Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Two Versions of H.R. 4

CRS Report for Congress
Child Support Enforcement:
Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law
th
and Two Versions of H.R. 4 (108 Congress)
December 22, 2004
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 Two Versions of H.R. 4
(108th Congress)
Summary
During the 108th Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate Finance
Committee approved two different versions of a bill that would have reauthorized
and revised the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. This
legislation, H.R. 4, also included many changes to the Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) program. H.R. 4 was passed by the House in February 2003. The Senate
Finance Committee reported a substitute version of the bill in September 2003
(S.Rept. 108-162). On March 29-April 1, 2004, the Senate debated H.R. 4;
disagreement arose regarding amendments to the bill, and Republicans failed to pass
a motion to limit debate. H.R. 4 was not passed by the Senate.
Although not identical, both versions of H.R. 4 were similar in focus, direction,
and content with respect to the CSE provisions. Both versions of H.R. 4 included
provisions that sought 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
versions of the bill provided 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 have potentially
received a larger share of child support that was collected on their behalf.
The approach used by the bills differed significantly, however, with regard to
how states would help TANF families receive more child support. Under the House-
passed bill, states would have been given federal cost sharing incentives to encourage
states to increase (or establish) the amount of child support payments they pass
through to TANF families (and disregard in determining TANF benefits). The
Senate Finance Committee version of the bill provided federal cost-sharing for the
entire amount that the state disregards and passes through to families. Moreover, the
House-passed bill provided a more limited amount of federal cost sharing for state
pass-through and disregard policies than the Senate Finance Committee bill.
Both versions of the bill would have revised some CSE enforcement tools and added
others; increased funding for the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS); increased
funding for federal technical assistance to the states; required states to review child
support orders of TANF families every three years; and required that a report be
submitted to Congress on undistributed child support collections. The House-passed
bill included a provision that would have established a $25 annual user fee for
individuals who had never been on TANF but received CSE services and who
received at least $500 in any given year. The Senate Finance Committee-approved
bill included provisions that would have increased funding for the CSE access and
visitation program; and required 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. This report will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Overview of the Child Support Enforcement Program.....................1
Background ..................................................1
Services .....................................................2
Enforcement Techniques........................................2
Financing ....................................................3
H.R. 4: Major Provisions Related to Child Support Enforcement.............3
Background ..................................................3
Assignment of Child Support Rights...............................4
Distribution of Child Support....................................4
TANF Families...........................................5
Former TANF Families.....................................6
Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools.........................7
Other Provisions...............................................7
Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions of the House and Senate
Finance Committee Bills........................................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
Use of new hire information to assist in administration of
unemployment compensation programs ...........................13
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



Maintenance of technical assistance funding ...........................15
Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding (FPLS) ............16
Identification and seizure of assets held by multi-state financial institutions ...16
Information comparisons with insurance data ..........................17
Tribal access to the Federal Parent Locator Service ......................17
Reimbursement of Secretary’s costs of information comparisons and
disclosure for enforcement of obligations on higher education act
loans and grants ..............................................18
Technical amendment relating to cooperative agreements between states
and Indian tribes .............................................18
Claims upon longshore and harbor workers’ compensation for child support
...........................................................19
State option to use statewide automated data processing and information
retrieval system for interstate cases ...............................19
Interception of gambling winnings for child support .....................20
State law requirement concerning the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (UIFSA) .........................................22
Grants to states for access and visitation programs ......................23
Timing of corrective action year for state noncompliance with CSE
program requirements .........................................24
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Current Law with H.R. 4, “Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003” as Passed by the House
and “Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for
Everyone Act (PRIDE)” as Reported by the Senate Finance
Committee: Child Support Provisions.............................9



Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side
Comparison of Current Law and Two
th
Versions of H.R. 4 (108 Congress)
Introduction
During the 108th Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate Finance
Committee approved two different versions of a bill that would have reauthorized
and revised the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. This
legislation, H.R. 4, also included 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. H.R. 4 was passed by the House in February 2003. The Senate Finance
Committee reported a substitute version of the bill in September 2003 (S.Rept. 108-
162). On March 29-April 1, 2004, the Senate debated H.R. 4; disagreement arose
regarding amendments to the bill, a motion to limit debate was overruled, and the
Senate did not vote on passage of the bill.
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 (or who formerly received)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits (Title IV-A), foster care
payments, or Medicaid coverage. 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 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 responsibility and collects
payments for only 50% of its caseload. Moreover, OCSE data indicate that in
FY2003, paternity had been established or acknowledged for about 77% of the nearly
10 million children on the CSE caseload without legally identified fathers. Total
expenditures for the CSE program were $5.213 billion in FY2003; of this total, the
federal share of state and local administrative costs of the program was $3.448 billion
and the state share was $1.764 billion.
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
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.1 The statutory limit of CSE incentive payments for FY2004 is $454
million.
H.R. 4: 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, even when one of the parents is no longer living in the home.
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).2
Both versions of H.R. 4 sought 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 versions of the bill shared identical objectives
with respect to simplifying CSE assignment and distribution rules and strengthening
the “family-first” policies started in the 1996 welfare reform law, the approaches
used differed. Both versions of the bill revised some CSE enforcement tools and


