[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 103 (Thursday, September 7, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7294-H7296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1130
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4678, CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION 
                              ACT OF 2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 566

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4678) to provide more 
     child support money to families leaving welfare, to simplify 
     the rules governing the assignment and distribution of child 
     support collected by States on behalf of children, to improve 
     the collection of child support, to promote marriage, and for 
     other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by Representative Scott of Virginia or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 566 is a modified closed rule providing 
for consideration of the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. The 
rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill.
  The rule also provides that the Committee on Ways and Means 
substitute, as modified by the amendment printed in Part A of the 
Committee on Rules report, shall be an original bill for the purpose of 
further amendment.
  The amendment in Part A addresses the concerns expressed by several 
of our Members by giving States the option of paying child support that 
is currently retained by the State and Federal Government to mothers on 
welfare. This will give States the option of making payments on the 
obligations that accrued before 1997 to the families as opposed to the 
government keeping the money.
  The amendment also lists several specific activities that fatherhood 
projects may include to promote and sustain marriage.
  The rule also provides for consideration of the amendment printed in 
Part B of the Committee on Rules report if offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or his designee, which shall be considered as 
read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes. All points of order against 
the Scott amendment are waived.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides another chance to amend the 
bill through one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, since Congress enacted the historic welfare reform in 
1996, 6 million families have moved off the welfare rolls and into jobs 
that provide the satisfaction of self-sufficiency and personal 
responsibility. Today we have the lowest number of families on welfare 
since 1970.
  While we celebrate this success, we understand that that transition 
from welfare to work is not necessarily easy. Many of these families 
rely on a single parent to hold things together and provide for all of 
their needs. For those of us who have raised children with the help and 
support of a spouse, it is hard to fathom the energy, patience, and 
stamina required to take on such a task alone. Every bit of help makes 
a difference to these struggling families.
  The least the government can do is help these parents collect all of 
the child support that is rightfully theirs.
  The Child Support Distribution Act would ensure that, when a family 
is off welfare, all rights to child support, including payments on past 
due support, would be assigned to that family. This would require 
States to hold off on collecting any past due child support that it has 
a right to until the family is completely repaid. In addition, when a 
family is on welfare, States will have the option of sharing 
collections with the family.
  The goal is to facilitate a relationship between the mother who is 
often the recipient of this support and the father who is often paying 
it, before the mother leaves welfare and does not have the State 
intervening in her behalf.
  Of course the right to child support means little to a family if 
child support orders are not enforced. That is why this legislation 
seeks to improve enforcement by requiring the Department of Health and 
Human Services to provide guidelines for child support enforcement and 
issue a report on private companies involved in child support 
collection. Based on this information, Health and Human Services will 
set up 13 State demonstration programs designed to improve enforcement.
  In addition, this bill cracks down on deadbeat parents by denying 
passports to individuals responsible for past due support and expanding 
the tax refund intercept program so that it can be used to collect past 
due support.
  Mr. Speaker, while we seek to assist these families by making sure 
they get the money they are owed, we should also focus on the 
circumstances that have led to their dependency on government and the 
other social challenges that they face. There is no doubt that this is 
more difficult for

[[Page H7295]]

