Clinton Administration has approved 78 welfare reform demonstrations in 43 states and the District of Columbia -- more than all previous Administrations combined.
In an average month, the demonstrations cover over 10 million people -- approximately 75 percent of all recipients. All of the waivers which we have granted build on
many of the central principles of President Clinton's vision for welfare reform, including:
PRINCIPLE
DESCRIPTION
STATES APPROVED
Work
Thirty-Six states are helping people move from
36 - Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
welfare to work, from receiving welfare checks
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
to earning paychecks, by increasing education and
Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
training opportunities and creating public/private
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
sector partnerships.
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Time Limited Cash Assistance
Thirty-One states are making welfare a
31 - Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
transitional support system, rather than a way of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
life, by providing opportunity, but demanding
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
responsibility in return.
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin
Child Support Enforcement
Twenty-Seven states are strengthening child
27 - Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
support enforcement and sending a clear message
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
that both parents must be responsible for their
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
children.
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin
Making Work Pay
Forty-One states are providing incentives and
41 - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
encouraging families to work not stay on welfare,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
so they can achieve and maintain economic self-
Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan,
sufficiency.
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Parental Responsibility
Thirty-Nine states are promoting parental
39 - Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
responsibility by encouraging education, or
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
limiting benefits for families who have another
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
child while on AFDC.
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Revised
For background use only - Not for quotation or attribution
8/15/96
COMPARISON OF WELFARE REFORM MAJOR PROVISIONS
AFDC - RELATED PROVISIONS
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Child Care
A child care block grant would be
Increases mandatory child care funding
Increases mandatory funding over
authorized at $2.1 billion annually as
over current law by $0.3 billion over six
current law by $3.5 billion over 6 years
discretionary spending for FYs 1996
years (April 1996 CBO baseline).
(April 1996 CBO baseline). Authorizes
through 2000. Overall, child care would
Authorizes $9.9 billion in mandatory
a total of $13.9 billion in mandatory
be cut by $1.95 billion over 7 years.
funding for FYs 1997-2002 and $7
funding for FYs 1997-2002 and $7
billion in discretionary funding for FYs
billion in discretionary funding for FYs
1996-2002. States would receive
1996-2002. States would receive
approximately $1 billion of the
approximately $1.2 billion of the
mandatory funds as a capped
mandatory funds each year as a capped
entitlement. The remainder would be
entitlement. The remainder would be
available for state match (at the
available for state match. Requires
Medicaid rate). Requires states to
states to maintain 100 percent of FY
maintain 100 percent of FY 1994 child
1994 or FY 1995 child care
care expenditures to draw down
expenditures (whichever is greater) to
mandatory funds. No child care
draw down (at 1995 Medicaid rate) the
guarantee, but single parents with
mandatory funds. Single parents with
children under six who are unable to
children under 6 who are unable to find
find child care are exempted from
child care are exempted from sanctions
sanctions and penalties. Eliminates
and penalties. Maintains current law
health and safety protections.
health and safety protections.
Performance
No provision
No provision. States that exceeded a
$1 billion would be available through
Bonus to
performance threshold with respect to
FY 2003 for performance bonuses. The
Reward Work
these measures would have their
Secretary of HHS (in consultation with
maintenance of effort standard reduced
the NGA and APWA), would be
by up to 8 percentage points.
required to develop a formula measuring
state performance using employment-
related criteria, taking the
unemployment conditions in the state
into account. States would receive a
bonus based on their score on the
measure(s) in the previous year, but the
bonus could not exceed 5 percent of the
family assistance grant.
Time Limits
Families who have been on the rolls for
Families who have been on the rolls for
Same as vetoed bill, except includes a
5 cumulative years (or less at state
5 cumulative years (or less at state
20 percent exemption and states would
option) would be ineligible for cash aid.
option) would be ineligible for cash aid.
not be permitted to use federal funds to
States would be permitted to exempt up
States would be permitted to exempt up
provide noncash assistance to families
to 10% of the caseload from the time
to 15% of the caseload from the time
that reach the time limit. States could
limit. States would be permitted to
limit. States are permitted to use block
use their own funds, and federal Title
provide noncash benefits to families that
grant funds provide noncash benefits
XX funds, for vouchers.
have reached their time limits.
vouchers to families that are time
limited.
Personal
No provision
No provision
States are required to make an initial
Responsibility
assessment of each recipient's skills,
Contract
work experience, and employability.
Personal responsibility contracts could
be developed at state option.
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Economic
No contingency fund. States with high
The bill includes $1 billion contingency
Adds $1 billion to the contingency fund
Contingency
unemployment could borrow from a $1
fund (FYs 1997-2000) for grants to
for a total of $2 billion. States could
Grant Fund
billion national Rainy Day loan fund.
states with high unemployment (state
meet one of two triggers to access the
Funds would have to be repaid.
must match): payments from the fund
contingency fund: the unemployment
for any fiscal year would be limited to
trigger in the H.R. 4 Conference
20 percent of the state's base grant.
Agreement or a trigger based on food
$800 million grant fund for states with
stamps. Under the second trigger, a
high population growth, benefits lower
state would be eligible for the
than 35% of the national average, or
contingency fund if its food stamps
above average growth and below
caseload increased by 10 percent over
average AFDC benefits (no state
the FY 1994-95 level (adjusted for the
match); and $1.7 billion loan fund.
impact of the bill's immigrant and food
stamp provisions on the food stamp
caseload). Payments from the fund for
any fiscal year would be limited to 20
percent of the state's base grant for that
year. A state's federal match rate (for
drawing down contingency funds)
would be reduced if it received funds for
fewer than 12 months in any year. Also
includes a supplemental fund for high
population growth states and loan fund
as in H.R. 4 Conference Agreement.
Block Granting
Block grants AFDC, EA, and JOBS into
Block grants AFDC, EA, and JOBS into
Block grants AFDC, EA, and JOBS into
AFDC
a single capped entitlement to states.
a single capped entitlement to states.
a single capped entitlement to states.