1 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.
2 Elaine Sorensen, Child Support Gains Some Ground, Urban Institute, Snapshots of
America’s Families III, no. 11, Oct. 2003.

added others. The Senate-approved version of H.R. 4 included a larger list of CSE
provisions than did the House-passed bill.
This section of the report does not discuss all of the CSE provisions included
in H.R. 4. For a description of all of the CSE provisions in H.R. 4, as passed by the
House and approved by the Senate Finance Committee, 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).
H.R. 4 as passed by the House did not make any changes regarding the child
support assignment rules. In contrast, under H.R. 4 as approved by the Senate
Finance Committee, the child support assignment would have only covered any child
support that accrued while the family received TANF benefits. This meant 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 have gone to the family.
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 through3 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, 21 states were
continuing the $50 (or higher in several states) pass-through and disregard policy that
had been in effect pre-1996.4
Both versions of H.R. 4 would have provided 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, as opposed to using such collections to
reimburse state and federal coffers for welfare benefits paid to the families (often
referred to as a “family-first” policy). However the approaches of the bills differed
with respect to the limitation on the federal cost-sharing 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.
H.R. 4 as passed by the House would have allowed states to increase the amount
of collected child support they pay to families receiving TANF benefits and would
not have required the state to pay the federal government the federal share of the
increased payments. The subsidized child support pass-through payments would
have been the amount above any payments the state was making on December 31,
2001. In other words, the House-passed bill intended to increase the amount of child
support that was passed through to TANF families (and disregarded) by the state.
The House-passed bill would have limited the new 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 have been required to disregard (i.e., not
count) the child support collection paid to the family in determining the family’s
TANF benefit.


3 Under old law, the first $50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf
of an AFDC family was given to the family and disregarded as income to the family so that
it did not affect the family’s AFDC eligibility or benefit status.
4 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. Three states, GA, SC, and TN,
pass though and disregard some or all child support for purposes of their “fill-the-gap
budgeting” policies. Wisconsin passes through and disregards all child support payments.
West Virginia passes through and disregards up to $25 per month.

Unlike the House-passed bill, under the bill approved by the Senate Finance
Committee the federal government would have shared in the costs of the entire
amount of current pass-through and disregard policies used by states. H.R. 4 as
approved by the Senate Finance Committee would have allowed 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 have required 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 state would have been 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) any5
arrearages that accrued before the family began receiving TANF benefits. (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.
H.R. 4 as passed by the House would have given 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). Under the House-
passed bill, the federal government would have shared 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.
Similarly, H.R. 4 as approved by the Senate Finance Committee also would
have given states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount
of child support collected on their behalf. Further, the Senate Finance Committee
version of the bill would have simplified the CSE distribution process and eliminated


5 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, the law stipulates that the state and federal
government are to retain those collections.

