▶ 0:07:07The flag was up.
▶ 0:07:51Test test one two one2. Test test test one two one two. This is a test of the audio system.
▶ 0:10:16I don't think that worked. They moved it
▶ 0:16:55The committee will come to order. I want to welcome our um witnesses here today uh to our panel and look forward to a productive hearing of our work and welfare subcommittee uh titled today strengthening the child support program status challenges and opportunities for Well, good afternoon and welcome. Um, and today's hearing, as I just mentioned, uh, will dive into the opportunities we have for modernization as it relates to child support.
▶ 0:17:25Um, and a special thank you to our witnesses for being here today. My name is Darren Lehood and proud to serve as the chair of the work and welfare subcommittee and I represent Illinois's 16th congressional district covering much of central and northwestern parts of our state. This is only the second hearing we've held on the child support enforcement program since 2012. The child support program plays a critical role in promoting the financial well-being of children and families.
▶ 0:17:53It encourages sustained parental engagement and reinforces the principle that parental responsibility does not end when parents live apart. Regular child support payments promote self-sufficiency by helping families avoid reliance on public assistance benefits and can represent a meaningful share of a family's monthly income.
▶ 0:18:13In 2024, states collected more than $25 billion in child support payments and served more than 11 million families or 18% of all children in the United States. Among families served, 24% had incomes below the poverty line. The child support program is one of the most effective in the federal government, returning more than $4 for every dollar spent administering it.
▶ 0:18:39The last time Congress enacted enacted comprehensive reforms to this program was nearly three decades ago as part of the welfare reform of 1996. That law significantly reshaped the child support program by expanding federal requirements and establishing national standards for how child support cases are managed. Those reforms strengthened collections and improved accountability, but there is a need to modernize the program to account for the changing labor market and availability of new enforcement tools.
▶ 0:19:09The modern labor market is more mobile, more fragmented, and less predictable. Millions of workers now rely on contract labor and short-term gig work engagements that do not run through conventional payroll systems. Remote work allows people to change jobs and cross state lines without changing addresses or employers. These shifts complicate routine enforcement methods that were designed for a workforce anchored for long-term traditional employment.
▶ 0:19:37Family structures have also grown more complex. Fewer cases today involve families receiving cash welfare, while more involve parents navigating multiple households and interstate custody arrangements. These realities place new burdens on state agencies. At the same time, state agencies continue to rely on aging technology and case management platforms that were never built for today's case loads.
▶ 0:20:03This hearing is an opportunity to take a look at how a vital program is functioning in a very different economic and technological environment [clears throat] than the one that it was built for. Our goal is to better understand how child support enforcement can continue to promote family stability, encourage responsible parenthood, and operate effectively in a landscape that Congress could not have fully anticipated back in 1996.
▶ 0:20:29In the past, this program has garnered bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful that we can work across the aisle on a bipartisan basis for solutions to develop new ways to improve the federal child support enforcement program. Again, thank you for our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. With that, I now uh turn to my ranking member and colleague, uh Mr. Davis of Illinois.
▶ 0:20:55Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank you for holding today's hearing on child support, which is one of our most coste effective tools to reduce child poverty, collecting more than $4 for every $1 that we invest.
▶ 0:21:16I also want to welcome all of our witnesses and especially Nick Gwyn who improved child support in very important ways when he served as subcommittee staff director and whose advice I sought when I first joined the committee many years ago.
▶ 0:21:39Nick, not only do we welcome you back, but we thank you for the outstanding work that you did and continue to do on behalf of the nation's children. Thank you very much.
▶ 0:21:53I must begin by expressing my shock, bit of anger, and dismay that our committee refuses to address the administration's baseless and illegal withholding of temporary assistance for needy families and the social service block grant funds desperately needed by families in our home state of Illinois and four other states.
▶ 0:22:23Nor is our committee challenging the illegal barriers to child care funding for all states, tribes, and United States territories. Our committee wrote the laws the administration is violating and it is shameful that we're not health and human services action and reminding them that Congress is a co-equal branch of
▶ 0:22:53government. The child support program increases access to basic necessities for children who would otherwise live in deep poverty. And it often increases the number of loving adults in a child's life [snorts] because parents who pay child support are also more likely to have a relationship with their children.
▶ 0:23:20We should continue to ensure that the child's well-being is at the center of all decision making, including complex involving kinship caregivers trying to preserve family relationships and custodial parents fleeing domestic violence.
▶ 0:23:42Our committee has clear specific opportunities to improve federal child support programs to ensure children's needs are met, families are strengthened, and both custodial and non-custodial parents are treated fairly. States should pass through all child support to the families.
▶ 0:24:08Because of federal limits and states not using options in the law, dozens of states actually keep large amounts of child support, reducing support to I am proud of Illinois's leadership in this area, which is making a meaningful difference for the people that I We should prohibit states from collecting child support from families whose children enter foster
▶ 0:24:39care. The research is abundantly clear that this punitive action keep children in foster care longer. Although many states are stopping this practice after HHS issued guidance, this committee should act to stop this process altogether.
▶ 0:25:00We should legislate based on reality and not on the longstanding fictional narrative that non-custodial parents don't want to pay child support. Most non-custodial parents struggling with child support lack good jobs that allow them to pay without being forced into poverty. And they are reluctant to use their limited income to pay support that is not given to their children.
▶ 0:25:30We should move bills that encourage investment in employment and economic upscale and opportunities for struggling non-custodial parents in parenting time services and in funding parental access and visitation grants that help address parental conflict.
▶ 0:25:52and in requiring evidence-based protocols to ensure that parenting time is not a weapon for our perpetrators of domestic violence. We found common ground on positive effective child support policies before and I hope we will prioritize these reforms again. I look forward to evaluating the recommendations being raised today. And again, Mr.
▶ 0:26:20Chairman, I thank you for this very important
▶ 0:26:24Thank you, Mr. Davis, for your opening statements. We'll now turn to our witnesses. Um, and I I'll go down the line here and introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Jessica Tolstra, who is a specialist in social policy at the Congressional Research Service here in Washington DC. Next is Miss Connie Chznik is and she is the administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Family and Economic Security in the Department of Children and Families. She's joining us from Madison, Wisconsin. Next, we have Ruth Anne Thornton.
▶ 0:26:54She is the director of the Child Support Division in the Texas Office of the Attorney General in Austin, Texas. And lastly, as Mr. Davis um mentioned we welcome back Nick Gwyn who is a senior fellow at the center for budget and policy priorities in Washington DC. Welcome to you all. We will now have each of you uh do a fiveminut opening statement and Miss Tolstrup you are recognized.
▶ 0:27:20Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of the committee. My name is Jessica Tolstrip and I'm a CRS specialist in social policy. Thank you for inviting testimony from CRS regarding the federal legislative history of the child support program. This history has been characterized by a few main themes that I expand on in my written testimony. The first of these themes relates to TANF cash assistance.
▶ 0:27:41Originally, the primary reason that Congress created a federal child support program in 1975 was to collect child support on behalf of families receiving cash assistance. The money collected on behalf of these families is retained by the states and federal government to reimburse them for the cost of that assistance. Much of the debate over the program since that time has been concerned with how child support collected for these families should be distributed.
