The House on September 7 approved, 405-18, legislation (H.R. 4678) designed to streamline the child support collection system. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT), was approved by the House Ways and Means Committee on July 19 (see The Source, 7/21/00, p. 4). Opening floor debate, Rep. Johnson said, “This bill will move us a dramatic step forward in helping our poorest young people help themselves by making sure that child support money stays in the family. This will help young mothers avoid or get off welfare, and bring young fathers and their children closer together.”
H.R. 4678 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. One aspect of the bill 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. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) highlighted this provision in her floor comments, saying that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the change will “get more than $1 billion of child support every year into low-income families and help children in need.”
Under the bill, states also would be required to review and update child support orders when custodial parents leave the welfare rolls, and at least every three years otherwise. States would be encouraged to increase their use of information in the federal New Hires database for locating noncustodial parents who have not complied with child support orders.
The measure would expand a program that allows the denial of passports to noncustodial parents who owe child support. Currently, passports can be denied for those with $5,000 in outstanding arrearages; that threshold would be dropped to $2,500 under H.R. 4678. Similarly, the bill would allow the denial of visas and residency status for those owing $2,500 in child support to American citizens.
Originally, H.R. 4678 would have allowed all of the states to contract with private companies for collection and enforcement of child support. However, when the House Ways and Means Committee considered the measure in July, a substitute amendment offered by Rep. Johnson was accepted.
Under that amendment, the incorporation of private collection agencies would be studied through a limited two-year demonstration program in three states. Prior to implementation of the demonstration program in 2002, studies on the proposal would be conducted by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Although Rep. Johnson favors the involvement of private collection companies as a way to increase the amount of money going to custodial parents, she proposed the pilot program to acknowledge concerns expressed by Rep. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). He objects to a lack of regulation and accountability in the collection industry, as well as the practice of compensating private companies with a percentage of the collected child support—usually 25 to 30 percent of each payment collected.
In addition to the child support provisions, H.R. 4678 includes a version of a bill (H.R. 3073) aimed at encouraging fathers’ involvement with their children, which already was approved by the full House last November (see The Source, 11/12/99, p. 1). According to Rep. Johnson, her substitute amendment added new language to the bill’s fatherhood section in an effort to address concerns expressed by several women’s advocacy organizations that the bill’s emphasis on marriage would encourage women and children to remain in abusive homes or situations. During floor debate, she stated, “We have added many provisions to assure that domestic violence and child abuse are prevented and, when necessary, that referrals are made to local services to help families in which violence is occurring.”
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered two amendments related to the “charitable choice” aspects of the bill’s fatherhood section. Charitable choice is an approach taken with other programs receiving federal funds, such as the Even Start literacy program and Safe and Drug-Free Schools prevention and treatment programs. It allows states to use federal money for programs run by religious and sectarian organizations, so long as those organizations follow civil rights laws regarding the separation of church and state and do not proselytize to program participants.
Rep. Scott’s first amendment, which was defeated 163-257, would have clarified this set of requirements. Stating that his amendment’s language was included in the Even Start and Safe and Drug-Free Schools legislation, Rep. Scott said participants in federally funded fatherhood programs “become a captive audience.” He added, “It is wrong to take advantage of their need for services and essentially require them to participate in a federally sponsored sectarian worship program.”
The amendment also would have barred charitable choice programs from excluding participants in fatherhood programs based on their religious beliefs. “There should be no circumstance in which a person is denied benefits under a federally funded program solely because of that person’s religious beliefs,” said Rep. Scott.
However, Rep. Johnson strongly urged the House to defeat Rep. Scott’s amendment, expressing concern that the language would “frighten churches away from being willing to participate in this program.” She added, “Current law very clearly prohibits public monies for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytizing. In addition, current law is very clear that no program receiving federal funds may discriminate based on race, color, national origin, disability, or age.”
Noting that 75 percent of the bill’s fatherhood funding would be spent on programs run by non-religious entities, Rep. Johnson said, “These fathers we are trying to reach are the very people that government has not been able to reach…that is why we want the churches to help.”
The House also defeated, 175-249, Rep. Scott’s second amendment, which was a motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with an amendment to prohibit charitable choice programs from discriminating against potential staff based on their religious beliefs.
Pointing out that churches and faith-based organizations are exempt from federal religious discrimination hiring laws, Rep. Scott expressed concern about the possibility of “using federal funds under charitable choice to fire or refuse to hire a perfectly qualified employee, solely based on that person’s religion.”
Once again, Rep. Johnson urged defeat of the amendment. “There are areas of America where the only institutions left are small churches,” she said, adding that approval of the amendment would “destroy the opportunity of particularly our smallest churches to participate in the fatherhood grant demonstration program.”
