Civil
Rights
Non Citizens
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA); Interpretation of ``Federal Means-Tested
Public
Benefit''
[Notices] [Page 45256-45258]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au97-90]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Agency: Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Action: Notice with comment period.
Summary: This notice with comment period interprets
the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit[s]'' as used in
Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L. 104-193, to include
only mandatory spending programs of the Federal Government in
which eligibility for the programs' benefits, or the amount of
such benefits, or both, are determined on the basis of income
or resources of the eligibility unit seeking the benefit. At
HHS, the benefit programs that fall within this definition (and
are not explicitly excepted from the definition by Section 403(c))
are Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Dates: Effective Date: This notice is effective
on August 26, 1997.
Comment period: Written comments will be considered
if we receive them at the appropriate address, as provided in
the addresses section below, no later than 5 p.m. on October
27, 1997.
Addresses: Mail comments (1 original and 3
copies) to the following address: Division of Economic Support
for Families, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Room
404E, 200 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attention:
David Nielsen.
For further information contact: David Nielsen,
(202) 690-7148.
Copies of comments may be inspected at the above address. Inquiries
regarding how a particular program is affected by this notice
should be submitted to DHHS program staff responsible for managing
the program at either the appropriate Regional Office, or Headquarters
in Washington, DC. The above contact should be used only to submit
general comments regarding the policy interpretation contained
in this notice.
[[Page 45257]]
Supplementary information:
I. Background
Title IV of PRWORA contains several references to the
term ``Federal means-tested public benefit[s].'' The most significant
of these references are found in Sections 403 and 421. Section
403 denies ``Federal means-tested public benefit[s]'' to aliens
who entered the United States with a qualified alien status ``on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act'' for 5 years
beginning on the date of the aliens' entry into the United States.
Section 421 provides that new sponsor-to-alien deeming rules
apply to ``any Federal means-tested public benefits program.''
In the absence of a statutory definition of ``Federal means-tested
public benefit'', HHS is interpreting the term to include only
benefits provided by means-tested, mandatory spending programs.
Early versions of PRWORA contained a definition of ``Federal
means- tested public benefit'' that could have encompassed benefits
provided by both discretionary spending programs and mandatory
spending programs. (These early versions provided that, with
certain exceptions, ``the term `Federal means-tested public benefit'
meant a public benefit (including cash, medical, housing, and
food assistance and social services) of the Federal Government
in which the eligibility of an individual, household, or family
eligibility unit for benefits, or the amount of such benefits,
or both are determined on the basis of income, resources, or
financial need of the individual, household, or unit.'' 142 Cong.
Rec. S8481 (daily ed. July 22, 1996).) During debate over the
bill in the Senate, a member of the Senate raised a point of
order pursuant to the Byrd Rule, and the definition was struck.
The Senate Parliamentarian upheld the Byrd Rule objection, the
Senate did not appeal the ruling, and PRWORA was ultimately enacted
without defining the term.
PRWORA was subject to Section 313 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, also known as the ``Byrd Rule,'' because it was
enacted as a budget reconciliation bill. Under the Byrd Rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order to strike or prevent the
incorporation of ``extraneous'' material. A provision in a reconciliation
bill will be considered ``extraneous'' and subject to a point
of order if, among other things, ``it produces changes in outlays
or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary
components of the provision.'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 644(b)(1)(D). The
legislative history of PRWORA indicates that the Senate understood
the significance of the Byrd Rule objection in terms of limiting
the scope of the definition of ``Federal means-tested public
benefit'' to mandatory spending programs, while leaving discretionary
programs unaffected. See 142 Cong. Rec. at S9403 (daily ed. August
1, 1996) (statement of Senator Chafee); 142 Cong. Rec. at S9400
(statements of Senators Graham, Kennedy and Exon). Therefore,
to the extent the definition of ``Federal means-tested public
benefit'' included benefits provided by discretionary spending
programs, it was subject to a Byrd Rule objection.