the special treatment of child support arrearages collected through the federal income
tax refund offset program. Like the House-passed bill, the federal government would
have shared with the states the costs of paying child support arrearages to the family
first.
Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools
Both versions of H.R. 4 included identical or similar provisions with respect to
(1) allowing states to access information in the national new hires database to help
detect fraud in the unemployment compensation program; (2) lowering the threshold
amount for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent who owes past-due child
support; (3) facilitating the collection of child support from Social Security benefits;
(4) easing the collection of child support from veterans’ benefits; and (5) 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.
Additional provisions that would have expanded and/or enhanced the ability of
states to collect child support payments were contained in the Senate Finance
Committee-approved version of H.R. 4. They included (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) 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 (3) authorizing the HHS Secretary to
compare information obtained from gambling establishments with information on
noncustodial parents who owe past-due child support and direct the gambling
establishment to withhold from the customer’s net winnings any child support that
is owed.
Other Provisions
Both versions of the bill included provisions that would have (1) required states
to review and if appropriate adjust child support orders of TANF families every three
years; (2) required 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) established a minimum funding level for
technical assistance; and (4) established a minimum funding level for the Federal
Parent Locator Service.
The House-passed version of H.R. 4 included a provision that would have
established a $25 annual fee for individuals who had never been on TANF but
received CSE services and who received at least $500 in any given year.
The Senate Finance Committee-approved version of H.R. 4 included provisions
that would have (1) increased funding for the CSE access and visitation program; (2)
designated Indian tribes and tribal organizations as persons authorized to have access
to information in the Federal Parent Locator Service; and (3) required 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.
Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions of the
House and Senate Finance Committee Bills
Table 1 provides a detailed and comprehensive comparison of the CSE
provisions of the House-passed and Senate Finance Committee reported versions of
H.R. 4 (the welfare reauthorization bill) with current law. The table specifies the
section number in each of the bills in which the provision is found.
As noted earlier, H.R. 4 passed the House but not the Senate during the 108th
Congress. There is some concern that the widely favored CSE provisions that were
in H.R. 4 were not debated as a separate stand-alone bill. Nevertheless, it seemsth
likely that the 109 Congress will consider the substantive and numerous CSE
changes that were included in H.R. 4 as part of any new TANF reauthorization bill.



CRS-9
with H.R. 4, “Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003”
as Passed by the House and “Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act (PRIDE)” as
Reported by the Senate Finance Committee: Child Support Provisions
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
signment of childIn order to receive benefits TANF recipientsNo provision.The Committee bill stipulated that the assignment
rt rightsmust assign their child support rights to thecovers only child support that accrues during the
state. The assignment covers any child supportperiod that the family receives TANF. (In other
that accrues while the family receives TANFwords, pre-assistance arrearages would be
and any support that accrued before the familyeliminated). [Section 301(a)]
began receiving TANF.
Any assignment of rights to child support thatIn addition, the Committee bill would have given
iki/CRS-RL32258was in effect on September 30, 1997 mustremain in effect. This means that any childstates the option to discontinue pre-assistanceassignments in effect on September 30, 1997. If a
g/wsupport collected as a result of the assignmentstate chose to discontinue the child support
s.oris owed to the state and the federalassignment, the state would have given up its legal
leakgovernment.claim to collections based on such arrearages and
the state would have distributed the collections to
://wikithe family.
http
States also would have been given the option to
discontinue pre-assistance arrearage assignments in
effect after September 30, 1997 and before the
implementation date of this provision. If a state
chose to discontinue the child support assignment,
the state would have given up its legal claim to
collections based on such arrearages and the state
would distribute the collections to the family.
[Section 301(c)]



CRS-10
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
deral matchingWhile the family receives TANF benefits, theSame as current law.Same as current law.
or limitedstate is permitted to retain any current child
ss through ofsupport payments and any assigned arrearages
rtit collects up to the cumulative amount of
ents toTANF benefits which has been paid to the
milies receivingfamily. In other words, the state can decide
how much, if any, of the state share (some, all,
none) of the child support payment collected
on behalf of TANF families to send to the
fa mily.
The state is required to pay the federalFor TANF families, the House-passed bill requiredFor families who received assistance from the state
government the federal share of the childthe federal government to waive its share of an(which could include TANF or foster care) the
iki/CRS-RL32258support collected.increase in the child support pass- through (up tothe greater of $100 per month or $50 over the state’sCommittee bill would have required the federalgovernment to waive its share of child support
g/wChild support payments collected on behalf ofstipulated child support pass- through as ofcollections passed through to TANF families by the
s.orTANF families that are passed through to theDecember 31, 2001) for families that receive TANFstate and disregarded by the state — up to an
leakfamily and disregarded by the state countbenefits. To obtain the federal matching funds, theamount equal to $400 per month in the case of a
toward the TANF MOE (Maintenance-of-state would have had to disregard the amount passedfamily with one child, and up to $600 per month in
://wikiEffort) expenditure requirement.through in determining the TANF benefit amount.the case of a family with two or more children.
httpThis provision would have applied to amountsLike current law, disregarded pass-through
distributed on or after October 1, 2005. [Sectionamounts would have counted as TANF MOE
301]expenditures. [Section 301(b)]
The Committee bill included a provision that
allowed states with Section 1115 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
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
ate option to passCurrent child support payments must be paidThe House-passed bill would have given states theThe Committee bill would have simplified child
rough all childto the family if the family is no longer onoption of providing families that have left TANF thesupport distribution rules. It eliminated the special
rt paymentsTANF.full amount of the child support collected on theirtreatment of child support arrearages collected
families thatbehalf (i.e., both current child support and childthrough the federal income tax refund offset
erly receivedWith respect to former TANF families:support arrearages). The federal government wouldprogram. Therefore, all child support collections
Since October 1, 1997, child supporthave had to share with the states the costs of payingto former TANF families would have gone the
arrearages that accrue after the family leaveschild support arrearages to the family first. Thisfamily first. [Section 301(b)]
TANF also are required to be paid to theprovision would have applied to amounts distributed
family before any monies may be retained byon or after October 1, 2005. [Section 302]To the extent that the arrearage amount payable to
the state. a former TANF family in any given month under
the Committee bill exceeded the amount that
With respect to former TANF families: Sincewould have been payable to the family under
October 1, 2000, child support arrearages thatcurrent law, the state would have been able to
iki/CRS-RL32258accrued before the family began receivingTANF also are required to be distributed to theelect to have the amount paid to the familyconsidered an expenditure for Maintenance-of-
g/wfamily first.Effort (MOE) purposes. In addition, the
s.orCommittee bill amended the CSE State Plan to
leakHowever, if child support arrearages areinclude an election by the state to include whether
collected through the federal income tax refundit was using the new option to pass through all
://wikioffset program, the family does not have firstarrearage payments to former TANF families
httpclaim on the arrearage payments. Suchwithout paying the federal government its share of
arrearage payments are retained by the statesuch collections or whether it had chosen to
and the federal government.maintain the current law distribution method.
Further, the Committee bill stipulated that no later
than six months after the date of enactment of this
legislation, the Department Health and Human
Services (HHS) Secretary, in consultation with the
states, would have been 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
have taken effect October 1, 2007, or earlier at
state option (as long as the date was after
enactment of this bill). [Section 301(e)]



