Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - SUPPORTING WELFARE REFORM: CRACKING DOWN ON DEADBEAT PARENTS</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	SUPPORTING WELFARE REFORM: CRACKING DOWN ON DEADBEAT PARENTS

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	before the

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON
	OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

	of the

	COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	FEBRUARY 24, 1999

	__________

	Serial No. 106-9

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce


	<snowflake>


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	55-154CC WASHINGTON : 1999
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
	Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402



	COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

	TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

	W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
	MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
	MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
	FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
	CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
	PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
	JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
	CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
	NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
	STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
	RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
	BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
	ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
	GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
	CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
	TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
	RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
	BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
	JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
	JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
	HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
	JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
	CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
	Mississippi
	VITO FOSSELLA, New York
	ROY BLUNT, Missouri
	ED BRYANT, Tennessee
	ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

	James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
	James D. Barnette, General Counsel
	Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

	______

	Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

	FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

	JOE BARTON, Texas RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
	CHRISTOPHER COX, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
	RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
	Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
	BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
	ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
	GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
	ROY BLUNT, Missouri JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
	ED BRYANT, Tennessee (Ex Officio)
	TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
	(Ex Officio)

	(ii)


	C O N T E N T S

	__________
	Page

	Testimony of:
	Daffron, Diana L., Chantilly, Virginia....................... 8
	Dutkowski, Wallace N., Director, Office of Child Support,
	State of Michigan.......................................... 40
	Hartwig, John F., Deputy Inspector General, Office of the
	Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. 30
	Heckman, Jeannine, Fairfax, Virginia......................... 9
	Kryskowski, Renata, Detroit, Michigan........................ 11
	Monahan, John, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
	Children and Families, Department of Health and Human
	Services................................................... 26
	Skidmore, Donald, Investigator, Wayne County Sheriff's
	Department, Child Support Multi-Agency Investigative Team,
	State of Michigan.......................................... 44
	Turetsky, Vicki, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and
	Social Policy.............................................. 48
	Young, Nick, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
	Commonwealth of Virginia................................... 35

	(iii)


	SUPPORTING WELFARE REFORM: CRACKING DOWN ON DEADBEAT PARENTS

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
	Committee on Commerce,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
	room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
	(chairman) presiding.
	Members present: Representatives Upton, Burr, Bilbray,
	Ganske, Bryant, Bliley (ex officio), Klink, Stupak, Green, and
	DeGette.
	Staff present: Duncan Wood, investigator; Andrew Leyden,
	majority counsel; Mark Paoletta, majority counsel; Penn
	Crawford, legislative clerk, and Edith Holleman, minority
	counsel.
	Mr. Upton. Thanks, everybody, for coming. Welcome to the
	Subcommittee On Oversight and Investigations. We will start
	with some opening statements.
	Today we are holding a hearing on a new multi-agency child
	support enforcement task force. It uses an innovative approach
	to make deadbeat parents pay up. The task force, known as
	Project Save Our Children, was created in 1998 and combines
	Federal, State, and local resources in an integrated law
	enforcement effort. The program identifies, pursues, and
	prosecutes the most egregious offenders in order to force them
	to provide support for their children. Project Save Our
	Children intentionally publicizes these prosecutions to
	encourage all non-custodial parents to support their children
	or else face the prospect of arrest.
	America faces a serious child enforcement problem. On the
	one hand, the high rate of divorce, coupled with the high
	number of children born out of wedlock, means that there are
	approximately 19 million families with non-custodial parents.
	And, on the other hand, America's child support collection
	record is fairly dismal. In 1997, nearly $60 billion was owed
	by non-custodial parents, but only 25 percent of that total was
	actually collected. According to HHS, single parents and their
	children who are owed outstanding child support are more than
	twice as likely as other parents to live in poverty--with all
	that may mean in substandard housing, limited educational
	opportunities, exposure to crime and drugs, and other serious
	disadvantages. Furthermore, in many cases non-payment of child
	support is a direct cause of a family going on welfare.
	In recent years, Congress has tried to strengthen child
	support enforcement by giving the Federal Government new tools
	for tracking down and prosecuting deadbeat parents. Since
	approximately a quarter of all unpaid child support is owed by
	parents who have fled across State lines to avoid State child
	support enforcement efforts, the Child Support Recovery Act of
	1992 made it a Federal misdemeanor for deadbeats to flee to
	another State to avoid paying their child support obligations.
	The Deadbeat Parents Act of 1998 upgraded the crime to a
	Federal felony charge.
	In addition, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 imposed strict
	child support obligations on non-custodial parents, and created
	new national data bases to establish parentage and track down
	deadbeat parents across State lines. The Welfare Reform Act
	also included an amendment I authored to suspend food stamp
	assistance to deadbeat parents.
	Primarily the brainchild of two offices within the
	Department of HHS, the Inspector General's Office and Child
	Support Enforcement Office, Project Save Our Children aims to
	get maximum leverage from these new law enforcement tools by
	combining the Child Support Enforcement expertise of Federal
	agencies, such as HHS, Department of Justice, FBI, and U.S.
	Marshals, together with State and local enforcement agencies,
	into a single integrated task force.
	And, in 1998 a demonstration project was conducted in
	Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Based on the results of the
	demonstration, HHS plans to expand Project Save Our Children
	into four new regions covering a total of 17 States in fiscal
	year 1999.
	I believe that this committee's oversight efforts can make
	a difference in the lives of everyday Americans. It can help
	lift women and children from the risk of poverty, and provide
	them with a brighter, more promising future, and for this
	reason, I am holding a hearing to highlight the new program to
	track down and prosecute deadbeat parents. If this committee,
	by focusing attention on this national crisis, can encourage
	one deadbeat parent to pay up, then I believe the hearing has
	been a success, and worthy of our time and effort here today.
	We will hear testimony of members of families who have
	suffered from the failure of non-custodial parents to provide
	child support and who have, subsequently, been able to locate
	and force their ex-spouses to pay up as a result of Project
	Save Our Children's multi-agency approach. We will also receive
	testimony from the two offices within the Department of HHS
	that are responsible for the creation of the program, as well
	as from State and local officials responsible for child support
	enforcement.
	Project Save Our Children is at a critical juncture, poised
	to expand from a small demonstration program into a large 17-
	State program with five regional centers. At the end of the
	hearing, I hope we have a better sense of how well the program
	is working, what needs to be improved, and what further
	oversight might be required in order to ensure that deadbeat
	parents pay their fair share to support their kids, and keep
	their families off welfare.
	I welcome all the witnesses that we have today and I yield,
	at this time, to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
	Klink from Pennsylvania.
	Mr. Klink. I thank my friend, the chairman, for having this
	hearing. Well, let me start off by saying straightforward that
	the minority is joining the majority very much in opposing
	deadbeat dads. They don't think it is a good idea, and we would
	like to stop it. And, we similarly are against deadbeat moms.
	As Democrats, we are against anyone that fails to do anything
	that they are legally obligated to do in caring for a child
	that they have played a role in bringing into this world.
	After all, the emphasis on expanding Federal resources to
	find deadbeat parents came from our party. It was President
	Clinton in 1996 in the Welfare Reform Act to increase the
	penalties for parents who didn't pay child support, and it was
	the President in 1998 who made leaving a State to avoid paying
	child support a felony under Federal law. And, it was the
	President again who pushed for greater automation of State and
	Federal data bases in 1996, and the new national directories of
	new hires, so that deadbeat parents could be easier to locate.
	And, they have been easier to locate; 1 million of them have
	been located.
	Collecting child support payments for welfare families is
	particularly important, so that they are not completely without
	support when they reach the end of their welfare payments. In
	1996, only 13 percent of welfare families received at least one
	support payment. The process can be an arduous one, requiring
	court-issued support orders, warrants, investigative work to
	find a non-custodial parent, and a process to actually collect
	some money. This can take a great deal of personal and public
	resources.
	A very modest $5 million is in the fiscal year 2000 budget
	to support 95 new paralegals in the U.S. Attorney's Office to
	do investigations. We know that is not nearly enough.
	Some of those victimized by deadbeat parents are before us
	today, and they are going to tell us their very personal
	stories of dealing with the system. And, we thank you for being
	here because we know this is not something that is easy for you
	to do.
	But, I want to say something else. We don't want this to be
	a deadbeat hearing. And, I say this because we think that we
	have to have a hearing that can bring all parties together. And
	we, in the minority, would like to work closer with the
	majority in making sure that the witnesses that need to be here
	are here.
	And, I hope that you are sitting out there listening to
	this and say, ``Oh, no, here we go with partisan rancor.'' That
	is not what this is about. We want to be bipartisan. Fred Upton
	is my friend; Tom Bliley is my friend. But, we want to be
	included in making sure that the people are here at these
	hearings that can give us answers to these problems.
	Last Wednesday at 4:30, the minority received notice that
	the majority had scheduled an oversight hearing on welfare
	reform and deadbeat dads. Up to that point, this hearing was
	not on our radar screen. We were told very frankly that the
	majority did not intend to investigate the program before they
	went into the hearing room, that this was going to be a ``feel
	good'' hearing. The most informative document that the minority
	has received from the majority came from an article in
	Government Executive magazine, which I will attach to my
	statement. That is the extent, as far as we know, of the
	investigation.
	The minority staff was given just 6 days, if you include
	both Saturday and Sunday, to gain knowledge of the overall
	child support enforcement program and what its problems were.
	And, as you know, it is a multi-billion dollar program with
	almost 20 million outstanding cases. It didn't take too long to
	figure out that there were at least six concerns that we, in
	the minority, think that we should look at. And, I just want to
	bring this to the attention of our friends.
	First, despite all of the hype about these being Federal
	crimes, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
	Investigation have not been doing the investigative work
	necessary to bring large numbers of child support cases to
	closure. Since at least 1996, they have been giving most of the
	work to the Inspector General's Office at the Department of
	Health and Human Services, claiming a lack of resources. Now,
	whether this is true or not, or whether the FBI just wasn't
	interested in what could be considered low-profile cases,
	mostly misdemeanor cases, we don't know. We would like the
	answer to that. What we do know is that the majority did not
	ask for a witness from these agencies until we prodded them.
	Not surprisingly, Monday night was too late to get those
	witnesses here. Now, the subcommittee can review the
	enforcement of Federal criminal statutes without hearing from
	the FBI and Justice. We don't know how that can be done.
	Second, as the witnesses before us will testify, U.S.
	attorneys, and State and local prosecutors and judges have not
	been very interested in pursuing these cases, even when they
	are State or Federal crimes. By March 1998, the U.S. attorneys
	had filed only 560 criminal cases and 1,266 convictions. We do
	not know that the U.S. attorney--or we do know, rather, that
	the U.S. attorney took a sudden interest when Attorney General
	Reno made those cases part of their performance review. But,
	the numbers are still too low.
	State prosecutors have not been any better. One of our
	witnesses today will testify to only a 5 percent success rate
	in serving warrants. I can't imagine what the prosecution
	success rate was, but the prosecutors are not here to tell us.
	Third, the States have not been particularly good at
	collecting and automating the data necessary to find deadbeat
	parents and getting the money collected back to families.
	Michigan is one of those States that still does not have a
	certified system, even though the deadline was 15 months ago.
	It can take as long as 6 months after a family goes off welfare
	to get their child support payments from the State. Some
	advocates think that a central Federal data base is necessary.
	Fourth, task forces focusing on individual high-profile
	cases may mean less resources for children whose parents aren't
	as wealthy but need the money just as badly. What is the cost-
	benefit analysis? What happens to those routine cases that
	don't generate any press? Fortunately, the minority staff,
	yesterday, located Vicki Turetsky of the Center for Law and
	Social Policy, who graciously agreed to address these systemic
	issues.
	Fifth, the States are short on resources, and getting fewer
	and fewer for more and more cases, many of which are not
	involving welfare families. Where are the additional resources
	going to come from? We still don't know.
	Sixth, the Inspector General, which is not supposed to be a
	day-to-day primary law enforcement agency, but a reviewer of
	the effectiveness of the agency's programs and a protector of
	the taxpayers' dollars, has used this program to get authority
	from the Justice Department for its special agents to carry
	guns, beat down doors, and make arrests, even in cases that do
	not involve a single Federal dollar.
	It started with a 1-year grant of authority in 1996 and it
	continues to this day. The Inspector General does not, and
	should not, have the resources to replace effective law
	enforcement agencies.
	In Michigan, the task force is looking at 338 referrals out
	of a million State cases. This is not going to solve Michigan's
	problem, nor can the IG be a disinterested evaluator of a
	Federal program when it is one of the implementors and the
	beneficiaries of that program. We are not convinced that this
	is a continuing role that is necessary or useful.
	The General Accounting Office also has done work on child
	support enforcement. GAO issued a report in August of last year
	entitled, ``Welfare Reform, Child Support, an Uncertain Income
	Supplement for Families Leaving Welfare,'' which I also have
	attached to my opening statement.
	GAO specifically looked at the State of Virginia and it was
	not a positive review. Families were being pushed off welfare
	before any effort has been made to recover their child support
	payments. But GAO wasn't invited to testify either. I ask
	unanimous consent to insert this report into the record.
	[The report, GAO/HEHS-98-168, is retained in subcommittee
	files.]
	Mr. Klink. Mr. Chairman, some subcommittees routinely do
	``feel good'' hearings, but that has not been the historic role
	of this subcommittee. Our hearings should be the culmination of
	extensive interviews, of field work, of document review, to
	determine what the problem is and what needs to be done to fix
	it. We should uncover new facts and help solve serious public
	policy problems, and I don't think that, as of yet, we have
	learned to follow that model. And, we would like to do that
	with you, and I think that we can have a great working
	relationship in doing that.
	What we have today, I fear, is kind of a ready-fire-aim
	approach to the investigations, and I think it makes us look a
	little unprepared. The issue of how custodial parents get child
	support, what they are due, is too important to be conducted in
	what I would call a quick or slip-shod manner if we want to be
	effective. We don't think it is necessary to do 1-week wonder
	hearings. We would like to take time to work together with the
	majority to make sure that we are really ready to take on these
	issues.
	And, I want to, again, thank the majority for the fact that
	they realize that this is an important issue. But it is an
	issue that we want to work with you on, want to make sure that
	we have all the information and all the witnesses before we get
	here to the hearings.
	With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
	Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
	from Virginia, the chairman of the full committee and member of
	the subcommittee is recognized.
	Mr. Bliley. Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for holding this
	hearing today on the implementation of a new joint Federal,
	State, local child support enforcement program called ``Project
	Save Our Children.'' The need to crack down on deadbeat parents
	is evidenced by the fact that one-third of unpaid child support
	obligations is owed by parents that fled across State lines to
	avoid child support enforcement efforts.
	Project Save Our Children grew out of the Responsibility
	and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, commonly known as the
	welfare reform bill. If welfare reform is going to continue its
	success in getting families off welfare, improved enforcement
	of child support obligations is a necessary component.
	According to the Department of Health and Human Services,
	single parents who are owed outstanding child support are more
	than twice as likely as other parents to live in poverty and
	non-payment is a direct cause of welfare dependency in many
	cases.
	The Project Save Our Children task force identifies,
	locates, tracks down, and prosecutes the most egregious
	deadbeat parents in order to make them pay their child support
	obligations. The task force is credited with 185 arrests and
	more than $4 million in direct restitution in a three-State
	demonstration project conducted last year. The Department of
	Health and Human Services plans to extend this program into
	four new regions to cover 17 States, making this an excellent
	time to review how the program has worked to date by listening
	to those who have been a part of it.
	I would like to welcome all of our panelists here today to
	testify. I would especially like to welcome Nick Young, the
	Director of Child Support Division for the Commonwealth of
	Virginia, along with Diana Daffron and Jeannine Heckman, also
	from the Commonwealth. I thank you for coming here today and
	sharing your stories with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I do
	want to put into the record by unanimous consent, a statement
	by Mr. Michael Bilirakis, though not a member of this
	subcommittee, an important member of the committee who has
	worked long and hard for many years on cracking down on
	deadbeat parents, and sadly, he is at another hearing and
	dealing with veterans, which demanded his attendance. So, I
	would ask unanimous consent to put his statement in for the
	record.
	Mr. Klink. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have no objections,
	and we would ask that maybe we hold the record open at this
	point for statements from members on either side.
	[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Bilirakis follows:]
	Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Bilirakis, a Representative in
	Congress from the State of Florida
	Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this hearing to
	address the critical issue of ``deadbeat parents.'' It is unfortunate
	that we have to address concerns arising from parents who fail to meet
	their obligations to their children, financial or otherwise. Child
	support enforcement is one area which urgently needs to be addressed.
	Our nation's system for enforcing child support orders has failed
	miserably. As you know, in the United States child support has
	historically been governed entirely by state law and enforced through
	state courts. State agencies provide free enforcement services to
	families on welfare and also assist non-welfare families by providing
	low-cost services. Unfortunately, however, State agencies have had an
	abysmal track record. These agencies establish paternity in less than
	half of the necessary cases. Even worse, less than 21 percent of these
	cases result in collection of any support during the year.
	In addition, the time involved processing cases is extensive.
	Typically, parents have to wait more than six months to obtain a
	support order. If that were not bad enough, most of those parents have
	to wait more than a month to receive the first payment.
	Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that any delinquency in child
	support ultimately hurts innocent children. Individuals who neglect
	their parental obligations simply transfer the costs to the rest of
	society. They should not be rewarded for such action.
	That is why I will reintroduce the ``Subsidy Termination for
	Overdue Payments,'' or the ``STOP'' Act. This legislation would deny a
	broad range of federal benefits to individuals who willfully refuse to
	pay child support.
	Specifically, my bill would require applicants for federal
	financial assistance to certify that they are not more than 60 days
	delinquent in the payment of child support. If they are delinquent,
	they must be in compliance with the terms of an approved repayment
	agreement.
	The intent of my legislation is two-fold: first, to encourage
	payment of child support; and second, to preclude the use of federal
	taxpayers' dollars to assist individuals who neglect their children.
	Under my bill, the federal agency involved is not required to
	research the applicant's status. Rather, an applicant for federal
	assistance must make a simple affirmative statement of compliance. The
	requirement will be enforced through existing provisions of federal law
	which establish penalties for fraud in obtaining federal financial
	assistance.
	My legislation includes a ``good cause'' exception to avoid
	penalizing parents when they are unable to satisfy their child support
	obligations due to factors beyond their control. This exception is
	necessary to avoid punishing parents when, despite good faith efforts,
	they are unable to modify the terms of their child support obligations.
	Finally, the STOP Act emphasizes that child support payments are a
	fundamental civic responsibility. Passage of the STOP Act will
	guarantee that individuals who fail to satisfy their most basic
	parental obligations are not rewarded for such action.
	Mr. Chairman, the need for action on this matter is imperative.
	``Deadbeat parents'' should not receive federal assistance when they
	ignore their fundamental responsibility to their children. It is my
	hope that the STOP Act will be one step toward strengthening the
	enforcement of child support payments.

	Mr. Upton. Without objection. All members will be allowed
	to do that.
	At this point, I would recognize the member from Iowa, Mr.
	Ganske.
	Mr. Ganske. No comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Upton. And then, the gentleman from California, Mr.
	Bilbray.
	Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I will have a written statement
	presented to your office.
	I would just like to say that I want to commend you for
	having this hearing. Last year there was a lot of concerns and
	complaints about the fact that this committee was not
	addressing the issues that affect human beings outside of the
	Beltway, those issues that people were personally concerned
	about and were having effects on individual lives across this
	country. I want to commend you for having this hearing, because
	I think this is one of those issues that people want addressed
	because it does affect real, live, breathing people, men and
	women that basically want us to address this concern. And, I
	want to commend you for having this hearing.
	I would ask you that maybe we should have had it 2 or 3
	weeks ago, but we are moving as quickly as we can to try to
	handle this issue fairly and appropriately. And, I want to
	thank you for having that, and I think this will give a chance
	for the individuals today to articulate their concerns and ask
	us to take action to address the problem.
	I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
	At this point, we are ready for our panel. Ms.
	Kryskowski,--did I do, okay?--Ms. Daffron, and Ms. Heckman. You
	are aware that this subcommittee is an investigative
	subcommittee, and as such, we have always had the practice of
	taking testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to that
	practice?
	Ms. Kryskowski. No.
	Ms. Daffron. No.
	Ms. Heckman. No.
	Mr. Upton. The Chair, then, advises each of you that under
	the rules of the house and the rules of the committee, you are
	entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you have any desire to be
	advised by counsel during your testimony today?
	Ms. Kryskowski. No.
	Ms. Daffron. No.
	Ms. Heckman. No.
	Mr. Upton. In that case, if you would rise and raise your
	right hand, I will swear you in.
	[Witnesses sworn.]
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. At this point, we are ready for the
	testimony and I think we will start with you, Ms. Daffron, go
	to Ms. Heckman, and Kryskowski and your statement will be made
	part of the record in its entirety.

	TESTIMONY OF DIANA L. DAFFRON, CHANTILLY, VIRGINIA; JEANNINE
	HECKMAN, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; AND RENATA KRYSKOWSKI, DETROIT,
	MICHIGAN

	Ms. Daffron. Okay.
	Mr. Upton. And, we'd like to operate under the 5-minute
	rule. So, in 5 minutes, I may hit this gavel so we can proceed
	with questions and maintain an orderly fashion. Thank you.
	Ms. Daffron. I don't know how close--is this all right?
	Mr. Upton. Why don't you get just a little bit closer, yes.
	Ms. Daffron. My name is Diana Daffron and I waited for over
	8 years for my ex-husband, John Thomas Mosher, to be held
	accountable for his non-payment of child support. On February
	2, 1999, he was found guilty on felony charges for non-payment
	of child support. The amount he owes exceeds $100,000. Our
	original support order was entered into the family court in
	Fairfax County for $180 per week in May 1989. Payments were
	either inconsistent or missing. The payments totally stopped in
	June 1990. He was jailed in June 1990, but it didn't make any
	difference. He still did not pay.
	In the last support order in April 1991, he was ordered to
	pay $800 per month plus the arrearage for our three children.
	Month by month went by and I received nothing. Not only was I
	not receiving child support, I did not have a home for my
	children. John Mosher and I separated in April 1989, and in
	June 1989, he came into our home and assaulted me by choking
	me. Consequently, I did not feel safe living in our ground-
	floor condo because I knew John could easily get in.
	So, for the next 2 years, my children and I lived with
	family and friends until I was able to obtain public housing in
	February 1991. Prior to receiving public housing, I contacted
	the Division of Child Support Enforcement in August 1990. They
	were also unable to find John.
	In August 1991, I began receiving public assistance in the
	form of welfare checks and food stamps. During this time, John
	Mosher was placed on the Virginia ten most wanted deadbeat dad
	list. I continued to receive public housing and assistance
	until I remarried in June 1994.
	John T. Mosher contacted the Division of Child Support
	Enforcement in September 1994 to see if he still had a child
	support obligation. He was picked up and jailed again for 365
	days. He was placed on work release, during which time I
	received nominal payments. He was released early in April 1995
	and fled the State.
	Until the Federal law was passed to make it a felony in
	June 1998, there really wasn't any law to hold him accountable,
	while living in another State, to a higher degree. I did locate
	John Mosher in Galveston, Texas through an Internet source.
	Once I received the address, I contacted Phyllis Cooke of the
	Division of Child Support Enforcement, and she contacted Texas.
	The Federal agents finally located his employer in July 1998.
	Subsequently, he was charged and brought to trial. Since his
	arrest in 1998, I have again received partial support payments.
	I am not going to talk about my humiliation and embarrassment
	of having not received the child support, but having to go on
	welfare.
	I asked my 15-year-old daughter to write her feelings down
	because she was 7 at the time when we went on welfare, and this
	is what she said, ``I feel that we need stronger consequences
	for child support offenders, because my dad or my father never
	paid child support. Because we did not have child support, my
	mom had to go on welfare. People would send us hand-me-down
	clothes and shoes because we were poor. While people were
	shopping for back-to-school clothes, we had to wear old
	clothes. It was really embarrassing to have to wear old
	clothes. At Christmas, we didn't have that many presents. It's
	a parent's duty to provide for their children. The law has to
	be strongly enforced.'' And that was stated by my daughter,
	Michelle Mosher.
	That's the end of my testimony.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you.
	Ms. Heckman.

