[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 41 (Thursday, April 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3183-S3185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD SUPPORT PERFORMANCE AND INCENTIVE ACT OF 1998
Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3130, and, further, that
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A 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, to provide
for a more flexible penalty procedure for States that violate
interjurisdicational 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
amendment no. 2286
Ms. COLLINS. Senator Roth has a substitute amendment at desk and I
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Roth,
proposes an amendment numbered 2286.
Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2286) was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on behalf of the Finance Committee, I am
joining with Senator Moynihan and others today to bring H.R. 3130, the
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, before the Senate.
This important bill passed the House of Representatives earlier this
month by a vote of 414 to 1.
When a bill passes the House by that wide of a margin, it is either
noncontroversial, of limited national significance, or an extremely
important piece of legislation with broad and deep support. H.R. 3130
clearly falls within this last category.
The work on this legislation began shortly after the ``Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996'' was
signed into law. The 1996 welfare reform act required the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to recommend to Congress a new, budget-
neutral performance-based incentive system for the child support
enforcement program. H.R. 3130 incorporates those recommendations which
were developed in consultation with 26 representatives of state and
local child support enforcement systems. The new incentive program is
the centerpiece of this bill.
Under current law, the Federal Government returns more than $400
million per year in child support collections to the states as
incentive payments. But this incentive structure has been criticized
for years as weak and inadequate. All States, regardless of actual
performance, receive some incentive payments. But for more than a
decade, performance has not been tied to the national goals of the
program.
H.R. 3130 breaks with the past and creates five categories in which
state performance will be evaluated and rewarded.
The States will be measured according to their performance in
paternity establishment, establishment of court orders, collections of
current child support payments, collections on past due payments, and
cost effectiveness.
The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to make a future recommendation on adding another performance
measure on medical support orders. Let me particularly thank Senator
Rockefeller for his work in designing a strategy to overcome the
inherent barriers to medical support orders.
The new incentive structure is an important development not only for
the child support enforcement system but also as a model for improving
accountability and performance in government.
The second important feature of this bill is to provide for an
alternative penalty procedure for those states that have failed to meet
federal child support data processing requirements. Less than half of
the States have been certified as in compliance. Without this change,
states face not only the loss of their entire child support grant, but
all of their funds in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program as well.
[[Page S3184]]
Such a result would obviously be crippling to a state and would
ultimately hurt the very families these programs are intended to help.
Under the new alternative penalty procedures, those states which will
not come into compliance this year will face a penalty of four percent
of their child support funds.
This penalty would double each year in the following two years and
would reach 30 percent in the fourth year a state failed to come into
compliance. These penalties are tough but fair.
Under the Finance amendment, states will not face a penalty in the
year in which they come into compliance. And states which come into
compliance with the first two years after penalties have been imposed
can have the penalty from the prior year reduced.
H.R. 3130 also provides additional flexibility to the states in how
they design their automated systems.
In looking back over the history of automation, we find there were a
number of mistakes made at both the federal and state levels which
contributed to the delay in getting these systems operational. The
child support enforcement system is a prime example of what can happen
when regulations fail to keep pace with real world practices.
H.R. 3130 recognizes the advances in technologies and allows states
to take advantage of these improvements. It properly refocuses federal
policy on function and results rather than on rigid rules.
All of these changes will work together to get the states in
compliance as quickly as possible. This will mean the child support
enforcement system will work better for the families who depend on
child support.
H.R. 3130 also makes a correction in how penalties are applied under
the new ``Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997'' which became law
last November. It is vitally important that the states be held
accountable for assisting the children in foster care.
A child should not be denied the opportunity to be adopted into a
loving and caring family simply because the prospective parents live in
the next county.
When the Department of Health and Human Services issues regulations
on how the new penalties are enforced, it should, of course, provide
the states with the opportunity to present evidence of how it complies
with the new law. The review of this new requirement must be a fair and
complete assessment of whether the law is being met.
Mr. President, this is indeed an important, bipartisan bill which
will prove itself to pay dividends for America's families. I urge its
adoption.
I ask unanimous consent a summary be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of H.R. 3130, ``The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act
of 1998'' With Senate Modifications, March 1998
Title I: Alternative Penalty Procedure
Eligibility for alternative penalty. A state which is not
in compliance with federal data processing requirements may
enter into a corrective compliance plan with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. The plan must describe how, by
when, and at what cost the state will achieve compliance. For
failing to achieve compliance, a state would be penalized 4
percent of its federal administrative grant under the Title
IV-D program beginning in FY 1998. The penalty will increase
to 8 percent for the second year of noncompliance; 16 percent
for the third year; and 30 percent for the fourth year and
each subsequent year. A state is subject to a single
reduction in a fiscal year.
Penalty waiver. A state is not penalized in the fiscal year
in which it achieves compliance. A state will not be subject
to a higher penalty as a result of a delay by HHS to conduct
a review.