II. Interpretation
In light of the statutory language and legislative history,
HHS is defining ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' to apply
only to benefits provided by Federal means-tested, mandatory
spending programs, and not to any discretionary spending programs
or to any mandatory spending programs that are not means-tested.
For purposes of this Federal Register notice, a program is considered
``means-tested'' if eligibility for the program's benefits, or
the amount of such benefits, or both, are determined on the basis
of income or resources of the eligibility unit seeking the benefit.
The following HHS programs are means-tested, mandatory spending
programs: Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and part of the Child Care
Development Block Grant. Foster Care and Adoption Assistance,
however, are explicitly exempted from the term ``Federal means-tested
public benefit'' under Section 403(c)(2)(F). The Child Care Development
Block Grant program is unique in that it is funded from both
mandatory and discretionary parts of the budget. Since the funds
are operationally commingled at the state and local level, and
since the mixed nature of the funding results in budgetary effects
more closely akin to those of a discretionary spending program,
we are treating Child Care as a discretionary spending program
for purposes of interpreting ``Federal means-tested public benefit.''
Therefore, the HHS programs that constitute ``Federal means-tested
public benefits'' under PRWORA are Medicaid and TANF.
This interpretation pertains only to HHS and its benefit programs.
Other Executive Branch agencies whose programs may be subject
to PROWORA will make independent determinations about the scope
of the term.
III. Comment Period and Effective Date
Although HHS is soliciting public comment on this interpretation,
we believe that it is necessary to apply this interpretation
to HHS programs immediately, prior to receipt and consideration
of any comments.
PRWORA was enacted in August, 1996, and since that time HHS
has received numerous inquiries regarding the application of
the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit.'' Additional
delay will cause unnecessary or incorrect administrative actions
by agencies or entities that administer our programs. We also
believe it is possible that due to confusion about the application
of the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' people may
have been denied critical benefits and services who, according
to the interpretation in this notice, are otherwise eligible.
Without prompt issuance of this interpretation, state and local
governments and other public and private benefit providers will
remain confused over how to implement the requirements of Title
IV of PRWORA. Finally, some states have indicated their intention
to define the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' on
their own if Federal guidance is not forthcoming soon. Independent
interpretations by states will only compound the confusion on
this issue since there is no certainty that each state will arrive
at the same definition of the term. In sum, although we are providing
a 60-day period for public comment, as indicated at the beginning
of this notice, this interpretation is effective immediately.
IV. Economic Impact
The Department has analyzed the costs and benefits of
this notice to determine whether it has a substantial economic
effect on the economy as a whole, on states, or on small entities.
The purpose of this analysis was to identify less burdensome
or more beneficial alternatives and thereby to influence the
requirements imposed by the notice.
PRWORA creates major economic effects, a large portion of which
results from changes in the law relating to immigrants' eligibility
for Federal benefits. We estimated the 1997-2002 Federal budget
savings to Medicaid due to the immigrant restrictions would be
$5.1 billion. There were no Federal budget savings estimated
for TANF because, as a block grant, its spending levels were
fixed regardless of caseload size. These Medicaid budget effects
are essentially due to the eligibility restrictions contained
in the statute.
[[Page 45258]]
This notice provides HHS' interpretation as to whether any other HHS programs
are subject to the PRWORA requirements regarding immigrants' eligibility
for ``Federal means-tested'' benefits, and thereby serves to prevent confusion
among administering agencies, grantee agencies, benefit providers, and the
public. This interpretation has no effect on overall spending levels for
any discretionary-funded HHS programs. Nor does this interpretation create
burdens or mandates on states or small entities.
As a result of the PRWORA eligibility restrictions, this notice
is classified as economically ``significant'' under Executive
Order 12866's criterion of an economic effect of more than $100
million. For the same reason, it is classified as a ``major rule''
for purposes of Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801
et. seq., Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121). And, for the same reasons
noted in section III above, this notice is effective immediately
under the exception procedures of Sec. 808 of that statute because
we have determined for good cause that delayed implementation
is impractical and contrary to the public interest.
Dated: August 21, 1997.
/s/
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22683 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
|