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
26415824
label
Welfare [Folder 2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26415824
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Welfare [Folder 2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26415824
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367456-20140209S-033-006-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a2a1d501c26e312a
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 23, 1996
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
As the President has said, the welfare reform bill he signed into law yesterday offers a
historic opportunity to end welfare as we know it and replace it with a system that offers
hope, demands responsibility, and rewards work.
However, as the President has also-said, the welfare reform bill contains provisions
that will cause unfair and unwarranted harm to many families. That is especially true of legal
immigrant families, who have followed the rules, worked, and paid taxes, and who have
suffered a calamity that has forced them to seek assistance.
The President has vowed to repair these provisions of the bill. In the meantime,
however, he is determined to ensure that they are implemented carefully, and that no
individuals not actually covered by these provisions are improperly denied the benefits they
and their children need.
For that reason, the President has today issued two directives to ensure that legal
immigrants and their children who remain eligible for benefits under the new law do not have
those benefits cut off mistakenly, and that legal immigrants who are eligible to become
citizens can do so as quickly as possible.
The first measure directs the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that States have the
maximum time allowed under the law to make sure that legal immigrants who remain eligible
for food stamp benefits continue to receive them. The Secretary is to grant a waiver allowing
any state, subject to certain legal restrictions, to extend the certification periods for eligibility
for food stamps that apply to legal immigrants receiving assistance. The extension will give
States time to develop the procedures needed to make accurate determinations of the many
facts -- such as immigration classification, veteran status, or work history -- that the new law
makes relevant to eligibility. In this way, the directive will decrease inaccurate or inequitable
decisions to cut off food stamp benefits.
Under the terms of the new law, benefits to legal immigrants and their children are cut
off only at the time of recertification of their eligibility for food stamps. When a State
extends the certification period, it will, in effect, push back the date on which a legal
immigrant will be deprived of food stamp benefits.
-more-
The waiver has specific time limits. Under current law, the Secretary may not allow
states to extend certification periods beyond one year for most aliens or two years for certain
elderly or disabled aliens. For states that already use that maximum certification period, the
waiver will not have a significant impact. For those that have shorter periods, however, the
waiver will permit extensions to a full year or 24 months. The Department, however, may
not allow states to extend any recertification beyond August 22, 1997.
The second measure directs the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and other agency heads to make continued efforts to reduce bureaucratic delays in
the citizenship process for legal immigrants applying to become citizens. The INS already
has made great progress in this area, devoting more resources to processing naturalization
applications and reducing long waiting lists. This directive instructs the Attorney General to
continue to increase staff used to review citizenship applications and to develop other
effective means, including joint efforts with community groups, of assisting applicants for
citizenship.
In addition, the directive instructs the heads of all relevant agencies to develop
public/private partnerships devoted to providing English-language training to applicants for
citizenship; make outreach efforts to those wishing to become citizens; and provide special
assistance to refugees and those seeking asylum.
Also today, the Attorney General, under authority granted by the welfare reform law;
will issue a memorandum containing a provisional list of non-cash services not conditioned on
income or resources that may not be denied to immigrants, because they are "necessary for
the protection of life and safety." These services include soup kitchens, medical services,
child protection, and services for victims of domestic violence. The Attorney General may
amend the list at a later date. Additional information is available at the Justice Department
from Myron Marlin, (202) 616-2765.
-30-30-30-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 23, 1996
August 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
SUBJECT:
Eligibility of Aliens for Food Stamps
Under the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which today I signed
into law, aliens receiving food stamps as of the date of enact-
ment will continue to receive benefits until recertification of
their eligibility, which shall take place not more than 1 year
after enactment of the law. The results of the certification,
including decisions as to an individual's immigration classifi-
cation, veteran status, or work history, will determine whether
the individual remains eligible for benefits under the Food
Stamp program. Implementation of these new procedures will
pose a substantial challenge for all involved Federal and State
agencies.
To ensure that eligibility determinations are made fairly,
accurately, and effectively, I direct you to take the steps
necessary under your authority to permit the State agencies
to extend the certification periods of currently participating
aliens, provided that no certification period is extended to
longer than 12 months, or up to 24 months if all adult household
members are elderly or disabled, and provided that in no event
shall certifications be extended beyond August 22, 1997.
I further direct you to notify the States of the actions you
have taken.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
###
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 23, 1996
August 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
AND OTHER HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES
SUBJECT:
Naturalization
Citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in
our democracy. To become a United States citizen through
naturalization represents a pledge to undertake the
responsibilities of being a full member of our national
community.
Naturalization is the best example of our legal immigration
system at work. It reflects our society's recognition of
those who came to this country to work hard, play by the
rules, and pursue shared ideals of freedom, opportunity,
and responsibility.
In the past, hundreds of thousands of eligible people have had
to wait unnecessarily to become citizens. In some parts of the
country, these people have had to wait well over a year after
filing their application to realize their dream of United States
citizenship.
This Administration is committed to eliminating the waiting
lists of those eligible for citizenship. To accomplish this,
we launched "Citizenship U.S.A., " the most ambitious citizenship
effort in history. In fiscal year 1996, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) will spend more than $165 million
for naturalization.
Citizenship U.S.A. combines three broad strategies: hiring
more people to handle applications, improving the naturalization
process, and expanding partnerships with local officials and
community organizations.
We are already making progress. We have increased the staff
235 percent in the five districts with 75 percent of the pending
applications: Los Angeles, New York, Miami, San Francisco, and
Chicago. In Los Angeles, where one-fourth of all new
applications are filed, we have opened three new processing
centers and have more than quadrupled the number of INS officers
handling citizenship applications.
But this is just the beginning. This Administration's target
is to process and swear-in within 6 months of application all
individuals eligible for citizenship. As we meet this target,
more than one million newcomers will become citizens by the end
of this year. After that, INS shall maintain those reforms
necessary to stay current with the demand of new citizen
applicants.
more
(OVER)
2
Using all of the tools at your disposal, I ask you to ensure
that policies and practices necessary to accomplish these
targets of one million new citizens sworn-in and the elimination
of the waiting list are implemented. This includes continuing,
expanding or accelerating, as appropriate and practicable, the
following:
1) New Hires. Hiring, training, and deployment of full staff
to assist naturalization efforts should proceed to completion as
quickly as possible.
2) Cutting Red Tape. This includes: establishing electronic
filing and mailing-in of citizenship applications, extended
weekday hours and Saturday interviews, further expansion of
processing facilities, and improvements to make it easier for
people to obtain forms and get immigration information by
telephone or computer.