CRS-12
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
andatory reviewFederal law requires that the state haveRequired states to review and, if appropriate, adjustSame as House-passed bill. [Section 302]
djustment ofprocedures under which every three years thechild support orders in TANF cases every three
rtstate review and adjust (if appropriate) childyears. This provision would have taken effect on
ders for familiessupport orders at the request of either parent,October 1, 2005. [Section 303]
ANFand that in the case 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.
andatory fee forFederal law requires that non-welfare familiesRequired families that had never been on TANF toNo provision.
cessful childmust apply for CSE services, and states mustpay a $25 annual user fee when child support
rt collectioncharge an application fee that cannot exceedenforcement efforts on their behalf were successful
ily that has$25. The state may charge the application fee(i.e., at least $500 annually is collected on their
iki/CRS-RL32258against the custodial parent, pay the fee out ofstate funds, or recover it from the noncustodialbehalf). Such fees could have been recovered fromthe custodial parent, the noncustodial parent, or the
g/wparent. In addition, states have the option ofstate (with state funds). This provision would have
s.orrecovering costs in excess of the applicationtaken effect on October 1, 2004. [Section 304]
leakfee. Such recovery may be from either the
custodial parent or the noncustodial parent.
://wiki
httprt onNo provision.Required that within six months of enactment, theSame as House-passed bill. [Section 303]


ributed childHHS Secretary would have to submit to the House
rt paymentsWays and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee a report on the procedures states use to
locate custodial parents for whom child support has
been collected but not yet distributed. The report
would have been required to 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 deemed appropriate, the report would
have been required to 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 305]

CRS-13
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
f new hireFederal law requires all employers in theAuthorized State Employment Security AgenciesSame as House-passed bill. [Section 304]
ormation tonation to report basic information on every(which are responsible for administering the
innewly-hired employee to the state. States areUnemployment Compensation program) to request
ministration ofthen required to collect all this information inand receive information from the National Directory
ploymentthe State Directory of New Hires, to use thisof New Hires (which includes information from all
pensationinformation to locate noncustodial parents whoof the state directories as well as federal employers)
ogramsowe child support and to send a wagevia the HHS Secretary in order to help detect fraud
withholding order to their employer, and toin the unemployment compensation system. This
(within three business days) report allprovision would have taken effect on October 1,
information in their State Directory of New2004. [Section 306]
Hires to the National Directory of New Hires.
Information in the State Directory of New
Hires is used by State Employment Security
iki/CRS-RL32258Agencies (the agency that operates the StateUnemployment Compensation program) to
g/wmatch against unemployment compensation
s.orrecords to determine whether people drawing
leakunemployment compensation benefits are
actually working. (Note that states currently
://wikihave access to the new hire information only in
httptheir own state. Without access to data in the
national directory, a state would not receive
data regarding recent hires by federal agencies
or national corporations that report in another
state.)
e in amountFederal law stipulates that the HHS SecretaryAuthorized the denial, revocation, or restriction ofSame as House-passed bill. [Section 305]


