For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32937 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL32937 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240) June 7, 2005 Carmen Solomon-Fears Specialist in Social Legislation Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240) 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. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of the Child Support Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Enforcement Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 S. 667 and H.R. 240: Major Provisions Related to Child Support Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Assignment of Child Support Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Distribution of Child Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TANF Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Former TANF Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions in S. 667 and H.R. 240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Assignment of child support rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Federal matching funds for limited pass through of child support payments to families receiving TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 State option to pass through all child support payments to families that formerly received TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for families receiving TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Mandatory fee for successful child support collection for family that has never received TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Report on undistributed child support payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Decrease in amount of child support arrearage triggering passport denial . . . . . 13 Use of tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child support on behalf of children who are not minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Garnishment of compensation paid to veterans for service-connected disabilities in order to enforce child support obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Improving federal debt collection practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Maintenance of technical assistance funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding (FPLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Identification and seizure of assets held by multi-state financial institutions . . . 17 Information comparisons with Insurance data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Tribal access to the Federal Parent Locator Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Reimbursement of Secretary's costs of information comparisons and disclosure for enforcement of obligations on higher education act loans and grants . . 19 Technical amendment relating to cooperative agreements between states and Indian tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Claims upon longshore and harbor workers' compensation for child support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 State option to use statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system for interstate cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 State law requirement concerning the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Grants to states for access and visitation programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Timing of corrective action year for state noncompliance with CSE program requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Requirement that state child support enforcement agencies seek medical support for children from either parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Notice to state child support enforcement agency from health care plan administrator under certain circumstances when a child loses health care coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authority to continue state program for monitoring and enforcement of child support orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Technical amendment relating to information comparisons and disclosure to assist in federal debt collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667, the "Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act (PRIDE)" as Reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240, the "Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005": Child Support Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240) Introduction 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.1 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. Overview of the Child Support Enforcement Program Background The CSE program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted in January 1975 (P.L. 93-647). The CSE program is administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and funded by general revenues. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. The following families automatically qualify for CSE services (free of charge): families receiving TANF benefits (Title IV-A), foster care payments (Title IV-E), or Medicaid coverage (Title XIX).2 Collections on behalf of families receiving TANF benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for TANF payments made to the family. Other families must apply for 1 For background and current status of this legislation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10140, Welfare Reauthorization: Overview of the Issues, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, Carmen Solomon-Fears. 2 In addition, several states have opted to require food stamp households to cooperate with the CSE agency in establishing paternity and establishing and enforcing child support obligations. These food stamp households also receive CSE services automatically, free of charge. CRS-2 CSE services, and states must charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25. Child support collected on behalf of nonwelfare families goes to the family (usually through the state disbursement unit). Between FY1978 and FY2003, child support payments collected by CSE agencies increased from $1 billion in FY1978 to $21.2 billion in FY2003, and the number of children whose paternity was established (or acknowledged) increased by 1,274%, from 111,000 to 1.525 million. However, the program still collects only 18% of child support obligations for which it has responsibility3 and collects payments for only 50% of its caseload. OCSE data indicate that in FY2003, paternity had been established or acknowledged for about 77% of the nearly 10.0 million children on the CSE caseload without legally identified fathers. The CSE program is estimated to handle at least 50% of all child support cases; the remaining cases are handled by private attorneys, collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between the parents. Services The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of support orders, (5) collection of support payments, (6) distribution of support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical support. Enforcement Techniques Collection methods used by CSE agencies include income withholding, intercept of federal and state income tax refunds, intercept of unemployment compensation, liens against property, security bonds, and reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt- of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. Building on legislation (P.L. 102- 521) enacted in 1992, P.L. 