Order Code IB84036
CHILD S U P P O R T E N F O R C E M E N T
U P D A T E D 09/13/84
C a r m e n D. Solomon
Education and P u b l i c W e l f a r e Division
The failure of many absent parents to pay child support has led Congress
to develop proposals to make the child support enforcement program more
The numerous bills dealing with child support issues testify t o
the widespread interest in the topic.
During the first session of the 98th Congress, the House passed H.R. 4 3 2 5 ,
This measure requires States to adopt several methods of enforcing
overdue child support obligations, including mandatory wage withholding;
requires States to permit establishment of paternity until a child's
birthday; alters the incentive payment formula for child support collections;
and extends the formula to collections made on behalf of non-AFDC children.
During the second session of the 98th Congress, the Senate passed H.R.
4325, amended, 94-0. The major differences in the two versions of the bill
are that the Senate-passed bill would gradually reduce the Federal match for
State and local administration from 70% to 65% and would extend the Federal
income tax refund intercept program to non-AFDC families. Both the House and
Senate agreed unanimously to the conference report on, H.R. 4 3 2 5 , the Senate
on Aug. 1 by a vote of 99-0 and the House on Aug. 8 by a vote of 413-0.
The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, H.R.
Aug. 16, 1984 (P.L. 98-378).
4325, became law o n
BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act was enacted in 1975 to establish a
program of child support enforcement.
The program provides services to both
AFDC and non-AFDC families to locate absent parents, establish paternity, and
help establish and collect court-ordered and administratively ordered child
~ p p l i c a n t s for, and benefici aries of, AFDC a r e requi,red to assign their
support right s to the State in order-to
In addition, each
applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State if necessary to
establish pat ernity and secure child support.
ther e i s evidence
that single m others receiving c hild support are significantly less likely to
receive welfa re than single mot hers who do not receive child support, data
also indicate that child suppor t, by itself, is not likely to keep a mother
with no other income off welfar e nor is it likely to make a mo ther who is on
welfare ineli gible.
This is in large part due to the size of the child
support award s.
In 1981, the a verage amount of child support received was
$176 a month.
The average AFDC payment per family in December 1981 was $302.
beha If Of
and the c
pport is di
nf orce ment
paid t o the
the ch ild s
or AFD C , th
tribut ed t
progr a m , support pa ymen ts mad
State for distributi on rat her
F'port collection is insu ffi cien
fami ly receives its full AF DC
rei mburse the Sta te and Fe
tance to the family.
Federal matching for child support services to non-AFDC families Was
origfnally provided on a temporary basis, but was made permanent i n 1980.
Money paid for non-AFDC families goes directly to the family.
In FY83, the child Support enforcement program collected over $ 2 billion
in child support payments; of this amount, $880 million was collected on
behalf of families receiving AFDC and $1.1 billion on behalf of families not.
The administrative c o s t s . o f the program amounted to $691
Although the child support enforcement program has grown significantly,
Census Bureau data indicate a persistent pattern of parents9 failure to pay
their child support obligations.
The Census Bureau reports that in 1981
child support payments due amounted to $9.9
billion, of which only $6.1
billion, or 6 2 % , was actually paid.
Apparently, nearly $4 billion did not
reach the persons to whom i t was owed (in the case of non-welfare families,
the children themselves; a n d , in the case of APDC families, the State to
which t.he chila support rights were assigned).
The following sections explore how the Federal Government became involved
in enforcement of child support and consider the extent t o which it should be
I n addition, other program issues are examined.
It is generally agreed that parents should support their minor children,
but the extent to which the Federal Government should intervene i s in debate.
The Federal Government entered the field of child support on behalf of
children who received AFDC; and until 1975 confined its efforts to these
Congress first passed legislation related t o child support
in 1950, amending the Social Security Act to require that State welfare
agencies notify appropriate law enforcement officials if children receiving
AFDC were either deserted or abandoned by a parent.
