Why It Matters

The House Subcommittee on Work and Welfare held a hearing September 1 examining the legacy of the 1996 welfare law and whether additional changes are needed to federal assistance programs. The hearing, titled “Welfare Reform at 30: Restoring the Promise of Work and Personal Responsibility in Federal Welfare Programs,” highlighted longstanding disagreements over work requirements, program integrity and the role of federal benefits in supporting low-income families.

Republicans on the panel argued that the 1996 welfare overhaul demonstrated the value of linking benefits to work and personal responsibility. Democrats emphasized the risks of cutting off food and health benefits for people who cannot meet new eligibility rules or navigate reporting requirements.

The hearing also comes as states prepare to implement new federal Medicaid community engagement requirements. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, states generally must condition Medicaid eligibility for certain adults on completing at least 80 hours per month of qualifying activities, subject to exemptions and other exceptions.

P.L. 119-75 funds the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program through December 31.

The Big Picture

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant and added work requirements, time limits and greater state flexibility.

Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) said welfare caseloads fell from nearly 4.4 million families in 1995 to about 570,000 in 2024. Subcommittee Chair Darin LaHood (R-IL) also said SNAP participation increased nearly 60 percent from 1995 to 2025 while Medicaid participation rose 115 percent during the same period. Those figures were presented by committee Republicans as evidence that work-oriented reforms should extend beyond TANF.

Congress has already changed work-related eligibility rules in other programs. SNAP continues to require certain able-bodied adults without dependents to work or participate in qualifying activities for at least 80 hours per month to receive benefits beyond the time limit, while the 2025 law expanded and modified some of those requirements.

The Ways and Means Committee also reported H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act, in May. The bill would tighten TANF program-integrity requirements, including improper-payment reviews, limits on state carryover of unused funds and additional restrictions on how states may use federal TANF dollars.

What They're Saying

The hearing revealed a clear disagreement over how to interpret the legacy of the 1996 reforms.

LaHood said the 1996 law was built around the principle that assistance should be temporary and connected to work. He cited former President Bill Clinton’s description of welfare reform as moving the system away from dependence and toward work and independence.

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL), the subcommittee’s ranking member, criticized recent benefit restrictions and argued that expanded work requirements risk removing assistance from people who still need it. His remarks reflected Democratic concerns that administrative burdens and stricter eligibility rules can result in eligible people losing food or health coverage.

The hearing featured five witnesses: Scott Winship, senior fellow and director of the Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute; Matt Damschroder, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services; Missy Hanks, executive director of the ELM Foundation; Misty Kelso, operations manager at Watered Gardens Ministries; and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-founder and CEO of MomsRising.

Winship argued that the 1996 reforms contributed to increased employment and reduced dependence on cash assistance. Damschroder provided a state-administration perspective, while Hanks and Kelso discussed work, family stability and experiences with assistance programs. Rowe-Finkbeiner emphasized the risks that stricter eligibility and work rules can pose for working families and caregivers.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) questioned witnesses about welfare policy, program integrity and personal responsibility, continuing his broader focus on fraud and improper payments in federal benefit programs.

Political Stakes

The hearing came as House Republicans continue pursuing changes to TANF administration and defending expanded work requirements in SNAP and Medicaid.

Supporters of those policies argue that employment, education and training requirements can improve economic mobility and reduce long-term dependence on assistance. Opponents argue that the requirements can cause eligible people to lose benefits because of unstable work schedules, caregiving responsibilities, health limitations or administrative problems.

The debate over TANF itself also remains unresolved. The program has operated through a series of temporary extensions rather than a long-term reauthorization, with its current funding authorization running through December 31.

The Bottom Line

P.L. 119-75 funds TANF through December 31, leaving Congress to decide whether to extend the program again or pursue broader reauthorization and policy changes.

H.R. 8872 remains part of the House’s TANF reform agenda after being reported by the Ways and Means Committee. The bill would impose new program-integrity and spending requirements on states but has not become law.

States are also preparing for the Medicaid community-engagement requirement scheduled to take effect nationally on Jan. 1, 2027, unless implemented earlier.

The 30th anniversary hearing showed that Congress remains divided over what lessons to draw from the 1996 welfare overhaul. Republicans pointed to declining TANF caseloads and employment gains as support for stronger work requirements, while Democrats warned that applying similar rules more broadly to food and health programs could cause eligible low-income people to lose assistance.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article