No individual guarantee of assistance.
No individual guarantee of assistance.
No individual guarantee, but the state
plan must have objective criteria for
delivery of benefits and ensuring
equitable treatment.
The state must provide opportunities for
recipients who have been adversely
affected to be heard in a state
administrative or appeal process. There
are no provisions to give the Secretary
authority to enforce this provision.
Explicitly allows states to use block
grant money for programs to fund
individual development accounts for
recipients. Individual development
accounts would not be counted as
income in determining benefits, and
could be used by individuals to finance
a small or micro-business, to pursue
post-secondary education, or to
purchase their first home.
Maintenance of
No provision
States would be required to maintain
Requires 80 percent maintenance of
Effort
75% of FY 1994 spending on AFDC
effort (reduced to 75 percent if a state
and related programs for FYs 1996-
meets its work requirements) and
2000. States with best or most
tightens the definition of what counts
improved performance on specified
toward the work requirement. No
measures would have their maintenance
additional reductions in MOE.
of effort requirement reduced by up to 8
percentage points.
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Transferability
A state would be permitted to transfer
A state would be permitted to transfer
A state would be permitted to transfer
up to 30 percent of the cash assistance
up to 30 percent of the cash assistance
up to 30 percent of the cash assistance
block grant to one or more of the
block grant to one or more of the
block grant to the child care block grant
following: the child protection block
following: the child protection block
and the social services (Title XX) block
grant, the Title XX block grant, any
grant, the Title XX block grant, or the
grants. No more than one-third of the
food or nutrition block grant, or the
child care block grant.
amount can be transferred to the social
child care block grant.
services block grant, and all funds must
be spent on programs and services for
children and families with incomes that
do not exceed 200 percent of poverty.
Title XX funds can be used for
vouchers.
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Work
A state's required work participation rate
A state's required work participation rate
A state's required work participation
Requirements
would be set at 10% in 1996, rising to
would be set at 15% in 1996, rising to
rate for all families would be set at 25
50% by 2003. Provides pro rata
50% by 2002. Provides pro rata
percent in FY 1997, rising to 50 percent
reduction in the participation rate for
reduction in the participation rate for
in FY 2002 and thereafter. Includes
reductions in caseload levels below FY
reductions in caseload levels below FY
pro-rata reduction in rate due to
1995 that are not due to federal law.
1995 that are not due to eligibility
caseloads below FY 1995 levels.
Individuals must work an average of 35
changes. Recipients would be required
Single-parent recipients would be
hours in FY 2002. Work activities
to participate 35 hours per week by FY
required to participate 30 hours per
include unsubsidized or subsidized
2002. Activities that count toward the
week in FY 2000 and thereafter. Two-
employment, work experience, four
work requirement include unsubsidized
parent families must work 35 hours per
weeks of job search, education and
and subsidized employment, work
week immediately. In families
skills training directly related to
experience, community service, four
receiving federally-funded child care.
employment, and teens in secondary
weeks of job search and 12 months of
both parents must work at least 20 hours
school.
vocational training. States have the
per week, unless caring for a severely
option to exempt single parents with
disabled child. The bill allows mothers
children under age I from work
with children under age 6 to work 20
requirement. No part-time work option
hours per week. States could exempt
for mothers with young children.
from the work requirement single
Parents of children under six who
parents with children under age one for
cannot find child care cannot be
a total of 12 months (not necessarily
penalized for failure to meet work
consecutive). Parents of children under
requirements.
age 6 who cannot find child care cannot
be penalized for failure to meet the work
requirements, but states may not
disregard such an adult in calculating
work rates. Allows 6 weeks (no more
than 4 consecutive) of job search, 12
weeks if state unemployment is at least
50 percent above the national average.
Activities that count toward the work
requirement are similar to those in H.R.
4, except states could allow 20 percent
of caseload to count 12 months of
vocational training and secondary
school for teens (up to age 19) toward
work requirement. Also counts hours
parents spend providing day care for
other welfare families.
States which receive approval for
welfare reform waivers before July 1,
1997 have the option to operate their
cash assistance program under some or
all of these waivers. For states electing
this option, some provisions of the new
law which are inconsistent with the
waivers would not take effect until the
expiration of the applicable waivers in
the geographical areas covered by the
waivers.
Family Cap
States could not use federal funds to
States would be required to deny cash
No provision (due to Byrd rule), so state
provide cash benefits to children born
benefits to children born to welfare
option. If state has family cap, state
while parent is receiving assistance.
recipients unless the state legislature
may use Title XX funds to provide
explicitly votes to provide benefits.
vouchers.
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Teen Parent
States would be prohibited from
In order to receive assistance, unmarried
In order to receive assistance, unmarried
Provisions
providing cash benefits to minor
minor parents would be required to live
minor parents would be required to live
mothers.
with an adult or in an adult-supervised
with an adult or in an adult-supervised
setting and participate in educational or
setting and participate in educational or
training activities.
training activities. In addition, states
would be responsible for locating or
For FYs 1996-2000, an additional $11
assisting in locating adult-supervised
billion would be authorized to assist
settings for teens. Starting in FY 1998,
states in locating or providing "second
$50 million a year in mandatory funds
chance homes."
would be added to the appropriations of
the Maternal and Child Health (MCH)
$75 million per year would be set aside
Block Grant for abstinence education.
from the Maternal and Child Health
In addition, the Secretary of HHS will
(MCH) Block Grant for an abstinence
establish and implement a strategy to (1)
education program.
prevent non-marital teen births, and (2)
assure that at least 25 percent of
communities have teen pregnancy
prevention programs. No later than
1/1/97, the Attorney General would
establish a program that studies the
linkage between statutory rape and teen
pregnancy, and that educates law
enforcement officials on the prevention
and prosecution of statutory rape.
MEDICAID PROVISIONS
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Medicaid
Welfare Bill: States would be required
Eliminates guarantee of Medicaid
States have two options for providing
Guarantee
to use rules in effect as of March 7,
coverage for cash assistance recipients.