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, established two new federal criminal offenses (subject to a two-year maximum prison term) with respect to noncustodial parents who repeatedly fail to financially support children who reside with custodial parents in another state or who flee across state lines to avoid supporting them. P.L. 104-193 required states to implement expedited procedures that allow them to secure assets to satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or lump sum payments (such as unemployment and workers' compensation), lottery winnings, awards, judgements, or settlements, and assets of the debtor parent held by public or private retirement funds, and financial institutions. It required states to implement procedures under which the state would have authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and 3 In FY2003, $122.9 billion in child support obligations ($27.1 billion in current support and $95.8 billion in past-due support) were owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $22.2 billion was paid ($15.7 billion current, $6.5 billion past-due). CRS-3 recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due support or who fail to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings. It also required states to conduct quarterly data matches with financial institutions in the state in order to identify and seize the financial resources of debtor noncustodial parents. P.L. 104-193 authorized the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents. P.L. 104-193 also required states to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and expand full faith and credit procedures. P.L. 104-193 also clarified which court has jurisdiction in cases involving multiple child support orders. Financing The federal government currently reimburses each state 66% of the cost of administering its CSE program. It also refunds states 90% of the laboratory costs of establishing paternity. In addition, the federal government pays states an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. P.L. 104-193 required the HHS Secretary in consultation with the state CSE directors to develop a new cost- neutral system of incentive payments to states. P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a new cost-neutral incentive payment system.4 The statutory limit of CSE incentive payments for FY2005 is $446 million. S. 667 and H.R. 240: Major Provisions Related to Child Support Enforcement Background Over the years, the CSE program has evolved into a multifaceted program. While cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, other aspects of the program include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. The CSE program has helped strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE services. Child support payments now are generally recognized as a very important income source for single-parent families. On average child support constitutes 17% of family income for households that receive it (2001 data). Among poor families who receive it, child support constitutes about 30% of family income (2001 data).5 4 Before FY2002 child support incentive payments were paid out of the federal share of child support collections made on behalf of TANF families. As of Oct. 1, 2001, child support incentive payments are paid with appropriated funds. 5 Elaine Sorensen, Child Support Gains Some Ground, Urban Institute, Snapshots of America's Families III, no. 11, Oct. 2003. CRS-4 Both S. 667 and H.R. 240 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. Although both bills share identical objectives with respect to simplifying CSE assignment and distribution rules and strengthening the "family- first" policies started in the1996 welfare reform law, the approaches used differ. Both bills revise some CSE enforcement tools and add others. The Senate Finance Committee-reported bill includes a larger list of CSE provisions than does the House Subcommittee bill. This section of the report does not discuss all of the CSE provisions included in S. 667 and H.R. 240. For a description of all of the CSE provisions in S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240 as approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, see Table 1 in the last section of this report, which provides a side-by-side bill comparison. Assignment of Child Support Rights As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, a family must assign their child support rights to the state. Assignment rules determine who has legal claim on the child support payments owed by the noncustodial parent. The child support assignment covers any child support that accrues while the family receives TANF benefits as well as any child support that accrued before the family started receiving TANF benefits. Assigned child support collections are not paid to families, but rather this revenue is kept by states and the federal government as partial reimbursement for welfare benefits. Nonwelfare families who apply for CSE services do not assign their child support rights to the state and thereby receive all of the child support collected on their behalf. An extremely important feature of the assignment process is the date on which an assignment was entered. If the assignment was entered on or before September 30, 1997, then pre-assistance and during-assistance arrearages are "permanently assigned" to the state. If the assignment was entered on or after October 1, 1997, then only the arrearages which accumulate while the family receives assistance are "permanently assigned." The family's pre-assistance arrearages are "temporarily assigned" and the right to those arrearages goes back to the family when it leaves TANF (unless the arrearages are collected through the federal income tax refund offset program). Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the child support assignment would only cover any child support that accrues while the family receives TANF benefits. This would mean that any child support arrearages that accrued before the family started receiving TANF benefits would not have to be assigned to the state (even temporarily) and thereby any child support collected on behalf of the former-TANF family for pre-assistance arrearages would go to the family. In contrast, H.R. 240 as approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources does not make any changes regarding the child support assignment rules. CRS-5 Distribution of Child Support Distribution rules determine the order in which child support collections are paid in accordance with the assignment rules. In other words, the distribution rules determine which claim is paid first when a child support collection occurs. The order of payment of the child support collection is of tremendous importance because in many cases past-due child support (i.e., arrearages) are never fully paid. TANF Families. While the family receives TANF benefits, the state is permitted to retain any current support and any assigned arrearages it collects up to the cumulative amount of TANF benefits which has been paid to the family. The 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) repealed the $50 required pass through6 and gave states the choice to decide how much, if any, of the state share (some, all, none) of child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send the family. States also decide whether to treat child support payments as income to the family. While states have discretion over their share of child support collections, P.L. 104- 193 required states to pay the federal government the federal government's share of child support collections collected on behalf of TANF families. This means that the state, and not the federal government, bears the entire cost of any child support passed through to (and disregarded by) families. As of August 2004, 18 states were continuing the $50 (or higher in one state) pass-through and disregard policy that had been in effect pre-1996.7 Both bills would provide incentives (in the form of federal cost sharing) to states to direct more of the child support collected on behalf of TANF families to the families themselves (often referred to as a "family-first" policy), as opposed to using such collections to reimburse state and federal coffers for welfare benefits paid to the families. However, the approaches of the bills differ with respect to the amount of federal cost-sharing provided and whether to help states pay for the current cost of their CSE pass-through and disregard policies or to encourage states to establish such policies or increase the pass-through and disregard already in place. Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the federal government would share in the costs of the entire amount of pass-through and disregard policies used by states. S. 667 would allow states to pay up to $400 per month in child support collected on behalf of a TANF (or foster care) family ($600 per month to a family with two or more children) to the family and would not require the state to pay the federal government the federal share of those payments. In order for the federal government to share in the cost of the child support pass-through, the 6 Under old law, the first $50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf of an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) family was given to the family and disregarded as income so that it did not affect the family's AFDC eligibility or benefit status. 7 The 17 states with the $50 pass-through and disregard policy are: AK, CA, CT, DE, IL, KY, ME, MA, MI, NJ, NM, NY, PA, RI, TX, VT, and VA. Wisconsin passes through and disregards all child support payments. Three states, GA, SC, and TN, pass though and disregard some or all child support for purposes of their "fill-the-gap budgeting" policies. West Virginia passes through and disregards up to $25 per month. CRS-6 state would be required to disregard (i.e., not count) the child support collection paid to the family in determining the family's TANF benefit. Unlike S. 667, the House bill is intended to provide states with an incentive to increase their pass-through and disregard policies. H.R. 240, as approved by the House Subcommittee on Human Resources, would allow states to increase the amount of collected child support they pay to families receiving TANF benefits and would not require the state to pay the federal government the federal share of the increased payments. The subsidized child support pass-through payments would be the amount above any payments the state was making on December 31, 2001. The House bill would limit the federal government's cost-sharing of the new pass-through payments to the greater of $100 per month or $50 per month more than the state previously was sharing with the family. In order for the federal government to share in the cost of an increase in the child support pass-through, the state would be required to disregard (i.e., not count) the child support collection paid to the family in determining the family's TANF benefit. Former TANF Families. Pursuant to the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104- 193), beginning on October 1, 2000, states must distribute to former TANF families the following child support collections first before the state and the federal government are reimbursed (this is often referred to as the "family-first" policy): (1) all current child support, (2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family leaves TANF (these arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any arrearages that accrued before the family began receiving TANF benefits.8 (Any child support arrearages that accrue during the time the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal government.) One of the goals of the 1996 welfare reform law with regard to CSE distribution provisions was to create a distribution priority that favored families once they leave the TANF rolls. Thus, generally speaking, under current law, child support that accrues before and after a family receives TANF goes to the family, whereas child support that accrues while the family is receiving TANF goes to the state. This additional family income is expected to reduce dependence on public assistance by both promoting exit from TANF and preventing entry and re-entry to TANF. S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee would give states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages -- including arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset program). S. 667 would simplify the CSE distribution process and eliminate the special treatment of child support arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset program. Under S. 667 the federal government would share with the states the costs of paying child support arrearages to the family first. 8 As mentioned above, these rules do not apply to child support collections obtained by intercepting federal income tax refunds. If child support arrearages are collected via the federal income tax refund offset program, current law stipulates that the state and federal government are to retain those collections. CRS-7 Similarly, H.R. 240 would give states the option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support collected on their behalf. Under the House bill, the federal government would share with the states the costs of paying child support arrearages accrued while the family received TANF as well as costs associated with passing through to the family child support collected through the federal income tax refund offset program, if the state chose the "family-first" option. Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools Both bills include identical or similar provisions with respect to (1) lowering the threshold amount for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent who owes past-due child support; (2) facilitating the collection of child support from Social Security benefits; (3) easing the collection of child support from veterans' benefits; (4) allowing states to use the federal income tax refund offset program to collect past-due child support for persons not on TANF who are no longer minors; (5) authorizing the HHS Secretary to compare information of noncustodial parents who owe past-due child support with information maintained by insurers concerning insurance payments and to furnish any information resulting from a match to CSE agencies so they can pursue child support arrearages; and (6) allowing an assisting state to establish a child support interstate case based on another state's request for assistance (thereby enabling an assisting state to use the CSE statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system for interstate cases). Additional provisions that would expand and/or enhance the ability of states to collect child support payments are contained in S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee. They include: (1) authorizing the HHS Secretary to act on behalf of states to seize financial assets (held by a multi-state financial institution) of noncustodial parents who owe child support; (2) requiring that medical support for a child be provided by either or both parents; and (3) requiring the CSE agency to notify health care plan administrators under certain circumstances when a child loses health care coverage. Other Provisions