[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H864-H877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CHILD SUPPORT PERFORMANCE AND INCENTIVE ACT OF 1998

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 378 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 378

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3130) to provide for an alternative penalty 
     procedure for states that fail to meet Federal child support 
     data processing requirements, to reform Federal incentive 
     payments for effective child support performance, and to 
     provide for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that 
     violate interjurisdictional adoption requirements. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute for failure to comply with section 303(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. No amendment 
     shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Points of order against the amendment printed 
     in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 
     6 of rule XXIII for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule 
     XVI are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
     may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration 
     in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote 
     on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum 
     time for electronic voting on any postponed question that 
     follows another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 378 is a modified open rule providing 
for a fair and thorough debate of H.R. 3130, The Child Support 
Performance and Incentive Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Under the rule, any Member 
seeking to improve the bill by offering a germane amendment may do so. 
The only requirement is that their amendment be preprinted in the 
Congressional Record.
  Normally the Committee on Rules merely affords priority recognition 
to Members who preprint their amendments in the Record, but this rule 
requires it. That is because the underlying bill is very technical in 
nature.
  For example, it establishes formulas under which States are penalized 
for noncompliance with Federal requirements. In addition, the bill 
represents a carefully negotiated agreement with the administration, 
and amendments to change the bill could compromise the broad support it 
has earned. Therefore, it is important that the Committee on Ways and 
Means is aware of any possible amendments to the bill.
  The rule also waives points of order against the consideration of an 
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). 
Simply put, the Cardin amendment would deny visas to foreign nationals 
owing more than $5,000 in child support payments. It also prohibits the 
naturalization of individuals who are not in compliance with child 
support orders.
  In testimony to the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) explained that his amendment has bipartisan support among 
members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that the Committee on 
the Judiciary, which has primary jurisdiction over his amendment, has 
no objection to its consideration.
  In an effort to speed up consideration of H.R. 3130, the rule will 
allow votes to be postponed and reduced to 5 minutes, if the postponed 
question follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, this rule provides for the 
customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues enthusiastically supported this 
legislation in 1988 and in 1996 that sought to improve our Nation's 
system of collecting child support. The fact is that in many States the 
difference between what is owed in child support and what is actually 
collected amounts to millions, if not billions, of dollars, which never 
reach the children who are depending on it. If we want self-sufficiency 
to be a reality for many low-income single-parent families, we must do 
better.
  In recognition of the Nation's poor record of enforcement, Congress 
instructed the States to establish statewide data systems to help track 
down deadbeat parents and make them pay. States were given Federal tax 
dollars to set up these systems, and it is incumbent upon them to do 
so. However, some States have not been able to meet the Federal 
standards and deadlines, and as a result, they are facing very 
significant penalties. No one is suggesting that penalties are 
inappropriate. The question is whether the punishment matches the 
crime.
  Under current law, the penalties are stiff. States that did not meet 
the October 1 deadline last year are at risk of losing their Federal 
child support money, as well as their entire welfare block grant. This 
type of penalty does not just scold States, it threatens to decimate 
their entire child support program.
  I think the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) said these 
penalties are the equivalent of issuing the death penalty for stealing 
a loaf of bread. My State of Ohio offers a good example of why H.R. 
3130 is necessary.

[[Page H865]]

  Ohio had installed its statewide child support enforcement network in 
all 88 of our counties in advance of the designated deadline. In Ohio's 
view, the State was in compliance. However, since Ohio had not entered 
the data into the system, HHS considered them in violation of Federal 
requirements. As a result, Ohio was threatened with losing its Federal 
child support money, as well as the State's entire 728 million TANF 
block grant.
  In my mind, that is an excessive penalty that does not square with 
congressional intent, gives no consideration to the good-faith effort 
Ohio and other States have made to achieve the Herculean task of 
setting up statewide systems, and more importantly, it does nothing to 
help Ohio's children, who are in desperate need of their parents' 
financial support.
  H.R. 3130 will move us toward a more reasonable policy that will give 
States a strong incentive to get their child support programs up to 
speed, without letting them off the hook for unacceptable delays. Under 
this bill, Ohio still loses about $1.1 million, and faces additional 
penalties if they do not have their systems up and running by October 
of this year. This penalty is real, and the threat of additional fines 
is sufficient to encourage Ohio and other States into quick compliance 
without compromising the State's ability to meet the needs of children 
and families.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) deserve congratulations for 
their good work on this bill, which addresses a real and immediate 
problem with a fair, bipartisan solution.
  In the interests of children across the Nation who are waiting for 
their parents to give them the support they deserve, I urge every 
Member to vote yes on the rule and yes on this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified open rule. It will 
allow for a fair debate on H.R. 3130. As my colleague has described, 
this rule provides 1 hour of general debate. That will be equally 
divided between the majority and the minority.
  Under this rule, only amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
ll be in order. The rule also waives points of order against an 
amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  In 1988, Congress passed a law that required States to computerize 
their systems to monitor enforcement of child support payments. Any 
State that failed to meet this deadline for making the change would 
lose substantial Federal benefits. Apparently what has happened is 
fewer than half the States really met the deadline as of October 1, 
1997.
  This bill recognizes the difficulty in meeting the deadline. It 
creates less severe penalties for States that make a good-faith effort 
to meet the requirements. The bill also creates new incentives for the 
States to improve the effectiveness of their child support programs. 
The Committee on Rules approved the rule by voice vote, and it had 
support on both sides of the aisle. I would urge adoption of the rule.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, it 
appears, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Pursuant to House Resolution 
378 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3130.
  The Chair designates the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1200


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3130) to provide for an alternative penalty procedure for States 
that fail to meet Federal child support data processing requirements, 
to reform Federal incentive payments for effective child support 
performance, and to provide for a more flexible penalty procedure for 
States that violate interjurisdictional adoption requirements, with Mr. 
Camp (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a sledge hammer now hangs over the States. Because of 
bipartisan legislation enacted back in 1988, States that violated the 
deadline for establishing good computer systems in their child support 
enforcement programs will lose all of their child support funds and, 
eventually, all of their funds in the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant, that is TANF. Here is an idea of how huge these 
penalties are: In California, they would amount to $4 billion a year; 
Michigan would be $880 million; in Pennsylvania, $800 million; in 
Illinois, $650 million.
  Penalties of this magnitude are devastating and would cripple both 
the child support and the welfare programs being run by those States. 
Then everyone would lose: the Federal Government, State government, and 
families and children, most of them poor.
  What we need is a new penalty that will be serious enough to motivate 
the States to do the right thing, yet moderate enough not to cripple 
the States' programs. This is exactly what this bill does.
  Specifically, under this bill noncompliant States will lose 4 percent 
of their child support money but none of their TANF welfare money the 
first year they are out of compliance; 8 percent the second year they 
are out of compliance; 16 percent the third; and 20 percent for the 
fourth and subsequent years.
  To give an idea of the impact of this bill, consider the following 
comparisons: California would be penalized $11 million, not $4 billion. 
Michigan would be penalized $4 million, not $880 million. Pennsylvania 
would be penalized $3 million, not $800 million. Illinois will be 
penalized $3 million, not $650 million.
  Yes, the penalties under this bill are moderate compared to those of 
current law. But no Member would think that they are weak. When this 
bill is enacted, at least 16 States will pay penalties that total about 
$30 million. This amount is greater than all the child support 
penalties imposed against States in this program for the previous 
decade.
  At the request of several States and Members of this body, we also 
included a waiver procedure in this bill that gives States some 
flexibility in how they can fulfill the most important computer 
requirement in Federal child support legislation, creating a computer 
system that links all the counties and cities of the States together in 
a common system. The General Accounting Office assures us that the 
technology to link together computer systems that operate on different 
software is now readily available, so we should allow the States to use 
this technology and then help them to pay for it.
  But our provision is carefully drafted to ensure that the linked 
systems perform efficiently and that the Secretary has adequate 
information and authority to disallow systems that are not adequate.
  The most important feature of this bill is that we have worked for 
nearly

[[Page H866]]

