Senate Report 113-137 - THE SUPPORTING AT-RISK KIDS ACT

[Senate Report 113-137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 279

113th Congress } { Report
} SENATE {
2d Session 113-137
======================================================================

THE SUPPORTING AT-RISK KIDS ACT

_______

February 6, 2014.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Baucus, from the Committee on Finance,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1870]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Finance, having considered an original
bill, S. 1870, to reauthorize and restructure adoption
incentive payments, to better enable State child welfare
agencies to prevent sex trafficking of children and serve the
needs of children who are victims of sex trafficking, to
increase the reliability of child support for children, and for
other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that
the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

Background and Need for Legislative Action....................... 2
Legislative History and Committee Action......................... 8
Title I--Strengthening and Finding Families for Children......... 15
Subtitle A--Adoption Incentive Payments........................ 16
Sec. 111--Extension of Program Through Fiscal Year 2016........ 16
Sec. 112--Improvements to Award Structure...................... 16
Sec. 113--Renaming the Program................................. 21
Sec. 114--Limitations on Use of Incentive Payments............. 21
Sec. 115--State Report on Calculation and Use of Savings
Resulting from the Phase-Out of Eligibility Requirements for
Adoption Assistance; Requirement to Spend 40 Percent of
Savings on Certain Services.................................. 21
Sec. 116--Preservation of Eligibility for Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payments with a Successor Guardian................ 22
Sec. 117--Data Collection on Adoption and Foster Child
Guardianship Disruption and Dissolution...................... 23
Sec. 118--Effective Dates...................................... 24
Subtitle B--Extension of Family Connection Program............. 24
Sec. 121--Extension of Family Connection Grant Program......... 24
Subtitle C--Unemployment Compensation.......................... 26
Sec. 131--Improving the Collection of Unemployment Insurance
Overpayments through Tax Refund Offset....................... 26
Title II--Identifying and Serving Youth Vulnerable to Sex
Trafficking.................................................... 26
Subtitle A--Addressing the Risks that Make Youth Vulnerable to
Sex Trafficking.............................................. 26
Sec. 211--Identifying and Screening Youth at Risk of Sex
Trafficking.................................................. 26
Sec. 212--Improvements to Another Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA) as Permanency Option..................... 27
Subtitle B--Empowering Older Youth Vulnerable to Domestic Sex
Trafficking and Other Negative Outcomes...................... 31
Sec. 221--Empowering Foster Youth Age 14 and Older in the
Development of Their Own Case Plan and Transition Planning
for a Successful Adulthood................................... 31
Sec. 222--Ensuring Foster Children Age 14 or Older Have a Birth
Certificate, Social Security Card, Driver's License or
Equivalent and a Bank Account................................ 33
Subtitle C--Data and Reports................................... 34
Sec. 231--Streamline Data Collection and Reporting on Sex
Trafficking.................................................. 34
Sec. 232--Recommendations to Congress for Expanding Housing for
Youth Victims of Trafficking................................. 36
Subtitle D--National Advisory Committee on Domestic Sex
Trafficking.................................................. 37
Sec. 241--National Advisory Committee on Domestic Sex
Trafficking.................................................. 37
Title III--Child Support Enforcement............................. 40
Subtitle A--Increased Reliability of Child Support............. 40
Sec. 311--Compliance with Multilateral Child Support
Conventions.................................................. 40
Sec. 312--Relief from Passport Sanctions for Certain Individual 45
Sec. 313--Child Support Enforcement Programs for Indian Tribes. 46
Sec. 314--Parenting Time Arrangements.......................... 47
Sec. 315--Efficient Use of the National Directory of New Hires
Database for Federally Sponsored Research Assessing the
Effectiveness of Federal Policies and Programs in Achieving
Positive Labor Market Outcomes............................... 48
Subtitle B--Child Support Enforcement Task Force............... 49
Sec. 321--Child Support Enforcement Task Force................. 49
Subtitle C--Effective Dates.................................... 50
Sec. 331--Effective Dates...................................... 50
Appendix....................................................... 50

I. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

The Finance Committee has demonstrated a commitment to
working in a bipartisan fashion on issues that affect the
nation's children and youth. In the 112th and 113th Congresses
the Finance Committee continued its commitment to children and
young people through a series of roundtables, hearings, and
legislative actions initiated by committee members. These
activities of the Senate Finance Committee and its members
culminated in the ``Supporting At-Risk Kids Act of 2013'' that
seeks to address improved permanency for children in foster
care, identify and provide services to youth at risk for
domestic sex traffic and to prevent the trafficking of
vulnerable children and youth, as well as to encourage parental
involvement both fiscally and socially in the lives of children
for whom child support is owed.

