By Shannon Holmes
September 12, 2005

The Senate has been unable to pass reauthorization of the 1996 welfare law due to intraparty disputes over spending. Now,<0x00A0>there are rumors that the budget reconciliation package may be the vehicle to finally reauthorize the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PL 104-193) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), now in its tenth extension. Budget reconciliation procedures provide protection from Senate filibusters, which mean that a budget reconciliation bill could be passed by a simple majority vote.

This raises concern that if TANF reauthorization is part of the budget reconciliation package, the result will be significantly less childcare funding and significant barriers in education and training opportunities.

The Senate Finance Committee bill (S 667), which passed by voice vote on March 9, boosts child care spending by $6 billion over five years, a measure sponsored by moderate Senator Olympia J. Snowe (ME). However, other than the moderate Republicans, the Senate and House majority contend that S 667 would increase overall spending by $10.2 billion over five years which is far more than the increase allowed by the FY 2006 budget resolution. The House TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 240) approved on March 15 by the Ways and Means Subcommittee, increases welfare spending by about $2 billion over five years, including a $1 billion increase for child care spending.

Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg (NH) says that welfare reauthorization should match the allocation in the budget resolution, which is $1.8 billion in spending over the next five years. However, it is likely that Snowe's vote will be needed to make any changes to the Senate bill and she has vowed to fight any reconciliation package that would cut welfare programs or lacks a sizable increase in childcare funding. Snowe has indicated that she would prefer temporary extensions rather than doing harm to the program.

This intraparty dispute is what is driving majority leaders to consider using the budget reconciliation as the vehicle to pass TANF. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (IA) has indicated that he could move TANF reauthorization through the Senate by securing the 60 votes needed to overcome a budget point of order that Gregg would likely raise, if he can reach a consensus with Democrats to limit debate. If a consensus cannot be reached almost immediately after August recess, it is likely that the TANF reauthorization debate will shift to the budget reconciliation process where the authorizing committees are directed to cut spending for mandatory programs.

In addition to funding cuts, work requirements and education and training provisions are at stake. House Republicans have included a 40-hour per week work requirement in H.R. 240, up from 30 hours with no more than 16 hours of education and training allowed. H.R. 240 also reduces the number of months that recipients could count vocational education and training as work from 12 months to 3 months. The Senate bill provides a 34-hour per week work requirement and allows 12 months of vocational education and training.