Child Support Enforcement

During the first session of the 98th Congress, the House passed H.R. 4325, 422-0. 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 18th birthday; alters the incentive payment formula for child support collections; and extends the formula to collections made on behalf of non-AFDC children. The report includes background and policy analysis.

rinivaim Order Code IB84036 CHILD S U P P O R T E N F O R C E M E N T (ARCHIVED--10/10/84) U P D A T E D 09/13/84 BY C a r m e n D. Solomon Education and P u b l i c W e l f a r e Division CRS- 9 ISSUE DEFINITION The failure of many absent parents to pay child support has led Congress to develop proposals to make the child support enforcement program more effective. 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 , 422-0. 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 18th 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 support payments. ~ 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 receive AFDC. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State if necessary to establish pat ernity and secure child support. Although 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. u nder beha If Of dire ct1y make the and the c gove rnmen he ch AFDC 0 the amily ild s s in ld support hildren are family. If ineligible pport is di roportion t nf orce ment paid t o the the ch ild s or AFD C , th tribut ed t their assi 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. on han to ant ral CRS- 2 IB84036 UPDATE-09/13/84 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. receiving AFDC. The administrative c o s t s . o f the program amounted to $691 million. 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. involved. Federal Role 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 welfare children. 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 enforcement officials. In 1 9 7 4 , . Congress passed legislation (signed by President Ford Jan. 4 , 1975) establishing a Federal child support enforcement program. This measure, for the first time, required States to provide child support enforcement services to non-AFDC families a s well as to AFDC families. 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 of child support enforcement. CRS- 3 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. again 4325) The National Council of State Public Welfare Administrators has as'ked. 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 individual circumstances. 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 efforts." Absent fathers argue that they need to be able t o .withhold payments in order to insure their right to visit their children. The 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. Paternity Establishment 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 mother). 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. In May 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 support. It finds paternity 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 support. 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 bill, H.R. 4325, would permit States to exclude the laboratory costs incurred in establishing paternity from administrative costs, for purposes of calculating incentive payments. 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. CRS- 4 < 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 also developed." As noted before, the paternity of a child must child support obligation can be established. . be determined before a Interstate Cooperation 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 Support Act (URESA), which was adopted by the National Conference o f Commissjoners on Uniform State Laws in 1950. By 1955, all States had adopted URESA. 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. States have adopted various amendments to the 1950 Act. Therefore, 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. interstate cooperation Collection Techniques 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 CRS- 5 1884036 UPDATE-09/13/84 jobs. 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 voluntary support agreements should be tried before requiring States to have mandatory wage withholding. 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 obligations. non-AFDC collections in the incentive formula. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: H.R. 4325, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1983 H.R. 4325 was passed by the House unanimously, 422-0, on Nov. 16, 1983, 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 State Child Support EnforcementAdministrators, National Governors Association, and National Women's Law Center. Representative Kennelly, 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 seriously. H.R. 4325 was passed by the Senate unanimously, 94-0, on Apr. 25, 1984. 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; CRS- 6 IB84036 UPDATE-09/13/84 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 support 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 initiative. 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 services. 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 support 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. support, 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 H.R. 4 3 2 5 , States would have to implement procedures 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 CRS- 7 IB84036 UPDATE-09/13/84 1 month's obligation, although this withholding could begin earlier'if either the absent parent or the State so desired. Under the income withholding provision, the absent parent would have t o be notified of intended enforcement actions. 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. H.R. 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. to 6. Posting securities, bonds or guarantees. H.R. 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 child 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. The 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 non-AFDC families. 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, AFDC incentive 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 CRS- 8 IB84036 U P D A T E - O ~ / ~ D C 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. 'llhe (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 the 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 to the family without reducing the amount of the AFDC payment to the family. C. 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 A. History 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 significant way 1n 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. ... "... enforcing the 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." Financing 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 basis. 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. CRS- 9 IB84036 UPDATE-09/13/84 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. C. Proposals 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 for increasing collections and for operating cost-effective programs. 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 restructuring proposal. 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 programs." In addition, HHS again asked Congress to mandate certain collection procedures. 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 program. support in child support 1983.) 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 overdue; implement quasi-judicial or administrative procedures, and withhold wages of Federal employees owing child support. 3536/S. 1691, the Administration's proposed Child 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 AFBC and non-AFDC 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. H.R. 4325 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 (amended) 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. LEGISLATION 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 Service. Senate companion . b i l l introduced Mar. Committee on Judiciary. Passed the Senate, by voice vote, July 16. Passed 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. Reported 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, 1984. H.R. 216 (Long, of Maryland) Makes available to non-AFDC families IRS procedures to collect past-due payments from Federal tax refunds. Introduced Jan. 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. Introduced Jan. 25, 1983; 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. [Identical bill: H.R. 955.1 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 on Judiciary. H.R. 1488 (Seiberling) Permits assignments or alienation of rights under pension plans for 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. Introduced Feb. 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. Hearing 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. civilian referred 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. Finance. 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 Finance. H.R. 3546 (conable)/ S. 1691 (Armstrong et al.) Child support Enforcement Amendments of 1983. (Administration bill.) 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 Judiciary. S. 1938 (Wallop) Imposes a child Support tax demonstration before implementation. Committee on Finance. on absent parents. Provides for Introduced May 26, 1983; referred t o REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. 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. Session. House. Report no. 98-925) U..SF Congress. House. Ways and Means Committee. Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1983; report to accompany H.R. 4325. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. (98th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 98-527- U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Child Support Enforcement amendments; report to accompany H.R. 4325. April 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. (98th Congress, Fd session. Senate. Report no. 98-387) ----- Data and materials for FY85 Finance Committee Report under the Congressional Budget Act. March 1984. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. (98th Congress-, 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. Off., 1983. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 08/08/84 -- The House passed the conference report on H.R. by a vote of 413-0. 08/01/84 -- The Senate passed the conference report on H.R. by a vote of 99-0. 04/25/84 -- The Senate passed H.R. 4325, 4325, 4 3 2 5 , amended, by a vote of 94-0. 03/23/84 -- The Finance Committee reported H.R. 4325, with a n amendment i n nature of a substitute ( S . R e p t . 98-387). 03/22/84 -- 01/26/84 -- 01/24/84 -- 11/16/83 -- 11/09/83 -- 10/20/83 -- 09/16/83 -- 09/15/83 -- 07/14/83 -- 06/20-21/83 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 support enforcement. H.R. 4325, the Child Support Enforcements Amendments of 1983, was called u p under suspension of the rules and passed the House, unanimously. 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 enforcement legislation. The Subcommittee on Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service of the Finance Committee held a hearing on the Federal income tax refund offset program. 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 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, special studies, series P-23, no. 124. Child support and alimony: 1981 (advance report). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Office of 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. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Child support enforcement: an examination of current proposals [ b y ] Carmen D. Solomon. May 31, 1983. Washington, 1983. CRS Report 38-530EPW