▶ 0:28:06Second, an important factor in the development of the program has been the need for the federal government to coordinate interstate child support enforcement. This has led to automated systems and the creation of federal collections mechanisms. Third, even though the federal government assumes most of the cost of these programs, they are largely directed and carried out by the states. Thus, the state program experience has been of utmost relevance during major legislative efforts.
▶ 0:28:32With these themes in mind, I will now summarize the legislative history of the program and then touch on the program's current composition in terms of the cash assistance population. The slide that is displayed illustrates how that program composition has changed over the past 25 years. It shows the percentage breakdown by three types of families in fiscal year 1999 and 2024. There is current assistance which generally are tan of families who are currently receiving cash assistance.
▶ 0:28:59Former assistants which are families who used to receive tan of cash assistance and finally families who have never received tan of cash Now turning to the legislative history of the program. The child support enforcement program was enacted in 1975 after several decades where state child support systems struggled to locate and collect support from outofstate parents. In addition, there had been growing concern on the part of Congress that single parent families on cash assistance were not receiving financial support from their absent parents.
▶ 0:29:29Thus, the original federal law was focused on financing state child support programs as they served cash assistance families. It further mandated a limited set of enforcement tools such as deducting past due support from federal tax refunds and created automated federal systems that would link with state systems to make them more effective. During the next couple of decades, Congress frequently expanded and updated the program.
▶ 0:29:53In particular, child support laws mandated new enforcement tools such as wage withholding and transitioned the program toward greater automation. The scope of the program also increased as the child support services offered to cash assistance families were made available to all families. Toward the end of the 1980s, Congress authorized a US Commission on Interstate Child Support to recommend further modernizations to the program.
▶ 0:30:18Those recommendations were the basis for program changes enacted in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act or Perora. Pereira changed child support distribution rules to prioritize paying child support directly to families who had formerly received cash assistance now provided through the TNF program. The intent of these changes was to provide more money to families to enable them to remain financially self-sufficient.
▶ 0:30:46Perora also made significant changes to almost every aspect of child support, including requiring all state programs to adopt tools that certain states had found to be effective and to build new federal systems. The National Directory of New Hires, which has wage data on almost every working person in the United States, is one such system.
▶ 0:31:05Though Pora originally created the NDNH to help states locate parents and verify earnings for child support cases, the system now is used by other federal programs to determine eligibility for benefits and prevent improper payments. One decade after Pora, the deficit reduction act again changed the distribution of support. This time for current TANF families.
▶ 0:31:28States now can opt to pass along some of the money they collect on behalf of current TF families to those families instead of retaining it to repay the cost of cash assistance. The slide shows that as TNF cash assistance population has decreased nationally, so too has it decreased as a proportion of the child support case load. Today, the majority of families served are families that have never received cash assistance. In addition, 2% of the support collected by the program is for current TNF cash assistance um families.
▶ 0:31:58That being said, since a more robust set of locate and enforcement tools were authorized in Pora, the program has greatly increased its ability to establish child support orders, now encompassing 86% of all child support cases, and it makes collections on 70% of its cases that have orders. For every dollar spent on the program, more than four dollars of child support is collected. Thank you.
▶ 0:32:21Thank you for your testimony, Miss Chesnik. You're recognized.
▶ 0:32:25Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Lehood, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the Working Welfare Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on opportunities for modernization in the child support program. The child support program is the third largest federal program serving families. Yet, it is not a public benefit program. It has evolved over the years from its origin as a program designed to recover the cost of government benefits.
▶ 0:32:50Its current legislative framework, as has been noted, is based on the welfare reform legislation of 1996, Prowora, which is now 30 years old. Today, the child support program is focused on providing direct parental support to families, serving millions of children across the country, and reducing families need for government benefits. In addition to my role in Wisconsin, I'm also the current president of the National Child Support Engagement Association, NSIA.
▶ 0:33:16ENSIA is proposing new legislation to provide the foundation for the child support program's continued effectiveness in supporting children. I will address each of the four main policy areas of the ENSIA legislative package briefly. Our first proposed change would increase self-sufficiency and streamline program operations by ending retained child support collections for TANF cases.
▶ 0:33:38Historically, the child support program was responsible for reducing the cost of public benefits by retaining or recouping some portion of child support collections on current and former TANINF cases. However, TANF case loads have declined by 80% since enactment of Pora and the proportion of child support collected used to offset Tannif Tannif benefits has dropped to just over 3% of collections. During the same time period, the child support program has expanded its reach.
▶ 0:34:04In federal fiscal year 2024, 12.2 2 million children, one in six nationwide, were served by the program with 97% of the 29.5 billion in collections going directly to families. The Child Support program is also one of the most effective and efficient federal programs, consistently collecting approximately $5 in support for every dollar spent. It provides more than three and a half times as much in financial resources to single parent families as the Tannif program.
▶ 0:34:31Retention and recruitment of Tannif benefits from Tannif recipients takes money away from primarily single parent families at the very time they need it most to establish financial stability and avoid remaining on or returning to public benefits. Our second proposed change would strengthen child support enforcement tools in response to changes in the economy and lessons learned from program experience. Income withholding is our most effective enforcement tool, accounting for 74% of collections.
▶ 0:34:58Given the expansion of non-traditional employment through gig and other independent contractors, NCIA recommends expanding withholding to increase collections from sources not currently tapped through existing withholding processes. We are also proposing the establishment of a nationwide standard for both employer reporting of new hires and lumpsum payments to make it easier for employers to meet their responsibilities rather than rather than having to meet the requirements of each state where they do business.
▶ 0:35:25This will also speed identification and distribution of funds to families owed support. ENSIA is also recommending that states be mandated to intercept winnings from gambling and sports betting and to require state unemployment insurance agencies to comply with interstate income withholding orders. Our third proposed change would update and strengthen federal performance measures. States currently receive incentives based on an evaluation of their performance on a set of five performance standards. These performance standards have been unchanged since 1998.
▶ 0:35:55Minimum and maximum levels of performance need to be updated to reflect state's increased performance. The child support community is willing to raise the bar on required performance as its contribution to improved program outcomes resulting from the other legislative changes in our proposal. Our final proposed change would make performance-based funding changes. We recognize that there will be some costs associated with an end to retain collections and are requesting modest funding increases.
▶ 0:36:22While retained collections constitute only about 3% of the program's total collections, the state share of those collections represents over 15% of the state's administrative share of program costs. That funding is significant to the su successful operation of the child support program. NCA proposes a 150% increase in the incentive pool to offset that funding loss.
▶ 0:36:43The increase in the performance pool together with proposed updating of performance standards would further incentivize states and their local partners to continue improving key outcomes for the child support program and the people we serve. NCA's legislative proposal demonstrates our commitment to maintaining a vibrant and effective child support program that improves services needed to ensure families are financially stable, maintains the program's historic bipartisan support, and reduces dependency on public benefit programs.
