Loading bill breakdown…
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH) · 8 active : 8 Republicans
Latest action: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced further proceedings on H.R. 8872 is postponed.
Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act
This bill limits how and when states may use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds and establishes an eligibility threshold for all TANF-funded assistance and services.
Currently, each state sets its own eligibility threshold for TANF-funded cash assistance. The bill establishes an upper limit on eligibility applicable to all assistance and services (including non-cash benefits) funded by TANF family assistance grants. Under this provision, only families with income under 200% of the federal poverty guidelines may receive TANF-funded assistance and services.
Further, the bill generally requires states to obligate TANF funds by the end of the fiscal year after they are paid and to spend funds by the end of the second fiscal year after they are paid. However, states may reserve a specified portion of their TANF funds for future use. (There is currently no requirement to use TANF funds within a specified period.)
The bill also explicitly requires states to use federal TANF funds to supplement, not replace, state and local funding for TANF-supported programs. (Current law requires states to spend a specified minimum amount on TANF-eligible activities and populations, known as the
maintenance of effort
requirement.)
States must also take specified steps to track and report on improper payments of federal funds (e.g., overpayments, underpayments, payments to ineligible recipients). Within one year of enactment, HHS must submit to Congress a plan to reduce or eliminate improper payments made by states under the TANF program within 10 years.
Members fall into . 2 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.
Loading similar votes
These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.
Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 9 sponsor and cosponsors in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 2 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Not applicable in the House. There is not enough similar voting history (weight 2.0 of 5.0 needed), so this input is left out of the score rather than counted as missing.