single parent families to achieve financial security than for two-
parent households.
  In addition, kids who have only one parent to rely on have a harder 
time in school, a lower rate of graduation, a greater propensity 
towards crime, an increased likelihood of becoming a single parent 
themselves, and a higher chance of ending up on welfare.
  That is why the Child Support Distribution Act includes a fatherhood 
grant program that seeks to build stronger families by promoting 
marriage, encouraging the payment of child support, and boosting 
fathers' income so that they can do a better job as providers for their 
children.
  The bill encourages local efforts to help fathers by requiring that 
75 percent of the funding be given to nongovernmental community-based 
organizations including faith-based institutions. In addition, a 
national clearinghouse of information about fatherhood programs and a 
multi-city fatherhood demonstration project would be established.
  The fact is that we are not sure what the best way is to get fathers 
back into the picture and engaged in their children's upbringing. But 
we think some community-based organizations might have some good ideas 
that would meet the unique needs of the fathers in their own cities and 
towns. This fatherhood program is designed to try to tap into these 
communities, try some new things, and then scientifically evaluate the 
results so that good programs can be duplicated.
  Mr. Speaker, all said, this legislation takes a number of important 
steps forward in our Nation's efforts to redefine welfare and make it 
work for families.
  I want to thank and congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) who authored this important legislation. I hope all of 
my colleagues will support the rule and our Nation's neediest families 
by voting for the Child Support Distribution Act. I urge a yes vote on 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. 
This rule makes in order one amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and provides that a further amendment, which 
has been developed by both the majority and the minority of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, shall be considered as adopted upon 
passage of the rule.
  While the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules normally do 
not support rules which limit the amendments which may be offered to 
legislation, in this instance, we will not object to the rule reported 
by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4678 is an important proposal developed on a 
bipartisan basis by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). This bill makes important 
changes in the distribution of child support payments collected by the 
States on behalf of current and former welfare recipients.
  This change would allow families to keep all arrears collected by the 
State that accrued before and after a family went on welfare rather 
than the 50 percent allowed by current law.
  The bill also establishes a fatherhood grant program that would fund 
public and private fatherhood programs that seek to promote marriage, 
successful parenting, and better jobs for poor fathers.
  The rule makes in order an amendment that will be offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) which has been included in previous 
legislation to make clear that any eligible entity cannot subject a 
participant to sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization, 
clarifies that eligible recipients of these funds are in receipt of 
Federal financial assistance, and, finally, closes the loophole in 
welfare reform that allows discrimination against beneficiaries when 
another standing law permits it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is worthy legislation that deserves consideration 
by the House, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule so that we 
may proceed to the debate on H.R. 4678.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of this excellent 
bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4678. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member, for his work on this 
important issue. I want to especially congratulate the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who has been a relentless and effective 
fighter for child support issues.
  I am very proud to be a small part of this excellent legislation and 
which proves that legislation of substance can be bipartisan.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4678, the Child Support 
Distribution Act of 2000 and in support of the work of Chairwoman 
Johnson in assuring that our children receive the child support that 
they deserve.
  Too many defenseless children are victimized by parents who do not 
support their children. Think of it: our most important resource--our 
nation's children--are often left without food or the basic necessities 
they need due to their parents' refusal to support them. These 
children, hungry and without money for support, are then forced to turn 
to the government for assistance when they are abandoned by their non-
custodial parents.
  There are two types of child support payments: current support and 
past due support, or arrearages. H.R. 4678 primarily deals with 
arrearages and the question of who keeps the collections: the family or 
the government. Previously, when a family left welfare, the government 
was able to retain all payments on past due support. The 1996 welfare 
reform law required the government to split the arrearages with the 
family. Due to the overwhelming number of families who have since left 
welfare to work, this legislation now will require that the other half 
be paid to the families. This way, the maximum amount of child support 
payments will be going directly to a family for their support. If a 
family is still on welfare, a state has the option to share collections 
with the family.
  However, while H.R. 4678 provides for simplified rules for the 
review, collection and enforcement of support orders, I wish that we 
could have gone further. I believe that the duty of paying child 
support to one's child is as important as the duty to one's country to 
pay taxes. I introduced legislation this Congress, H.R. 1488, that 
would require the IRS to collect child support in the same manner that 
taxes are collected. The child support collected would then be 
disbursed to the custodial parent with penalties and interest if 
appropriate. This approach is not possible at this time. H.R. 4678 is a 
good step in the right direction. It improves our current system of 
enforcement and distribution to those who need it the most, while 
promoting financial and personal responsibility. This ultimately curbs 
welfare dependency.
  This vote is a vote for our children. Every child deserves to be 
supported, and this is Congress' chance to pass a law that will be for 
the kids' sake.
  I'd like to congratulate Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Cardin 
for their leadership and dedication to this issue, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time. I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for making 
one of my two amendments in order. The first amendment that was made in 
order allows us to consider the question of proselytization, Federal 
assistance, and discrimination against beneficiaries in one of the 
provisions of the bill.
  The bill, as it is written, allows Federal funds to be used to 
essentially subject the program participants to proselytization. That 
is wrong, and that is why the amendment should be in order, and it is 
in order. It also provides that the receipt of Federal funds will bring 
with it the civil rights attachments. The bill as it now stands is 
silent on that. It also prohibits on any circumstance discrimination 
against beneficiaries based on religion.
  All of those amendments should be adopted. One amendment that I had 
offered that was not found in order would prohibit the discrimination 
based on religion by the program. We have a situation where the 
programs now may