Penalty forgiveness. In the first two year period in which
a penalty is applied, HHS shall reduce the penalty from the
immediately preceding year when compliance is achieved. For
example, the 4 percent penalty for FY 1998 will be reduced by
20 percent if compliance is achieved in FY 1999. The 8
percent penalty for 1999 will be reduced by 20 percent if
compliance is achieved in FY 2000. There is no forgiveness
for the previous year after the second year.
Penalty reduction for good performance. In the case of the
1996 welfare reform requirements, a state which fails to
comply in a fiscal year could have its penalty for that year
reduced by 20 percent for each performance measure under the
new incentive system provided in Title II for which it
achieves its maximum score.
Expansion of waiver provision. The authority of the
Secretary to waive certain data processing requirements and
to provide federal funding for a wider range of state data
systems activities would be expanded to include waiving the
single statewide system requirement under certain
conditions and providing federal funds to develop and
enhance local systems which are linked to state systems.
To qualify, a state would have to demonstrate that it can
develop an alternative system that: can help the state
meet the paternity establishment requirement and other
performance measures; can submit required data to HHS that
is complete and reliable; substantially complies with all
requirements of the child support enforcement program;
achieves all the functional capacity for automatic data
processing outlined in the statute; meets the requirements
for distributing collections to families and governments,
including cases in which support is owed to more than one
family or more than one government; has only one point of
contact for both interstate cases (which provides seamless
case processing) and intrastate case management; is based
on standardized data elements, forms, and definitions that
are used throughout the state; can be operational in no
more time than it would take to achieve an operational
single statewide system; and can process child support
cases as quickly, efficiently, and effectively as would be
possible with a single statewide system.
Federal payments under waiver. In addition to the various
waiver requirements described above, and to the requirements
in current law, the state would have to submit to the
Secretary separate estimates of the costs to develop and
implement a single statewide system and the alternative
system being proposed by the state plus the costs of
operating and maintaining these systems for five years from
the date of implementation. The Secretary would have to agree
with the estimates. If a state elects to operate such an
alternative system, the state would be paid the 66 percent
federal administration reimbursement only on expenditures
that did not exceed the estimated cost of the single
statewide system.
TITLE II. Child Support Incentive System
Amount of incentive payments. The incentive payment for a
state for a given year would be calculated by multiplying the
incentive payment pool for the year by the state's share for
the year. The incentive payment pool would be:
FY 2000: $422 million
FY 2001: $429 million
FY 2002: $450 million
FY 2003: $461 million
FY 2004: $454 million
FY 2005: $446 million
FY 2006: $458 million
FY 2007: $471 million
FY 2008: $483 million
After 2008, the incentive payment pool would increase each
year by the inflation rate.
Performance measures. The incentive payments would be based
on five performance measures: paternity establishment,
establishment of support orders, collections on current
payments, collections on past due payments (arrearages), and
cost effectiveness.
Treatment of interstate collections. In computing incentive
payments, supported collected by the state at the request of
another state would be treated as having been collected by
both states.
Regulations. The Secretary would be required to prescribe
regulations necessary to implement the incentive payment
program within nine months of the date of enactment.
Reinvestment. States would be required to spend child
support incentive payments to carry out their child support
enforcement program or to conduct activities approved by the
Secretary which may contribute to improving the effectiveness
or efficiency of the state child support enforcement program.
In so doing, states would have to supplement and not supplant
other funds used by the state to conduct its child support
enforcement program.
Transition rule. The new incentive program would be phased
in over two years beginning in FY 2000. In FY 2000, \1/3\ of
each state's incentive payment would be based on the new
incentive system and \2/3\ on the old system. In FY 2001, \2/
3\ of the payment will be based on the new system; and in
2002, the incentive payment will be based entirely on the new
system.
General effective date. Except for the elimination of the
current incentive program, the amendments would take
effect on October 1, 1999.
Title III: Adoption Provisions
More flexible penalty procedure to be applied for failing
to permit interjurisdictional adoption. Under the ``Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997, a state is at risk of losing
its entire IV-E grant for violating the new requirements on
interjurisdictional adoptions. This provision allows the
states to enter into a corrective compliance plan and reduces
the penalty to 2 percent for the first violation, 3 percent
for the second violation, and 5 percent for the third and
subsequent violations.
Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
Elimination of barriers to the effective establishment and
enforcement of medical child support. This provision is
intended to eliminate the existing barriers to effective
enforcement of medical support in three ways.
[[Page S3185]]
First, it requires the Secretaries of HHS and Labor to design
and implement a Standardized Medical Support Notice. State
child support agencies will be required to use this
standardized form to communicate the issuance of a medical
support order, and employers will be required to accept the
form as a ``Qualified Medical Support Order'' under ERISA.