▶ 0:37:12I ask that our proposals be made a part of the hearing record and thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
▶ 0:37:18Thank you, Miss Chznik. We'll now recognize Miss Thornton for five
▶ 0:37:22Chairman, excuse [clears throat] me, chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ruthanne Thornton, and I serve as the title 4D director for the state of Texas and the director of the child support division within the Texas office of the attorney general. Texas operates the largest child support program in the nation, serving about 1.5 million cases, reaching more than 1.6 million children, and collecting and dispersing roughly four and a half billion dollars each year on behalf of families.
▶ 0:37:51Because of that scale, what we learn in Texas often reflects broader national realities, both the challenges and the opportunities facing the child support program today. Over the last 30 years, child support has evolved into one of the most significant economic stability programs for children in this country. Nationally, it now serves about 12 million children and delivers more than $30 billion annually. The overwhelming majority of it going directly to families. Texas mirrors those trends.
▶ 0:38:18Collections have more than doubled over the last two decades, even as expectations rightly have increased for service quality, timeliness, and fairness. At the same time, the program's purpose has shifted in important ways. When Title 4D was created, a major focus was cost recovery for public assistance. Today, as you've heard, assistance cases represent a very small share of the 4D case load. In Texas, current TANAF cases account for well under 1%, approximately 36% of our case load.
▶ 0:38:46Instead, the fiscal benefit of child support is increasingly one of cost avoidance, providing stable income that helps families avoid the need for public assistance in the first place. Families themselves have also changed. Most children in the Title 40 case load are born outside of marriage, and modern cases often involve multiple households, shared custody, and unstable employment, and often safety concerns. These realities demand approaches that are flexible and informed by a family's specific circumstances and needs.
▶ 0:39:13In addition to families needs changing, the labor market has changed significantly in the last 30 years. Income withholding works extremely well in traditional employment, but gig work and independent contracting make income harder to identify and harder to withhold. While Texas law has extended reporting to and income withholding requirements to independent contractors, states need stronger tools and data sharing, particularly around platform based income. Texas has also focused on accountability that is tied to ability.
▶ 0:39:41One example is our NCP choices program, a court-ordered employment program for unemployed and undermployed parents. The premise of this program is straightforward. When parents cannot pay, they must take concrete steps to become able to pay. Independent evaluation shows that NCP Choices participants work more, pay more, and pay more consistently and that those improvements last over time. Employment outcomes are child support outcomes and and can reduce future reliance on public assistance.
▶ 0:40:09We also recognize that parents contribute to their children's well-being in more ways than financial support alone. Texas routinely establishes parenting time when child support orders are created, reinforcing that financial responsibility and active parenting go hand in hand. Our access and visitation program provides practical support that helps parents understand and follow their orders. Demand for these services continues to grow even as funding has remained relatively flat.
▶ 0:40:33And Texas's experience suggests that better resourced parenting time services would improve child support compliance and family stability overall. And all of this work is either enabled or constrained by technology. In 2025, Texas implemented a modern case management and financial platform, retiring a legacy mainframe that dated back to 1997. We approached modernization with the understanding that large-scale public systems cannot be fully designed years in advance and delivered unchanged.
▶ 0:41:02Instead, we used an agile delivery model informed directly by frontline staff and embedded product owners so the system reflects how work actually happens. Despite significant investments in technology modernization, Texas remains one of the most cost-effective programs in the country, collecting nearly $10 for every dollar spent. Digital tools, virtual services, and improved data quality all contribute to that efficiency while lowering barriers for families. Based on Texas's experience, there are several ways federal partnership can strengthen outcomes nationwide.
▶ 0:41:32Modernizing employer and independent contractor reporting, expanding the federal access and visitation program, supporting agile approaches to technology modernization, and encouraging state-led innovation with clear guard rails rather than one-sizefits-all prescriptions. Child support sits at the intersection of law, economics, technology, and family life. Much has changed in the last 30 years, but what has not changed is our core mission.
▶ 0:41:56Children need consistent, reliable support from both parents, and the system must hold parents accountable in ways that are firm, fair, and effective. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Attorney General Paxton for his unwavering support. Under his leadership, our program has reached new heights, collecting nearly $50 billion in his tenure as attorney general, and set the stage for success for many years to come. I also want to recognize the staff and attorneys at the Texas Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division.
▶ 0:42:22Their passion and commitment to families are the heart and soul of what we do and I'm proud to serve alongside them. Thank you all for the opportunity to testify and your support of the 4D program. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:42:32Thank you, Miss Thornton. Mr. Gwen, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:42:36Thank you, Chairman Lood and Ranking Member Davis and members of the subcommittee. My name is Nick Quinn. I am a senior fellow for government affairs at the Center on Budget Policy Priorities. As Mr. Davis mentioned, I once worked for this committee, so it's really nice to be back. This committee has a long, proud, and bipartisan tradition of enacting reforms to our nation's child support system. And it's fair to say that work along with the dedication of those who are actually collecting the support has produced a system that is both efficient and effective.
▶ 0:43:04For every dollar spent on child support enforcement, over $4 is collected with roughly 30 billion collected overall in FY2024. This support provides significant source of income for families struggling to make ends meet, helping them pay for their children's basic needs like housing and clothing. Receiving child support is also linked to positive child developmental outcomes and to non-custodial parents being more engaged in their children's lives.
▶ 0:43:29But for all of its success, the child support system still needs reform in critical areas, four of which I will highlight for the committee's consideration. First, we must ensure that child support goes to the low-income families receiving assistance from the TANA program. Many of these families do not receive the child support paid on their behalf. Instead, those payments are kept by the state and split with the federal government as repayment for the family's TANF cash benefits, a policy known as cost recovery.
▶ 0:43:58As you've heard from others on the panel, the child support system has been moving away from cost recovery as a goal. But in 2023, state and federal government still kept $896 million in child support payments, and only a little over half the states currently provide or pass through any amount of monthly support payments to families currently receiving TANF. Pass through policies pass through policies put the needs of children first.
▶ 0:44:25Not only do these payments help families with low-inccomes meet their children's basic needs, but research also shows that non-custodial parents are more likely to both pay child support and make higher payments when their payments are passed through to their children. And passing through child support payments can also help reduce the risk of child protective services involvement for these families. In terms of federal policy, eliminating tannifer co cost recovery entirely is the best option.
▶ 0:44:53So all child support is always passed through to families, but there are more incremental steps Congress can take to increase the amount of child support going to children. Under federal law, if a state passes through up to $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children to a family receiving TANF, the federal government waves its share of the pass through amounts.
▶ 0:45:14Eliminating this cap on how much child support a state can pass through with no federal share would encourage more states to maximize the amount of child support going to children as a few states including Illinois already have. An additional reform worthy of consideration is requiring all states to pass through at least some amount of current child support to families receiving tanniff. Second, former TANF families should always be first in line for any past due child support payments.
▶ 0:45:44Under current federal rules, families no longer receiving Tannif are first in line to be paid child support rears owed to them before any state debts are paid. But at state option, there is an exception to this family first rule for rears collected from a non-custodial parents federal tax refund. Only 10 states now place former Tanner families first in line to receive a rears owed to them and collected from non-custodial parents tax refunds.
▶ 0:46:10Congress should require all states to follow this family first distribution of child support. Third, we must eliminate the harmful policy of charging parents child support to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost of their children's foster care.