Both bills include provisions that would (1) require states to review and if appropriate adjust child support orders of TANF families every three years; (2) require the HHS Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the procedures states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet distributed; (3) establish a minimum funding level for technical assistance; (4) establish a minimum funding level for the Federal Parent Locator Service; and (5) designate Indian tribes and tribal organizations as persons authorized to have access to information in the Federal Parent Locator Service. H.R. 240 includes a provision that would establish a $25 annual fee for individuals who have never been on TANF but receive CSE services and who received at least $500 in any given year. S. 667 includes provisions that would (1) increase funding for the CSE access and visitation program; (2) require states to adopt a later version of the Uniform CRS-8 Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) so as to facilitate the collection of child support payments in interstate cases; and (3) allow the state of Texas to continue to operate its CSE program for automatic monitoring and enforcement of court orders on behalf of nonwelfare families without applying for a federal waiver. Detailed Comparison of CSE Provisions in S. 667 and H.R. 240 Table 1 provides a detailed and comprehensive comparison of the CSE provisions of S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240 as approved by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources with current law. The table specifies the section number in each of the bills in which the provision is found. CRS-9 Table 1. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667, the "Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act (PRIDE)" as Reported by the Senate Finance Committee and H.R. 240, the "Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005": Child Support Provisions H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Assignment of In order to receive benefits, Stipulates that the assignment covers only No provision. child support Temporary Assistance to Needy child support that accrues during the period rights Families (TANF) recipients must that the family receives TANF. (In other assign their child support rights to words, pre-assistance arrearages would be the state. The assignment covers eliminated from the assignment.) [Section any child support that accrues 301(a)] while the family receives TANF and any support that accrued before the family began receiving TANF. Any assignment of rights to child Gives states the option to discontinue pre- support that was in effect on assistance assignments in effect on September 30, 1997 must remain September 30, 1997, or pre-assistance in effect. This means that any arrearage assignments in effect after child support collected as a result September 30, 1997 and before the of the assignment is owed to the implementation date of this provision. If a state and the federal government. state chooses to discontinue the child support assignment, the state would have to give up its legal claim to collections based on such arrearages and the state would have to distribute the collections to the family. [Section 301(c)] CRS-10 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Federal matching While the family receives TANF Same as current law. Same as current law. funds for limited benefits, the state is permitted to pass through of retain any current child support child support payments and any assigned payments to arrearages it collects up to the families receiving cumulative amount of TANF TANF benefits which has been paid to the family (i.e., state decides how much of the state share (some, all, none) of the child support payment collected on behalf of TANF families to send to the family. The state is required to pay the For families who received assistance from For TANF families, requires the federal federal government the federal the state (which could include TANF or government to waive its share of an share of the child support foster care), requires the federal government increase in the child support pass- collected. to waive its share of child support through (up to the greater of $100 per collections passed through to TANF month or $50 over the state's stipulated Child support payments collected families by the state and disregarded by the child support pass-through as of on behalf of TANF families that state -- up to an amount equal to $400 per December 31, 2001) for families that are passed through to the family month in the case of a family with one receive TANF benefits. To obtain the and disregarded by the state count child, and up to $600 per month in the case federal matching funds, the state would toward the TANF Maintenance-of- of a family with two or more children. Like have to disregard the amount passed Effort (MOE) expenditure current law, disregarded pass-through through to the family in determining the requirement. amounts would count as TANF MOE family's TANF benefit amount. This expenditures. [Section 301(b)] provision would apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1, 2007. Allows states with Section 1115 [Section 301] demonstration waivers (on or before October 1, 1997) related to the child support pass-through provisions to continue to pass through payments to families in accordance with the terms of the waiver. [Section 301(b)] CRS-11 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) State option to Current child support payments Simplifies child support distribution rules. Gives states the option of providing pass through all must be paid to the family if the Eliminates the special treatment of child families that have left TANF the full child support family is no longer on TANF. support arrearages collected through the amount of the child support collected on payments to federal income tax refund offset program. their behalf (i.e., both current child families that With respect to former TANF Therefore, all child support collections to support and child support arrearages). formerly received families: Since October 1, 1997, former TANF families would go to the The federal government would have to TANF child support arrearages that family first. [Section 301(b)] share with the states the costs of paying accrue after the family leaves child support arrearages to the family TANF also are required to be paid To the extent that the arrearage amount first. This provision would apply to to the family before any monies payable to a former TANF family in any amounts distributed on or after October may be retained by the state. given month exceeds the amount that would 1, 2007. [Section 302] have been payable to the family under With respect to former TANF current law, the state would be able to elect families: Since October 1, 2000, to have the amount paid to the family child support arrearages that considered an expenditure for Maintenance- accrued before the family began of-Effort (MOE) purposes. In addition, receiving TANF also are required amends the CSE State Plan to include an to be distributed to the family first. election by the state to include whether it is using the new option to pass through all However, if child support arrearage payments to former TANF arrearages are collected through families without paying the federal the federal income tax refund government its share of such collections or offset program, the family does whether it has chosen to maintain the not have first claim on the current law distribution method. Stipulates