For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32937
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Code RL32937
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side
Comparison of Current Law and Welfare
Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240)
June 7, 2005
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress
Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison
of Current Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills
(S. 667 and H.R. 240)
Summary
In the 109th Congress, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources have approved legislation that would
reauthorize and revise the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant. This legislation, S. 667 and H.R. 240, also includes many changes to the
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, a component of the government's social
safety net. In 1996, Congress passed significant changes to the CSE program as part
of its reform of welfare. S. 667 was reported by the Senate Finance Committee on
March 17, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-51). H.R. 240 was approved by the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on March 15, 2005.
Although not identical, both bills are similar in focus, direction, and content
with respect to the CSE provisions. Both bills include provisions that seek to
improve the CSE program and raise collections so as to increase the economic
independence of former welfare families and provide a stable source of income for
all single-parent families with a noncustodial parent. Both bills provide incentives
(in the form of federal cost sharing) to states to direct more of the child support
collected on behalf of families to the families themselves, thereby reducing the
amount that state and federal governments retain (often referred to as a family-first
policy). Under both bills, families currently receiving TANF benefits as well as
former TANF recipients would potentially receive a larger share of child support that
was collected on their behalf.
The approach used by the bills differ significantly, however, with regard to how
states would help TANF families receive more child support. S. 667 provides federal
cost-sharing for the entire amount that the state disregards and passes through to
families, whereas, under H.R. 240, federal cost sharing incentives would be offered
to encourage states to establish a child support pass-through provision or increase
the amount of existing child support pass-through payments. Also, H.R. 240
provides a more limited amount of federal cost sharing for state pass-through and
disregard policies than S. 667.
Both bills revise some CSE enforcement tools and add others; increase funding
for the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS); increase funding for federal technical
assistance to the states; require states to review child support orders of TANF
families every three years; require that a report be submitted to Congress on
undistributed child support collections; and designate Indian tribes and tribal
organizations as persons authorized to have access to information in the FPLS. S.
667 increases funding for the CSE access and visitation program; requires states to
adopt a later version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) so as to
facilitate the collection of child support payments in interstate cases; and requires that
medical child support be provided by either or both parents. H.R. 240 includes a
provision that would establish a $25 annual user fee for individuals who have never
been on TANF but received at least $500 via CSE services in any given year. This
report will be updated as needed.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Child Support Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Enforcement Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
S. 667 and H.R. 240: Major Provisions Related to Child Support
Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Assignment of Child Support Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Distribution of Child Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TANF Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Former TANF Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions in S. 667 and H.R. 240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assignment of child support rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal matching funds for limited pass through of child support
payments to families receiving TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State option to pass through all child support payments to families that
formerly received TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for families
receiving TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Mandatory fee for successful child support collection for family that has
never received TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Report on undistributed child support payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Decrease in amount of child support arrearage triggering passport denial . . . . . 13
Use of tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child support on behalf
of children who are not minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Garnishment of compensation paid to veterans for service-connected disabilities
in order to enforce child support obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Improving federal debt collection practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Maintenance of technical assistance funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding (FPLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Identification and seizure of assets held by multi-state financial institutions . . . 17
Information comparisons with Insurance data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tribal access to the Federal Parent Locator Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Reimbursement of Secretary's costs of information comparisons and disclosure
for enforcement of obligations on higher education act loans and grants . . 19
Technical amendment relating to cooperative agreements between states and
Indian tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Claims upon longshore and harbor workers' compensation for child support
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
State option to use statewide automated data processing and information
retrieval system for interstate cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
State law requirement concerning the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act (UIFSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Grants to states for access and visitation programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Timing of corrective action year for state noncompliance with CSE
program requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Requirement that state child support enforcement agencies seek medical support
for children from either parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Notice to state child support enforcement agency from health care plan
administrator under certain circumstances when a child loses health
care coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authority to continue state program for monitoring and enforcement of child
support orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Technical amendment relating to information comparisons and
disclosure to assist in federal debt collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667, the "Personal Responsibility
and Individual Development for Everyone Act (PRIDE)" as Reported by
the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240, the "Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005": Child
Support Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side
Comparison of Current Law and Welfare
Reauthorization Bills
(S. 667 and H.R. 240)
Introduction
In the 109th Congress, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources have approved legislation that would
reauthorize and revise the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant.1 This legislation, S. 667 and H.R. 240, also includes many changes to the
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, a component of the government's social
safety net. In 1996, Congress passed significant changes to the CSE program as part
of its reform of welfare. S. 667 was reported by the Senate Finance Committee on
March 17, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-51). H.R. 240 was approved by the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on March 15, 2005.
Overview of the Child Support Enforcement
Program
Background
The CSE program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted in
January 1975 (P.L. 93-647). The CSE program is administered by the Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and funded by general revenues. All 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs and are
entitled to federal matching funds. The following families automatically qualify for
CSE services (free of charge): families receiving TANF benefits (Title IV-A), foster
care payments (Title IV-E), or Medicaid coverage (Title XIX).2 Collections on
behalf of families receiving TANF benefits are used to reimburse state and federal
governments for TANF payments made to the family. Other families must apply for
1
For background and current status of this legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10140,
Welfare Reauthorization: Overview of the Issues, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, Carmen
Solomon-Fears.
2
In addition, several states have opted to require food stamp households to cooperate with
the CSE agency in establishing paternity and establishing and enforcing child support
obligations. These food stamp households also receive CSE services automatically, free of
charge.
CRS-2
CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25.
Child support collected on behalf of nonwelfare families goes to the family (usually
through the state disbursement unit).