	TESTIMONY OF JEANNINE HECKMAN

	Ms. Heckman. I just wanted to list a few of the issues that
	I felt were important: difficulties in obtaining case
	information from the County Child Support Enforcement Agency as
	the custodial parent, and some security issues; non-custodial
	parents relocating and changing professions; resources and
	background investigations; and financial burdens.
	My name is Jeannine Heckman and I was married for 9 years
	to a U.S. Marine military police officer, who also worked for
	the Criminal Investigating Department, Naval Investigative
	Services, and Immigration and Naturalization Services. We were
	divorced in 1987 in Honolulu, Hawaii. At the time, my daughter
	was 9 and my son was 6. The courts ordered my ex-husband to pay
	$220 per child per month, and provide health insurance.
	In 1992, my children went to visit their father who had
	moved to California, at which time their father decided to stop
	paying child support. When my son returned in September, my ex-
	husband arbitrarily decided he would not be sending any child
	support because one child was residing with him and the other
	with me. He said no money would exchange hands.
	I contacted the Child Support Enforcement Agency in
	Stafford County and opened up a case. They told me, ``If you
	want to check on the status of your case, you must do so in
	writing or make an appointment with your case worker.'' So,
	weekly for about 2 months, and then every couple of weeks for
	over a year, I would either go down to the agency or write a
	letter requesting the status of my case. The most I learned was
	that the Child Support Enforcement Agency notified my husband
	that he owed child support.
	In 1996, I called the Child Support Enforcement Agency to
	have my case transferred to Fairfax County. Stafford County
	Child Support Enforcement Agency told me the case had been
	closed. At my insistence, they reopened it. On 19 March 1996,
	my ex-husband's wife called Stafford County Child Support
	Enforcement Agency and posed as an out-of-State case worker,
	and Ann Riley, the case worker assigned to my case, gave her
	the information she requested.
	Between 1987 and the present, my ex-husband moved from
	Kailua, Hawaii to four or five different places in California
	and back to two different places in Hawaii, each time causing
	the process to be reinitiated in each jurisdiction.
	Third of May 1996, my ex-husband called to inform me that
	he had resigned from Immigration and Naturalization Services
	and I would not be receiving child support. He also said I
	would not be able to find him. He refused to give me an
	emergency phone number or address.
	My current husband advised me that Federal law had recently
	been enacted concerning deadbeat parents. I then contacted the
	U.S. Attorney's Office. I sent three certified copies of the
	court order to Donna Schnaible in the Personnel Office of INS
	in California. It was too late. He withdrew his pension and
	left. I spoke to Anselmo Abramsen, a supervisor at INS in
	Honolulu who refused to give me any information.
	In May 1996, my ex-husband started a scuba diving business.
	He obtained a dive boat for the purpose of providing diving
	lessons. He also gave underwater guided tours of shipwrecks in
	Hawaii and did underwater photography. On October 7, 1997, the
	U.S. Marshal's Office arrested him as he pulled his boat into
	the dock. My ex-husband told the court that he couldn't afford
	to pay. I was advised that the government did not have the
	manpower to investigate his financial situation. In May 1998,
	my ex-husband was sentenced to pay $100 a month for the next 5
	years on a $16,000 arrearage plus current support of $220 a
	month. Subsequent to this, I found out my ex-husband is
	collecting 70 percent disability from the Marine Corps and
	going to school full time on VA benefits.
	The financial burden this has caused ranges from no health
	insurance coverage, resulting in large out-of-pocket expenses,
	to taking time off work to run around to the Child Support
	Enforcement Agency and help process paperwork. I didn't have
	the money to pay for after-school care and my son became a
	latchkey kid. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the
	emotional issues that developed because a father decides to
	break contact with his children, resulting in fees for
	psychotherapy.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you.
	Ms. Kryskowski.

