{
  "id": "RL32834",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32834",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 308431,
      "date": "2005-09-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:30:56.855029",
      "title": "TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law, S. 667, and H.R. 240 (TANF Provisions)",
      "summary": "The 109th Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize the block grant of Temporary\nAssistance\nfor Needy Families (TANF) for five years. Congress has inconclusively debated long-term TANF\nauthorizations since 2002, instead adopting short-term extensions. The latest extension ( P.L.\n109-19 ) funds the program through December 31, 2005. Thus far in the 109th Congress, the Senate\nFinance Committee has reported  S. 667  ( S.Rept. 109-51 ). A bill introduced by House\nRepublican leaders,  H.R. 240 , has received approval from the House Ways and Means\nCommittee's Subcommittee on Human Resources. \n  S. 667  and  H.R. 240  are very similar in terms of how they would\ncontinue funding under the TANF program. Both bills extend basic TANF funding at current levels\n($16.6 billion for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories) through FY2010 and\nextend supplemental grants provided to 17 states through FY2009. Both bills provide new,\ncategorical grants for marriage promotion activities totaling $200 million per year financed through\na reduction in current TANF bonuses to states. The major difference in the TANF funding\nprovisions of the two bills is how they provide extra contingency (recession-related) funding to the\nstates.  H.R.  240 essentially extends the current law fund that provides matching\ngrants to states experiencing high and increased unemployment rates and food stamp caseloads. \n S.  667 eliminates the requirement that states expend additional money to access\ncontingency funds, and instead bases extra funding on the cost of increased caseloads for states that\nmeet revised unemployment or food stamp caseload criteria.\n The two bills would substantially revise the TANF work participation standards that states must\nmeet. Under current law, 50% of TANF families with an adult or minor household head must\nparticipate, though the 50% rate is reduced by caseload reductions that have occurred since welfare\nreform. Both  S. 667  and  H.R. 240  would raise this standard to 70%,\nthough under both bills the standard could be reduced through credits (though the credits differ\nbetween the two bills). Both also eliminate a separate 90% participation rate requirement for\ntwo-parent families. Both bills would raise the minimum hours required of family members in order\nto be considered full participants, though  H.R.  240 would raise them by more\nthan would  S.  667. The bills also differ in the activities countable toward the\nparticipation standards:  H.R.  240 narrows 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 themselves define what\ncounts as \"activities.\" S.  667 keeps all activities under current law as countable, and\nallows states to count a wider range of activities for three months (more under some circumstances).\n Both bills contain non-TANF provisions relating to child support enforcement, responsible\n\"fatherhood\" programs, and transitional medical assistance (not addressed herein). This report will\nbe updated as  S. 667  and  H.R. 240  move through the legislative process.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32834",
          "sha1": "5599d688c15851d48edf93ef6a4a1f3f06102659",
          "filename": "files/20050926_RL32834_5599d688c15851d48edf93ef6a4a1f3f06102659.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32834",
          "sha1": "347ef1c5f09c07a449ffd2dccd9c9e8d4e21c4cb",
          "filename": "files/20050926_RL32834_347ef1c5f09c07a449ffd2dccd9c9e8d4e21c4cb.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816963/",
      "id": "RL32834_2005Jul18",
      "date": "2005-07-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law, S. 667, and H.R. 240 (TANF Provisions)",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050718_RL32834_a57aa557bde17d9845446d0381788491dbdf33d0.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050718_RL32834_a57aa557bde17d9845446d0381788491dbdf33d0.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}