3) Working with Local Officials and Community-Based Groups.
We are working in partnership with local officials and community
groups to expand outreach. I direct you to expand these efforts
to help get naturalization information to people, assist them in
filling out applications, offer more local sites for interviews,
especially for the elderly and the homebound, and seek other
means to jointly facilitate the process. We also will work to
expand the availability of local hotlines providing naturali-
zation information.
4) English Training. To assist legal immigrants to move
toward citizenship, I request relevant agencies to work with
the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, and
other White House offices to present to me by December 30, 1996,
a report making recommendations with respect to public/private
efforts to teach English to those needing to improve their
English-language skills. This report should consider possible
roles by private companies, educational institutions, unions,
community organizations, and the AmeriCorp program to accomplish
this goal.
5) Interagency Outreach. I direct each executive department
and agency to take steps to promote naturalization outreach
consistent with your agency's mission. In particular, in
materials sent to welfare recipients concerning eligibility,
I direct that, to the extent authorized by law, you include
naturalization information.
6) Refugees and Asylees. Those who flee persecution and
suffering in their home country are often in the weakest
position to acquire the skills they need to enter the job
market, maintain self-sufficiency, and achieve U.S. citizenship.
I direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
conjunction with other agencies as appropriate, to present to
me by December 30, 1996, through the Domestic Policy Council,
a report setting out a strategy of additional steps that we can
take to promote social adjustment in the United States, economic
self-sufficiency, and naturalization.
In taking these steps, this Administration shall maintain and
strengthen the standards and requirements of the naturalization
test that demonstrate an individual's readiness to accept the
responsibilities of citizenship and full participation in our
national community. You are directed to continue vigilant
oversight to uphold these standards.
Hundreds of thousands of people are seeking the dream and the
promise of American citizenship. They have worked to become
United States citizens, and these steps should ensure that they
are not made to wait unnecessarily.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
# # #
WELFARE REFORM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question:
You've spent 25 years working on behalf of children. How can you justify the President's
decision to sign a bill that abandons them?
Answer:
I've spent 25 years working on these issues because I share your concerns about our children.
And what I know is that too many of our children are living in poverty. Too many live with
families that are trapped by the dependency bred by the current welfare system. The law that the
President signed means the end to our blaming the "system" but just the beginning of welfare
reform. We all need to take responsibility for finding jobs and giving people the supports they
need to take them. Under this President's watch -- the President who fought against cuts in
Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage, and fought to preserve the Earned
Income Tax Credit, and during whose Administration 10 million jobs were created -- we can do
that. This is the President that can be trusted to help create jobs and protect our children
Background: The welfare system is broken. It undermines the basic values of work, responsibility and family
-- trapping generation after generation in a cycle of dependency and poverty. Fixing it is not
enough. Welfare needs systemic change. This law gives us a chance to make that change. It
moves people from welfare to work and gives them the support they need to do that -- by, for
example, guaranteeing Medicaid coverage and investing in child care.
I'll never forget a woman the President and I met in Arkansas who had left welfare to go to work.
The President asked her what was best about being off welfare. She answered without hesitation
that when her son went to school and people asked what his mother did for a living, he could
give an answer. I've never forgotten that mother. This law will help other sons and daughters
answer that simple question with the same pride.
Rewarding Work. We've come a long way in this welfare debate. This law is far better than the
previous welfare bills the President vetoed. First, it makes work pay. It provides almost $4 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 our proposed improvements in the minimum wage and the
EITC, 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.
Protecting Children. Second, this new law is better for children than the two bills the President
vetoed. It preserves the national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the deep
cuts in child protection, adoption 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 preserves the guarantee of health care for poor children, people with disabilities and the
elderly. And it cracks down on parents who refuse to pay child support.
Fighting to Fix Parts of the Law. We do have serious concerns about parts of the law, and we
will work to change the flawed provisions. But under this President's watch -- the President who
fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage, and fought to
preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit -- we can do that. This is the President that can be
trusted to help create jobs and protect our children.
With the President's signature on this law, the flawed welfare system can no longer be blamed
for the fact that people don't work. Instead, because this law says that we expect work, we all
have a responsibility to make sure that they can. We all have an obligation -- businesses, non-
profit organizations, religious institutions, those in government -- to make sure the jobs and
necessary supports are there.
Question:
Why were you silent during the welfare debate?
Answer:
Both the President and I thought long and hard about the welfare reform bill. There are parts of
this law that we disagree with. We will fight to fix what's wrong. But we couldn't let the
opportunity pass to give people the chance to work and to take responsibility for themselves and
their families. This is the beginning of welfare reform. States and businesses must commit
themselves to work together to provide jobs and training. And we can trust this President -- the
President who fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage,
fought to preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit, and during whose Administration 10 million
jobs were created -- to help create jobs, to make work pay, and to protect our children.
TO: Melanne
I'm preased
we're all worvied
FROM: Ten
about our
AND People are
universin.
living in
This is just the
provent
the
beg. Who do you
is
trust
they nettern
yet with
Ronert Taylor
Jacker leene
Review participants
Gallery 37
Briefing
Review remarks
WELFARE REFORM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question:
You've spent 25 years working on behalf of children. How can you justify the President's
decision to sign a bill that abandons them?
Answer:
The welfare system is broken. It undermines the basic values of work, responsibility and family
-- trapping generation after generation in a cycle of dependency and poverty. Fixing it is not
enough. Welfare needs systemic change. This law gives us a chance to make that change. It
moves people from welfare to work and gives them the support they need to do that -- by, for
example, guaranteeing Medicaid coverage and investing in child care.
I'll never forget a woman the President and I met in Arkansas who had left welfare to go to work.
The President asked her what was best about being off welfare. She answered without hesitation
that when her son went to school and people asked what his mother did for a living, he could
give an answer. I've never forgotten that mother. This law will help other sons and daughters
answer that simple question with the same pride.
Rewarding Work. We've come a long way in this welfare debate. This law is far better than the
previous welfare bills the President vetoed. First, it makes work pay. It provides almost $4 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 our proposed improvements in the minimum wage and the
EITC, 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.
Protecting Children. Second, this new law is better for children than the two bills the President
vetoed. It preserves the national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the deep
cuts in child protection, adoption 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 preserves the guarantee of health care for poor children, people with disabilities and the
elderly. And it cracks down on parents who refuse to pay child support.