	TESTIMONY OF RENATA KRYSKOWSKI

	Ms. Kryskowski. Okay, is this on?
	Mr. Upton. Yes, I think all the mics are alive.
	Ms. Kryskowski. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the----
	Mr. Upton. You need to pull it just a little bit closer.
	Pull it down, bend it. There you go.
	Ms. Kryskowski. Now, can you hear me?
	Mr. Upton. Yes, that's correct. Thanks.
	Ms. Kryskowski. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee and
	guests, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to share
	our stories with you. I wish to thank my employer, First State
	Bank, for allowing me the time to come and to all involved in
	bringing us to Washington, DC.
	My husband, Steve, and I spent many years trying to get the
	child support for Vanessa that was ordered by my ex-husband
	when I divorced. I have been through a referee, show causes,
	and many other types of meetings. With every meeting, every
	hearing we attended, our goal was to have Vanessa's case
	reviewed, to allow the Wayne County friend of the court and
	others to see how important it was that Vanessa receive the
	support that she was due, that she needed.
	There were so many dead-ends, because every time it
	appeared it appeared we may get the support, Vanessa's real
	father would file bankruptcy. The Wayne County friend of the
	court's hands appeared to be tied because each hearing he would
	provide evidence that he wasn't working.
	In 1996, I received a call from a Mary Kedzior, a lawyer
	affiliated with the friend of the court or the Wayne County
	friend of the court. It was through her work that Vanessa's
	case was heard by the judge for the very first time. At the end
	of the case, Vanessa did receive a portion of her back child
	support, ordered by the judge, not of her father's free will.
	The court ordered for her father to pay his support obligation
	from that point forward. Vanessa's father never did comply to
	the judge's order after that, and rather than giving the
	support that would have been used to assist Vanessa with her
	condition.
	We continue to have struggles to meet the needs of
	Vanessa's condition, her needs as a child, and needs of a
	normal family life. In August 1998, I received a call from an
	Investigator Deputy Don Skidmore. He told me he was assigned to
	work with the multi-child support, the Michigan Child Support
	Multi-Agency investigative team, a new task force with a
	criminal action against delinquent non-paying parents. He
	wanted to help investigate regarding my daughter, Vanessa. This
	was the news we had been waiting for. I couldn't believe this
	was going to be it; that maybe somebody could help when
	everything else failed. I had heard a month earlier about the
	task force, but never thought Vanessa's case would be heard so
	soon.
	Deputy Skidmore, Don, has worked real hard on this case. It
	took many countless hours of investigating. Don along with the
	agent in charge of the task force, Scott Vantrease, and others
	have done a great job. They all have been very informative
	every step of the way, and helped me understand each
	requirement; worked to get me to every hearing, as well as have
	me kept up-to-date with information in the case.
	I then was introduced to a lawyer named Karen Plants with
	the Wayne County prosecutor's office. She helped Vanessa's case
	get to the second stage of the courts. She has done a great job
	getting the courts to understand how important this case is,
	and to her at the Wayne County's prosecutor's office, I would
	like to say ``thank you.''
	The criminal case with Vanessa's father is still in
	litigation, but closer than ever before. We are hoping, by
	coming here today and sharing our stories, that it could
	encourage others and show that there is a different way we can
	address delinquent parents who owe child support and scoff at
	the system, in a way which allows our kids not to have to go
	through the pain of growing up wondering why one of her parents
	don't seem to care.
	We, as adults, never talk about how our children feel. We
	never help our children understand that this is an obligation
	that no court should have to order, so that they grow up the
	better way. As a society, we are just realizing that our kids
	are going through that they never received the support that
	they deserve and need.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you all for your very personal
	story in a very public light. All of us appreciate that very
	much. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask and we
	will trade questions among the members that are here.
	Ms. Daffron, you indicated that you were able to get
	Virginia's attention, when it all of a sudden became on the
	ten-most-wanted list. Do you know what triggered that?
	Ms. Daffron. The amount of money he owed. And, I called
	consistently asking about my case. So, my case was in the
	forefront. He owed a lot of money. The case worker--I don't
	remember who it was at that time--but she was very diligent in
	trying to find him, and running monthly--I guess, running his
	Social Security number monthly through their system, whatever
	system they use. And so, because I called so often and went in
	so often----
	Mr. Upton. The squeaky wheel.
	Ms. Daffron. That's it.
	Mr. Upton. Do you remember about what the threshold was,
	about what was the amount of money that was owed when he was
	placed on the ten-most-wanted list?
	Ms. Daffron. I think it was about $70,000.
	Mr. Upton. Okay. Ms. Heckman, was it told to you when you
	were working with your State, did they ever tell you why it had
	been closed when, in fact, you weren't getting payments?
	Ms. Heckman. No, they did not give me a reason. They just
	said there was no activity. And I had been calling and calling
	and writing. And, when I found out that other people were able
	to get information with a phone call, I was appalled. And, you
	know, they did reopen the case, but that was only because I had
	asked to have it transferred. And, that's when they discovered
	it had been closed.
	Mr. Upton. And, are you getting money today?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes. The arrearage is $16,000 and he is paying
	$100 of that each month.
	Mr. Upton. So, it is coming in?
	Ms. Heckman. It is coming in.
	Mr. Upton. When you learned that he was getting a 70
	percent disability from the VA, are you aware, is that able to
	be garnished at all or not?
	Ms. Heckman. Well, I just learned of that recently. When he
	had gone into court, they established that he only was taking
	in, either, 10 or 30 percent. So, I was told that what we
	should do is go back into the system and see if we can have
	that increased. In 5 years, when his obligation is up for
	payment, he will have only paid back $6,000 of the arrearage.
	He is also paying $220 a month, which is the same amount he was
	ordered to pay since 1987.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you.
	Ms. Kryskowski, you indicated that your case is now in
	litigation. Do you have a sense of when that will be concluded?
	Ms. Kryskowski. Well, so far it has been going on for about
	4 months, and I am not sure where it is going to be ending
	soon. He is supposed to appear in court in March. You know, at
	this point, it is still in litigation. I don't know what more I
	can do other than just wait until I have been--you know,
	through my lawyers, or my lawyer, what else I need to do if it
	is going to go in a different direction.
	Mr. Upton. Now, the person that you give most credit for
	helping you out, Mr. Skidmore, who is going to be testifying a
	little bit later this morning--do you know what the threshold
	was that prompted him to call you to see if he could be
	helpful?
	Ms. Kryskowski. Well, probably because of the fact that I
	kept on going down there countless times and letting them know
	that my daughter needed assistance. And, in 1988, my daughter
	was a United Way poster child, and I had given them a brochure
	at that point. Mary Kedzior was always aware of it, and I'm
	sure at that time when she was part of this in 1996, that she
	gave the same information to Mr. Skidmore and he took it from
	there. So far it has been great. We are still, like I said, in
	litigation, and we're looking forward to, hopefully, having an
	end.
	Mr. Upton. In terms of each of you, if you think about
	this, if each of you had some success in reaching out and
	seeing some accomplishment come about, how is it--you have a
	network of folks in your community that you are able to reach
	out that has provided some hope that this is working? What type
	of reaction do you have from friends or peers that are in the
	same type of situation? Have you had any experience with that?
	Has your success story been parlayed into others looking for
	the same type of hope?
	Ms. Heckman. It seems that you have to exhaust the system
	at the State level before you can get help from the Federal.
	You just feel very fortunate that you have made it to that
	point. When this first started out, you know, we were told,
	``Oh, you won't see the money for years.'' You know, that was
	the consensus. I am grateful that it was pushed to the Federal
	point where they stepped in and they took control of the
	situation and brought it to this point.
	Mr. Upton. My time has expired. Mr. Klink.
	Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Ms.
	Heckman, was your case handled at all by the State Federal task
	force? Did they play any role at all in your case?
	Ms. Heckman. From 1992 to 1996, it was run by Stafford
	County and then transferred to Fairfax County.
	Mr. Klink. So there was no Federal role in that at all?
	Ms. Heckman. Not in--the Federal role was started when I
	contacted the U.S. Attorney's office in, like I think it was,
	March 1996.
	Mr. Klink. It still predates the task force?
	Ms. Heckman. Right. Yes, so they----
	Mr. Klink. A Federal role, but it wasn't really the task
	force?
	Ms. Heckman. Correct.
	Mr. Klink. Ms. Daffron, how about your case? Was the new
	Federal State task force--did it have any role at all in your--
	--
	Ms. Daffron. That I'm not sure. But I do know that they
	could not do anything with my case until it was proven that he
	was out of State. And that was never proven until I found his
	address through the Internet.
	Mr. Klink. Well, all of you have at least had some--have
	gone through a State enforcement program. Let me start with
	you, Ms. Kryskowski. Do you believe that child support
	agencies, prosecutors, judges are committed to doing all they
	can do to help people that are having child support problems
	like you were having?
	Ms. Kryskowski. Well, I think that some responsibility
	falls on somewhere in the chain of command like that because I
	have tried everything.
	Mr. Klink. But did you find a level of commitment that was
	satisfactory within the system, within the State system?
	Ms. Kryskowski. Meaning, like, what I'm doing now?
	Mr. Klink. No, no, no, no. Did you find the help that was
	necessary for you? Were they dedicated to solving your problem?
	Prosecutors, the agencies, were they fully dedicated to----
	Ms. Kryskowski. Now that we have the new task force, yes.
	But before that, it seemed like their hands were tied. They
	didn't have enough help or enough people to get involved. You
	know, where it is right now, you are able to investigate and
	look into it, where I can't--I'm not able to do that. I have no
	contact with him at all.
	Mr. Klink. So, it really wasn't a problem of their lack of
	dedication to help you. It was a resource problem at the State
	level. Is that what you ran into? They just didn't have enough
	resources to pursue----
	Ms. Kryskowski. Well, with him--resources in the sense of
	people?
	Mr. Klink. People, money.
	Ms. Kryskowski. Possibly. That could be what it could have
	been, yes.
	Mr. Klink. Ms. Daffron, what is your history? Do you think
	that the support agencies and the judges and the prosecutors
	give as high a priority to this; is that your experience?
	Ms. Daffron. The people I have dealt with have--have given
	as high a priority as they can. But, my problem with this State
	is that the laws are not stricter at the State level. And, if
	they were stricter, I think the consequence is greater--I'm not
	sure how great they can get at the State level. But, I don't
	think it would have gone on so long. I mean, he was out of the
	country. There is nothing to stop him from going out of the
	country, nothing really in place. And I think the laws at the
	State level need to be stricter.
	Mr. Klink. So, the State really didn't have the ability, I
	would suppose, to pursue him around the world or to other
	States?
	Ms. Daffron. Unfortunately, no. And, they couldn't even
	find him within the United States. I am the one who found him
	through an Internet resource with his Social Security number.
	And, I was told that they don't have that resource available to
	them.
	Mr. Klink. Are you a trained investigator?
	Ms. Daffron. No.
	Mr. Klink. But using a very simple technique, using common
	sense and a computer, you were able to do something----
	Ms. Daffron. For $35, I paid somebody to do a search on his
	Social Security number.
	Mr. Klink. Amazing, and yet the State agency was not able
	to do that?
	Ms. Daffron. No, it's sad.
	Mr. Klink. That's amazing.
	Ms. Heckman.
	Ms. Heckman. I think the caseload that the States are
	working with is outrageous. You know, when I went into the
	caseworker's office to find out if he had responded to their
	certified letter, I walked in and she had a stack of papers on
	the floor about 18 inches high, another stack on her desk, and
	she was searching through that for the return of the certified
	letter. And, I thought, ``it's like a needle in a haystack.''
	Mr. Klink. Let me ask a question and give each of you the
	opportunity to answer it. Tell us what changes you would
	recommend so that the State system would be able to help get
	money for families, for wives and children, as soon as
	possible. There are 19 million child support cases out there,
	each of which involves a parent and at least one child. Tell us
	what you think needs to be done in order to make this system
	work.
	Ms. Heckman. Well, I think they have to increase the
	caseworkers; they have to increase the personnel and give them
	as much authority as they need and information systems that
	they need to locate these people and whatever--I don't know if
	it would be funding that would help them process the--you know,
	collecting the money. And, doing a background investigation to
	find out--these people are self-employed; they're saying they
	make $8 an hour when they're racking in $400 a day, you know.
	Mr. Klink. Ms. Daffron.
	Ms. Daffron. I would agree with that, and also, I would
	also like, as I just stated previously, stricter laws at the
	State level once the people are caught. It was kind of nice
	when he was incarcerated in 1994 to 1995 because he was put on
	a work relief and I did receive some payment. But, they only
	held him for 6 months because that's all that was, I guess,
	legally that they had to do was hold him for 6 months. But,
	after he was released, there was no accountability for him. I
	mean, he just left. I think that's the time he went to Texas, I
	don't know though.
	Mr. Klink. Ms. Kryskowski, do you agree with them, or
	anything----
	Ms. Kryskowski. I agree with what both of them have been
	saying, and also, I think that they should have, like maybe,
	possibly a review once a year, twice a year--I mean, every 2
	years--to show, to see where they're at, ex-husbands are. And
	like, collecting money, saying they're making $8 an hour and
	then they are making $500 a week, we need to know that; they
	need to know that. We need to find out more of how we can do to
	help us out with the child support.
	Mr. Klink. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
	patience. I think what I found particularly enlightening is,
	when you find a deadbeat dad, as was the case here, who is
	receiving Federal money in the form of both benefits and
	disability payments, while he is not living up to his
	obligation to support a child, I think that is just absolutely
	amazing. I yield back.
	Mr. Upton. Very sad.
	Mr. Ganske.
	Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	To follow up on that, a year or so ago, I introduced a bill
	that would close some additional loopholes in terms of being
	able to garnish moneys of deadbeat parents. I wanted to,
	particularly, thank the ladies who came for this panel. It is
	not easy coming to Washington and testifying before a
	congressional panel. I am also gratified that more members of
	the panel have been able to get here for your testimony.
	You know, clearly we have a situation where we have a
	Federal country where we have State jurisdiction and it is many
	times difficult when a deadbeat dad leaves a State and goes
	somewhere else in this huge country, for families to collect
	the support that they are legally bound to do.
	I testified on this issue when we were doing the welfare
	reform bill, and I am glad that we were able to get a provision
	in there that would help you locate, and then enforce, child
	support payments.
	Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for us to have an
	oversight hearing on this to see how we are coming along on
	that legislation, which was passed in a bipartisan fashion,
	because I know the members on both sides of the aisle are
	concerned about these problems. I cannot tell you the number of
	times that constituents come to me, talking about how there is
	a deadbeat parent, usually dad, who they cannot collect their
	child support payments from. I will bet every member who is
	here has had some women similar to yourselves who have come to
	their congressional offices with an incredible story of
	irresponsibility on the part of their ex-spouses, and the fact
	that they just refuse to support their children.
	So, when we are dealing in a Federal system like we are,
	yes, sometimes the State services are overloaded. But,
	sometimes their hands are tied to the extent that Congress has,
	as in the welfare reform bill, and may need to do some
	additional work on that. I am sure that every member here
	pledges their help to try to help families like yours get the
	support that they deserve.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Dr. Ganske. Mr. Stupak.
	Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
	late. I was at a caucus.
	As I look about the panel, I probably am the only one who
	has done family divorce work for a number of years when I was
	practicing law. I was also a police officer, and I cannot tell
	you how many times we have stopped members--I take that back,
	Mr. Chairman--stopped individuals on the road who had warrants
	out for them for non-support. You say, ``We have your
	individual,'' and they will say, ``So what? We are not going to
	pick them up.'' Because if they are from Detroit and I am in
	the upper peninsula, it is not worth the effort to go pick them
	up to have a show-cause hearing and then be released the next
	day. So, I certainly understand the frustrations.
	But, let me ask you some questions on ideas that have been
	kicked around and see if you agree with them or not. Some of
	the States--shall we take away drivers' license of individuals
	who are behind in support? Do we do automatic, mandatory
	paycheck deduction upon entry of divorce order; have mandatory
	deduction on the paycheck for child support, no questions
	asked, not discretionary, mandatory? And also, have any of you
	tried to use the Federal Government IRS to get back the income
	tax return of an ex-husband for support? I lead out three
	ideas; if you have any others, please let me know. Let's start
	on this end, Ms. Heckman.
	Ms. Heckman. Yes, the more you can do, the more you can, I
	guess, penalize them. You got to get their attention, one way
	or another, and take away their driver's license.
	Mr. Stupak. Okay. Let me ask this, though: If you take away
	driver's license and if you are in my district, which is one of
	the larger districts in the United States, a very rural
	district, there is no public transportation, how do they get to
	work, then?
	Ms. Heckman. Well, obviously, they are surviving somehow,
	right?
	Mr. Stupak. Sure.
	Ms. Heckman. In my case, my ex-husband doesn't have a
	vehicle. He uses the bus system.
	Mr. Stupak. Where does he live?
	Ms. Heckman. Hawaii.
	Mr. Stupak. Urban area there, I take it?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes, he's managing. He is doing quite well. He
	has managed to, you know, live a certain lifestyle without a
	driver's--well, he is not driving. I don't know; I'm sure he
	has got a license, but he is not driving. They need to know
	that before they can have other privileges; they need to
	recognize they need to be accountable. Attaching their Federal,
	their IRS, if they file. Some don't file.
	Mr. Stupak. Sure, I understand that.
	Ms. Heckman. And what was the second one?
	Mr. Stupak. The other one was mandatory deduction in the
	judgment of divorce automatically comes out of the paychecks,
	no questions asked.
	Ms. Heckman. If they are not self-employed. If they are
	self-employed or working under the table, you can't get a hold
	of that either.
	Mr. Stupak. No, I understand that. I understand that. Does
	your State have any of those? Do they take away driver's
	license? Do they take their State or Federal income tax? Do
	they have the mandatory deductions, payroll deduction at time
	of divorce?
	Ms. Heckman. They didn't at the time. He was on his own to
	pay, this was back in 1987.
	Mr. Stupak. Okay. So, of those three I mentioned, your
	State doesn't have any?
	Ms. Heckman. Not that I know of.
	Mr. Stupak. How about you, Ms. Daffron?
	Ms. Daffron. I think Virginia does have a--they do take the
	licenses away.
	Mr. Stupak. Has that been helpful to you in trying to
	obtain----
	Ms. Daffron. Well, he lives in Texas, so--well, he was
	living in Texas. And, also, at the time of our divorce, he was
	unemployed. So, what do you do there? And, I'm not----
	Mr. Stupak. Well, you still put it in there, that if he
	becomes employed, he----
	Ms. Daffron. That's true. But I'm not real hopeful I'm
	going to receive consistent--even being penalized and convicted
	of a felony, I'm not real hopeful I'm going to receive much
	support. I haven't received any this month. And, also, when I
	did find out he was in Texas, he was working, but to get his
	wages garnished down in Texas, Texas had to do it and it was
	kind of----
	Mr. Stupak. Sure, you go through your residence; it is more
	of a headache than it is worth.
	Ms. Daffron. Yes, yes.
	Mr. Stupak. Sure is. Is your ex-husband in jail now?
	Ms. Daffron. No, he will be sentenced the end of March.
	Mr. Stupak. Okay, okay. Ms. Kryskowski.
	Ms. Kryskowski. In my case, he never really had a job. So,
	I mean, that you could get any money from the IRS; taking away
	your driver's license is not really going to do it, either,
	because then he can't get to work to get the money we need. How
	he went through the system, they believed everything he said.
	He would tell them that he can only work 25 hours a week
	because he had health problems, so they believed him. And, you
	know, when you see that he has a car and he's living a life,
	that he could share a portion of that with his daughter, what
	do you do? I mean, it's hard to--it is like a needle in a
	haystack. It's hard to really hold onto anything when it's not
	down on paper.
	Mr. Stupak. I certainly thank all of you for coming. As I
	said, I have worked in this area and what my frustration is,
	while we may pass things at the Federal, if the States can't
	handle it where they have more control over the cases and then
	you try to Federalize it, I think it becomes more diverse and
	less opportunity to do any kind of enforcement.
	I know, while we talked about welfare reform, I didn't see
	where any mention of anything we did in welfare reform actually
	helped you out. And maybe it is too early. But, I would hope
	that the States could put more emphasis there or something,
	because I think the more you get removed from your cases, the
	less attention is going to be attributed to them. And, it is a
	struggle and I am struggling on how to best address it. Thank
	you and you did give us some ideas. Thank you.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Mr. Bilbray
	from California.
	Mr. Bilbray. Yes. First of all, I would like to commend my
	colleague from Michigan, because I think he articulated that
	this has to be a team effort. In all fairness, I think that Mr.
	Stupak pointed out that the Federal Government can't do it all.
	It needs to be a team effort, and under our system there is
	responsibility as a State and the Feds and we need them working
	together. So, I really want to compliment my colleague for
	pointing that out. It is something those of us in Washington
	don't like to do, because it looks like we are passing the
	buck.
	But, I think there is some concerns that we need to
	address. I think one of the issues is, how would the IRS handle
	this kind of debt if it was owed to them, the Federal
	Government, if this was a tax debt? And, would they allow
	somebody to jump from State to State and still avoid paying it
	off? I think that we can get a consensus here that this kind of
	obligation should be treated just like an obligation to the
	Federal Government's Treasury, no more, no less.
	Now, I operated a child protective service. I supervised
	one in San Diego County for about 2.8 million people. And, Mrs.
	Daffron, you have how many kids?
	Ms. Daffron. Three.
	Mr. Bilbray. Three. Like Bill Cosby says, ``If you have
	one, it doesn't count because when something is broken, you
	know who did it.'' I have five, so, okay. But you used a Social
	Security number. You knew the Social Security number.
	Ms. Daffron. Right.
	Mr. Bilbray. My question is, see, one of the things that we
	ran into is--and I am sorry that the ranking member is gone,
	because saying that for $35, you could track that down.
	Ms. Daffron. Right.
	Mr. Bilbray. I don't know about now, but in the past when I
	was doing this business, we were not allowed to use Social
	Security numbers. We basically had our hands tied. The privacy
	laws kept us from being able to do the type of background
	searches. And, I think that we need to really raise this issue.
	The other issue we see is, what if your ex had used a false
	Social Security number, which people can do all the time?
	Ms. Daffron. Right, right.
	Mr. Bilbray. So, I would really say to my colleagues here
	it is a good example of where we may need to address this
	issue--that, first of all, the ability to access records so
	that we can address these issues.
	Ms. Daffron. Yes.
	Mr. Bilbray. And my question is, would the IRS worry about
	using Social Security numbers to track down people who owe them
	money. And, if we really care, then we should care just as much
	about you getting your fair share of revenue for your children
	as we want to get our fair share of revenue for our tax
	structure.
	The other issue is the fact that we need to have a system
	to make sure that the people using Social Security numbers are
	the ones who really it belongs to, where you are going to get
	these people avoiding, and we have run into that.
	And, my colleague bringing up the State's cooperation is
	one that is near and dear to me, because it is 200 miles to the
	nearest State in my neighborhood, but it is a quarter of a mile
	to the Mexican border. And, though we have the Federal
	Government sending benefits to people in Mexico who actually
	owe.
	I would ask you this and let me just sort of focus on Ms.
	Daffron. If you left your three children and walked away, if
	you just packed up the car and drove away from them, what would
	be the government's reaction to you abandoning your children.
	Do you know? Do you have any idea?
	Ms. Daffron. No, I really don't.
	Mr. Bilbray. Let me tell you what it would be. It would be
	abandonment, child endangerment, and child abuse. It would be
	felonies, not misdemeanors. And, maybe we ought to start
	approaching this issue that the spouse who does not have
	custody, when they do not pay, are committing abandonment and
	abuse by not paying. And it should be addressed the same.
	The biggest issue is, if an officer in the upper peninsula
	of Michigan pulled you over and it was found that you had left
	your kids out freezing in an apartment with no heat, you are
	darn right, you would be dragged back into Detroit. It would be
	worth it to get you. I think that is the mentality we need to
	change here. I just wanted to bring that up.
	I think there are some opportunities. I think there are
	some problems here. And, I would only ask, Mr. Chairman, that
	we talk about this issue, that the Federal Government's
	approach to getting compensation to the children should be the
	same and should be the same standard, same importance that the
	Federal Government states of finding resources to reimburse it
	for its budget operations.
	I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you, thank you. Ms. DeGette.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have
	any questions for the panel, except let me say how glad I am
	you came today. Before I came to Congress, I was in the State
	legislature in Colorado and I was a member of the judiciary
	committee. We spent 4 years on that committee trying to figure
	out how to make deadbeat parents pay their obligations. And, we
	did all kinds--we didn't have an automated system. We went to
	an automated system. We streamlined our State system. We did
	everything we could. And, we finally did pass a bill and there
	were some objection to it to take away drivers' license of
	people who didn't pay child support obligations. And, that was
	the most effective thing we ever did. We didn't actually ever
	have to hardly ever take away drivers' licenses, because when
	people got the notices they would go in and pay up.
	But, I think that the point Mr. Stupak and Mr. Bilbray made
	is a good one, and several of you made it, too. Which is, it is
	fine if Colorado or Michigan or California takes away the
	driver's license, if they are there. But, so often, these
	deadbeat parents, in an effort to avoid their obligations, move
	frequently. I mean, they move from State to State more than
	once within a year. And so, that is why we have to have some
	Federal cooperation, and also why we have to have very strong
	interstate compacts to collect child support.
	So, I really know where you are coming from and I just
	wanted to say, you know, ``Keep fighting for what you
	deserve.''
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr from North Carolina.
	Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, like Mr. Stupak, I
	apologize for being tardy. But, I have had an opportunity to
	read the majority of your testimony. And, I just want to
	clarify a few things with Ms. Heckman and Ms. Daffron.
	Ms. Heckman, when I read your testimony, if I understood
	it, when the agency that was in charge of the enforcement in
	your State, your relationship with them was one that if you
	wanted to check the status of what they were doing, you had to
	either submit the request in writing or make an appointment, is
	that correct?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes, yes.
	Mr. Burr. Yet, if I understood your testimony right, your
	ex-husband's new wife simply phoned up and got the status
	somewhat mistruthfully, I guess, as far as who she was or what
	the intent was?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes.
	Mr. Burr. But that was openly shared with her?
	Ms. Heckman. And that was what?
	Mr. Burr. The status of the investigation was openly shared
	with her?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes, that was. And when I called the
	caseworker back, she said, ``Well, she didn't identify herself
	as his wife.''
	Mr. Burr. But you, as the woman affected----
	Ms. Heckman. Right.
	Mr. Burr [continuing]. Were never given an option under
	that system to call----
	Ms. Heckman. No, you cannot call.
	Mr. Burr [continuing]. And inquire on the status of the
	case?
	Ms. Heckman. You cannot call and get information on your
	case. You have to do it in writing or go and make an
	appointment with your caseworker.
	Ms. Heckman. How did that make you feel, this whole process
	having gone through?
	Ms. Heckman. Well, I understood the security of that, so
	that nobody could call and get the information.
	Mr. Burr. How did you feel after someone had----
	Ms. Heckman. Appalled, appalled, violated.
	Mr. Burr. And what was their explanation, if you----
	Ms. Heckman. ``We're very sorry. It won't happen again.
	I'll put a note on the computer that if somebody calls, they're
	going to need verification; actually they would need Kevin's,
	the ex-husband's, written permission for the case.''
	Mr. Burr. But you could not call and get status?
	Ms. Heckman. No, in no way.
	Mr. Burr. Ms. Daffron, if I understood what you said, in
	1991 your husband, your ex-husband was placed on the ten-most-
	wanted deadbeat dads.
	Ms. Daffron. Correct.
	Mr. Burr. How did they catch him?
	Ms. Daffron. They didn't catch him; that's why he was on
	the list. How did they know he was one of the ten-most-wanted,
	though?
	Mr. Burr. No, they listed him as the ten-most-wanted. When
	did he present himself to them?
	Ms. Daffron. I guess I am not understanding what you are
	asking because----
	Mr. Burr. Well, I think you said, in 1994, he contacted----
	Ms. Daffron. Oh, in 1994, he--well, my current husband and
	I had been married a few months and he contacted Division of
	Child Support Enforcement to see if he still had a support
	obligation.
	Mr. Burr. Is this the period between 1991 and 1994 as one
	of the ten targeted people in the State?
	Ms. Daffron. Yes.
	Mr. Burr. They had no contact with your husband?
	Ms. Daffron. No.
	Mr. Burr. This was the first contact when your husband
	contacted them?
	Ms. Daffron. Correct.
	Mr. Burr. Given that he was one of the top ten targets, did
	you feel like they were working on it real hard?
	Ms. Daffron. It was in, what was called, their ``locate
	office'' in Fairfax County, which is the best you can get at
	that point. And, I think with the resources they had, I did
	think that they were doing the best they could.
	Mr. Burr. Okay, that is fair.
	Ms. Daffron. But they don't have enough resources.
	Mr. Burr. And, you know, I hope you understand that I think
	every member who is here today and those that aren't, we're
	trying to find a way for this to work.
	Ms. Daffron. Right.
	Mr. Burr. I mean, that is the whole objective. I am not
	here to try to put blame on one agency or not to another. We
	are here to try to work if there is a Federal role, and
	clearly, I think most of us think that there is.
	Ms. Daffron. Oh, yes.
	Mr. Burr. Then, let us perfect it as fast as we can.
	Certainly, the years that you went through without housing for,
	that safety net was provided. If it doesn't have to happen to
	anybody else, we would like to see that.
	Let me ask you, Ms. Kryskowski, you have been through this
	demonstration project. If there is anything frustrating, what
	was the most frustrating part of it and how would you suggest
	that that program be changed in the future to be more
	effective?
	Ms. Kryskowski. You mean the new task force?
	Mr. Burr. Yes, ma'am.
	Ms. Kryskowski. It hasn't been frustrating. I feel that,
	with the investigation that Don Skidmore has provided, it has
	been an excellent tool for all of us to know what is going on
	with my ex-husband. He hid a lot of information and he claimed
	he wasn't working for numerous of years with the friend of the
	court. And then, what Don revealed was he was working, and he
	has a car and he has a house, a truck, you know, $468 payments.
	Mr. Burr. So, as far as your experience with the new
	program, no recommendations that you would make about changes
	that should be suggested to them that would make it work
	better?
	Ms. Kryskowski. Well, I'm like, I guess you could say that
	I'm the first one in Wayne County. So, so far I have been very
	satisfied and I really like what has been going on. Changes-
	wise, I can't really say if there is any need to be any
	changes, because so far I have been very satisfied with what
	has been going on.
	Mr. Burr. With the Chair's indulgence, if I could ask for
	one additional minute from my members?
	I found it interesting--I went through the training
	qualifications of the new program. And, again, I am not trying
	to prejudge the program, but I am more interested in what would
	be your response to this screening process--you have been
	through it--for the rest of the women out there who are no
	getting payments. The Screening Process Guide Qualifications,
	``delinquent obligor must have refused to pay at least $20,000
	in total child support, and obligation must have been
	outstanding at least 1 year. All civil resources to collect the
	arrears had taken place and the referring child support
	enforcement agency must have determined the obligor has the
	ability to pay.''
	My only question is, under this set of screening
	qualifications, how many people out there are not going to meet
	that, but are finding a hardship of no payment being made?
	Ms. Daffron. I don't understand why it is $20,000. Why not
	$10,000? I mean, $20,000 is a lot of money.
	Mr. Burr. As hardship has been----
	Ms. Daffron. That is almost 2 or 3 years of no support. So,
	$10,000 would be--even five, that's what the Federal level is.
	You have to be owing $5,000 and be out of State to get the
	Federal Government involved.
	Mr. Burr. Well, hopefully, in the next panel, we will find
	out why they chose that level.
	Ms. Heckman. I agree with that. I understand that that
	would probably totally increase the caseload. But, how long can
	the bank go out without a payment for your car, you know? And,
	we're talking about children here. We're not talking about, you
	know, okay, we'll defer payments. You know, this is children.
	And, it doesn't take but a couple of months to put a family in
	dire straits. You know, so I guess we'll just have to wait and
	see.
	Mr. Burr. Well, I hope everybody will have a----
	Mr. Stupak. Does the gentleman have any more time left? I
	was going to ask----
	Mr. Upton. The time is expired on----
	Mr. Burr. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent for an
	additional minute to yield to Mr. Stupak.
	Mr. Stupak. Will you yield a minute?
	You had asked about the top ten-most-wanted list there on
	the child support. That was for Virginia, right?
	Ms. Daffron. That's right.
	Mr. Stupak. It is my understanding--and correct me if I am
	wrong or if you have further information--that top ten list,
	just to show the frustration that is going on here, last time
	it was updated was what, 1996?
	Ms. Daffron. Well, yes. Well, on the Internet, when I went
	out, because the Division of Child Support Enforcement has a
	web page, he was on it in 1991 in the summer. And the last it
	said it was updated was 1991, I think.
	Mr. Stupak. Ninety-one? It is 1996 now, so we have
	progressed 5 years. We are still 4 years behind. When you see
	the frustration. Here is the most instantaneous form of
	communication; the last time it was updated was 1996, so----
	Mr. Upton. Especially since they have them.
	Mr. Stupak. If we can get it off the web, we can get the
	technology to work, we will submit it for the record.
	Mr. Upton. There is somebody else that ought to be on the
	list to take his place.
	The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
	Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize, I had
	another subcommittee meeting and I have, since I have arrived,
	read your testimony. I appreciate very much your being here.
	Coming from a background of a law practice many, many, many
	years ago, and also the military, I am particularly intrigued
	with all of your stories. But Ms. Heckman, are you here on the
	end?
	Ms. Heckman. Yes.
	Mr. Bryant. Okay, good. I see your ex-husband was in the
	military? He was not retired, though?
	Ms. Heckman. He was medically boarded out after 15 years
	for an anxiety disorder--at that time, 10 percent disability.
	Mr. Bryant. Now, in reading your statement, you say at one
	point you did finally locate him and he was actually--you found
	out, I think, for the first time that he was on this disability
	payment as well as attending college on VA benefits?
	Ms. Heckman. That has been recent information. That has
	been since he has been told to pay the amount. So, since the
	judge told him it's $100 a month plus current support which is
	$220, I have since then found out that he is going to school
	full time to be a physical therapist and collecting 70 percent
	disability. But prior to this, he was teaching diving lessons
	and et cetera.
	Mr. Bryant. In your statement, you also mention that--I
	think this is when your husband was with the INS at one point
	and indicated he was resigning. And, before you could stop his
	withdrawal of his pension funds, he did that and disappeared.
	But my point here was that you contacted the IRS and they could
	not tell you where he was or would not tell you anything about
	how to locate him?
	Ms. Heckman. He had relocated from California to Hawaii
	with INS, with Immigration and Naturalization Services. I
	called his supervisor out there in Hawaii and told him who I
	was and that he owed child support. And he said, ``Well, I am
	not going to tell you where he is or give you any information
	as to his whereabouts; that's not my place.''
	Mr. Bryant. Now, I think, as my comment to this, and
	perhaps--I do want to listen to the second panel, because both
	of these panels are very obviously much experts on this issue,
	certainly from different perspectives. But it continues to
	amaze me that--and I know there are privacy rights out there,
	particularly at the Federal level, we respect, as we should.
	But, as several people have so eloquently said here--Mr.
	Bilbray, for instance--in terms of if you abandoned your
	children, what would happen to you. In effect, that is what we
	have here, that we cannot somehow overcome these privacy rights
	in today's society, that we cannot locate these people and
	communicate--and I guess I am particularly concerned about the
	government and your personal inability to have cooperation from
	both the INS and perhaps even the military. Because, there are
	tremendous avenues open there to locate people and to not only
	go after drivers' licenses and things like that.
	But, for instance, if you do not register for the draft,
	you are not entitled to benefits of college, Federal benefits.
	And I am struck by the fact that your husband is not paying his
	child support, ex-husband, and yet he is getting veterans'
	benefits to go to school. So, it may be that is an avenue we
	can look at.
	But, again, I just think a bigger picture is going to
	require somehow we open up in appropriate cases, where there
	are judgments down, the areas of communication at least within
	the Federal Government, and, hopefully, State governments where
	we can locate people and find out what they are doing and what
	government benefits they are receiving, tax returns, and these
	kinds of things. Again, I know we are balancing that with
	privacy rights. But, again, you have particularly egregious
	cases, and I know there are more out there. So, somehow I think
	it is up to Congress to make the lead and somehow making this
	balance appropriately.
	I thank each one of you for testifying today, and I would
	yield back my time.
	Mr. Upton. Okay. Anyone have any additional questions?
	[No response.]
	Well, thank you very much for making the journey that you
	did. Your stories are very important to us as we begin to move
	forward on these very important programs. We thank you very
	much. And you are now excused.
	We welcome now our next panel: Mr. Jack Hartwig, Deputy
	Inspector General for Investigations of HHS; Mr. John Monahan,
	Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families;
	Mr. Nick Young, Director of the Child Support Enforcement
	Division for the State of Virginia; Mr. Wallace Dutkowski,
	Director of the Office of Child Support; Mr. Donald Skidmore,
	Investigator for the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, and Ms.
	Vicki Turetsky, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and
	Social Policy here in Washington.
	Before we start, I want to again ask our witnesses to
	confirm that they are aware this subcommittee is an
	investigative subcommittee and, as such, has had the long
	practice of taking testimony under oath. And, do any of you
	have any objection to testifying under oath?
	Mr. Hartwig. No.
	Mr. Monahan. No.
	Mr. Young. No.
	Mr. Dutkowski. No.
	Mr. Skidmore. No.
	Ms. Turetsky. No.
	Mr. Upton. The Chair then advises each of you that, under
	the rules of the House and the rules of the committee, you are
	entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised
	by counsel during your testimony today?
	Mr. Hartwig. No.
	Mr. Monahan. No.
	Mr. Young. No.
	Mr. Dutkowski. No.
	Mr. Skidmore. No.
	Ms. Turetsky. No.
	Mr. Upton. And, at this point, if you would, please, rise
	and raise your right hand.
	[Witnesses sworn.]
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. You are now under oath. I guess we
	will start with Mr. Monahan. Thank you.