5 months to build a bipartisan, bicameral approach that is supported by 
the administration, the States, and child advocates. And here I have to 
compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my esteemed 
colleague. The gentleman and his staff have contributed greatly, at 
least as much to this bill as the majority. The gentleman from Michigan 
has repeatedly helped us to find the middle ground between competing 
forces that tried to move the penalties towards the extremes. Thanks in 
large part to the gentleman and the members of his subcommittee, this 
bill has found that magic place along the continuum of penalties that 
allows all sides to support our bipartisan approach.
  Thus, it is not surprising that this bill enjoys nearly universal 
support. All sides support the bill because it represents the middle 
ground between severe penalties that will cripple the States and 
moderate penalties that will motivate the States to do the right thing.
  In addition to a few minor and technical provisions, the bill also 
contains a very useful reform of the Nation's child support incentive 
program. Under current law, generous child support incentives are paid 
to States that conduct inefficient child support programs. More than 
half the money is now given away without any regard to the programs's 
efficiency. Under the system created by this bill, States will receive 
incentive payments only for effective performance.
  Virtually everyone who has studied the new system has concluded that 
it would lead to improvements in child support performance by the 
States. The House enacted this reform last year, but the Senate failed 
to take it up, so we are going to send it back to them once again.
  The heart of this bill is the penalty provision. It is fair, it is 
tough, and it enjoys nearly universal support. So let us now move 
quickly to enact this bill and to impose serious but not crippling 
fines on States that have failed to build effective computer systems. 
If we take this action, I can virtually assure the Members that within 
a year all but one or two States will have their systems and will meet 
all the Federal requirements. More importantly, we will have taken yet 
another step towards creating a child support system that ensures that 
children get the financial support they need and deserve.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I am proud to be cosponsor with the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the committee, on this legislation.
  This Congress has been at this problem for a decade, and we are 
talking here about the children of America and children who are in 
great need. We made some progress in the last 10 years. Support orders 
have become more numerous and they have become more enforced. But it 
remains this today: About half of the children where there is a 
separation and a divorce in most cases do not have a support order. And 
in the half of the cases where they do, there is not in many of them 
full compliance with that order.
  Madam Chairman, this is an essential part of our effort to provide 
strength, support within the family where there is need. The gentleman 
from Florida and his staff have worked endlessly with our staff and 
with the administration, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Shaw-
Levin bill on child support.
  Madam Chairman, I want to emphasize that I think this is a tough 
bill. The earlier legislation had penalties that essentially were never 
going to be implemented. And penalties that are so far off the chart 
that they will never happen are really not penalties.
  What the gentleman from Florida and I and others have done here is to 
replace penalties that were not enforceable with penalties that indeed, 
as the gentleman has said, are going to be implemented. The States that 
have not met the deadline are going to pay a realistic price, and the 
gentleman has outlined how they will be implemented, starting with 4 
percent of the child support administrative funds.
  We do allow an alternative where States have counties which have 
developed elaborate systems and effective systems, those States where 
they can piece together a system so it is fully integrated as if it 
were a single system can ask HHS for a waiver. That authority is within 
HHS. And all States must be forewarned if they are going to ask for a 
waiver, they have to come up with a system that is going to be as 
efficient, as quick, as subject to complete implementation as if there 
were a single integrated system.
  We also provide in this bill for an incentive system that will truly 
work, based, as the gentleman from Florida said, on five elements: the 
degree of paternity establishment, the establishment of support orders, 
collections on those orders, collections on arrearages, and cost-
effectiveness.
  So this is an important day for tens of thousands of kids of America. 
What we are doing here on a bipartisan basis is to say to them, the 
States shall meet their responsibility. We gave hundreds of millions of 
dollars from the Federal Treasury so the States would implement a 
system that was faithful to the children who were supposed to be 
protected. And now, within a reasonably short period of time, every 
support order is going to be, hopefully, implemented within a State and 
across State lines.
  So, again, I want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and 
to the staff, as well as to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) who 
is also on the committee, to all of my Democratic colleagues on Ways 
and Means, and to the staff and the administration, a job well done. We 
are going to be busy on the other side of the rotunda to see that this 
time what we pass will become law.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a hard-working member of the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) for yielding me this time, and for his leadership on this issue. 
I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his 
efforts, as well.
  Madam Chairman, the bill before us today, the Child Support 
Performance and Incentive Act, is important to our Nation's children 
for two major reasons.
  First, our legislation says that Federal incentive payments to the 
States for child support should be based on good performance. The 
better a State does at collecting child support for our children, the 
more they will get in incentive payments.
  Regrettably, our current system does not base payments on how well 
the State actually performs at child support collection. It is time we 
changed this, and we are doing it in a bipartisan and careful manner, 
working with child advocates, with the administration and experts from 
the States and local communities.
  Second, our bill will help States develop better computer systems 
that can accurately and efficiently manage State child support 
programs. These computers play a vital role in helping States collect 
child support for children. Many States, 32, in fact, have not met the 
deadlines Congress set in 1988 and there are plenty of reasons why.
  Partly, in 1988 no one had any idea about how the world of computers 
would look a decade later. The personal computer on my desk today is as 
powerful as many statewide computer systems were back in 1988. These 
things have changed dramatically in the last 10 years, and States 
rightfully want some flexibility in how those requirements are 
enforced.
  Madam Chairman, we need to continue building a strong and effective 
child support system. Whether for families leaving welfare or single 
parents struggling to get by, our bill is crucial to America's children 
so they can start getting the support they need and deserve.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), my colleague and friend who has worked hard on 
this issue.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman

[[Page H867]]

from Michigan for yielding time to me. I would like to commend both the 
gentleman from Michigan and gentleman from Florida, chairman of 
committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee. They have done an 
outstanding job in putting together a bipartisan consensus. I truly 
appreciate their efforts and the fact that they showed a great deal of 
sensitivity to some of the States, obviously like Michigan, but 
particularly a State like California.
  It was obvious that the penalties that were imposed some 10, 12 years 
ago were much too stringent. To take away all of the AFDC monies for 
the failure of creating the incentive program, it just was not a 
realistic penalty suggestion. As a result of that, everybody, including 
the State of California, knew that enforcement would not occur. But 
this is a realistic proposal. This is one in which I believe it is 
incumbent upon the States, particularly the State of California, to 
comply with.
  Back in the mid-1960s, Sacramento County, my county, actually had a 
child support enforcement section of the Sacramento County DA's 
department. That was being run at that time by an attorney Virginia 
Mueller, who was a Cornell graduate. We have had great success in 
Sacramento County. But in the State of California today, unfortunately, 
in all 58 counties we have a performance rate of 14 percent, absolutely 
shameful.
  I have to say that this is just the other side of the welfare reform 
bill that was passed last year. Last year we were focusing on the 
custodial parent, usually the mother with minor children. This year we 
will be focusing on the noncustodial parent, usually an able-bodied 
male who may have another family and is disregarding the requirements 
and obligations that he had to his other family, the family that is now 
impoverished. As a result of that, we need to do a better job. This 
bill will go a long way in doing that.
  I want to just conclude by making one further observation. I 
mentioned California's performance rate is 14 percent. It is 
outrageous, and it is one in which I believe that if we could get it up 
to 50 or 60 percent, we could actually eliminate a lot of the TANF 
payments and probably eliminate a lot of the taxpayer burden on welfare 
payments. So I will not under any circumstances in the next 3 or 4 
years support any effort by California to seek a further waiver, 
further extension of the penalties. I think these penalties are 
reasonable, and the State of California with the technological know-how 
we have should not have any problem integrating all 57 counties in 
order to make a system that collects payments from anybody throughout 
the State of California.
  I want to urge strong support for this legislation, and hopefully we 
will be able to work with the other body in order to move this 
legislation before we adjourn.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and 
would like to commend my colleague from Florida, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for 
bringing this to the floor today.
  One of the most universally supported efforts in the welfare reforms 
we enacted 2 years ago were provisions to get tough on so-called 
deadbeat parents, parents who bring children into this world and then 
wash their hands of all responsibility for them. This scourge has been 
one of the saddest reasons why so many people, mostly women, have been 
trapped in the welfare system, dependent on government to help raise 
children because the fathers of those children have offered no help.
  We enacted provisions to curb this negligence within a welfare reform 
package entitled the Personal Responsibility Act. I repeat that, 
because that is the substance of this debate, personal responsibility, 
accepting responsibilities for bringing a child into this world and 
then accepting the responsibility to pay for them and care for them.
  Nowhere does that name better apply than forcing those who bring 
children into this word to take personal responsibility for their 
support. This bill modifies the penalties contained in those reforms as 
well as the Family Support Act of 1988, not to weaken the provisions, 
but to ensure that they can be realistically met.
  The current penalties for failure by States to meet data processing 
and collection requirements are severe, the loss not only of the State 
share of Federal child support funds, but the State's temporary 
assistance for needy families block grants. Clearly we will only 
compound the problems of those struggling to get off welfare if we 
penalize States so severely that they are financially crippled and 
unable to continue their reform efforts. This bill rectifies that by 
imposing penalties as incentives to meet child support program 
requirements, but without dealing these States such a blow that they 
cannot possibly meet those requirements at all.
  Again, I commend the Committee on Ways and Means for offering this 
bill and urge its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. Woolsey asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I join my colleagues in the California 
delegation in supporting H.R. 3130. It would be truly tragic if we 
allowed any child in California to be penalized for the State's 
inability to implement a statewide computerized child support 
collection system. But even if we are successful today in our efforts 
to keep California's welfare dollars, we will be doing absolutely 
nothing to force deadbeat parents to live up to their responsibilities 
or to help a single child out of poverty. The only way we are going to 
increase the rate of child support collection in California, which is 
currently an abysmal 14 or even 13 percent, some say, of court-ordered 
amounts, and across the Nation, is to make child support collection a 
Federal matter.
  That is why the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have 
introduced H.R. 2189, the Uniform Child Support Enforcement Act. This 
bill would use existing national computer systems to collect and 
distribute child support. Not only would collection go up dramatically, 
but welfare would go down to the same degree. We would not be wasting 
any more time or money trying to fix a doomed State-by-State, county-
by-county computer system.
  Kids in California, children across the country should not have to 
wait any longer to get the child support they deserve. From the ashes 
of California's computer meltdown, let us bring to life a Federal 
system to make sure that every child support check is truly in the 
mail.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 3130, legislation that will improve child support collection 
efforts and at the same time save many States from facing a draconian 
penalty. H.R. 3130 builds on the child support provisions that were 
included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that 
completely revamped our welfare system. Our new welfare laws ensure 
that children receive the support that they are due on time and in full 
by achieving three major goals: By establishing uniform State tracking 
procedures, by taking strong measures to establish paternity, and 
funding and ensuring tough child support enforcement.
  Our new welfare laws enable States to track deadbeat dads who flee 
across State lines. States will now have directories of new hires with 
information used to establish paternity, modify and enforce support 
orders and reduce fraud, and at the same time State information is now 
being transmitted to the Federal Parent Locator Service for data 
matched with other States.
  Cracking down on deadbeat dads has been a priority. Our commitment is 
strengthened even further through the legislation we are voting on 
today. We need to recognize under a 1988 law, States face the 
termination of almost all of their welfare funding if they fail to meet 
certain deadlines, including October 31 of this year, to implement 
automated data processing systems for

