Senate Committee on Finance - Bill [S.803.IS]

[Bolivar]

Senate Committee on Finance - Bill S.803.IS

(1)  January 2006 the "2005 Deficit Reduction Act" passed which reduces the Federal Governments incentive payments and reimbursement funds it makes to the States' Child Support.


(2)  on 3/7/2007 Senator John D. Rockefeller  IV introduced in the Senate Bill S.803.IS  

Which is to REPEAL the CUTS (incentive payments and reimbursement funds) the Federal Government makes to the States child support.  (The cuts go into effect October 2007 unless the Senate passes this Bill which stops the cuts)


 (3)  That same day 3/7/2007 the Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance

 

Please write the Senate members on the Finance Committee (below) to advocate you oppose Senate Bill  S.803.IS
That the Bill should NOT be passed.
 

An example: (This is way to long but you get the idea.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Honorable  John D. Rockefeller IV
United States Senate

Dear Senator Rockefeller IV;

In strong opposition to the Bill S.803.IS   Title: To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive payments.

The Federal incentive payments and reimbursement funds it makes to States Child Support have corrupted our states family law statutes and designed them to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from a vast array of federal grant sources.  

 Our states' family law statutes are no longer designed to dispense justice or operate in "the best interest of the child."  Nor are they the true governance over the daily operations of our courts.  They are designed to make certain that rulings are made that generate the highest return from an assortment of federal "incentive programs."  Most of the programs providing the grant money to family law were major parts of our failed welfare reform effort of the 1990's.

 The failure of "welfare reform" is found in its core principle of basing the federal incentives primarily on the money the state's collect in child support, not primarily on the percentage of cases they collect successfully.

 Until federal child support incentive programs pay the states the same amount per successfully collected case no matter what the dollar value is this is the way it is going to be.  Middle class families will be destroyed while the poor will continue to be underserved.  Nothing about this sounds like a public assistance program, does it?

 If at this point you have any doubts that family law is based on dollars and NOT on justice, equal protection under the law, or the best interest of the child. Ask North Dakota's Governor, John Hoeven.

 Among the usual and customary items on the ballet in 2006, North Dakota had ballet item for "Presumptive Equal Parenting." Governor Hoeven himself spoke out against this ballet initiative.  

 Rather than defending the wellbeing of his state's children, Governor Hoeven's stated reason for opposing this initiative was due to the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money such a law would cost his state.  That, by the way is a significant portion of the states expected annual revenue and revenue that is considered greatly in the state's budget requests.

 The Governor did this even though he was informed numerous times that scientific studies clearly show children in Equal Parenting arrangements after a family breakup excel at almost the same levels as those in intact, healthy families with both their biological parents present and far better than single parent homes.

 He was also made aware that the large majority of teens in juvenile detention, who become pregnant, smoke, run away, do drugs, and other social problems are in primary custody arrangements (single parent homes).

 Governor Hoeven was also aware that in their biennial report "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support" (1999, 2001, and 2003) the US Census Bureau reports that parents with equal parenting arrangements are far more likely to pay their child support, in full and on time without any enforcement actions then any other parenting arrangement. Where parents who have limited, disrupted, or no visitation with their children are likely not to pay a cent.

 Governor Hoeven's decision was not based on the best interest of the child or family values; it was all about the money.

 Currently, despite the established facts that children do better with equal access to both of their parents and the most effective to insure the children receive the support they need, it is easily concluded that for a cost effective method of child support enforcement is enforcing custody and visitation, instead of a federal incentive programs under our failed welfare reform are paying the State to limit the time children spend with one of their parents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



US Senate Committee on Finance

Democrats        

MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
KEN SALAZAR, CO

           

Republicans

CHARLES GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
TRENT LOTT, MS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
CRAIG THOMAS, WY
GORDON SMITH, OR
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS



STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - March 07, 2007)

________________________________________

 

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. COLEMAN):

   S. 803. A bill to repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive payments; to the Committee on Finance.

   

Mr. ROCKFELLER:. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with bipartisan colleagues, Senators CORNYN, KOHL, SNOWE, and COLEMAN, to try to increase investments in the successful Child Support Enforcement program.

   Our Federal child support enforcement is an extraordirary program. In 2005, the program collected $23 billion to serve 16 million children and families, with a Federal investment of only approximately $4 billion. For every dollar invested in this Program, there is a return of $4.58. This program is a real bargain.

   Child support enforcement is a program that deserves more investment because it works, and because it provides long term support for children. The historic welfare reform of 1996 changed Federal assistance to families with children to a temporary program that only provides 60 months of support. Currently 3.4 million children are cotered by welfare reform. Child support serves more children, and helps to ensure that their parents provide support until the age of 18. This program is essential for families, and it promotes our fundamental value of parental responsibility.

