Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240) (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (31 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 |
June 7, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL32937 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Domestic Social Policy Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
In the 109th Congress, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means
Subcommittee
on Human Resources have approved legislation that would reauthorize and revise the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. This legislation, S. 667 and
H.R. 240 , also includes many changes to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
program, a component of the government's social safety net. In 1996, Congress passed
significant
changes to the CSE program as part of its reform of welfare. S. 667 was reported by the
Senate Finance Committee on March 17, 2005 ( S.Rept. 109-51 ). H.R. 240 was approved
by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on March 15, 2005.
Although not identical, both bills are similar in focus, direction, and content with respect to the
CSE provisions. Both bills include provisions that seek 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 bills provide
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 potentially receive a larger share
of child support that was collected on their behalf.
The approach used by the bills differ significantly, however, with regard to how states would
help TANF families receive more child support. S. 667 provides federal cost-sharing
for the entire amount that the state disregards and passes through to families, whereas, under
H.R. 240 , federal cost sharing incentives would be offered to encourage states to
establish a child support pass-through provision or increase the amount of existing
child support
pass-through payments. Also, H.R. 240 provides a more limited amount of federal cost
sharing for state pass-through and disregard policies than S. 667.
Both bills revise some CSE enforcement tools and add others; increase funding for the Federal
Parent Locator Service (FPLS); increase funding for federal technical assistance to the states; require
states to review child support orders of TANF families every three years; require that a report be
submitted to Congress on undistributed child support collections; and designate Indian tribes and
tribal organizations as persons authorized to have access to information in the FPLS. S. 667 increases funding for the CSE access and visitation program; requires 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; and requires that medical child support be provided by
either or both parents. H.R. 240 includes a provision that would establish a $25 annual
user fee for individuals who have never been on TANF but received at least $500 via CSE services
in any given year. This report will be updated as needed.