Between FY1978 and FY2003, child support payments collected by CSE
agencies increased from $1 billion in FY1978 to $21.2 billion in FY2003, and the
number of children whose paternity was established (or acknowledged) increased by
1,274%, from 111,000 to 1.525 million. However, the program still collects only
18% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility3 and collects
payments for only 50% of its caseload. OCSE data indicate that in FY2003, paternity
had been established or acknowledged for about 77% of the nearly 10.0 million
children on the CSE caseload without legally identified fathers.
The CSE program is estimated to handle at least 50% of all child support cases;
the remaining cases are handled by private attorneys, collection agencies, or through
mutual agreements between the parents.
Services
The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1)
parent location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders,
(4) review and modification of support orders, (5) collection of support payments, (6)
distribution of support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical
support.
Enforcement Techniques
Collection methods used by CSE agencies include income withholding,
intercept of federal and state income tax refunds, intercept of unemployment
compensation, liens against property, security bonds, and reporting child support
obligations to credit bureaus. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt-
of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. Building on legislation (P.L. 102-
521) enacted in 1992, P.L. 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998,
established two new federal criminal offenses (subject to a two-year maximum prison
term) with respect to noncustodial parents who repeatedly fail to financially support
children who reside with custodial parents in another state or who flee across state
lines to avoid supporting them.
P.L. 104-193 required states to implement expedited procedures that allow them
to secure assets to satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump
sum payments (such as unemployment and workers' compensation), lottery winnings,
awards, judgements, or settlements, and assets of the debtor parent held by public or
private retirement funds, and financial institutions. It required states to implement
procedures under which the state would have authority to withhold, suspend, or
restrict use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and
3
In FY2003, $122.9 billion in child support obligations ($27.1 billion in current support and
$95.8 billion in past-due support) were owed to families receiving CSE services, but only
$22.2 billion was paid ($15.7 billion current, $6.5 billion past-due).
CRS-3
recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due support or who fail
to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support
proceedings. It also required states to conduct quarterly data matches with financial
institutions in the state in order to identify and seize the financial resources of debtor
noncustodial parents. P.L. 104-193 authorized the Secretary of State to deny, revoke,
or restrict passports of debtor parents. P.L. 104-193 also required states to enact and
implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and expand full faith
and credit procedures. P.L. 104-193 also clarified which court has jurisdiction in
cases involving multiple child support orders.
Financing
The federal government currently reimburses each state 66% of the cost of
administering its CSE program. It also refunds states 90% of the laboratory costs of
establishing paternity. In addition, the federal government pays states an incentive
payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. P.L. 104-193 required the
HHS Secretary in consultation with the state CSE directors to develop a new cost-
neutral system of incentive payments to states. P.L. 105-200, the Child Support
Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a new cost-neutral incentive
payment system.4 The statutory limit of CSE incentive payments for FY2005 is $446
million.
S. 667 and H.R. 240: Major Provisions Related to
Child Support Enforcement
Background
Over the years, the CSE program has evolved into a multifaceted program.
While cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, other aspects
of the program include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and
parental responsibility.
The CSE program has helped strengthen families by securing financial support
for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and
by helping some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by
providing the requisite CSE services. Child support payments now are generally
recognized as a very important income source for single-parent families. On average
child support constitutes 17% of family income for households that receive it (2001
data). Among poor families who receive it, child support constitutes about 30% of
family income (2001 data).5
4
Before FY2002 child support incentive payments were paid out of the federal share of
child support collections made on behalf of TANF families. As of Oct. 1, 2001, child
support incentive payments are paid with appropriated funds.
5
Elaine Sorensen, Child Support Gains Some Ground, Urban Institute, Snapshots of
America's Families III, no. 11, Oct. 2003.
CRS-4
Both S. 667 and H.R. 240 seek to improve the CSE program and raise
collections so as to increase the economic independence of former welfare families
and provide a stable source of income for all single-parent families with a
noncustodial parent. Although both bills share identical objectives with respect to
simplifying CSE assignment and distribution rules and strengthening the "family-
first" policies started in the1996 welfare reform law, the approaches used differ.
Both bills revise some CSE enforcement tools and add others. The Senate Finance
Committee-reported bill includes a larger list of CSE provisions than does the House
Subcommittee bill. This section of the report does not discuss all of the CSE
provisions included in S. 667 and H.R. 240. For a description of all of the CSE
provisions in S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240 as
approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, see
Table 1 in the last section of this report, which provides a side-by-side bill
comparison.
Assignment of Child Support Rights
As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, a family must assign their child
support rights to the state. Assignment rules determine who has legal claim on the
child support payments owed by the noncustodial parent. The child support
assignment covers any child support that accrues while the family receives TANF
benefits as well as any child support that accrued before the family started receiving
TANF benefits. Assigned child support collections are not paid to families, but
rather this revenue is kept by states and the federal government as partial
reimbursement for welfare benefits. Nonwelfare families who apply for CSE
services do not assign their child support rights to the state and thereby receive all of
the child support collected on their behalf.
An extremely important feature of the assignment process is the date on which
an assignment was entered. If the assignment was entered on or before September
30, 1997, then pre-assistance and during-assistance arrearages are "permanently
assigned" to the state. If the assignment was entered on or after October 1, 1997,
then only the arrearages which accumulate while the family receives assistance are
"permanently assigned." The family's pre-assistance arrearages are "temporarily
assigned" and the right to those arrearages goes back to the family when it leaves
TANF (unless the arrearages are collected through the federal income tax refund
offset program).
Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the child support
assignment would only cover any child support that accrues while the family receives
TANF benefits. This would mean that any child support arrearages that accrued
before the family started receiving TANF benefits would not have to be assigned to
the state (even temporarily) and thereby any child support collected on behalf of the
former-TANF family for pre-assistance arrearages would go to the family. In
contrast, H.R. 240 as approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Human Resources does not make any changes regarding the child support assignment
rules.