TITLE I--STRENGTHENING AND FINDING FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN ADOPTION
INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM

The Adoption Incentive Payment program distributes federal
bonuses to states when they increase adoptions of children in
foster care. Under current law, states earn $4,000 for each
adoption of a foster child that is above the number of foster
child adoptions finalized by the state in FY 2007 and $8,000
for each adoption of an older child (9 or older) above the
number of older child adoptions finalized in 2007. If a state
has earned an award in either of these categories, or if it has
improved its adoption rate (above the rate achieved in 2002 or
a later year with a higher rate), it earns $4,000 for each
adoption of a ``special needs child above the number of such
adoptions finalized in 2007.'' States can also receive a rate
incentive payment of $1,000 multiplied by the increased number
of adoptions calculated to have resulted from an improved rate,
if appropriated funds are available.
Adoption Incentive payments are authorized at $43 million a
year.
Under current law, states are permitted to spend their
Adoption Incentive Payment on a broad range of child welfare
services.
The Committee Bill would modify the current adoption
incentive program by allowing states to earn incentive payments
for improvements to both legal guardianship and adoption;
permitting awards in four separate categories, awarded
independently and replacing the current number/set year basis
with an incentive structure based on a state's adoption or
guardianship rate for the current year based on the average of
the three preceding years.
The Committee finds that using this comparison removes the
effect of overall caseload changes from the measurement of a
state's performance, for states with a declining number of
children in foster care, but a continued strong performance for
increasing adoptions and guardianship. The Committee finds that
for states with increasing caseloads, it can ensure that
incentives are rewarded based on performance, not sheer numbers
of children eligible.
Furthermore, the Committee finds that using a three year
average closest to the award year ensures that states are
evaluated based on their most recent performance, rather than
an arbitrary point in time.
The Committee finds that the purpose of the incentive
program is to attempt to increase permanency. For many older
youth, adoption is not a viable outcome, but a guardianship
placement is. The Committee finds that states should be
rewarded for policies that contribute to a guardianship
permanency outcome.
The awards contemplated by the Committee Bill are as
follows:
$4,000 for foster care child adoptions above the base
rate;
$8,000 for older child adoptions (9 years or older)
above the base rate;
$4,500 for special needs adoptions (9 and younger)
above the base rate; and
$4,000 for child guardianships above the base rate.
In order to mitigate the effect of changing from a number
to a rate on certain states, the Committee Bill contemplates a
transition rule where the transition to a rate structure is
phased in over three years.
The Committee Bill makes improvements to the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
which phased out the income eligibility standard for federal
reimbursement for the award given to families who adopt a child
out of foster care. CBO estimated that the federal government
would spend $1 billion over ten years in increased Adoption
Assistance funds.
The Committee Bill would amend provisions of the adoption
assistance component of the Title IV-E program related to
accounting for and ``reinvesting'' certain state savings under
the program. States are now required to document any savings
that accrue to the state based on the incremental removal of
federal income eligibility criteria for Title IV-E adoption
assistance, which began in FY2010 and will be fully
accomplished as of FY2018. Further, they must reinvest any such
savings in one or more of the broad range of services that may
be provided to children and their families under the child
welfare programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act.
The Committee Bill requires states to annually calculate
any savings in state spending based on expanded Title IV-E
eligibility criteria using a methodology specified by HHS or
one proposed by the state and approved by HHS. Additionally,
each state would need to annually submit to HHS: the
methodology it used to calculate savings; the amount of any
savings identified; and how the savings are to be spent. HHS
would be required to post this state-reported information on
its website.
Additionally, states would be required to spend no less
than 40% of any state savings identified to provide post-
adoption or post-guardianship services to children placed in
adoptive homes or with guardians and to support and sustain
positive permanent outcomes for children who otherwise might
enter foster care. The law would be further amended to
stipulate that the spending of any such savings would need to
supplement, rather than supplant, any federal or non-federal
money already being used to support child welfare services
available under programs included in Title IV-B or Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act.
The Committee Bill also extends the Family Connection
grants which support demonstration projects to implement four
kinds of programs intended to enable children in foster care,
or at risk of entering care, to stay connected (or newly
connect) with family. These are:
1. Kinship navigator programs;
2. Intensive finding efforts;
3. Family group decision-making meetings; and
4. Residential family treatment programs that address
substance abuse and mental health issues.
The Committee Bill would extend annual mandatory funding of
$15 million for Family Connection Grants (Section 427 of the
Social Security Act) for three years (FY2014-FY2016).
The Committee Bill would remove a current law provision
stipulating that no less than five percent of the Family
Connection Grants funding provided in each fiscal year must be
used to support kinship navigator programs.

