Opening Statement By Chairman Jim McDermott

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Chairman - Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Hearing Statement
Thursday, March 11, 2010

We are here today to start a new conversation about the role of the TANF program in providing assistance to struggling families, especially during this time of great hardship for many Americans.

The starting point is this question: do poor children deserve our help as their parents struggle to find or prepare themselves for employment?

I believe the vast majority of Americans would say yes to that question. It may therefore come as unwelcome news to them that only 22% of poor children receive assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF program.

Furthermore, they may be concerned to hear that TANF seems far less responsive to the growing need than other safety net programs, such as Food Stamps or Unemployment Insurance.

As you can see by the chart in front of you, the TANF program has moved very little since the recession started in December of 2007, while other programs have been much more responsive.

The number of households receiving food stamps, which are now known as SNAP benefits, went up by close to 6 million. The number of individuals receiving unemployment benefits increased by nearly 8 million.

But the number of families receiving TANF has increased by less than one-quarter of a million since the start of the recession.

We will likely hear today a host of reasons for this very low participation rate, but I believe the main underlying cause is the presumption that declining caseloads always equal success.

Specific features of the TANF program, such as the caseload reduction credit, not to mention over a decade of rhetoric from every level of government, have driven this contention.

We all want TANF caseloads to go down because more parents are moving into good jobs. But if caseloads go down or stay flat, even as unemployment and poverty go way up, that should never be anyone’s definition of success.

If it is, we might as well completely eliminate the TANF program right now. We would then have a caseload of zero – a perfect success.

Expecting a program for needy families to respond to a huge increase in needy families should be a bipartisan expectation.

Nevertheless, I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be tempted to say that helping more families through TANF will reduce the program’s emphasis on work.

However, the exact opposite is true.

Providing temporary assistance to more families in great need will also mean engaging more parents in work-related services and activities.

The alternative is to continue to ignore these families as they struggle to create a better life for their children.

There are some steps we can take immediately to help more families and to better promote work.

The most obvious is to continue the TANF Emergency Fund, which now provides funds to help States respond to the rising need for assistance and to establish or expand subsidized employment programs.

A broader discussion is needed on how other features of the TANF program affect this issue. Hopefully today’s hearing will begin to shed light on that topic.

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Linder.