In 1965, Congress
authorized.State or local welfare agencies to obtain an absent parent's
address or place of employment from the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (now Health and Human Services).
In 1967, Congress authorized
welfare agencies to obtain address information from the Internal Revenue
Service on behalf of AFDC families with court-ordered child support rights;
required each State to set up an organization. to establish paternity and
collect support for AFDC children who had been deserted by a parent; and
required States t o utilize reciprocal agreements adopted with other States
and to enter into cooperative arrangements with appropriate courts and law
In 1 9 7 4 , . Congress passed legislation
President Ford Jan. 4 , 1975) establishing a Federal child support enforcement
This measure, for the first time, required States to provide child
support enforcement services to non-AFDC families a s well as to AFDC
Family law generally has been held to be a State responsibility. However,
the 1973 report of the Senate Finance Committee, which . i n c l u d e d provisions
relating to child support, said "In view of the fact that most States have
not implemented in a meaningful way the provisions of present law relating to
the enforcement of child Support and establishment of paternity, the
Committee believes that new stronger legislative action is required in this
area which will create a mechanism to require compliance with the law." The 98th Congress has ,reopened the issue
The limits of Federal enforcement of child support obligations are
un'der question, and both the House and Senate have passed a bill (H.R.
that would require States to adopt specific collection machinery.
The National Council of State Public Welfare Administrators
Congress to change the pending legislation (H.R. 4325, S. 1 6 9 1 , etc.)
so a s
to give States more fexibility in selecting practices best suited to their
The National Governors Association has testified
(Jan. 24, 1984, before the Finance Committee)
that Federal legislation
"should recognize -- not preempt -- effective State child support collection
Absent fathers argue that they need to be able t o .withhold
payments in order to insure their right to visit their children.
Administration and others say that States should be required to set up
quasi-judicial or administrative processes t o alleviate court backlogs and
expedite child support decisions.
The perceived need for Federal involvement in child support enforcement
arose in part from changes in the characteristics of AFDC families. T h e AFDC
program provides cash payments to families in which o n e parent i s dead,
absent, incapacitated, and, in some S'tates, unemployed.
When the AFDC
program began in 1935, death of a parent was the m a j o r , c a u s e of eligibility.
By 1979, only 2.2% of AFDC children were eligible because their f a t h e r was
dead, and 86.9% qualified o n grounds'of their father's absence from the home
(i-e., either divorced or separated from the mother or had never married
The data indicate that the largest single factor accounting for the
increase in the AFDC rolls i s the never-married status of the mother.
1982, according t o the HHS Quality Control case sample, 46.5% of the fathers
of AFDC children were not married to the mothers.
An HHS-commissioned study on child support and welfare, released in
December 1983, credits paternity establishment services with a significant
increase in actual receipt of child
establishment to be a very important component of the Child support
enforcement program, primarily because paternity must be established before
other child support enforcement services can occur, such a s parent locator
and enforcement actions.
The study reported that 16% of the families i n
which paternity was established received child support payments, but that
only 10% of the families in which no- paternity action was taken received
child support. On the other hand, 14% of the families in which a paternity
establishment action was taken, regardless of its success, received child
Senator Long of the Finance Committee has taken the position that many
pending child support bills would discourage efforts to determine paternity,
which is expensive, because their financing formulas are based on collection
yields per dollar of cost. Along with others, he has suggested that the cost
of paternity establishment be excluded from the AFDC portion of t h e
performance-based incentive formulas. The House- and Senate-passed
H.R. 4325, would permit States to exclude the laboratory costs incurred in
establishing paternity from administrative costs, for purposes of calculating
The House report on H.R. 4325 says that the provision is
intended to reauce any disincentive to pursue paternity establishment because
of the high costs involved.
During the January hearings of the Senate
Finance Committee, several witnesses countered that laboratory costs were
only a minor portion (about 10%) of the cost of establishing paternity.
