[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 69 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5276-S5278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1036. A bill to amend parts A and D of title IV of the Social 
Security Act to give States the option to pass through directly to a 
family receiving assistance under the temporary assistance to needy 
families program all child support collected by the State and the 
option to disregard any child support that the family receives in 
determining a family's eligibility for, or

[[Page S5277]]

amount of, assistance under that program; to the Committee on Finance.


            children first child support reform act of 1999

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along 
with my colleagues Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Rockefeller 
of West Virginia, to provide more resources to America's children and 
families by encouraging more parents to live up to their child support 
obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform 
Act, would enhance the options and incentives available to states to 
allow more child support to be paid directly to the families to whom it 
is owed and not be counted against public assistance benefits. My 
legislation will help assure more noncustodial parents that the child 
support they pay will actually contribute to the wellbeing of their 
child, rather than the government, and also help reduce administrative 
burdens on the state.
  As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State 
Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child 
support for families receiving public assistance and other families 
that request help in enforcing child support. Toward this end, the 
program works to establish paternity and legally binding support 
orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so 
that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, 
nurturing surroundings.
  But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on 
behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, actually works 
against families.
  Under current law, if a family is not on public assistance, support 
collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program is generally sent 
directly to the family. However, and this is the crux of the problem, 
support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is 
kept by the State and Federal Governments as reimbursement for welfare 
expenditures. Thus, for families on public assistance, the child 
support program ends up benefiting the financial interests of the 
government, rather than their children.
  The research shows that many noncustodial parents are discouraged 
from paying child support because they realize and resent the fact that 
their payments go to the government rather than benefiting their 
children directly. In addition, some custodial parents are skeptical 
about working with the child support agency to secure payments since 
the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Obviously, these builtin 
program obstacles to reliable, timely child support payments serve to 
undermine the program's intended goals of promoting self-sufficiency 
and personal responsibility.
  Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not 
need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to 
them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than 
$43 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of 
child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true 
today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it 
has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is 
not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider 
this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures.
  But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not be cast off 
entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform 
law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work 
requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families 
to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, 
unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and 
responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give 
families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and 
ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance.
  We fundamentally changed welfare, now we fundamentally reexamine the 
central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to 
become and remain self-sufficient. To this end, we've made some, but 
not nearly enough, progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will 
eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support 
arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state 
and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states 
were provided with some ability to continue or expand the $50 
passthrough that had been required under previous law. But only one 
state--my homestate of Wisconsin--has opted to let families retain all 
support paid. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national 
model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, 
child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for 
welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child 
support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other 
words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial 
parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their 
child support payments go to their children. And both parents are 
presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the 
life of their child.
  I worked with Wisconsin to secure the waivers necessary to pursue 
this innovative policy and want to provide the other states with 
additional flexibility and options so that they can follow Wisconsin's 
example.
  In addition to helping families, the expanded passthrough and 
disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative 
side. The current distribution requirements place significant 
accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. 
Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 
20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing 
payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts 
to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or 
kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on 
whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family 
begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current 
on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other 
factors.
  We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of 
automation, systems integration and welfare law child support 
enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will 
lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and 
improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a 
distribution system in which child support collected would 
automatically be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A 
distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute 
current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in 
exactly the same way?
  Mr. President, child support financing must be addressed in the near 
future. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the 
philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support 
program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. 
Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF 
caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support 
caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional 
resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is 
decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial 
footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the 
program and gives states additional flexibility to put more resources 
into the hands of children and let families keep more of their own 
money.