CRS-5
Distribution of Child Support
Distribution rules determine the order in which child support collections are
paid in accordance with the assignment rules. In other words, the distribution rules
determine which claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The order
of payment of the child support collection is of tremendous importance because in
many cases past-due child support (i.e., arrearages) are never fully paid.
TANF Families. While the family receives TANF benefits, the state is
permitted to retain any current support and any assigned arrearages it collects up to
the cumulative amount of TANF benefits which has been paid to the family. The
1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) repealed the $50 required pass through6 and gave
states the choice to decide how much, if any, of the state share (some, all, none) of
child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send the family.
States also decide whether to treat child support payments as income to the family.
While states have discretion over their share of child support collections, P.L. 104-
193 required states to pay the federal government the federal government's share of
child support collections collected on behalf of TANF families. This means that the
state, and not the federal government, bears the entire cost of any child support
passed through to (and disregarded by) families. As of August 2004, 18 states were
continuing the $50 (or higher in one state) pass-through and disregard policy that had
been in effect pre-1996.7
Both bills would provide incentives (in the form of federal cost sharing) to states
to direct more of the child support collected on behalf of TANF families to the
families themselves (often referred to as a "family-first" policy), as opposed to using
such collections to reimburse state and federal coffers for welfare benefits paid to the
families. However, the approaches of the bills differ with respect to the amount of
federal cost-sharing provided and whether to help states pay for the current cost of
their CSE pass-through and disregard policies or to encourage states to establish such
policies or increase the pass-through and disregard already in place.
Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the federal
government would share in the costs of the entire amount of pass-through and
disregard policies used by states. S. 667 would allow states to pay up to $400 per
month in child support collected on behalf of a TANF (or foster care) family ($600
per month to a family with two or more children) to the family and would not require
the state to pay the federal government the federal share of those payments. In order
for the federal government to share in the cost of the child support pass-through, the
6
Under old law, the first $50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf
of an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) family was given to the family and
disregarded as income so that it did not affect the family's AFDC eligibility or benefit
status.
7
The 17 states with the $50 pass-through and disregard policy are: AK, CA, CT, DE, IL,
KY, ME, MA, MI, NJ, NM, NY, PA, RI, TX, VT, and VA. Wisconsin passes through and
disregards all child support payments. Three states, GA, SC, and TN, pass though and
disregard some or all child support for purposes of their "fill-the-gap budgeting" policies.
West Virginia passes through and disregards up to $25 per month.
CRS-6
state would be required to disregard (i.e., not count) the child support collection paid
to the family in determining the family's TANF benefit.
Unlike S. 667, the House bill is intended to provide states with an incentive to
increase their pass-through and disregard policies. H.R. 240, as approved by the
House Subcommittee on Human Resources, would allow states to increase the
amount of collected child support they pay to families receiving TANF benefits and
would not require the state to pay the federal government the federal share of the
increased payments. The subsidized child support pass-through payments would be
the amount above any payments the state was making on December 31, 2001. The
House bill would limit the federal government's cost-sharing of the new pass-through
payments to the greater of $100 per month or $50 per month more than the state
previously was sharing with the family. In order for the federal government to share
in the cost of an increase in the child support pass-through, the state would be
required to disregard (i.e., not count) the child support collection paid to the family
in determining the family's TANF benefit.
Former TANF Families. Pursuant to the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-
193), beginning on October 1, 2000, states must distribute to former TANF families
the following child support collections first before the state and the federal
government are reimbursed (this is often referred to as the "family-first" policy): (1)
all current child support, (2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family
leaves TANF (these arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any
arrearages that accrued before the family began receiving TANF benefits.8 (Any
child support arrearages that accrue during the time the family is on TANF belong
to the state and federal government.)
One of the goals of the 1996 welfare reform law with regard to CSE distribution
provisions was to create a distribution priority that favored families once they leave
the TANF rolls. Thus, generally speaking, under current law, child support that
accrues before and after a family receives TANF goes to the family, whereas child
support that accrues while the family is receiving TANF goes to the state. This
additional family income is expected to reduce dependence on public assistance by
both promoting exit from TANF and preventing entry and re-entry to TANF.
S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee would give states the
option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages
-- including arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset
program). S. 667 would simplify the CSE distribution process and eliminate the
special treatment of child support arrearages collected through the federal income tax
refund offset program. Under S. 667 the federal government would share with the
states the costs of paying child support arrearages to the family first.
8
As mentioned above, these rules do not apply to child support collections obtained by
intercepting federal income tax refunds. If child support arrearages are collected via the
federal income tax refund offset program, current law stipulates that the state and federal
government are to retain those collections.
CRS-7
Similarly, H.R. 240 would give states the option of distributing to former TANF
families the full amount of child support collected on their behalf. Under the House
bill, the federal government would share with the states the costs of paying child
support arrearages accrued while the family received TANF as well as costs
associated with passing through to the family child support collected through the
federal income tax refund offset program, if the state chose the "family-first" option.
Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools
Both bills include identical or similar provisions with respect to (1) lowering the
threshold amount for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent who owes past-due
child support; (2) facilitating the collection of child support from Social Security
benefits; (3) easing the collection of child support from veterans' benefits; (4)
allowing states to use the federal income tax refund offset program to collect past-due
child support for persons not on TANF who are no longer minors; (5) authorizing the
HHS Secretary to compare information of noncustodial parents who owe past-due
child support with information maintained by insurers concerning insurance
payments and to furnish any information resulting from a match to CSE agencies so
they can pursue child support arrearages; and (6) allowing an assisting state to
establish a child support interstate case based on another state's request for assistance
(thereby enabling an assisting state to use the CSE statewide automated data
processing and information retrieval system for interstate cases).