	TESTIMONY OF JOHN MONAHAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
	FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; JOHN F. HARTWIG, DEPUTY INSPECTOR
	GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
	AND HUMAN SERVICES; NICK YOUNG, DIRECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT
	ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; WALLACE
	DUTKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, STATE OF
	MICHIGAN; DONALD SKIDMORE, INVESTIGATOR, WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
	DEPARTMENT, CHILD SUPPORT MULTI-AGENCY INVESTIGATIVE TEAM,
	STATE OF MICHIGAN; AND VICKI TURETSKY, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY,
	CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

	Mr. Monahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
	subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
	the progress that the Nation's child support enforcement
	program is making to help children across America.
	President Clinton has made child support enforcement a top
	priority and it is paying off. In 1998 we collected an
	estimated $14.4 billion in child support, an increase of over
	80 percent since fiscal year 1992, when only $8 billion was
	collected. We are proud of this administration's record on
	child support enforcement. As the President has said on
	numerous occasions, we need to do more.
	Before turning to our new initiative relating to criminal
	law enforcement, I would like to give you a brief overview of
	how the child support enforcement program operates. This is a
	joint Federal/State partnership which functions in all States
	and territories to locate non-custodial parents, establish
	paternity, establish and enforce support orders and collect
	child support payments from those who are legally obligated to
	pay. While programs vary from State to State, services are
	available to all parents who need them. States are largely
	responsible for operating the program, but there tends to be a
	greater Federal involvement in the interstate caseload, which
	now makes up nearly one third of all cases.
	Since 1975, the program has been continually strengthened
	through Federal and State statutory and executive actions. I
	would also like to note that, in 1996, the President signed the
	welfare reform bill. That law provides critical new tools to
	improve the child support program, including central registries
	of child support orders, a national directory of new hires,
	streamlined paternity establishment procedures, uniform
	interstate child support laws, license revocations, and
	passport denial.
	Whether through use of greater automation, simpler
	interstate procedures, or tougher new penalties, we are working
	with our State and local partners to make sure that no parents
	can ignore their financial obligation toward their children,
	especially when they have resources to meet those obligations.
	An example of the success we have seen already is the national
	directory of new hires, which last year located 1.2 million
	delinquent parents in interstate cases.
	We know that many non-custodial parents take seriously
	their moral responsibilities to pay child support regularly and
	on time. These parents recognize the importance of the
	financial and emotional support their children need and they
	voluntarily meet these responsibilities. This enormous group of
	parents deserves our respect.
	However, for a small minority of cases, even tougher
	enforcement penalties must be imposed. These are the most
	flagrant cases, where people have the resources to pay but
	willfully refuse to provide support for their children. These
	are individuals for whom there can be no sympathy. And, on
	behalf of their children, we are redoubling our efforts to
	locate them and, on behalf of all children, a public message
	needs to be sent about these parents.
	Our newest initiative, Project Save Our Children, is
	targeted at the small but reprehensible group of parents who
	over long periods of time willfully fail to take responsibility
	for their children. By prosecuting parents who have been
	ordered to pay support but will not do so, we are sending a
	pointed message of responsibility to them and helping to give
	their children a better chance in life.
	Under this initiative, HHS will launch task forces in 17
	States and the District of Columbia. State child support
	offices will refer their most serious delinquent child support
	cases to these sites where trained investigative staff will
	locate the violator, document the information needed for
	prosecution, and then provide fully prepared cases to the
	appropriate prosecutor. The new teams are based on a model
	project located in Columbus, Ohio. This Midwest law enforcement
	task force, formed by our office and the HHS Inspector
	General's Office, joined with Justice Department prosecutors
	and investigators, State child support agencies, and local law
	enforcement officials to coordinate efforts in a new
	investigative team.
	We have seen some promising results. More than $3.6 million
	in overdue support has been ordered already. My colleague, Jack
	Hartwig from the HHS Office of Inspector General, will tell you
	more about the task force operations and its early results. But
	suffice it to say, with this initiative we will identify,
	investigate, and when warranted, prosecute flagrant, delinquent
	child support offenders and collect all outstanding payments.
	Our goal is a nationwide, comprehensive, coordinated Health
	and Human Services, Justice Department response to unresolved
	interstate and intrastate child support enforcement cases. Let
	me reemphasize that this effort deals, primarily, with the most
	serious and flagrant delinquent child support cases as part of
	our Nation's overall child support enforcement strategy.
	Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
	thank you again for your invitation to testify. And, at the
	appropriate time, I would be happy to take any questions you
	might have.
	[The prepared statement of John Monahan follows.]
	Prepared Statement of John Monahan, Principal Deputy Assistant
	Secretary for Administration for Children and Families, Department of
	Health and Human Services
	Greetings and Introduction
	Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
	providing me the opportunity to testify today on the progress the
	Nation's child support enforcement program is making to help children
	across America.
	As the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Administration
	for Children and Families, I supervise the Federal Office of Child
	Support Enforcement and have worked closely with Commissioner David
	Ross and his team to develop ways to ensure that parents who owe child
	support honor their obligations to their children.
	President Clinton has made child support enforcement a top
	priority, and it is paying off. We recently set new performance records
	for the program. In 1998, we collected an estimated $14.4 billion, an
	increase of over 80 percent since fiscal year 1992 when only $8 billion
	was collected. Included in the amount is a record $1.1 billion in
	delinquent child support collected from Federal income tax refunds for
	tax year 1997. This was a 70 percent increase since 1992, and
	collections were made on behalf of nearly 1.3 million families. In 1997
	we also established 1.3 million paternities, an increase of more than
	100 percent since 1992 when 516,949 were established.
	The President signed the Personal Responsibility and Work
	Opportunity Reconciliation Act in August 1996. Better known as welfare
	reform, the law provides critical new tools to improve our Nation's
	child support program--central registries of child support orders, a
	national directory of new hires, streamlined paternity establishment
	procedures, uniform interstate child support laws, license revocation,
	and passport denial. Whether through use of greater automation, simpler
	interstate procedures or tougher new penalties, we are working with our
	state and local partners to make sure that no parents can ignore their
	financial obligation toward their children, especially when they have
	the resources to meet their child support obligations. An example of
	the success we are already seeing from the 1996 welfare law is the
	National Directory of New Hires, which last year located 1.2 million
	delinquent parents in interstate cases.
	Child support is an essential part of welfare reform because it
	sends a message of responsibility to both parents and is a vital part
	of moving families toward work and self-sufficiency. It helps to ensure
	that single parent families and their children don't need to rely on
	welfare in the first place and for those who leave welfare, it can help
	to ensure that they don't fall back on the welfare rolls once they have
	left. Child support enforcement affects far more people than just those
	on welfare. Children in working poor and middle class families depend
	upon child support for greater financial security as well.
	We are proud of this Administration's record on child support
	enforcement, but, as the President has said on numerous occasions, we
	need to do more.
	the child support enforcement program
	Before turning to our new initiative relating to criminal law
	enforcement, I would like to give you a brief overview of how the
	Nation's child support enforcement program operates. The program was
	established in 1975 under title IV-D of the Social Security Act as a
	joint Federal/State partnership. As a Federal/State partnership, it
	functions in all States and territories, generally through social
	services departments, but also through the offices of State Attorneys
	General or Departments of Revenues. Most States work with prosecuting
	attorneys and other law enforcement agencies and officials of family or
	domestic relations courts to carry out the program at the local level.
	The child support program locates non-custodial parents,
	establishes paternity, establishes and enforces support orders, and
	collects child support payments from those who are legally obligated to
	pay. While programs vary from state to state, services are available to
	all parents who need them. States are largely responsible for operating
	the program, but there tends to be greater Federal involvement in the
	interstate caseload, which makes up nearly a third of all cases. The
	Federal Government shares in the cost of funding the CSE program by
	contributing to states' administrative costs and providing incentive
	payments to them. Since 1975 the program has been continually
	strengthened through Federal and State statutory and executive actions.
	chronic nonpayers and the deadbeat parents act
	We know that many non-custodial parents take seriously their moral
	responsibilities to pay child support regularly and on time. These
	parents recognize the importance of the financial and emotional support
	their children need and voluntarily meet these responsibilities. We
	also know there are many low-income non-custodial parents who want to
	do the right thing and support their children, but who do not earn
	enough to meet their child support responsibilities. The President's
	Welfare-to-Work reauthorization proposal will help such fathers
	increase their employment so they can better support their children.
	And for the majority of non-custodial parents who do not voluntarily
	meet their responsibilities, routine enforcement tools like wage
	withholding or license revocation will be sufficient to induce them to
	pay their financial obligation.
	However, for a small minority of cases, even tougher enforcement
	penalties must be imposed. These are the most flagrant cases, where
	people have the resources to pay but willfully refuse to provide
	support for their children. These are individuals for whom there can be
	no sympathy. And on behalf of their children, we are redoubling our
	efforts to locate them. And on behalf of all children, a public message
	needs to be sent about these parents.
	The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 made it a Federal crime to
	willfully fail to pay a past-due child support obligation for a child
	living in another state. In 1996, President Clinton proposed to make it
	a felony to cross state lines to avoid paying child support and last
	year, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the
	Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. The Act creates two new
	categories of felonies, with penalties of up to two years in prison:
	(1) traveling across state or country lines with the intent to evade
	child support payments if the child support obligation has remained
	unpaid for a period longer than one year or is greater than $5,000; and
	(2) when the child support obligation has remained unpaid for a period
	of longer than two years, or is greater than $10,000, willful failure
	to pay child support to a child residing in another state.
	project save our children
	Our newest initiative, Project Save Our Children, is targeted at
	this small but reprehensible group of parents who over long periods of
	time willfully fail to take responsibility for their children. By
	prosecuting parents who have been ordered to pay support but will not
	do so, we are sending a pointed message of responsibility to them and
	helping to give their children a better chance in life.
	Under this initiative HHS will launch task forces in 17 states
	(California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
	Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
	Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington) and the District of
	Columbia. State child support offices will refer their most serious
	delinquent child support cases to these sites, where trained
	investigative staff will locate the violator, document information
	needed for prosecution, and then provide the investigated case to the
	appropriate prosecutor.
	The new teams are based on a model project in Columbus, Ohio,
	launched last summer. The Midwest law enforcement task force, formed by
	the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement and HHS Inspector General's
	Office, joined with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators,
	state child support agencies, and local law enforcement officials to
	coordinate efforts in a new investigative team, with promising results
	so far. To date, 405 cases have been received and 311 of them have been
	referred to the investigative units, with 196 arrests being made. More
	than $3.6 million in overdue support has been ordered.
	The first task force covers three states: Illinois, Michigan and
	Ohio. The hub or this task force is an investigative unit located in
	Columbus, Ohio, that employs a number of sophisticated automated
	information systems and data bases (both government and commercial),
	the purpose of which is to locate non-payers and their assets. Four
	more hub sites, covering 14 additional States and the District of
	Columbia, will be operational by the end of the first year. My
	colleague here from the HHS Office of Inspector General will tell you
	more about the task force operations.
	But suffice it to say, with this initiative we will identify,
	investigate, and, when warranted, prosecute flagrant, delinquent child
	support offenders, and collect all outstanding payments. Our goal is a
	nationwide, comprehensive, coordinated Health and Human Services/
	Justice Department response to unresolved interstate and intrastate
	child support enforcement cases alike.
	To help accomplish this, the Administration has proposed additional
	spending in the FY 2000 budget request. This money will pay for
	establishing investigative teams in five regions of the country to
	identify, analyze, and investigate cases for prosecution. Also the
	President's FY 2000 budget proposes additional Justice Department
	resources for legal support personnel in the U.S. Attorneys offices,
	which will allow increase prosecutions of deadbeat parents.
	Let me re-emphasize that this effort deals primarily with the most
	serious and flagrant delinquent child support cases. It is an effort to
	work with our state and local partners in a new, more vigorous manner.
	We are in the beginning stages of an initiative that we feel has
	great promise and are moving toward broader implementation. My
	colleague from the Office of the Inspector General will provide you
	with more detail on the results we have obtained thus far.
	Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
	you for your invitation to testify before you today. Our intent is to
	let everyone know that parents will be held accountable for supporting
	their children. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

	Mr. Upton. Thank you.
	Mr. Hartwig.

	TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. HARTWIG

	Mr. Hartwig. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
	subcommittee. I, too, am pleased to be here this morning to
	tell you about a law enforcement initiative which I believe
	holds great promise for improving accountability for absent
	parents in meeting their child support obligations.
	The Child Support Enforcement program is a Federal/State
	partnership designed to foster family responsibility and to
	ensure that children are supported financially by both of their
	parents. In recent years, through this partnership, child
	support collections have increased dramatically. Even with
	these increases, however, collections were made in only one
	fifth of current child support caseloads. More effort is needed
	to fully address this problem.
	Recent law enforcement measures have played an important
	role in child support collections. The Child Support Recovery
	Support Act of 1992 made it a Federal offense to willfully
	avoid paying court-ordered child support obligations for a
	child residing in another State. We, in the Office of
	Investigations of the Office of Inspector General, have
	investigated violations of this act. To date these
	investigations have resulted in 159 arrests, 105 criminal
	convictions, and $7.6 million in back child support being
	ordered as part of the criminal sentencing of these subjects.
	We are very proud of these numbers, but realize that these
	accomplishments are small when compared to the massive number
	of delinquent cases.
	Therefore, our focus has been to work with State child
	support offices and the United States Attorney's offices to
	choose the most egregious cases, such as those with the highest
	arrearages or where the health and welfare of the children are
	at risk due to lack of support. We believe that these high
	profile cases serve as a deterrent to other non-custodial
	parents who are not making payments. Ultimately, our goal is
	not to prosecute people. Rather, by publicizing arrests and
	prosecutions, we hope that these individuals who may be sitting
	on the fence or not paying child support obligations will
	realize that there is a tremendous downside to not paying.
	You heard this morning a number of examples. Let me just
	add two. We had a case concerning a man who was a plastic
	surgeon and an attorney. He was arrested in New York on charges
	that he owed over $172,000 in child support. During his
	appearance in court, the subject told the judge that his annual
	salary was only $30,000 a year as a surgeon. Understandably,
	the judge was not inclined to believe him, and ordered him to
	pay back all his past due child support.
	There is currently an outstanding felony indictment and
	arrest warrant against a former professional football player.
	He had already been convicted under Federal misdemeanor
	provisions of the Child Support Recovery Act, but even after
	that conviction, he continued to evade making his child support
	payments. He was arrested again, he was released on bail so
	that he could try out for a pro football team, and he has not
	been seen since. He is currently a fugitive and owes
	approximately $95,000 in child support.
	Examples you heard today illustrate the incredible lengths
	that non-custodial parents may take to avoid paying their child
	support obligations. Many are becoming successful at hiding
	themselves.
	In response, we have to become more sophisticated in our
	investigative techniques. We began the Child Support
	Enforcement task forces to bring together Federal, State and
	local law enforcement officials to increase the number of
	successful prosecutions through a collaborative approach.
	Promising cases are referred to special screening units which
	conduct initial investigations. Investigations are then turned
	over to appropriate task force agents for full investigations.
	We believe the results are better targeting and investigations,
	and better cases delivered for prosecution.
	Our first task force, in Columbus, Ohio, has delivered
	significant results. Over 400 cases have been referred--over
	300 of these have actually been investigated to date--resulting
	in 180 arrests and 170 convictions or civil resolutions. These
	convictions have yielded over $3.8 million in child support.
	The task force has worked closely with public affairs offices
	of the States, law enforcement agencies, criminal justice
	agencies, and anyone else involved in the process to make sure
	that the arrest and conviction receive public attention in the
	hope of raising public awareness of the problem and the
	potential for prosecution. After one arrest in Michigan, county
	child support offices reported a substantial rise in the amount
	of money collected the week following the arrest.
	Mr. Chairman, I hope my comments this morning have been
	useful for you and the subcommittee as you consider your own
	agenda for improving the Federal child support enforcement
	system. Child support is one of the vital programs serving one
	of our most vulnerable populations. It is a key factor in the
	long-term success of moving families off public assistance and
	making them economically self-sufficient. This concludes my
	remarks and, I too, would be happy to answer any questions.
	[The prepared statement of John E. Hartwig follows:]
	Prepared Statement of John E. Hartwig, Deputy Inspector General for
	Investigations, Department of Health and Human Services
	Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am John E. Hartwig, Deputy Inspector
	General for Investigations within the Department of Health and Human
	Services. The Office of Inspector General shares your keen interest in
	improving the child support system, which serves some of the nation's
	most important citizens--its families and children. I am here today to
	highlight a new law enforcement initiative which we believe holds great
	promise for improving accountability of absent parents in meeting their
	child support obligations.
	the child support problem
	On December 31, 1998, the Administration for Children and Families
	reported that the Federal/State child support enforcement programs
	collected an estimated $14.4 billion for Fiscal Year 1998, an increase
	of 7 percent from 1997's $13.4 billion, and an increase of 80 percent
	since 1992 when $8 billion was collected. In addition, the Federal
	Government collected over $1.1 billion in delinquent child support from
	what was to have been Federal income tax refunds for tax year 1997.
	Collections were made on behalf of nearly 1.3 million families.
	Although collections have increased dramatically, much work still
	remains to be done. According to the recently released Administration
	for Children and Families' 21st Annual Report to Congress, total child
	support payments collected in Fiscal Year 1996 were $12 billion; yet
	$45 billion in delinquent child support payments still remained to be
	collected.Caseloads also continued to increase, rising from 15 million
	in Fiscal Year 1992 to 19 million in Fiscal Year 1996. While 1 million
	new support orders were established in Fiscal Year 1996, of the 19
	million cases, 59 percent had court-approved child support orders. A
	total of only 4 million of these cases, one-fifth of the total
	caseload, resulted in a collection of child support. To the extent that
	these payments are not collected, the children of these families are at
	greater risk of welfare dependency.
	Progress is also being made in the steps required of custodial
	parents in order to receive child support payments with approximately
	one million paternities established in Fiscal Year 1996. Paternity
	establishment is one of these first steps required to enforce child
	support obligations. Almost one-third of all children currently on
	public assistance lack a paternity establishment, but new time limits
	on welfare benefits are likely to increase the incentive for
	establishing paternity and collecting child support.
	the federal child support program
	The Child Support Enforcement Program is a Federal/State
	partnership designed to foster family responsibility and reduce the
	need for welfare and its cost to the taxpayer by ensuring that children
	are supported financially by both of their parents. All parents with
	custody of children who need or are owed child support can get help
	from their State or local child support enforcement agency. Each state
	designates an agency to administer the five mandated purposes of the
	program: to locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity through
	testing or consent, establish orders for child support, enforce those
	orders, and collect child support payments. This is accomplished
	through the courts or administrative processes. Partial funding and
	oversight of the program is provided by the Federal government.
	The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
	of 1996 (the Act) strengthened the ability of the child support
	enforcement program to collect support on behalf of children and
	families and created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
	program, which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
	the primary Federal public assistance program. Applicants for TANF
	assign their rights to support payments to the State as a condition of
	receipt of assistance. For non-welfare cases, child support collections
	are forwarded to the custodial family. By securing support on a
	consistent and continuing basis, non-welfare families may avoid
	dependency on public assistance and welfare spending is reduced.
	history of office of inspector general efforts
	The Office of Inspector General has a long and productive history
	of contributing to improving the child support system. Over many years,
	our audits and evaluations have addressed problems and offered
	solutions on such matters as paternity establishment, medical support,
	collection methods, management information systems, interagency
	collaboration, incentive funding, support order upgrading, and
	interface with the Federal income tax system. We have piloted many of
	the procedures that are now widely accepted in the field of child
	support enforcement. We are very proud of the ideas and information
	that we contributed to improving these efforts.
	In this vein, I would like to describe for you now an exciting new
	avenue of improvement based on criminal law enforcement.
	law enforcement efforts
	The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 made it a Federal offense to
	willfully avoid paying court-ordered child support obligations for a
	child residing in another State. Two felony provisions were added when
	the act was amended in 1998. The Office of Inspector General Office of
	Investigations began to investigate violations of the Child Support
	Recovery Act, initially focusing on those cases where the custodial
	parent was forced to enroll in public assistance because payments were
	not made by the non-custodial parent. We have extended our
	investigations to include all violations of the Child Support Recovery
	Act, but we continue to place a higher priority on those cases
	involving Federal public assistance funds due to the effect on the
	program and the vulnerability of those children and custodial parents.
	As with our investigative authorization with health care cases, the
	Department of Justice granted special deputy United States Marshal
	status on all of our child support enforcement cases. This status
	enables all our agents to carry firearms and execute arrest warrants in
	these cases, which significantly increases their ability to effectively
	investigate these cases.
	In general, all of our agents undergo the full 9-week training
	regimen at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia,
	which is also used by over 80 Federal law enforcement agencies to train
	Federal agents, including the Secret Service and the Customs Service.
	The Federal training program includes criminal investigative
	techniques, applicable Federal laws, arrest techniques, and use of
	firearms. Additionally, all our agents undergo several weeks of
	training concentrated on the Office of Inspector General, statutes and
	responsibilities, and receive a thorough grounding in the programs with
	the Department. Our agents regularly receive updated training on new
	methods and techniques and must demonstrate firearms proficiency
	quarterly. In total, new investigative agents receive approximately 500
	hours of specialized training during their first two years on the job.
	accomplishments
	Since beginning our efforts in the area of child support
	enforcement, we have initiated over 600 cases, making or coordinating
	over 150 arrests. These cases have resulted in over 100 convictions and
	over $7.6 million in back child support being ordered as part of the
	sentencing of the subjects. While we are very proud of these numbers,
	we realize that these accomplishments are small when compared to the
	massive number of delinquent cases. Therefore, our focus has been to
	work with State Child Support Offices and the United States Attorney's
	Offices to choose the most egregious cases, such as those with the
	highest arrearage, or where the health and welfare of the children are
	at risk due to lack of support. We feel that these high profile cases
	serve as a deterrent to other non-custodial parents who are not making
	payments. Ultimately, the goal isn't to put people in jail. By
	publicizing arrests and prosecutions we hope that those people who may
	be sitting on the fence and not paying their child support obligations
	will realize the consequences of their failure to pay. The following
	are examples of our case work.
	1. A Border Patrol agent quit his job with the government after the
	INS began to withhold child support payments from his salary. He
	informed his former spouse that he would never pay his support, and
	that he was quitting his job and leaving the country so that he could
	not be found. After extensive investigation involving searching through
	computerized databases, the man was located in Hawaii, where he had
	started a scuba diving school. He was arrested on the dock when he
	brought his boat in after a class. He pled guilty and was sentenced to
	pay the full amount of child support owed$17,000. This case is an
	example of a parent who went to great lengths to avoid paying child
	support when he clearly had the ability to pay.
	2. A man who was both a plastic surgeon and attorney was arrested
	in New York on charges that he owed over $172,000 in child support. The
	case came to the attention of federal authorities through the surgeon's
	father-in-law, who was outraged that his son-in-law was not paying
	child support, despite his significant assets, which included a
	$300,000 home. During his appearance in court, the subject told the
	judge that his annual salary was only $30,000 a year as a surgeon.
	Understandably, the judge was not inclined to believe him and ordered
	him to pay all back child support. The man had previous altercations
	with police and at the time of arrest several automatic weapons were
	seized.
	3. There is currently an outstanding felony indictment and arrest
	warrant against a former professional football player. He has already
	been convicted under the misdemeanor provisions of the Child Support
	Recovery Act. But even after that conviction, he failed to comply so a
	criminal complaint was issued and he was arrested. He appeared in court
	and asked the judge to release him on his own recognizance so that he
	could try out with another pro football team. He has not been seen
	since so a felony indictment and arrest warrant have been issued. He is
	currently a fugitive and owes over $95,000 in child support.
	These examples of investigative work illustrate the incredible
	lengths that non-custodial parents may go to avoid paying their child
	support obligations, even those that clearly have sufficient means.
	law enforcement partnership
	In the Fall of 1996, we began meeting with officials in the Office
	of Child Support Enforcement about combining our resources and
	strategically targeting our efforts to improve prosecutions of child
	support cases at the Federal level. Based upon our experience working
	with Federal partners and State and local officials on health care
	fraud matters, we know that the most successful way to tackle complex
	problems and improve investigative and prosecution efforts is to form a
	collaborative partnership. Working with the Office of Child Support
	Enforcement (OCSE), we developed a task force approach to bring
	together the social service and criminal justice agencies involved in
	child support enforcement at both the State and Federal levels to
	identify, investigate, and prosecute the most egregious offenders.
	Members on the task force include OIG special agents, FBI agents, U.S.
	Marshals, U.S. Attorneys and local District Attorneys, State child
	support enforcement staff, and State and local police. The task force
	will also attempt to identify and resolve the obstacles that have stood
	in the way of enforcing the child support laws. Currently we have one
	task force in Columbus, Ohio, which began operating in May, 1998, and
	covers three States--Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. We have just begun a
	second task force in Baltimore, and three additional task forces will
	be starting up during the next few months in New York City, Dallas, and
	Sacramento. These cities were selected as a result of a decision to co-
	locate with the OCSE audit offices. In addition, OIG, DOJ, State, and
	local resources required for task force efforts are readily available
	at these sites.
	One of the most important improvements made through the task forces
	include developing ``Case Screening Units'' for each task force.
	Working with the State Child Support Offices, these units will identify
	the most promising cases. The screening units, manned by analysts, will
	utilize public and private data bases to conduct a pre-investigation to
	determine the whereabouts of the subjects and also identify any assets
	that these subjects may possess. Once this information is established,
	the cases and the new information will be forwarded to the agents, who
	will then conduct a formal investigation in order to verify the
	information. The completed case package is then brought to the
	prosecutor with the evidence needed for prosecution already obtained.
	Using this approach, burdens are reduced on child support case workers
	and United States Attorney's Offices, and cases receive the necessary
	financial investigation. The end result is better targeted and
	investigated cases delivered for prosecution in complete form.
	The task forces will also bring local law enforcement into the
	arena. Where before, local law enforcement was mostly utilized to serve
	civil contempt warrants, in these task forces we are using local law
	enforcement in their capacity as white collar fraud investigators in
	order to investigate intra-state cases for potential criminal
	prosecution. The task forces are also bringing in the local District
	Attorneys' offices to prosecute these cases. The task forces are trying
	to demonstrate that State criminal statutes can be effective in
	enforcing individual orders and serving as a deterrent. This
	partnership is important because only one out of every three child
	support cases is interstate, meaning that the majority must be
	adjudicated at the state level. The task forces bring together both
	Federal and State partners so that the maximum number of cases can be
	handled at the appropriate level.
	Our first task force has already delivered significant results and
	promises to deliver more in the future. Over 400 cases have been
	referred to the task force's screening unit in Columbus. These cases
	have been fairly equally divided between inter and intrastate cases.
	Thus far, the task force has investigated over 300 cases with over 180
	arrests and 170 convictions or civil resolutions resulting. These
	convictions and settlements have resulted in over $3.8 million in child
	support being ordered. The task force has worked closely with the
	public affairs offices of the States, law enforcement agencies, and
	criminal justice agencies to make sure that the arrests and convictions
	receive public attention in the hope of raising the public's awareness
	of the problems and the potential for prosecution. After one highly
	publicized arrest in Michigan the county child support office reported
	a substantial rise in the amount of money collected the week following
	the broadcast. These collections, largely walk-ins, came from sources
	who had not paid any money in the recent past. It is our belief that
	the only reason that these payments started is because of publicizing
	the arrest.
	other work
	Complementing our law enforcement work and building on the
	foundation of work mentioned earlier, the Office of Inspector General
	continues to conduct studies aimed at strengthening the child support
	enforcement system. We are currently examining (1) methods to increase
	cooperation of welfare recipients in establishing paternity and
	locating absent parents; (2) ways to further improve voluntary
	paternity acknowledgment in hospitals at the time of birth; (3) the
	effectiveness of current procedures for obtaining medical insurance
	coverage or other forms of medical support for children; and (4)
	evaluating the Federal Parent Locator Service. We are now finalizing
	work on the periodic review and adjustment of support orders, a process
	that helps children by taking advantage of the normal increases in
	income that young absent parents receive as they mature in their jobs.
	This latter study supports legislation offered by the Administration in
	its Fiscal Year 2000 budget to require that such adjustments be made.
	We will be happy to keep you and your staff informed as we finish each
	study.
	conclusion
	Mr. Chairman, I hope my comments this morning have been useful for
	you and the committee as you consider your own agenda for improving the
	Federal child support enforcement system. Child support is one of the
	Department's most vital programs serving some of our most vulnerable
	population and a key factor in the long-term success of moving families
	off of public assistance and making them economically self-sufficient.
	The Office of Inspector General is committed at all levels to improving
	the system through our audits and evaluations and to providing law
	enforcement leadership to increase successful prosecutions of criminal
	violations of federal child support laws.