Fighting to Fix Parts of the Law. We do have serious concerns about parts of the law, and we
will work to change the flawed provisions. But under this President's watch -- the President who
fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage, and fought to
preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit -- we can do that. This is the President that can be
trusted to help create jobs and protect our children.
With the President's signature on this law, the flawed welfare system can no longer be blamed
for the fact that people don't work. Instead, because this law says that we expect work, we all
have a responsibility to make sure that they can. We all have an obligation -- businesses, non-
profit organizations, religious institutions, those in government -- to make sure the jobs and
necessary supports are there.
Question:
Why were you silent during the welfare debate?
Answer:
Both the President and I thought long and hard about the welfare reform bill. There are parts of
this law that we disagree with. We will fight to fix what's wrong. But we couldn't let the
opportunity pass to give people the chance to work and to take responsibility for themselves and
their families. This is the beginning of welfare reform. States and businesses must commit
themselves to work together to provide jobs and training. And we can trust this President -- the
President who fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage,
fought to preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit, and during whose Administration 10 million
jobs were created -- to help create jobs, to make work pay, and to protect our children.
AUG-22-1996 08:46
P.01
RK OBSERVER
PAGE 5
JOE CONASON
roll of Mr. Dolc's Kansas City office. Perhaps It is needless to add
that although slies was being paid a nice calary. she couldn't type.
The other women in the office were surprised by the arrival of
Deadbeat Dad Dole's
this person. whose name way Phyllis Wells but who somehow be-
came known as "Sum" in order 10 avoid confusion. "We never re-
ally knew what she did, but she had & confidence about her that
Real Family Values
none of the rest of us had." a former Dole staff member named
Ana Riojas told Ms. Shechy. At some point. the source of her
confidence became more obvious. Evidently she was sleeping with
If voters trust Bob Dole more than Bill Clinton, maybe it's
the boss, who would stay over at the blonde divorcée's home.
because they haven't become acquainted yct with the Arst Mrs.
(What effect this nontamily li-
Dulc. Not the budding talk-show hosress, glamorous charity
aison had on her teenaged son
mogul and millionaire investor Elizabeth, his second wife, but the
is not explored in Ms. Shee-
The glamorous
decidedly less slick Phyllis Holden Dole Maccy,
hy's account.)
who has remarried since her abrupt divorce from
At this point. we hear from
blonde
the Senator in 1972. For Mr. Dole and others who
David Owen, a former Dole
consider "character" a virtue to which he has ex-
aide: "She was his girlfriend
clusive claim, it is fortunate that so few Amcri-
before he hired her. She was
showed up on
cans have ever heard of the woman he left behind
just absolutely gorgeous. and
in Kansas.
much younger. There's no
still-married
In its struggle to woo the moderate suburban women who
question that he was secing her
have been deserting the Republican Party, the Dole campaign
prior to being divorced.' The
Bob Dole's
has lately taken pains to portray its candidate as an advocate of
actual divorce was not made
fomale empowerment (despite his history of hostility to abor-
final until more than a year af-
payroll, and,
Uon rights). The Susan Molinari gambit was only the most pub-
ter the Senator announced that
licized aspect of a public relations effort that has Included pho-
he wanted out, and was hun-
no, she
to ops with female entrepreneurs and articles extolling the high-
died in an unusual manner.
profile women on Mr. Dole's staff.
Under Kansas law. a judge
couldn't
But all of this pseudofeminist spin may ring hollow to women
could grant an "emergency di-
who have read Gail Sheehy's profile of Bob and Liddy Dole in
vorce, setting aside the nor-
the September Issue of Yaniry Fair, especially the part about his
mal 60-day waiting period on
type.
first marriage. Given the current climate of political moralizing,
grounds of stress and publicity.
this is more than gossip. It is
For the Senator, this was an casy favor to arrunge.
an exposé of hypocrisy in the
As Ms. Sheehy tells 11. Phyllis Dole was "summoned to the of-
sick, unrelenting attack on
fice of Judge Adrian Allen" for that purpose on Jan. 11, 1972, where
the Clinton family that has
she found the bleak terms of her future had already been decid-
been carried out in the name
ed. "It was like a snap of the finger," she recalled. In addition to
of family values. and il is an
her furniture--hc look the house-she would be getting mea-
object lesson about the slip-
ger alimony and, incredibly, no child support. (How does Dead-
pery nature of the character
beat Dad Dole sound?) Having left her career as an occupation-
issue as a cumpaign device.
ul therapist many years earlier. Phyllis Dole suddenly had to fend
According to Ms. Sheehy,
for herseif and her 17-year-old daughter. "I survived. 1 had to
the tackurn Senator ended his
get a job and 20 off and leave Robin and move to Topeka." Tough
23-year union in December
love, indeed.
1970 with Phyllis Dole, who
Meanwhile, the Senator, who by then was serving as chair-
had devoted herself to his re-
man of the Republican National Comminee, was escorting his new
covery from his war wounds.
trophy around on the pro-family circuli, including the Inaugur-
by coming up from the base-
:
al ball celebrating Richard Nixon's second term in 1973. Ac.
ment of their Kansas City
BOB DOLE
cording to Phyllis Dole. that didn't leave much time for Robin in
residence to announce: "I want out." The "Uraumatized" Phylis,
her dad's busy schedule. The ex-wife told Ms. Sheehy that she
who was wondering what had gone wrong with their once hap-
couldn't remember any conversations with Bob Dole about their
py marriage and why only showed up for dinner with her and
daughter's welfare after the quickie divorce became final.
their daughter Robin on Christmas and Easter, told Ms. Sheohy
Whatever Bill Clinton may have done in his 20 years of mur-
that she "had no clue."
riage to Hillary Rodham, he didn't dump her for a younger stcw-
Up to this point, the story is familiar if not well known. But the
andess. and by all accounts he has a warm, strong relationship with
Vanity Fair reporter discovered a suggestive clue that until now
his daughter. If we are to judge a politician by his personal rela-
accms to have eluded not only Phyllis but every other journalist
tionships, isn't greater character displayed by overcoming mar-
who has covered Mr. Dole. Apparcatly there was another
ital problems and keeping a family together? Or is that too archaic
woman. in the traditional sense: a "glamorous" blondc model
a standard by which to judge old-fashioned Bob Dolc?
and stc wardess deoked out in fur, who soon showed up on the pay-
Maybe we should ask Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed.