Additional provisions that would expand and/or enhance the ability of states to
collect child support payments are contained in S. 667 as reported by the Senate
Finance Committee. They include: (1) authorizing the HHS Secretary to act on
behalf of states to seize financial assets (held by a multi-state financial institution)
of noncustodial parents who owe child support; (2) requiring that medical support for
a child be provided by either or both parents; and (3) requiring the CSE agency to
notify health care plan administrators under certain circumstances when a child loses
health care coverage.
Other Provisions
Both bills include provisions that would (1) require states to review and if
appropriate adjust child support orders of TANF families every three years; (2)
require the HHS Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the procedures states use
to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet
distributed; (3) establish a minimum funding level for technical assistance; (4)
establish a minimum funding level for the Federal Parent Locator Service; and (5)
designate Indian tribes and tribal organizations as persons authorized to have access
to information in the Federal Parent Locator Service.
H.R. 240 includes a provision that would establish a $25 annual fee for
individuals who have never been on TANF but receive CSE services and who
received at least $500 in any given year.
S. 667 includes provisions that would (1) increase funding for the CSE access
and visitation program; (2) require states to adopt a later version of the Uniform
CRS-8
Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) so as to facilitate the collection of child
support payments in interstate cases; and (3) allow the state of Texas to continue to
operate its CSE program for automatic monitoring and enforcement of court orders
on behalf of nonwelfare families without applying for a federal waiver.
Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions in
S. 667 and H.R. 240
Table 1 provides a detailed and comprehensive comparison of the CSE
provisions of S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240 as
approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources with
current law. The table specifies the section number in each of the bills in which the
provision is found.
CRS-9
Table 1. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667, the "Personal Responsibility and Individual
Development for Everyone Act (PRIDE)" as Reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240,
the "Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005": Child Support Provisions
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Assignment of In order to receive benefits, Stipulates that the assignment covers only No provision.
child support Temporary Assistance to Needy child support that accrues during the period
rights Families (TANF) recipients must that the family receives TANF. (In other
assign their child support rights to words, pre-assistance arrearages would be
the state. The assignment covers eliminated from the assignment.) [Section
any child support that accrues 301(a)]
while the family receives TANF
and any support that accrued
before the family began receiving
TANF.
Any assignment of rights to child Gives states the option to discontinue pre-
support that was in effect on assistance assignments in effect on
September 30, 1997 must remain September 30, 1997, or pre-assistance
in effect. This means that any arrearage assignments in effect after
child support collected as a result September 30, 1997 and before the
of the assignment is owed to the implementation date of this provision. If a
state and the federal government. state chooses to discontinue the child
support assignment, the state would have to
give up its legal claim to collections based
on such arrearages and the state would have
to distribute the collections to the family.
[Section 301(c)]
CRS-10
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Federal matching While the family receives TANF Same as current law. Same as current law.
funds for limited benefits, the state is permitted to
pass through of retain any current child support
child support payments and any assigned
payments to arrearages it collects up to the
families receiving cumulative amount of TANF
TANF benefits which has been paid to the
family (i.e., state decides how
much of the state share (some, all,
none) of the child support payment
collected on behalf of TANF
families to send to the family.
The state is required to pay the For families who received assistance from For TANF families, requires the federal
federal government the federal the state (which could include TANF or government to waive its share of an
share of the child support foster care), requires the federal government increase in the child support pass-
collected. to waive its share of child support through (up to the greater of $100 per
collections passed through to TANF month or $50 over the state's stipulated
Child support payments collected families by the state and disregarded by the child support pass-through as of
on behalf of TANF families that state -- up to an amount equal to $400 per December 31, 2001) for families that
are passed through to the family month in the case of a family with one receive TANF benefits. To obtain the
and disregarded by the state count child, and up to $600 per month in the case federal matching funds, the state would
toward the TANF Maintenance-of- of a family with two or more children. Like have to disregard the amount passed
Effort (MOE) expenditure current law, disregarded pass-through through to the family in determining the
requirement. amounts would count as TANF MOE family's TANF benefit amount. This
expenditures. [Section 301(b)] provision would apply to amounts
distributed on or after October 1, 2007.
Allows states with Section 1115 [Section 301]
demonstration waivers (on or before
October 1, 1997) related to the child support
pass-through provisions to continue to pass
through payments to families in accordance
with the terms of the waiver. [Section
301(b)]
CRS-11
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
State option to Current child support payments Simplifies child support distribution rules. Gives states the option of providing
pass through all must be paid to the family if the Eliminates the special treatment of child families that have left TANF the full
child support family is no longer on TANF. support arrearages collected through the amount of the child support collected on
payments to federal income tax refund offset program. their behalf (i.e., both current child
families that With respect to former TANF Therefore, all child support collections to support and child support arrearages).
formerly received families: Since October 1, 1997, former TANF families would go to the The federal government would have to
TANF child support arrearages that family first. [Section 301(b)] share with the states the costs of paying
accrue after the family leaves child support arrearages to the family
TANF also are required to be paid To the extent that the arrearage amount first. This provision would apply to
to the family before any monies payable to a former TANF family in any amounts distributed on or after October
may be retained by the state. given month exceeds the amount that would 1, 2007. [Section 302]
have been payable to the family under
With respect to former TANF current law, the state would be able to elect
families: Since October 1, 2000, to have the amount paid to the family
child support arrearages that considered an expenditure for Maintenance-
accrued before the family began of-Effort (MOE) purposes. In addition,
receiving TANF also are required amends the CSE State Plan to include an
to be distributed to the family first. election by the state to include whether it is
using the new option to pass through all
However, if child support arrearage payments to former TANF
arrearages are collected through families without paying the federal
the federal income tax refund government its share of such collections or
offset program, the family does whether it has chosen to maintain the
not have first claim on the current law distribution method. Stipulates
arrearage payments. Such that no later than six months after the date
arrearage payments are retained by of enactment of this legislation, the Health
the state and the federal and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, in
government. consultation with the states, would be
required to establish the procedures to be
used to make estimates of excess costs
associated with the new funding option.