arrearage payments. Such that no later than six months after the date arrearage payments are retained by of enactment of this legislation, the Health the state and the federal and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, in government. consultation with the states, would be required to establish the procedures to be used to make estimates of excess costs associated with the new funding option. [Section 301(b)] The provisions of Section 301 of this bill would take effect October 1, 2009, or earlier CRS-12 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) at state option -- at any date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of the bill but not later than September 30, 2009. [Section 301(e)] Mandatory Federal law requires that the state Requires states to review and, if Same as S. 667. [Section 303] review and have procedures under which appropriate, adjust child support orders in adjustment of every three years the state review TANF cases every three years. This child support and adjust (if appropriate) child provision would take effect on October 1, orders for support orders at the request of 2007. [Section 302] families receiving either parent, and that in the case TANF of TANF families, the state review and update (if appropriate) child support orders at the request of the state CSE agency or of either parent. Mandatory fee for Federal law requires that non- No provision. Requires families that have never been successful child welfare families must apply for on TANF to pay a $25 annual user fee support collection CSE services, and states must when child support enforcement efforts for family that charge an application fee that on their behalf are successful (i.e., at has never cannot exceed $25. The state may least $500 annually is collected on their received TANF charge the application fee against behalf). Such fees could be recovered the custodial parent, pay the fee from the custodial parent, the out of state funds, or recover it noncustodial parent, or the state (with from the noncustodial parent. In state funds). This provision would take addition, states have the option of effect on October 1, 2006. [Section recovering costs in excess of the 304] application fee. Such recovery may be from either the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent. Report on No provision. Requires that within six months of Same as S. 667. [Section 305] undistributed enactment, the HHS Secretary must submit child support to the House Ways and Means Committee payments and the Senate Finance Committee a report CRS-13 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) on the procedures states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet distributed. The report must include an estimate of the total amount of undistributed child support and the average length of time it takes undistributed child support to be distributed. To the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, the report must include recommendations as to whether additional procedures should be established at the state or federal level to expedite the payment of undistributed child support. [Section 303] Decrease in Federal law stipulates that the Authorizes the denial, revocation, or Same as S. 667. [Section 306] amount of child HHS Secretary is required to restriction of passports to noncustodial support arrearage submit to the Secretary of State parents whose child support arrearages triggering the names of noncustodial parents exceed $2,500, rather than $5,000 as under passport denial who have been certified by the current law. This provision would take state CSE agency as owing more effect on October 1, 2006. [Section 304] than $5,000 in past-due child support. The Secretary of State has authority to deny, revoke, restrict, or limit passports to noncustodial parents whose child support arrearages exceed $5,000. CRS-14 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Use of tax refund Federal law prohibits the use of Permits the federal income tax refund offset Same as S. 667. [Section 307] intercept program the federal income tax offset program to be used to collect arrearages on to collect past-due program to recover past-due child behalf of non-welfare children who are no child support on support on behalf of non-welfare longer minors. This provision would take behalf of children cases in which the child is not a effect on October 1, 2007. [Section 305] who are not minor, unless the child was minors determined disabled while he or she was a minor and for whom the child support order is still in effect. (Since enactment in 1981 (P.L. 97-35), the federal income tax offset program has been used to collect child support arrearages on behalf of welfare families regardless of whether the children were still minors -- as long as the child support order was in effect.) Garnishment of The disability compensation Allows veterans' disability compensation Allows veterans' disability compensation benefits of veterans are treated benefits to be intercepted (withheld) and compensation benefits to be intercepted paid to veterans differently than most forms of paid on a routine basis to the custodial (withheld) and paid on a routine basis to for service- government payment for purposes parent. This provision prohibits the the custodial parent if the veteran is 60 connected of paying child support. Whereas garnishment of any veteran's disability days or more in arrears on child support disabilities in most government payments are compensation in order to collect alimony payments. This provision is prohibited order to enforce subject to being automatically unless that disability compensation is being from being used to collect alimony and child support withheld to pay child support, paid because retirement benefits were no more than 50% of any particular obligations veterans disability compensation is waived. The provision would take effect on disability payment may be withheld. not subject to intercept. Before October 1, 2007. [Section 306] This provision would take effect on enactment of P.L. 108-136, there October 1, 2007. [Section 308] was one exception to this rule. The exception occurred when veterans had elected to forego some of their retirement pay in order to collect additional disability payments. The CRS-15 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) advantage of veterans replacing retirement pay with disability pay is that the disability pay is not subject to taxation. With this exception, the only way to obtain child support payments from veterans' disability compensation was to request that the Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs intercept the disability compensation and make the child support payments. P.L. 108-136, enacted November 24, 2003, permits veterans to receive both military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation. Improving federal Federal law stipulates that any Similar to H.R. 240, but only allows Social Expands the federal administrative debt collection federal agency that is owed a Security benefits to be offset to collect past- offset program by allowing Social practices nontax debt (that is more than 180 due child support. The Committee bill Security benefits, certain Black Lung days past-due) must notify the specifically overrules section 207 of the benefits, and certain Railroad Secretary of the Treasury to obtain Social Security Act which states that Social Retirement Board benefits (RR) to be an administrative offset of the Security benefits are not transferrable by offset to collect past-due child support debt. The Department