TOTAL P.01
WELFARE REFORM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question:
You've spent 25 years working on behalf of children. How can you justify the President's
decision to sign a bill that abandons them?
Answer:
The welfare system is broken. It undermines the basic values of work, responsibility and family
-- trapping generation after generation in a cycle of dependency and poverty. Fixing it is not
enough. Welfare needs systemic change. This law gives us a chance to make that change. It
moves people from welfare to work and gives them the support they need to do that -- by, for
example, guaranteeing Medicaid coverage and investing in child care.
I'll never forget a woman the President and I met in Arkansas who had left welfare to go to work.
The President asked her what was best about being off welfare. She answered without hesitation
that when her son went to school and people asked what his mother did for a living, he could
give an answer. I've never forgotten that mother. This law will help other sons and daughters
answer that simple question with the same pride.
Rewarding Work. We've come a long way in this welfare debate. This law is far better than the
previous welfare bills the President vetoed. First, it makes work pay. It provides almost $4 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 our proposed improvements in the minimum wage and the
EITC, 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.
Protecting Children. Second, this new law is better for children than the two bills the President
vetoed. It preserves the national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the deep
cuts in child protection, adoption 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 preserves the guarantee of health care for poor children, people with disabilities and the
elderly. And it cracks down on parents who refuse to pay child support.
Fighting to Fix Parts of the Law. We do have serious concerns about parts of the law, and we
will work to change the flawed provisions. But under this President's watch the President who
fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage, and fought to
preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit -- we can do that. This is the President that can be
trusted to help create jobs and protect our children.
With the President's signature on this law, the flawed welfare system can no longer be blamed
for the fact that people don't work. Instead, because this law says that we expect work, we all
have a responsibility to make sure that they can. We all have an obligation -- businesses, non-
profit organizations, religious institutions, those in government -- to make sure the jobs and
necessary supports are there.
Question:
Why were you silent during the welfare debate?
Answer:
Both the President and I thought long and hard about the welfare reform bill. There are parts of
this law that we disagree with. We will fight to fix what's wrong. But we couldn't let the
opportunity pass to give people the chance to work and to take responsibility for themselves and
their families. This is the beginning of welfare reform. States and businesses must commit
themselves to work together to provide jobs and training. And we can trust this President -- the
President who fought against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage,
fought to preserve the Earned Income Tax Credit, and during whose Administration 10 million
jobs were created -- to help create jobs, to make work pay, and to protect our children.
Jen:
main points Donna made - very
competingly
*- welfare system is broken, fixing
it is not enough, need
Septemic change
- this is the beginning 7
welfare reform TRust This President
to help gigab created - children protected
&- if people stay an welfare
tro long, the it is harder to more
them into jobs
we want work to pay Lminimum
wage, EITC etc), aug ant. a welfore
person in Colo gets is 8,000, if if she
works 1/2 at a minimum camage job,
8mill larn 12 our
*
- theres nat eauf investment in job -
strategy steps
freesa trughest Reople to place
- delay what we can delay
PAGE:02
20:
1
262 9131242517 :01
it' us, planned for jobs
FROM: 25:21 96 t2-908
WELFARE REFORM Q AND A
Question:
You've spent 25 years working on behalf of children. How can you justify the
President's decision to sign a bill that abandons them?
children
p tamilies stay POOR
Answer:
The welfare system is broken. It undermines the basic values of work, responsibility and
family -- trapping generation after generation in a cycle of dependency This bill gives us a
chance to change that. It moves people from welfare to work and gives them the support
they need to do that -- by, for example, guaranteeing Medicaid coverage and investing in
child care.
I'll never forget a woman the President and I met in Arkansas who had left welfare to go to
work. The President asked her what was best about being off welfare. She answered
without hesitation that when her son went to school and people asked what his mother did
for a living, he could give an answer. I've never forgotten that mother. This bill will help
other sons and daughters answer that simple question with the same pride.
This bill is far better than the previous welfare bills the President vetoed. It preserves the
national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the deep cuts in child
protection, adoption and help for disabled children. It preserves the guarantee of health
care for poor children, people with disabilities and the elderly. And it cracks down on
parents who refuse to pay child support.
We do have serious concerns about parts of the bill. The cuts in nutrition programs are too
deep. The provisions cutting benefits to legal immigrants are wrong. We will work to
change the flawed provisions. But under this President's watch -- the President who fought
against cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, fought for the minimum wage. and fought to
preserve the Earned Income the Tax Credit we can do that. LAISO ndto
welfreprovid)
When the President signed this welfare reform bill, there was a new beginning. Welfare is
no longer a political issue. The two parties can't attack each other over it. Politicians can't
attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems and failures that can be
laid at someone else's feet. Instead we all have to assume responsibility now to make sure
there are jobs and to give people a chance.
Question:
Why were you silent during the welfare debate?
Answer:
Both the President and I thought long and hard about this bill. There are parts of the bill
that we disagree with. We will work to fix what's wrong. But we couldn't let the
opportunity pass to give people the chance to work and to take responsibility for themselves
and their families. Our job and our responsibility began with the President's signature on
this bill. We each have an obligation to make welfare reform work. States need to work
carefully with the flexibility they now have; businesses and the government need to work
together to provide jobs and training; and all of us need to do everything we can to turn
around our most distressed communities.
PAGE
AUG-24 96 17:57 FROM:
"V 23, 96
09:30
7202 690 5073
mas PERLIC
00?
Welfare Reform Talking Points Donna
For Internal Use Only
0
A broken system. When President Clinton ran for president four years ago, he pledged to end welfare
as WC 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.
o
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 bold 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.
0
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.
0
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.
PAGE:03
AUG-24 96 17:57 FROM:
Welfare Reform Talking Points
0
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.
o
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.
0
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 our proposed
improvements in the minimum wage and the EITC, 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 require Food Stamps and 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.
Questions and Answers on Welfare Reform
August 20, 1996
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 vote on an increase in 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 $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.
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. 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.
We strongly believe that work is better than welfare. In Colorado, for example, a young mother
with two children now 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 that includes
changes in the minimum wage and the EITC, 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:
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 1.3 million since 1992, and we think that
progress will continue. Finally, 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.
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
Administration has proposed an alternative approach which would require sponsors to take additional
responsibility for their immigrant family members, but maintain assistance for needy legal
immigrants without sponsors or whose sponsors become unable to assist them.
(The law narrows SSI's definition of disability for children. However, over 95 percent of these
children who would lose SII 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:
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. 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.