[Section 301(b)]
The provisions of Section 301 of this bill
would take effect October 1, 2009, or earlier
CRS-12
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
at state option -- at any date that is 18
months after the date of enactment of the
bill but not later than September 30, 2009.
[Section 301(e)]
Mandatory Federal law requires that the state Requires states to review and, if Same as S. 667. [Section 303]
review and have procedures under which appropriate, adjust child support orders in
adjustment of every three years the state review TANF cases every three years. This
child support and adjust (if appropriate) child provision would take effect on October 1,
orders for support orders at the request of 2007. [Section 302]
families receiving either parent, and that in the case
TANF of TANF families, the state review
and update (if appropriate) child
support orders at the request of the
state CSE agency or of either
parent.
Mandatory fee for Federal law requires that non- No provision. Requires families that have never been
successful child welfare families must apply for on TANF to pay a $25 annual user fee
support collection CSE services, and states must when child support enforcement efforts
for family that charge an application fee that on their behalf are successful (i.e., at
has never cannot exceed $25. The state may least $500 annually is collected on their
received TANF charge the application fee against behalf). Such fees could be recovered
the custodial parent, pay the fee from the custodial parent, the
out of state funds, or recover it noncustodial parent, or the state (with
from the noncustodial parent. In state funds). This provision would take
addition, states have the option of effect on October 1, 2006. [Section
recovering costs in excess of the 304]
application fee. Such recovery
may be from either the custodial
parent or the noncustodial parent.
Report on No provision. Requires that within six months of Same as S. 667. [Section 305]
undistributed enactment, the HHS Secretary must submit
child support to the House Ways and Means Committee
payments and the Senate Finance Committee a report
CRS-13
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
on the procedures states use to locate
custodial parents for whom child support
has been collected but not yet distributed.
The report must include an estimate of the
total amount of undistributed child support
and the average length of time it takes
undistributed child support to be distributed.
To the extent the Secretary deems
appropriate, the report must include
recommendations as to whether additional
procedures should be established at the state
or federal level to expedite the payment of
undistributed child support. [Section 303]
Decrease in Federal law stipulates that the Authorizes the denial, revocation, or Same as S. 667. [Section 306]
amount of child HHS Secretary is required to restriction of passports to noncustodial
support arrearage submit to the Secretary of State parents whose child support arrearages
triggering the names of noncustodial parents exceed $2,500, rather than $5,000 as under
passport denial who have been certified by the current law. This provision would take
state CSE agency as owing more effect on October 1, 2006. [Section 304]
than $5,000 in past-due child
support. The Secretary of State
has authority to deny, revoke,
restrict, or limit passports to
noncustodial parents whose child
support arrearages exceed $5,000.
CRS-14
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Use of tax refund Federal law prohibits the use of Permits the federal income tax refund offset Same as S. 667. [Section 307]
intercept program the federal income tax offset program to be used to collect arrearages on
to collect past-due program to recover past-due child behalf of non-welfare children who are no
child support on support on behalf of non-welfare longer minors. This provision would take
behalf of children cases in which the child is not a effect on October 1, 2007. [Section 305]
who are not minor, unless the child was
minors determined disabled while he or
she was a minor and for whom the
child support order is still in
effect. (Since enactment in 1981
(P.L. 97-35), the federal income
tax offset program has been used
to collect child support arrearages
on behalf of welfare families
regardless of whether the children
were still minors -- as long as the
child support order was in effect.)
Garnishment of The disability compensation Allows veterans' disability compensation Allows veterans' disability
compensation benefits of veterans are treated benefits to be intercepted (withheld) and compensation benefits to be intercepted
paid to veterans differently than most forms of paid on a routine basis to the custodial (withheld) and paid on a routine basis to
for service- government payment for purposes parent. This provision prohibits the the custodial parent if the veteran is 60
connected of paying child support. Whereas garnishment of any veteran's disability days or more in arrears on child support
disabilities in most government payments are compensation in order to collect alimony payments. This provision is prohibited
order to enforce subject to being automatically unless that disability compensation is being from being used to collect alimony and
child support withheld to pay child support, paid because retirement benefits were no more than 50% of any particular
obligations veterans disability compensation is waived. The provision would take effect on disability payment may be withheld.
not subject to intercept. Before October 1, 2007. [Section 306] This provision would take effect on
enactment of P.L. 108-136, there October 1, 2007. [Section 308]
was one exception to this rule.
The exception occurred when
veterans had elected to forego
some of their retirement pay in
order to collect additional
disability payments. The
CRS-15
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
advantage of veterans replacing
retirement pay with disability pay
is that the disability pay is not
subject to taxation. With this
exception, the only way to obtain
child support payments from
veterans' disability compensation
was to request that the Secretary of
the Department of Veteran Affairs
intercept the disability
compensation and make the child
support payments. P.L. 108-136,
enacted November 24, 2003,
permits veterans to receive both
military retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation.
Improving federal Federal law stipulates that any Similar to H.R. 240, but only allows Social Expands the federal administrative
debt collection federal agency that is owed a Security benefits to be offset to collect past- offset program by allowing Social
practices nontax debt (that is more than 180 due child support. The Committee bill Security benefits, certain Black Lung
days past-due) must notify the specifically overrules section 207 of the benefits, and certain Railroad
Secretary of the Treasury to obtain Social Security Act which states that Social Retirement Board benefits (RR) to be
an administrative offset of the Security benefits are not transferrable by offset to collect past-due child support
debt. The Department of the garnishment. The provision would take (on behalf of families receiving CSE
Treasury (or other designated effect on a date that is 18 months after the [Title IV-D of the Social Security Act]
federal disbursing agency) has the date of enactment. [Section 307] services) in appropriate cases selected
authority to offset Social Security by the states. This provision would take
benefits, certain Black Lung Board effect on October 1, 2006. [Section
benefits, and certain Railroad 309]
Retirement benefits to collect
delinquent debt owed to the
United States, subject to an annual
$9,000 ($750 per month)
exemption.