of the garnishment. The provision would take (on behalf of families receiving CSE Treasury (or other designated effect on a date that is 18 months after the [Title IV-D of the Social Security Act] federal disbursing agency) has the date of enactment. [Section 307] services) in appropriate cases selected authority to offset Social Security by the states. This provision would take benefits, certain Black Lung Board effect on October 1, 2006. [Section benefits, and certain Railroad 309] Retirement benefits to collect delinquent debt owed to the United States, subject to an annual $9,000 ($750 per month) exemption. CRS-16 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Currently, states have the authority to garnish Social Security benefits for child support payments. But, Social Security payments can only be offset for federal debt recovery. (Thus, under current law child support arrearage payments which are enforced by states cannot be offset from Social Security benefits/payments.) Maintenance of Federal law appropriates an Changes the amount available for technical Same as S. 667. [Section 310] technical amount equal to 1% of the federal assistance funding to an amount equal to 1% assistance funding share of child support collected on of the federal share of child support behalf of TANF families the collected or the amount appropriated for preceding year for the Secretary to FY2002, whichever is greater. [Section provide to the states for: 308] information dissemination and technical assistance, training of state and federal staff, staffing studies, and related activities needed to improve CSE programs (including technical assistance concerning state automated CSE systems), and research demonstration and special projects of regional or national significance relating to the operation of CSE programs. Such funds are available until they are expended. Maintenance of Federal law appropriates an Changes the amount available for the FPLS Same as S. 667. [Section 311] Federal Parent amount equal to 2% of the federal to an amount equal to 2% of the federal Locator Service share of child support collected on share of child support collected or the funding (FPLS) behalf of TANF families the amount appropriated for FY2002, CRS-17 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) preceding year for the Secretary to whichever is greater. Makes all funds use for operation of the FPLS to appropriated for this purpose available until the extent that the costs of the expended. [Section 309] FPLS are not recovered by user fees. Funds that were appropriated for FY1997-FY2001 remain available until expended. Identification and The 1996 welfare reform law Authorizes the HHS Secretary, via the No provision. seizure of assets required states to enter into FPLS, to assist states to perform data held by multi- agreements with financial matches comparing information from states state financial institutions conducting business and participating multi-state financial institutions within their state for the purpose institutions with respect to persons owing of conducting a quarterly data past-due child support. Authorizes the match. The data match is intended Secretary via the FPLS to seize assets, held to identify financial accounts (in by such financial institutions, of banks, credit unions, noncustodial parents who owe child support money-market mutual funds, etc.) arrearage payments, by issuing a notice of a belonging to parents who are lien or levy and requiring the financial delinquent in the payment of their institution to freeze and seize assets in child support obligation. In some accounts in multi-state financial institutions cases, state law prohibits the to satisfy child support obligations. placement of liens or levies on Requires the Secretary to transmit any accounts outside of the state and assets seized under the procedure to the some financial institutions only state for accounting and distribution. accept liens and levies from the Stipulates that the Secretary must inform state where the account is located. affected account holders/ asset holders of In 1998, Congress made it easier their due process rights. (In effect, the f o r mu l t i -s t a t e f i n a n c i a l Committee bill would resolve problems of institutions to match records by jurisdiction in cases where a state was permitting the FPLS to help them pursuing an asset in a different state.) coordinate their information. [Section 310] Information No provision. Authorizes the HHS Secretary, via the Same as S. 667. [Section 312] comparisons with FPLS, to compare information of CRS-18 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Insurance data noncustodial parents who owe past-due child support with information maintained by insurers (or their agents) concerning insurance claims, settlements, awards, and payments; and to furnish any information resulting from a match to the appropriate state CSE agency in order to secure settlements, awards, etc. for payment of past-due child support. Stipulates that no insurer would be liable under federal or state law for disclosures made in good faith of this provision. [Section 311] Tribal access to The FPLS is a national location Includes Indian tribes and tribal Same as S. 667. [Section 313] the Federal system operated by the federal organizations that operate a CSE program as Parent Locator Office of Child Support "authorized persons." [Section 312] Service Enforcement to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties for the establishment of paternity and child support obligations, as well as the enforcement and modification of orders for child support, custody and visitation. It also identifies support orders or support cases involving the same parties in different states. The FPLS consists of the Federal Case Registry, Federal Offset Program, Multi-state Financial Institution Data Match, National Directory of New Hires, and the Passport Denial Program. Additionally, the FPLS has access to external CRS-19 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) sources such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FPLS is only allowed to transmit information in its databases to "authorized persons," which include (1) child support enforcement agencies (and their attorneys and agents); (2) courts, (3) the resident parent, legal guardian, attorney, or agent of a child owed child support; and (4) foster care and adoption agencies. Reimbursement Federal law (P.L. 106-113) Amends the reimbursement of costs Same as S. 667. [Section 314] of Secretary's authorized the Department of provision by eliminating the word costs of Education to have access to the "additional." Thus, the Secretary of information National Directory of New Hires. Education would be required to reimburse comparisons and The provisions were designed to the HHS Secretary for any costs incurred by disclosure for improve the ability of the the HHS Secretary in providing requested enforcement of Department of Education to collect new hires information. [Section 313] obligations on on defaulted loans and grant higher education overpayments made to individuals act loans and under the Higher Education Act of grants 1965. Under the Computer Matching Agreement, the Secretary of Education is required to reimburse the HHS Secretary for the additional costs incurred by the HHS Secretary in furnishing requested information. CRS-20 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Technical Federal law requires that any state Deletes the reference to child welfare Same as S. 667. [Section 315] amendment that has a child welfare