It was also pointed out during the Senate hearings that if paternity i s
not established, the State may have to provide AFDC benefits to the family
until the child i s 18.
Establishment of Support Obligations
The HHS study on child support and welfare, which is based on 1998-99
data, found that only 1 2 % of never-married mothers had a child support award
while 70% of divorced mothers had an award.
Moreover, i t said that the data
indicate that 75% of the mothers with child support awards actually received
payments in 1978.
Census Bureau data, however, point out that 52% of the 8.4
million women with children under 2 1 whose father was absent in 1981 had n o
child support award then in force.
The HHS study o n child support and welfare found that "establishing child
support obligations i s the major policy action require'd to increase child
support recipiency rates."
It concluded that Itany attempt to increase child
support collections through a general system of wage withholding, while
likely to have some impact on recipiency rates, may be of limited success
unless new methods of increasing the amount of obligations established a r e
As noted before, the paternity of a child must
child support obligation can be established. .
The problems of establishing and enforcing child support are compounded
when the absent parent and dependent child live in different States. '
The child Support enforcement program requires that States cooperate t o
secure collection of Support on each other's behalf.
The primary mechanism
of interstate child support action is the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of
(URESA), which was adopted by the National Conference o f
Commissjoners on Uniform State Laws in 1950. By 1955, all States had adopted
It allows any person owed child support payments to file a petition
i n the home State and receive a hearing in the State where the absent parent
lives. This procedure provides for
enforcement or modification of a n
existing order a s well a s initial determination of support payments.
One drawback to URESA's effectiveness it that it is not uniform among all
States have adopted various amendments to the 1950 Act.
before filing a URESA petition, one must consult the law of the responding
State. In many cases, differences in the laws of individual States prevent
successful child support enforcement action.
Although policymakers and observers agree that
needs improvement, few options have been proposed.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) testified before the Finance Committee
that child support officials contacted by GAO regarded wage withholding as
the most effective technique to collect Support from absent parents with
Of the 1 2 7 AFDC'cases reviewed in the GAO study, wage assignment was
used in 30. It was found that 60% of the support due was .collected i n t h e
cases where wage assignment was used, compared to 50% for the entire sample.
Governor Kean (NJ) testified before the Finance Committee that New Jersey
has automatic wage garnishment and State income tax withholding.
H e said
that c.ollections have increased nearly 80% since 1978, from
just under $80
million in 1978 to over $140 million in 1983.
Testifying o n behalf of the National Governors Association, Governor K e a n
reported that eight States had mandatory income withholding laws before 1982;
nine States amended their discretionary income withholding laws in 1 9 8 2 t o
strenghthen the withholding process; and 26 other States have discretionary
income withholding statutes that are similar to mandatory orders and allow a
court the option to Consider individual circumstances.
Representative Hawkins (FL) testified before the Finance Committee that
Florida has mandatory wage withholding laws that apply t o both AFDC and
non-AFDC cases but, she said, many of the courts responsible for enforcement
a r e unaware of the variety of enforcement techniques available to them.
The National Congress for Men (an organization that serves as a focal
point for a number of father's rights and divorce reform organizations)
recommended i n testimony before the Senate Fina,n.ce Committee that other
colfection techniques such a joint custody and mediated
agreements should be tried before requiring States to have mandatory
T h e group's spokesman said only 6 to 7% of payments are overdue
i n joint custody cases. For the most part, pending legislation deals only
with the problem of enforcement of Child support obligations, not with
paternity establishment, interstate cooperation or establishment of support
H.R. 4325, as passed by the House and Senate, would include
non-AFDC collections in the incentive formula.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1983
H.R. 4325 was passed by the House unanimously, 422-0, on Nov.
with a wide range of Support from such groups a s the NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund, American Public Welfare Association, National Council of
Association, and National Women's Law Center.