CRS-16
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Currently, states have the authority
to garnish Social Security benefits
for child support payments. But,
Social Security payments can only
be offset for federal debt recovery.
(Thus, under current law child
support arrearage payments which
are enforced by states cannot be
offset from Social Security
benefits/payments.)
Maintenance of Federal law appropriates an Changes the amount available for technical Same as S. 667. [Section 310]
technical amount equal to 1% of the federal assistance funding to an amount equal to 1%
assistance funding share of child support collected on of the federal share of child support
behalf of TANF families the collected or the amount appropriated for
preceding year for the Secretary to FY2002, whichever is greater. [Section
provide to the states for: 308]
information dissemination and
technical assistance, training of
state and federal staff, staffing
studies, and related activities
needed to improve CSE programs
(including technical assistance
concerning state automated CSE
systems), and research
demonstration and special projects
of regional or national significance
relating to the operation of CSE
programs. Such funds are
available until they are expended.
Maintenance of Federal law appropriates an Changes the amount available for the FPLS Same as S. 667. [Section 311]
Federal Parent amount equal to 2% of the federal to an amount equal to 2% of the federal
Locator Service share of child support collected on share of child support collected or the
funding (FPLS) behalf of TANF families the amount appropriated for FY2002,
CRS-17
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
preceding year for the Secretary to whichever is greater. Makes all funds
use for operation of the FPLS to appropriated for this purpose available until
the extent that the costs of the expended. [Section 309]
FPLS are not recovered by user
fees. Funds that were appropriated
for FY1997-FY2001 remain
available until expended.
Identification and The 1996 welfare reform law Authorizes the HHS Secretary, via the No provision.
seizure of assets required states to enter into FPLS, to assist states to perform data
held by multi- agreements with financial matches comparing information from states
state financial institutions conducting business and participating multi-state financial
institutions within their state for the purpose institutions with respect to persons owing
of conducting a quarterly data past-due child support. Authorizes the
match. The data match is intended Secretary via the FPLS to seize assets, held
to identify financial accounts (in by such financial institutions, of
banks, credit unions, noncustodial parents who owe child support
money-market mutual funds, etc.) arrearage payments, by issuing a notice of a
belonging to parents who are lien or levy and requiring the financial
delinquent in the payment of their institution to freeze and seize assets in
child support obligation. In some accounts in multi-state financial institutions
cases, state law prohibits the to satisfy child support obligations.
placement of liens or levies on Requires the Secretary to transmit any
accounts outside of the state and assets seized under the procedure to the
some financial institutions only state for accounting and distribution.
accept liens and levies from the Stipulates that the Secretary must inform
state where the account is located. affected account holders/ asset holders of
In 1998, Congress made it easier their due process rights. (In effect, the
f o r mu l t i -s t a t e f i n a n c i a l Committee bill would resolve problems of
institutions to match records by jurisdiction in cases where a state was
permitting the FPLS to help them pursuing an asset in a different state.)
coordinate their information. [Section 310]
Information No provision. Authorizes the HHS Secretary, via the Same as S. 667. [Section 312]
comparisons with FPLS, to compare information of
CRS-18
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Insurance data noncustodial parents who owe past-due
child support with information maintained
by insurers (or their agents) concerning
insurance claims, settlements, awards, and
payments; and to furnish any information
resulting from a match to the appropriate
state CSE agency in order to secure
settlements, awards, etc. for payment of
past-due child support. Stipulates that no
insurer would be liable under federal or
state law for disclosures made in good faith
of this provision. [Section 311]
Tribal access to The FPLS is a national location Includes Indian tribes and tribal Same as S. 667. [Section 313]
the Federal system operated by the federal organizations that operate a CSE program as
Parent Locator Office of Child Support "authorized persons." [Section 312]
Service Enforcement to assist states in
locating noncustodial parents,
putative fathers, and custodial
parties for the establishment of
paternity and child support
obligations, as well as the
enforcement and modification of
orders for child support, custody
and visitation. It also identifies
support orders or support cases
involving the same parties in
different states. The FPLS
consists of the Federal Case
Registry, Federal Offset Program,
Multi-state Financial Institution
Data Match, National Directory of
New Hires, and the Passport
Denial Program. Additionally, the
FPLS has access to external
CRS-19
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
sources such as the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), the Social
Security Administration (SSA),
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), the Department of Defense
(DOD), and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). The FPLS is
only allowed to transmit
information in its databases to
"authorized persons," which
include (1) child support
enforcement agencies (and their
attorneys and agents); (2) courts,
(3) the resident parent, legal
guardian, attorney, or agent of a
child owed child support; and (4)
foster care and adoption agencies.
Reimbursement Federal law (P.L. 106-113) Amends the reimbursement of costs Same as S. 667. [Section 314]
of Secretary's authorized the Department of provision by eliminating the word
costs of Education to have access to the "additional." Thus, the Secretary of
information National Directory of New Hires. Education would be required to reimburse
comparisons and The provisions were designed to the HHS Secretary for any costs incurred by
disclosure for improve the ability of the the HHS Secretary in providing requested
enforcement of Department of Education to collect new hires information. [Section 313]
obligations on on defaulted loans and grant
higher education overpayments made to individuals
act loans and under the Higher Education Act of
grants 1965. Under the Computer
Matching Agreement, the
Secretary of Education is required
to reimburse the HHS Secretary
for the additional costs incurred
by the HHS Secretary in
furnishing requested information.