program programs. [Section 314] relating to and that has Indian country may cooperative enter into a cooperative agreement agreements with an Indian tribe or tribal between states organization if the tribe and Indian tribes demonstrates that it has an established tribal court system with several specific characteristics related to paternity establishment and the establishment and enforcement of child support obligations. The HHS Secretary may make direct payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations that have approved child support enforcement plans. Claims upon The Longshore and Harbor Amends the Longshore and Harbor No provision. longshore and Worker's Compensation Act is the Workers' Compensation Act to ensure that harbor workers' federal worker's compensation longshore or harbor workers benefits that compensation for law for maritime workers and are provided by the federal government or child support persons working in shipyards and by private insurers are subject to on docks, ships, and offshore garnishment for purposes of paying child drilling platforms. It exempts support obligations. [Section 315] benefits paid by longshore or harbor employers or their insurers from all claims of creditors. Thus, Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act benefits that are paid by longshore or harbor employers or their insurers are not subject to attachment for payment of child support obligations. CRS-21 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) State option to use The 1996 welfare reform law Allows an assisting state to establish a child Same as S. 667. [Section 316] statewide mandated states to establish support interstate case based on another automated data procedures under which the state state's request for assistance; and thereby an processing and would use high-volume automated assisting state would be able to use the CSE information administrative enforcement, to the statewide automated data processing and retrieval system same extent as used for intrastate information retrieval system for interstate for interstate cases, in response to a request cases. [Section 316] cases from another state to enforce a child support order. This provision was designed to enable child support agencies to quickly locate and secure assets held by delinquent noncustodial parents in another state without opening a full-blown interstate child support enforcement case in the other state. The assisting state must use automatic data processing to search various state data bases including financial institutions, license records, employment service data, and state new hire registries, to determine whether information is available regarding a parent who owes a child support obligation. The assisting state is then required to seize any identified assets. This provision does not allow states to open/establish a child support interstate case. State law The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. Requires that each state's Uniform No provision. requirement 104-193) required that on and after Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) concerning the January 1, 1998, each state must include any amendments officially adopted CRS-22 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) Uniform have in effect the Uniform as of August 2001 by the National Interstate Family Interstate Family Support Act Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Support Act (UIFSA), as approved by the State Laws. (UIFSA) American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, and as in effect Clarifies current law by stipulating that a on August 22, 1996, including any court of a state that has established a child amendments officially adopted as support order has continuing, exclusive of such date by the National jurisdiction to modify its order if the order Conference of Commissioners on is the controlling order and the state is the Uniform State Laws. child's state or the residence of any individual contestant; or if the state is not Federal law requires states to treat the residence of the child or an individual past-due child support obligations contestant, the court has the contestant's as final judgments that are entitled consent in a record or in open court that the to full faith and credit in every court may continue to exercise jurisdiction state. This means that a person to modify its order. Also modifies the who has a child support order in current rules regarding the enforcement of one state does not have to obtain a modified orders. [Section 317] second order in another state to obtain child support due should the noncustodial parent move from the issuing court's jurisdiction. P.L. 103-383 restricts a state court's ability to modify a child support order issued by another state unless the child and the custodial parent have moved to the state where the modification is sought or have agreed to the modification. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) clarified the definition of a child's home state, makes several revisions to ensure that the full faith and credit laws can be CRS-23 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) applied consistently with UIFSA, and clarifies the rules regarding which child support orders states must honor when there is more than one order. Grants to states The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. Increases funding for Access and Visitation No provision. for access and 104-193) authorized grants to grants from $10 million annually to $12 visitation states (via CSE funding) to million in FY2006, $14 million in FY2007, programs establish and operate access and $16 million in FY2008, and $20 million visitation programs. The purpose annually in FY2009 and each succeeding of the grants is to facilitate fiscal year. Extends the Access and noncustodial parents' access to Visitation program to Indian tribes and and visitation of their children. An tribal organizations that had received direct annual entitlement of $10 million child support enforcement payments from from the federal CSE budget the federal government for at least one year. account is available to states for Includes a specified amount to be set aside these grants. Eligible activities for Indian tribes and tribal organizations: include but are not limited to $250,000 for FY2006; $600,000 for mediation, counseling, education, FY2007; $800,000 for FY2008; and $1.670 development of parenting plans, million for FY2009 or any succeeding fiscal visitation enforcement, and year. development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody Increases the minimum allotment to states arrangements. The allotment to $120,000 in FY2006, $140,000 in formula is based on the ratio of the FY2007, $160,000 in FY2008, and number of children in the state $180,000 in FY2009 or any succeeding living with only one biological fiscal year. The minimum allotment for parent in relation to the total Indian tribes and tribal organizations would number of such children in all be $10,000 for a fiscal year. The tribal states. The amount of the allotment would not be able to exceed the allotment available to a state will minimum state allotment for any given be this same ratio to $10 million. fiscal year. The allotments are to be adjusted to ensure that there is a minimum The allotment formula for Indian tribes and CRS-24 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) allotment amount of $50,000 per tribal organizations that operate child state for FY1997 and FY1998, and support enforcement programs would be a minimum of $100,000 for any based on the