  Let me strongly affirm that by advocating an expanded passthrough and 
disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in 
our child support system by either the Federal government or the 
states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and 
steadfast. I am working to expand the passthrough for the reasons that 
I've explained, but I am also committed to paying for it in a 
responsible way. Not knowing what the proposal will cost today 
necessarily requires that we keep ourselves open to adjustments as the 
debate proceeds.
  That said, it is time for us to envision a child support program that 
truly serves families and works to advance, not undermine, the TANF 
policy goals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility with which 
it is inextricably

[[Page S5278]]

combined. Because assistance is now time-limited, we must give families 
the tools to survive in a world without public help, a world where they 
must rely on their own resources. In that equation, we all know that 
child support is fundamental. Letting as many as 5 years go by with 
child support payments either not being or accuring to the state rather 
than the family does nothing to advance those goals.
  Mr. President, it's time to put our children first and envision a 
child support program that truly serves families. We can do that by 
passing this legislation to improve the public system, let families 
keep more of their own money, and make child support truly meaningful 
in the everyday lives of children on public assistance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1036

       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 ``Children First Child Support 
     Reform Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED 
                   BY THE STATE.

       (a) State Option to Pass All Child Support Collected 
     Directly to the Family.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 657) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(e) and (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(e), (f), and (g)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) State Option to Pass Through All Support Collected to 
     the Family.--
       ``(1) In general.--At State option, subject to paragraph 
     (2), and subsections (a)(4), (b), (e), (d), and (f), this 
     section shall not apply to any amount collected on behalf of 
     a family as support by the State and any amount so collected 
     shall be distributed to the family.
       ``(2) Income protection requirement.--A State may not elect 
     the option described in paragraph (1) unless the State also 
     elects (through an amendment to the State plan submitted 
     under section 402(a)) to disregard any amount so collected 
     and distributed for purposes of determining the amount of 
     assistance that the State will provide to the family under 
     the State program funded under part A pursuant to section 
     408(a)(12)(B).
       ``(3) Option to pass through amounts collected pursuant to 
     a continued assignment.--At State option, any amount 
     collected pursuant to an assignment continued under 
     subsection (b) may be distributed to the family in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Release of obligation to pay federal share.--If a 
     State that elects the option described in paragraph (1) also 
     elects to disregard under section 408(a)(12)(B) at least 50 
     percent (determined, at the option of the State, in the 
     aggregate or on a case-by-case basis) of the total amount 
     annually collected and distributed to all families in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) for purposes of determining the 
     amount of assistance for such families under the State 
     program funded under part A, the State is released from--
       ``(A) calculating the Federal share of the amounts so 
     distributed and disregarded; and
       ``(B) paying such share to the Federal Government.''.
       (2) Authority to claim passed through amount for purposes 
     of tanf maintenance of effort requirements.--Section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by inserting ``, and, in 
     the case of a State that elects under section 457(g) to 
     distribute any amount so collected directly to the family, 
     any amount so distributed (regardless of whether the State 
     also disregards that amount under section 408(a)(12) in 
     determining the eligibility of the family for, or the amount 
     of, such assistance)'' before the period.
       (b) State Option to Disregard Child Support Collected For 
     Purposes of Determining Eligibility For, or Amount of, TANF 
     Assistance.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) State option to disregard child support in 
     determining eligibility for, or amount of, assistance.--
       ``(A) Option to disregard child support for purposes of 
     determining eligibility.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 may disregard any part of any amount 
     received by a family as a result of a child support 
     obligation in determining the family's income for purposes of 
     determining the family's eligibility for assistance under the 
     State program funded under this part.
       ``(B) Option to disregard child support in determining 
     amount of assistance.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 may disregard any part of any amount received by 
     a family as a result of a child support obligation in 
     determining the amount of assistance that the State will 
     provide to the family under the State program funded under 
     this part.''.
       (c) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 454 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (32), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (33), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(34) provide that, if the State elects to distribute 
     support directly to a family in accordance with section 
     457(g), the State share of expenditures under this part for a 
     fiscal year shall not be less than an amount equal to the 
     highest amount of such share expended for fiscal year 1995, 
     1996, 1997, or 1998 (determined without regard to any amount 
     expended that was eligible for payment under section 
     455(a)(3)).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 457(f) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Amounts Collected On 
     Behalf of Children in Foster Care.--Notwithstanding''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 1999.
                                 ______