Medicaid coverage: 1) States may
1995, thus freezing pre-welfare reform
guarantee coverage for individuals and
AFDC rules for Medicaid eligibility.
families in accord with current AFDC
income and resource standards; or 2)
Medicaid Bill: Eliminates guarantee of
states may run a single eligibility system
Medicaid coverage for cash assistance
provided that eligibility is no more
recipients.
restrictive than the income and resource
standards in effect as of July 16, 1996.
(Note: for both provisions, states may
return to May 1, 1988 standards as
allowed under current law). States may
deny Medicaid to any adult receiving
both Medicaid and benefits under the
cash benefits whose benefits are
terminated because of failure to meet
work requirements.
Medicaid
Welfare Bill: Requires states to use
States determine eligibility; no
Coverage continues as long as families
Coverage After
state plan provisions in effect on March
guarantee of Medicaid coverage. No
would have qualified for AFDC under
Five-Year Time
1, 1995 to determine Medicaid
provision on Medicaid coverage for
July 16, 1996 rules.
Limit
eligibility.
families that reach the time limit.
Medicaid Bill: States determine
eligibility; no guarantee of Medicaid
coverage.
One-Year
No provision. Transitional Medicaid
No provision
Families receive one year of transitional
Transitional
Assistance is therefore allowed to sunset
Medicaid if the family leaves welfare
Medicaid
on 9/30/98 per current law.
because of increased earnings.
Coverage
Maintains current law of providing
transitional Medicaid for four months to
families who leave welfare due to
increased child support. Provisions are
extended through 2002.
FOOD STAMPS PROVISIONS
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Food Stamps
The House bill would cap federal
The conference bill disqualifies able-
Eliminates the block grant option.
program expenditures regardless of
bodied adults between 18 and 50 if they
Limits childless able-bodied adults
growth. The bill would limit maximum
received food stamps for more than four
between 18 and 50 to three months of
benefit increases to 2% per year,
months in the last year and did not work
food stamp benefits in a 36-month
regardless of the increase in food costs.
or participate in a work program, unless
period, unless they were laid off, in
It would terminate benefits for non-
they live in an area with greater than 10
which case the exemption is for a total
disabled childless individuals between
percent unemployment. An optional
of 6 months. Allows two months of job
18 and 50 years old unless they are
food stamp block grant would be
search or job search training and
working at least half-time or in a work
available to states that have a fully
hardship exemptions for up to 20
program. Optional food stamp block
implemented EBT system or meet
percent of persons subject to this
grant would be available to states that
certain payment accuracy standards.
requirement. Freezes the cap on the
operate a statewide EBT system. The
States choosing block grants would be
shelter deduction at $342 after 1/1/97
bill would freeze the standard income
required to meet specified requirements.
and reduces the standard deduction to
deduction and the limit on excess shelter
$132 in FY 1997 and $122 in FY 1998-
expense deductions at their current
2002; indexing of standard resumes
levels.
afterward.
OTHER PROVISIONS
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Child Nutrition
Replaces child nutrition programs
No mandatory child nutrition block
No school nutrition block grant.
operated outside of schools, WIC, and
grants, but permits up to 7 school
commodity distribution programs with a
nutrition block grant demonstrations.
block grant to states. Creates a separate
WIC remains a separate program. Child
block grant to states for school-based
nutrition spending would be reduced by
child nutrition programs. These
about $6.3 billion over 7 years.
provisions would result in cuts of $10
billion over 7 years.
Child Support
Includes major comprehensive child
Includes major comprehensive child
Similar to vetoed bill, except it
support enforcement measures proposed
support enforcement measures proposed
eliminates a provision in current law
by the Clinton Administration,
by the Clinton Administration,
which requires that child support awards
including paternity establishment, state
including paternity establishment, state
in AFDC cases be periodically reviewed
central registries of child support orders,
central registries of child support orders,
and adjusted to ensure that awards are
uniform procedures for interstate cases,
uniform procedures for interstate cases,
adequate. Also includes a minimum
and penalties such as license revocation.
and penalties, such as license
reduction of 25 percent of monthly cash
Eliminates the $50 pass-through of child
revocation. Eliminates $50 pass-
assistance for an individual's failure to
support to cash assistance recipients.
through of child support to cash
cooperate with paternity establishment.
assistance recipients.
SSI For
Children who are now eligible for SSI
Upon enactment for pending and new
Upon enactment for pending and new
Children
under the medical listings would
applications, would eliminate the
applications, would eliminate the
continue to receive cash benefits and
comparable severity standard, the IFA,
comparable severity standard, the IFA,
Medicaid. For applicants after
and references to maladaptive behavior
and references to maladaptive behavior
enactment, cash benefits would only be
in the listing. and would establish a new
in the listing, and would establish a new
available for children who meet the
disability definition for children.
disability definition for children.
medical listing and are institutionalized
Effective January I, 1997, for current
Current beneficiaries found ineligible
or would be institutionalized if they do
recipients and new applicants, a 2-tiered
would lose benefits no sooner than July
not receive personal assistance services
benefit system would be established.
1, 1997. Continuing disability reviews
required because of their disability. All
Children who need personal assistance
would be conducted for low birth
children who meet the medical listings
in order to remain at home would
weight children within one year of birth,
would be eligible for services under a
receive 100% of the benefit. Children
and at least every three years on
state block grant funded at 75% of the
who meet the listings but not the
children under age 18. Representative
amount otherwise payable in cash
personal assistance criteria would
payees for children would be required to
benefits. There would be no guarantee
receive 75% of the benefit. Continuing
present evidence at the time of a
of services under the block grant.
disability reviews would be conducted
continuing disability review that the
for low birth weight children within one
child receiving treatment to the extent
year of birth, and at least every three
considered necessary and available for
years on children under age 18.
his or her condition. Eligibility would
Representative payees for children
have to be redetermined, using the adult
would be required to present evidence at
criteria, within one year following a
the time of a continuing disability
recipient turning 18. For privately
review that the child receiving treatment
insured, institutionalized children, cash
for his or her condition. Eligibility
benefits would be limited to $30 per
would have to be redetermined, using
month. No two-tier benefit system.
the adult criteria, within one year
following a recipient turning 18.