[[Page H868]]

child support collections. This devastating penalty will occur in at 
least 16 States under current law, including my home State of 
Pennsylvania, if this legislation is not passed.
  Let us recognize, H.R. 3130 in no way lets States off the hook. Too 
often in the past Congress has enacted laws that threaten to penalize 
States for failing to meet Federal requirements, but backed down when 
it came time to follow through. Today we are not doing that. This bill 
strikes the right balance by penalizing States that miss the deadline 
for establishing effective computer systems while ensuring that these 
penalties are legitimate and balanced and do not hurt the very children 
we are trying to help.
  In my view, the bipartisan Child Support Performance and Incentive 
Act before us today protects children by improving child support 
payment requirements and at the same time protects States by creating 
an alternative penalty system.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the most 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for 
bringing this most important legislation to the floor today. We all 
talk about child support, the need for child support, the importance of 
child support. But what we are doing today is going one step closer to 
making the rhetoric into fact and doing something about child support 
enforcement.
  When we passed welfare reform 2 years ago, many of us fought to 
include improvements to our child support system. The legislation 
before us today makes good on one of those promises by revamping the 
current formula for the Federal incentive payments given to States for 
running effective child support systems. The measure would provide 
incentive payments to States based on five criteria of performance: 
establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, collecting 
current child support, collecting past due child support, and 
administrating cost-effective child support enforcement systems.
  In other words, the bill clearly encourages States to take all the 
necessary steps to make sure both parents share in the financial 
responsibility of supporting the children that are their children.
  The legislation also revises the penalty on States that have not met 
the Federal deadline for having a computerized child support system. 
Establishing, tracking and enforcing child support orders is much more 
difficult when State caseworkers have to go back again, find out where 
the files are, go through file boxes to find those files. We have come 
into the computer age. There is no reason why the child support 
enforcement system should not be in the computer system.
  The bill therefore requires States to pay a modest penalty for 
failing to meet a 10-year old automation requirement. I should point 
out that the Federal Government paid States a 90 percent match to 
fulfill this mandate. The original deadline elapsed 2\1/2\ years ago. 
So I do not think the bill requires States to meet an unreasonable 
timetable.
  Madam Chairman, better child support enforcement means fewer families 
on welfare, an improved standard of living. I have worked on this 
situation for years. I know that it is very difficult to get it on the 
front burner of people's lives, but I am telling my colleagues, this 
bill will help children, and it is a very good bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and 
the gentleman from Florida. I want to, first of all, say that I have 
the highest respect for the gentlemen from Michigan and Florida and 
congratulate them on this effort. I will support this bill. I toyed 
with frankly opposing the bill, but after discussing it with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and knowing of the concerns of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), I am going to support this bill. I 
think it is a reasonable, rational thing probably to do.
  I think that we are sincere in doing this, and we are trying to do 
something that will not harm children while at the same time continuing 
incentives in place.
  Madam Chairman, the States have had 10 years to get their computer 
systems together. Yet here they are asking Congress not only for an 
extension, but while we are at it, could we throw in reduced penalties, 
too. In talking to my very distinguished friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who sits on this committee, I 
think we are correct in reducing these penalties. My own State very 
frankly, Madam Chairman, is concerned about this bill and perhaps would 
not like to see it passed, and do not want any penalties. I do not 
share the view of my State on this issue.
  I have practiced law for over a quarter of a century. I practiced in 
the courts of Prince George's County in Maryland. I handled a lot of 
domestic cases in that process and sat in the courtroom not only with 
my own clients, but watched other nonsupport cases come before the 
courts. I saw time after time after time a wink and a nod at parents 
who did not meet their responsibilities, who did not support their 
children, who had children, thought it was a spectator sport and 
thought they would pass the cost on to the rest of us.

                              {time}  1230

  That was despicable and is despicable. God gives us a great blessing 
when he gives us children and we ought to take the responsibility to 
ensure that they are fed and housed and clothed properly. There are too 
many Americans who do not do that. This ought to be a priority item for 
every State and for every administrator to make sure that child support 
is collected. Far too little of it is collected now. It is not that I 
resent sharing in the costs to help those children in need. None of us 
begrudge them the help. But all of us, I think, ought to be and are 
angry at those parents who can but do not support their children. In an 
age of computers and information technology, we ought to be capable of 
identifying and going after those who owe their children, not just 
society but their children the responsibility that parenthood places 
upon them.
  Again, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for their 
leadership on this issue. It is obvious that we have a practical 
problem, it is obvious that we want to go ahead, and it is obvious that 
we continue to keep in effect incentives to get on line so that we will 
get at deadbeat parents.
  I thank the Chair for her not tapping the gavel as soon as she might 
otherwise have done. This is an important issue, not just this bill, 
but we need to as a Congress and as a Nation focus on enforcing and 
expecting responsibility of parents towards their children.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 
a very fine statement. He has put his finger on what we need to attack 
next, and, that is, the disintegration of the American family. What we 
have seen from the 1960s to date, much of it was caused by a failed 
welfare system, but we are trying to correct many of those things. Now 
we have to go back and teach parental responsibility. The problem that 
we have, we have got so many of these young adults that are having 
kids, some of them kids themselves who are having children who have 
never even lived in a home where there was a male figure. It is 
disgraceful where this country has gone with the disintegration of the 
American family. I might say that the next piece of the puzzle in 
welfare reform is to reverse this trend and go back to the real 
principles. When we say family values, it should be more than just a 
political cliche. It should have some real meat to it and something 
that we all believe in and let us put the emphasis on the family. I 
compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for those remarks.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I thank him for his 
work. I agree that all of us together need to heighten expectations. I 
frankly think what happened in the 1970s, in

[[Page H869]]

the 1960s in particular was that we lowered expectations of performance 
of ourselves and of others and somehow society did not feel it 
incumbent upon them to hold others accountable for that which they 
ought to be responsible for. I think this is one example, but it is a 
broader example than that. I frankly think under the gentleman's 
leadership, frankly I think under President Clinton's leadership in 
terms of talking about responsibility which he talked about in 1992 and 
which we followed through in this Congress, I think we are seeing much 
better performance, but we need to do much more. I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks and his leadership.
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would also add, in talking about our 
expectations, people will generally not rise above our expectations of 
them. Clearly under the welfare reform bill, now under this bill as the 
effect that it is going to have on fathers all over this country who 
are not meeting their obligations, it is going to raise the 
expectations and require certain things that were not required before 
and that were really just sloughed off. Those days are behind us, thank 
goodness, and I think we are on the way to putting back together the 
American family.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill with reservations, which 
I will state.
  This legislation is intended to encourage the remaining states and 
territories to comply with child support enforcement computer 
guidelines set in 1988.
  The states have had ten years to get their computer systems together. 
Yet here they are, asking Congress not only for an extension, but, 
while we're at it, could we throw in reduced penalties too?
  Incredibly, there are still 14 states and two territories that have 
yet to comply, including my own state of Maryland.
  A substantial number of children will be adversely affected if we do 
not make these changes. That is something that no one wants to do.
  This is tragic. Congress is, in effect, rewarding the states for 
their delinquence. We are sending the wrong message to deadbeat parents 
and their children.
  However, Mr. Speaker, we are reminded once again that, in the past, 
child support enforcement was a low priority in this country. We cannot 
and should not send the wrong message to deadbeat parents that failure 
to pay child support is acceptable. They are not excused by Congress or 
any other government function of their responsibilities to their 
children. We must be careful not to forgive passive neglect.
  In my own legislative efforts to crack down on deadbeat parents, I 
say ``you can run but you can't hide!'' This legislation says ``you can 
run, you can hide, and eventually you will be caught, but not for a 
little while longer.''
  Any extension provided for non-compliant states and territories 
prolongs the time that children must wait for badly needed support.
  I will vote in favor of this bill for the children, who need 
assistance sooner rather than later.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, an 
amendment to H.R. 3130, if that could be called up.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would tell 
the gentleman that we are still in general debate. We are, I think, 
about to conclude the general debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may discuss his amendment at this time, 
he just may not offer it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, which would 
have included the cost of child care in child support payments to 
custodial parents who are currently employed or are active seeking 
employment. I recognize that some States around our Nation are already 
doing this and I applaud their efforts. However, many States in our 
Nation are not. It is these States that that amendment would have been 
targeted. It was the intent of my amendment to split the costs of child 
care proportionately between the custodial and noncustodial parent, not 
to separate child care and child care support payments.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has 
agreed to work with me in conference to include language which would 
express the true intent of my amendment that child care expenses be a 
factor in determining child care support payments.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I agree with the 
gentleman that we are going to continue to work with him. We know of 
his concern in this area and we know of the value of his intentions. We 
will do what we can to work with the gentleman during the conference 
process and even afterwards if it is not included in the final product.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with us 
on this proposal and I look forward to working with him in conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me acknowledge both the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) for this very forthright and straightforward legislation. In 
formulating and organizing the Congressional Childrens Caucus in this 
congressional term as I have gone around my district and other places, 
one of the rising cries that I hear are from struggling single parents 
want to do the right thing. They always ask how can they be helped to 
do the right thing. One of the ways that we have tried to help in the 
Congressional Childrens Caucus is by promoting children as a national 
agenda. Child support is more than the moneys distributed to someone to 
do something with. Child support is dignity. It brings down the 
enticement to do things that are not right for both the parent who is 
struggling and the child. You notice I say parent, because this is 
something that happens to males and females. In my own State of Texas, 
this is a good bill, for I want to see them get a system that responds 
to all the parents who are in many instances working parents struggling 
to raise many children. In fact, we find that half of the 18.7 million 
children living in single parent families in 1994 were poor; 70 percent 
of African-American children growing up in a single parent household 
lived at below the poverty line compared to about one of every 10 
children in two-parent families. The system is broken and this 
particular legislation in fact provides sort of a guiding line, an 
incentive to get your act together, and if you do not, within a year's 
time, you will see the moneys that you would hope to have gotten from 
the Federal Government starting to eke out. I think this is important, 
because we must support our children. Unfortunately, only 21 States and 
Guam have met the October 1, 1997 deadline. I think it is important 
that the Committee on Ways and Means in their wisdom has seen the value 
of making sure that we have a way of supporting our children.
  Madam Chairman, let me say that our most important treasure in this 
Nation, and I thank you for your kindness, is and are our children. My 
English teacher would want me to get one of those correct. But I say 
that so that we know children as well make mistakes, but the mistake 
that we do not want to make is to leave them outside in the cold. This 
is an excellent bill, I offer my support, and I ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3130, the Child 
Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. Child support is an 
issue critical to the well-being of our nation's children. In 1994, one 
in every four children lived in a family with only one parent present 
in the home. Half of all children spend a portion of their childhoods 
in single-parent homes. While these figures are striking in their own 
right, we cannot begin to truly understand their impact on our nation's 
children without considering the fact that half of the 18.7 million 
children living in single-parent families in 1994 were poor, and 70 
percent of African American children growing up in a single parent 
household, lived at or below the poverty line, compared with about one 
of every 10 children in two-parent families.
  Many children in single-parent families rely on child support to keep 
them from poverty, but in doing so they rely on a child support system 
that is broken and has for years failed our nation's children. 
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 31 million 
American children are currently owed more than $41 billion in unpaid 
child support.