CRS-20
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Technical Federal law requires that any state Deletes the reference to child welfare Same as S. 667. [Section 315]
amendment that has a child welfare program programs. [Section 314]
relating to and that has Indian country may
cooperative enter into a cooperative agreement
agreements with an Indian tribe or tribal
between states organization if the tribe
and Indian tribes demonstrates that it has an
established tribal court system
with several specific
characteristics related to paternity
establishment and the
establishment and enforcement of
child support obligations. The
HHS Secretary may make direct
payments to Indian tribes and
tribal organizations that have
approved child support
enforcement plans.
Claims upon The Longshore and Harbor Amends the Longshore and Harbor No provision.
longshore and Worker's Compensation Act is the Workers' Compensation Act to ensure that
harbor workers' federal worker's compensation longshore or harbor workers benefits that
compensation for law for maritime workers and are provided by the federal government or
child support persons working in shipyards and by private insurers are subject to
on docks, ships, and offshore garnishment for purposes of paying child
drilling platforms. It exempts support obligations. [Section 315]
benefits paid by longshore or
harbor employers or their insurers
from all claims of creditors. Thus,
Longshore and Harbor Worker's
Compensation Act benefits that
are paid by longshore or harbor
employers or their insurers are not
subject to attachment for payment
of child support obligations.
CRS-21
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
State option to use The 1996 welfare reform law Allows an assisting state to establish a child Same as S. 667. [Section 316]
statewide mandated states to establish support interstate case based on another
automated data procedures under which the state state's request for assistance; and thereby an
processing and would use high-volume automated assisting state would be able to use the CSE
information administrative enforcement, to the statewide automated data processing and
retrieval system same extent as used for intrastate information retrieval system for interstate
for interstate cases, in response to a request cases. [Section 316]
cases from another state to enforce a
child support order. This
provision was designed to enable
child support agencies to quickly
locate and secure assets held by
delinquent noncustodial parents in
another state without opening a
full-blown interstate child support
enforcement case in the other
state. The assisting state must use
automatic data processing to
search various state data bases
including financial institutions,
license records, employment
service data, and state new hire
registries, to determine whether
information is available regarding
a parent who owes a child support
obligation. The assisting state is
then required to seize any
identified assets. This provision
does not allow states to
open/establish a child support
interstate case.
State law The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. Requires that each state's Uniform No provision.
requirement 104-193) required that on and after Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
concerning the January 1, 1998, each state must include any amendments officially adopted
CRS-22
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
Uniform have in effect the Uniform as of August 2001 by the National
Interstate Family Interstate Family Support Act Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
Support Act (UIFSA), as approved by the State Laws.
(UIFSA) American Bar Association on
February 9, 1993, and as in effect Clarifies current law by stipulating that a
on August 22, 1996, including any court of a state that has established a child
amendments officially adopted as support order has continuing, exclusive
of such date by the National jurisdiction to modify its order if the order
Conference of Commissioners on is the controlling order and the state is the
Uniform State Laws. child's state or the residence of any
individual contestant; or if the state is not
Federal law requires states to treat the residence of the child or an individual
past-due child support obligations contestant, the court has the contestant's
as final judgments that are entitled consent in a record or in open court that the
to full faith and credit in every court may continue to exercise jurisdiction
state. This means that a person to modify its order. Also modifies the
who has a child support order in current rules regarding the enforcement of
one state does not have to obtain a modified orders. [Section 317]
second order in another state to
obtain child support due should
the noncustodial parent move from
the issuing court's jurisdiction.
P.L. 103-383 restricts a state
court's ability to modify a child
support order issued by another
state unless the child and the
custodial parent have moved to the
state where the modification is
sought or have agreed to the
modification. The 1996 welfare
reform law (P.L. 104-193)
clarified the definition of a child's
home state, makes several
revisions to ensure that the full
faith and credit laws can be
CRS-23
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
applied consistently with UIFSA,
and clarifies the rules regarding
which child support orders states
must honor when there is more
than one order.
Grants to states The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. Increases funding for Access and Visitation No provision.
for access and 104-193) authorized grants to grants from $10 million annually to $12
visitation states (via CSE funding) to million in FY2006, $14 million in FY2007,
programs establish and operate access and $16 million in FY2008, and $20 million
visitation programs. The purpose annually in FY2009 and each succeeding
of the grants is to facilitate fiscal year. Extends the Access and
noncustodial parents' access to Visitation program to Indian tribes and
and visitation of their children. An tribal organizations that had received direct
annual entitlement of $10 million child support enforcement payments from
from the federal CSE budget the federal government for at least one year.
account is available to states for Includes a specified amount to be set aside
these grants. Eligible activities for Indian tribes and tribal organizations:
include but are not limited to $250,000 for FY2006; $600,000 for
mediation, counseling, education, FY2007; $800,000 for FY2008; and $1.670
development of parenting plans, million for FY2009 or any succeeding fiscal
visitation enforcement, and year.
development of guidelines for
visitation and alternative custody Increases the minimum allotment to states
arrangements. The allotment to $120,000 in FY2006, $140,000 in
formula is based on the ratio of the FY2007, $160,000 in FY2008, and
number of children in the state $180,000 in FY2009 or any succeeding
living with only one biological fiscal year. The minimum allotment for
parent in relation to the total Indian tribes and tribal organizations would
number of such children in all be $10,000 for a fiscal year. The tribal
states. The amount of the allotment would not be able to exceed the
allotment available to a state will minimum state allotment for any given
be this same ratio to $10 million. fiscal year.