4325 that t h e
sponsor of the bill, remarked during House debate on H.R.
reason traditionists and feminists could support the bill was because both
groups agree that parents should take responsibility for their children
H.R. 4325 was passed by the Senate unanimously, 94-0, on Apr.
H.R. 4325 as passed by the conferees requires States to adopt certain child
Support enforcement methods; provides for a new system of incentive payments
to States to encourage the development of more effective child support
enforcement pr0gram.s; and affirms in the statement of purpose that assistance
will be available to children in the U.S. to whom child support is owed, if
it is requested, regardless of whether .or not they receive AFDC.
The measure extends the 90% Federal funding of automatic data processing
and information systems to the cost o f ' c o m p 3 t e r and data processing hardware;
r e q u i r e s S t a t e s t o continue providing child support services t o f o r m e r A P ~ C
f a m i l i e s ; authorizes the Secretary of H H S t o m a k e project grants to S t a t e s
f o r developing n e w methods of support establishment a n d collection in.
i n t e r s t a t e cases; extends the Federal i n c o m e tax return intercept program to
non-AFDC families; r e q u i r e s each State t o establish guidelines f o r child
s u p p o r t a w a r d s within the State; extends Medicaid eligibility f o r f o u r m o n t h s
t o f a m i l i e s that l o s e eligibility for A F D C a s a result o f child
collections; and requires that each State's program be reviewed a t l e a s t
e v e r y 3 y e a r s a n d i n place of the 5% penalty f o r noncompliance substitutes a
graduated penalty system,
T h e b i l l a l s o a d d s a n e w section t o t h e child support enforcement l a w t h a t
would r e q u i r e i n appropriate cases that collections be made on behalf o f
children i n f o s t e r homes; a n d allows S t a t e s t o access the Federal p a r e n t
locator s e r v i c e without preconditions; extends the section 1 1 1 5 demonstration
a u t h o r i t y t o t h e child support enforcement program; a n d waives a number of
statutory requirements so that Wisconsin c a n proceed with i t s child suppprt
T h e bill requires s t a t e s t o seek medical Support a s part of . a n y child
support order w h e n appropriate; requires S t a t e s to enforce spousal support i n
c a s e s where o n e support order combines both child a n d spousal support;
r e q u i r e s each governor to appoint a child support commission; a n d requires
S t a t e s to frequently publicize the availability o f child support enforcement
In a d d i t i o n , H.R. 4 3 2 5 requires States t o charge a n application f e e f o r
non-APBC c a s e s not t o exceed $25; a l l o w s t h e Federal p a r e n t locator s e r v i c e
t o child
a n d the IRS t o - d i s c l o s e the absent parent's social security number
support a g e n c i e s ; expands t h e data required i n the a n n u a l child
enforcement program report; provides t h a t obligations assigned to t h e S t a t e
o n behalf of a non-AFDC child may not be discharged i n bankruptcy; a n d
requires S t a t e s t o notify (yearly) each A F D C recipient o f the a m o u n t of child
support collected o n behalf of that recipient.
F u r t h e r , the bill urges States to f o c u s o n the issues o f child
child custody, visitation rights a n d other related domestic issues.
Below i s a brief description of the required State procedures under H.R.
4 3 2 5 , the proposed system of Federal incentive payments to S t a t e s , a n d t h e
Federal match requirements.
Required S t a t e Procedures
H,R. 4 3 2 5 requires States to adopt of number of procedures a i m e d a t
improving the collection of child support payments under the f e d e r a l l y
matched child support enforcement program.
Most of the following provisions
would go i n t o effect in FY85.
T h e Secretary o f HHS can exempt a S t a t e from
complying with the following provisions if the State s h o w s that the required
provisions will not increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the S t a t e
I V - D program.
Moreover, if a State cannot, by reason o f State l a w , comply
with required procedures, the Secretary may waive the requirement u n t i l a f t e r
the State's legislature has met and adjourned.
