Legislation (H.R. 4678) designed to improve the child support system was approved, 7-6, by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on June 27. The same subcommittee held a hearing on the measure in May (see The Source, 5/19/00).
Sponsored by Subcommittee Chair Nancy Johnson (R-CT), the bill aims to continue efforts started as part of the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), which included several changes to child support collection. Although child support collection has improved under the new law, Rep. Johnson said, “The most important goal of this bill is to get more money to mothers.”
Private Collection Agencies
The committee debated at length a provision in H.R. 4678 that would allow states to contract with private companies for collection and enforcement of child support. Although Rep. Johnson’s bill originally would have made that allowance for all states, she offered a substitute amendment at the mark-up to study the effects of the plan by implementing it as a demonstration project in three states. Rep. Johnson and other subcommittee Republicans favor the involvement of private collection companies as a way to increase the amount of money going to custodial parents.
However, the subcommittee’s ranking member Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) voiced concern that the proposal would violate the privacy of families by making public their personal financial information. During the May hearing on the bill, testimony based on the same viewpoint was offered by the Clinton Administration, the National Women’s Law Center, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Association for Enforcement of Support, and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
Rep. Cardin and other opponents cite a lack of regulation and accountability in the collection industry. In addition, they object to the practice of compensating private companies with a percentage of the collected child support—usually 25 to 30 percent of each payment collected.
Rep. Johnson and her supporters assert, however, that a child support payment reduced by 25 or 30 percent is better than no child support payment at all. Rep. Johnson urged the subcommittee to support her plan, stating, “This is a very narrow demonstration project.” The bill would require a study by the General Accounting Office and another by the Department of Health and Human Services before beginning the two-year demonstration project in 2002.
The subcommittee eventually defeated, 6-7, an amendment by Rep. Cardin that would have removed the demonstration project from the bill. The only Republican to vote in favor of the amendment was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who cited an “unbelieveable” experience he had with a collection company after one of his credit cards was stolen.
Pass-Through of Payments
One aspect of H.R. 4678 would expand the “pass through” of child support payments. Most child support cases involve a court order outlining support obligations. Under current law, support is collected in those cases by state governments, with some federal funding. Rather than being passed through to the custodial parent, some of the funds are kept by the state to help pay administrative costs. If the custodial parent is receiving welfare benefits, the entire child support payment is kept by the state to help offset the cost of the welfare benefits.
Under H.R. 4678, states would still keep child support funds during the time that custodial parents receive welfare assistance. After that time, the entirety of support payments would be passed through to the custodial parents. The bill also would institute a policy known as “families first,” which would ensure that custodial parents leaving the welfare rolls are awarded all child support arrearages collected while they were on welfare. Rep. Johnson said the provision “will result in mothers getting another $750 million per year, or well over $3.5 billion over five years.”
During the mark-up, the committee defeated, by voice vote, an amendment by Rep. Cardin that would have passed through support payments even while custodial parents are on welfare.
Fatherhood Provisions
H.R. 4678 includes a version of a bill (H.R. 3073) designed to encourage fathers’ involvement with their children, which was approved by the full House last November (see The Source, 11/12/99). Rep. Johnson said that she combined the two measures because she wants the Senate to consider both bills and “it seems unlikely the Senate will take up more than one of our bills this year.”
Although Rep. Cardin is a cosponsor of H.R. 3073, he offered an amendment during the mark-up to remove the fatherhood provisions from H.R. 4678. He said that some of the controversy surrounding the child support bill might endanger the fatherhood provisions. His amendment was defeated by voice vote.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) offered two amendments related to the fatherhood section of the bill. One amendment focused on the bill’s standards for providing grants to private organizations. Rep. Stark expressed concern that the bill does not have quality standards or language to bar religious organizations from proselytizing. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
Another amendment offered by Rep. Stark at the behest of the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund would have substituted the word “parenthood” for “motherhood” and “fatherhood,” as well as “parent” for “mother” and “father.” The amendment was defeated, 6-7.