[[Page H870]]

Only 20 percent of child support cases resulted in collections in 1996, 
even though taxpayers spent $2.24 billion per year on public child 
support enforcement. These statistics reflect a child support system in 
need of our attention and in need of reform. H.R. 3130 is an important 
first step in that direction.
  The Family Support Act of 1988 set a deadline for all states to have 
in operation a fully-automated data processing system to assist in 
administering their child support enforcement systems. Only 21 states 
and Guam met the October 1, 1997 deadline. Those states not meeting the 
deadline--including California, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
and my home state of Texas--face extremely severe penalties under 
current law. They are confronted with the possibility of losing both 
their federal child support funding and all of their federal welfare 
assistance funding provided by the Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families Act block grant. This obviously benefits no one and, in fact, 
threatens to punish those very people the original law was intended to 
protect--young children and single parent families.
  Current law has also been criticized for not actually rewarding 
states for their performance in child support enforcement. The federal 
government spends nearly $500 million a year on child support incentive 
payments to states--but more than half of those funds are awarded to 
states without regard to how they actually perform in child support 
enforcement.

  H.R. 3130 provides an answer to those concerns by establishing a new 
alternative penalty for states that failed to meet last October's 
deadline. The bill provides that a state that makes a good faith effort 
to comply with the data processing requirements of the Family Support 
Act of 1988 could avoid the penalty required under current law and 
instead qualify for an alternative penalty provided that the state 
submits a plan to the Department of Health and Human Services 
specifying how, by what date, and at what cost it will comply with the 
data processing requirement.
  H.R. 3130 also creates a new federal incentive system to reward 
states with effective child support enforcement programs. This new 
system is intended to ensure that more of these federal funds are given 
to the states based on the states' actual performance in child support 
enforcement.
  H.R. 3130 is an important step in mending a child support enforcement 
system that is now quite damaged. It is the result of bipartisan action 
and cooperation and I commend the work of all involved in bringing it 
before us this afternoon. I urge my colleagues to join me in strong 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam 
Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3130. I want to tell Members a bit 
about the research that I did prior to the vote on this measure. I went 
to the State of North Dakota and evaluated their efforts to bring the 
new system of child support collection on line. I was terribly 
concerned that passage of this measure might somehow signal that 
quickly bringing more rigorous child enforced collection procedures on 
line would be set back by this legislation. I became convinced of the 
contrary. North Dakota is making great strides toward meeting the new 
standards. However, we are not going to meet the deadline. Collections 
are increasing. We are on track to have an optimal system on line by 
this summer. If we do not pass this bill, North Dakota will be 
substantially financially penalized. The resources put into bringing us 
on line and upgrading our systems will be diverted into dealing with 
the consequences of the existing penalty. In other words, existing law 
is not serving a constructive purpose. This law will serve the 
constructive purpose of encouraging States, like the one I represent, 
to step up child support collection and to bring these new systems on 
line as quickly as possible. I commend the State employees in North 
Dakota that are working so hard to get us there and appreciate very 
much the Committee on Ways and Means bringing this bill forward.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I support the Child Support Performance 
and Incentive Act, a bill which would ensure that children and families 
will not be unnecessarily punished in states still working on 
establishing database systems required under the Family Support Act of 
1988.
  Under the current law, 42,182 children in the District of Columbia 
could lose vital assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF) block grant. And the District is not alone. Because of 
the complexities involved in establishing these database systems, 29 
states including several large states such as California, Michigan, 
Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, were unable to meet an extended 
deadline under the old law.
  The alternative penalties that have been developed in this bill will 
reward the states that have met the statutory deadline of setting up a 
database system without unduly punishing the children of our country 
living in the majority of the states and the District of Columbia.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3130, 
the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. This bill 
builds upon the historic welfare reform legislation that became law two 
years ago and is proof positive of Republicans' long standing 
commitment to welfare reform.
  As Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, two years ago I 
worked in tandem with Mr. Shaw, the Chairman of the Ways and Means, 
Human Resources Subcommittee to deliver a sweeping welfare reform 
package--a package that truly empowers people to lead more successful 
and more fulfilling lives.
  As Republicans, we know that we must attack hopelessness and poverty 
on several fronts. That is why, the work of our Committee coupled with 
the efforts of Mr. Shaw's, represented a comprehensive approach to the 
war on poverty. We poured more money into child care; toughened up the 
child protection grant; created real work requirements to spur more 
people to work; and gave States and locals greater flexibility to 
successfully run their child nutrition programs and State welfare 
programs.
  The phenomenal and unexpected rapid decline in the welfare roles 
points to the success of our approach.
  However, Republicans' commitment to protecting children and improving 
the welfare system did not end in 1996.
  We have continued to monitor the implementation of welfare reform to 
make sure that it is successfully implemented. That is why since the 
passage of the Welfare reform law, you have seen dramatic improvements 
in the areas child protection, adoption and foster care signed into 
law.
  The bill we have before us today is just another step to making sure 
we continue to give States and local governments what they need to get 
struggling families back on their feet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3130.
  Mr. QUINN. Madam Chairman I would also like to voice my full support 
for H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance And Incentive Act. This 
bill focuses on States' efforts to convert their child support data 
collection and enforcement efforts from employee-dependent to 
automated, computer-based systems. One sure way that Welfare Reform 
will work is to ensure parents with custodial children that they will 
receive child support payments from non-custodial parents on a regular 
basis. H.R. 3130 gives States' a revised penalty structure which fail 
to comply with deadlines to automate their child support enforcement 
programs. Please know that if I were able, I would have voted for final 
passage of H.R. 3130.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3130, the 
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, which is of 
critical importance to the children of Illinois. I am pleased the House 
of Representative is acting quickly on this legislation which strikes 
the right balance between encouraging states to modernize their child 
support systems without penalizing the very children the law is 
designed to help.
  While we want to ensure that states have the most efficient mechanism 
in place to collect and distribute child support payments to families 
in neet, we must also make certain that the penalties for failure to 
meet the federal deadlines are not so extreme as to jeopardize funding 
intended for those same children. My own state of Illinois did not meet 
the deadline established by the 1988 Family Support Act and if this 
legislation is not approved today, Illinois will be forced to forfeit 
$650 million in federal funding for child support services. Child 
support programs provide vital assistance in locating parents, 
establishing paternity and collecting child support payments and a 
large penalty, such as the one facing Illinois, is extreme and serves 
only to hurt those we seek to help.
  The bill before us would still impose a penalty of almost $3 million 
on Illinois but by reducing the penalty and restoring funding for these 
programs, we can be certain efforts in Illinois will continue to ensure 
that more deadbeat parents are located and made accountable. After all, 
collecting financial support from parents is what this effort is all 
about. As the father of eight children, I find it personally repugnant 
that so many parents are unwilling to face their responsibility 
voluntarily and the federal government is forced to continually address 
the issue of child support enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of our children and 
continuing our efforts to stop irresponsible parents from following 
cowardly paths of denying their children the financial support they 
deserve.

[[Page H871]]

