The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted in January 1975 ( P.L. 93-647 ). The CSE program is administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and is funded by general revenues. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and nine tribal nations operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. When the CSE program was first enacted in 1975, one of its primary goals was to recover the costs (of federal and state governments) of providing cash welfare to families with children. Over the years, the CSE program has evolved into a multifaceted program. While cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, other aspects of the program include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. In FY2005, the CSE program collected $23 billion in child support on behalf of more than 17 million children, of which $21 billion went to families and $2 billion was retained by the states and federal government as recovered welfare costs. The CSE program is intended to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE services. In FY2004, more than 331,000 families were able to end their enrollment in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program due to receipt of child support payments according to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). Although the CSE program generally garners bipartisan support, for most of its history changes to the program have been achieved in tandem with more controversial changes to other social programs. This was illustrated in the 1996 welfare reform law. P.L. 104-193 , the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, was a major piece of social legislation, most known for ending the cash welfare entitlement for needy families with children, creating the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, setting a five-year time limit on aid, and requiring more work from welfare recipients. In addition to making changes to a number of other social programs, the 1996 welfare reform law included over 40 provisions that made significant changes to the CSE program. The original funding authority for TANF and mandatory child care provided in the 1996 welfare law expired at the end of FY2002 (September 30, 2002). President Bush submitted his welfare reauthorization proposals to Congress in February 2002. Many policymakers and child support advocates maintained at the start of the welfare reauthorization debates that child support should be included in the discussions in light of the key role that child support plays in promoting self-sufficiency. Though Congress debated welfare legislation throughout the four years 2002 through 2005, it did not pass comprehensive welfare reauthorization legislation (the major areas of contention were work requirements and child care funding, not the proposed CSE changes ). However, a scaled-back version of welfare reauthorization legislation was ultimately included in broader budget spending reconciliation legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ). P.L. 109-171 was signed into law on February 8, 2006. The act, among other things, extended funding for the basic TANF block grant through FY2010, increased the percentage of TANF families that are required to participate in work or work activities, increased funding for child care, established healthy marriage promotion grants and responsible fatherhood initiatives, and revised the CSE program. Although P.L. 109-171 included significant changes to the CSE program, it did not include many of the child support provisions discussed and considered within the four-year welfare reauthorization debate. This report provides a brief discussion of 12 child support provisions that were considered during 2002-2005 within the context of welfare reauthorization but not enacted in P.L. 109-171 or any other federal law. To the extent that some of these provisions had broad support, they may be considered again in the 110 th Congress. The Administration has included several of the provisions in its FY2008 Budget. The child support provisions discussed below were all either passed by the House or by the Senate Finance Committee (or both), and many also were supported by the Administration. Although few of the provisions elicited controversy, they were not included in P.L. 109-171 or any other federal law. Because the welfare and child support provisions were included in budget reconciliation legislation, there was concern that some provisions would be struck during the Senate's consideration of the bill due to the Byrd rule. This report describes these child support provisions and includes a table that highlights the major welfare reauthorization measures in which these 12 provisions were included during the 2002-2005 period. (See Table A-1 .) The 12 provisions below are not arranged with respect to importance or any other measure. However, they are classified into two categories: (1) expansion of CSE collection/enforcement tools and (2) other provisions. The CSE agency is second only to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in terms of its collection/enforcement apparatus. Child support collection methods used by CSE agencies include income withholding, interception of federal and state income tax refunds, interception of unemployment compensation, liens against property, security bonds, reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus, regular billings, delinquency notices, garnishment of wages, revocation of various types of licenses (drivers', business, occupational, recreational), denial of passport, attachment of lottery winnings and insurance settlements, and seizure of assets held by public or private retirement funds and financial institutions. Income withholding continues to be the most effective method of collecting child support. In FY2005, income withholding accounted for 69% of total child support collections. All jurisdictions also have civil or criminal contempt-of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. Even with its array of collection procedures, the CSE program has consistently collected only a small fraction of the child support obligations for which it has responsibility—18% in FY2005. Although this percentage is higher if past-due child support payments (i.e., arrearages, which generally are hard to collect) are not considered in the equation, it is still relatively low at 60%—that is, in FY2005, the CSE program collected only 60% of current child support payments/obligations. The provisions discussed below seek to expand and/or enhance the ability of states to collect child support payments by revising some CSE enforcement tools and adding others. The disability compensation benefits of veterans are treated differently than most forms of government payment for purposes of paying child support. Whereas most government payments are subject to being automatically withheld to pay child support, veterans' disability compensation is not subject to intercept. Thus, in general, veterans' disability compensation benefits are exempt from being considered moneys paid or payable to an individual (based on remuneration from pay) for purposes of paying child support or alimony. Prior to 2004, there was one exception to this rule. The exception occurred when a disabled veteran elected to forego some of his or her retirement pay in order to collect additional disability payments. In other words, if a disabled veteran accepted disability compensation instead of retirement pay, he or she was subject to having his or her disability benefits offset to meet child support obligations. P.L. 108-136 , enacted November 24, 2003, enables veterans to receive both military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation. P.L. 108-136 eliminated the need to forego retirement pay for disability compensation payments. Given that veterans' disability compensation is not subject to intercept, several House and Senate bills included a provision that would have allowed veterans' disability compensation benefits to be intercepted (withheld) and paid on a routine basis to the custodial parent. The proposed provision would have made all veterans' income subject to income withholding for child support obligations. Supporters of the provision maintain that the provision would provide more child support collections to families of disabled veterans and make the treatment of veterans' disability payments more consistent with other forms of government payment with regard to obtaining child support obligations. Opponents of the provision contend that Congress should stand by its long history of protecting the payments made to disabled veterans from garnishment or other legal claims. They argue that the federal government should put protections in place so that veterans' disability compensation payments will not be diverted from the children to others (e.g., former spouses) who need them less than the disabled veteran. Federal law (the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996— P.L. 104-134 ) stipulates that the Treasury Department has the authority to compare the names and taxpayer identifying numbers of debtors with the names and taxpayer identifying numbers of recipients of federal payments. The Department of the Treasury (or other designated federal disbursing agency) has the authority to offset Social Security benefits, certain Black Lung Board benefits, and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to collect delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States (if the debt is more than 180 days past-due), subject to an annual $9,000 ($750 per month) exemption. The law only applies to federal debts such as student loans, housing loans, and small business loans. It does not apply to a debt owed to a state. Thus, the law prohibits the offset of federal benefit payments to collect delinquent state-enforced child support obligations because child support debt is owed to states rather than the federal government. Child support arrearage payments, which are enforced by states, cannot be offset from Social Security benefits/payments. Generally, Social Security benefits are not subject to garnishment, attachment, or other legal process, pursuant to Section 207(a) of the Social Security Act.