▶ 0:46:28Most children placed in foster care are there due at least in part to their parents' economic hardships and charging for such care only increases the financial insecurity of those families delaying family reunification when that is the best outcome for a child.
▶ 0:46:45Finally, we should hold non-custo finally, while we should hold non-custodial parents accountable for providing financial support for their children, we also need to recognize that one of the primary resource reasons for non-payment of child support is the non-custodial parents inability to pay.
▶ 0:47:04About 25% of non-custodial parents themselves have incomes below the poverty line due to high incarceration rates, unemployment, unstable and part-time jobs, and low wages. One policy that would help is increasing the earned income tax credit for so-called childless workers, which also includes non-custodial parents. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions.
▶ 0:47:30Great. Thank you, Mr. Gwen and let me thank all of you for your important testimony here today. We'll now go to the question and answer period for members and I'll start with myself here. Miss Tolstra, I'm going to start with you. In your testimony, you highlighted the statutory changes made to the child swear program in 1996. Can you speak to how the program's goals have changed over time, specifically after 1996?
▶ 0:47:56Yes, the population served has continued to broaden. um as has been discussed by all the folks here on the panel. So now the families served largely have never received tanniff benefits. Um Pora changed distribution rules so that families formerly on cash assistance um who still have state oars as again was mentioned um uh would would have prioritization of payment of current support to them.
▶ 0:48:21The DRA went a step further then by allowing states the options to give some of the support that was collected for current TANF families to those families. So from that perspective, the policy changes in terms of um the TANF families have been some of the most significant since Pora discuss challenges state administrators face today when trying to collect child support payments.
▶ 0:48:48How has the rise in remote work or the gig work through app-based platforms made collecting child support more difficult? that work in the gig economy are independent contractors. So they don't have an employer employee relationship with the uh individual or company from which they are receiving payment. And so we are currently unable to use income withholding as an enforcement tool.
▶ 0:49:15Um income withholding has proven to be very effective over time and well accepted by um child support payers because it makes it easy for them. the child support is withheld from their income and um sent to the recipient. They don't have to write a check, address an envelope, mail it. Um it's taken care of, but it is not something that we're able to currently do with independent contractors.
▶ 0:49:40Um we're not trying to create an employer employer relationship there, just simply be able to um use withholding as a means of uh collecting support for people who work in the gig economy.
▶ 0:49:52Thank you for that. Um and and maybe just to follow up on that, I mean, is there statutory changes or recommendations you have to help codify
▶ 0:50:03Yes. In fact, um Ruthanne probably can address that more fully as she has actually, uh they have actually adopted legislation that does that in Texas.
▶ 0:50:12Okay. Thank you. Uh Miss Thornton, uh why don't you respond to that and then I'll get to my question for you.
▶ 0:50:16Certainly, and I'd be happy to provide language, um to your offices to uh that reflect what Texas did. Um, we have a statute in Texas that requires that um, for this limited purpose requires uh, platforms and companies that run platform uh, type uh, work. I'm trying to not use the word employer um, to comply with both new hire reporting and wage withholding. Um, we've had some limited success.
▶ 0:50:41It is an area where I think having a national standard would be really helpful because these are platforms and companies that operate nationwide and not just in one jurisdiction. And so um we have had some limited success with it but the the model I think has has been successful
▶ 0:50:54and it's been in place for how long?
▶ 0:50:57I want to say six five or six years.
▶ 0:51:00Okay. Um I'm going to switch subjects here. Um as you know, states have different policies on whether to pass through child support payments to parents receiving public assistance benefits or keep some of that money to offset state costs. Can you explain what Texas's policy is and what the pros and cons of each approach are?
▶ 0:51:18Certainly. Um, so Texas is a state in which we do continue the practice of retained collections, but we pass through for current uh current TANF recipients, we pass through the first $75 of uh support collected for a current current support for a current recipient. Um, I think the question that is being asked about uh retained collections versus full family distribution and pass through is a really important one.
▶ 0:51:44As I mentioned in my opening statement that this is a very very small percentage of our case load and over 97% of our collections do go directly to families. States like Texas who continue retain collections do so based on the original policy intent which is that when public assistance is provided that the state has a legitimate interest in recovering that. However, as I also mentioned, we've shifted our focus more from being a cost recovery state to avoiding costs.
▶ 0:52:09We recovered around $13 million in uh current and former TANIF assistance in a fiscal year. We avoid over $800 million through the receipt of child support by increasing that family stability and hopefully preventing them from needing public assistance in the future in the first place. A couple of practical considerations I would offer for the con for the committee.
▶ 0:52:33Retain collections is also part of an important framework that requires mandatory cooperation with paternity establishment and the establishment enforcement of a child support order for benefits recipients. So even if the from a legislative perspective, you set aside withholding or uh current retained collections um being withheld, there is still a public interest in avoiding future public assistance outlays and requiring cooperation with child support establishment and enforcement can help avoid those future public
▶ 0:53:03assistance outlays. So if there were a move toward um full family distribution, I think it would be important to do so in a way that maintained that um cooperation requirement for assistance receiving families. The other thing is from a very practical standpoint the timing and logistics of this um ch having as a state that simp recently deployed a new modern case management system I can speak from experience that child support financials is very complex and very difficult to program well and it you
▶ 0:53:33can't get it wrong. Um and so it's something that states would need to invest heavily into their case management systems when you're changing anything related to financial distribution. it needs to be done very carefully with very rigorous testing to ensure that there are no unintended consequences associated with doing so. So, um just being mindful of the the timing with so many states modernizing their systems, it may be difficult for them to implement a policy of this nature. Um and it certainly would be very expensive for them to do so.
▶ 0:54:02Thank you, Mr. Dave.
▶ 0:54:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for your testimonies. Again, Mr. Gwen, welcome back. In your testimony, you noted that not all states have fully implemented that is to rightsize child support orders, including modifying them for changes in like job loss, incarceration.
▶ 0:54:33uh what impact does this have on children and families especially low
▶ 0:54:42Thank you, Mr. Davis. Well, as I think you know, about a decade ago, uh there was a new regulatory change uh at the federal level um to try to make sure that child support orders more accurately reflected the financial circumstances of both parents.
▶ 0:54:59Um and one of those changes was to ensure that uh states were prohibited from treating incarceration for example as voluntary Um and the problem with some of the prior policies was that non-custodial parents were having huge debt pile up even at times in which they were unable to pay current child supports.
▶ 0:55:26Um and the regulatory change was to make sure that um at a point of incarceration uh either the non-custodial parent uh that was being incarcerated had the opportunity to modify their child support order, the amount in the order or the state could automatically modify based on their Um and again the purpose here is to prevent these huge debts from acrewing.
▶ 0:55:55uh that the non-custodial parent is simply unable to pay. And those debts um lead to other consequences um including uh the suspension of drivers and professional licenses which make the payment of child support that much harder. Um and this in turn can drive these nasota parents underground and and place them in a situation where they are not paying any child support.
▶ 0:56:25Um and probably as a result they are less likely to be involved in their children's lives in other ways. Um and that's obviously not in anyone's interest. Not in the child's interest, not in the custodial parents interest, and certainly not in the non-custodial parents interest. So I I I don't quite actually know where states are in implementing u these reforms um that were close to a decade old now.