1. Income w i t h h ~ l d i n g . Under
4 3 2 5 , States would
to withhold child support payments
(for A F D C and
non-AFDC IV-D cases only) from a parent's wages when past due support equals
1 month's obligation, although this withholding could begin earlier'if either
the absent parent or the State so desired.
Under the income withholding
the absent parent would have t o be notified of
In addition, beginning in FY86 H.R. 4325 requires that
all child support orders in the State provide for wage withholding should the
support obligation not be paid.
2. Improved and expedited procedures.
adopt judicial or administrative procedures a s
processing o f child support actions.
4325 requires States to
needed to expedite the
3. Offset of State income tax refunds: ~ H . R . 4325 requires States t o
seize all or a portion (depending on how much i s owed)
of the delinquent
parent's State income tax refund. States must apply this provision to both
AFDC and non-AFDC cases.
4. Liens against property.
H.R. 4 3 2 5 requires States to establish
proceaures under which liens a r e , i m p o s e d against real and personal property
for amounts of past-due support owed by an absent parent who lives or .owns
property in the State.
5. Paternity statute of limitation. H.R.
4325 requires States
permit establishment of paternity until the child's 18th birthday.
6. Posting securities, bonds or guarantees.
4 3 2 5 requires
States to have procedures that require a n individual to give security, post a
bond or give some other guarantee to secure the payment of past-due
support, if the individual has demonstrated a pattern of not paying on time. ,
7. Consumer credit information.
When a n absent parent owes $1,000 or
more in back child Support, H.R. 4325 requires the State to inform consumer
credit agencies of the delinquency if they request the information.
States a t their option may inform consumer credit agencies of child support
arrearages of less than $1,000.
8. Tracking and monitoring of Support payments , b y public 'agencies.
H.R. 4325, a t the option of the State, provides that, a t the request of
either the custodial parent or the absent parent, child support payments
would be made through the State agency that administers the State's child
support income and withholding system or through alternative publicly
accountable procedures established by the State. The State must charge the
parent making the request a fee equal to the actual costs, up to $25 a year.
A request can be made and must be honored even though n o arrearaqes in child
support payments have occurred.
federal Incentive Payments to States
H.R. 4325, a s agreed to by the conferees, would replace the present law
incentive payment, which i s equal to 12% of AFDC child support collections,
with a new incentive system based on collections on behalf of both AFDC and
Under the proposed incentive system, the Secretary would
be required to
pay to each State, on a quarterly basis, an 'incentive payment equal to a t
least 6% of the State's total amount of AFDC Support collection for the year,
plus at least 6% (unless this exceeds 100% of the State's
Payment in FY86 and FY87; 104% in FY88; 110% in FY89; and 115% in FY90 and
U P D A T E - O ~ / ~
any iscal year thereafter) of the State's total amount of ~ ~ ~ - A F suppo,rt
coll ction for the year. The amount of the State's incentive payment could
reac a high of 10% of the AFDC collection plus 10% of the non-AFDC
collection, depending on the cost-effectiveness of the State's program.
(before implementation of
conference agreement aslo provides that for F Y 8 5
the new incentives), the amount of the AFDC incentive will be calculated on
the basis of AFDC collections without regard t o the provision added by
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369, which requires that the first $50
collected on behalf of an AFDC formerly in any month must be paid
family without reducing the amount of the AFDC payment to the family.
Federal Matching of Administrative Costs
B.R. 4325, a s agreed to by the conferees, would gradually reduce the
Federal matching share for State and local _ c h i l d support enforcement
administrative costs from 70% to 6 6 % a s follows:
70% for ~ ~ 8 4 - ~ ~6 88% 7 for
FY88-FY89, and 6 6 % for FY90 and years thereafter.
THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The Finance Committee's 1 9 7 4 proposal to create a new child scpport
enforcement program reflected a desire to improve in a very
the collection of support oi behalf of children with absent parents.
presenting their rationale for the new program, the Committee stated:
The Committee believes that all children have
the right to receive support from their fathers.
i s designed t o help
The committee bill
children attain this right, including the right
to have their fathers identified so that
support can be obtained.