ratio of the number of children year after FY1998. States may use in the tribe or tribal organization living with the grants to create their own only one parent in relation to the total programs or to fund programs number of children living with only one operated by courts, local public parent in all Indian tribes or tribal agencies, or nonprofit organizations. The amount of the allotment organizations. The programs do available to an Indian tribe or tribal not need to be statewide. States organization would be this same ratio to the must monitor, evaluate, and report maximum allotment for Indian tribes and on their programs in accord with tribal organizations (i.e., $250,000 for regulations issued by the HHS FY2006; $600,000 for FY2007; $800,000 Secretary. for FY2008; and $1.670 million for FY2009 or any succeeding fiscal year). (Pro rata reductions would be made if they are necessary.) [Section 318] Timing of Federal law requires that audits be Changes the timing of the corrective action No provision. corrective action conducted at least every three year for states that are found to be in year for state years to determine whether the noncompliance of child support noncompliance standards and requirements enforcement program requirements. with CSE prescribed by law and regulations Changes the corrective action year to the program have been met by the child support fiscal year following the fiscal year in requirements program of every state. If a state which the Secretary made a finding of fails the audit, federal TANF funds noncompliance and recommended a must be reduced by an amount corrective action plan. This change would equal to at least 1% but not more be made retroactively in order to allow the than 2% for the first failure to Secretary to treat all findings of comply, at least 2% but not more noncompliance consistently. The provision than 3% for the second failure, and would take effect with respect to at least 3% but not more than 5% determinations of state compliance for for the third and subsequent FY2002 and succeeding fiscal years. failures. [Section 319] CRS-25 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) The HHS Secretary also must review state reports on compliance with federal requirements and provide states with recommendations for corrective action. The purpose of the audits is to assess the completeness, reliability, and security of data reported for use in calculating the performance indicators and to assess the adequacy of financial management of the state program. Federal law calls for penalties to be imposed against states that fail to comply with a corrective action plan in the succeeding fiscal year. Requirement that Federal law requires that a state Requires that medical support for a child be No provision. state child CSE agency issue a notice to the provided by either or both parents and that support employer of a noncustodial parent, it must be enforced. Includes language that enforcement who is subject to a child support authorizes the state CSE agency to enforce agencies seek order issued by a court or medical support against a custodial parent medical support administrative agency, informing whenever health care coverage is available for children from the employer of the parent's to the custodial parent at reasonable cost. either parent obligation to provide health care Stipulates that medical support may include coverage for the child(ren). The health care coverage (including payment of employer must then determine costs of premiums, co-payments, and whether family health care deductibles) and payment of medical coverage is available for which the expenses incurred on behalf of a child. dependent child(ren) may be [Section 320] eligible, and if so, the employer must notify the plan administrator of each plan covered by the National Medical Support Notice. If the dependent child(ren) is/are CRS-26 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) eligible for coverage under a plan, the plan administrator is required to enroll the dependent child(ren) in an appropriate plan. The plan administrator also must notify the noncustodial parent's employer of the premium amount to be withheld from the employee's paycheck. Notice to state Federal law requires the health Requires the health care plan administrator No provision. child support care plan administrator to notify to notify the state CSE agency if the enforcement qualified beneficiaries of their noncustodial parent with the health care agency from beneficiary rights with regard to coverage dies, loses his or her job or is health care plan health care coverage when or if working fewer hours, becomes eligible for administrator one of the following events Medicaid benefits, or is involved in a under certain occurs: (1) the noncustodial bankruptcy proceeding pertaining to the circumstances parent with the health care noncustodial parent's former employer. In when a child loses coverage dies; (2) the noncustodial addition, requires the health care plan health care parent with the health care administrator to notify the state CSE agency coverage coverage loses his or her job or if the noncustodial parent with the health starts working fewer hours; (3) the care coverage gets divorced or obtains a noncustodial parent with the health legal separation, or if the noncustodial care coverage becomes eligible for parent's child ceases to be a dependent child Medicaid benefits; (4) the (in cases where the noncustodial parent has noncustodial parent with the health notified the plan administrator of such an care coverage becomes involved in occurrence). [Section 321] a bankru p t c y proceeding pertaining to his or her former employer; (5) the noncustodial parent with the health care coverage gets divorced or obtains a legal separation; or (6) the child of the noncustodial parent with the health care coverage ceases to be a CRS-27 H.R. 240 (as approved by the House S. 667 (as reported by the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Current law Finance Committee) Human Resources) dependent child. (With respect to (5) and (6), the noncustodial parent (i.e., the covered employee) is required to notify the health care plan administrator of such an event.) Authority to Federal law stipulates that the Allows the state of Texas to continue to No provision. continue state following families automatically operate its CSE program for automatic program for qualify for CSE services: families monitoring and enforcement of court orders monitoring and receiving TANF benefits (Title on behalf of a nonwelfare families without enforcement of IV-A), foster care payments (Title applying for a federal waiver. Currently the child support IV-E), Medicaid coverage (Title state of Texas does not require these orders XIX), or food stamps (if families to apply for CSE services. [Section cooperation is required by the 322] state). Other families must apply for CSE services. Technical P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Makes technical changes to the No provision. amendment Appropriations Act of 2005, added Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 relating to provisions related to the with respect to references to Title IV-D information comparison of data from the provisions related to information comparisons and Secretary of the Treasury with comparisons and other disclosures. [Section disclosure to data in the National Directory of 323] assist in federal New Hires for the purpose of debt collection collecting nontax debt owed to the federal government. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32937