▶ 0:56:49I think most states do have procedures in place that are consistent with the uh required regulations. Um but I think that is probably an area that we need more
▶ 0:57:00Thank you. Also, let me ask um the Department of Health and Human Services is illegally withholding my state's funding for TANF Child Care and Social Services, block grant money, harming millions of children and families.
▶ 0:57:19In your view, do you feel that HHS have the legal authority to withhold this funding?
▶ 0:57:32Well, it's certainly very disturbing um that five states had this funding um um that includes these three important programs without any evidence in the letters that were sent to those states about any kind of fraud that was actually occurring. There's no documentation of fraud in those states. All of these programs have their own processes and procedures for dealing with um inappropriate or misspending within the programs.
▶ 0:58:00In the case of TANIF, there's a penalty structure for states that misspend dollars. And in fact, we hu we saw a very large penalty uh invoked for the state of Mississippi um a year or two ago. So there are policies and procedures already in place to deal with missspending. The letters that went to uh the five states did not follow any of those procedures.
▶ 0:58:24Instead, it it took the unprecedented step of freezing funding for five states until those states provided additional information that is not required under law. So from that standpoint, yes, I don't think there's legal basis for the step that the administration took. And that funding freeze is now under a temporary restraining order uh which is runs through this Friday and then we'll see what the courts do um in terms of their their next step.
▶ 0:58:51Thank you. Thank you very much. And let me ask you if I could, Miss Thornne, previous research has shown that domestic violence is an issue in 40% of Texas child support cases. What specific staff training safety measures does Texas use to ensure that parenting time agreements do not become weapons for abusers?
▶ 0:59:18And are there are safe these safety measures funded using access visitation grants? And is Texas participating in the safe access for victims economic security saves demonstration funded by
▶ 0:59:37Sure. Thank you for the question. Um, this is a question that is near and dear to my heart. I actually wrote the training that is delivered to our staff. Um, my background is in domestic violence and child support and making sure that survivors have the ability to access the system safely.
▶ 0:59:51Um, we provide a mandatory 4-hour training to all staff and a mandatory annual training that goes over in detail the ways that child support enforcement and even just their administrative processes can elevate risk for survivors, especially around the time that they are um exiting an abusive relationship. So, this is something Texas takes very seriously. We also require all of our vendors, any private sector partners to undergo training if they interact with our customers to be aware of these dynamics as well.
▶ 1:00:19We have policies in place that um provide safeguards for survivors navigating our processes and that extends to our access and visitation grant as well. Um so we make sure that all of our grantees receive this same training. Um we have very integrated uh our access and visitation program within the child support program and so they receive all of that same uh policy direction and support and training for survivors. Did I answer all of your questions? I'm sorry. I think I got all of them.
▶ 1:00:47Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgement.
▶ 1:00:51Yes. Um, pursuant to committee practice, we'll now proceed to two to one questioning. I recognize Mr. Kerry of
▶ 1:00:58Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Want to thank the rank ranking member as well for bringing this issue before the Ways and Means Committee today. Uh the child support enforcement program yields a very high uh return on investment and ensures that the federal government works with states to provide steady re uh steady source of income for custodial families to take care of children and I appreciate all of you being here today.
▶ 1:01:25Um any rate I'm going to start with Mrs. Uh, Miss Tolstrip, um, from a statutory um, what does the current law most clearly assume of the labor market that no longer exists?
▶ 1:01:46Thank you. So the child support program um as of Pora had um had and continues to have a pretty heavy dependence on wage withholding as the primary method of um order enforcement and particularly for the collection of current support. Um when we're thinking about the current composition of the labor market, about 7.4% 4% of workers were independent contractors in July of 2023, which means that more than 90% were not independent contractors.
▶ 1:02:16And the folks on the panel have already talked about some of the technical challenges in trying to support from independent contractors. Um, but just to note further with regard to those statistics, when we're looking at multiple job holders, so folks who hold more than one job, about um almost a quarter of those that second job is via independent contracting work. And so even though it's less than 10% of the total workers have two jobs, we're looking at child support parents, that that second job is potentially income also that's hidden from the program.
▶ 1:02:46So some have looked at these patterns and and suggested that the child support program needs to expand its capabilities. As it currently stands, we're really looking at reporting into the national system of wage employees and not not particularly the independent
▶ 1:03:02I want to thank you for that. Um um Miss Chznik, I may come back to you, but uh Miss Thornton, in your role of the director of child support for the office of the Texas Attorney General, you lead a uniquely uh situated agency in large uh sprawling state. So, how do you how do you how do the flexibilities in these federal requirements help Texas program be most efficient and effective in the
▶ 1:03:28Thank you so much. Um flexibility, you you nailed it right there. Flexibility is key for us. I will say that I sit in a a somewhat advantaged uh position simply because of the structure of our program. We are a state-run, state administered program. Um we have 254 counties and I can't even imagine how complex it would be um running a differently structured program. So I have to acknowledge that from the get-go.
▶ 1:03:51Um, but because we're straight state-run and state administered, having the flexibility that we have to operate the way that Texas sees fit, um, has really allowed us to standardize our processes statewide. Um, using technology and policy to reduce rework, reduce variation, reduce manual work, um, and and try to improve the make sure that our staff have time to do the things that only people can do. Um, so that has helped significantly.
▶ 1:04:17Um, I also very much appreciate the flexibilities that the federal government has offered us in terms of our ability to run a statewide uh child support-led employment program. It's one of the first in the nation and I think one of the most successful. We recently several months ago passed the $1 billion mark. So these are um families who were not receiving any support in the prior six months about 50,000 of them um non uh undermployed or unemployed non-custodial parents. Um and so that's been a huge benefit to us as well. Okay.
▶ 1:04:47In in a minute, um something you didn't mention in your opening or in your in in your spoken testimony, but you did highlight it in your written testimony that I read through the fatherhood engagement and education program that Texas has. And as somebody uh single mother that relied, well, actually didn't rely on it because we never got it, but child support. Um can you tell me a little bit about that program and how many other states offer similar programs to fathers?
▶ 1:05:14I'm not sure I can speak to the second part of your question, but I will tell you that we have in Texas for a very long time um had programming specifically for outreach and education to fathers, making sure that fathers feel like they're equally our customers in the in the services that we provide. Um we partner with other state agencies. We partner with other federally funded programs like Women, Infants, and Children, uh our HHSC nurse family partnership program, and others.
▶ 1:05:40Um the the reality is that sometimes fathers don't want to engage with us for a variety of reasons. And we want to make sure that we provide accurate information, quality information to care providers and community service organizations that fathers trust to make sure that they're getting information that's accurate about the child support
▶ 1:05:58I want to thank all the witnesses. Mr. Gwen, I didn't get a chance to talk to you. You're you're I never had the opportunity to work with uh with your former boss, but definitely a legend in Michigan, and I don't say that very lively. So uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:06:11Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Now recognize Mr. Yakam of Indiana.