The immediate result
will be a lower welfare cost to the taxpayer
but, more importantly, as an effective support
collection system is established fathers will
be deterred from deserting their families to
welfare and children w i l l be spared the effects
of family breakup.
The law states four purposes of the current program:
support obligations owed by absent parents to their children and the spouse
(or former spouse) with whom
the children are living, locating absent
parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child and spousal support."
The Federal Government pays 70% of State and local administrative costs
for services to both AFDC and non-AFDC families on an open-end entitlement
In addition, 90% Federal matching is available on an open-end
entitlement basis to States that elect . t o establish an automatic data
processing and information retrieval system.
Collections made on behalf of AFDC families are used to offset the cost to
the Federal and State governments of welfare payments made t o the family.
The amounts kept by the government are distributed between the Federal and
State governments according to the proportional matching share which each has
under tne State's AFDC program.
Finally, a s an incentive to encourage State and local governments to
participate in the program, the law provides for a payment equal to 12% of
collections made on behalf of AFDC families.
These incentive payments are
deducted entirely from the Federal share of collections.
In its FY83 budget, the Reagan Administration proposed to repeal the
existing structure of Federal matching and distribution of child support
collections, and replace i t with a formula that i t said was designed to
reward States both
The Administration said that because of the way the
funding system was designed, the Federal Government has conistently operated
a t a deficit, and that, conversely, States and localities have generally
achieved savings even if their programs were not very effective in collecting
child Support payments.
Congress did not act on the Administration's
In its FY84 budget, the Administration again proposed to change the child
support enforcement financing structure to "create a stimulus for improved
State and local performance."
In addition, the proposal required States to
adopt proven methods of increasing child support collections, such a s wage
attachment and offsets to State income tax refunds.
Critics of the Administration's FY83 and FY84 proposals regarding child
(1) the restructuring proposal considered
support enforcement objected that:
the costs of the non-AFDC
component of the program but overlooked the
beneficial effects of non-AFDC collections (costs avoided by helping non-AFDC
families obtain their child support and thus lessening the ch-ance of their
resorting to welfare); (2) the proposal provided no incentive for States and
jurisdictions to do interstate enforcement work; and (3) the proposal might
discourage establishment of paternity because this task often requires
extended court involvement and high costs.
In its FY85 budget, the Administration has again proposed to change the
child support enforcement financing structure to "provide explicit incentives
for both AFDC and non-AFDC collections and promote more cost-effective
In addition, HHS again asked Congress to mandate
In March 1983, H.R. 2090/S. 8 8 8 , the proposed Economic Equity Act was
introduced. Title V of this bill deals with the child support enforcement
(H.R. 2374, containing only title V, was also introduced in March
support in child support
Title V requires States to seek medical
cases, withhold wages in delinquent cases, impose liens against property,
intercept tax refunds in cases where payment i s
quasi-judicial or administrative procedures, and withhold
wages of Federal
employees owing child support.
1691, the Administration's proposed
In July 1 9 6 3 , H.R.
Support Enforcement Act of 1983, was introduced. This new proposal would:
(1) change the funding of trie program to give States an incentive to improbe
their programs, basing
the incentive equally on
performance; and (2) r e q u i r e States to adopt practices that have been
effective in increasing support collections.
In November 1983, H.R.
4 3 2 5 , the proposed Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1 9 8 3 , was introduced and reported to the House.
adopts many provisions of earlier child support bills, including the
provision to change the funding of the program by basing incentives paid to
States o n both their AFDC and non-AFDC performance and the provisions
requiring use of certain child support collection techniques. M.R. 4325 w a s
passed 422-0 by the House on Nov. 1 6 , 1983; and 94-0 by the Senate
on Apr. 25, 1984.
The conference committee met on June 2 8
~ u l y26, 1984.