	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Hartwig. As you all listened, you
	heard some buzzers behind you. We have a vote on the House
	floor, so we will take an adjournment until--it is only one
	vote, so we will be back--we will start Mr. Young's testimony
	at quarter of 12.
	[Brief recess.]
	Mr. Upton. Members will be coming back. We all, you know--I
	am myself on three subcommittees. They all seem to meet at the
	same time. We have got a number of members here that are on 4
	and 5 subcommittees. I have got a colleague from Michigan, I
	think, on eight subcommittees. And so, when they have votes, it
	is tough.
	Your statements are made part of the record; you are able
	to summarize.
	I know I talked to a number of members in the subcommittee
	that indicated that they were coming back. They have got
	constituents in their offices, but at this point, it does take
	one member to object. There are two members here, so I think we
	are okay.
	Mr. Young.

	TESTIMONY OF NICK YOUNG

	Mr. Young. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members
	of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here. My name is Nick
	Young and I am the Director of the Virginia Child Support
	Enforcement Division and have been so for the last 2 years. I
	am also a board member of the National Child Support
	Enforcement Association. I am pleased to be here today to
	address the subcommittee.
	I would like to open with a few statistics to put our
	program and what we are facing in perspective. And, on your
	right, my left, you will see some charts on easel that will
	show you that one-fourth of all the children in Virginia are on
	child support, 25 percent. There are 2 million children in
	Virginia and a quarter of them are on child support. There is
	another quarter of them that are the product, also, of divorced
	families that the mother and father have figured out how to be
	amicably enough to get along where they are not on child
	support. But the bottom line is, 50 percent of the children do
	not live with somebody who has the same last name.
	The problem is growing. You will also notice in the next
	chart that the amount of arrearage, just in Virginia, is $1.4
	billion and it goes up by $200 million a year. So, it will be
	$1.6 very shortly, $1.8, and we will hit $2 billion in only 2
	years. Fortunately, Virginia is an administrative State. I can
	do 70 percent of the wage withholding. Seventy percent of the
	actions that are done in Virginia do not go into court, which
	means we do not tie up the court system and we do not allow
	people, necessarily, to use the court system as a delaying
	tactic. Virginia is also fortunate to have been one of the
	first two States to receive Federal certification of its
	automated case management program, very important.
	I have got some good news; I have got some not so good
	news. The good news is we collected about $313 million last
	year. The bad news, I have already told you, is that we are
	$1.4 billion in the hole to start with and we have got to catch
	up.
	Some more good news, though, is that child support workers
	have made some tremendous strides in the last couple of years,
	especially in light of the testimony you have heard from these
	ladies earlier. And, we collect $5.64 for every dollar we
	spend. The bad news is the caseload grows by 11,000 cases net
	growth a year. That is 17,000 children a year, net growth to
	the caseload.
	State and Federal welfare reform initiatives have resulted
	in a reduction in the welfare portion of our child support
	caseload, as reflected on this chart. That is good news. Those
	reductions translate into reduced collections, however, and
	also sometimes Federal reimbursements.
	All in all, however, the Federal Reform Act of 1996 has
	proven to be a catalyst for profound change. In Virginia, the
	most dramatic example is 25 percent reduction of children on
	welfare in child support caseloads. However, our non-welfare
	child support caseload has escalated. However, that is not
	necessarily bad, as many of those cases are former welfare
	recipients, and therefore, it is natural progression for them
	to move from welfare to non-welfare but remain in the child
	support caseload.
	As you heard from the testimony this morning, whether the
	mother was on welfare or not, many of the fathers in this
	particular case being the preponderance of the non-custodial
	parent, are committed to paying whether they have been
	incarcerated twice, as in the case of Ms. Daffron's husband, or
	multiple times, as we have on many examples.
	Virginia has a Kids First Campaign which is directly akin
	and related to the Project Save Our Children. We identified
	57,000 of the most egregious. Many times we get criticized for
	only addressing the top ten or the top twelve. We started on
	the most egregious 57,000 people in the State of Virginia in
	June 1997 and have stayed with those people. They have paid
	just under $50 million. They are also a catalyst to cause
	others to see that they will either pay or go to jail, and
	others are paying as well. It is a secondary effect.
	Additionally, we have started using boots, which is a
	device to immobilize a car----
	Mr. Upton. A lot of us have had them.
	Mr. Young. I beg your pardon?
	Mr. Upton. Not me.
	Mr. Young. Nevertheless, this device is having great
	success in Fairfax County, Virginia, which these two ladies
	have testified were in. The humiliation factor sets in, the
	boots are pink or blue, and we do not care if we put them on a
	boy or girl's car. We put them on there and it does not come
	off until you pay the child support.
	At each of your places--and I am finishing rapidly; I know
	my 5 minutes is up--you have the latest Virginia poster, wanted
	poster, the ``Heartless 13.'' We have issued this poster 13
	times since August 1989. And, yes, it is on the website and it
	is up-to-date. We have posted 120 individuals and we have
	located, captured, arrested, targeted, found 87 of the 120 on
	these posters.
	I will close by saying, ask any State in the Nation where
	the most difficult part of their caseload is, and you will find
	it is the interstate caseload. And, as you have already pointed
	out yourself, Mr. Chairman, 25 percent of the caseload is
	interstate. And, it is the toughest part to do. But this task
	force that the Federal Government has started and we are proud
	to join, offers us a great opportunity to break down the
	barriers in the State borders and to go after some of the non-
	custodial parents who clearly have been using those borders as
	a safe haven to not pay child support.
	I want to also close by saying that, in my short 2 years
	with this program, it has become abundantly clear to me that no
	State will ever succeed without the help of Congress, the
	Federal Government. And, it is a partnership, and it won't work
	at State level as a misdemeanor crime without the help of Judge
	Ross and his great people that are doing such great work here
	with us. Sir, I am available for questions.
	[The prepared statement of Nick Young follows.]
	Prepared Statement of Nick Young, Director, Child Support Enforcement
	Division, Commonwealth of Virginia
	Good morning. My name is Nick Young, and I am the Director of the
	Virginia Department of Social Services' Division of Child Support
	Enforcement. I am also a Board member of the National Child Support
	Enforcement Association, and bring greetings from both the Commonwealth
	of Virginia and the Association. I am very pleased to be here this
	morning, and honored to have been invited to testify.
	The subject today is ``Supporting Welfare Reform: Cracking Down on
	Deadbeat Parents.'' My remarks today will, of course, be from the
	perspective of the successful program we run in Virginia.
	First, permit me to share a couple of telling statistics about
	Virginia's child support enforcement program: Our caseload today is
	421,000, representing approximately 552,000 children--25% of Virginia's
	child population. Though Virginia is recognized as having a very
	efficient program, it is unfortunately the case that we carry a $1.5
	billion arrearage, an amount that is growing by $200 million a year.
	Our caseload has grown over 25% in the last four years alone. We are
	one of only a handful of states that can conduct our business both
	administratively and through the courts. As a result, approximately 70%
	of our cases are managed administratively, which saves a great deal of
	time, paperwork and money. Our work is also accurate; we have a very
	low rate of appeals to our administrative decisions. Virginia was one
	of the first two states in the nation to receive in early 1996 full
	federal certification of its automated case management system; placing
	Virginia in the forefront of the nation regarding such systems.
	In many ways, the status of Virginia's child support program
	illustrates problems experienced throughout the nation in child support
	enforcement today. The overall picture is a study in contrasts. The
	good news is that Virginia collected over $313 million in child support
	in state fiscal year 1998--a record. The bad news is that this amount
	is but a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 billion that is still
	owed. the good news is that we are extremely productive in our work:
	for every $1.00 spent, we collect $5.64 in child support. The bad news
	is that our caseload grows by 11,000 cases (17,000 additional children)
	per year. The average caseload of a child support caseworker in
	Virginia, for example, is 910 cases. These statistics present an
	overwhelming challenge to even the most organized child support
	caseworker.
	More good news is the success of the national and Virginia's own
	statewide welfare reform initiatives. Welfare reform has resulted in a
	tremendous drop in the welfare portion of our child support caseload.
	Although our overall caseload is still rising, welfare reform is
	definitely working. Unfortunately, welfare reform's success is
	translating into reduced federal reimbursements, which have a
	deleterious effect on the ability of states to continue the momentum of
	reform. Relatively speaking, however, this is not the worst problem to
	have, and we are otherwise heartened by the tremendous level of federal
	support welfare reform has given to many of Virginia's creative
	initiatives to combat the child support problem. These initiatives--
	some of which I am about to highlight--have helped make Virginia's
	program one of the most dynamic, successful child support enforcement
	programs in the country.
	Most of my comments today focus on strategies Virginia uses to
	crack down on child support evaders. Many of these strategies are today
	in existence and thriving because of the Personal Responsibility and
	Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). I stand before
	you today to emphasize that welfare reform has given us the means to
	strengthen our enforcement activities, and indeed, crack down on
	delinquent parents.
	The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation
	Act of 1996 marked a profound turning point in fighting the twin
	scourges of welfare and child support delinquency. PRWORA has generated
	success on many fronts.
	First, the new law has proven to be a catalyst for profound changes
	in many of the basic statistics regarding welfare. In Virginia, the
	most dramatic example is the 25% reduction of child support TANF
	(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cases since the law went into
	effect. More parents have moved off the welfare roles and into jobs,
	thereby providing the means to support their children. Virginia's non-
	TANF child support caseload has correspondingly gone up--not altogether
	a bad problem, since many of those cases are undoubtedly former TANF
	recipients. Welfare reform is definitely providing more Virginia
	children the financial support they are due.
	PRWORA has also generated a burst of collaboration and cooperation
	between public and private entities, such as law enforcement, the
	courts and public agencies.
	One example is Virginia's co-location initiative. Begun as an
	experiment in the summer of 1993, the co-location of public assistance
	and child support staff has blossomed under welfare reform into a
	mutually beneficial strategy for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy
	Families) and child support staff and clients. Co-location has helped
	promote customer self-reliance under welfare reform, and allows TANF
	and child support staff to collaborate to provide better service for
	customers, streamline elements of case management, reduce
	administrative costs, and above all, provide more successful outcomes
	for customers. Co-location is now a vibrant statewide strategy. As of
	September, 1998, approximately 26 child support staff have been co-
	located full- or part-time at 28 sites serving 22 local social service
	agencies. Five distinct models tailored to specific community needs
	have evolved throughout the state.
	Another example of collaboration and cooperation is Virginia's
	Paternity Establishment Program (PEP). Established in 1990, PEP grew
	under welfare reform into an effective program that gives unmarried
	parents the opportunity to voluntarily acknowledge paternity in the
	hospital, before the child goes home. As of 1998, 69 hospitals
	participated statewide, generating more than 11,250 paternities in 1998
	alone.
	Yet another example is the Commonwealth's KidsFirst Campaign.
	Initially begun in June, 1997, KidsFirst kicked off with a two-week
	limited amnesty offered to 57,000 of the most egregious support
	evaders. While the amnesty netted $1.2 million from 4,039 noncustodial
	parents; the crackdown that followed also generated outstanding
	results. Working in close cooperation with local law enforcement and
	judicial communities, a statewide ``roundup'' resulted in 512 arrests
	and show cause notices issued. Today, eight roundups later, the money
	generated by this campaign has topped $46 million, and 25,678
	delinquent parents are paying support. An added bonus has been enhanced
	rapport with the law enforcement community and the judiciary.
	Another collaborative and cooperative example is illustrated by the
	recent arrest of one of Virginia's most wanted child support evaders.
	Periodically, the Division publishes a most wanted list of child
	support evaders to keep public awareness high--and also because it
	generates great success. Laurence Judd was a notorious child support
	evader who owed his two children $155,000 at the time of his
	apprehension. His arrest not only made good copy, it also illustrated
	the extensive public/private/interstate/and multi-agency coordination
	that enforcement activities often involve in today's highly mobile,
	instant communication environment. In Mr. Judd's case, it took the
	collaborative effort of two states' child support offices, a Virginia
	local sheriff's office, credit reporting agencies, use of the Internet,
	and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department to successfully track and
	apprehend him. These kinds of complex multi-agency, multi-state
	endeavors, sadly, are necessary, but also are becoming more effective,
	efficient and prevalent thanks to the enhanced federal assistance as a
	result of welfare reform. Today, many such collaborative efforts exist
	that could not have existed before welfare reform.
	Another such collaborative effort in its nascent stage in Virginia
	is the Child Support Multi-Agency Investigative Team (or CSMAIT).
	CSMAIT is a multi-disciplinary work group whose mission is to increase
	child support collections by identifying, analyzing, investigating and
	prosecuting high profile child support cases. It focuses, in part, on
	highly technical financial and locate investigations using state and
	federal efforts collaboratively. In Virginia, CSMAIT participants
	include a diverse array of entities, including the Division of Child
	Support Enforcement, local sheriff's departments, the state police,
	local police departments, Commonwealth's Attorneys offices, the U.S.
	Department of Justice, and the federal Department of Health and Human
	Services. Virginia is excited about the potential of CSMAIT, and
	expects this initiative to bear fruit in the very near future.
	PRWORA has also provided authorization to strengthen a multitude of
	enforcement mechanisms, nearly all of which have allowed Virginia to
	expand and enhance its efforts to crack down on child support evaders.
	One such example is the suspension of driver's and professional
	licenses. Since Virginia's welfare reform law was implemented in July,
	1995, Virginia has suspended a total of 923 driver's licenses alone,
	generating collections in excess of $25 million. Virginia is moving
	toward full implementation regarding both occupational and recreational
	licenses, and denying passports to delinquent parents.
	Virginia's New Hire Program is another example. Thanks to federal
	welfare reform, Virginia now requires employers to report all new hires
	within 20 days of employment. This measure helps locate absent parents,
	enforce outstanding child support orders, and save administrative time
	and expense. Virginia also participates in the new federal program to
	place new hire information in a national database, in order to assist
	other state child support enforcement offices. Virginia also requires
	employers to ask employees at the time of hire to disclose the
	existence of any income withholding orders. As a result of these laws,
	wage withholdings between 1993 and 1995 rose 36%. Approximately $41
	million in collections can be attributed to Virginia's New Hire
	Program, since its inception in July, 1993.
	Still more examples center around the general problem of pursuing
	interstate cases. Expanding the Federal Parent Locator Network to
	improve the collection of locate information on interstate cases,
	adopting more uniform state child support laws to improve enforcement
	activities between states, and allowing administrative enforcement of
	interstate cases, have all begun to ease the pursuit of child support
	evaders across state lines. In addition, the passage of the Uniform
	Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) in each state has given states a
	framework to process interstate cases more sensibly. Virginia is
	redoubling its efforts to train its staff on the intricacies of UIFSA
	rules, and working interstate cases. It is exploring the option of
	hiring private contractors to work the cases in other states where
	large caseloads and differing rules have prevented a Virginia case from
	being worked. It is developing a tracking program that will allow us to
	identify specific states and localities where one-on-one interaction is
	needed to resolve case processing problems.
	Other examples of improved enforcement techniques include mandating
	the use of a single case registry, the authority to enforce child
	support obligations from federal employees and members of the Armed
	Forces, and many changes in the law that allowed the administrative
	process to be streamlined. All of these elements of PRWORA--taken alone
	or together--have resulted in marked improvements to Virginia's child
	support enforcement efforts--particularly the ability to crack down on
	delinquent parents.
	In conclusion, PRWORA has served as the catalyst for the most
	comprehensive revisions to Virginia's Child Support Enforcement Program
	in its 25 year history. PRWORA's comprehensive elements also fully
	support Virginia's determination to clearly communicate society's lack
	of tolerance for those who fail in their responsibilities to
	financially support their children.

	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Young.
	Mr. Duke Dutkowski, welcome.

