{
  "id": "RL32210",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32210",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104227,
      "date": "2005-03-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:51:37.102029",
      "title": "TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Two Versions of H.R. 4 (108th Congress)",
      "summary": "The 108th Congress did not complete action on legislation to reauthorize the block grant of\nTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), instead adopting short-term extensions. The\nlatest extension funds the program through March 31, 2005. Though welfare reauthorization failed\nto receive final action, a bill ( H.R. 4 ) did pass the House and a substitute measure was\nreported from the Senate Finance Committee. The differences in the two bills highlight some of the\ncontentious issues in the reauthorization debate.\n \n The House-passed and Senate Finance Committee bills were very similar in terms of how they\nwould continue funding under the TANF program. Both bills would have extended basic TANF\nfunding at current levels ($16.6 billion for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories)\nthrough FY2008 and extended supplemental grants provided to 17 states through FY2007. Both bills\nalso would have provided new, categorical grants for marriage promotion activities. The major\ndifference in the funding provisions of the two bills was how they provided extra contingency\n(recession-related) funding to the states. The House bill essentially extended the current law fund\nthat provides matching grants to states that experience high and increased unemployment rates and\nfood stamp caseloads. The Senate Finance Committee bill eliminated the requirements that states\nexpend additional money to access contingency funds, and instead based extra funding on the cost\nof increased caseloads for states that meet revised unemployment or food stamp caseload criteria.\n \n The two bills would have substantially revised TANF work participation standards that states\nmust meet or be subject to a financial penalty. Under current law, 50% of TANF families with an\nadult or minor household head must participate, though the 50% rate is reduced by caseload\nreductions that have occurred since welfare reform. Both versions of  H.R. 4  would\nhave raised this standard to 70%, though under both bills the standard could have been reduced\nthrough credits (though the credits differ between the two bills). They also both eliminated a\nseparate 90% participation rate requirement for two-parent families. Both bills would have raised\nthe minimum hours required of family members to be considered full participants, though the House\nraised them more than did the Senate Finance Committee bill. The bills also differed in the activities\ncountable toward the participation standards: the House narrowed the list of activities countable,\nrequiring recipients to spend at least 24 hours in work, community service, or work experience\nprograms except for a short (usually three month) period when states may define what counts as\nactivities themselves. The Senate Finance Committee bill kept all activities on the current law list,\nand also allowed states to count activities on an expanded list for three months (six months in some\ncircumstances).\n \n Both bills included non-TANF provisions relating to child support enforcement, responsible\n\u201cfatherhood\u201d programs, and transitional medical assistance (not addressed herein).\nThis report will\nnot be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32210",
          "sha1": "576b4aa58d8c603a595a0c7867d7a63141c950c2",
          "filename": "files/20050301_RL32210_576b4aa58d8c603a595a0c7867d7a63141c950c2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32210",
          "sha1": "76dd048e2e505a27cc36285b1a0356141fad0597",
          "filename": "files/20050301_RL32210_76dd048e2e505a27cc36285b1a0356141fad0597.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817446/",
      "id": "RL32210_2004Feb02",
      "date": "2004-02-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "TANF Reauthorization: Side-By-Side Comparison of Current Law and Two Versions of H.R. 4",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20040202_RL32210_541369f1bd4c5079829b0399c8634a607e6ad65d.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20040202_RL32210_541369f1bd4c5079829b0399c8634a607e6ad65d.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}