HR-2242-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the Social Security Act to apply the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) to states administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, holding them to the same improper payment measurement standards currently required of federal agencies. It would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress within one year outlining a plan to reduce or eliminate TANF improper payments within 10 years. The new requirements would take effect on October 1, 2026.
Who benefits
Federal and state taxpayers who would benefit from reduced waste, fraud, and improper payments in TANF spending. Congress, which would gain a formal HHS-produced roadmap and data on TANF payment integrity. State auditors and oversight officials who would have a clearer federal framework for measuring and reporting errors. Eligible TANF recipients, to the extent that reduced fraud preserves program funding and legitimacy.
Who is hurt
State governments and their TANF administering agencies, which would face new compliance, reporting, and auditing burdens currently not required of block grant programs. Smaller or under-resourced states may face disproportionate administrative costs to meet PIIA-equivalent standards. TANF applicants and recipients could face increased scrutiny or processing delays as states implement new verification procedures. Advocacy organizations that assist low-income families may see clients experience more friction in accessing benefits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that TANF is one of the few major federal assistance programs not subject to formal improper payment measurement under PIIA, creating a significant accountability gap. They contend that applying the same standards already required of federal agencies is a straightforward, common-sense extension of existing law that would generate data needed to protect program integrity and ensure limited federal dollars reach eligible families — not fraudulent claimants.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that TANF is a block grant by design, giving states broad discretion to administer funds with minimal federal mandates — and that imposing PIIA-equivalent requirements fundamentally alters that federal-state balance. They contend that the administrative costs of compliance could divert resources away from direct assistance to low-income families, and that without additional federal funding to support implementation, the burden falls disproportionately on states with limited administrative capacity.
Constitutional context
TANF is funded under Congress's Taxing and Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Under NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), spending conditions attached to federal grants are permissible unless so coercive that states have no genuine choice. Adding reporting and measurement requirements to an existing block grant program is a relatively modest condition and is unlikely to approach the coercion threshold, though states may argue the new administrative mandates alter the original terms of the grant.
Checks and balances
Congress gains oversight leverage by requiring HHS to produce a formal reduction plan; HHS gains administrative authority to define and enforce PIIA-equivalent standards on states, while states retain program administration authority subject to the new reporting conditions.
Historical precedent
The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 extended improper payment reporting requirements across federal agencies; this bill would extend that same framework to state-administered block grants, a step not previously taken for TANF specifically.