child supportis required to submit to the Secretary of Statepassports to noncustodial parents whose child
the names of noncustodial parents who havesupport arrearages exceed $2,500, rather than
gering passportbeen certified by the state CSE agency as$5,000 as under current law. This provision would
lowing more than $5,000 in past-due childhave taken effect on October 1, 2004. [Section 307]
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
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
e of tax refundFederal law prohibits the use of the federalPermitted the federal income tax refund offsetSame as House-passed bill. [Section 306]
income tax offset program to recover past-dueprogram to be used to collect arrearages on behalf of
t-duechild support on behalf of non-welfare cases innon-welfare children who were no longer minors.
rt onwhich the child is not a minor, unless the childThis provision would have taken effect on October
lf of childrenwas determined disabled while he or she was a1, 2005. [Section 308]
o are not minorsminor 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.)
iki/CRS-RL32258rnishment ofThe disability compensation benefits ofAllowed veterans disability compensation benefitsThe Committee bill allowed veterans disability
g/wpensation paidveterans are treated differently than most formsto be intercepted (withheld) and paid on a routinecompensation benefits to be intercepted (withheld)
s.ors forof government payment for purposes of payingbasis to the custodial parent if the veteran was 60and paid on a routine basis to the custodial parent.
leakchild support. Whereas most governmentdays or more in arrears on child support payments.This provision would have prohibited the
bilities in orderpayments are subject to being automaticallyUnder the House-passed bill, this provision wouldgarnishment of any veterans disability
://wikiwithheld to pay child support, veteranshave been prohibited from being used to collectcompensation in order to collect alimony, unless
httprt obligationsdisability compensation is not subject toalimony and no more than 50% of any particularthat disability compensation was being paid
intercept. Before enactment of P.L. 108-136,disability payment would have been able to bebecause retirement benefits were being waived.
there was one exception to this rule. Thewithheld. This provision would have taken effectThe provision would have taken effect on October
exception occurred when veterans had electedon October 1, 2005. [Section 309]1, 2005. [Section 307]


to forego some of their retirement pay in order
to collect additional disability payments. The
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 Veterans
Administration intercept the disability
compensation and make the child support
payments. P.L. 108-136, enacted November
24, 2003, permits veterans to receive both

CRS-15
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
military retired pay and veterans disability
comp ensation.
proving federalFederal law stipulates that any federal agencyExpanded the federal administrative offset programSimilar to House-passed bill, but only allowed
that is owed a nontax debt (that is more thanby allowing Social Security benefits, certain BlackSocial Security benefits to be offset to collect past-
180 days past-due) must notify the Secretary ofLung benefits, and certain Railroad Retirementdue child support. [Section 308]
the Treasury to obtain an administrative offsetBoard benefits to be offset to collect past-due child
of the debt. The Department of the Treasurysupport (on behalf of families receiving CSE [Title
(or other designated federal disbursing agency)IV-D of the Social Security Act] services) in
has the authority to offset Social Securityappropriate cases selected by the states. This
benefits, certain Black Lung Board benefits,provision would have taken effect on October 1,
and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to2004. [Section 310]
collect delinquent debt owed to the United
iki/CRS-RL32258States, subject to an annual $9,000 ($750 permonth) exemption.
g/w
s.orCurrently, states have the authority to garnish
leakSocial Security benefits for child support
payments. But, Social Security payments can
://wikionly be offset for federal debt recovery. (Thus,
httpunder current law child support arrearage
payments which are enforced by states cannot
be offset from Social Security
b e ne fits/p ayme nts.)
aintenance ofFederal law appropriates an amount equal toChanged the amount available for technicalSame as House-passed bill. [Section 309]


sistance1% of the federal share of child supportassistance funding to an amount equal to 1% of the
collected on behalf of TANF families thefederal share of child support collected or the
preceding year for the Secretary to provide toamount appropriated for FY2002, whichever was
the states for: information dissemination andgreater. [Section 311]
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