	TESTIMONY OF WALLACE N. DUTKOWSKI

	Mr. Dutkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the members
	of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. My
	name is Wally Dutkowski and I am the Director of the Michigan
	Office of Child Support. I would like to thank the committee
	members for their interest in the Child Support Multi-Agency
	Investigative Team or CSMIAT project.
	Nearly everyone in America is affected by the child support
	program. Ask your neighbor, your friends, or your relatives
	that they will have a story about someone owing child support
	or not being paid support. Many children are on assistance
	today because their parents have not paid their child support.
	The child support program is complicated to understand and
	difficult to administer. It is also highly emotional because it
	deals with two of the most sensitive issues possible, parents'
	children and their money. Children need the basics of shelter,
	food and clothing. Beyond those basics, what children want most
	is the love and attention of their parents. All too frequently,
	child support cases result in the non-custodial parent failing
	to provide any of these fundamental needs.
	How extensive is this problem of failing to pay support? In
	1999, Michigan referred over 300,000 cases in arrears to the
	Federal tax offset program. Those 300,000 cases represent
	approximately 35 percent of our caseload with child support
	orders. Unfortunately, being in arrears is an all too common
	occurrence.
	There are many kinds of non-custodial parents. Some will
	pay regardless of whether the child support agencies exist or
	not and these are among the most responsible people in America.
	Some parents do not pay because they do not work and lack the
	financial resources to pay.
	In Michigan, we began to use welfare to work funding to
	help every absence parent of a TANF recipient find a job.
	However, we found the criteria for welfare to work to be so
	complicated that we switched to funding the effort with TANF
	funds. That way, we only had to worry about getting non-
	custodial parents jobs and not the record keeping required for
	welfare to work funding. There are other parents who require
	more enforcement efforts. License revocation, income
	withholding orders and other enforcement tools assist us in
	enforcing orders against these parents.
	Then, there is the final group, the evaders. These are the
	most egregious cases. These parents did not walk away from
	their families, they ran, and they continue to run. These
	parents usually have an ability to pay their support, but they
	will do almost anything to avoid it.
	The last group is the one the Child Support Multi-Agency
	Investigative Team or CSMAIT is working on. Our efforts are
	aimed at sending a message that you can run but you cannot hide
	from your child support obligation. As one of our local
	sheriffs recently said, ``You can divorce your spouse, but you
	cannot divorce your children.'' We are not interested in
	putting non-custodial parents in jail. We simply want them to
	comply with their child support orders.
	Non-compliance with child support orders quickly becomes a
	law enforcement issue. The CSMAIT project is designed to bring
	child support and law enforcement together. CSMAIT provides
	resources to supplement current State efforts to pursue these
	evaders. The project is not to supplant what the States are
	already doing; it adds to it.
	When we began CSMAIT discussions with law enforcement
	agencies, we found we neither communicated nor coordinated
	efforts in any meaningful manner. CSMAIT was born in an attempt
	to formalize this effort, this new effort, of coordination.
	This effort is a work-in-progress. We are forming partnerships
	that did not exist even a few years ago. All of our efforts are
	directed toward a single outcome, ensuring evading, non-
	custodial parents support their children.
	In Michigan, the CSMAIT project includes the Federal Office
	of Child Support Enforcement, the Office of the Inspector
	General from HHS, the Justice Department, the FBI, both offices
	of the U.S. Attorney, the U.S. Marshal, the Family Independency
	Agency, the Friends of the Court, the Supreme Court, the State
	police, county sheriffs, local police departments and local
	prosecuting attorneys. Working together, these agencies have
	been able to accomplish so much more than they were able to
	when we failed to cooperate.
	For example, in 1992 the Child Support Recovery Act
	Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. From the
	time the law was signed until March 1998, Michigan referred 44
	cases to the U.S. Attorney's offices. We obtained two
	convictions. Since April 1998, we have referred 338 cases to
	the CSMAIT project; 278 cases are currently open for
	investigation; 4 cases have been successfully prosecuted; 3
	more non-custodial parents have been arrested and are awaiting
	prosecution; 2 more have warrants issued and are expected to be
	arrested shortly; and 3 additional cases are in various stages
	of prosecution using the Michigan felony statute.
	Results that are even more impressive have occurred because
	of the threat of prosecution. In less than 1 year, 61 non-
	custodial parents have agreed to pay over $2.3 million due to
	the threat of prosecution by this team, and we have only just
	begun.
	We must expand these efforts and we must send a message
	that States will work with parents to assist them in complying
	with their child support orders. However, when a parent
	abandons their responsibility, leaving the child and family
	more vulnerable to a life of poverty, we must be able to take
	swift and certain action. The message must be clear as
	possible. If you willfully attempt to evade your responsibility
	to your children, you will be prosecuted, regardless of how far
	you run. The CSMAIT projects sends that message. Tomorrow's
	adults are witnessing the message we send to today's non-
	compliant parents. Our message must be clear and it must be
	certain.
	I urge you to support the expansion of CSMAIT in the hopes
	that tomorrow, failing to support your children will be an
	issue we discuss in the past tense. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Wallace N. Dutkowski follows.]
	Prepared Statement of Wallace N. Dutkowski, Director, Office of Child
	Support, State of Michigan
	The State of Michigan respectfully thanks the subcommittee for the
	opportunity to provide this written testimony regarding the Child
	Support Multi-Agency Investigative Team or CSMAIT. The State of
	Michigan would also like to thank Chairman Fred Upton, and the members
	of this committee for addressing this important issue. I will describe
	the CSMAIT project in more detail shortly. First, let me begin with
	some background on why we are cooperating fully with this effort.
	background
	Nearly everyone in America knows about child support. Ask your
	neighbor, your friends or your relatives and they will have a story
	about someone owing support or not being paid support. At the same time
	almost no one understands the program. Worse yet, hardly anyone likes
	the program. It is complicated to understand, difficult to administer,
	highly emotional and it deals with two of the most sensitive issues
	possible--children and money. Many view the program as an inappropriate
	intrusion into parents' personal business.
	The truth is parents who choose to end their relationship with each
	other often cannot remain civilized toward each other. If children are
	involved, this change in the relationship can have debilitating effects
	on all family members. Children need the basics of shelter, food and
	clothing. Beyond those basics, what children want most is the love and
	attention of their parents. All too frequently child support cases
	result in non-custodial parents (or NCPS) failing to provide any of
	these fundamental needs.
	How extensive is this problem of failing to pay support? In 1999,
	Michigan referred over 300,000 NCPs to the federal tax offset program.
	The cases were at least three months behind in their payments or $500
	or more in arrears (for non-TANF cases or $150 for TANF cases) in
	meeting their support obligation. Those 300,000 NCPs represent
	approximately 35% of our caseload with child support orders.
	Unfortunately, being in arrears is an all too common occurrence.
	Failing to support your children is a crime in every state, yet
	thousands of parents fail to comply with their child support orders.
	the problem we face
	There are many kinds of non-custodial parents. In a recent study,
	one of the nation's Title IV-D programs determined there were five
	types of NCPS. Describing the five types of NCPs will help you
	understand why we need the assistance of law enforcement agents in the
	child support program.
	Uninformed NCPS.
	These are the parents who are among the easiest to help. Our
	program can provide information to explain why and how you can comply
	with your child support order. In Michigan we stress the importance of
	having two parents involved in each child's life. For example, we
	started a publicity campaign featuring two Detroit Lion football
	players discussing the importance of being a father and the need to
	support your children--whether you are separated, divorced or were
	never married.
	Ready NCPS.
	These parents, which are many, would pay their support even if
	child support programs were not here to enforce it. They pay their
	support and they spend quality time with their children. These are some
	of the most responsible people in our country.
	Unable NCPS.
	These parents would support their children but they are unemployed.
	In Michigan we have a program that will help any NCP, who does not have
	a job and whose family is receiving public assistance, find employment.
	If a parent cannot pay their support because they have no income, we
	will help that parent find a job so that parent can fulfill their
	obligation to support their children. We ran this program with Welfare
	to Work money, but found that the criteria was so complicated and
	stringent that we are now funding the program out of our TANF money
	instead. By using TANF funds, we only have to worry about getting the
	NCP a job, not on the record keeping required by Welfare to Work
	funding.
	Reluctant NCPS.
	These are the parents who walk away and wonder why they should
	continue to support their children when public assistance is available.
	Whether it is the result of the negative experience with their former
	partner, frustration, or an unwillingness to take personal
	responsibility for their past behavior, these parents do not see the
	need to consistently pay support. For these parents, we have many tools
	to use. Thanks to Welfare Reform, passed by Congress in 1996, we have
	more tools today than before the Personal Responsibility and Work
	Opportunity Reconciliation Act was enacted. Among the tools we can use
	are mediation services, Income Withholding Orders, professional and
	drivers license revocation, passport denials and asset seizure
	processes. Reluctant NCPs need to constantly be reminded of their
	personal responsibility for their children.
	Evader NCPS.
	These are the most egregious cases. These parents did not walk away
	from their families--they ran. And they continue to run. These parents
	usually have an ability to pay support but have decided they do not
	want to. They will do almost anything to avoid paying support. They put
	their personal property in their parent's or their significant other's
	name. They move frequently. They use fictitious social security numbers
	and names. They are less concerned about their own personal well being
	than they are about avoiding paying their child support.
	why the child support program needs csmait
	This last group is the one the Child Support Multi-Agency
	Investigative Team is working on. Our efforts are aimed at sending a
	message that you can run but you cannot hide from your child support
	obligation. As one of our local sheriffs recently said, ``You can
	divorce your spouse but you cannot divorce your children.'' We are not
	interested in putting NCPs in jail. We simply want them to comply with
	the child support order. CSMAIT provides resources to supplement
	current state efforts, not to supplant what states are already doing.
	Most IV-D programs do not have sufficient staff to perform all the
	functions they are charged with at a satisfactory level of performance.
	This is particularly true in the area of enforcing orders where there
	is aggressive non-compliance.
	Non-compliance with child support orders quickly becomes a law
	enforcement issue. For years child support and law enforcement spent
	little time looking at the areas where our programs intersect. Dealing
	with law enforcement from a child support perspective, and vice versa,
	were necessary evils that were just part of the program. The CSMAIT
	project is designed to change all that so that both groups can see the
	common ground in their missions.
	When we began discussions about the interface between our programs,
	both child support and law enforcement agencies found a lot in common.
	We also found we did not communicate nor coordinate efforts in any
	meaningful manner. Through the efforts of the federal Office of Child
	Support Enforcement in HHS, the program began to explore ways to
	strengthen the relationship between state programs and federal, state
	and local law enforcement officials. CSMAIT was born in an attempt to
	formalize this new effort at coordination. This effort is a work-in-
	progress. We are forming partnerships that did not exist just a few
	years ago. The focus of the project is to improve coordination and
	cooperation between agencies. All of our efforts are directed towards a
	single outcome: ensuring Evading NCPs fulfill their personal and legal
	obligation to support their children.
	The CSMAIT project includes a myriad of agencies. In Michigan, we
	have included the following: from HHS--the federal Office of Child
	Support Enforcement and the Office of the Inspector General, the
	Justice Department, the FBI, both offices of the U.S. Attorney, the
	Family Independence Agency, the Friends of the Court, the State Supreme
	Court, the State Police, county sheriffs, local police departments and
	local prosecuting attorneys. Working together these agencies have been
	able to accomplish a great deal.
	Allow me to give you an example. In 1992 the Child Support Recovery
	Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. This
	law made it a federal crime (a misdemeanor) to move from state-to-state
	to avoid paying child support. From the time the law was signed to
	March 1998, Michigan referred 44 cases to the U.S. Attorney's Offices
	in Michigan. From those 44 cases, we obtained two convictions. Since
	April 1998, we have referred 338 cases to the CSMAIT project. Of these
	cases, 279 cases are currently open for investigation by the Team. $9.9
	million dollars is owed on those cases producing an average arrearage
	of over $35,000 per case. To date, four cases have been successfully
	prosecuted, three more NCPs have been arrested and are awaiting
	prosecution and two more have warrants issued and are expected to be
	arrested shortly. Three additional cases are in various stages of
	prosecution using the Michigan felony statute and CSMAIT investigative
	resources. Even more impressive results have occurred because of the
	threat of prosecution. In less than one year, 61 NCPs have come forward
	and entered into agreements to repay the $2.3 million they owe just due
	to the threat of action by the team. And we have only just begun.
	conclusion
	We must continue these efforts. We must send a message that states
	will work with parents to assist them in complying with their child
	support orders. However, when a parent abandons their responsibility,
	it leaves the child and family more vulnerable to a life of poverty. We
	must be able to take swift and certain action. For some NCPS, this
	means the ultimate threat of incarceration must be present. The CSMAIT
	project sends that message. This message must be as clear as possible.
	If parents willfully attempt to evade their responsibility to their
	children, they will be prosecuted, regardless of how far they run.
	Tomorrow's adults are witnessing the message we send to today's non-
	compliant NCPS. Our message must be clear and it must be certain. I
	urge you to support expansion of CSMAIT today, in hopes that tomorrow,
	failing to support children will be an issue we discuss in the past
	tense.

	Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Skidmore.

	TESTIMONY OF DONALD SKIDMORE

	Mr. Skidmore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My speech goes over
	about a minute, so I am going to----
	Mr. Upton. Okay. You can yield back time. We have had
	members do that today.
	Mr. Skidmore. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the
	committee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to speak on
	the issue of child support. I have been a Wayne County
	Sheriff's Deputy in Detroit, Michigan working under the
	direction of Sheriff Robert A. Ficano for 15 years.
	The last 6 years of my career has been as an investigator
	in the Friend of the Court unit. Myself and seven other
	investigators have been assigned to eight separate areas of
	Wayne County to serve civil neglect, non-support warrants. Our
	daily routine is that the eight of us would attempt to serve 28
	warrants each for the area. For each warrant, we would knock on
	the door, ask for the defendant and, either, make an arrest or
	leave a card asking for the defendant to voluntarily turn
	himself into the court at his or her convenience. This has an
	approximate 5 percent success rate.
	With 300,000 child support cases in Wayne County and 10
	percent of these cases having a valid civil warrant, this
	permits the investigator, usually, one attempt at arresting the
	defendant every year. Three common occurrences have been after
	a visit to the defendant's house, he calls up the complainant
	and has verbal and physical threats. For example, he says,
	``Why are you trying to do by sending the police to my house?''
	The second one is notification by the complainant that
	defendant called and said he was in the house when we were
	there and there was nothing we could do to go inside the house.
	And, finally, third, the defendant has moved.
	If the defendant is not arrested by the investigator or
	does not turn himself into the court, our last chance of
	bringing the defendant in friend of the court is when another
	law enforcement agency has contact with the defendant in his
	jurisdiction. This usually occurs as a result of a traffic stop
	or criminal investigation or driver's license revoked and
	warrant check is performed.
	Unfortunately, child neglect, non-support warrants are a
	civil matter, and a large majority of agencies will not lodge a
	defendant on a civil matter because of, one: officer's time out
	of service to process and lock up the defendant; two, the
	liability while the subject is temporarily locked up in their
	facility--suicide and assault; and three, the lack of lock-up
	facilities or monitoring staff. When this occurs, the defendant
	is advised and released to appear. In other words, free to go.
	With such a large number of current cases and the
	nationwide increase in child support cases, very little time is
	available to the investigator to actually investigate a case--
	time that is essential for requiring photos of the subject,
	contacting the complainant for any information, driver's
	license and vehicle inquiries, employment checks and
	surveillance. All of these are vital tools in bringing a
	defendant to quick justice and allowing the system of
	collections to work better for the children. When time is made
	available for investigating a case in Wayne County, the
	sheriff's department are unbiasedly tops in the Nation. Working
	in plain clothes as one-man units in unmarked vehicles in Wayne
	County where you are taking people to jail that really do not
	want to go.
	Often, this makes me wonder why anyone would stay in this
	position. With all the other units and positions available in a
	1300 man department and most of them with lots of overtime and
	glory, why do they stay? They get no overtime, they work 8
	hours in disadvantaged neighborhoods observing children playing
	on barren dirt mounds with no toy trucks, dolls or spacemen, no
	shovels and pails, just children playing with the dirt next to
	used syringes and broken glass. We encounter uncooperative,
	rude and deceiving relatives, all of whom have been taught to
	always tell the police that the person they ask for isn't home.
	What an environment to expose something as precious as a child
	to.
	In the middle of all of this, I think back when I was a
	child and just reflect on how fortunate I was to have two
	loving parents that would give me and do anything for me and my
	three sisters--total, unconditional love. This kind of love and
	support seems to always carry on generation to generation is
	very much needed today. I understand everyone has the right to
	bring a child into the world. What I don't understand is the
	giving up on a child by a parent. Just because you no longer
	want to or can be with the mother or father of your child, does
	not mean that you walk out, ending your responsibility to your
	child. This is just the beginning. By leaving, you have
	complicated an already complex situation, raising a child. As
	human beings, we should have an inner desire and drive to bring
	a child or children in everything they deserve: love, family
	structure, food, shelter and a safe, healthy environment to
	grow.
	My wife and I are unable to conceive children and I can't
	imagine being able to give the gift of life and then turning my
	back on such a priceless gift. The average support order per
	child in Wayne County is $40 per week. I would work four jobs
	and collect bottles on the side to make sure I, at least, did
	that. I am not a parent, but I know you can't raise a child on
	$160 per month. Why would a person want to deprive a child of a
	fair chance in an already cruel world.
	The most difficult thing for me to understand is no visits,
	no birthday cards, no presents. I can't comprehend lying in bed
	as a child on my birthday and not getting even a phone call
	from my mother or father on such a personal and special day.
	I must add that not all cases are this heartless, but these
	kind are becoming all too common in today's society. Child
	support evaders know the system. They keep the bond money in
	their wallet, knowing they have a warrant but they won't go to
	jail if they pay the bond, and it will be another year before
	they have to worry about another warrant. Many non-payers
	reason that they will pay a $500 to $1,000 bond once a year as
	opposed to making 52 payments of $100, equaling $5,200. This is
	a benefit in savings t a delinquent parent who thinks, ``I'll
	show him or her.''
	For these reasons, I am here today and I am still part of
	the unit. I have dedicated the rest of my career to child
	support enforcement. And after meeting Vanessa and Renata
	Kryskowski, you'll know why. Their unbelievable strength and
	courage is what gives me drive and desire to help children. As
	you may have already inferred, I wish all child neglect, non-
	support warrants were felonies. To me it is not a civil matter
	to provide for a child, it is criminal.
	Mr. Upton. I might just have to--you do qualify for the
	Senate by running over your 5 minutes. But if you could just
	summarize in a couple sentences, it would be appreciated.
	Mr. Skidmore. Okay. I am not very good at that. The
	Michigan child support task force--Sheriff Robert A. Ficano
	being aware of the position, was the top law enforcement in the
	State of Michigan, that agreed to allow me to be a part of this
	child support task force. He knew it was not going to be funded
	at the time, and he still allowed me to be a part of it. That
	kind of got me--I am kind of thrown now here because I couldn't
	read all the way through.
	But, I believe the child support task force that is going
	on now is a good thing and needs to be here. What the child
	support task force is for me is I take two Federal warrants,
	ten civil warrants, one criminal warrant. And that's what the
	child support task force consists of for me, and I prosecute
	those people.
	[The prepared statement of Donald Skidmore follows.]
	Prepared Statement of Donald Skidmore, Investigator, Wayne County
	Sheriff's Department
	Ladies and gentleman of the committee, I wish to thank you for this
	opportunity to speak to you on the issue of child support enforcement.
	I have been a Wayne County Sheriffs Deputy in Detroit, Michigan
	working under the direction of Sheriff Robert A. Ficano for 15 years.
	The last six years of my career has been as an investigator in the
	Friend of the Court Unit. Myself and seven other investigators have
	been assigned to eight separate area's of Wayne County to serve Civil
	Neglect/Non-Support warrants. Our daily routine is that the eight of us
	would attempt to serve 25 warrants each for the area. For each warrant
	we would knock on a door, ask for the defendant and either make an
	arrest or leave a card asking the defendant to voluntarily turn himself
	in to the court at his or her convenience. This has only an approximate
	5% success rate. With 300,000 child support cases in Wayne County and
	10% (30,000) of these cases having a valid civil warrant, this permits
	the investigator usually one attempt at arresting the defendant every
	year.
	Three common occurrences after a visit to the defendants last known
	address are:

	1. Verbal and/or physical threats to the complainant. For example the
	defendant calls the complainant and says ``What are you trying
	to do by sending the Police to my house?''
	2. Notification by complainant that the defendant called and said that
	he or she either answered the door or was in the house during
	the officers visit.
	3. The defendant has moved.
	If the defendant is not arrested by the investigator or does not
	turn himself into the court, our last chance of bringing the defendant
	in front of the court is when another law enforcement agency has
	contact with a defendant in their jurisdiction. This usually occurs as
	the result of a traffic stop or a criminal investigation where a
	drivers license and warrant check is preformed. Unfortunately, Child
	Neglect/Non-Support warrants are a civil matter and a large majority of
	agencies will not lodge a defendant on a civil matter because of:

	1. Officers time out of service to process and lockup defendant.
	2. Liability while subject is temporarily locked up in their facility
	(i.e. suicide and assault).
	3. Lack of lockup facilities or monitoring staff.
	When this occurs, the defendant is ``advised and released to
	Appear.'' In other words--free to go.
	With such a large number of current cases and the nationwide
	increase in child support cases very little time is available to the
	investigator to actually investigate a case. Time that is essential for
	acquiring photo's of the subject, contacting the complainant for any
	information on the defendant, drivers license and vehicle inquiries,
	employment checks and surveillance. All of these are vital tools in
	bringing a defendant to quick justice and allowing the system of
	collections to work better for the children. When time is made for
	investigating a case the Wayne County Sheriffs--Friend of the Court
	enforcement investigator's are unbiasedly tops in the nation. Working
	in plain clothes, as one man units, in unmarked vehicles, in Wayne
	County, where you're taking people to jail that really do not want to
	go, often this makes me wonder what keeps everyone in the unit? With
	all the other units and positions available in a 1,300 man department,
	and most of them with lots of overtime and glory, why do they stay?
	They get no overtime. They work eight hours in disadvantaged
	neighborhoods, observing children playing on baron dirt mounds with no
	toy trucks, dolls or spacemen; no shovels and pails, just children
	playing with the dirt next to used syringes and broken glass. We
	encounter uncooperative, rude and deceiving relatives all of whom have
	been taught to always tell the police that the person they ask for
	isn't home. What an environment to expose something as precious as a
	child to. In the middle of all of this I think back when I was a child
	and just reflect on how fortunate I was to have two loving parents that
	would give and do anything for me and my three sisters, total
	unconditional love. This kind of love and support seems to always carry
	on generation to generation and is very much needed today. I understand
	everyone has the right to bring a child into the world, what I don't
	understand is the giving up on a child by a parent. Just because you no
	longer want to or can be with the mother or father of your child does
	not mean that you walk out ending your responsibility to your child.
	This is just the beginning, by leaving you have complicated an already
	complex situation (raising a child). As human beings we should have an
	inner desire and drive to bring a child or children up with everything
	they deserve: love; family structure; food; shelter; and a safe healthy
	environment to grow.
	My wife and I are unable to conceive children, and I can't imagine
	being able to give the gift of life and then turning my back on such a
	priceless gift. The average child support order per child in Wayne
	County is $40 per week. I would work four jobs and collect bottles on
	the side to make sure I at least did that. I'm not a parent but I know
	you can't raise a child of any age on $160 per month. Why would a
	person want to deprive a child of a fair chance in an already cruel
	world? The most difficult thing for me to understand is no visits, no
	birthday cards and no presents. I can't comprehend laying in bed as a
	child on my birthday and not getting even a phone call from my mother
	or father on such a personal and special day. And I must add that not
	all cases are this heartless but these kind are becoming all to common
	in today's society.
	Child support evaders know the system. They keep the bond money in
	their wallet, knowing they have a warrant, but they won't go to jail if
	they pay the bond and it will be another year before they have to worry
	about another warrant. Many non-payers reason that they'll pay a $500
	to $1,000 bond once a year as a opposed to making 52 payments of $100
	equaling $5,200. This is a benefit and a savings to the delinquent
	parent who thinks ``I'll show him/her!''
	For these reasons I am here today and I am still part of the unit.
	I have dedicated the rest of my career to child support enforcement and
	after meeting Vanessa and Renata, you'll know why. Their unbelievable
	strength and courage is what gives me my drive and desire to help
	children. As you may have already inferred I wish all Child Neglect/
	Non-Support warrants were felony's. To me its not a civil matter to not
	provide for a child it is criminal.
	This brings me to how I met Vanessa and Renata. Sheriff Robert A.
	Ficano agreed that child support enforcement in Wayne County needed to
	be stepped up. The Wayne County Sheriff Department and the Wayne County
	Friend of the Court were contacted by Special Agent Scott Vantrease of
	the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and
	Human Services. It was agreed to by all agencies to commit an
	Investigator to a New Federal Pilot Program. The Michigan Child Support
	Multi-Agency Investigative team (CSMAIT). Sheriff Robert A. Ficano
	being aware that the position would not be funded by the federal
	government was one of only two top law enforcement officials that would
	commit an officer for the one year trail period. My assignment to the
	task force then began on July 1, 1998. The investigative portion of the
	task force consists of many hardworking and caring people including an
	Oakland County investigator April Hutchings, Special Agent Scott
	Vantrease, Sergeant Kevin Losen of the Wayne County Sheriffs Department
	and members of other Federal and State Law enforcement Agencies as well
	as many more people that have supported and participated in the task
	force that I have not been able to acknowledge, but they are out there
	and it would not have worked without them..
	In 72 working days we put together an office, a policy manual, and
	results that included 7 federal prosecutions, 64 civil warrant arrest,
	and 1 state criminal prosecution (the first prosecution for non-child
	support in Wayne County, the Philip Romita case). Combined these cases
	collected $3,773,276.10 in child support arrearages.
	In early 1999 Wayne County, through the Prosecutor's Office, has
	put together an aggressive commitment to prosecute 25-40 state criminal
	non-support cases by the end of the year. The Michigan Child Support
	Multi-Agency Investigative Team was the first group contacted to be a
	part of this program and I am extremely excited about all of this.
	In closing, we all know there is a need for child support
	enforcement. The long standing question is who funds it? Without the
	task force Vanessa and Renata would not be here and we know there are a
	lot more of them out there to help. I hope the people in Washington
	realize the direct benefits to children by funding child support
	enforcement. Thank you.