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL
VETOED BILL (H.R. 4)
CURRENT BILL
Child
Eliminates the current federal
Maintains the entitlement for foster care
No block grant. Current bill: (1) gives
Protection and
entitlement for Foster Care and
and adoption assistance maintenance
states authority to make foster care
Adoption
Adoption Assistance, the capped
payments and block grants
maintenance payments using IV-E funds
entitlements for Family Preservation and
administration and child placement
on behalf of children in for-profit child
Support and Independent Living, and a
services funding, as well as IV-B parts 1
care institutions; (2) extends the
number of discretionary programs for
and 2 and Independent Living. CAPTA
enhanced federal match for statewide
abused, neglected, abandoned, and at-
and several discretionary programs are
automated child welfare information
risk children (including the Child Abuse
combined into a Child and Family
systems through 1997; (3) appropriates
Prevention and Treatment Act, and the
Services block grant. Overall, reduces
$6 million per year in each of FYs
Missing and Exploited Children's Act).
mandatory funding by $400 million
1996-2002 for a national random sample
Replaces these programs with a capped
over 7 years.
study of abused and neglected children;
entitlement block grant to the states, and
and (4) requires that states consider
reduces funding available to the states
giving preference for kinship
by $6.3 billion over 7 years.
placements, provided that relatives meet
state standards.
Immigrants
With certain exemptions, noncitizens
Most legal immigrants would be
Same as H.R. 4, except: (1) eliminates
would be ineligible for SSI, Medicaid,
ineligible for SSI and Food Stamps until
eligibility of legal immigrants for SSI
food stamps, transitional assistance, and
citizenship. Current recipients would
and Food Stamps immediately at the
social services block grants. Immigrants
lose eligibility after January 1, 1997.
time of redetermination, rather than one
would become eligible upon
States would have the option to make
year after the date of implementation;
naturalization. Exceptions include
most current legal immigrants ineligible
(2) allows non-qualified immigrant
immigrants too disabled to naturalize
for Medicaid, AFDC, Title XX Social
children to be eligible for school
and immigrants over 75 with five years
Services, and state-funded assistance
lunches/breakfasts if they are eligible
residence. Most federal and state needs-
until citizenship. Future immigrants
for a free public education; (3) adds
based programs would be required to
would be ineligible for five years for
JTPA and Head Start to the list of
deem the income and resources of
most federal means-tested programs,
programs explicitly exempted from the
sponsors. Deeming would be extended
including Medicaid.
5-year eligibility ban on future legal
until the immigrant naturalized and
immigrants; and (4) provides states the
would apply to current recipients.
All applicants for most federal, state,
option to determine whether non-
and local programs would be subject to
qualified immigrants are eligible for
new verification requirements to
WIC and other child nutrition programs.
determine if they are "qualified" or
"non-qualified." Qualified immigrants
would include legal permanent
residents, refugees, asylees, immigrants
whose deportation has been withheld,
and immigrants who have been granted
parole status by the INS for a period of
one year. Non-qualified immigrants
would be ineligible for benefits (except
emergency medical; short-term disaster;
limited public health assistance; non-
profit, in-kind community services such
as shelters and soup kitchens; and
certain housing programs).
Future sponsors/immigrants would be
required to sign new, legally binding
affidavits of support. For these future
immigrants, H.R. 4 extends deeming to
citizenship, changes deeming to count
100 percent of a sponsor's income and
resources, and expands the number of
programs that are required to deem,
including Medicaid.
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON ON WELFARE REFORM LEGISLATION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1996
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good afternoon.
When I ran for president four years ago I pledged to end welfare
as we know it. I have worked very hard for four years to do just
that. Today the Congress will vote on legislation that gives us a
chance to live up to that promise -- to transform a broken system that
traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes
work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a
paycheck, not a welfare check. It gives us a better chance to give
those on welfare what we want for all families in America, the
opportunity to succeed at home and at work.
For those reasons, I will sign it into law.
The legislation is, however, far from perfect. There are parts
of it that are wrong, and I will work -- I will address those parts in
a moment.
But on balance, this bill is a real step forward for
our country, our values, and for people who are on welfare.
For 15 years I have worked on this problem, as governor and as
the president. I've spent time in welfare offices, I have talked to
mothers on welfare who desperately want the chance to work and support
their families independently. A long time ago I concluded that the
current welfare system undermines the basic values of work,
responsibility and family, trapping generation after generation in
dependency and hurting the very people it was designed to help.
Today we have an historic opportunity to make welfare what it was
meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life. And even though the
bill has serious flaws that are unrelated to welfare reform, I believe
we have a duty to seize the opportunity it gives us to end welfare as
we know it.
Over the past three and half years, I have done everything in my
power as president to promote work and responsibility, working with 41
states to give them 69 welfare reform experiments. We've also
required teen mothers to stay in school, required federal employees to
pay their child support, cracked down on people who owe child support
and cross state lines. As a result, child support collections are up
40 percent to $11 billion, and there are 1.3 million fewer people on
welfare today than there were when I took office.
From the outset, however, I have also worked with members of both
parties in Congress to achieve a national welfare reform bill that
will make work and responsibility the law of the land.
I made my principles for real welfare reform very clear from the
beginning. First and foremost, it should be about moving people from
welfare to work. It should impose time limits on welfare. It should
give people the child care and the health care they need to move from
welfare to work without hurting their children. It should crack down
on child support enforcement, and it should protect our children.
This legislation meets these principles. It gives us a chance we
haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed
for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from
the world of work. It gives structure, meaning, and dignity to most
of our lives.