CRS-16
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
or national significance relating to the
operation of CSE programs. Such funds are
available until they are expended.
aintenance ofFederal law appropriates an amount equal toChanged the amount available for the FPLS to anSame as House-passed bill. [Section 310]
2% of the federal share of child supportamount equal to 2% of the federal share of child
cator Servicecollected on behalf of TANF families thesupport collected or the amount appropriated for
(FPLS)preceding year for the Secretary to use forFY2002, whichever was greater. Made all funds
operation of the FPLS to the extent that theappropriated for this purpose available until
costs of the FPLS are not recovered by userexpended. [Section 312]
fees. Funds that were appropriated for
FY1997-FY2001 remain available until
expend ed.
iki/CRS-RL32258entification andThe 1996 welfare reform law required states toNo provision.The Committee bill authorized the HHS Secretary,
g/wizure of assetsenter into agreements with financialvia the FPLS, to assist states to perform data
s.or multi-stateinstitutions conducting business within theirmatches comparing information from states and
leakncialstate for the purpose of conducting a quarterlyparticipating multi-state financial institutions with
itutionsdata match. The data match is intended torespect to persons owing past-due child support.
://wikiidentify financial accounts (in banks, creditThe Committee bill would have authorized the
httpunions, money-market mutual funds, etc.)Secretary via the FPLS to seize assets, held by such
belonging to parents who are delinquent in thefinancial institutions, of noncustodial parents who
payment of their child support obligation. Inowe child support arrearage payments, by issuing
some cases, state law prohibits the placementa notice of a lien or levy and requiring the financial
of liens or levies on accounts outside of theinstitution to freeze and seize assets in accounts in
state and some financial institutions onlymulti-state financial institutions to satisfy child
accept liens and levies from the state where thesupport obligations. The Secretary would have
account is located. In 1998, Congress made itbeen required to transmit any assets seized under
easier for multi-state financial institutions tothe procedure to the state for accounting and
match records by permitting the FPLS to helpdistribution. The Committee bill stipulated that the
them coordinate their information.Secretary must inform affected account holders/
asset holders of their due process rights. (In effect,
the Committee bill would have resolved problems
of jurisdiction in cases where a state was pursuing
an asset in a different state). [Section 311]



CRS-17
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
ormationNo provision.No provision.The Committee bill authorized the HHS Secretary,
parisons withvia the FPLS, to compare information of
urance datanoncustodial 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. The Committee bill stipulated that
no insurer would be liable under federal or state
law for disclosures made in good faith of this
provision. [Section 312]
iki/CRS-RL32258ibal access to theThe FPLS is a national location systemNo provision.The Committee bill included Indian tribes and
g/woperated by the federal Office of Child Supporttribal organizations that operate a CSE program as
s.orcator ServiceEnforcement to assist states in locatingauthorized persons.” [Section 313]


leaknoncustodial parents, putative fathers, and
custodial parties for the establishment of
://wikipaternity and child support obligations, as well
httpas 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 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

CRS-18
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
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.
bursement ofFederal law (P.L. 106-113) authorized theNo provision.The Committee bill would have amended the
costs ofDepartment of Education to have access to thereimbursement of costs provision by eliminating
ormationNational Directory of New Hires. Thethe word additional. Thus, the Secretary of
parisons andprovisions were designed to improve theEducation would have been required to reimburse
losure forability of the Department of Education tothe HHS Secretary for any costs incurred by the
ent ofcollect on defaulted loans and grantHHS Secretary in providing requested new hires
iki/CRS-RL32258ligations onher educationoverpayments made to individuals under TitleIV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Theinformation. [Section 314]
g/woans andFederal Office of Child Support Enforcement
s.orts(OCSE) and the Department of Education
leaknegotiated and implemented a Computer
Matching Agreement in December 2000.
://wikiUnder the agreement, the Secretary of
httpEducation is required to reimburse the HHS
Secretary for the additional costs incurred by
the HHS Secretary in furnishing requested
info r matio n.
Federal law requires that any state that has aNo provision.The Committee bill would have deleted the
endmentchild welfare program and that has Indianreference to child welfare programs. [Section 315]


ating tocountry may enter into a cooperative
erativeagreement with an Indian tribe or tribal
entsorganization if the tribe demonstrates that it
een states andhas an established tribal court system with
n tribesseveral 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