The conference report was
Senate by a vote of 99-0 on Aug. 1 and the
8. The President signed the bill into law
and reached final agreement o n
agreed to by both ~ o u s e s : the
House by a vote of 413-0 on Aug.
(P.L. 98-378) on ~ u g .1 6 , 1984.
P.L. 98-68, H.J.Res. 273/ S.J.Res. 5 6
Designates August 1983 as national child support enforcement month.
House bill introduced May 1 8 , 1983; referred to Post Office and Civil
9, 1983; referred to
Senate companion . b i l l introduced Mar.
Committee on Judiciary.
Passed the Senate, by voice vote, July 16.
the House, by Voice Vote, July 27. Signed into law Aug. 5 , 1983.
P O L . 98-378, H.R. 4325
Requires mandatory wage withholding when arrearages occur, and a number
of other collection techniques, rewards States equally for collections made
on behalf of both AFDC and non-AFDC families, and makes other changes.
Introduced Nov. 8 , 1983; referred t o Committee on Ways and Means.
to the House, with amendment (H.Rept. 98-527), Nov.
P O , 1983.
Passed t h e
House, amended, unanimously, N o v - 1 6 ; referred to Committee on Finance.
Senate companion bill introduced Jan. 24, 1984. Finance Committee reported
H - R . 4325 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on Mar.- 23, 1984.
Passed the Senate, amended, Apr. 25. Senate agreed to conference report Aug.
1. House agreed to conference report Aug. 8 , 1984.
Signed into law Aug. 16,
H.R. 216 (Long, of Maryland)
Makes available to non-AFDC families IRS procedures to collect past-due
payments from Federal tax refunds.
3 , 1983; referred to
Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 817 (Jenkins)
Increases from to $900 (from $600) the minimum
support a parent not
having custody of a child must provide for the support of the child in
certain cases in order to claim a personal exemptin for the child.
Introduced Jan. 25, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 9 2 6 (Stark)
Requires employers to submit quarterly wage reports to their unemployment
compensation agencies and to disclose such information upon request for a
f e e , to child
support enforcement agencies.
referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
M.R. 1014 (Biaggi)
Sets up commission to study improvement of child support enforcement for
AFDC and non-AFDC children.
Introduced Jan. 27, 1983; referred to Committees
on Judiciary and Ways and Means.
H.R. 1461 (Jacobs)
Requires that orders of State courts directing individuals to meet their
obligations to their children be enforced in sister States regardless of
where the child is living. Introduced Feb. 1 5 , 1983; referred t o Committee
H.R. 1488 (Seiberling)
Permits assignments or alienation of rights under pension
court-ordered alimony or child support and permits the division of pension
benefits under State community p r ~ p e r t y law or common law.
1 5 , 1983; referred to Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means.
H.R. 2090 (Schroeder) / S. 8 8 8 (Durenberger)
Makes changes in a number of programs concerning women; title V deals
with child support enforcement.
House bill introduced Mar.
1 4 , 1983;
referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
Senate companion bill introduced
Mar. 23, 1983; referred to Committee on Finance.
Hearing held June 20 and
21 , 1983.
H.R. 2374 (Kennelly)
Requires each State to establish a clearinghouse for payment and
recording of child support, authorizes collection of overdue support from
Federal income tax refunds for non-AFDC cases, and makes other changes.
Introduced Mar. 24, 1983; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
held July 1 4 , 1983.
M.R. 2411 (Schroeder)
Requires automatic mandatory wage assignment for all Federal
employees who o w e ' p a s t - d u e child support.
Introduced Apr. 5 , 1983;
to Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
H.R. 3354 (Roukema)/ S. 1777 (Trible)
Requires each State to develop, implement, and enforce a system of
mandatory wage withholding for the collection of child support payments.
House bill introduced June 16, 1983;-referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
4 , . 1983; referred to Committee on
Similar Senate bill introduced Aug.