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 Congressional 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.
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 Congressional 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 SII 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. On
immigrants, the Administration has proposed an approach which would require sponsors to take
additional responsibility for their immigrant family members, but maintain assistance for needy legal
immigrants without sponsors or whose sponsors become unable to assist them. This proposal would
still have savings 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 changes we've fought for will make work pay. 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.
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 $8000 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 taking 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 $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 that includes changes in the minimum wage and the EITC, 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 under the law.
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.
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.
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
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
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
federal 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.
o
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.
o
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.
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, require community service in some cases, 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
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
o
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.
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.
Food Stamps. According to President Clinton, the new law cuts deeper than it should in
nutritional assistance by capping the excess shelter deduction, which helps some of
America's hardest-pressed working families.
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 immigrant children and disabled immigrants who need help should
get it.
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.
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 1 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 1, 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
12.8 million
12.5
12
1993
1994
1995
Jan. 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
600,000
6
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 billion*
11
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
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
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
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
58.9
59
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
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 22, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE SIGNING OF THE
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT
The Rose Garden
11:15 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Lillie, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, to the
members of the Cabinet. All of the members of Congress who are here,
thank you very much.
I'd like to say to Congressman Castle, I'm especially
glad to see you here, because eight years ago about this time when
you were the Governor of Delaware and Governor Carper was the
Congressman from Delaware, you and I were together at a signing like
this.
Thank you, Senator Long, for coming here. Thank you,
Governors Romer, Carper, Miller and Caperton.
I'd also like to thank Penelope Howard and Janet Ferrel
for coming here. They, too, have worked their way from welfare to
independence and we're honored to have them here. I'd like to thank
all of the people who worked on this bill who have been introduced
from our staff and Cabinet, but I'd also like to especially thank
Bruce Reed, who did a lot to do with working on the final compromises
of this bill; I thank him.
Lillie Harden was up there talking, and I want to tell
you how she happens to be here today. Ten years ago, Governor Castle
and I were asked to cochair a Governors Task Force on Welfare Reform,
and we were asked together on it, and when we met at Hilton Head in
South Carolina, we had a little panel. And 41 governors showed up to
listen to people who were on welfare from several states.
So I asked Carol Rasco to find me somebody from our
state who had been in one of our welfare reform programs and had gone
to work. She found Lillie Harden and Lillie showed up at the
program. And I was conducting this meeting and I committed a mistake
that they always tell lawyers never to do: never ask a question you
do not know the answer to. (Laughter.)
But she was doing so well talking about it, as you saw
how well-spoken she was today -- and I said, "Lillie, what's the best
thing about being off welfare?" And she looked me straight in the
eye and said, "When my boy goes to school and they say what does your
mama do for a living, he can give an answer." I have never forgotten
that. (Applause.) And when I saw the success of all of her children
and the success that she's had in the past 10 years, I can tell you,
you've had a bigger impact on me than I've had on you. And I thank
you for the power of your example, for your family's. And for all of
America, thank you very much. (Applause.)
What we are trying to do today is to overcome the flaws
of the welfare system for the people who are trapped on it. We all
MORE
- 2 -
know that the typical family on welfare today is very different from
the one that welfare was designed to deal with 60 years ago. We all
know that there are a lot of good people on welfare who just get off
of it in the ordinary course of business, but that a significant
number of people are trapped on welfare for a very long time, exiling
them from the entire community of work that gives structure to our
lives.
Nearly 30 years ago, Robert Kennedy said, "Work is the
meaning of what this country is all about. We need it as
individuals, we need to sense it in our fellow citizens, and we need
it as a society and as a people." He was right then, and it's right
now.
From now on, our nation's answer to this great social
challenge will no longer be a never-ending cycle of welfare, it will
be the dignity, the power and the ethic of work. Today, we are
taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be: a
second chance, not a way of life.
The bill I'm about to sign, as I have said many times,
is far from perfect, but it has come a very long way. Congress sent
me two previous bills that I strongly believe failed to protect our
children and did too little to move people from welfare to work. I
vetoed both of them. This bill had broad bipartisan support and is
much, much better on both counts.
The new bill restores America's basic bargain of
providing opportunity and demanding in return responsibility. It
provides $14 billion for child care, $4 billion more than the present
law does. It is good because without the assurance of child care
it's all but impossible for a mother with young children to go to
work. It requires states to maintain their own spending on welfare
reform and gives them powerful performance incentives to place more
people on welfare in jobs. It gives states the capacity to create
jobs by taking money now used for welfare checks and giving it to
employers as subsidies as incentives to hire people. This bill will
help people to go to work so they can stop drawing a welfare check
and start drawing a paycheck.
It's also better for children. It preserves the
national safety net of food stamps and school lunches. It drops the
deep cuts and the devastating changes in child protection, adoption,
and help for disabled children. It preserves the national guarantee
of. health care for poor children, the disabled, the elderly, and
people on welfare the most important preservation of all.
It includes the tough child support enforcement measures
that, as far as I know, every member of Congress and everybody in the
administration and every thinking person in the country has supported
for more than two years.
It's the most sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in
history. We have succeeded in increasing child support collection 40
percent, but over a third of the cases where there's delinquencies,
involve who cross state lines. For a lot of women and children, the
only reason they're on welfare today -- the only reason -- is that
the father up and walked away when he could have made a contribution
to the welfare of the children. That is wrong. If every parent paid
the child support that he or she owes legally today, we could move
800,000 women and children off welfare immediately.
With this bill we say, if you don't pay the child
support you owe we'll garnish your wages, take away your driver's
license, track you across state lines; if necessary, make you work
off what you pay what you owe. It is a good thing and it will
help dramatically to reduce welfare, increase independence, and
reenforce parental responsibility. (Applause.)
MORE
- 3 -
As the Vice President said, we strongly disagree with a
couple of provisions of this bill. We believe that the nutritional
cuts are too deep, especially as they affect low-income working
people and children. We should not be punishing people who are
working for a living already; we should do everything we can to lift
them up and keep them at work and help them to support their
children. We also believe that the congressional leadership insisted
in cuts in programs for legal immigrants that are far too deep.
These cuts, however, have nothing to do with the
fundamental purpose of welfare reform. I signed this bill because
this is an historic chance -- where Republicans and Democrats got
together and said, we're going to take this historic chance to try to
recreate the nation's social bargain with the poor. We're going to
try to change the parameters of the debate. We're going to make it
all new again and see if we can't create a system of incentives which
reenforce work and family and independence.