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. 
This bill sets forth an alternative penalty structure for states that 
did not complete their statewide child support computer systems by the 
deadline.
  Under current law, states like my home State of Illinois, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania and Ohio stand to lose all of their child support 
enforcement funding plus the states entire Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF) block grant. Such a loss would be devastating to 
millions of children and adults and undermine welfare reform efforts 
underway in the various states. Child support enforcement is a vital 
component of any welfare reform plan and efforts to cut any funds for 
enforcement could hurt those who need the help the most.
  The alternative penalty structure in this bill is fairer and more 
reasonable than current law. This bill recognizes states' good faith 
efforts to complete their systems and targets federal child support 
enforcement dollars only. However, this bill provides real incentives 
for states that actually do a better job at child support enforcement. 
Such inducements provided by this bill gives a real glimmer of hope 
that those children seeking assistance, whether in Illinois or any 
other state will in fact secure the support they need.
  Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Thank you.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3130, 
the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, which would reduce the 
financial sanctions imposed on states that have not established a 
statewide computer system by October 1, 1997 to enforce child support 
payments, and increase financial rewards for those states that 
effectively enforce child support orders. As amended, this legislation 
would deny visas and entry to noncustodial parents who are foreign 
nationals owing more than $5,000 in child support in this nation, and 
require state courts, cases involving non-amicable divorces, to include 
child care costs in their calculations when calculating the amount of 
child support payments a non-custodial parent must make.
  This bipartisan legislation is not an attempt to allow deadbeat dads 
the opportunity to escape their child support payments, but rather it 
provides an alternative penalty procedure for states that fail to meet 
federal child support data processing requirements. This legislation 
would reform federal incentive payments for effective child support 
performance, rewarding those states with respect to their performance 
in paternity establishment and child support order enforcement, 
including cost-effectiveness.
  The Family Support Act of 1988 set a deadline of October 1, 1995, for 
all states to have in operation a fully-automated data processing 
system to assist in administering their child support enforcement 
systems. Most states, however, were unable to meet this deadline 
because federal regulations specifying the requirements for the data 
processing system were issued late, and because of the complexities 
involved in establishing such systems. With the enactment of PL 104-35, 
Congress extended the deadline for two years, until October 1, 1997.
  The state of North Carolina is in full compliance with the October 
1st deadline. The State has implemented its statewide automated data 
processing system for child support enforcement, and has been certified 
by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 
While the State's plan was submitted to Health and Human Services prior 
to the October 1, 1997 deadline, the necessary site visit and 
administrative action by HHS was not completed until January 1998. 
North Carolina is one of fifteen states that will benefit from this 
bill's provision to allow HHS to waive any penalties for states that 
have done the necessary work but which were not certified by the 
October deadline.
  For those states that did not meet the October 1, 1997 deadline, this 
legislation is not just a slap on the wrist. This legislation provides 
severe financial penalties including: loss of federal child support 
funding and their federal welfare assistance funding provided by the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
  We must demand parents live up to their responsibilities to their 
children. H.R. 3130, with the inclusion of the Cardin and Gilman 
amendments, effectively addresses state issues, as well as enhances the 
current web of tools available to enforce child support orders.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3130, as amended. It sends a strong 
message to states and parents that child support enforcement is vitally 
important, and I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in urging its passage.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, I rise in support of H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance 
and Incentive Act.'' Under current law, 16 states, including my state 
of Illinois, are facing very severe penalties for failing to complete a 
statewide child support computer system by October 1, 1997. These 
states stand to lose their entire TANF Block Grant and their federal 
child support funding. If these penalties were to stand, the states' 
welfare programs would be completely jeopardized, and many people could 
be left without their benefits. This bill restructures the penalty 
system in a way that will encourage states to get their systems up and 
running as soon as possible. The bill will increase the penalty for 
each year that states fail to comply, thereby giving them more 
incentive to get their programs on-line quickly. Everybody agrees that 
it is important to have an efficient statewide system to enforce child 
support payments.
  The bill also restructures the Child Support Incentive system. This 
program awards almost a half billion dollars per year to the States. 
This bill would make the incentive program based on performance 
measures such as: paternity establishment, collections on current 
payments and cost effectiveness. In order to qualify for this funding 
states would have to show that their child support program is 
successful--and that's what this is all about.
  Payment of child support is everyone's goal, and I believe this bill 
will help states in their efforts to do so. I appreciate the hard work 
of Chairmen Shaw and Archer on this bi-partisan bill, and urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
introduced by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cardin. My only regret is 
that I did not introduce this amendment first.
  The Cardin amendment is desperately needed to combat the ever growing 
problem of deadbeat parents fleeing the country to avoid child support 
orders. The Cardin amendment will deny visas and entry into the United 
States to foreign nationals and legal residents who are non custodial 
parents owing more than $5,000 in child support payments in the United 
States. It also provides federal immigration officers with the 
authority to serve summons, court orders and other legal process in 
child support cases at the border. In this day of growing free trade 
and less border restrictions, this amendment will raise the importance 
of payment of child support beyond state borders.
  Madam Chairman, I have a situation in my district where a hard 
working mother has been actively seeking the payment of child support 
arrears. However, the father has fled the country. He now operates an 
airline out of a Central American country and regularly comes into this 
country to conduct business. The deadbeat parent has a FAA certified 
flying license, a U.S. Passport, a U.S. business address in the United 
States, but when it comes to actually complying with his child support 
responsibilities, he is nowhere to be found. Although this Congress 
passed provisions as part of the 1996 welfare reform package to address 
child support by those who flee the country, not much has been done to 
help my constituent's situation. Specifically, between the two state 
child support systems, the U.S. Departments of Transportation, State 
and Health & Human Services, a lot of confusion remains about the 
proper agency in charge of ensuring payment. I am hopeful that these 
agencies and states will work together immediately to further close 
this child support loophole.
  Moreover, I am very glad to see the section defining ``good moral 
character.'' I think it is time that this Congress state that 
government should not recognize citizens as have good moral character 
if they are thousands of dollars behind in support of their children. 
Hard financial times are one thing, purposeful avoidance of the law and 
family responsibilities is another. I have been trying to get the FAA 
to recognize the nonpayment of child support as failure of ``good moral 
character'' so that the FAA would revoke the pilot certifications of 
pilots. I believe Mr. Cardin's amendment is a good signal to be sent to 
all federal agencies that this Congress is serious about this issue and 
that we will not tolerate non payment of child support.
  As such, I heartily support this amendment, I congratulate its 
sponsor for his work and I strongly urge the passage of the Cardin 
Amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman. I rise today in support of this bill, the 
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. Although the 
states and counties are primarily responsible for child support 
enforcement programs, this bill attempts to facilitate their task of 
ensuring that every child receives financial support from both parents.
  Dead-beat parents who duck out on child support are a big problem. 
Children rely on adults for their well-being. It is our sacred 
responsibility to provide for and fulfill their basic needs. To avoid 
this responsibility is immoral, but unfortunately some parents do 
renege on such responsibility and that is why we need this new 
legislation. Child support should ensure that single parent homes don't 
need public assistance to support children and that they

[[Page H872]]

remain independent with a stable certain household income.
  Appropriately, the welfare reform act included tough child support 
measures such as driver's license revocation and the development of a 
new hire reporting system to track offenders. Child support enforcement 
at the Federal and State levels is being transformed by these measures. 
However, despite the enactment of these requirements several states 
have had problems reaching compliance, and ironically could be severely 
affected by the proposed penalties for non-compliance.
  We all understand the importance of computers with regards to the 
dissemination and organization of information. Computers and computer 
programs are especially key when handling a caseload of 20 million 
children nationally. As of today, only 16 States have been certified as 
having a comprehensive computerized systems for such purpose. However, 
although many others are very close to completion, their noncompliance 
could result in cessation of all Federal child support enforcement 
funding. This bill would provide states making a good faith effort to 
comply with the data processing requirements to avoid the current 
penalty in law and qualify for an alternative penalty of increasing 
percentages for each year of noncompliance. This proposed penalty 
system would continue to allocate funding to states who are in the 
process of reaching compliance and not truncate the substantial 
progress achieved. To completely cease funding would further hamper 
states' ability to complete their computerized systems and compound the 
problem of achieving such a good goal.
  Currently, the federal government spends nearly $500 million a year 
on child support incentive payments to states. The current incentive 
program is based on maximizing child support collections relative to 
administrative costs. The problem is that more than half of the funds 
are awarded to states without regard to how they actually perform in 
child support enforcement. We all recognize that this does not create a 
significant incentive for the achievement of the program goals.
  The proposed incentive payment program included in this bill would, 
more accurately, measure the performance of state child support 
programs. The new incentive funding system would allow the child 
support incentive program to truly be driven by achieving results for 
families and children in need of support.
  This bill addresses another important issue: adoption. The State of 
Minnesota has over 1,000 children awaiting adoption. H.R. 3130 would 
apply a severe penalty to any state that delays the adoption of a child 
because the adoptive parents may live in another state. With the 
growing number of children who are becoming wards of the state, it is 
important that we provide children with permanent homes, in the 
shortest possible time. The adoptive family pool needs to be increased 
nationwide in order to provide such kids the right families and support 
they need in order to succeed.
  Minnesota state child support collections have increased 125% since 
1991. In 1997, my state provide child support services for more than 
200,000 cases in, and close to 40% those cases received some form of 
welfare benefits. Child support collected saved taxpayers $70.7 million 
in AFDC grants and human services officials agree that child support is 
a key component in welfare reform. It is pretty simple: child support 
can keep families off of welfare. Every child has the right to 
financial support from both parents and public policy and law should 
facilitate such.
  In an era of tight and shrinking budgets, we need to make sure that 
we find the most acceptable and effective ways to provide for the 
economic well-being of America's children. I am pleased to say that 
Congress understands the importance of child support and has stepped up 
to the plate today and in the past to make sure that child support 
enforcement system works better in the future. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Madam Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3130, the ``Child 
Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998.'' This bill achieves 
balance between two competing needs: the critical need for states to 
automate their child support enforcement systems to ensure that 
children receive the support they are due; and the imposition of 
crippling penalties against those states that have not yet automated 
their systems.
  California is one of more than a dozen states that does not yet have 
a statewide computer system in place. If H.R. 3130 is not enacted, the 
state stands to lose $4 billion in federal welfare block grant funding. 
This would seriously jeopardize the state's ability to provide welfare 
assistance to more than 2.2 million needy families and children.
  The bill makes two changes that should do much to help California. It 
permits alternative system configurations, including linked local 
systems, to meet the requirement for a single statewide computer 
system. That requirement was included the Family Support Act of 1988. 
H.R. 3130 also modifies the penalty structure for dealing with states 
that failed to meet the October 1997 deadline, by decreasing the $4 
billion penalty to $11 million this year.
  The bill's penalty increases over time to reach $43 million by 2000. 
The penalties are designed to hold California and other states 
accountable for implementing statewide or alternative computer systems 
as soon as possible. Child support payments are too important to be 
held hostage by ineffective computer systems.
  It is imperative that California implement an automated system as 
soon as possible to provide essential child support services to improve 
the lives of children who lack the support of two parents. It is these 
children who benefit from improved child support enforcement, and who 
suffer from incompatible and ineffective systems.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3130

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Support Performance 
     and Incentive Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

          TITLE I--CHILD SUPPORT DATA PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 101. Alternative penalty procedure.
Sec. 102. Authority to waive single Statewide automated data processing 
              and information retrieval system requirement.