Second, the Secretaries will jointly establish a medical
support working group to identify and make recommendations
for the removal of other barriers to effective medical
support. Third, the Secretary of Labor is required to submit
a report containing recommendations for any additional ERISA
changes necessary to improve medical support enforcement.
Safeguard of new employee information. This provision
imposes a fine of $1,000 for each act of unauthorized access
to, disclosure of, or use of information in the National
Directory of New Hires. It also requires that data entered
into the National Director of New Hires be deleted 24 months
after date of entry for individuals who have a child support
order. For an individual who does not have a child support
order, the data must be deleted after 12 months.
General Accounting Office study on program improvements.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) is required to report to
Congress on the feasibility of implementing an instant check
system for employers to use in identifying individuals with
child support orders. The report is also to include a review
of the use of the Federal Parent Locater Service,
including the Federal Case Registry of Child Support
Orders and the National Directory of New Hires, and the
adequacy of privacy protections.
Technical and conforming amendments. There are several
technical and conforming amendments made. The two most
noteworthy amendments deal with data collection in the
calculation of the adopting incentive payments and collection
of Social Security numbers and are described below.
(1) The new provision would give the states an additional
five months to report data needed to calculate adoption
incentive payments and the Secretary an additional four
months to approve the data.
(2) The 1996 welfare reform law requires states to collect
Social Security numbers on applications for state licenses
for purposes of matching in child support cases by January 1,
1998. The ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act of 1996'' required states to collect
Social Security numbers on applications for state licenses
for purposes of checking the identity of immigrants by
October 1, 2000. This amendment would conform the differing
requirements by changing the date for child support cases to
October 1, 2000, or such earlier date as the state selects.
Title V of the House bill regarding immigration provisions
is not included in the substitute.
comparison of senate and house penalties
Example of a state with $100 million IV-D grant:
1. Penalties faced if compliance is achieved in 1998: (Year
1) (Assumes did not submit December 31, 1997 letter to HHS).
House
FY 1998: $1 million ($4 million reduced by 75%)
Total: $1 million
Senate
FY 1998: $0
Total: $0
2. Penalties faced if compliance is achieved in 1999: (Year
2).
House
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $2 million ($8 million reduced by 75%)
Total: $6 million
Senate
FY 1998: $3.2 million ($4 million reduced by 20%)
FY 1999: $0
Total: $3.2 million
3. Penalties faced if compliance is achieved in FY 2000:
(Year 3).
House
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $8 million
FY 2000: $4 million ($16 million reduced by 75%)
Total: $16 million
Senate
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $6.4 million ($8 million reduced by 20%)
FY 2000: $0
Total: $10.4 million
4. Penalties faced if compliance is achieved in 2001: (Year
4).
House
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $8 million
FY 2000: $16 million
FY 2001: $5 million ($20 million reduced by 75%)
Total: $33 million
Senate
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $8 million
FY 2000: $16 million
FY 2001: $0
Total: $26 million
5. Penalties faced if compliance is achieved in 2002: (Year
5).
House
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $8 million
FY 2000: $16 million
FY 2001: $20 million
FY 2002: $5 million ($20 million reduced by 75%)
Total: $53 million
Senate
FY 1998: $4 million
FY 1999: $8 million
FY 2000: $16 million
FY 2001: $30 million
FY 2002: $0
Total: $58 million
adoption and safe families act
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I note that the ``Child Support Performance
and Incentive Act of 1998'' contains a provision which amends the
``Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.'' This provision deals with
how the provision on elimination of geographic barriers to adoption is
enforced. It is my understanding that this amendment does not affect
the other provisions in the new law on reasonable efforts or the
termination of parental rights.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the new law was to clarify
federal policy regarding the protection of children in foster care. The
adoption law makes clear that the health and safety of children must
always be of paramount concern in any decision affecting the removal of
children from their homes or the reunification of children with their
families.
To receive foster care and adoption assistance funds, States are
generally required to make reasonable efforts to maintain children in
their own homes or to reunify children and families when possible.
However, it is my understanding that under the new law, the federal
government does not require States to make such efforts in cases where
a court finds that a parent has killed or assaulted a child or
subjected the child to extreme forms of abuse or neglect. At the same
time, the new law does not prevent a State from making efforts to
preserve or reunify a family in such cases, as long as the child's
health and safety are the paramount considerations. Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is correct. In addition, the adoption law
establishes a new requirement that States must initiate termination of
parental rights proceedings in specific cases that are outlined in the
law. However, the law only requires States to initiate such proceedings
and does not mandate the outcome. Moreover, the law provides that
States are not required to initiate termination of parental rights in
certain cases, including when there is a compelling reason to conclude
that such proceedings would not be in the child's best interest. Thus,
the State retains the discretion to make case-by-case determinations
regarding whether to seek termination of parental rights.
Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a
third time and passed, that the title amendment be agreed to, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements
relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3130) was deemed read the third time and passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
An Act 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, and for other
purposes.
____________________