The allotments are to be adjusted
to ensure that there is a minimum The allotment formula for Indian tribes and
CRS-24
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
allotment amount of $50,000 per tribal organizations that operate child
state for FY1997 and FY1998, and support enforcement programs would be
a minimum of $100,000 for any based on the ratio of the number of children
year after FY1998. States may use in the tribe or tribal organization living with
the grants to create their own only one parent in relation to the total
programs or to fund programs number of children living with only one
operated by courts, local public parent in all Indian tribes or tribal
agencies, or nonprofit organizations. The amount of the allotment
organizations. The programs do available to an Indian tribe or tribal
not need to be statewide. States organization would be this same ratio to the
must monitor, evaluate, and report maximum allotment for Indian tribes and
on their programs in accord with tribal organizations (i.e., $250,000 for
regulations issued by the HHS FY2006; $600,000 for FY2007; $800,000
Secretary. for FY2008; and $1.670 million for FY2009
or any succeeding fiscal year). (Pro rata
reductions would be made if they are
necessary.) [Section 318]
Timing of Federal law requires that audits be Changes the timing of the corrective action No provision.
corrective action conducted at least every three year for states that are found to be in
year for state years to determine whether the noncompliance of child support
noncompliance standards and requirements enforcement program requirements.
with CSE prescribed by law and regulations Changes the corrective action year to the
program have been met by the child support fiscal year following the fiscal year in
requirements program of every state. If a state which the Secretary made a finding of
fails the audit, federal TANF funds noncompliance and recommended a
must be reduced by an amount corrective action plan. This change would
equal to at least 1% but not more be made retroactively in order to allow the
than 2% for the first failure to Secretary to treat all findings of
comply, at least 2% but not more noncompliance consistently. The provision
than 3% for the second failure, and would take effect with respect to
at least 3% but not more than 5% determinations of state compliance for
for the third and subsequent FY2002 and succeeding fiscal years.
failures. [Section 319]
CRS-25
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
The HHS Secretary also must
review state reports on compliance
with federal requirements and
provide states with
recommendations for corrective
action. The purpose of the audits
is to assess the completeness,
reliability, and security of data
reported for use in calculating the
performance indicators and to
assess the adequacy of financial
management of the state program.
Federal law calls for penalties to
be imposed against states that fail
to comply with a corrective action
plan in the succeeding fiscal year.
Requirement that Federal law requires that a state Requires that medical support for a child be No provision.
state child CSE agency issue a notice to the provided by either or both parents and that
support employer of a noncustodial parent, it must be enforced. Includes language that
enforcement who is subject to a child support authorizes the state CSE agency to enforce
agencies seek order issued by a court or medical support against a custodial parent
medical support administrative agency, informing whenever health care coverage is available
for children from the employer of the parent's to the custodial parent at reasonable cost.
either parent obligation to provide health care Stipulates that medical support may include
coverage for the child(ren). The health care coverage (including payment of
employer must then determine costs of premiums, co-payments, and
whether family health care deductibles) and payment of medical
coverage is available for which the expenses incurred on behalf of a child.
dependent child(ren) may be [Section 320]
eligible, and if so, the employer
must notify the plan administrator
of each plan covered by the
National Medical Support Notice.
If the dependent child(ren) is/are
CRS-26
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
eligible for coverage under a plan,
the plan administrator is required
to enroll the dependent child(ren)
in an appropriate plan. The plan
administrator also must notify the
noncustodial parent's employer of
the premium amount to be
withheld from the employee's
paycheck.
Notice to state Federal law requires the health Requires the health care plan administrator No provision.
child support care plan administrator to notify to notify the state CSE agency if the
enforcement qualified beneficiaries of their noncustodial parent with the health care
agency from beneficiary rights with regard to coverage dies, loses his or her job or is
health care plan health care coverage when or if working fewer hours, becomes eligible for
administrator one of the following events Medicaid benefits, or is involved in a
under certain occurs: (1) the noncustodial bankruptcy proceeding pertaining to the
circumstances parent with the health care noncustodial parent's former employer. In
when a child loses coverage dies; (2) the noncustodial addition, requires the health care plan
health care parent with the health care administrator to notify the state CSE agency
coverage coverage loses his or her job or if the noncustodial parent with the health
starts working fewer hours; (3) the care coverage gets divorced or obtains a
noncustodial parent with the health legal separation, or if the noncustodial
care coverage becomes eligible for parent's child ceases to be a dependent child
Medicaid benefits; (4) the (in cases where the noncustodial parent has
noncustodial parent with the health notified the plan administrator of such an
care coverage becomes involved in occurrence). [Section 321]
a bankru p t c y proceeding
pertaining to his or her former
employer; (5) the noncustodial
parent with the health care
coverage gets divorced or obtains
a legal separation; or (6) the child
of the noncustodial parent with the
health care coverage ceases to be a
CRS-27
H.R. 240 (as approved by the House
S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources)
dependent child. (With respect to
(5) and (6), the noncustodial
parent (i.e., the covered employee)
is required to notify the health care
plan administrator of such an
event.)
Authority to Federal law stipulates that the Allows the state of Texas to continue to No provision.
continue state following families automatically operate its CSE program for automatic
program for qualify for CSE services: families monitoring and enforcement of court orders
monitoring and receiving TANF benefits (Title on behalf of a nonwelfare families without
enforcement of IV-A), foster care payments (Title applying for a federal waiver. Currently the
child support IV-E), Medicaid coverage (Title state of Texas does not require these
orders XIX), or food stamps (if families to apply for CSE services. [Section
cooperation is required by the 322]
state). Other families must apply
for CSE services.
Technical P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Makes technical changes to the No provision.
amendment Appropriations Act of 2005, added Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005
relating to provisions related to the with respect to references to Title IV-D
information comparison of data from the provisions related to information
comparisons and Secretary of the Treasury with comparisons and other disclosures. [Section
disclosure to data in the National Directory of 323]
assist in federal New Hires for the purpose of
debt collection collecting nontax debt owed to the
federal government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32937