Please contact your Senators and Representatives before November 12 and urge them to support a three-year extension of the current TANF program. Indicate that you still prefer the provisions of the Senate Finance Committee bill, with increased funding for child care.

Contact information for Senators and Representatives can be found at:

http:/www.senate.gov   and http:/www.house.gov

The support of both the House and the Senate is crucial for this measure to advance.

 ISSUE:

Congress will return to Washington on November 12 for a "lame duck" session of a few days. The purpose is to complete action on 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that are essential for the federal government to function in the next year. It is likely that Congress will also take some sort of action to extend the TANF program beyond its current expiration date of December 30.

Key Senators and their staffs have been working on producing a compromise position that will be acceptable to both the House and Senate, as well as to President Bush. One proposal that has emerged is being developed on a bipartisan basis by Senators on the Finance Committee who earlier originated the bill supported by the religious community. Their proposal would extend the current program, perhaps with a few minor changes agreed to in advance by all parties, for three years. It is possible that each party may be permitted to add an amendment or two. Possibilities being mentioned are increased child care funding for the Democrats and increased marriage promotion funding and flexibility for the Republicans.

The religious community has reluctantly come to the position of supporting a three-year extension, although its preference for the Finance Committee bill remains strong (click here for details of the Finance Committee bill).

The Finance Committee bill would have made a number of important improvements in the TANF program that are favored by the religious community. Unfortunately, the Senate leadership has not scheduled the bill for a floor vote because of time constraints. Democrats had agreed to a limited debate and had agreed not to offer many amendments, but the Republicans refused to be bound by such an agreement.

TANF was due to expire on September 30, but Congress extended its funding until December 30, in the hope of being able to have a debate and a vote in the Senate, resolve differences in a conference with the House-passed bill (click here for background), approve a final version, and send the bill to the President to sign. But the Senate never voted and the President indicated he would veto any bill that differed significantly from the House version. That left legislators concerned about providing cash assistance to poor families with no alternative but to extend the present program and find ways to amend it later, through other legislation not directly related to TANF.

The Governors and the National Conference of State Legislators have argued persuasively in favor of extending the program for three years so that states will be able to continue to function without interruption. Several states approve their budgets in two-year cycles and so need assured funding for at least that long. Many state legislatures meet only every other year and would not be able to adjust state programs with a shorter funding cycle.

Extending TANF for only two years would mean that the next debate about future structure and funding would come in a year in which there are both presidential and congressional elections, thus subjecting the program once more to the politicization that has deadlocked it this year. An extension of one year would leave many states in budgetary limbo, although a one-year extension is what President Bush wants and is the only thing he has said he would approve. He wants Congress to take the issue up again in 2003 and alter TANF according to his design during his current term as President.

The religious community, deeply concerned about the worsening federal budget situation, feels that the economy will be in so much trouble next year that a debate on TANF might very well result in reduced funding for the program. It certainly would not be improved in the ways that advocates desire, since many of the changes being sought this year would have increased costs. Thus, religious groups continue to feel that a five-year extension, as envisioned in the Senate Finance Committee bill, would have been the best choice. Failing that, however, a three-year extension that does not make the program worse than it now is would be preferable to risking reductions in funding after a shorter extension.