We've come a long way in this debate. It's important to remember
that not so very long ago, at the beginning of this very Congress,
some wanted to put poor children in orphanages and take away all help
from mothers simply because they were poor, young, and unmarried.
Last year the Republican majority in Congress sent me legislation that
had its priorities backward: It was soft on work, and tough on
children. It failed to provide child care and health care. It
imposed deep and unacceptable cuts in school lunches, child welfare,
and help for disabled children.
The bill came to me twice and I vetoed it twice. The bipartisan
legislation before the Congress today is significantly better than the
bills I vetoed. Many of the worst elements I objected to are out of
it, and many of the improvements I asked for are included.
First, the new bill is strong on work. It provides $4 billion
more for child care so that mothers can move from welfare to work, and
protects their children by maintaining health and safety standards for
day care. These things are very important. You cannot ask somebody
on welfare to go to work if they're going to neglect their children in
doing it. It gives states powerful performance incentives to place
people in jobs. It requires states to hold up their end of the
bargain by maintaining their own spending on welfare. And it gives
states the capacity to create jobs by taking money now used for
welfare checks and giving it to employers as income subsidies, as an
incentive to hire people, or being used to create community service
jobs.
Second, this new bill is better for children than the two I
vetoed. It keeps the national nutritional safety net intact by
eliminating the food stamp cap and the optional block grant. It drops
the deep cuts and devastating changes in school lunch, child welfare
and help for disabled children. It allows states to use federal money
to provide vouchers to children whose parents can't find work after
the time limits expire. And it preserves the national guarantee of
health care for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women, the
elderly, and people on welfare.
Just as important, this bill continues to include the child
support enforcement measures I proposed two years ago -- the most
sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. If every parent
paid the child support they should, we could move 800,000 women and
children off welfare immediately. With this bill, we say to parents,
if you don't pay the child support you owe we will garnish your wages,
take away your driver's license, track you across state lines and if
necessary make you work off what you owe.
It is a very important advance that could only be achieved in
legislation. I did not have the executive authority to do this
without a bill. So I will sign this bill, first and foremost because
the current system is broken; second, because Congress has made many
of the changes I sought; and third, because even though serious
problems remain in the non-welfare-reform provisions of the bill, this
is the best chance we will have for a long, long time to complete the
work of ending welfare as we know it, by moving people from welfare to
work, demanding responsibility, and doing better by children.
However, I want to be very clear. Some parts of this bill still
go too far, and I am determined to see that those areas are corrected.
First, I am concerned that although we have made great strides to
maintain the national nutritional safety net, this bill still cuts
deeper than it should in nutritional assistance, mostly for working
families with children. In the budget talks, we reached a tentative
agreement on $21 billion in food stamp savings over the next several
years. They are included in this bill. However, the congressional
majority insisted on another cut we did not agree to, repealing a
reform adopted four years ago in Congress which was to go into effect
next year. It's called the excess shelter reduction, which helped
some of our hardest-pressed working families. Finally we were going
to treat working families with children the same way we treat senior
citizens who draw food stamps today. Now, blocking this change I
believe -- I know -- will make it harder for some of our hardest-
pressed working families with children. This provision is a mistake,
and I will work to correct it.
Second, I am deeply disappointed that the congressional
leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily important
bill a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in America, people
who work hard for their families, pay taxes, serve in our military.
This provision has nothing to do with welfare reform; it is simply a
budget-saving measure, and it is not right. These immigrant families
with children, who fall on hard times through no fault of their own --
for example, because they face the same risks the rest of us do from
accidents, from criminal assaults, from serious illness -- they should
be eligible for medical and other help when they need it.
The Republican majority could never have passed such a provision
standing alone. You see that in the debate in the immigration bill --
for example, over the Gallegly amendment -- and the question of
education of undocumented and illegal immigrant children. This
provision will cause great stress for states, for localities, for
medical facilities that have to serve large number of illegal -- of
legal immigrants -- legal immigrants. It is just wrong to say to
people, "We'll let you work here; you're helping our country. You'll
pay taxes. You serve in our military. You may get killed defending
America. But if somebody mugs you on a street corner, or you get
cancer, or you get hit by a car, or the same thing happens to your
children, we're not going to give you assistance anymore."
I am convinced this would never have passed alone, and I am
convinced when we send legislation to Congress to correct it, it will
be corrected.
In the meantime, let me also say that I intend to take further
executive action directing the INS to continue to work to remove the
bureaucratic roadblocks to citizenship to all eligible legal
immigrants. I will do everything in my power, in other words, to make
sure that this bill lifts people up and does not become an excuse for
anyone to turn their backs on this problem or on people who are
genuinely in need, through no fault of their own.
This bill must also not let anyone off the hook. The states
asked for this responsibility; now they have to shoulder it and not
run away from it. We have to make sure that in the coming years,
reform and change actually result in moving people from welfare to
work. The business community must provide greater private-sector jobs
that people on welfare need to build good lives and strong families.
I challenge every state to adopt the reforms that Wisconsin, Oregon,
Missouri, and other states are proposing to do, to take the money that
used to be available for welfare checks and offer it to the private
sector as wage subsidies to begin to hire these people, to give them a
chance to build their families and build their lives.
All of us have to rise to this challenge and see this reform not as a
chance to demonize or demean anyone, but instead as an opportunity to
bring everyone fully into the mainstream of American life, to give
them a chance to share in the prosperity and the promise that most of
our people are enjoying today. And we here in Washington must
continue to do everything in our power to reward work and to expand
opportunity for all people.
The earned income tax credit which we expanded in 1993
dramatically is now rewarding the work of 15 million working families.
I am pleased that congressional efforts to gut this tax cut for the
hardest-pressed working people have been blocked. This legislation
preserves the EITC and its benefits for working families.
Now we must increase the minimum wage, which also will benefit
millions of working people with families and help them to offset the
impact of some of the nutritional cuts in this bill.
Through these efforts we all have to recognize, as I said in
1992, the best anti-poverty program is still a job.