   As part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, new limits were imposed on Federal incentive funds to prohibit the match. While this provision saved almost $3 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that children and families would loose $8.3 billion. That is a bad deal.

   Our bill is designed to fix this problem and continue to invest in a program that has been proven to work so well for our children and families. In my personal view, it is better to encourage families to rely on child support from their parents first.  

   In the past, my State of West Virginia has used its incentive payments and matching funding to support computers and staff investments. According to our West Virginia Bureau, prior to incentive funding, the agency had 18 percent to 20 percent staff turnover. But with incentive funding, staff turnover has been reduced to 10 percent and West Virginia collections are up to $180 million. This is very good for my State.

   I believe this bipartisan bill will be a good deal for child support enforcement, our children and families, and our States.

   I ask unanimous consent that, three letters of support and the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD. I truly appreciate the support of National Conference of State Legislatures, The National Child Support Enforcement Association, and the joint support of advocacy groups of Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Women's Law Center and the Coalition on Human Needs.

   There being no objection, the letters and bill were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

------

 NATIONAL CONFERENCE
   OF STATE LEGISLATURES,

   Washington, DC, March 6, 2007.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATORS ROCKEFELLER, CORNYN, KOHL, SNOWE, AND COLEMAN: NCSL strongly supports your legislation repealing the provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that prohibits states from using child support incentive funds to match federal funds for the program. When this action was taken, the Congressional Budget Office identified the cut as an intergovernmental mandate that exceeds the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.

   States have used incentive funds to draw down federal funds used for integral parts of the child support enforcement program. The funds have allowed states to establish and enforce child support obligations, obtain health care coverage for children, and link low-income fathers to job programs. The cut ignored the fact that funds for child support enforcement are used effectively and responsibly. In fact, the child support enforcement program received a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rating of ``effective,'' and continues to be one of the highest rated block or formula grants of all federal programs.

   Consistent child support helps save children from being raised in poverty. Reductions in child support administrative funds inevitably lead to lower child support collections, leaving families less able to achieve self-sufficiency.

   State legislators applaud your efforts to undo this ill-considered action of the previous Congress. We urge the 110th Congress to adopt your bill. Please have your staff contact Sheri Steisel or Lee Posey for further information or assistance.

   Sincerely,

   Sandy Rosenberg,  Delegate, Maryland, Chairman, NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee.

   Leticia Van de Putte,  Senator, Texas, President, NCSL.

   Donna Stone,  Representative, Delaware, President Elect, NCSL.

------

   NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION,

   March 6, 2007.

Hon. JAY ROCKEFELLER,
Hon. JOHN CORNYN,
Hon. HERB KOHL,
Hon. OLYMPIA SNOWE,
Hon. NORM COLEMAN.

   DEAR SENATORS: I am sending this letter on behalf of the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) in strong support of your bill to restore the authority for states to use performance incentives as match for federal funds for the child support enforcement program.

   NCSEA is a nonprofit, membership organization representing the child support community--a workforce of over 60,000. NCSEA's mission is to promote the well-being of children through professional development of its membership, advocacy and public awareness. NCSEA's membership includes line/managerial/executive child support staff; state and local agencies; judges; court masters; hearing officers; government and private attorneys; social workers; advocates; corporations that partner with government to provide child support services and private collection firms.

   The child support enforcement program operates in all states as provided by Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act. The program enjoys healthy partnerships with the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and a large and varied group of stakeholders. Courts and law enforcement officials carry out many of the day to day functions; employers collect almost 80% of child support through income withholding, hospitals assist with paternity acknowledgment, and other state and local agencies provide enforcement services and related services to assist obligors in finding and maintaining employment. We share a common mission that is reflected in the program's National Strategic Plan:

   To enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations.

   One of the unique features of the child support enforcement program is that unlike government public assistance programs, it has a major interstate component, and requires close collaboration among the states to provide services on behalf of children whose parents live in different states. In today's mobile society, strong interstate collaboration and comparable levels of service across state lines are essential. Collectively, the program provides services on behalf of over 17 million children--representing nearly one quarter of the nation's children. If one or more states do not have the resources to operate effective programs, there are repercussions across the entire network of states in the child support system. The bottom line is that some of the children who depend upon the program will fall through the cracks.

   We are proud of the accomplishments of the program, but are continually striving to do more. The program is cost effective, goal oriented, and accountable for results. It has received recognition from the highest levels of government at the federal, state, and local levels. One of these was an OMS Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) score of 90 percent, representing the highest rating among all social services and block grant/formula programs.

   The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), passed by a closely divided Congressional vote, made major cuts to child support funding, including eliminating the purposeful federal match on incentive payments, reducing the match rate for paternity testing, and imposing a collection fee on parents. States were required to implement the collection of the fee in October 2007 unless legislation was required. The first two provisions are effective on October 1, 2008, unless reversed by Congress.