We can change what is wrong. We should not have passed
this historic opportunity to do what is right. And so I want to ask
all of you, without regard to party, to think through the
implications of these other non-welfare issues on the American people
and let's work together in good spirits and good faith to remedy what
is wrong. We can balance the budget without these cuts, but let's
not obscure the fundamental purpose of the welfare provisions of this
legislation which are good and solid, and which can give us at least
the chance to end the terrible, almost physical isolation of huge
numbers of poor people and their children from the rest of mainstream
America. We have to do that. (Applause.)
Let me also say that there's something really good about
this legislation. When I sign it we all have to start again. And
this becomes everybody's responsibility. After I sign my name to
this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue. The two
parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack
poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems and
failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else. We have to
begin again. This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the
beginning. And we have to all assume responsibility. (Applause.)
Now that we are saying with this bill we expect work, we
have to make sure the people have a chance to go to work. If we
really value work, everybody in this society -- businesses, non-
profits, religious institutions, individuals, those in government --
all have a responsibility to make sure the jobs are there.
These three women have great stories. Almost everybody
on welfare would like to have a story like that. And the rest of us
now have a responsibility to give them that story. We cannot blame
the system for the jobs they don't have anymore. If it doesn't work
now, it's everybody's fault -- mine, yours, and everybody else.
There is no longer a system in the way. (Applause.)
I've worked hard over the past four years to create jobs
and to steer investment into places where there are large numbers of
people on welfare because there's been no economic recovery. That's
what the empowerment zone program was all about. That's what the
community development bank initiative was all about. That's what our
urban Brownfield cleanup initiative was all about -- trying to give
people the means to make a living in areas that had been left behind.
I think we have to do more here in Washington to do
that, and I'll have more to say about that later. But let me say
again, we have to build a new work and family system. And this is
everybody's responsibility now. The people on welfare are people
just like these three people we honor here today and their families.
MORE
- 4 -
They are human beings. And we owe it to all of them to give them a
chance to come back.
I talked the other day when the Vice President and I
went down to Tennessee and we were working with Congressman Tanner's
district, we were working on a church that had burned. And there was
a pastor there from a church in North Carolina that brought a group
of his people in to work. And he started asking me about welfare
reform, and I started telling him about it. And I said, "You know
what you ought to do? You ought to go tell Governor Hunt that you
would hire somebody on welfare to work in your church if he would
give you the welfare check as a wage supplement, you'd double their
pay and you'd keep them employed for a year or so and see if you
couldn't train them and help their families and see if their kids
were all right." I said, "Would you do that?" He said, "In a
heartbeat.'
I think there are people all over America like that.
(Applause.) I think there are people all over America like that.
That's what I want all of you to be thinking about today -- what are
we going to do now? This is not over, this is just beginning. The
Congress deserves our thanks for creating a new reality, but we have
to fill in the blanks. The governors asked for this responsibility;
now they've got to live up to it. There are mayors that have
responsibilities, county officials that have responsibilities. Every
employer in this country that ever made a disparaging remark about
the welfare system needs to think about whether he or she should now
hire somebody from welfare and go to work. Go to the state and say,
okay, you give me the check, I'll use it as an income supplement,
I'll train these people, I'll help them to start their lives and
we'll go forward from here.
Every single person needs to be thinking -- every person
in America tonight who sees a report of this who has ever said a
disparaging word about the welfare system should now say, "Okay,
that's gone. What is my responsibility to make it better?"
(Applause.)
Two days ago we signed a bill increasing the minimum
wage here and making it easier for people in small businesses to get
and keep pensions. Yesterday we signed the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill
which makes health care more available to up to 25 million Americans,
many of them in lower-income jobs where they're more vulnerable.
The bill I'm signing today preserves the increases in
the earned income tax credit for working families. It is now clearly
better to go to work than to stay on welfare -- clearly better.
Because of actions taken by the Congress in this session, it is
clearly better. And what we have to do now is to make that work a
reality.
I've said this many times, but, you know, most American
families find that the greatest challenge of their lives is how to do
a good job raising their kids and do a good job at work. Trying to
balance work and family is the challenge that most Americans in the
workplace face. Thankfully, that's the challenge Lillie Harden's had
to face for the last 10 years. That's just what we want for
everybody. We want at least the chance to strike the right balance
for everybody.
Today, we are ending welfare as we know it. But I hope
this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it
began -- a new day that offers hope, honors responsibility, rewards
work, and changes the terms of the debate so that no one in America
ever feels again the need to criticize people who are poor on
welfare, but instead feels the responsibility to reach out to men and
women and children who are isolated, who need opportunity, and who
are willing to assume responsibility, and give them to opportunity
and the terms of responsibility. (Applause.)
- 5 -
Now, I'd like to ask Penelope Howard, Janet Ferrel,
Lillie Harden, the governors and the members of Congress from both
parties who are here to come up and join me as I sign the welfare
reform bill.
Q
Mr. President, before you sign the bill, can you
tell us whether you think it's right to regulate tobacco or nicotine
as a drug?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, Wolf, under the law, I have to
wait until the OMB makes a recommendation to me. I think we have to
anticipate things. I can't say more than that right now.
(The bill is signed.)
I
Mr. President, some of your core constituencies are
furious with you for signing this bill. What do you say to them?
THE PRESIDENT: Just what I said up there. We saved
medical care. We saved food stamps. We saved child care. We saved
the aid to disabled children. We saved the school lunch program. We
saved the framework of support. What we did was to tell the state,
now you have to create a system to give everyone a chance to go to
work who is able-bodied, give everyone a chance to be independent.
And we did -- that is the right thing to do.
And now, welfare is no longer a political football to be
kicked around. It's a personal responsibility of every American who
ever criticized the welfare system to help the poor people now to
move from welfare to work. That's what I say.
This is going to be a good thing for the country. We're
going to monitor it and we're going to fix whatever is wrong with it.
Q
What guarantees are there that these things will be
fixed, Mr. President, especially if Republicans remain in control of
Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: That's what we have elections for.
END
11:33 A.M. EDT
ENDING WELFARE As WE KNOW IT
August 22, 1996
"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."
- President Clinton, July 31, 1996
A broken system. President Clinton will sign the current welfare bill because the existing
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.
A last, best chance to move people from welfare to work. President Clinton believes that
passage and enactment of this bill is the last best chance to make welfare what it was meant
to be -- a second chance, not a way of life. The bill presents an historic opportunity to
finish the work of ending welfare as we know it.