I want to congratulate the members of Congress in both parties
who worked together on this welfare reform legislation. I want to
challenge them to put politics aside and continue to work together to
meet our other challenges, and to correct the problems that are still
there with this legislation. I am convinced that it does present an
historic opportunity to finish the work of ending welfare as we know
it, and that is why I have decided to sign it.
Transcript of Today's White House Press Briefing by Shalala and
Reed (1 of 2)
To: National Desk
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100
WASHINGTON, July 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a transcript
of today's White House press briefing by Secretary of Health and
Human Services Donna Shalala and Assistant to the President for
Policy Planning Bruce Reed (1 of 2):
The Briefing Room
3:12 P.M. EDT
MS. GLYNN: Good afternoon, everyone. To finish the briefing on
welfare reform we have Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala and Assistant to the President for Policy Planning Bruce
Reed.
SECRETARY SHALALA: Thank you very much. I think the President
outlined his reasons for signing the bill brilliantly. Let me talk
a little about the reasons why the President vetoed earlier bills
and what we've gained, what the policy gains have been in this
bill.
First, Medicaid is a stand-alone entitlement program. No longer
is it linked -- it's not linked to welfare, and the Medicaid
program is allowed to continue. We would still like some reforms in
that Medicaid program, but the important thing is that welfare
recipients will not be losing their Medicaid, and Medicaid will
continue for millions of poor Americans who need health care.
Second, there's $4 billion more for child care in this bill, and
we were able to restore the health and safety standards for the
child care system in this country, which were absolutely critical.
There was an attempt by the Republicans to remove them.
Third, there is no food stamp block grant. The food stamp
program stays intact. There's no ceiling limit on it.-The President
did outline that we have some concerns about the way the cuts were
taken, and we'll be looking at those as we do our detailed
analysis.
Fourth, there's no child welfare block grant. The child welfare
services, which have been the most sensitive kind of services in
this country, to limit them in any way -- these are the services
that cover foster care, adoption services, 21 states are already
under some court order. The Republicans originally wanted to curb
those services, put caps on it, block grant it. We said not a
chance. These are the most vulnerable children in our society and
you have to back away from those proposals.
There are greater protections in this bill for disabled
children. There is a doubling of the contingency fund to protect
against economic downturns. It's now $2 billion, instead of $1
billion, which is what they had in previous bills. That's extremely
important.
For those that believe that we ought to continue to entitlement,
the contingency fund becomes critical. That's what is taken up and
used if there is an economic downturn in a state. If a state goes
into an economic downturn, the people that need help are working
folks who get laid off from their jobs and need to come into the
welfare system for a very short period of time. So a contingency
fund or an alternative like an entitlement becomes increasingly
important. The contingency fund here is $2 billion to protect
against economic downturns.
There is a 20 percent hardship exemption, which gives the states
the flexibility of exempting a large group of people who cannot
meet either the work requirements or the time requirements for one
reason or another. There is no mandatory family cap. You'll
remember that the Catholic Church in particular has been deeply
concerned about a family cap that would limit the payments that a
state gives, a national family cap if a family has another child --
if a woman has another child. The work requirements in this have
actually been made more flexible at the 11th hour. A very
interesting change was put in place in this bill, which has not
actually been written about, which allows the states to keep the
work requirements they negotiated with us in their waivers, as
opposed to moving to the work requirements that are in the bill. So
the states will have the options during the course of their
waivers, and these waivers have been granted between five and 11
years. So for many states they'll have flexibility on the packages
they put together.
The school lunch and the nutrition block grant was eliminated in
this bill. We fought that early on. And any kind of cut in
unmarried teen moms from getting assistance was eliminated. There
are major gains in this bill that made it possible for the
President to sign the bill, but more importantly from our point of
view, made it possible for the bill to work.
Q Secretary Shalala, you have outlined a number of improvements
of this bill over the previous two that he vetoed, but in your
opinion is this a good bill, is this an improvement on the status
quo? Secondly, did you recommend to the President this morning or
last night that he in fact sign it? And third, did you ever
consider resigning over this bill?
SECRETARY SHALALA: First, on the issue of is this an improvement
over the status quo, it is a significant improvement over the
status quo. As early as 1984 a number of my colleagues who are now
with me at the Department of Health and Human Services, including
Mary Jo Bane and I, recommended to Governor Cuomo that we move to
an employment-based program with time limits. This program moves us
into the modern age, moves -- gives people genuine opportunity to
move from welfare to work and puts the support systems around. If
you combine this with Earned Income Tax Credit and with the minimum
wage, we have powerful incentives to support people, even as
they're entering entry-level jobs in this country. And the
President has always believed, as all of us do, that the best
opportunity for anyone in this country is a job.
This is a significant improvement over the status quo. As to the
other two questions, I never reveal publicly advice I give to the
President. And I never considered resigning.
Q Ms. Secretary, on the 10 things that you named for us, I
wanted to just ask a couple of clarifying questions. The doubling
of the contingency fund from $1 billion to $2 billion, is that over
what period of time?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Over six years.
Q And the same is true of the $4 billion more for child care?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Yes.
Q What does that bring the total to of child care for the six
years?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Fourteen billion dollars.
Q And the 10th thing -- one other question, guys. Will that 10th
thing that you named -- you listed -- the unmarried teen moms --
SECRETARY SHALALA: Remember, one of the original bills --
Q What's the provision now?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Unmarried teen moms will be able to finish
high school. They'll get support while they're finishing high
school as opposed to being cut off from any kind of aid.
Q Is that required or is it up to the states --
MR. REED: When the House Republicans put forward their bill
early last year, they included a provision that would have required
every state to ban every teen mother from receiving assistance just
because they were poor, young and unmarried as the-President said.
Q It wasn't in the bill that went to the President the first
time was it?
MR. REED: No, no. That's something that was in the original
House bill and the President singled that out in his 1995 State of
the Union. We had a hard-fought battle which we won early on, and
it's not included in the final bill.
