Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 2000

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Enclosed for the consideration of the Congress is the Administration's draft bill, the "Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 2000". The bill makes amendments to the program under title IV-D of the Social Security Act (the Act) to carry out proposals included in the President's Budget for FY 2001.

These are important proposals designed to renew support for children, strengthen families and promote personal responsibility and responsible fatherhood. They include a number of changes to our nation's child support enforcement system that will improve enforcement tools and increase collections paid to children and families by $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The bill includes amendments to encourage States to increase the amount of child support collections passed through to families currently or formerly receiving cash assistance. It modifies the formula for calculating the amount of incentive payments to States to reduce the extent of retroactive downward adjustments in payment amounts, thus better enabling States to plan their support enforcement efforts. The proposal also raises the standards for the award of these payments for an initial three-year period. It seeks to ensure the fairness of support awards to both custodial and non-custodial parents by mandating 3-year review and modification of support orders for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Finally, it adds various new tools for recovery of past-due support, including offset of Social Security benefits, denial of Medicare billing privileges to health care professionals in arrears, and State authority to require work from more individuals who are not paying their past-due support, and to boot their vehicles. All of the provisions of the bill are detailed in the enclosed section-by-section summary.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act requires that all revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement. That is, no such bill should result in a net budget cost; and if it does, it could contribute to a sequester if not fully offset. This proposal would increase direct spending by $7 million in FY 2001, but would reduce direct spending by a total of $142 million during FYs 2001-2005. This proposal should be considered in conjunction with all other PAYGO proposals in the President's Budget.

We urge the Congress to give the draft bill its prompt and favorable consideration. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely,

Donna E. Shalala

Enclosures