	Mr. Upton. Well, we appreciate your work and we appreciate
	very much your testimony today.
	Ms. Turetsky. Thank you.

	TESTIMONY OF VICKI TURETSKY

	Ms. Turetsky. Chairman and committee members, my name is
	Vicki Turetsky from the Center for Law and Social Policy. I
	appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
	Although it's not listed on my resume, one of the experiences
	I've had is that I used to be a low-income mother with a non-
	paying interstate child support case.
	The Department of Health and Human Services project is
	intended to address the most egregious child support cases.
	Some of these cases are the kind that get in the newspaper.
	They are very difficult cases to prosecute and they require a
	disproportionate amount of resources. There is a clear role for
	this Federal collaboration. The integrity of the child support
	system, like any law enforcement and criminal justice system,
	depends on its capacity to go after the worst offenders.
	Successful prosecution of active evaders can help set a climate
	where payment of child support, like taxes, is expected and
	automatic. It sends a societal message that you are responsible
	for the children you bring into this world. It helps persuade
	reluctant obligers that you cannot get away without paying. It
	helps the families involved.
	Federal sponsorship of the project is important because
	many active evaders cross State lines to avoid payment. Just as
	important, States often do not have the resources to pursue
	these cases systematically and they need the help. However, the
	HHS project has only a limited role in improving the overall
	performance of the child support program. It relies on our
	resource-intense case-by-case approach. Yet, this is a high
	volume business, and there is not time nor money to spend on
	every individual case.
	The majority of non-paying child support cases do not
	involve active, malicious evaders and hidden assets. They
	involve men and women scraping by, reluctant to pay when it's
	easy to avoid getting caught, and only tenuously attached to
	their children. These are, also, tough cases to work. To
	improve performance, the child support program needs systemic
	improvements as well as case by case strategies. Over the last
	2 or 3 years, program performance has improved, slowly but
	steadily in some States. However, in many States, performance
	has not improved. And the truth is that the program has a long
	way to go in every State before it makes a difference in most
	children's lives. The program must tackle a number of
	challenges on a system-wide basis.
	Let me mention five challenges. Insufficient resources is
	the first challenge; it is the heart of the matter. A recent
	analysis that we conducted indicates there is a direct
	correlation, a statistical correlation, between State
	performance and program resources. Most State programs are
	substantially underfunded and understaffed, compared to other
	human services programs. The data indicates the performance
	improves when staffing and spending levels increase. This is a
	situation where many State programs do not have enough
	resources to run an effective program. They do not know who is
	in their caseload; they do not have time to answer calls from
	parents; they do not have the resources to respond to computer
	prompts and work lists. The average child support worker
	carries over 1,000 nationwide. And, in some State, that
	staffing ratio is much higher. As TANF cases and collections
	decline, some States may see their budget and performance
	deteriorate.
	The second challenge is troubled automation efforts. The
	certification for State child support computers was October 1,
	1997. Only 37 States and territories are certified to date.
	While HHS review results in a number of those States, nine
	States, in particular, are lagging behind. Why has automation
	been so difficult. There are a number of reasons, but let me
	mention two.
	One is the computer vendors have not always delivered
	systems that perform well or on time. Technical expertise is
	particularly in short supply now as Y2K demands escalate. The
	other is the States with complex administrative and political
	environments have had the most trouble automating. According to
	a recent CLSP survey, most States with locally administered
	programs in contrast to State-run programs reported that it was
	harder and more costly to implement the State-wide computer.
	A third challenge is the implementation of new PRWORA
	requirements. Most child support directors say that the
	significant reforms enacted in PRWORA will help program
	performance. While it's still too early to judge, the full
	impact PRWORA gives States many of the tools they need and
	addresses many of the legal problem raised by the first panel.
	However, they are not easy to implement; they involve system
	changes; and they require the active cooperation of local
	players.
	A fourth challenge is realignment of child support with
	welfare reform. The system was originally set up to recover
	welfare costs, but with the decline of these cases and the
	focus on self-sufficiency, the Federal Government and States
	need to rethink the role of child support in time-limited TANF
	and to better position the program to help families become and
	remain self-sufficient.
	And the fifth challenge is to reevaluate the program's
	structure to centralize and streamline their administrative
	structure in some cases, to collaborate with HHS in expanding
	the Federal role in interstate enforcement. The Federal parent
	locator service operated by HHS has great potential for helping
	bridge the gap in enforcement in interstate cases and hard-to-
	find obligers. In some, while HHS is to be commended for its
	multi-agency collaboration, much more needs to be done.
	[The prepared statement of Vicki Turetsky follows.]
	Prepared Statement of Vicki Turetsky, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for
	Law and Social Policy
	I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. My name
	is Vicki Turetsky. I am a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Law
	and Social Policy. CLASP is a non-profit organization engaged in
	research, analysis, technical assistance and advocacy on issues
	affecting low-income families. CLASP has focused on child support
	issues for many years.
	The Department of Health and Human Services's Project: Save Our
	Children (Child Support Multi-Agency Investigative Team Project) is
	intended to address the most egregious child support cases: those
	noncustodial parents who can easily afford to support their children,
	owe a good deal of money, but deliberately walk away. They quit their
	jobs. They hide their assets. They change their Social Security
	numbers. They skip from state to state. They taunt their family over
	the Internet. These are not the ordinary child support cases. These are
	the kind of cases that get in the newspaper. They are very difficult
	cases to prosecute and require a disproportionate amount of resources,
	resources that state child support programs can not easily spare.
	The HHS project attempts to marshall and enhance the resources to
	pursue these evading noncustodial parents. The project is a
	collaborative effort to coordinate child support and law enforcement
	agencies at the federal, state, and local level. It relies on a case-
	by-case strategy. The HHS screening unit essentially takes referrals
	from state child support programs for some of the most difficult cases
	and ``builds the file.'' If the case is an interstate case, the file is
	turned over to the U.S. attorney for prosecution under the Child
	Support Recovery Act. If it is an intrastate case, it is referred to
	local prosecutors. While it is too early to assess the benefits and
	costs of the project, it shows early promise.
	There is a clear role for this federal initiative. The integrity of
	the child support system partly depends on its capacity to go after the
	worst offenders. Successful prosecution of active evaders can help set
	a climate where payment of child support, like taxes, is expected and
	automatic. It sends a moral message that it is wrong to avoid paying
	child support. It sends a deterrent message to reluctant obligors that
	they can not get away with not paying. It sends a prophylactic message
	to young men and women that they are responsible for the children that
	they bring into the world. Federal sponsorship of the project is
	important because many active evaders cross state lines to avoid
	payment. Just as important, states often do not have the resources to
	pursue these cases systematically, and they need the help.
	However, the HHS project has only a small role in improving the
	performance of the child support program. It relies on a resource-
	intense, case-by-case approach. Yet this is a high-volume business, and
	there is not time or money to spend on every individual case. The
	majority of nonpaying child support cases do not involve active evaders
	and hidden assets. They involve men and women scraping by, reluctant to
	pay when it is easy to avoid getting caught, and only tenuously
	attached to their children. These also are tough cases to work. Some
	have excuses for not paying. Some have geniune hardships. Some are
	unemployed. Yet children need the support--financial and emotional--of
	both parents. Most children are worse off financially than their
	noncustodial parents.
	The child support program is complex, difficult to administer, and
	in many ways works against itself. There are a lot of mixed messages in
	the program. It is supposed to recover welfare costs, but it is
	supposed to help families achieve self-sufficiency. It is supposed to
	aggressively pursue ``deadbeat dads,'' but it is supposed to respond
	flexibly to low-income fathers. It is supposed to collect support in
	every case, but it is not supposed to intrude in people's lives. It is
	supposed to operate as a highly automated, streamlined program, but it
	is supposed to rely on a diverse and fragmented group of judges, clerks
	of court, and district attorneys to staff the program.
	To improve performance across-the-board, the child support program
	needs systemic improvements, as well as case-by-case strategies. Over
	the last two or three years, the program performance has improved
	slowly but steadily in some states. This is likely attributable to
	increased automation, a stronger federal role in finding noncustodial
	parents, new paternity and enforcement tools enacted by the Personal
	Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and a
	stronger economy. However, in many states, performance has not
	improved. The truth is that the program has a long way to go in every
	state before it makes a difference in most children's lives. The
	program must tackle a number of challenges on a system-wide basis:
	Insufficient resources. A recent analysis conducted by CLASP
	indicates that there is a direct correlation between state performance
	and program resources. The data indicate that most state programs are
	substantially under funded and understaffed compared to other human
	services programs. The data also indicates that performance improves
	when staffing and spending levels increase. This is a situation where
	many state programs do not have enough resources to run a cost-
	effective program. They do not know who is in their caseload. They do
	not have time to answer calls from parents. They do not have the
	resources to respond to computer prompts and work lists. The average
	child support worker carries over a 1,000 cases nationwide, and in some
	states, the staffing ratio is much higher. According to a recent study
	by the Lewin Group, a third of states rely at least in part on TANF
	collections to fund their child support program. As TANF cases and
	collections decline, some states may see their budget and performance
	deteriorate. Other states will face budget declines as a result of new
	federal incentive payment rules enacted by Congress last session.
	Troubled automation efforts. The certification deadline for state
	child support computers was October 1, 1997. Only 37 states and
	territories are certified to date. While HHS review results are pending
	in a number of states, nine states are lagging behind.<SUP>1</SUP> Why
	has automation been so difficult? There are a number of reasons, but
	let me mention two. One is that computer vendors have not always
	delivered systems that performed well or on time. Technical expertise
	is in particularly short supply now, as Y2K demands accelerate. The
	other is that states with complex administrative and political
	environments have had the most trouble automating. This is not simply a
	``big state problem,'' although big caseloads are a part of the
	complexity. Rather, it is primarily those big states in which the child
	support program is administered by counties, the local courts, or
	locally-elected district attorneys. According to a recent CLASP survey,
	state child support directors reported many benefits from automation.
	However, most states with locally-administered programs reported that
	it was harder and more costly to implement the statewide computer. The
	implementation challenge will not be over once these states have
	certified systems. Computer management is a continuous process. States
	will have to upgrade or replace existing systems to comply with PRWORA
	and to avoid obsolete technology.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\1\ As of November 1998. California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
	Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The District
	of Columbia and the Virgin Islands also are lagging behind.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Implementation of new PRWORA requirements. Most child support
	directors say that the significant reforms enacted in PRWORA will help
	program performance. However, they are not easy to implement. Most of
	the reforms involve computer systems changes, while many require the
	active cooperation of the courts and local child support officials. For
	example, the centralized disbursement unit should help improve payment
	processing and get money to families faster. However, in some states,
	local clerks of court are reluctant to centralize payment processing.
	State programs need time and resources to integrate these changes. But
	children need their help now.
	Realignment of child support with welfare reform. The child support
	system was originally set up to recover welfare costs, and nearly all
	of the cases in the system involved current welfare recipients.
	However, with the decline in TANF caseloads and as the program has
	evolved over time, two-thirds of the cases now involve low-income
	working parents who have left or were never on welfare. The federal
	government and states need to rethink the role of child support in a
	time-limited TANF world, and to better position the program to help
	families become and remain self-sufficient. This means getting more
	support in the hands of families, providing better services to low-
	income mothers and fathers, and allocating more federal and state
	resources to service delivery. The current emphasis on recovering
	welfare costs may actually work against welfare reform goals,
	encouraging some states to underinvest in the program and to underserve
	low-income working families.
	Reevaluating the program structure. For many years, advocates have
	encouraged states to centralize and streamline their administrative
	structure, and to expand the federal role in interstate enforcement.
	While there is no easy solution to a state's complex operating
	environment, many states are taking a closer look at the strengths and
	weaknesses of county-based and court-based structures. The Federal
	Parent Locator Service, operated by HHS, has great potential for
	helping bridge the gap in enforcement in interstate cases and hard-to-
	find obligors. The program needs to sort out which functions and
	activities are best performed at the federal, state, and local levels
	in order to develop a more coherent program structure.
	In sum, the child support program is in the middle of change.
	Caseload research, development of improved program models, federal
	leadership, and effective state implementation are all critical
	ingredients in improving the program. While HHS is to be commended for
	its multi-agency investigative initiative, much more needs to be done.