▶ 1:06:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Being a father and husband are the most important roles that I have. Every parent has been entrusted by God to raise their children. That responsibility must be taken seriously. In cases where both parents do not have custody of their child, it's important that the non-custodial parent pays accurate and timely child support.
▶ 1:06:38The Child Support Enforcement or CSSE program is a federal state partnership that helps ensure custodial parents are receiving the money that they are owed. It's one of the most cost-effective government programs. In 2024, for every dollar spent on a child support enforcement, more than $4 in child support was collected for families. Late child support payments can lead to fiscal stress, more reliance on federal programs, child poverty, and many other things that do not serve the interests of the child.
▶ 1:07:10Director Thornton, you shared some of the great successes that Texas has had in the cse program. How does the program distinguish between inability to pay and unwillingness to pay?
▶ 1:07:22Thank you for that question. I think the distinction that you draw there is extremely important. Um, it's also one that I think if we've talked a lot today today about ways that the child support program has evolved and I think understanding the difference between those two things is is an important way in which the child support perspective has evolved over time. Um, one of the I think of it as a 2 by two grid. You have parents who are able and willing and those are our 70% of income withholding cases where the the money flows pretty consistently and timely to those families.
▶ 1:07:52You also have families where the person may be um able but unwilling and that's where more traditional enforcement may come into play where license suspension and ultimately contempt can be appropriate tools if they have the ability but are unwilling to comply with the court order. Then you also have folks who are willing to pay but unable and that's where programs like our employment led our child supportled employment program helping people get on the right path back toward economic stability for their family become very important.
▶ 1:08:19Um, we try to take a one-size, not a one, try not to take a one-sizefits-all approach. It's challenging in a state the size of Texas. We're hopeful that our new modern platform with the data and the efficiencies that that will bring will give us a little bit more ability to do that that right-sized approach for each
▶ 1:08:34Can you talk a little about more about the uh the employment side of that that you spoke of where someone is is willing to pay but unable to in terms of how that's you know further shaped your your approach in parental engagement? Well, so the way that our program works, um, we have it is a court-ordered program where someone if they have been unemployed or underemployed and are not paying their child support, they will be as we progress through our enforcement actions, they would be ordered into this program where they received enhance enhanced employment services from the Texas Workforce Commission.
▶ 1:09:05This program is a partnership between our agency, the Texas Workforce Commission, local workforce development boards, and the 4D courts. Um it takes all four of those partners working in synchronicity with one another to have an effective program. Um and each p each party brings to the table what what they do best and we coordinate in on those individual cases to make sure um that parents are receiving wraparound services.
▶ 1:09:26They received enhance um sometimes they receive uh support for uh wardrobe for a job interview um CDL training things like that um to help get them into the into those pathways to employment. Um, and as I mentioned earlier, research has shown that not only do these families during their participation in the program, find work, stay employed, pay their child support, but that those effects last long beyond the initial
▶ 1:09:52You also shared in your testimony uh how labor market shifts towards independent contracting and gig economy uh have made it harder uh to to withhold wages for child support, which is of course the primary source of enforcement. What are some of the ways that Texas has adapted to those changes?
▶ 1:10:09Uh the the legislation that passed several years ago has helped in that regard. Um it's also a challenge in terms of establishing an appropriately sized order. If we don't have visibility into what somebody's income is, it makes it difficult for us to set an obligation that is appropriately sized to their ability to pay. Um one practical consideration I'll also offer, I don't think it's been mentioned thus far, is that when someone has multiple employers, they have one obligation.
▶ 1:10:32And so one of the things that we're continuing to innovate through and and work out as we implement this type of wage withholding is if you have multiple employers and one wage withholding order, how do we make sure that people aren't being overcharged or that multiple employers aren't taking um more out of the paycheck than makes sense for the total obligation.
▶ 1:10:49Great. And briefly, uh you talked about how you're getting fathers more involved, including uh working with the nurse family partnership. Can you briefly share just a few of the outcomes that you've seen through that program? Um well personally I've used I used to do trainings with the um with the women infants and children and other father other providers that serve young forming families. What I've seen is an increase in trust in the child support program. When they see that we're here to help them, we hear we want their family to be successful. Um that's been a huge outcome for us.
▶ 1:11:19And when people are engaged in the program, um it goes smoother for for everybody.
▶ 1:11:24Thank you. And and Mr. Chairman, I'm a strong supporter of the nurse family partnership as they do incredible work in helping support children and families uh and they help uh mikvy uh grants and other uh federal funding. So, thank you for holding this hearing and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:11:37Thanks for your comments on that, Mr. Yakam. Now, recognize Miss Chu of
▶ 1:11:42Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. Gwen, I was alarmed to learn that for families receiving both TANIF and child support that there are many states that actually retain some or all of their child support payments as a way of reimbursing the state and federal government for the TANF benefits. Um, and um, uh, that a non-custodial parent makes the child support payment they owe, but instead of passing that money on to the custodial parent, the state keeps it.
▶ 1:12:11So states can even do this to families who used to receive tanniff benefits as a way of reimbursing themselves for past tanniff payments. So it's outrageous to me that states can essentially withhold child support from parents and children that are already struggling. So Mr. Gwen, can you expand on how this practice negatively impacts low-income families and children and why you recommend ending this practice entirely? What benefits do we see when custodial parents and children receive their full child support payments?
▶ 1:12:41Certainly, thank you for that. Thank you for that question. Um the policy of denying uh current and um support to current TANF families, in some cases former Tana families, um has a number of negative effects on those families. Um, first it denies the children and those families the resources that could have been used uh to better provide for their food, their housing, their school supplies.
▶ 1:13:10And I would point out uh that families um that are receiving tanniff, teniff benefits are very low in every state. Um the tanniff benefit doesn't reach 60% of the poverty line for a family of three. In something like 17 states, it doesn't reach 20% of the poverty line. So, these are very um low-income families and every dollar counts in terms of helping them.
▶ 1:13:35And honestly, any dollar that you're not passing through is another dollar that is pushing them toward poverty, into poverty, or further into Um, and not passing these dollars through also makes it less likely that non-custodial parents actually pay the child support because they know the support's not going to benefit their children. So they have less incentive to actually pay it.
▶ 1:13:58Um and relatedly when when non-custodial parents don't pay child support, they're less likely to be otherwise involved in their in their children's lives. So and we've seen evidence also that um when dollars are passed through school performance for children go up. So there are a lot of factors here that speak to the importance of passing through these dollars. as you mentioned um a lot some states don't pass through anything.
▶ 1:14:25There are some states that don't pass through a dollar of child support. Um most states pass through something. There are few states including Illinois that pass through everything. So as as everyone on this panel has mentioned this goal of cost recovery has been declining in the child support system, but it's still there. And I think you're hearing some level of consensus that we need to change that. It just needs to be
▶ 1:14:49Yeah. Well, thank you for that. And Miss Chesnik, I do appreciate that the National Child Support Engagement Association is also recommending that uh Congress end this practice of states retaining these child support statements. But I wanted to ask you about another one of your recommendations, which is that Congress should expand income withholding for non-custodial parents engaged in non-traditional employment like uh gig workers and independent contracting.
