TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Two Versions of H.R. 4 (108th Congress)

Publication Date: March 2005

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Social conditions

Type:

Abstract:

The 108th Congress did not complete action on legislation to reauthorize the block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), instead adopting short-term extensions. The latest extension funds the program through March 31, 2005. Though welfare reauthorization failed to receive final action, a bill (H.R. 4) did pass the House and a substitute measure was reported from the Senate Finance Committee. The differences in the two bills highlight some of the contentious issues in the reauthorization debate.

The House-passed and Senate Finance Committee bills were very similar in terms of how they would continue funding under the TANF program. Both bills would have extended basic TANF funding at current levels ($16.6 billion for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories) through FY2008 and extended supplemental grants provided to 17 states through FY2007. Both bills also would have provided new, categorical grants for marriage promotion activities. The major difference in the funding provisions of the two bills was how they provided extra contingency (recession-related) funding to the states. The House bill essentially extended the current law fund that provides matching grants to states that experience high and increased unemployment rates and food stamp caseloads. The Senate Finance Committee bill eliminated the requirements that states expend additional money to access contingency funds, and instead based extra funding on the cost of increased caseloads for states that meet revised unemployment or food stamp caseload criteria.

The two bills would have substantially revised TANF work participation standards that states must meet or be subject to a financial penalty. Under current law, 50% of TANF families with an adult or minor household head must participate, though the 50% rate is reduced by caseload reductions that have occurred since welfare reform. Both versions of H.R. 4 would have raised this standard to 70%, though under both bills the standard could have been reduced through credits (though the credits differ between the two bills). They also both eliminated a separate 90% participation rate requirement for two-parent families. Both bills would have raised the minimum hours required of family members to be considered full participants, though the House raised them more than did the Senate Finance Committee bill. The bills also differed in the activities countable toward the participation standards: the House narrowed the list of activities countable, requiring recipients to spend at least 24 hours in work, community service, or work experience programs except for a short (usually three month) period when states may define what counts as activities themselves. The Senate Finance Committee bill kept all activities on the current law list, and also allowed states to count activities on an expanded list for three months (six months in some circumstances).

Both bills included non-TANF provisions relating to child support enforcement, responsible "fatherhood" programs, and transitional medical assistance (not addressed herein). This report will not be updated.