                TITLE II--CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Incentive payments to States.

                     TITLE III--ADOPTION PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. More flexible penalty procedure to be applied for failing to 
              permit interjurisdictional adoption.

                    TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Sec. 401. Technical corrections.
          TITLE I--CHILD SUPPORT DATA PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 101. ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE.

       Section 455(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     655(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) If--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that a State plan under 
     section 454 would (in the absence of this paragraph) be 
     disapproved for the failure of the State to comply with 
     section 454(24)(A), and that the State has made and is 
     continuing to make a good faith effort to so comply; and
       ``(ii) the State has submitted to the Secretary a 
     corrective compliance plan that describes how, by when, and 
     at what cost the State will achieve such compliance, which 
     has been approved by the Secretary,

     then the Secretary shall not disapprove the State plan under 
     section 454, and the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection for the fiscal year by the penalty amount.
       ``(B) In this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `penalty amount' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with section 454(24)--
       ``(I) 4 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 1st 
     fiscal year in which such a failure by the State occurs;
       ``(II) 8 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     2nd such fiscal year;
       ``(III) 16 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     3rd such fiscal year; or
       ``(IV) 20 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     4th or any subsequent such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) The term `penalty base' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with section 454(24) during a 
     fiscal year, the amount otherwise payable to the State under 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection for the preceding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary shall waive a penalty under this 
     paragraph for any failure of a State to comply with section 
     454(24)(A) during fiscal year 1998 if--
       ``(I) by December 31, 1997, the State has submitted to the 
     Secretary a request that the Secretary certify the State as 
     having met the requirements of such section;
       ``(II) the Secretary has provided the certification as a 
     result of a review conducted pursuant to the request; and
       ``(III) the State has not failed such a review.
       ``(ii) If a State with respect to which a reduction is made 
     under this paragraph for a fiscal year achieves compliance 
     with section 454(24)(A) by the beginning of the succeeding 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall increase the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph

[[Page H873]]

     (1)(A) of this subsection for the succeeding fiscal year by 
     an amount equal to 75 percent of the reduction for the fiscal 
     year.
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall reduce the amount of any 
     reduction that, in the absence of this clause, would be 
     required to be made under this paragraph by reason of the 
     failure of a State to achieve compliance with section 
     454(24)(B) during the fiscal year, by an amount equal to 20 
     percent of the amount of the otherwise required reduction, 
     for each State performance measure described in section 
     458A(b)(4) with respect to which the applicable percentage 
     under section 458A(b)(6) for the fiscal year is 100 percent, 
     if the Secretary has made the determination described in 
     section 458A(b)(5)(B) with respect to the State for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(D) The preceding provisions of this paragraph (except 
     for subparagraph (C)(i)) shall apply, separately and 
     independently, to a failure to comply with section 454(24)(B) 
     in the same manner in which the preceding provisions apply to 
     a failure to comply with section 454(24)(A).''.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE SINGLE STATEWIDE AUTOMATED DATA 
                   PROCESSING AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 452(d)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 652(d)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The Secretary may waive any requirement of paragraph 
     (1) or any condition specified under section 454(16), and 
     shall waive the single statewide system requirement under 
     sections 454(16) and 454A, with respect to a State if--
       ``(A) the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the State has or can develop an alternative 
     system or systems that enable the State--
       ``(i) for purposes of section 409(a)(8), to achieve the 
     paternity establishment percentages (as defined in section 
     452(g)(2)) and other performance measures that may be 
     established by the Secretary;
       ``(ii) to submit data under section 454(15)(B) that is 
     complete and reliable;
       ``(iii) to substantially comply with the requirements of 
     this part; and
       ``(iv) in the case of a request to waive the single 
     statewide system requirement, to--
       ``(I) meet all functional requirements of sections 454(16) 
     and 454A;
       ``(II) ensure that calculation of distributions meets the 
     requirements of section 457 and accounts for distributions to 
     children in different families or in different States or sub-
     State jurisdictions, and for distributions to other States;
       ``(III) ensure that there is only 1 point of contact in the 
     State which provides seamless case processing for all 
     interstate case processing and coordinated, automated 
     intrastate case management;
       ``(IV) ensure that standardized data elements, forms, and 
     definitions are used throughout the State;
       ``(V) complete the alternative system in no more time than 
     it would take to complete a single statewide system that 
     meets such requirement; and
       ``(VI) process child support cases as quickly, efficiently, 
     and effectively as such cases would be processed through a 
     single statewide system that meets such requirement;
       ``(B)(i) the waiver meets the criteria of paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of section 1115(c); or
       ``(ii) the State provides assurances to the Secretary that 
     steps will be taken to otherwise improve the State's child 
     support enforcement program; and
       ``(C) in the case of a request to waive the single 
     statewide system requirement, the State has submitted to the 
     Secretary separate estimates of the total cost of a single 
     statewide system that meets such requirement, and of any such 
     alternative system or systems, which shall include estimates 
     of the cost of developing and completing the system and of 
     operating and maintaining the system for 5 years, and the 
     Secretary has agreed with the estimates.''.
       (b) Payments to States.--Section 455(a)(1) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) and inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) equal to 66 percent of the sums expended by the State 
     during the quarter for an alternative statewide system for 
     which a waiver has been granted under section 452(d)(3), but 
     only to the extent that the total of the sums so expended by 
     the State on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     subparagraph does not exceed the least total cost estimate 
     submitted by the State pursuant to section 452(d)(3)(C) in 
     the request for the waiver;''.
                TITLE II--CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--Part D of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 651-669) is amended by inserting after section 
     458 the following:

     ``SEC. 458A. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payment under 
     this part, the Secretary shall, subject to subsection (f), 
     make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year 
     in an amount determined under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount of Incentive Payment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The incentive payment for a State for a 
     fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the 
     fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Incentive payment pool.--
       ``(A) In general.--In paragraph (1), the term `incentive 
     payment pool' means--
       ``(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the 
     incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such 
     succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) 
     by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the 
     CPI for the 2nd preceding fiscal year.
       ``(B) CPI.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a 
     fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for 
     the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal 
     year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `Consumer 
     Price Index' means the last Consumer Price Index for all-
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.
       ``(3) State incentive payment share.--In paragraph (1), the 
     term `State incentive payment share' means, with respect to a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the 
     fiscal year; divided by
       ``(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the 
     States for the fiscal year.
       ``(4) Incentive base amount.--In paragraph (3), the term 
     `incentive base amount' means, with respect to a State and a 
     fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages 
     (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by 
     the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the 
     State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the 
     following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:
       ``(A) The paternity establishment performance level.
       ``(B) The support order performance level.
       ``(C) The current payment performance level.
       ``(D) The arrearage payment performance level.
       ``(E) The cost-effectiveness performance level.
       ``(5) Maximum incentive base amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (4), the 
     maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year 
     is--
       ``(i) with respect to the performance measures described in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (4), the State 
     collections base for the fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) with respect to the performance measures described 
     in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (4), 75 percent of 
     the State collections base for the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Data required to be complete and reliable.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the maximum incentive base 
     amount for a State for a fiscal year with respect to a 
     performance measure described in paragraph (4) is zero, 
     unless the Secretary determines, on the basis of an audit 
     performed under section 452(a)(4)(C)(i), that the data which 
     the State submitted pursuant to section 454(15)(B) for the 
     fiscal year and which is used to determine the performance 
     level involved is complete and reliable.
       ``(C) State collections base.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) 2 times the sum of--

       ``(I) the total amount of support collected during the 
     fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in 
     cases in which the support obligation involved is required to 
     be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this 
     title or title XIX; and
       ``(II) the total amount of support collected during the 
     fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in 
     cases in which the support obligation involved was so 
     assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to 
     be so assigned; and

       ``(ii) the total amount of support collected during the 
     fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in 
     all other cases.
       ``(6) Determination of applicable percentages based on 
     performance levels.--
       ``(A) Paternity establishment.--
       ``(i) Determination of paternity establishment performance 
     level.--The paternity establishment performance level for a 
     State for a fiscal year is, at the option of the State, the 
     IV-D paternity establishment percentage determined under 
     section 452(g)(2)(A) or the statewide paternity establishment 
     percentage determined under section 452(g)(2)(B).
       ``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The 
     applicable percentage with respect to a State's paternity 
     establishment performance level is as follows:

       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the paternity establishment performance level is:                  
-------------------------------------------------------  The applicable 
            At least:                 But less than:     percentage is: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%..............................  ...................         100      
79%..............................  80%................         98       
78%..............................  79%................         96       
77%..............................  78%................         94       
76%..............................  77%................         92       
75%..............................  76%................         90       
74%..............................  75%................         88       
73%..............................  74%................         86       
72%..............................  73%................         84       
71%..............................  72%................         82       
70%..............................  71%................         80       
69%..............................  70%................         79       
68%..............................  69%................         78       
67%..............................  68%................         77       
66%..............................  67%................         76       
65%..............................  66%................         75       
64%..............................  65%................         74       
63%..............................  64%................         73       
62%..............................  63%................         72       
61%..............................  62%................         71       
60%..............................  61%................         70       

[[Page H874]]

                                                                        
59%..............................  60%................         69       
58%..............................  59%................         68       
57%..............................  58%................         67       
56%..............................  57%................         66       
55%..............................  56%................         65       
54%..............................  55%................         64       
53%..............................  54%................         63       
52%..............................  53%................         62       
51%..............................  52%................         61       
50%..............................  51%................         60       
0%...............................  50%................         0.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the paternity 
     establishment performance level of a State for a fiscal year 
     is less than 50 percent but exceeds by at least 10 percentage 
     points the paternity establishment performance level of the 
     State for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the 
     applicable percentage with respect to the State's paternity 
     establishment performance level is 50 percent.
       ``(B) Establishment of child support orders.--
       ``(i) Determination of support order performance level.--
     The support order performance level for a State for a fiscal 
     year is the percentage of the total number of cases under 
     the State plan approved under this part in which there is 
     a support order during the fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The 
     applicable percentage with respect to a State's support order 
     performance level is as follows:

       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     ``If the support order performance level is:                       
-------------------------------------------------------  The applicable 
            At least:                 But less than:     percentage is: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%..............................  ...................         100      
79%..............................  80%................         98       
78%..............................  79%................         96       
77%..............................  78%................         94       
76%..............................  77%................         92       
75%..............................  76%................         90       
74%..............................  75%................         88       
73%..............................  74%................         86       
72%..............................  73%................         84       
71%..............................  72%................         82       
70%..............................  71%................         80       
69%..............................  70%................         79       
68%..............................  69%................         78       
67%..............................  68%................         77       
66%..............................  67%................         76       
65%..............................  66%................         75       
64%..............................  65%................         74       
63%..............................  64%................         73       
62%..............................  63%................         72       
61%..............................  62%................         71       
60%..............................  61%................         70       
59%..............................  60%................         69       
58%..............................  59%................         68       
57%..............................  58%................         67       
56%..............................  57%................         66       
55%..............................  56%................         65       
54%..............................  55%................         64       
53%..............................  54%................         63       
52%..............................  53%................         62       
51%..............................  52%................         61       
50%..............................  51%................         60       
0%...............................  50%................         0.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the support order 
     performance level of a State for a fiscal year is less than 
     50 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage points the 
     support order performance level of the State for the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable 
     percentage with respect to the State's support order 
     performance level is 50 percent.
       ``(C) Collections on current child support due.--
       ``(i) Determination of current payment performance level.--
     The current payment performance level for a State for a 
     fiscal year is equal to the total amount of current support 
     collected during the fiscal year under the State plan 
     approved under this part divided by the total amount of 
     current support owed during the fiscal year in all cases 
     under the State plan, expressed as a percentage.
       ``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The 
     applicable percentage with respect to a State's current 
     payment performance level is as follows:

       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``If the current payment performance level is:                      
-------------------------------------------------------  The applicable 
            At least:                 But less than:     percentage is: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%..............................  ...................         100      
79%..............................  80%................         98       
78%..............................  79%................         96       
77%..............................  78%................         94       
76%..............................  77%................         92       
75%..............................  76%................         90       
74%..............................  75%................         88       
73%..............................  74%................         86       
72%..............................  73%................         84       
71%..............................  72%................         82       
70%..............................  71%................         80       
69%..............................  70%................         79       
68%..............................  69%................         78       
67%..............................  68%................         77       
66%..............................  67%................         76       
65%..............................  66%................         75       
64%..............................  65%................         74       
63%..............................  64%................         73       
62%..............................  63%................         72       
61%..............................  62%................         71       
60%..............................  61%................         70       
59%..............................  60%................         69       
58%..............................  59%................         68       
57%..............................  58%................         67       
56%..............................  57%................         66       
55%..............................  56%................         65       
54%..............................  55%................         64       
53%..............................  54%................         63       
52%..............................  53%................         62       
51%..............................  52%................         61       
50%..............................  51%................         60       
49%..............................  50%................         59       
48%..............................  49%................         58       
47%..............................  48%................         57       
46%..............................  47%................         56       
45%..............................  46%................         55       
44%..............................  45%................         54       
43%..............................  44%................         53       
42%..............................  43%................         52       
41%..............................  42%................         51       
40%..............................  41%................         50       
0%...............................  40%................         0.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the current 
     payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is 
     less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage 
     points the current payment performance level of the State for 
     the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable 
     percentage with respect to the State's current payment 
     performance level is 50 percent.
       ``(D) Collections on child support arrearages.--
       ``(i) Determination of arrearage payment performance 
     level.--The arrearage payment performance level for a State 
     for a fiscal year is equal to the total number of cases under 
     the State plan approved under this part in which payments of 
     past-due child support were received during the fiscal year 
     and part or all of the payments were distributed to the 
     family to whom the past-due child support was owed (or, if 
     all past-due child support owed to the family was, at the 
     time of receipt, subject to an assignment to the State, part 
     or all of the payments were retained by the State) divided by 
     the total number of cases under the State plan in which there 
     is past-due child support, expressed as a percentage.
       ``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The 
     applicable percentage with respect to a State's arrearage 
     payment performance level is as follows:

       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ``If the arrearage payment performance level is:                     
-------------------------------------------------------  The applicable 
            At least:                 But less than:     percentage is: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80%..............................  ...................         100      
79%..............................  80%................         98       
78%..............................  79%................         96       
77%..............................  78%................         94       
76%..............................  77%................         92       
75%..............................  76%................         90       
74%..............................  75%................         88       
73%..............................  74%................         86       
72%..............................  73%................         84       
71%..............................  72%................         82       
70%..............................  71%................         80       
69%..............................  70%................         79       
68%..............................  69%................         78       
67%..............................  68%................         77       
66%..............................  67%................         76       
65%..............................  66%................         75       
64%..............................  65%................         74       
63%..............................  64%................         73       
62%..............................  63%................         72       
61%..............................  62%................         71       
60%..............................  61%................         70       
59%..............................  60%................         69       
58%..............................  59%................         68       
57%..............................  58%................         67       
56%..............................  57%................         66       
55%..............................  56%................         65       
54%..............................  55%................         64       
53%..............................  54%................         63       
52%..............................  53%................         62       
51%..............................  52%................         61       
50%..............................  51%................         60       
49%..............................  50%................         59       
48%..............................  49%................         58       
47%..............................  48%................         57       
46%..............................  47%................         56       
45%..............................  46%................         55       
44%..............................  45%................         54       
43%..............................  44%................         53       
42%..............................  43%................         52       
41%..............................  42%................         51       
40%..............................  41%................         50       
0%...............................  40%................         0.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the arrearage 
     payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is 
     less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage 
     points the arrearage payment performance level of the State 
     for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the 
     applicable percentage with respect to the State's arrearage 
     payment performance level is 50 percent.
       ``(E) Cost-effectiveness.--
       ``(i) Determination of cost-effectiveness performance 
     level.--The cost-effectiveness performance level for a State 
     for a fiscal year is equal to the total amount collected 
     during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under 
     this part divided by the total amount expended during the 
     fiscal year under the State plan, expressed as a ratio.
       ``(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.--The 
     applicable percentage with respect to a State's cost-
     effectiveness performance level is as follows:

       

[[Page H875]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ``If the cost effectiveness performance level is:                    
-------------------------------------------------------  The applicable 
            At least:                 But less than:     percentage is: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.00.............................  ...................         100      
4.50.............................  4.99...............         90       
4.00.............................  4.50...............         80       
3.50.............................  4.00...............         70       
3.00.............................  3.50...............         60       
2.50.............................  3.00...............         50       
2.00.............................  2.50...............         40       
0.00.............................  2.00...............         0.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


       ``(c) Treatment of Interstate Collections.--In computing 
     incentive payments under this section, support which is 
     collected by a State at the request of another State shall be 
     treated as having been collected in full by both States, and 
     any amounts expended by a State in carrying out a special 
     project assisted under section 455(e) shall be excluded.
       ``(d) Administrative Provisions.--The amounts of the 
     incentive payments to be made to the States under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be estimated by the Secretary 
     at or before the beginning of the fiscal year on the basis of 
     the best information available. The Secretary shall make the 
     payments for the fiscal year, on a quarterly basis (with each 
     quarterly payment being made no later than the beginning of 
     the quarter involved), in the amounts so estimated, reduced 
     or increased to the extent of any overpayments or 
     underpayments which the Secretary determines were made under 
     this section to the States involved for prior periods and 
     with respect to which adjustment has not already been made 
     under this subsection. Upon the making of any estimate by the 
     Secretary under the preceding sentence, any appropriations 
     available for payments under this section are deemed 
     obligated.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary governing the calculation of 
     incentive payments under this section, including directions 
     for excluding from the calculations certain closed cases and 
     cases over which the States do not have jurisdiction.
       ``(f) Reinvestment.--A State to which a payment is made 
     under this section shall expend the full amount of the 
     payment to supplement, and not supplant, other funds used by 
     the State--
       ``(1) to carry out the State plan approved under this part; 
     or
       ``(2) for any activity (including cost-effective contracts 
     with local agencies) approved by the Secretary, whether or 
     not the expenditures for the activity are eligible for 
     reimbursement under this part, which may contribute to 
     improving the effectiveness or efficiency of the State 
     program operated under this part.''.
       (b) Transition Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law--
       (1) for fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall reduce by \1/
     3\ the amount otherwise payable to a State under section 458 
     of the Social Security Act, and shall reduce by \2/3\ the 
     amount otherwise payable to a State under section 458A of 
     such Act; and
       (2) for fiscal year 2001, the Secretary shall reduce by \2/
     3\ the amount otherwise payable to a State under section 458 
     of the Social Security Act, and shall reduce by \1/3\ the 
     amount otherwise payable to a State under section 458A of 
     such Act.
       (c) Regulations.--Within 9 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall prescribe regulations governing the 
     implementation of section 458A of the Social Security Act 
     when such section takes effect and the implementation of 
     subsection (b) of this section.
       (d) Studies.--
       (1) General review of new incentive payment system.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study of the implementation of the incentive 
     payment system established by section 458A of the Social 
     Security Act, in order to identify the problems and successes 
     of the system.
       (B) Reports to the congress.--
       (i) Report on variations in state performance attributable 
     to demographic variables.--Not later than October 1, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report that 
     identifies any demographic or economic variables that account 
     for differences in the performance levels achieved by the 
     States with respect to the performance measures used in the 
     system, and contains the recommendations of the Secretary for 
     such adjustments to the system as may be necessary to ensure 
     that the relative performance of States is measured from a 
     baseline that takes account of any such variables.
       (ii) Interim report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Congress an interim report that 
     contains the findings of the study required by subparagraph 
     (A).
       (iii) Final report.--Not later than October 1, 2003, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report that 
     contains the final findings of the study required by 
     subparagraph (A). The report shall include any 
     recommendations for changes in the system that the Secretary 
     determines would improve the operation of the child support 
     enforcement program.
       (2) Development of medical support incentive.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with State directors of programs 
     operated under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     and representatives of children potentially eligible for 
     medical support, shall develop a performance measure based on 
     the effectiveness of States in establishing and enforcing 
     medical support obligations, and shall make recommendations 
     for the incorporation of the measure, in a revenue neutral 
     manner, into the incentive payment system established by 
     section 458A of the Social Security Act.
       (B) Report.--Not later than October 1, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Congress a report that describes the 
     performance measure and contains the recommendations required 
     by subparagraph (A).
       (e) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 341 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 
     658 note) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a) and redesignating 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (a), (b), and 
     (c), respectively; and
       (B) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Conforming amendments to present system.--The 
     amendments made by subsection (a) of this section shall 
     become effective with respect to a State as of the date the 
     amendments made by section 103(a) (without regard to section 
     116(a)(2)) first apply to the State.''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(c)'' and inserting 
     ``(b)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     341 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996.
       (f) Elimination of Predecessor Incentive Payment System.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 458 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 658) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 458A of the Social Security Act, as added by 
     section 201(a) of this Act, is redesignated as section 458.
       (B) Section 455(a)(4)(C)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     655(a)(4)(C)(iii)), as added by section 101 of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``458A(b)(4)'' and inserting ``458(b)(4)'';
       (ii) by striking ``458A(b)(6)'' and inserting 
     ``458(b)(6)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``458A(b)(5)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``458(b)(5)(B)''.
       (C) Subsection (d)(1) of this section is amended by 
     striking ``458A'' and inserting ``458''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
       (g) General Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this section, the amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on October 1, 1999.
                     TITLE III--ADOPTION PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. MORE FLEXIBLE PENALTY PROCEDURE TO BE APPLIED FOR 
                   FAILING TO PERMIT INTERJURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION.