SECRETARY SHALALA: Remember for many of us, it's the improvement
since our first discussions with the Republicans. Dragging them
originally into getting child support into the bill became very
important. They did not have it in their original bill; we insisted
on it. Child support enforcement for the first time will have the
national dimension to it, which means we'll be able to track people
down successfully across state lines.
Q Secretary Shalala, you never said whether you liked the bill
in response to the last question. And, also, you have liberal
Democrats like Charlie Rangel going to the floor saying my
President will boldly throw 1 million children into the street. How
do you react to those sorts of comments?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Well, first, I hope that the governors intend
to prove Charlie, my good friend Charlie Brown -- Charlie Rangel
--Charlie Rangel wrong. And it's the way they're going to manage
this program.
Second, I do think it's a good welfare bill. There are parts of
it that the President outlined that are outside the welfare bill
that we have deep and serious concerns about that include the
immigration provisions and the nutrition provisions and, hopefully,
we'll be able to make significant strides in getting improvements
over our concerns.
Q Will you outline what it is exactly about the nutrition
provisions that are objected to?
SECRETARY SHALALA: The President outlined the shelter allowance
as one example. For people that -- for low income people working
people in some cases, who have very high shelter costs having their
calculation for food stamps based on taking into account a certain
amount of their shelter costs, the issue is -- it's over 50 percent
of their shelter cost, how much above that will be taken into
account.
This bill makes some dollar improvements but the law was
actually going to take off the limit over 50 percent, a law that
was passed which would have protected those who live in high
housing cost areas. That becomes extremely important for working
families because they do have some income, because they have jobs,
but they also need food stamps to supplement and we need to take
into account those higher shelter costs.
That becomes a very sensitive issue for us.
Q -- bill does what as --
SECRETARY SHALALA: The bill puts a cap on that amount, and we
simply want to be able to take a very careful look at that. In
addition, the bill goes into the food stamp program and removes
some increases that we have some concerns about, and we will be
reviewing those. But remember, we got this bill at midnight last
night. The President needed to make a decision fast, so we've done
the analysis --
MR. REED: Just to add to what Donna said, there is a cap in
current law that was set to expire, effectively next year, and this
bill maintains that cap and shaves the increase --
SECRETARY SHALALA: It was the Mickey Leland Food Act, and it was
Mickey Leland's legacy to take off that cap.
Q Madam Secretary, when you came this morning to this meeting,
did you have a sense, or did you know in your bones what the
outcome would be --
SECRETARY SHALALA: No.
Q -- and was it what you expected?
SECRETARY SHALALA: No, I didn't. I expected it to be a full and
healthy discussion and thoughtful discussion with the President.
And as he described it, that's exactly what it was.
Q And did you believe when you came that either outcome was
possible and we just happened to arrive at this outcome?
SECRETARY SHALALA: I don't -- I don't know. I came for a
discussion. The President has never invited me to a meeting in
which he has already made up his mind, so it was a full discussion
this morning.
Q Could you give some of the flavor of that meeting?
SECRETARY SHALALA: No, I think it's inappropriate. We have never
described the meetings or the flavor of the meetings. I think the
President described the meeting, and I'll stick with the
President's description.
Q The President said there is an element of experiment about
this. Nobody can say with absolute certainly how it will work or
how different states will approach it. What do you think is a fair
window of time to be reviewing what the states are doing? And if
there is a race for the bottom, when will we know?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Well, as you well know, we have essentially
taken the first step towards for welfare reform using the waiver
process, so we know something about state behavior and we're just
starting to get in the evaluations on state behavior and what's
happening in those particular states. The President would want us
to monitor what's happening very carefully. We will be able to tell
whether states are adding additional money. We will know how many
states are moving people into jobs and whether they're staying in
those jobs. So we will have information, hopefully state by state,
that will tell us what's happening and be able to report to the
President and report to Congress about what's going to happen.
The important thing about this bill, and every piece of research
has told us, that the states must have a stake in the outcome. They
must be a full partner. The more they're involved in it, the more
likely you are to get success in terms of state programs. That's
what the MDRC told us in their research, and so we have moved
dramatically to give the states the authority to design their own
programs.
Q Will the bill change anything that's happening in the many
states with waivers? Are they exempt -- in addition to being exempt
from the work requirements in the bill, are they exempt from any
other provisions?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Well, the states will be able to --we have to
go back and look at this very carefully. I think that they will be
able to take their waivers, look at the new bill, and be able to
shape what their overall program -- and remember, some of our
waivers are for one county. They will have a lot more flexibility
in terms of statewide programs now, in terms of expanding some of
those county activities. And so I do expect some changes in the
states.
Q Will they be forced to change anything, though, or --
SECRETARY SHALALA: The bill basically allows them to keep their
waivers and to work with the rest of the bill. So to the extent
that they're forced to it, is -- I think the answer is, there is no
forcing, but there are more opportunities in the new bill that they
will want to take advantage of. And I think that's the best way to
characterize it.
Q -- follow up to that. What's the fate of the Wisconsin waiver?
SECRETARY SHALALA: Well, Wisconsin now has -- I can't talk about
Wisconsin. You're going to have to answer Wisconsin. I'm recused.
Go ahead. I'm going to Wisconsin --
MR. REED: When this bill becomes law, Wisconsin should be able
to do the welfare reform plan that they submitted to us.
Q In other words, the President will take no action on the
pending waiver request? What's the --
Q Is it moot --
MR. REED: Yes, I think it's essentially moot.
Q Bruce, when will -- the President said he'd be sending
legislation up to fix some of the holes, the problems he saw with
the bill, notably the immigrants who will not get Medicaid and
other proposals. When will that legislation be ready? When are you
planning to send --
SECRETARY SHALALA: He is -- you know, we just analyzed this bill
for the President. We just got it, and he told us to get to work.
So, we'll let you --
MR. REED: I think that the prospects of enacting that
legislation in this Congress are not very good given the
circumstances we've run into in the last several weeks.