   States and child support organizations have been working hard to address these drastic funding reductions, and with all honesty, the plans that are being made are not good for the families served by this nationally recognized program. Our members report that vital services may be eliminated or substantially reduced as budgets and staffing are cut. Important to the effectiveness of the program is the ability to take action quickly to establish paternity and an obligation to support. States report that early intervention results in more regular support payments and more involvement of the father in the life of the child. Just as importantly, close monitoring and on-ongoing enforcement are vital to the regular receipt of child support payments. This close monitoring and interaction with the obligor ensures that those parents who need assistance in finding and maintaining employment are helped.

   As states lose resources, they will be less able to timely perform ``core'' functions such as paternity establishment, order establishment, enforcement and distribution of payments. The progress the program has made toward improved performance will be jeopardized. In addition, states will have to make tough choices, perhaps sacrificing customer service, outreach to incarcerated parents, and fatherhood programs in favor of funding only the ``essential'' service areas.

   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that child support collections would be reduced by $8.4 billion as a result of the federal cuts contained in the Deficit Reduction Act. (The actual number may be higher based on new scoring from the CBO.) CBO assumed that states would make up half of the funding gap resulting from federal cuts to the program. While states are working to secure adequate funding for the program, as of today no state has had a budget increase approved by its state legislature. Twenty-three (23) states have not yet made a request for additional funding. Many state budgets are so tight that a request for additional funding is not feasible. It is also important to keep in mind that even if additional state funding is approved during the current budget cycle, it does not guarantee adequate funding in the future.

   As the Congress works to address needs of America's families both in the federal budget and in other funding authorization bills, we urge you to consider the needs for strong and fair child support enforcement. Children who don't receive regular financial support from both parents are disadvantaged in a number of ways. Children need the resources provided by child support payments from parents to compete in our complex society. Parents need access to a child support system that determines equitable child support awards, monitors and enforces obligations, and transfers payments from the obligor to custodial parent quickly. State and local child support agencies have a successful history of performing these important tasks, doubling their child support collection rates since Congress enacted the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Taxpayers are well served by a strong child support program that increases family self-sufficiency and decreases dependence on public assistance.

   Your interest in the child support program and commitment to the families served by the state and local programs is once again evidenced with your sponsorship of this critical funding bill. The child support program has long enjoyed strong bi-partisan support and we are most pleased to see that support clearly shown in your sponsorship.

   Please consider NCSEA as a resource to you and to your colleagues and staff as you proceed with this legislation. We stand ready to provide you details on what we do, how our members use federal funds, the impact of funding reductions, our efforts to improve the quality of our services to families, and any other information you need to make an informed decision.

   Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of children and families served by this important program.

   Sincerely yours,

   Mary Ann Wellbank,

President.

------

 

 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER,
CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY,
COALITION ON HUMAN NEEDS,

   March 7, 2007.

Hon. JAY ROCKEFELLER,
Hon. JOHN CORNYN,
Hon. HERB KOHL,
Hon. OLYMPIA SNOWE,
Hon. NORM COLEMAN.

   DEAR SENATORS: The National Women's Law Center, Center for Law and Social Policy, and Coalition on Human Needs, organizations that have worked for years to strengthen child support enforcement, strongly support your bill to restore funding for child support enforcement to ensure that children continue to receive the support they deserve from both their parents.

   The federal-state child support enforcement program provides services to over 17 million children. In FY 2005, it collected $23 billion in child support from noncustodial parents at a total cost of $5 billion to the federal and state governments: $4.58 in collections for every $1 invested, making it highly cost-effective. All families in need of child support enforcement services are eligible, but most of the families that rely on the

program are low- and moderate-income families. Families that formerly received public assistance make up nearly half (46 percent) of the caseload; current recipients represent 16 percent of the caseload.

   Child support helps families escape poverty, provide for their children's needs, and avoid a return to welfare. But the cuts to child support enforcement funding included in last year's Deficit Reduction Act will significantly reduce child support collections for families and impede paternity establishment, as states and counties reduce staff, forgo computer upgrades, and abandon promising initiatives. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that $8.4 billion in child support will go uncollected over the next 10 years.

   Your bill would protect child support enforcement services by restoring the federal match for incentive funds that states reinvest in the child support program. This match is a key part of the results-based incentive payment system, overhauled by the Child Support Performance Incentive Act (CSPIA) of 1998, that has given states the incentives--and the resources--to dramatically improve their child support programs. Over the past 10 years, child support collection rates have doubled, and the program has been strengthened on a nationwide basis, thanks to the implementation of child support reforms enacted by Congress as part of the 1996 welfare reform law.

   On a bipartisan basis, Congress has enacted significant reforms to child support enforcement that are making a real difference in children's lives. Your bill would prevent this progress from unraveling.