       (a) Conversion of Funding Ban Into State Plan 
     Requirement.--Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 671(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (21);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (22) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) provides that the State shall not--
       ``(A) deny or delay the placement of a child for adoption 
     when an approved family is available outside of the 
     jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case of the 
     child; or
       ``(B) fail to grant an opportunity for a fair hearing, as 
     described in paragraph (12), to an individual whose 
     allegation of a violation of subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph is denied by the State or not acted upon by the 
     State with reasonable promptness.''.
       (b) Penalty for Noncompliance.--Section 474(d) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 674(d)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) by striking ``section 471(a)(18)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (18) or (23) of section 471(a)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 474 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 674) is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (d) Retroactivity.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in section 202(b) of the 
     Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
                    TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

     SEC. 401. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Section 413(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     613(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities'' and inserting ``Education and the 
     Workforce''.
       (b) Section 422(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     622(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``under under'' and 
     inserting ``under''.
       (c) Section 432(a)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     632(a)(8)) is amended by adding ``; and'' at the end.
       (d) Section 453(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     653(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``parentage,'' and inserting ``parentage 
     or'';
       (2) by striking ``or making or enforcing child custody or 
     visitation orders,''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (A), by decreasing the indentation of 
     clause (iv) by 2 ems.
       (e)(1) Section 5557(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (42 U.S.C. 608 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The amendment made by section 5536(1)(A) shall 
     not take effect with respect to a State until October 1, 
     2000, or such earlier date as the State may select.''.
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of section 5557 of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 
     637).
       (f) Section 473A(c)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 673b(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``November 30, 1997'' and inserting ``April 
     30, 1998''; and
       (2) by striking ``March 1, 1998'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     1998''.
       (g) Section 474(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     674(a)) is amended by striking ``(subject to the limitations 
     imposed by subsection (b))''.

[[Page H876]]

       (h) Section 232 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 
     1994 (42 U.S.C. 1314a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by striking ``Energy and''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``(b)(3)(D)'' and 
     inserting ``(b)(3)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is in order unless printed in the appropriate part of 
the Congressional Record.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cardin:
       In the table of contents of the bill, add at the end the 
     following:

                    TITLE IV--IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Aliens ineligible to receive visas and excluded from 
              admission for nonpayment of child support.
Sec. 402. Effect of nonpayment of child support on establishment of 
              good moral character.
Sec. 403. Authorization to serve legal process in child support cases 
              on certain arriving aliens.
Sec. 404. Authorization to obtain information on child support payments 
              by aliens.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
                    TITLE IV--IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUDED 
                   FROM ADMISSION FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(a)(10) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(F) Nonpayment of child support.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is inadmissible who is legally 
     obligated under a judgment, decree, or order to pay child 
     support (as defined in section 459(i) of the Social Security 
     Act), and whose failure to pay such child support has 
     resulted in an arrearage exceeding $5,000, until child 
     support payments under the judgment, decree, or order are 
     satisfied or the alien is in compliance with an approved 
     payment agreement.
       ``(ii) Application to permanent residents.--Notwithstanding 
     section 101(a)(13)(C), an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence in the United States who has been absent 
     from the United States for any period of time shall be 
     regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for 
     purposes of this subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Waiver authorized.--The Attorney General may waive 
     the application of clause (i) in the case of an alien, if the 
     Attorney General--

       ``(I) has received a request for the waiver from the court 
     or administrative agency having jurisdiction over the 
     judgment, decree, or order obligating the alien to pay child 
     support that is referred to in such clause; and
       ``(II) determines that the likelihood of the arrearage 
     being eliminated, and all subsequent child support payments 
     timely being made by the alien, would increase substantially 
     if the waiver were granted.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 402. EFFECT OF NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ON 
                   ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(f) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) one who is legally obligated under a judgment, 
     decree, or order to pay child support (as defined in section 
     459(i) of the Social Security Act), and whose failure to pay 
     such child support has resulted in any arrearage, unless 
     child support payments under the judgment, decree, or order 
     are satisfied or the alien is in compliance with an approved 
     payment agreement.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to aliens applying for a benefit under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act on or after 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION TO SERVE LEGAL PROCESS IN CHILD 
                   SUPPORT CASES ON CERTAIN ARRIVING ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--Section 235(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(d)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Authority to serve process in child support cases.--
       ``(A) In general.--To the extent consistent with State law, 
     immigration officers are authorized to serve on any alien who 
     is an applicant for admission to the United States legal 
     process with respect to any action to enforce or establish a 
     legal obligation of an individual to pay child support (as 
     defined in section 459(i) of the Social Security Act).
       ``(B) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `legal process' means any writ, order, summons or other 
     similar process, which is issued by--
       ``(i) a court or an administrative agency of competent 
     jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the 
     United States; or
       ``(ii) an authorized official pursuant to an order of such 
     a court or agency or pursuant to State or local law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to aliens applying for admission to the United 
     States on or after 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 404. AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON CHILD 
                   SUPPORT PAYMENTS BY ALIENS.

       Section 453(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     653(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Provision to attorney general and secretary of state 
     of information on persons delinquent in child support 
     payments.--On request by the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall provide the requestor with such information as 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines may aid 
     them in determining whether an alien is delinquent in the 
     payment of child support.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to provide for an 
     alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet 
     Federal child support data processing requirements, to reform 
     Federal incentive payments for effective child support 
     performance, to provide for a more flexible penalty procedure 
     for States that violate interjurisdictional adoption 
     requirements, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
     make certain aliens determined to be delinquent in the 
     payment of child support inadmissible and ineligible for 
     naturalization, and for other purposes.''.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and 
the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means and also the Committee on 
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the 
administration in helping to craft the amendment that I offer. This 
matter was brought to my attention by a constituent who was trying to 
collect child support from a foreign national. The foreign national 
came to our country regularly as a businessperson making considerable 
money off of his business ventures here in the United States. My 
constituent was unable to collect child support because there was no 
effective way of collecting child support from that foreign national. 
The amendment before my colleagues would correct that circumstance. It 
would deny a visa or a reentry to a noncustodial parent, foreign 
national, that is $5,000 or more in arrears in child support. It would 
also deny naturalization if the person is in noncompliance with a valid 
child support order. Lastly, the amendment would give new authority for 
the service of summons and court orders at our borders for foreign 
nationals.
  Madam Chairman, this particular amendment would place a foreign 
national in a comparable position as we place our own citizens. If an 
American is $5,000 or more in arrears in child support, we deny our 
citizen the right to have a passport. The least we can do for foreign 
nationals is treat them likewise and deny them the ability to enter our 
country. For Americans we also deny driver's licenses and other 
professional certificates. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment in order that we provide comparable abilities for enforcing 
child support orders by foreign nationals.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is strictly within the spirit of this 
legislation and what we are trying to accomplish. I compliment the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for bringing this to our 
attention, and I vigorously support his amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his help in developing this 
amendment and bringing this matter forward.

[[Page H877]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, the 
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilman) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3130) to 
provide for alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet 
Federal child support data processing requirements, to reform Federal 
incentive payments for effective child support performance, and to 
provide for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that violate 
interjurisdictional adoption requirements, pursuant to House Resolution 
378, she reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414, 
noes 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               AYES--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bilirakis
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Ganske
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Luther
     McDermott
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Schiff
     Shimkus
     Thomas

                              {time}  1314

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to provide 
for an alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet 
Federal child support data processing requirements, to reform Federal 
incentive payments for effective child support performance, to provide 
for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that violate 
interjurisdictional adoption requirements, to amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to make certain aliens determined to be delinquent in 
the payment of child support inadmissible and ineligible for 
naturalization, and for other purposes.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________