HR-2359-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Mike Carey (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would amend the Social Security Act to impose deadlines on how quickly states must obligate and spend federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds. States would be required to obligate funds within one fiscal year of receipt and spend them within two fiscal years. The bill would also allow states to set aside up to 15% of their annual TANF grant as a reserve for future use, capped at 50% of the prior year's total grant, and would require states to notify the federal government of their intent to reserve funds. These changes would take effect October 1, 2026.
Who benefits
Low-income families and children who are the intended beneficiaries of TANF — faster spending requirements could mean funds reach them more quickly rather than sitting unspent. Federal taxpayers and oversight bodies who gain greater visibility into how states use federal funds. States that currently lack a formal mechanism to save for economic downturns would gain a structured, legal pathway to build reserves. State budget planners who would have clearer rules for managing TANF funds across fiscal years.
Who is hurt
States that currently hold large unspent TANF balances — some states have accumulated hundreds of millions in unobligated funds — would face pressure to spend down or restructure those reserves to comply with the new deadlines. State administrators who rely on flexible carryover of funds for multi-year programs could face disruption. States with high economic volatility may find the 15%/50% reserve cap insufficient to weather a severe recession. Advocacy organizations that have pushed for unlimited state flexibility in TANF spending may see this as a constraint.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that states have accumulated billions in unspent TANF funds — the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented over $5 billion in unspent balances in recent years — while low-income families go without assistance. They contend that spending deadlines would ensure federal dollars reach their intended beneficiaries in a timely manner, and that the rainy day fund provision gives states a responsible, structured way to save for recessions without hoarding funds indefinitely. Transparency requirements would also allow Congress and the public to better track how states are managing federal assistance dollars.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that TANF's block grant structure was specifically designed to give states maximum flexibility to tailor programs to local needs, and that rigid spending deadlines undermine that design by pressuring states to spend quickly rather than strategically. They contend that the 15%/50% reserve cap may be inadequate for states facing severe or prolonged economic downturns — such as those experienced during the 2008 recession or COVID-19 pandemic — when TANF caseloads can spike dramatically and federal block grant amounts remain fixed. Forcing rapid expenditure could lead to lower-quality program spending rather than better outcomes for families.
Constitutional context
Congress funds TANF through its Taxing and Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). Conditions attached to block grants are permissible so long as they do not cross into unconstitutional coercion under the standard established in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), which held that funding conditions must leave states a genuine choice. Spending deadlines and reserve caps are standard conditions on federal grants and are unlikely to raise coercion concerns given that states retain broad discretion over how funds are used within the program.
Checks and balances
Congress gains tighter oversight of state TANF spending through mandatory deadlines and notification requirements; the Secretary of Health and Human Services retains administrative authority to receive notices and enforce compliance, while states retain discretion over how funds are spent within the program's existing rules.
Historical precedent
TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the open-ended AFDC entitlement with a fixed block grant; Congress has periodically adjusted TANF spending rules, but no prior legislation has imposed these specific obligation and expenditure deadlines.