   We thank you for your leadership on behalf of children and families.

   Sincerely,

   Joan Entmacher,   Vice President, Family Economic Security, National Women's Law Center.

   Vicki Turetsky,   Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Social Policy.

   Debbie Weinstein,   Executive Director, Coalition on Human Needs.

------

   S. 803

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Support Protection Act of 2007''.

   SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISION ENACTED TO END FEDERAL MATCHING OF STATE SPENDING OF CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

    Section 7309 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 147) is repealed.

   Mr. CORNYN:. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Child Support Protection Act of 2007 so State child support enforcement agencies may continue the extraordinary progress and cost-effectiveness they have developed in child support collections in recent years.

   This legislation is necessary to avoid a reversal in the dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade. Without it, many families may be forced back into the welfare caseload.

   Child support enforcement reduces reliance on Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other social service programs. Effective enforcement enables former welfare families, and working families with modest incomes, to receive this important source of supplemental income and gain the self-sufficiency to avoid having to draw on government resources through public assistance programs. In fact, over 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through the child support program in 2002.

   In 2004, collections nationwide totaled $21.9 billion, while total program costs were $5.3 billion. For every $1 spent in child support enforcement, $4.38 is collected for children who need it. Because of this rate of return, the President's budget continually rates the program as ``one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide. This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long term performance measures.''

   In particular, the Texas child support program has made significant strides over the past seven years in collections, performance, and efficiency, all of which will be seriously undermined without this vital legislation.

   I speak with authority on this matter. During my tenure as Attorney General of Texas, the Child Support Division made dramatic increases in collections from deadbeat parents, and the office continues to bring in record collections each year. Texas now ranks second in the Nation in total collections--with collections in Fiscal Year 2006 surpassing $2 billion--a figure that has doubled since Fiscal Year 2000.

   This outstanding performance has earned the program the second highest Federal performance incentive award for the past 3 years. Because the Texas program has achieved that level of performance, the prohibition on using incentive payments to draw down matching Federal funds for program expenditures will have a much greater impact on Texas than on the 48 other States ranked below it. The loss of the match on incentive payments effectively punishes Texas's success. Unless we pass this legislation, the Child Support Division in the Office of the Texas Attorney General will face a dramatic reduction in federal financial participation and may be forced to close many offices throughout the State.

   I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the following letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association supporting this legislation.

   I look forward to this bill's consideration in the future.

   -----------------------

  Mr. KOHL:. In Congress, we rarely have the opportunity to consider a simple, straightforward issue. It is uncommon when we can debate an issue with significant bipartisan support; one that the Senate has a strong record on. And it seems exceptional when we are able to show our support for a Federal program that really works.

   But the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today gives us that rare opportunity. Our legislation restores cuts to the child support enforcement program. The program helps States collect support that is owed to hardworking, single parent families. It is one of the most effective Federal programs, collecting more than $4 in child support for every dollar spent. And the Senate already has a strong record in support of the child support enforcement program, with 76 Senators voting for a resolution that rejected cuts to the program.

   Which is why I was so disappointed when conferees included in the Deficit Reduction Act a provision to prevent, States from receiving Federal matching funds on incentive payments. While the scope of this provision may have seemed narrow to the conferees, the impact has been felt throughout the country. And my State of Wisconsin has felt it more than most--as a high-performing State, Wisconsin stands to lose more Federal funding than a State with a poorer enforcement record. Congress should not send the message to States that they will be penalized for success--but that's exactly what the child support funding cuts did.

   I fought against the Deficit Reduction Act, because I knew these cuts would hurt Wisconsin families. The impact has been clear. The cuts are so damaging--and the program so important--that one Wisconsin community has decided to hold a raffle, to raise funds for their child support enforcement program. I have heard from child support directors who will be forced by budget cuts to fire staff. And I have heard from scared constituents who are owed child support that they worry they will never see.

   That is why I am proud to join Senators ROCKEFELLER, CORNYN, SNOWE and COLEMAN in introducing this legislation. By repealing the DRA cuts, we help our States, our counties--and most importantly--we help those constituents relying on child support payments.

   I urge my colleagues to take this rare opportunity--to do what's simple, to support the Senate's record, and to vote in favor of a program with proven success at helping our nation's children.

   I thank my colleagues.

[mistoffolees]

One thing to be very careful of is that letters full of emotion but no facts don't get anywhere - and may even weaken the case. For example, look at your letter and then compare it to Ms. Entmacher's letter? Which is going to carry more weight - a letter that says, in effect, that the sky is falling or a letter that spells out exactly what the financial impact of a proposed change is?

I see a lot of emotion in your letter, but precious few facts. What are the facts? You are making an assertion that the system does not have the best interests of the child in mind - but you never support that. Them's fighting words, so you need to be able to back them up (if it's even true, which I'm skeptical of).