CRS-19
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
have approved child support enforcement
plans.
ims uponThe Longshore and Harbor Worker’sNo provision.The Committee bill would have amended the
hore andCompensation Act is the federal workersLongshore and Harbor Workers Compensation
orkerscompensation law for maritime workers andAct to ensure that longshore or harbor workers
pensation forpersons working in shipyards and on docks,benefits that were provided by the federal
rtships, and offshore drilling platforms. The Actgovernment or by private insurers were subject to
exempts benefits paid by longshore or harborgarnishment for purposes of paying child support
employers or their insurers from all claims ofobligations. [Section 316]
creditors. Thus, Longshore and Harbor
Workers Compensation Act benefits that are
paid by longshore or harbor employers or their
iki/CRS-RL32258insurers are not subject to attachment forpayment of child support obligations.
g/w
s.orate option to useThe 1996 welfare reform law mandated statesNo provision.The Committee bill would have allowed an
leaktewideto establish procedures under which the stateassisting state to establish a child support interstate
tomated datawould use high-volume automatedcase based on another state’s request for assistance;
://wikicessing andadministrative enforcement, to the same extentand thereby an assisting state would have been able
httpormationas used for intrastate cases, in response to ato use the CSE statewide automated data
ystem forrequest from another state to enforce a childprocessing and information retrieval system for
tate casessupport order. This provision was designed tointerstate cases. [Section 317]


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

CRS-20
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
provision does not allow states to
open/establish a child support interstate case.
terception ofFederal law requires states to establishNo provision.The Committee bill would have authorized the
mbling winningsexpedited processes within the state judicialHHS Secretary via the FPLS to intercept gambling
r child supportsystem or under administrative processes forwinnings of noncustodial parents who owed past-
obtaining and enforcing child support ordersdue child support and transmit those winnings to
and determining paternity. These expeditedthe appropriate state CSE agency for distribution.
procedures include giving states authority toThe Committee bill defined gambling winnings as
secure assets to satisfy payment of past-duethe proceeds of a wager that are subject to federal
support by seizing or attaching lump-sumtax (e.g., winnings from casinos, horse racing, dog
payments from unemployment compensation,racing, jai alai, sweepstakes, parimutuel pools,
workers compensation, judgments,lotteries, etc.). The Secretary would have had to
iki/CRS-RL32258settlements, lotteries, assets held in financialinstitutions, and public and private retirementcompare information obtained from gamblingestablishments with information on persons who
g/wfunds.owe past-due support and direct the gambling
s.orestablishment to withhold from the persons net
leakwinnings (i.e., the amount left after withholding
amounts for federal taxes) all amounts not
://wikiexceeding the total amount owed in past-due child
httpsupport. In addition to the child support arrearage,
a processing fee (not to exceed 2% of the child
support arrearage amount withheld) would be
deducted from the non-custodial parent’s winnings.
These procedures would have only affected
persons who had won enough so that an IRS Form
W2-G was required to be issued to report their
winnings to the IRS and who owed a child support
arrearage payment.
The Committee bill stipulated that gambling
establishments were prohibited from paying
certain individuals any gambling winnings until the
gambling establishment has furnished the HHS
Secretary certain information so that a data match
could be performed to determine if the individuals



CRS-21
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
owed past-due child support. If a data match
occurred, the gambling establishment was to
withhold specified winnings and transfer them to
the HHS Secretary at the same time and in the
same manner as amounts withheld for federal
income tax purposes would have been transferred
to the IRS. The Committee bill required the
Secretary to promptly transfer gambling winnings
to the appropriate state CSE agency.
The Committee bill required gambling
establishments to provide written notice to the
gambler regarding the amount of the withholding,
iki/CRS-RL32258the reason and authority for the withholding, andan explanation of the individual’s due process
g/wrights, including how the individual could appeal
s.orthe withholding or the amount of the withholding
leakto the state CSE agency. The Committee bill
included non-liability protections for gambling
://wikiestablishments who comply with the provisions
httprelated to the withholding of gambling winnings
for child support purposes. Gambling
establishments that failed to comply with the
aforementioned requirements would have been
liable for the amount that should have been
withheld by the establishment.
Indian tribes and tribal organizations would have
been required to agree to comply with the
aforementioned requirements in order to receive
direct child support enforcement funding. [Section
318]



CRS-22
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
ate lawThe 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193)No provision.The Committee bill would have required that each
entrequired that on and after January 1, 1998,state’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
each state must have in effect the Uniform(UIFSA) include any amendments officially
iform InterstateInterstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), asadopted as of August 2001 by the National
mily Support Actapproved by the American Bar Association onConference of Commissioners on Uniform State
FSA)February 9, 1993, and as in effect on AugustLaws.
22, 1996, including any amendments officially
adopted as of such date by the NationalIn addition, the Committee bill clarified current
Conference of Commissioners on Uniformlaw by stipulating that a court of a state that has
State Laws.established a child support order has continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order if the
Federal law requires states to treat past-dueorder is the controlling order and the state is the
child support obligations as final judgmentschild’s state or the residence of any individual
iki/CRS-RL32258that are entitled to full faith and credit in everystate. This means that a person who has acontestant; or if the state is not the residence of thechild or an individual contestant, the contestants
g/wchild support order in one state does not haveconsent in a record or in open court that the court
s.orto obtain a second order in another state tomay continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its
leakobtain child support due should theorder. It also modifies the current rules regarding
noncustodial parent move from the issuingthe enforcement of modified orders. [Section 319]


://wikicourts jurisdiction. P.L. 103-383 restricts a
httpstate 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 childs home state, makes
several revisions to ensure that the full faith
and credit laws can be applied consistently
with UIFSA, and clarifies the rules regarding
which child support orders states must honor
when there is more than one order.

