• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Letter to Congress Opposing FY 2000 Cuts in TANF and Title XX

September 24, 1999

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Hastert:

The National Conference of State Legislatures urges you to oppose the $3 billion cut to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF) included in the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. The proposed cut to TANF is completely unacceptable to state legislators.

First and foremost, the cut of TANF funds abrogates a fundamental agreement reached among state legislators, governors and Congress in 1996 regarding welfare reform. In the agreement, states, in return for greater authority and a guarantee of five years of level funding for the TANF block grant, consented to shoulder all of the risks associated with fluctuations in the economy, employment and case loads. States took Congress at its word that the federal government would share the states' commitment to TANF and protect these funds over the lifetime of the agreement. States, through maintenance of effort (MOE) funding, have honored this agreement for FY 2000. We expect Congress to honor its commitment by restoring full TANF funding for FY 2000.

Secondly, changes to TANF destabilize state finances as most states have already completed their appropriations for FY 2000 inclusive of full funding for TANF. States have acted responsibly in making TANF funding decisions. Many states have acted to create "Rainy Day Funds" with a portion of their TANF money. It is only prudent that we would do so as we, not Congress, ultimately bear financial responsibility for funding TANF. The cut of TANF funds compromises our ability to make families self-sufficient. It jeopardizes numerous state efforts to provide work opportunities, protect children and support the formation of two-parent families. It makes it very questionable as to whether states can even meet the federal law's requirements. It cuts the heart out of a program essential for serving our neediest populace.

Even in a period of economic growth, there remains a need for full TANF funding as state officials face important and costly challenges. The welfare recipients remaining on state caseloads have multiple barriers to employment-no work history, substance abuse, illiteracy and domestic violence. They require a larger portion of the TANF money. States are also entering the period of welfare reform when work participation rate requirements will increase substantially. This, too, intensifies demands on each state's share of TANF.

As legislators, we better than anyone understand the tough choices that must be made in the appropriations process. We have repeatedly offered our assistance to you in making these decisions. As well, states have repeatedly risen to the occasion and supported federal funding cuts that were necessary and prudent, providing over $50 billion in savings in 1996 to aid the federal government in deficit reduction.

Further, we urge you to reject reductions to the Child Support program contained in the bill. The bill would eliminate hold harmless payments and reduce the enhanced federal match rate for paternity establishment. The proposals result in direct cost shifts to the states that are strongly opposed by state legislators. States must meet increasing federal goals for paternity establishment. These changes will reduce the states' ability to collect payments and will ultimately hurt families.

Using TANF as an offset for the appropriations bill represents a retreat from congressional commitments to block grants and welfare reform. Congresses' willingness to compromise the TANF agreements will surely breed distrust of the block grant process. If you adopt this reduction in TANF, it will prove that state legislators and governors cannot trust Congress to abide by its word. We implore you to stick to the agreement and oppose cuts to the TANF block grant.

Sincerely,