HR-2584-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Claudia Tenney (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Social Security Act to prohibit states from using federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds to replace — rather than add to — state and local spending on assistance programs. It would require the chief executive officer of each state to certify compliance with this "supplement, not supplant" rule. The bill would also reauthorize the TANF program for two years, through September 30, 2026, at funding levels consistent with fiscal year 2023.
Who benefits
Low-income families with children who are the intended beneficiaries of TANF — particularly those in states where federal funds have historically displaced state spending rather than adding to it. Federal taxpayers who would gain assurance that federal dollars produce additional services rather than substituting for state funds. Advocacy organizations and auditors who monitor TANF spending, as the certification requirement creates a clearer accountability mechanism. States that already comply with supplement-not-supplant principles, who would face no new burden and may gain a competitive fairness advantage.
Who is hurt
State governments that have used TANF block grant funds to offset their own general revenue spending — a practice documented by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that many states spend less than 20% of TANF funds on direct cash assistance. State budget officers who would face reduced fiscal flexibility and may need to identify new state revenue sources. State administrators who would bear new compliance and certification costs. Potentially, state programs funded with redirected TANF dollars (such as child welfare or pre-K programs) that could lose funding if states cannot backfill with general revenue.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that TANF funds have drifted far from their core purpose: research shows that nationally, states spend only about 22 cents of every TANF dollar on direct cash assistance to families, with many states using federal funds to replace — rather than supplement — state spending they would have made anyway. They contend that the supplement-not-supplant requirement is a standard condition attached to many other federal grant programs and simply ensures that federal dollars produce a genuine net increase in services for needy families, rather than functioning as a general state budget subsidy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that TANF's block grant structure was deliberately designed to give states broad flexibility to address poverty in ways suited to local conditions, and that a supplement-not-supplant mandate fundamentally undermines that design by imposing a federal spending floor on state budgets. They contend that enforcing this rule would be administratively difficult — states have complex, intermingled budgets — and that the certification requirement places governors in legal jeopardy for inherently ambiguous accounting determinations, potentially chilling legitimate state program decisions without producing measurable benefits for families.
Constitutional context
Congress may attach conditions to federal grants under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), but NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) established that conditions cannot be so coercive that states have no genuine choice. A supplement-not-supplant requirement is a standard grant condition and is unlikely to reach the coercion threshold, though states could argue it effectively dictates state budget priorities in a manner that strains the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers to the states.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to set binding conditions on TANF block grant spending; the executive branch (HHS) would enforce compliance and review state certifications; states retain the ability to challenge conditions in federal court under Spending Clause coercion doctrine.
Historical precedent
Supplement-not-supplant requirements are a standard feature of many federal education and social service grants, including Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and have been upheld as valid Spending Clause conditions in federal courts.