	Introduction

The 109th Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize the block grant of TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF) for five years. The program has received 11 short-term extensions since the original funding authorityfor TANF expired on September 30, 2002. 109-68 ) funds the programthrough December 31, 2005. The Senate Finance Committee has reported an original bill, S. 667 ( S.Rept.109-51 ). That bill was approved by the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on HumanResources on March 15, and awaits full committee action, as well as consideration by othercommittees that have jurisdictions over parts of the bill. Both bills also raise TANF work participationstandards, though the two differ in terms of how much more work would be required and whatactivities count toward the participation standards. This report provides a comparison of the TANFprovisions of S. 667 and H.R. TANF Funding Provisions

S. 667 and H.R. The major difference in the funding provision between the two billsis that S. 667 would completely revamp the TANF contingency (recession) funds, whileH.R. 240 would make relatively minor revisions to the fund. The 1996 welfare reform law( P.L. Currently, supplemental grants total $319 million per year. TANF includes acontingency fund, which is designed to provide extra matching grants to states that meet criteria ofeconomic need (based on unemployment rates and food stamp caseloads) and have stateexpenditures in excess of their FY1994 level. Work Requirements

Both S. 667 and H.R. Both bills would raise work participation standards that states must meetfrom the current law's standard of 50% to 70%, raise the required hours of working to receive fullcredit and provide partial credit for participating families that do not meet the full credit standard,and revise the list of activities that recipients may participate in for states to receive credit towardTANF standards. The current participation standard is 50%. H.R. 240 narrows the listof core activities by eliminating job search and vocational education. Both H.R. 240 would allow states to define activities forfamilies with at least 24 hours in core activities; S. 667 would allow states to count anexpanded set of activities for single-parent families with at least 24 hours per week in core activities. Additionally, S. 667allows caring for a disabled family member to count as a work activity under certain circumstances. Although the two bills provide similar funding for "marriage promotion" activities, theydiffer significantly in the details of their provisions authorizing these grants. Other TANF Provisions

Both S. 667 and H.R. Among the other TANF provisions addressed in the reauthorization bills:
H.R. 240 funds tribal TANF programs and work program at current levels through FY2010 and makestribal organizations eligible for TANF bonuses.
The 109th Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize the block grant of TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF) for five years. Congress has inconclusively debatedlong-term TANF authorizations since 2002, instead adopting short-term extensions. The latestextension ( P.L. 109-19 ) funds the program through December 31, 2005. Thus far in the 109thCongress, the Senate Finance Committee has reported S. 667 ( S.Rept. 109-51 ). A billintroduced by House Republican leaders, H.R. 240 , has received approval from theHouse Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources.
S. 667 and H.R. 240 are very similar in terms of how they wouldcontinue funding under the TANF program. Both bills extend basic TANF funding at current levels($16.6 billion for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories) through FY2010 andextend supplemental grants provided to 17 states through FY2009. Both bills provide new,categorical grants for marriage promotion activities totaling $200 million per year financed througha reduction in current TANF bonuses to states. The major difference in the TANF fundingprovisions of the two bills is how they provide extra contingency (recession-related) funding to thestates. H.R. 240 essentially extends the current law fund that provides matchinggrants to states experiencing high and increased unemployment rates and food stamp caseloads. S. 667 eliminates the requirement that states expend additional money to accesscontingency funds, and instead bases extra funding on the cost of increased caseloads for states thatmeet revised unemployment or food stamp caseload criteria.
The two bills would substantially revise the TANF work participation standards that statesmust meet. Under current law, 50% of TANF families with an adult or minor household head mustparticipate, though the 50% rate is reduced by caseload reductions that have occurred since welfarereform. Both S. 667 and H.R. 240 would raise this standard to 70%,though under both bills the standard could be reduced through credits (though the credits differbetween the two bills). Both also eliminate a separate 90% participation rate requirement fortwo-parent families. Both bills would raise the minimum hours required of family members in orderto be considered full participants, though H.R. 240 would raise them by morethan would S. 667. The bills also differ in the activities countable toward theparticipation standards: H.R. 240 narrows the list of activities countable,requiring recipients to spend at least 24 hours in work, community service, or work experienceprograms except for a short (usually three-month) period when states may themselves define whatcounts as "activities." S. 667 keeps all activities under current law as countable, andallows states to count a wider range of activities for three months (more under some circumstances).
Both bills contain non-TANF provisions relating to child support enforcement, responsible"fatherhood" programs, and transitional medical assistance (not addressed herein). This report willbe updated as S. 667 and H.R. 240 move through the legislative process.