[[Page H7296]]

discriminate based on religion against perspective employees.
  I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, a part of a letter from the 
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which says that ``charitable 
choice language will permit religious institutions that receive 
government funds to discriminate in their employment on the basis of 
religion. This amounts to federally funded employment discrimination 
and allows religious organizations to exclude people of different faith 
from government funded programs.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is obviously wrong, and we ought to be able to 
address that. We will be addressing it in the motion to recommit. 
Because all of these issues will be allowed under the rule as 
presented, I will not oppose the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill to improve child 
support collections and to assert the priority of giving child support 
collections to the custodial parent, the mother usually, rather than to 
the States, as at present. That is a very good thing to do, and I 
applaud the sponsors of the bill.
  I do think there is one defect in the bill, which could be very much 
improved by the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), and I rise in support of that amendment.
  No one opposes the participation of religious institutions in this or 
any other program. In fact, currently, many religious organizations, 
including Catholic Charities, Protestant Welfare Services, and so 
forth, play a vital role in the delivery of these services. The problem 
is not their participation; the problem is allowing a taxpayer-funded 
program to be restricted, as the language in this bill would currently 
do; allowing a taxpayer-funded program to be restricted to members of 
only a particular religion or forcing an unwilling participant to 
participate in a religious activity or to be subject to proselytization 
in order to receive taxpayer-funded services. As presently drafted, 
this bill would allow that, and that is a real defect.
  We should respect the religious beliefs of every American. That is 
what religious liberty is all about. We should never ask anyone to lay 
aside his or her beliefs in order to receive taxpayer-funded services. 
The Government has no business subsidizing religious intolerance or 
discrimination in any form.
  So when it comes up for consideration, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Scott amendment, which would simply clarify that none of 
the funds in these programs be used in a way which would discriminate 
against any American on the basis of religion. It would harmonize this 
bill with the spirit of the first amendment and with the spirit of our 
civil rights laws and would make this bill, if not a perfect bill, then 
as close to a perfect bill as we are likely to see.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment and then to 
vote for the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to once again tell my colleagues that this is a fair rule that 
allows the House to debate important legislation to continue the 
success of welfare reform.
  The rule should not be controversial, as it accommodates many of our 
colleagues who had concerns about the legislation by incorporating 
their ideas into either the part A amendment adopted under this 
resolution or through consideration of the part B amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  In addition, I would remind my colleagues that the House has already 
worked its will in a large portion of this bill. H.R. 4678 includes the 
Fathers Count Act, which the House overwhelmingly passed in November by 
a bipartisan vote of 328 to 93.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation strengthens family by giving more 
single parents and children the financial assistance they are owed and 
by encouraging fathers to be responsible parents and play a greater 
role in their children's lives. Through this legislation we are 
increasing the odds for families who are struggling every day to make 
ends meet and we are helping impoverished children have a better chance 
of success in school and society by encouraging both parents to become 
involved in their upbringing.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this attempt to provide more 
families with the pride of financial self-sufficiency, security, and 
dignity and vote for the children who need the strength of both parents 
to help them make better lives for themselves. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule and the bill.
  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.

                          ____________________