CRS-23
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
ants to states forThe 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193)No provision.The Committee bill would have increased funding
s andauthorized grants to states (via CSE funding)for Access and Visitation grants from $10 million
itation programsto establish and operate access and visitationannually to $12 million in FY2004, $14 million in
programs. The purpose of the grants is toFY2005, $16 million in FY2006, and $20 million
facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to andannually in FY2007 and each succeeding fiscal
visitation of their children. An annualyear. The Committee bill would have extended the
entitlement of $10 million from the federalAccess and Visitation program to Indian tribes and
CSE budget account is available to states fortribal organizations that had received direct child
these grants. Eligible activities include but aresupport enforcement payments from the federal
not limited to mediation, counseling,government for at least one year. The Committee
education, development of parenting plans,bill included a specified amount to be set aside for
visitation enforcement, and development ofIndian tribes and tribal organizations: $250,000 for
guidelines for visitation and alternativeFY2004; $600,000 for FY2005; $800,000 for
iki/CRS-RL32258custody arrangements. The allotment formulais based on the ratio of the number of childrenFY2006; and $1.670 million for FY2007 or anysucceeding fiscal year.
g/win the state living with only one biological
s.orparent in relation to the total number of suchThe Committee bill would have increased the
leakchildren in all states. The amount of theminimum allotment to states from $100,000 in
allotment available to a state will be this samefiscal years 1999-2003 to $120,000 in FY2004,
://wikiratio to $10 million. The allotments are to be$140,000 in FY2005, $160,000 in FY2006, and
httpadjusted to ensure that there is a minimum$180,000 in FY2007 or any succeeding fiscal year.
allotment amount of $50,000 per state forThe minimum allotment for Indian tribes and tribal
FY1997 and FY1998, and a minimum oforganizations would have been $10,000 for a fiscal
$100,000 for any year after FY1998. Statesyear. The tribal allotment would not have been
may use the grants to create their ownable to exceed the minimum state allotment for any
programs or to fund programs operated bygiven fiscal year.
courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit
organizations. The programs do not need to beThe allotment formula for Indian tribes and tribal
statewide. States must monitor, evaluate, andorganizations that operate child support
report on their programs in accord withenforcement programs would have been based on
regulations issued by the HHS Secretary.the ratio of the number of children in the tribe or
tribal organization living with only one parent in
relation to the total number of children living with
only one parent in all Indian tribes or tribal
organizations. The amount of the allotment
available to an Indian tribe or tribal organization



CRS-24
Current lawH.R. 4 (House-passed)H.R. 4 (Senate Finance Committee)
would have been this same ratio to the maximum
allotment for Indian tribes and tribal organizations
(i.e., $250,000 for FY2004; $600,000 for FY2005;
$800,000 for FY2006; and $1.670 million for
FY2007 or any succeeding fiscal year). (Pro rata
reductions would have been made if they were
necessary.) [Section 320]
ing ofFederal law requires that audits be conductedNo provision.The Committee bill would have changed the timing
at least every three years to determine whetherof the corrective action year for states that are
tatethe standards and requirements prescribed byfound to be in noncompliance of child support
ncompliancelaw and regulations have been met by theenforcement program requirements. The
th CSE programchild support program of every state. If a stateCommittee bill would have changed the corrective
iki/CRS-RL32258entsfails the audit, federal TANF funds must bereduced by an amount equal to at least one butaction year to the fiscal year following the fiscalyear in which the Secretary made a finding of
g/wnot more than 2% for the first failure tononcompliance and recommended a corrective
s.orcomply, at least 2% but not more than 3% foraction plan. This change would have been made
leakthe second failure, and at least 3% but notretroactively in order to allow the Secretary to treat
more than 5% for the third and subsequentall findings of noncompliance consistently. The
://wikifailures.provision would have taken effect with respect to
httpdeterminations of state compliance for FY2002 and
The HHS Secretary also must review statesucceeding fiscal years. [Section 321]
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.
Congressional Research Service.