The President saved the Medicaid guarantee once and for all. Congressional
Republicans tried to use welfare reform to take health care away from the poor, the elderly,
and the disabled, but President Clinton said no. He also fought successfully to ensure that
women on welfare continue to receive health coverage for their families, including
transitional Medicaid when they leave welfare for work.
A much improved bill. Because of President Clinton's earlier vetoes, objections and
improvements, Congress is sending him a significantly better welfare reform bill. We have
come a long way in this debate, and stopped extremists in Congress who wanted to ban help
for poor, young, unmarried mothers and cut low-income programs and the Earned Income
Tax Credit by $110 billion.
The new bill is strong on work, giving states performance incentives for placing
people in jobs, guaranteeing health care, providing $14 billion for child care, and
maintaining health and safety standards for child care -- so that women on welfare get
the help they need to support their children.
The bill is also better for children. Unlike the vetoed bill, it keeps the national
nutritional safety net intact by eliminating the food stamp cap and the optional block
grant, and dropping the deep cuts in school lunch, child welfare and help for children
with disabilities.
Thanks to the insistence of President Clinton and Democrats in Congress, the bill
includes the most sweeping child support enforcement measures in history. The
bill says to parents who fail to pay child support: we will garnish your wages, take
away your license, track you across state lines, and if necessary, make you work off
what you owe.
Requiring work, and helping people succeed at work and at home. President Clinton
has always believed that the best anti-poverty program is a job. This bill will not only
move people from welfare to work, it will help them make it in the workplace by providing
the health care and child care they need to succeed at work and at home. With this bill,
President Clinton also preserved the Earned Income Tax Credit, which rewards the hard
work of 15 million hard-pressed working families and which Congress had tried to gut.
The nation's basic safety net remains strong. By standing firm throughout this debate,
President Clinton has saved and strengthened the nation's basic safety net, which helps
millions of vulnerable women and children. In addition to stopping the Medicaid block
grant, he stopped Republican efforts to block grant Food Stamps, SSI for disabled children,
child protection and foster care, and the school lunch program. This bill preserves those
safety net programs, which work, and fundamentally reforms the welfare system, which does
not.
Parts of the bill still need to be fixed. President Clinton has pledged to fix some non-
welfare provisions of the bill which he believes go too far:
Congress insisted on a cut that would cap the excess shelter deduction, which
helps some of our hardest-pressed working families. This provision is a mistake,
and the President will work to correct it.
Congress insisted on provisions that will hurt legal immigrants who work hard for
their families, pay taxes and serve in our military. Immigrant children and
disabled immigrants who fall on hard times through no fault of their own should
get medical and other help when they need it.
A record of accomplishment. Over the past three and one-half years, President Clinton has
done everything in his power as President to promote work and responsibility, working with
43 states to give them 77 welfare reform experiments. The Administration has also required
teen mothers to stay in school, required federal employees to pay their child support, and
cracked down on parents who owe child support and crossed state lines. 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 President Clinton took office.
Tough call I things
wrong
Cld Flx what's wrong,
but udn It pass
up opportunity to
do what's right
WELFARE REFORM Q&A
Q.
Many in your own party were upset with your decision to sign the welfare reform bill.
Do you expect protest demonstrations in Chicago?
A.
I am proud to sign national welfare reform into law because the current welfare system
is fundamentally broken, and we must seize this last best chance to fix it. I respect
the views of those who disagree with me this bill is far from perfect, and the
Congressional leadership insisted on tacking on some cuts which have nothing to do
with welfare reform and which I am determined to correct. But we cannot let this
opportunity slip through our fingers, and I'm glad that a majority of members in both
parties joined with me to improve this bill and give us a real chance to demand
responsibility, promote family, and move people from welfare to work.
Q.
Didn't you sign this just because of election-year politics? Isn't this virtually the same
bill you vetoed twice before?
A.
We've come a long way in this debate. Not so long ago, some in Congress wanted to
ban all aid to unwed teen mothers, and put their children in orphanages. I said no.
Some wanted to undermine the basic nutritional safety net and the school lunch
program, and cut child welfare and aid for disabled children. I said no. Some wanted
to gut the EITC which rewards work over welfare. I said no. And the Republican
leadership tried to take away the guarantee of health care for poor children, the
elderly, and the disabled. I said never. So instead of the narrow partisan bill
Congress sent me in December, we passed a bipartisan bill that provides health care
and child care and protects the EITC so people can move from welfare to work, and
drops the deep cuts and structural changes that Congress had tried to pass off as
welfare reform.
Q.
What are you going to do to soften the impact of this bill in the areas where you
weren't satisfied?
A.
I objected in particular to two provisions that have nothing to do with welfare reform -
- capping the so-called shelter deduction for food stamps, and eliminating all benefits
for legal immigrants. These provisions could never have passed Congress on their
own, and I believe that as they become more widely known, a bipartisan consensus
will emerge around the country to come back and fix them. I also believe that every
one of us has a responsibility to help make welfare reform work: States need to
shoulder the responsibility they sought; businesses need to help provide jobs for people
to go 10: and all of us need to do everything we can as volunteers, role models, and
citizens to help turn our most distressed communities around.
07/31/96
13:20
25202 680 5673
WELFARE REFORM BILL
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.
&
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 more
than $3 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 will free up billions more in current
welfare payments that can now be used for job training.
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.
::
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 cut 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
more than $3 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.
07/31/96
13:21
0'202 680 5673
BRS-POBLIC
It's also important to remember that this Administration
expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, and convinced Congress
to vote on an increase in 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.
&
Why did it take the President so long to make up his mind on
this issue, when he's pledged to end welfare as we know it
since 1992?
A:
As the President said yesterday, the bill has been improved in
many ways, but still falls short in others. The President's
goal is to move single parents to work while protecting their
children, and he wanted to carefully review the legislation
himself. He also wanted to hear from his Cabinet how the work
incentives in the bill will work, and how the increase in the
minimum wage he's been fighting for would help reward work
over welfare.
Overall, the President is convinced that there is more good
than bad in this bill. Child care spending, for example, is
more than $3 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 will free up billions more in current
welfare payments that can now be used for job training. But
it's a decision the President wanted to make carefully and
thoughtfully.
