The bill
Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act
HR. 8872, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
Sponsored by
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
ID: C001126
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 8872, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 509-511 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair announced further proceedings on H.R. 8872 is postponed.
June 2, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act (HR 8872) claims to target funds to low-income families, strengthen program integrity, and eliminate fraud and improper payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. How quaint. How utterly predictable.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Social Security Act to:
1. Apply the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 to TANF, because who needs actual reform when you can just rebrand existing laws? 2. Establish a threshold for families in need, ensuring that only those with incomes below twice the poverty guidelines receive assistance. A noble gesture, if not for the fact that it's a blatant attempt to appear compassionate while maintaining the status quo. 3. Set deadlines for states to obligate and expend funds, with an exception allowing them to reserve up to 15% of funds for future use. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving states more flexibility to mismanage federal funds? 4. Prohibit states from diverting federal funds to replace state spending, a provision that will undoubtedly be circumvented by creative accounting and bureaucratic sleight of hand.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
1. Low-income families: The supposed beneficiaries of this legislation, who will likely see minimal actual benefits due to the bill's toothless provisions. 2. States: Will continue to receive federal funds with minimal oversight, ensuring that the gravy train keeps rolling. 3. Lobbyists and special interest groups: Will find ways to exploit the loopholes and ambiguities in the bill to further their own interests.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a placebo on a patient with a terminal illness. It's a symbolic gesture, a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The TANF program will continue to be plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse, while politicians pat themselves on the back for "doing something" about it.
In conclusion, HR 8872 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, a cynical attempt to appear concerned about waste and abuse while maintaining the corrupt status quo. It's a disease masquerading as a cure, a symptom of a deeper illness: the chronic incompetence and corruption that afflicts our political system. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: A000375
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001314
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001222
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001172
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: T000478
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001213
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001205
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000446
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 46 nodes and 32 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $172,750
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 harmed.
Section 5(a) adds a limitation on the use of Federal funds to replace State general revenue funds, which may reduce the amount of funding available to hospitals and health systems that rely on these funds.
Section 5(a) adds a limitation on the use of Federal funds to replace State general revenue funds, which may reduce the amount of funding available to health insurance providers that rely on these funds.
Section 5(a) adds a limitation on the use of Federal funds to replace State general revenue funds, which may reduce the amount of funding available to long-term care providers that rely on these funds.
Section 4(e) establishes deadlines for the obligation and expenditure of funds by States, which may impact private prisons that contract with States to provide services.
Section 5(b) requires State certification that Federal funds will not be used to supplant State or non-Federal funds for services and activities, which may impact labor unions that represent workers in industries affected by these funds.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 476 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Pay damages to all medical professionals who were dismissed directly because of the CMS vaccine mandate. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) TANF. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is a federal block grant that gives states significant flexibility to fund a broad array of programs aimed at helping low-income families break the cycle of poverty and achieve economic self-sufficiency. States use TANF to fund monthly cash assis- tance payments to low-income families with children as well as a wide range of services that include work activities, work supports and supportive services, child- care, administration and systems, tax credits, pre-K/Head Start, child welfare, and other services. The TANF program serves 1.8 million individuals. Since 1996, when the program was reformed, federal TANF outlays have been $16.5 billion. The state match is $14.9 billion, bringing the total state and federal TANF investment to $31.4 billion. The TANF statute requires that states engage 50 percent of single-parent fam- ilies in work for at least 30 hours a week (20 hours a week for single parents with children under age six, though states have the option to waive the requirement for families with children under the age of six, and most do). States also have 90 percent work requirements for two-parent families to engage in work for 35 hours per week. Because of the “Caseload Reduction Credit,” states’ work engagement targets are reduced if their assistance caseloads have fallen since 2005. As a result, 21 states had a work engagement target of zero percent in 2017. Generally, states apply their work requirement only to beneficiaries receiv- ing basic assistance, who account for 22.3 percent of TANF outlays. The Trump Administration proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse” that would have prevented an individual from qualifying for SNAP simply because he or she received a pamphlet from the TANF program.60 This rule defined non-cash benefits as those that are worth at least $50 a month and received for at least six months. The tenets of this rule should be applied to the TANF program as well. This defi- nitional change would apply the TANF work requirements to any noncash benefit worth $50 a month and received for six consecutive months. To increase transparency, HHS should clarify how states, in their quarterly and annual reports, ought to track and audit the outcomes from how they spend TANF funds to meet the TANF program’s four statutory purposes. Additionally, TANF priorities are not implemented in an equally weighted way. Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways. CMS should require explicit measurement of these goals.
— 476 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Pay damages to all medical professionals who were dismissed directly because of the CMS vaccine mandate. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) TANF. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is a federal block grant that gives states significant flexibility to fund a broad array of programs aimed at helping low-income families break the cycle of poverty and achieve economic self-sufficiency. States use TANF to fund monthly cash assis- tance payments to low-income families with children as well as a wide range of services that include work activities, work supports and supportive services, child- care, administration and systems, tax credits, pre-K/Head Start, child welfare, and other services. The TANF program serves 1.8 million individuals. Since 1996, when the program was reformed, federal TANF outlays have been $16.5 billion. The state match is $14.9 billion, bringing the total state and federal TANF investment to $31.4 billion. The TANF statute requires that states engage 50 percent of single-parent fam- ilies in work for at least 30 hours a week (20 hours a week for single parents with children under age six, though states have the option to waive the requirement for families with children under the age of six, and most do). States also have 90 percent work requirements for two-parent families to engage in work for 35 hours per week. Because of the “Caseload Reduction Credit,” states’ work engagement targets are reduced if their assistance caseloads have fallen since 2005. As a result, 21 states had a work engagement target of zero percent in 2017. Generally, states apply their work requirement only to beneficiaries receiv- ing basic assistance, who account for 22.3 percent of TANF outlays. The Trump Administration proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse” that would have prevented an individual from qualifying for SNAP simply because he or she received a pamphlet from the TANF program.60 This rule defined non-cash benefits as those that are worth at least $50 a month and received for at least six months. The tenets of this rule should be applied to the TANF program as well. This defi- nitional change would apply the TANF work requirements to any noncash benefit worth $50 a month and received for six consecutive months. To increase transparency, HHS should clarify how states, in their quarterly and annual reports, ought to track and audit the outcomes from how they spend TANF funds to meet the TANF program’s four statutory purposes. Additionally, TANF priorities are not implemented in an equally weighted way. Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways. CMS should require explicit measurement of these goals. — 477 — Department of Health and Human Services Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Educa- tion Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement. In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encour- aged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding. Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health met- rics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same param- eters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion text- books. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program. Adoption Reform. There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith- based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father. HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation61 that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
New Opportunities for Business Ownership and Self-Sufficiency Act
119/hr/6431
Clean Energy Demonstration Transparency Act of 2025
119/hr/1453
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to "Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales".
119/hjres/25