H.R. 3545 (Campbell)/ S. 1708 (Grassley et dl.)
Child Support Enforcement Act of 1983.
Changes funding, requires
specified collection procedures by States for delinquent payments, and makes
other changes. House bill introduced July 1 3 , 1983; referred to Committee on
Ways and Means.
Hearings held on this and related bills July 1 4 , 1983.
Senate companion bill introduced July 2 9 , 1983; referred to Committee on
H.R. 3546 (conable)/ S. 1691 (Armstrong et al.)
Child support Enforcement Amendments of 1983.
Lowers Federal matching rate to 60%; requires specified collection procedures
by States for delinquent Parents; bases bonus payments to States on
'lexemplaryw collections for both AFDC and non-AFDC families, and makes other
changes. House bill introduced July 1 3 , 1983; referred to Committee on Ways
and Means, (Public Assistance subcommittee held hearings on this and relat,ed
bills July 14, 1983).
Senate com'panion bill introduced July 24, 1983;
referred to Committee on Finance,'
H,R. 4 3 1 9 (Johnson)
Directs the Department of H e a l t h - a n d Human Services to conduct a study t o
determine the gui'delines and approaches that should be used in establishing
child support amounts.
Introduced Nov. 4 , 1983; referred to Committee on
S. 1938 (Wallop)
Imposes a child Support tax
demonstration before implementation.
Committee on Finance.
Introduced May 26, 1983; referred t o
REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS
Conference Committee, 1984. Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984; conference report to accompany H.R. 4325.
(98th Congress, 2d
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print, Off., 1984.
Report no. 98-925)
Ways and Means Committee.
Support Enforcement Amendments of 1983; report to
accompany H.R. 4325.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
(98th Congress, 1st session. House.
Report no. 98-527-
Senate. Committee on Finance. Child
Support Enforcement amendments; report to accompany
H.R. 4325. April 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
(98th Congress, Fd session. Senate.
Report no. 98-387)
Data and materials for FY85 Finance Committee Report
under the Congressional Budget Act.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984.
2 6 session. Senate. Report no. 98-156)
Staff data and materials o_n child support. September 1983.
98th Congress, 1st session. Washington, -U.S. Govt. Print.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
The House passed the conference report on H.R.
by a vote of 413-0.
The Senate passed the conference report on H.R.
by a vote of 99-0.
The Senate passed H.R.
4 3 2 5 , amended, by a vote of
The Finance Committee reported H.R. 4325, with a n
amendment i n nature of a substitute ( S . R e p t . 98-387).
The Finance Committee held a markup session on child
support enforcement legislation.
The Finance Committee held a hearing on child
support enforcement bills; most of the testimony
focused on H.R. 4325.
The Fi'nance Committee held a hearing on child
H.R. 4325, the Child Support Enforcements
Amendments of 1983, was called u p under
suspension of the rules and passed the House,
The Committee .on Ways and Means held a markup
session on child support enforcement legislation.
The Subcommittee on Public Assistance and
Unemployment Compensation of the Ways and Means
Committee held a mark-up session on child support
The Subcommittee on Oversight of the Internal
Revenue Service of the Finance Committee held a
hearing on the Federal income tax refund offset
The Subcommittee o n Social Security and Income
Maintenance Programs of the Finance Committee
held a hearing o n child support enforcement.
The Subcommittee on Public Assistance and
Unemployment Compensation held a hearing on
child support enforcement legislation.
-- The Committee on Finance held hearings
on the Economic Equity Act.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports,
special studies, series P-23, no. 124. Child support
1981 (advance report).
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983.
Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Child Support Enforcement.
C h i l d support and welfare:
a n analysis of the issues, by Philip K. Robins and
Katherine P. Diekinson. Washington, December 1983.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Child support enforcement:
an examination of current
proposals [ b y ] Carmen D. Solomon. May 31, 1983.
CRS Report 38-530EPW