▶ 1:15:15Given the rise of the gig economy in recent years, this seems like a no-brainer to improve child support enforcement. Can you talk about the current process for collecting and enforcing child support payments from these type of workers and how federal legislation could improve that process?
▶ 1:15:32Yes, thank you for the question. Um, it is difficult to enforce obligations for people in the gig economy. Um, our most effective enforcement tool is income withholding. It's very seamless and it is not able to be used in cases involving people in the gig economy who are re are independent contractors.
▶ 1:15:51So we have to rely on other enforcement tools in those cases which oftentimes means that families don't receive consistent support and sometimes that just missing uh one or two payments may be enough to put them back on depending on public benefits.
▶ 1:16:09Thank you. And um uh I'd like to state for the record that I strongly agree with Mr. Gwyn's statement on the issue of domestic violence uh about the need to ensure that parent parenting time agreements and the process for establishing them include safeguards to protect children and adults from domestic violence. Yeah.
▶ 1:16:29And also uh Miss Chznik, I am very interested in uh your statement that non-custodial parents have uh incomes that are below the poverty line and that it is important for them to have adequate employment and supportive services and that there are states that are engaging in this and supporting that kind of thing and I hope we can continue to do that and expand on it and I yield
▶ 1:16:54Thank you, Miss Van. Thank you so much, chairman. I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today. And this subcommittee greatly appreciates the work that each of you have dedicated in supporting children's well-being and strengthening our state programs to deliver better outcomes for families in all of all backgrounds. Since 1975, the Child Support Enforcement Program has served as one of the federal government's most effective tools for promoting family stability and economic self-sufficiency.
▶ 1:17:21By ensuring parents meet their financial responsibilities, the program helps families move off of public assistance and reduces long-term reliance on welfare programs, keeping children supported by their families and not by taxpayers. The results of the program speak for itself and is one of the most effective, cost-effective federal state partnerships in operation today.
▶ 1:17:40In 2024 alone, the child support enforcement program handled 11.6 million cases and it delivered $25.8 8 billion in child support directly back to families. In Texas, every dollar spent, as you mentioned, on enforcement returns roughly between 10 and 12 in child support collections, showing that strong enforcement and fiscal responsibility don't have to be mutually exclusive. Beyond the money collected, effective child support enforcement helps reduce child poverty.
▶ 1:18:09It stabilizes household finances, and it creates more predictable, less stressful environments for children. When families can count on consistent support, they're better able to plan, work, achieve long-term financial independence, and most importantly, put the well-being of their children first. Just last week, my bill, the Ensuring Children Receive Support Act, passed out of this committee, which strengthens Child Support Enforcement by codifying pro proven tools to hold delinquent parents accountable. And I want to thank you for your help in that uh in that getting that bill passed.
▶ 1:18:38I I remain committed to advancing additional bipartisan solutions and look forward to modernizing the child support system, improving its efficiency and supporting our children and our families. Mrs. Thornton, Texas has the largest child support agency in the country, but it is also the most coste effective. I really appreciate all the the work that you do in that state for our children, for our families. But how did your division deliver such strong enforcement outcomes while keeping administration costs so low?
▶ 1:19:09Well, um part of it as as I mentioned earlier has to do with the structure of our program. It is a state-run, state administered program, which means that when I when we desire a policy change or make a technical change, it has a statewide impact. Um so that is one area. We also have robust enforcement tools in in Texas. And while we believe that where um parents are uh able but unwilling or un ableable but willing to pay, we should provide them supportive services to help them get into that willing and able quadrant of the grid.
▶ 1:19:39Um we also are not shy about holding parents accountable when they are able to pay but unwilling to do so. Um I want to thank you for your legislation and for your support of the child support program. Um efforts like that and enforcement tools such as passport revocation or passport denial are important tools to bring obligores to the table. Um we are often in the in the position of negotiating a large lumpsum payment because of tools like that that might not otherwise be received by that family. So thank you for your work in that space.
▶ 1:20:09Thank you. you you mentioned it a couple times now in response to uh some of my colleagues questions and also just now you brought it up a little bit, but partnerships like the one between the Texas Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Texas Workforce Commission uh represent effective initiatives that help parents meet their child support obligations by offering job search assistance, training, and subsidized employment opportunities. Can you explain how other states could actually support agencies?
▶ 1:20:34Uh how how these how these supportive agencies could benefit from adopting similar programs that integrate the workforce development with child support services?
▶ 1:20:42Absolutely. One of the things that I think is a strength of this program is as I mentioned earlier, each partner in this program brings to the table what we are best at. Um, we're not providing direct employment services and workforce is not providing direct child support services, but we braid our efforts together to serve a family. And the more that states, state agencies, and federally funded programs can work together to wrap those services around a family and address their needs holistically, coordinating and communicating um, the better the outcomes for that family.
▶ 1:21:12our workforce partners are better able to achieve their performance measures and we are better able to achieve our performance measures when we work together and communicate to help that family.
▶ 1:21:22Perfect. Thank you very much. Um U Miss Chestnik, in the short time that we have left, from the family's perspective, the child support system could be obviously difficult to navigate, especially when dealing with multiple agencies, rules, and communication channels. What aspects of the system generate the most confusion or frustration from families interacting with it from your
▶ 1:21:40Thank you for that question. I think a lot of times it it involves the fact that so many agencies operate in silos and uh individuals aren't on their own going to know where to go to get first to get services. So when we have the ability to connect people to other services that might help them overcome the barriers that they're facing that will help them achieve financial stability and achieve uh economic self-sufficiency for their families as well. Right.
▶ 1:22:07Thank you. I yel back.
▶ 1:22:09Mr. Finstro of Iowa. Thank you, uh, Chairman Lehood, Ranking Member Davis. I want to extend my gratitude for each of you, uh, witnesses for the important work you do every day for our families. Thank you so much. I'm from Iowa and in 2025, the child support services processed more than 2.1 million payments. We collected $315 million for our families and had about a 97% success rate. It's really good. I'm really excited about that.
▶ 1:22:38you know, when you have success, it really helps reducing public assistance. And I think that's what we all want if possible. Now, that's not always the case. Uh, Miss Chestnick, we already talked about independent contractors and and third party contractor, all this other stuff. In Iowa, it's a little different. Many of our parents are seasonal workers or agriculture, weather dependent jobs.
▶ 1:23:05How how can we structure things and how can the system handle these payment swings that are occurring with our families and making sure that our our our kids uh and our our parents have dollars to take care of their children.
▶ 1:23:21Thank you for the question and uh thank you also for the great work that you're doing in Iowa. Um I think uh to answer your question, it's important um that we I'm sorry I blanked if do you mind asking the question?
▶ 1:23:35Yeah. No, so so we have a lot of uh seasonal labor or or uh you know
▶ 1:23:40Yeah. I I think in those cases, it's important that the court or the administrative tribunal that is setting support have the flexibility that we've talked about today to be able to look at the circumstances of each individual case so that we can tailor an order to that seasonal employment. Um and then um they can structure if they're receiving um payments that are subject to income withholding, we can structure that income withholding order to only be in effect during the period that they are actually employed.