	Mr. Upton. Thank you. I am going to yield my 5 minutes to
	Mr. Bryant, who has a 12:30 meeting. So, Mr. Bryant.
	Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as
	quick as I can, because I do want to hear from all of you on
	certain questions. We have got 5 minutes, so let me move on.
	But I am going to ask the questions now.
	Let me see, we have Deputy Skidmore from Michigan. I want
	you, in a minute, to tell me about credit reports and access to
	credit information and if that would be helpful, and that
	issue.
	For the rest of the members of the committee, I would like
	to know, maybe, one obstacle that we might could change--we
	might remove at the Federal level, if there was one thing you
	could change in your collection efforts. And let me see, Mr.
	Young, you are from Virginia?
	Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Bryant. Being from Tennessee, we have no State income
	tax. But I assume States that have income tax, do they not
	withhold?
	Mr. Young. Yes, sir, we intercept both State and Federal.
	Mr. Bryant. Okay. That was my question, if you do the
	State's. But if, again, if we could start with Deputy Skidmore,
	and then the rest of you could chime in with the one thing that
	you think would give you the most assistance.
	Mr. Skidmore. Yes, credit reports is something that I've
	just found out about. One of the other counties in Michigan
	uses them. It is an amazing tool. Before you could do nothing
	but run a vehicle and a driver's license check. With a credit
	report, you run the report, they have something: a credit card,
	a house, a boat; something is on there. Then I would subpoena
	these records, and without a doubt, they would inflate their
	income or say that they have been working for 20 years when, in
	fact, they have been reporting to the friend of the court that
	they have been working on and off at all times.
	It was something I just came in contact with. They're
	studying--apparently, I asked them to look into the legalities
	of utilizing these credit reports for my prosecution, and they
	are supposed to get back to me on it. But, it is a great tool,
	it provides a wealth of information in tracking down somebody.
	And every time they apply for a card or credit card or credit
	anywhere in the country, it shows up on their TRWs. So I just
	go to that State for further information. But it's a great
	tool.
	Mr. Bryant. And you have access to that now and the States
	cooperate and it seems to work?
	Mr. Skidmore. Only through the task force have I actually
	gained access into this. Oakland County, which is the county
	next to me, is part of the task force in Michigan and they have
	a direct line. They pay so much money--a system set up where
	they can run credit reports on our cases.
	Mr. Bryant. Okay. And the rest of you, if you could just
	speak, if you could have one thing to contribute that would
	improve the collections?
	Mr. Hartwig. My confidence to speak is somewhat shaken by
	the fact the last time I did, everyone left. But----
	Mr. Upton. We waited for the buzzer to go off.
	Mr. Hartwig. Our office, the Office of Inspector General,
	has made a number of recommendations. The one that I think is
	the most important is the garnishment, not just of wages but of
	Federal benefits. As we have looked at our child support
	enforcement efforts where payment is made directly, where the
	non-custodial spouse does not personally make payments but the
	payment is made directly through a garnishment, it is a much
	better system. And I know that some of those garnishments can
	be done administratively; some of those garnishments, I
	believe, need legislation. But I think garnishment is probably
	the most effective way of getting the money to the proper
	person.
	Just quickly, I will say that one of the things that we
	have implemented in the task force is access to the data bases
	that can be used to track down parents and to make that
	available to all levels of law enforcement.
	Mr. Monahan. I would add that since we are at the beginning
	of implementing this task force, it is probably a little early
	to know exactly what obstacles we will face. I will note the
	President's budget calls for an increase in support for the
	U.S. Attorneys' offices so that they could obtain additional
	paralegal assistance to help them process cases in every
	district of the country. I think that would be a big step
	forward.
	Mr. Young. Sir, I would submit that judicial independence,
	being what it is, and we all respect that--but you saw one lady
	sit here today who told you her husband had been to jail twice.
	And, it made no impact. So, I would submit, it is not an
	obstacle. But, I would submit, and many of you are lawyers,
	practicing attorneys, that you would look at the sentencing
	guidelines to see how people are being put in jail and for what
	length of time, and see if you are satisfied with those
	guidelines to our judiciary.
	Mr. Bryant. Chairman, can I have 1 more minute for one more
	speaker--or, I am sorry, maybe two?
	Mr. Dutkowski. Representative, I feel like a child whose
	mother said you can have one toy in Toys 'R Us, and I was
	thrown back by the question, and the only thing I could tell
	you from my perspective, given what I learned in 6 years in
	this program, is I wish you could give me a way to get to both
	parents the message that the kids count, that the kids are
	important. I have seen parents do amazing things to each other
	and their children in the name of getting even with each other.
	And, I just wish I had some way of figuring out how to make
	this program teach those parents that that is just absolutely
	ridiculous and foolish.
	Ms. Turetsky. I feel the same way. I would say, continued
	Federal financial support of the program. Expanded, an expanded
	Federal role in interstate and hard-to-find cases. And, if I
	can cheat with one more thing, Federal HHS development of
	research data and models for States to draw on in running their
	programs.
	Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Klink.
	Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hartwig, I want to assure you I think the IG's office
	has been very committed and creative in taking on this role.
	The task force, I think, is a good example of this, but I am a
	little bit concerned that the IG's office has taken on the
	front-seat job of driving this thing and the FBI and the
	Justice Department appear to be in the backseat, not treating
	these cases as if they are real crimes. And, you know, I may
	give you an example of what I am talking about.
	According to the memorandum of understanding that set up
	these task forces, the IG takes on the role as director of
	operations in each of these task forces. I would like to know
	why that is. In fact, if this is really a priority for Federal
	law enforcement, and we are trying to send a message that it is
	important to track down these deadbeat parents, why isn't the
	FBI assuming that position as the Nation's designated
	investigator for Federal crimes?
	Mr. Hartwig. I think the initial look at the task force was
	a partnership between the Office of Inspector General and the
	Office of Child Support Enforcement. And, I think we looked at
	it as our oversight role looking at child support enforcement.
	And, as we got into the investigation, the criminal
	investigation of child support, we thought if we looked to take
	all the resources that were available, Federal, State and
	local, including the FBI, including the United States Marshal
	Service, I think we have asked the Customs Service to join the
	task force, that we thought that we had an important,
	coordinative role. I don't know that the FBI could do a better
	job, but I think we looked at it as a partnership between us
	and the Office of Child Support Enforcement. I think as we look
	at the task forces and how they operate, I know we see a role
	for local law enforcement having a supervisory role. I think it
	was a natural progression that we would take over the
	investigative leadership; the Office of Child Support
	Enforcement would take over the leadership on the
	administrative side. I don't think it was due to any lack of
	emphasis on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's part.
	Mr. Klink. Well, I wish, I actually wish, again, Mr.
	Chairman, that we had the FBI here. I would like to hear from
	them. And, hopefully, in an additional hearing on down the
	road, we can do that. Because, I mean we really have to get to
	the bottom of this. We are dealing with such a minuscule number
	of cases also. And, that troubles me, too, that we don't have
	more resources to deal with a wider range of these cases.
	Normally, the Inspector General is in charge of auditing
	and evaluating the effectiveness of the programs. However, when
	the Inspector General actually is implementing the program, you
	can't be expected to, also, be an independent evaluator.
	Now, in the next few weeks, I want to ask the General
	Accounting Office to review the role of the FBI and the U.S.
	Attorney's office in Federal child support enforcement efforts.
	One of the questions that I want to ask is whether the FBI and
	the U.S. Attorneys are hiding behind the Inspector General's
	efforts instead of carrying out the responsibilities for
	prosecuting Federal crimes that Congress has given them.
	Before we finish here today, I want to put on the record a
	correspondence between Mr. Hartwig and the Department of
	Justice concerning why the IG should become special U.S.
	marshals and carry guns to prosecute child support cases. And I
	want to quote from an early 1996 memo from a Justice attorney,
	``Unfortunately, the FBI is unable to devote the full manpower
	and resources necessary to effectively police the Child Support
	Recovery Act. Additionally, the fugitive units lack experience
	and training in what are often called white collar
	investigations.''
	Mr. Hartwig, I would just ask you to kind of respond to
	that, and is it still true today that the cases are in the
	FBI's fugitive units and that they are incompetent in their
	ability to investigate all of these--in addition, let's face
	it, the FBI has some very, very serious cases. I am not
	minimalizing what the FBI is doing. I am just saying that as
	these things stack up, they are combating terrorism; they are
	combating drug dealers; they are combating internet crime;
	they--all the things that they are doing, where does this fit
	in?
	Mr. Hartwig. Let me answer the question in two parts.
	First, the Office of Inspector General has three components:
	audit, evaluation and investigations. And, Investigations is
	staffed by criminal investigators that conduct criminal
	investigations, and have been doing so for years. Actually, I
	think, in answer to the deputization question--our first--the
	Conference of Special Deputy U.S. Marshal Status on OIG agents
	was, I think, in 1987 and had to do with healthcare.
	Mr. Klink. Let me just stop you for a second. Are you
	auditing yourself throughout this process?
	Mr. Hartwig. That is the second issue. I think, as we look
	at partnership, our first partnership in HHS was Operation
	Restore Trust, where we partnered with the Health Care
	Financing Administration and the Administration on Aging on
	health care. It is a fine line where you look to partner with
	one of the components and exercise oversight. And, I think, in
	this case, we look at it as a law enforcement partnership. But
	we can still have our oversight role as far as how well the
	Office of Child Support Enforcement is doing with, for
	instance, the parent locator system. We are currently auditing
	that today. We are looking at how well the Office of Child
	Support Enforcement looks at reevaluating the child support
	orders. I think it is a difficult line for the IG. But I think
	we can partner with operating divisions on law enforcement
	issues while looking to prosecute and bring people who should
	be prosecuted to justice. At the same time, we can maintain our
	oversight role--nothing personal--but maintain our oversight
	role with respect to the individuals or agencies that we
	partner with.
	Mr. Klink. I thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman.
	Perhaps you didn't understand my question, Mr. Hartwig.
	Where is the FBI in all of this?
	Mr. Hartwig. They are an active member of the task force. I
	think they assign most of these cases to the fugitive squad,
	because many of them are, indeed, fugitives. And, I would not
	criticize--I don't know the memo you wrote. I don't----
	Mr. Klink. Well, they are saying they are not competent to
	deal with it. They don't, apparently, don't have the manpower,
	and then, they don't have access to the Internet. I mean, I
	don't know what is going on, but there is no evidence here that
	the FBI is competently going after significant numbers of these
	people.
	Mr. Hartwig. I found them to be competent. I think their
	fugitives because they are fugitives. One of the things we have
	tried to do at the task force is take the approach that the
	whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I am uncomfortable
	with representing the commitment of the FBI, but they have been
	in active partnership with us. We have actually exchanged
	supervisors with the FBI and we look to cooperate and to use
	whatever resources are available to the most effective level.
	Mr. Klink. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
	ask the GAO to take a look at this, because, with this hearing,
	you have raised some issues and I don't think we have put them
	to rest. Thank you.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you. As I listened to the testimony of all
	of you and read it over last night, one of the things that
	really sticks out as a red flag to me is the Child Support
	Recovery Act which Congress passed in 1992. I cannot imagine
	very many--I don't remember the specific vote; I am sure I
	voted for it, sort of like being against fraud and abuse. I am
	against it; we are all for child support recovery, but it
	doesn't look like we had a very good record between then and
	when we passed the welfare reform bill.
	Mr. Dutkowski, I think you mentioned that you had referred
	only--or Michigan had referred only--44 cases during that 6
	years, maybe 5 years by the time the regs were put out, to the
	U.S. Attorney's office and for some reason they only were able
	to convict two. So, the big change was, in fact, the welfare
	reform bill.
	My district is on the State line with Indiana, so we have a
	lot of folks that leave one State and go to the other and they
	just, sort of, disappear. But what did we not do in the Child
	Support Recovery Act that we did do in welfare reform?
	What is the big difference that made the States react in
	such a positive way? Was it the relationship that was
	established with the national task force in terms of the three
	States of which Michigan was blessed to be one? What was it?
	Mr. Dutkowski. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer a
	couple of those issues. First of all, when the initial law was
	passed, it was a misdemeanor. And, trying to convince law
	enforcement in other States to respond to a misdemeanor when
	they have so many issues facing them on a felony level, it was
	very difficult to get those cases addressed.
	The other thing was that the U.S. Attorneys, very honestly
	early on, had so much going on that taking misdemeanor to court
	was not viewed as a good use of their resources. So, the
	criteria was very stringent for them receiving a case from us.
	And, so we had a lot of work to do to get cases put together
	to, even, be accepted by the U.S. Attorney.
	What has happened since then is that the modification in
	the law to make it a felony, welfare reform which has drawn
	more attention to this issue, and this project which, along
	with the Department of Justice's focus on this and message to
	the U.S. Attorneys that this is important. And, when that has
	occurred over the last 2 or 3 years, we have had more contact
	with the U.S. Attorneys. And, in the last year under this
	project, we have had more cases accepted by the project with
	much fewer criteria, which made it easier for us to refer those
	cases.
	Mr. Upton. Again, as I read the testimony and as I listened
	the last hour, TANF comes up quite a bit. This is the funds
	that were approved for the States. Our Governor has used these
	dollars very wisely, has tried to hold Congress off at the pass
	for stealing the money back after a 5-year commitment was made.
	And, I think every State has been there with their hand up.
	When you look and listen to some of the statistics, Mr.
	Young, you talked about, for every dollar you spend, you
	collect $5.64. That is a pretty good deal. Tell me what some of
	the--I mean, are all the States being as good as Michigan has
	been? Are you using in Virginia the TANF funds? Maybe Mr.
	Monahan and Mr. Hartwig, sort of, overseen the whole country.
	Are all 50 States beginning to use this as, sort of, money that
	maybe they didn't think was going to be because of the progress
	made in welfare? Said, ``Hey, we have a pretty good return on
	these dollars coming back''; shall we follow the same example
	that was led by John Engler?
	Mr. Young. Absolutely, and as Mr. Dutkowski said, he went
	from welfare to work to using TANF dollars. Some of that is
	going on in Virginia as well. This is probably one of the best
	funded programs on the social side of the house that you will
	see. It is a generous program, would probably be the best way
	to put it at 66 percent reimbursement from the Office of Child
	Support Enforcement. It is not a ``get rich'' scheme. It does
	not give you lavish money, but it is generous enough that you
	can run the program and hire the people and buy the computers
	you need, if you fill out the right forms and do the right
	things.
	Mr. Upton. Mr. Monahan.
	Mr. Monahan. Mr. Chairman, you are exactly right. Since the
	President signed the welfare bill, we have found that States
	across the country have been using their TANF funds in creative
	ways to help people go from welfare to work and try to succeed.
	While TANF provides funding to States in a very flexible
	fashion, as you know, since 1975 there has been a separate
	child support program. As Mr. Young noted, the Federal
	Government provides 66 percent match for all administrative
	activities related to child support enforcement. The Federal
	Government provides substantial resources for all the
	enforcement tools that have been discussed by the panelists
	here and raised by you and others about how to locate parents,
	secure orders and enforce them.
	So, States really have two vehicles, although the main one
	really is the separate funding for child support.
	Mr. Upton. Mr. Hartwig, do you want to add to that?
	Mr. Hartwig. I have nothing to add.
	Mr. Upton. Okay. Mr. Burr.
	Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask, is there
	anybody that doesn't feel that Project Save Our Children is an
	effort in the right direction? Great, okay. I think Mr. Bryant
	gave everybody an opportunity to make that one statement; in
	some cases we gave more.
	But I think that, certainly, I would encourage all of you
	submit to this committee in writing, if you would like to
	expand on it. I am sure that the gentleman at the end of the
	table would be more than willing to read those and incorporate
	those in.
	Mr. Dutkowski, what change in Michigan, what couldn't you
	do before Project Save Our Children that you can do now?
	Mr. Dutkowski. Well, let me give you one good example that
	Representative Stupak mentioned. When he was State police
	officer, he would arrest someone in Detroit who had an arrest
	warrant from the upper peninsula. And, what do we do with him?
	We can't get him up there. And, I was telling a staff person
	that we have resolved this problem. We got everybody to the
	table under this project and you heard the long list of people
	that I mentioned are involved. And, when we got them to the
	table, the State police said, ``Well we move from site to site.
	We have posts all over the State. Why don't we, when you have
	somebody like that, pick them up and we will, basically, relay
	them from post to post and get them from where they are to
	where they need to be?'' There are very few, and I don't know
	about Wayne County, but there are very few that will go more
	than 60 miles to pick up someone. So, the State police have
	stepped forward and said, ``We'll do that.'' And, it is just a
	routine part of our process. We are going from place to place
	and we will transport them.
	The opening of communication has made a huge difference in
	terms of people taking responsibility for this, as something
	they have not paid as much attention to. And, when we break it
	down to its simplest elements, that this is a crime against
	children, they step forward and start dealing with that. And I
	have tried in 6 years, the 5 years before the project to find a
	way to do that and was totally unsuccessful until Chief Deering
	and Matt Kochanski from the IG's office came forward and said,
	``We'll help you.'' And it made all the difference in the world
	for us.
	Mr. Burr. Clearly, I believe Mr. Skidmore today would have
	driven that--success factor----
	Mr. Dutkowski. He can only drive one at a time.
	Mr. Burr. But I think you hit upon a much bigger theme, and
	I think that is what this committee needs to understand is that
	it wasn't until the partnership was formed between the Federal
	Government and State. Not that we have taken Mr. Monahan or Mr.
	Hartwig's creation and tried to force it. It is more the
	statement that was made by the formation of the partnership,
	not only to those deadbeats, but to the court system to law
	enforcement on a local level, that we are serious. We are
	serious in completing the task that we have been charged with
	doing.
	I am less concerned, Mr. Hartwig, with who plays what role,
	whether the FBI takes the lead or whether--whoever takes the
	lead. I am more concerned with the outcome. Are we making
	progress? How do we duplicate what we have done? Where else do
	we need demonstration projects and what do you need to do them?
	Less concerned with authorship and more concerned with success.
	I really don't care who plays what role as long as it is your
	belief and our belief that we are making progress.
	Mr. Skidmore, you have made the first arrest under Project
	Save Our Children or the first--I guess it was arrest of the
	ex-husband. Am I correct?
	Mr. Skidmore. I was the first arrest in Wayne County under
	the criminal statute, but me being part of the child support,
	the task force here, I take two Federal cases, ten civil cases
	and one criminal case. That was the first case in Wayne County
	ever to be prosecuted under the felony statute in our State.
	So, it was the task force that did that, but it was through the
	State that the prosecution took place.
	Mr. Burr. And, can you tell us anything about that arrest?
	Mr. Skidmore. It was quite the big ordeal. We had a lot of
	people involved and Mr. Rometta, the gentleman we arrested, all
	the news cameras, all five stations in the city of Detroit were
	there for the arrest. And we brought him down to the station.
	He wasn't aware of what happened. He just thought he was
	getting arrested, pay another $1,000, he told me, and I will be
	out, you know. This crazy female attorney is chasing after me
	and she won't leave me alone. And it turned out, we informed
	him a little while later that he was the first person charged
	in the State of Michigan, Wayne County, for a felony. He was
	facing up to 4 years in Jackson prison.
	Mr. Burr. What was his reaction?
	Mr. Skidmore. Oh, his knees crumbled and we had to hold him
	up there for a minute. He was----
	Mr. Burr. What do you believe the message was that was sent
	to other deadbeats in that viewing areas in Michigan.
	Mr. Skidmore. It was powerful. It was powerful. My phone--I
	had three offices for all the different things and the phone
	was off the hook. People, clerks in the courtroom where we
	arraigned him, were sending me messages. They had cases they
	wanted all done. The news media on it--when we arrive back in
	Detroit tomorrow, all of the news channels are going to be
	there again to interview Vanessa and Renata. And, it is just
	going to be another huge, positive thing that is going to
	happen. And, we don't use high dollars or low dollars. We just
	pick randomly. And that is what I think is a really neat
	message it sent. You know, you don't have to be $100,000
	behind. No, you can be $5,000 behind, $4,000 behind. You never
	know if we are going to come after you and charge you with a
	felony.
	Mr. Burr. Last question and then one comment if I could: I
	am not going to ask you, Mr. Hartwig or Mr. Monahan, how you
	came to the selection criteria of the $20,000 the 1 year in
	arrears, that type of thing. I think, clearly, whoever made
	that process had to distinguish in some way. And I think that
	the women that were in earlier, when they said, ``Why not
	$10,000?'' I think that is a question we would all ask. Why not
	$1?
	But let me commend the effort in the right direction, your
	willingness to refine this as we go through the process. And,
	let me suggest to all that are on this panel and the members
	that several of you hit on the key. Never let us forget whose
	human face it is behind the issue that we are trying to solve.
	It is those who have the least effect on the entire process,
	and I think, clearly, the partnership could expand to include
	many more people. And, I reference to the American people who
	would gladly join in this effort, as long as they feel we are
	serious and we are successful at it.
	With that, let me yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hartwig. Let me just, if I could, respond to what I
	think is a very legitimate concern that you had concerning the
	targeting of just money. And, that benchmark was one of the
	benchmarks that we have established. We have made it clear that
	we are also looking at the financial ability of the non-
	custodial spouse to pay. But we have also had a benchmark that
	where the health and welfare of children are at risk, that we
	would take any of those cases. And, we have actually prosecuted
	cases where the arrearage is--I can recall one in Pennsylvania,
	the arrearage was $6,000 and that case was prosecuted in
	Federal court because of the issue related to the health and
	welfare of the children. I share your concern and I don't think
	that we should ever make child support purely a financial
	consideration because it is the welfare and health of children
	that we are talking about here.
	I think, as we look at this task force, the monetary amount
	was one of the benchmarks that we used to determine
	egregiousness. But, we had a case here in Virginia, if I could
	just digress for a moment, where the custodial spouse was
	working and in danger of losing her position because of a
	daughter that required constant feeding. And, even though the
	arrearages of that amount was not a great amount, we thought
	that that case required a Federal presence and a Federal
	prosecution since the non-custodial spouse had moved out of the
	State.
	Mr. Burr. Thank you.
	Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
	Just a couple of questions, sort of, to follow up. Mr.
	Young, you talked about one of the things that you have done in
	Virginia is to send letters to some 57,000 folks. Are all of
	those, or some of those outside the State of Virginia, as well?
	Were they all in-state?
	Mr. Young. They were the 57,000, if you will, most
	egregious and some of them were out-of-state. And, we got some
	response. Admittedly, we get more response from within the
	State of Virginia because we have more control in the State of
	Virginia.
	Mr. Upton. And, does the State of Virginia--are they able
	to take away driver's license or try and restrict or garnish
	wages, garnish pensions?
	Mr. Young. Yes, yes, the legislature of Virginia passed
	that law in 1995, and unfortunately, it was before the two
	ladies testified today. That law was not in effect at that
	time, and so we have passed that law to take away drivers'
	licenses. And, we have revoked 923 licenses and we are going to
	revoke a whole lot more.
	Ms. DeGette said that just the impetus to the threat, the
	notice of intent to revoke the license. That is growing old and
	a lot of the non-custodial parents get the notice of intent and
	they say, ``fine,'' and they are starting to drive anyway.
	Then, we take their license. They up the ante and they drive
	without the damn license. It doesn't help any.
	Mr. Upton. And, what do you do with folks that, say, find
	greener pastures and move to Michigan from Virginia? Are you
	able to dun their wages? Are you able to have some reciprocal
	agreements with States? And, if so, how many?
	Mr. Young. That is the beauty of the connection with the
	Federal case registry that comes out. I am receiving, as of
	last month, 2,000 new employee records a day in Virginia. I am
	having trouble processing them. Every day I am getting new jobs
	where so and so went to work in Idaho, Michigan, Kansas,
	whatever. First, we verify is he employed there, and then we
	send an automatic wage withholding to that company in Michigan
	or wherever and----
	Mr. Upton. And, it works?
	Mr. Young. And, does it work, too, from folks who
	tragically leave our State, Mr. Dutkowski?
	Mr. Dutkowski. The few who leave, it does work, yes.
	Mr. Upton. Mr. Skidmore, we are delighted to help. This was
	a great story and wonderful effort to remind folks in Michigan
	in terms of what is happening in Michigan, and hopefully, the
	other 17 States that embark on a similar thing as Ohio,
	Illinois and Michigan have done. But, I noticed in your
	testimony that you talked about 300,000 folks that pay child
	support or are supposed to pay child support. I presume, when
	you talk about those, maybe, Mr. Dutkowski, you can comment,
	too, it probably follows the national trend line which, of
	those 300,000, only a quarter are up to speed in terms of
	making their payments. Is that about right? So, three quarters
	of those are not.
	Mr. Dutkowski. I would really like to answer that question
	because that did come up earlier in the discussion, and the
	facts I have in front of me are from the Office of Child
	Support Enforcement Report, the 158 that we submit to the
	Federal Government for fiscal year 1998. And in that of all the
	cases in Michigan on public assistance, we collected 31.1
	percent ahead of collection, which is much higher than you will
	find in an average. But, what I wanted to bring to your
	attention is the non-public assistance rate. Among people who
	are not on public assistance, current support is being
	collected at a rate of 72 percent for people who are not on
	assistance. It is much, much tougher to enforce cases where
	public assistance is involved. And in part, that is because the
	resources on the part of the non-custodial parent aren't quite
	as great.
	So, we are collecting on about 30 percent of the cases
	across the board who are on public assistance. And overall in
	Michigan, it is probably close to 40 percent for everyone, when
	you consider non-custodial parents, as well, or non-public
	assistance cases.
	Mr. Upton. Mr. Hartwig, you indicated in your testimony
	that a third of the kids in public assistance lack paternity
	tests?
	Mr. Hartwig. In Michigan, I am pretty sure, you don't get
	on public assistance if you don't name the father. Isn't that
	right?
	Mr. Dutkowski. That is one of the requirements for public
	assistance. You have to cooperate with the child support
	program. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Upton. Do you know about how many other States have--
	does North Carolina have that?
	Mr. Monahan. Mr. Chairman, every State is required to make
	parents cooperate as a condition of receiving public
	assistance. Even with cooperation, though, sometimes paternity
	isn't established. I have the State by State figures here.
	[The information follows:]

	Average Number of Children Requiring Paternity Determination, FY 1998
	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	States Total States Total
	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Alabama....................................... 147,332 Montana................................... 4,340
	Alaska........................................ 7,297 Nebraska.................................. 18,794
	Arizona....................................... 161,529 Nevada.................................... 17,243
	Arkansas...................................... 93,300 New Hampshire............................. 6,060
	California.................................... 119,099 New Jersey................................ 86,626
	Colorado...................................... 27,450 New Mexico................................ 16,277
	Connecticut................................... 28,305 New York.................................. 246,365
	Delaware...................................... 13,205 North Carolina............................ 2,934
	District of Columbia.......................... 46,949 North Dakota.............................. 7,188
	Florida....................................... 225,407 Ohio...................................... 187,414
	Georgia....................................... 128,829 Oklahoma.................................. 35,469
	Guam.......................................... 3,287 Oregon.................................... 31,265
	Hawaii........................................ 9,098 Pennsylvania.............................. 108,420
	Idaho......................................... 11,098 Puerto Rico............................... 2,263
	Illinois...................................... 345,984 Rhode Island.............................. 19,588
	Indiana....................................... 59,453 South Carolina............................ 112,379
	Iowa.......................................... 24,073 South Dakota.............................. 1,543
	Kansas........................................ 13,997 Tennessee................................. 70,882
	Kentucky...................................... 50,631 Texas..................................... 221,853
	Louisiana..................................... 130,198 Utah...................................... 10,301
	Maine......................................... 11,951 Vermont................................... 2,058
	Maryland...................................... 79,349 Virgin Islands............................ 1,969
	Massachusetts................................. 63,670 Virginia.................................. 148,442
	Michigan...................................... 89,980 Washington................................ 29,117
	Minnesota..................................... 47,146 West Virginia............................. 23,919
	Mississippi................................... 106,192 Wisconsin................................. 48,020
	Missouri...................................... 79,474 Wyoming................................... 22,164
	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Nationwide Totals......................... 3,607,176
	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Source: Form OCSE-156

	Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr, do you have further
	questions?
	Mr. Burr. Just one followup. I am curious--to both of you
	at the end of the table--what electronically, what with the
	technological changes might either be out there today that are
	unutilized or around the corner that may be utilized in the
	future that Congress should be aware of, not only from the
	confidentiality side but from our ability to give everybody in
	this process the access to use?
	Mr. Monahan. I think, we should, first, be proud of what we
	have done. The welfare bill of 1996 provided access to
	electronic databases that have opened up a world that really
	wasn't available to child support enforcement. A national
	directory of new hires was established to show when a non-
	custodial parent moves and changes jobs. Within a couple of
	days, you can find out where that person is using the system.
	We are just beginning to work on access to financial
	institutions and other sources of information about where non-
	custodial parents are.
	Undoubtedly, sir, I am sure there are going to be things
	that we will want to do down the road to enhance that capacity.
	I think that we and our partners, the States--and you are great
	to identify two of these extraordinary child support directors
	here on the panel with us as we all implement this project, we
	are going to find other things that are needed. In the child
	support program over the last couple of years, we have been
	adding new data bases and new opportunities to track people
	that just weren't there previously.
	Jack, is there anything?
	Mr. Hartwig. I don't have much to add, except that I think
	one of the things that we have tried to do is, as you deal with
	a number of investigations, you find new data that is available
	to you and new uses for that data. I don't know that I could
	point to single restrictions related to law enforcement on the
	use of that data. There are some restrictions on the sharing of
	the data, where we may have access on the Federal level to
	data. Some of that data--there is an inability for us to share
	with a local police officer or a State police officer. I could
	get more information for you on that. I know there are some
	restrictions that, if we obtain the data federally, as to
	whether we can share that in a purely State investigation.
	Mr. Burr. I would be willing to bet that, if the truth be
	known, the credit card company that is sending the next
	application probably knows about the move much quicker than we
	do, the one chasing.
	Mr. Young. Sir, I would like to only add two other
	opportunities, technologically, that need to be explored. The
	financial institution data matches working with the banks. Make
	no mistake, the banking industry is not really anxious to work
	with us. And, I won't speak for them, but I will tell you I
	have worked with them and they are committed to the
	confidentiality of your and my bank records. And, I understand
	that.
	Mr. Burr. All your banks in Virginia are now owned by North
	Carolina companies.
	Mr. Young. There is no such thing as a Virginia bank
	anymore.
	Mr. Upton. Is that why First Union is laying off 6,000
	people?
	Mr. Young. My brother works for First Union, I think.
	But anyway, the other thing is electronic signatures. For
	as many times as we brought the two ladies into our offices to
	do things, sign these documents and bring the Federal marshals
	the warrants and sign affidavits and give them some things--I
	am trying to get a law introduced in Virginia for electronic
	signatures. When you go into Sears and buy something, you walk
	out with a paper. They don't keep any paper. They have got your
	signature. So, I want to try to introduce that. The judicial
	system is not necessarily embracing that and we need some help
	in that area.
	Mr. Burr. Amazon.com did not require my signature, either,
	when I did it from my computer at home.
	Mr. Young. Absolutely.
	Mr. Burr. I thank the chairman.
	Mr. Upton. Well, thank you. Again, I appreciate all of you
	for staying with us this morning. You have provided some very
	valuable testimony, and we wish you very well in the cause that
	we all support. Thanks very much for your leadership.
	For the record, there are a number of items that we are
	going to ask to be submitted.
	And you are now excused. Thank you.
	[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

	</pre></body></html>