June 13, 2002, Analysis of the Current Situation in Congress Regarding Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

HOUSE ACTION

In late May the U.S. House approved its version of welfare reform. The measure, which would reauthorize the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF), contained many provisions opposed by most of the religious community. Attention now turns to the Senate, where more progressive proposals are under consideration.

The bill passed by the House is essentially the proposal put forward by President Bush in February, with the exception that the House made a small increase in funding for child care. The House vote was along partisan lines, with no Republicans supporting the Democratic alternative and only about a dozen Democrats joining the majority in voting for the bill.

The House-passed measure increases the demands on states. Current law requires that states have 50% of the adults receiving TANF benefits engaged in employment or work-related activities for 30 hours a week. A minimum of 20 hours must be spent in an actual job, with the remaining hours (and often more) used for education, training, job search, drug and alcohol treatment, and similar activities intended to help participants get and retain work.

The House plan raises the participation requirement to 70% and increases the mandated hours to 40 per week (a minimum of 24 hours in a job and the remainder in "significant" activities such as education, training, addiction treatment, or volunteer activities). Many Governors opposed the increased work requirement when the President proposed it because he would have provided no additional funding for work supports or child care, and also because increased unemployment is making it hard to find decent jobs for TANF leavers.

The House bill reduces the education, training, and rehabilitation options available to help people trying to leave TANF. Under the Administration and House plans, participation in both vocational education and substance abuse treatment would count as work for only four months in 24. Current law counts participation in vocational education as meeting the work requirement for 12 months, which is insufficient, but does not cover substance abuse directly, although it allows states to exempt 20% of their caseload from participation, and many of them use that provision for people who are in treatment and rehabilitation programs. Most vocational education programs take two years to complete, while substance abuse treatment often takes longer than four months.

The House bill would continue to fund TANF as a block grant to states of $16.5 billion a year, a figure based on the 1994 caseload. The religious community supports increasing this amount annually by the rate of inflation. The House bill would increase child care funding by $2 billion over five years, while the religious community is calling for a minimum of $11 billion, acknowledging that $20 billion is probably nearer the amount actually needed.

SENATE ACTION

In the Senate, the measure that goes to the floor for a vote will be a bill that is yet to be prepared by the Finance Committee. The current schedule, which could slip, calls for drafting to begin in a Committee process known as "mark up", perhaps as early as June 24, with a final version ready before the July 4 recess.

In addition to the House bill, three other proposals are on the table to date. All are likely to contribute components to the final product. A table comparing these three plans with current law is posted on the National Council of Churches website. The three are the Tri-partisan Proposal, the Bayh-Carper bill, and the HELP letter.

The Tri-partisan Proposal is a statement of principles prepared by six members of the Finance Committee: Sens. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Breaux (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV).

The Bayh-Carper bill (S. 2524) was introduced by Sens. Thomas Carper (D-DE) and Evan Bayh (D-IN), along with fellow Democratic Senators Jean Carnahan (MO), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Bill Nelson and Bob Graham (FL), Zell Miller (GA), and Ben Nelson (NE).

The HELP letter to the Finance Committee (so named because it was written by members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions), was spearheaded by Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy (MA), Paul Wellstone (MN) and John Corzine (NJ), and co-signed by 16 of their colleagues. Two other Democrats wrote separate but similar letters to the Committee.

In areas of particular concern to the religious community, the three proposals have many similarities, but some significant differences. All will be considered by the Committee.

1. T.A.N.F. FUNDING. All three would retain the $16.5 billion basic annual funding but the HELP proposal would also index for inflation.

2. CHILD CARE FUNDING. The Tri-partisan plan would raise child care spending by an unspecified amount to meet needs created by an increased participation rate. Bayh-Carper adds $8 billion for child care over five years, while HELP would add $11.25 billion.

3. WORK PARTICIPATION RATES: HELP specifies no participation rate but the other two proposals both accept the increase to 70%, with reductions possible for states that succeed in putting people to work.

4. WORK REQUIREMENT. Bayh-Carper accepts the House 40 hour requirement (20 in work or work-related activities and 20 in "self-sufficiency" activities, rather than the House’s 24 for work). The other two plans call for 30 hours a week but the Tri-partisan Plan requires that 24 be spent in a job or work activities.

HELP would exempt parents of children under age 6 from work requirements, while Bayh-Carper and the Tri-partisan Proposal would require 20 hours of work a week, granting states the option to exempt parents of children under 12 months.

5. VOCATIONAL AND OTHER EDUCATION. HELP would count vocational education, ESL, high school, GED, and job readiness activities as work, without limits. The Tri-partisan Proposal would count vocational education as work for 24 months, while Bayh-Carper would allow states to count one-half of the people in vocational education as complying with work requirements.

6. OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT. HELP would count as work many activities designed to address barriers such as substance abuse and mental health needs, caregiving responsibilities, domestic violence, and educational deficiencies. The Tri-partisan Proposal would count three months of full-time substance abuse treatment and three more months of combined treatment and job readiness activities as meeting the work requirement. Bayh-Carper would give states the option to: (1) count participation in programs to overcome barriers as 20 of the 40 required work hours; and (2) exempt people in such programs from work for three months in 24.

7. BENEFITS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. The current TANF law denies eligibility for benefits to legal immigrants until they have been in the U.S. for five years. The House retains this provision. The HELP proposal would restore eligibility for TANF, Medicaid, and the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) immediately. The Tri-partisan Proposal and Bayh-Carper would give states the option to reinstate TANF eligibility while Bayh-Carper would also give a state option to provide Medicaid to recent immigrants who are children or pregnant women.

CONCLUSION

The religious community has focused its attention primarily on the following five points:

• Poverty Reduction

• Adequate funding

• Provision for education and training and elimination of barriers to employment

• Serving all who need help, especially legal immigrants and those who cannot work

• Giving states flexibility with regard to time limits

Each of the Senate proposals contains positive aspects, some more than others. Each addresses many of the religious community’s concerns. The best hope is that the Senate will combine the most positive features into the strongest bill possible. It must, however, be a measure that has bipartisan support so that it can be passed by the Senate and taken to a conference committee with the punitive House-passed bill.

Senate leaders are not yet convinced that there is adequate support for a strong, positive bill. Majority Leader Daschle has said that he will remove the issue of TANF reauthorization from the Senate calendar and simply move to extend the current program for another year if it appears that the Senate will bog down in partisan wrangling or that the TANF program will be made worse instead of better by congressional action.

June 13, 2002

-end-