▶ 1:24:09Um and the total amount due would reflect the amount of the earnings from their seasonal
▶ 1:24:13Season employment. Okay. Uh Miss Tolstrap, I want to ask you sort of the similar question except we also have parents that where I'm from in western Iowa that go across state lines to work and this becomes sort of a bit of a problem once in a while when you have reciprocity or when you have other states trying to do different things. Uh job mobility, seasonal workers, very complex stuff. how how does this complicate system and how can we reduce delays that are happening because of these situations?
▶ 1:24:45So I think when you look at um 4D and you look at the trajectory of federal law, there's been a lot of emphasis on creating automated systems at the federal level that will roll up level from data from the state level that will then enable different jurisdictions to share information quite quickly.
▶ 1:25:01And then similarly there is um as well various federal improvements that folks have suggested both to these systems as well as to other enforcement mechanisms that exist um trying to look at having the data be more national so that when you're dealing with different child support jurisdictions that can happen more seamlessly.
▶ 1:25:19So I asked these two questions because it really gets to the crux of my actual question and and I want to ask Mrs. uh Miss Thorton about this. So we have counties and even states using legacy systems yet and and all that you've said over the last uh you know hour or so is hey we can do this all this stuff but it really takes an effective and efficient computer system a and that becomes a problem because we don't have that What do you suggest or how can we move forward and what should
▶ 1:25:49we do to try to get these counties and states on uh better systems? Oh boy, this is a also a question very near and dear to my heart and almost all I've done for the last six years. Um, so thank you for the question. What I will say is that it is extremely important to move off of these legacy mainframe systems. The skill set necessary to maintain them is not even taught anymore in computer science uh degrees.
▶ 1:26:16Um, it's expensive and it's hard and it's complex. Um the states do a great job and the federal uh office of child support enforcement really supports our effort to skillshare with one another try to enable lessons learned. Part of the challenge is that every state is structured differently. We have different laws, different practices, different constraints.
▶ 1:26:38Um but I can only underscore the absolute importance because we have been constrained since 1997 by a mainframe system that does not enable innovation. um for anything that we've talked about here to become successful at scale, it really does require a modern skill set and a modern tool set.
▶ 1:26:55Thank you. Thank you for stating that. And that's that's my passion. I mean, we've got to get state-of-the-art if we want to do all these things and really help out uh the the cause. That's where it starts. So, thank you and I yield
▶ 1:27:08Miss Moore of Wisconsin.
▶ 1:27:10Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and and our witnesses. Uh, as you've all noted, votes have been called. So, I think I I just feel really compelled to get straight to the point. I might not even use up all my five minutes. One of the through lines that I have seen with all the questioning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and all of our witnesses, is that, you know, the main reason that people don't pay child support is because they don't have access to opportunities and jobs.
▶ 1:27:41that, you know, of course we can always talk about the billionaire who has money that just won't pay, but that is not the case. It's for people who actually are low income and don't have money. And so I do have a question and we talked, Miss Thornton has waxed on about how important that's been in her success in Texas. So I want to ask you, Miss Chesnik, because I've had some experience with you in Wisconsin.
▶ 1:28:04Um I I'm trying to understand how the reorganization at HHS sort of the 500 people that have been uh you know fired or retired out of the ASC where child support enforcement is done and also a rule that is being proposed on uh rescending the employment and training services for non-custodial parents in the child support space. How is that going to have that being rescended?
▶ 1:28:35What impact would that have on our ability to collect child support and also just to administer the program? I don't understand the reorganization.
▶ 1:28:46Thank you. Um, Congresswoman Moore, there has been talk of rescending the uh, employment and training rule and um, a lot of work went into over many years um, giving uh, the child support pro program the authority to draw down federal match for services related to employment and training.
▶ 1:29:06As I mentioned earlier, the there our programs have often worked in silos and the partnerships that we've created, the networks that we've created with our TANIF program partners have helped us to connect non-custodial parents with employment services that they aren't going to reach out to on their own because they quite honestly don't know where to go.
▶ 1:29:26Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking member, because all of the guys up here, all of you talked about that this is at risk. Um, also the pass through policies. Wisconsin does it, you know, because when Mr. uh Paul Ryan, remember him, used to be the chair of the budget committee, and I was on the budget committee from 2011 to 2015, the only amendment that ever passed the budget committee was a pass through.
▶ 1:29:50Can you talk about recommendations that you have for making pass through policies because all states don't do it financially feasible? I understand, Miss Thornton, that this is a partnership, but some states absolutely, you know, would be a failed state if they actually gave the child support money to their clients. Miss Chesnik, do you have some recommendations for us?
▶ 1:30:17Uh, I think that many states would support uh 100% pass through. they simply aren't in a position to be able to afford the loss of revenue um that because of the they're having to pay the federal share of those collections. So part of our proposal does provide for backfill for that lost revenue. But I think there is definitely support within the child support community for moving away from cost recovery and providing direct support.
▶ 1:30:44Uh, and research consistently shows that parents are much more likely to pay support if they know that it's going to their families and not to the government.
▶ 1:30:52You heard that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member. Okay, Mr. Gwen. Um, it was hard to pronounce your name, but I I am I was concerned about a uh something that Miss Chu talked about in terms of the domestic violence um provisions in parenting agreements. I certainly think it's really important for non-custodial parents to be in touch with their parents, often men.
▶ 1:31:20I don't, you know, and I think while it's okay to, you know, to cut people's occupational licenses, passports, fishing license, hunting, we should not cut their ability to see their kids if that's possible. But we do know that domestic violence is a real thing.
▶ 1:31:37And so this is why I think Miss Chestnick and I'm wondering Miss Thornton, Miss To would you agree that it's important to eliminate one of those silos and make sure that DV gets to be a part of discussions about Miss Chestnut,
▶ 1:31:57thank you for the question and and absolutely agree and we have uh gone put a lot of effort into making sure that we also in Wisconsin are providing training and building awareness.
▶ 1:32:07Mr. Gwen,
▶ 1:32:10absolutely. you know, both uh Wisconsin and I think Texas got received grants that look at this issue to try to identify what are the most successful procedures and protocols that ensure that DV is included in child support
▶ 1:32:24and those fundings are at risk. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield
▶ 1:32:30Thank you, Miss Moore. Um that concludes our question and answer from our witnesses uh from our members today. Um let me just in closing thank you uh for being here today. Thank you for the valuable testimony you've provided, for answering our questions. You've given us a lot of suggestions and ideas for how do we modernize the system and to help us uh do our job to make the system work better. So grateful for uh those of you that travel here today. We look forward to the followup.
▶ 1:32:58And I'll just remind uh that members please be advised that they have two weeks to submit written questions to be answered later in writing. Those questions and your answers will be made part of the formal record. With that, the committee stands at your
▶ 1:33:11Before you hit the galva, could I just make one statement?
▶ 1:33:16It's my understanding that the funding for the access and visitation grants has remained flat around $10 million since 1996. And I just like that into the record. Also, I'd like to ask Mr.
▶ 1:33:35Send me a note, Shane, whether or not uh your organization would be supportive of increasing.
▶ 1:33:48Thank you. We'll take that under advisement for the record. Thank you. Hearing is adjourned. I'll take your stuff Hear the boats.