Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Two Versions of H.R. 4 (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (28 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 22, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RL32258 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Domestic Social Policy Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
During the 108th Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate Finance Committee
approved two different versions of a bill that would have reauthorized and revised the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. This legislation, H.R. 4 , also
included many changes to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. H.R. 4 was
passed by the House in February 2003. The Senate Finance Committee reported a substitute version
of the bill in September 2003 ( S.Rept. 108-162 ). On March 29-April 1, 2004, the Senate debated
H.R. 4; disagreement arose regarding amendments to the bill, and Republicans failed to
pass a motion to limit debate. H.R. 4 was not passed by the Senate.
Although not identical, both versions of H.R. 4 were similar in focus, direction,
and content with respect to the CSE provisions. Both versions of H.R. 4 included
provisions that sought to improve the CSE program and raise collections so as to increase the
economic independence of former welfare families and provide a stable source of income for all
single-parent families with a noncustodial parent. Both versions of the bill provided incentives (in
the form of federal cost sharing) to states to direct more of the child support collected on behalf of
families to the families themselves, thereby reducing the amount that state and federal governments
retain (often referred to as a family-first policy). Under both bills, families currently receiving TANF
benefits as well as former TANF recipients would have potentially received a larger share of child
support that was collected on their behalf.
The approach used by the bills differed significantly, however, with regard to how states would
help TANF families receive more child support. Under the House-passed bill, states would have
been given federal cost sharing incentives to encourage states to increase (or establish) the amount
of child support payments they pass through to TANF families (and disregard in determining TANF
benefits). The Senate Finance Committee version of the bill provided federal cost-sharing for the
entire amount that the state disregards and passes through to families. Moreover, the House-passed
bill provided a more limited amount of federal cost sharing for state pass-through and disregard
policies than the Senate Finance Committee bill.
Both versions of the bill would have revised some CSE enforcement tools and added others;
increased funding for the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS); increased funding for federal
technical assistance to the states; required states to review child support orders of TANF families
every three years; and required that a report be submitted to Congress on undistributed child support
collections. The House-passed bill included a provision that would have established a $25 annual
user fee for individuals who had never been on TANF but received CSE services and who received
at least $500 in any given year. The Senate Finance Committee-approved bill included provisions
that would have increased funding for the CSE access and visitation program; and required states
to adopt a later version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) so as to facilitate the
collection of child support payments in interstate cases. This report will not be updated.