Q Just to follow up, the prospects of enactment have in the past
not necessarily stopped you from the process of promulgation. And
the President made it sound as if he thought that was a serious
enough concern. Will a proposal from the administration be
forthcoming in the remainder of this year or would that wait for
the second term?
MR. REED: Well, I think it's likely, but I --
Q Which is likely --
SECRETARY SHALALA: I think it's -- what the President told us to
do -- let me go back to the point. What the President told us to do
was to get to work and to look at those -- we have to finish our
analysis of this bill. We've seen, obviously we've read it and seen
enough of it. We need to come back to him and tell him specifically
what in the immigration parts of the bill, what in the food stamps
parts of the bill that we need to change. And so we're going to
work immediately.
You're detail questions about when we're going to have the
legislation, we'll just have to answer later.
Q Can I just follow up one second: I think the question is
prompted by the President's confidence in expressing that that as a
stand-alone provision wouldn't have passed and his apparent resolve
in saying that it's so unjust and really unjustifiable as to
require a relatively immediate response by you and that it would in
fact prevail.
MR. REED: I think as the President said, that he believes that
over time as more is learned about the potential impact of these
provisions that a consensus will emerge to fix them. But, you know,
we have a month left in this Congress. It doesn't seem likely that
it would happen.
Q Secretary Shalala, when the Republicans went after politically
popular middle class programs from Medicare and on down -- some of
them that they tried to block grant to the states -- the President
fought like a tiger and said he was willing to put his political
future on the line for them. Now here, he has a bill where he
himself points to serious flaws affecting children and affecting
legal immigrants. Is it just a coincidence that those who are
adversely affected by this bill, by your own and by the President's
own admission, don't have the vote?
SECRETARY SHALALA: In fact, I come to the opposite conclusion.
We fought like tigers to make sure Medicaid wasn't block grant,
which hurts -- seriously hurts poor people in this country. We
fought like tigers to make sure food stamps wasn't block granted.
We fought like tigers to make sure the child welfare services were
not block granted or nutrition services. We were successful in
holding off some of the most vicious proposals and in shaping a
bill that sets out the goals and meets the President's goals that
he laid out both in the campaign in the beginning and throughout
this administration. And that combined with the earned income tax
credit and the minimum wage are significant steps forward for low
income Americans and genuine opportunities for them, which after
all, is what welfare reform is all about.
Do you want to --
MR. REED: Can I just make one more point about how far we've
come in this debate? The original House bill had $75 billion in
budget savings related to welfare reform and $34 billion in EITC
cuts -- a total of $109 billion in their welfare package. This bill
that the President has indicated his support for has $57 billion.
So we think that we've come a long way.
Q But from your own starting point --
MR. REED: Our own starting point was, I think --
SECRETARY SHALALA: Deficit-neutral, basically.
MR. REED: The President's 1996 welfare reform plan saved $42
billion combined.
Q No, I mean your own starting point when --
MR. REED: In 1994?
Q Yes.
MR. REED: Which was deficit --
SECRETARY SHALALA: Which was deficit-neutral, basically. Let me
also point out that the President has laid out a series of gains
for the low income people in this country. From food stamps to Ryan
White, to protections in the Medicare program, we have a superb
record in this administration. For a generation of vulnerable
Americans, this is the most important step we can take --to move
from the status quo, to move people from dependency on the welfare
system to a job. And I support the President in his decision.
Q Secretary Shalala, can you talk about the sufficiency of the
$2 billion contingency fund? If we had a serious national downturn
SECRETARY SHALALA: If we have a serious national downturn, we
need to go back to Congress and make changes. Everybody knows that.
The Republicans know that. We know that. The Fed just put out a
report in Cleveland pointing out the importance of the economic
stabilizing effect of federal money. If you don't, recessions go
deeper and broader in states. And the business community could
hardly be taxed to pull them out. And everybody will be clamoring
back for more resources in the contingency fund. And that, I think,
everybody has conceded.
MR. REED: But also, saving the food stamp program has an even
greater stabilization effect. Food Stamps is much more responsive
to economic downturns than the current AFDC program.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 3:34 P.M. EDT
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
APWR-07-31-96 1719EDT
Copyright (c) 1996 The Associated Press
Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 7/31/96 5:23 PM
The Total Number of AFDC Recipients Has
Declined Under the Clinton Administration
15
14.5
14.2 million
14.1 million
14
Number in Millions
13.5
13.4 million*
13
12.5 million
12.5
12
1993
1994
1995
May 1996
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
*Preliminary Estimate
P92 SG416F
Work and Training Activities Among AFDC Recipients
Have Increased Under the Clinton Administration
7.5
7
650,000*
Times 100,000
6.5
6
600,000
550,000
5.5
510,000
5
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
*Preliminary Estimate (All Numbers Rounded)
P92 SG416E
Child Support Collections Have Increased
Under the Clinton Administration
12
11
$11 billion*
Dollars in Billions
10
$9.9 billion
9
$8.9 billion
$8 billion
8
7
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
*Preliminary Estimate
P92 SG416A
Families Served by Child Support Enforcement
Have Increased Under the Clinton Administration
4.5
4
3.8 million*
Families in Millions
3.5
3.4 million
3.2 million
3
2.8 million
2.5
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
*Preliminary Estimate
P92 SG416B
Paternity Establishments Have Increased
Under the Clinton Administration
8
7.5
735,000*
7
Times 100,000
6.5
6
590,819
554,637
5.5
515,857
5
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
*Preliminary Estimate (All Numbers Rounded)
P92 SG416C
Teen Birth Rates Have Declined
Under the Clinton Administration*
65
63
62.1
Per 1,000 Women Aged 15-19
61
60.7
59.6
59
58.9
57
55
1991
1992
1993
1994
Source: "Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1994," Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Vol. 44, No. 11(s), June 24, 1996
*
Live births per 1,000 women aged 15-19
P92 SG416G