07/31/96
13:19
202 690 5673
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
002
This is a good, solid welfare reform bill. It includes many of the
provisions we have called for from the start -- tough time limits,
work requirements, child support enforcement, child care so that
parents can go to work, requirements that teen parents live at home
and stay in school, and performance bonuses to reward states for
replacing welfare with work.
This bill is not perfect, but it unquestionably includes more good
than bad. Child care spending, for example, is more than $3
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 will
free up billions more in current welfare payments that can now be
used for job training.
It's imperative that we move away from the failed status quo. The
current system is badly flawed, and must be dramatically
transformed. Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out.
Unfortunately, the spending reductions in this bill are no less
extreme than the cuts in the bill the President vetoed. Many of
these cuts would hurt working families and their children,
particularly those who live in big cities. And next year, when
election year politics are over, we will work hard to erase those
cuts, particularly those that affect children.
Critics say that this bill represents unprecedented change in the
welfare system -- changing it from an indefinite source of support
to a temporary, transitional one. That is true. But society has
also undergone unprecedented change since AFDC was created in 1921.
Single parent families are more common. Most mothers work. Most
children who are not in school are in day care. And we now know
that the right kinds of child care can have enormous benefits for
poor children.
This bill is much improved from the legislation vetoed last year.
This legislation does not cut 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.
It's also important to remember that this Administration expanded
the Earned Income Tax Credit, and convinced Congress to vote on an
increase in 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.
07/31/96 13:22
202 680 5673
HHS-PUBLIC AFFAI
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
Cash Assistance by 25 Percent for Some
YES
NO
Disabled Children
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 22, 1996
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3734, the "Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
While far from perfect, this legislation provides an historic
opportunity to end welfare as we know it and transform our
broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of
work, responsibility, and family.
This Act honors my basic principles of real welfare reform.
It requires work of welfare recipients, limits the time they can
stay on welfare, and provides child care and health care to help
them make the move from welfare to work. It demands personal
responsibility, and puts in place tough child support
enforcement measures. It promotes family and protects children.
This bipartisan legislation is significantly better than
the bills that I vetoed. The Congress has removed many of the
worst provisions of the vetoed bills and has included many of
the improvements that I sought. I am especially pleased that
the Congress has preserved the guarantee of health care for the
poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
Most important, this Act is tough on work. Not only does
it include firm but fair work requirements, it provides
$4 billion more in child care than the vetoed bills -- so that
parents can end their dependency on welfare and go to work --
and maintains health and safety standards for day care
providers. The bill also gives States positive incentives to
move people into jobs and holds them accountable for maintaining
spending on welfare reform. In addition, it gives States the
ability to create subsidized jobs and to provide employers with
incentives to hire people off welfare.
The Act also does much more to protect children than the
vetoed bills. It cuts spending on childhood disability programs
less deeply and does not unwisely change the child protection
programs. It maintains the national nutritional safety net,
by eliminating the Food Stamp annual spending cap' and the Food
Stamp and School Lunch block grants that the vetoed bills
contained. In addition, it preserves the Federal guarantee
of health care for individuals who are currently eligible for
Medicaid through the AFDC program or are in transition from
welfare to work.
Furthermore, this Act includes the tough personal
responsibility and child support enforcement measures that I
proposed 2 years ago. It requires minor mothers to live at home
and stay in school as a condition of assistance. It cracks down
on parents who fail to pay child support by garnishing their
wages, suspending their driver's licenses, tracking them across
State lines, and, if necessary, making them work off what they
owe.
more
(OVER)
2
For these reasons, I am proud to have signed this
legislation. The current welfare system is fundamentally
broken, and this may be our last best chance to set it straight.
I am doing so, however, with strong objections to certain
provisions, which I am determined to correct.
First, while the Act preserves the national nutritional
safety net, its cuts to the Food Stamp program are too deep.
Among other things, the Act reinstates a maximum on the amount
that can be deducted for shelter costs when determining a
household's eligibility for Food Stamps. This provision will
dispropor-tionately affect low-income families with children and
high housing costs.
Second, I am deeply disappointed that this legislation
would deny Federal assistance to legal immigrants and their
children, and give States the option of doing the same. My
Administration supports holding sponsors who bring immigrants
into this country more responsible for their well-being. Legal
immigrants and their children, however, should not be penalized
if they become disabled and require medical assistance through
no fault of their own. Neither should they be deprived of food
stamp assistance without proper procedures or due regard for
individual circumstances. Therefore, I will direct the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to accelerate its
unprecedented progress in removing all bureaucratic obstacles
that stand in the way of citizenship for legal immigrants who
are eligible. In addition, I will take any possible executive
actions to avoid inaccurate or inequitable decisions to cut off
food stamp benefits for example, to a legal immigrant who has
performed military service for this country or to one who has
applied for and satisfied all the requirements of citizenship,
but is awaiting governmental approval of his or her application.
In addition to placing an undue hardship on affected
individuals, denial of Federal assistance to legal immigrants
will shift costs to States, localities, hospitals, and medical
clinics that serve large immigrant populations. Furthermore,
States electing to deny these individuals assistance could be
faced with serious constitutional challenges and protracted
legal battles.
I have concerns about other provisions of this legislation
as well. It fails to provide sufficient contingency funding for
States that experience a serious economic downturn, and it fails
to provide Food Stamp support to childless adults who want to
work, but cannot find a job or are not given the opportunity
to participate in a work program. In addition, we must work to
ensure that States provide in-kind vouchers to children whose
parents reach the 5-year Federal time limit without finding
work.
This Act gives States the responsibility that they
have sought to reform the welfare system. This is a profound
responsibility, and States must face it squarely. We will hold
them accountable, insisting that they fulfill their duty to move
people from welfare to work and to do right by our most
vulnerable citizens, including children and battered women.
I challenge each State to take advantage of its new flexibility
to use money formerly available for welfare checks to encourage
the private sector to provide jobs.
The best antipoverty program is still a job. Combined
with the newly increased minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax
Credit which this legislation maintains H.R. 3734 will
make work pay for more Americans.
more
3
I am determined to work with the Congress in a bipartisan
effort to correct the provisions of this legislation that go
too far and have nothing to do with welfare reform. But, on
balance, this bill is a real step forward for our country, for
our values, and for people on welfare. It should represent not
simply the ending of a system that too often hurts those it is
supposed to help, but the beginning of a new era in which
welfare will become what it was meant to be: a second chance,
not a way of life. It is now up to all of us -- States and
cities, the Federal Government, businesses and ordinary
citizens -- to work together to make the promise of this new
day real.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 22, 1996.
# # #