TITLE II--IDENTIFYING AND SERVING YOUTH VULNERABLE TO SEX TRAFFICKING

The Committee finds that recent reports on sex trafficking
estimate that hundreds of thousands of children and youth are
at risk for domestic sex trafficking. This risk is compounded
every year for up to 30,000 young people ``emancipated'' from
foster care.
The Committee finds that in order to combat domestic sex
trafficking and improve outcomes for children and youth in
foster care, systemic changes need to be made in the current
child welfare system.
During a June 5, 2013, Senate Finance Committee hearing,
``Sex Trafficking and Exploitation in America: Child Welfare's
Role in Prevention and Intervention,'' The Honorable Joette
Katz, J.D., Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Children
and Families testified that, ``Data shows that children who are
involved with child welfare services, specifically in the
foster care system are at a much higher risk of being
trafficked into the sex trade.''
Commissioner Katz went on to testify that, ``Since 2008
when collaborative efforts in Connecticut significantly
increased both internally at the department and externally with
the community, there have been approximately 130 children who
have been identified and confirmed as victims of domestic minor
sex trafficking. Of these victims identified, 98 percent have
been involved with child welfare services in some manner and
many of these children have been victimized while legally in
the care and custody of the department.''
The changes in the Committee Bill make important steps in
improving child welfare systems to help improve outcomes for
children and youth vulnerable to domestic sex trafficking. The
Committee heard testimony that in many states, if a girl is a
trafficking victim who has been trafficked out of foster care,
the child welfare agency will not provide services to her and
many social workers are unaware of the signs of trafficking.
From survivor Asia Graves, in testimony delivered at the
June 5, 2013, Senate Finance Committee hearing.

I did not wake up one morning and say that I wanted
to be a prostitute. No girl does. And, there is no such
thing as a ``child prostitute'' because legally
children cannot consent to be sold for sex. No girl
chooses to be a slave. Yet, girls like me are the face
of modern day slavery in America.
You might ask how this can be possible. Here is how:
80 to 90% of victims of trafficking have been sexually
abused. That is my story, too. I was raped by my
mother's drug dealers from the ages of 6 to 10 years
old. I went to school and told my teachers as well as a
school social worker who just believed that I was
making it up. I stopped asking for help. My life as an
American victim of modern day slavery could have been
prevented. I am going to be honest with you right now.
The state child welfare system failed me as a child.
How is it possible a straight A student like myself
went missing and no one reported it? What about all
those social workers and foster homes where I was
abused and beaten?

From Susan Goldfarb, Executive Director, Children's
Advocacy Center of Suffolk County, Boston, MA in testimony
before the Senate Finance Committee on June 5, 2013:

In most states, child welfare becomes involved only
when an alleged offender is in a caretaking role. A
pimp is not considered a caretaker--so the majority of
exploitation reports are ``screened out''. All
exploited youth do not receive child welfare services.
A few states have expanded the scope of their screening
to include adult caretakers who have a child under his
or her control. This change allows exploited youth--who
have no familial caretaker in their life--to receive
the support and services of child welfare.

The Committee Bill requires that by a year after enactment,
as part of their eligibility for foster care payments, states,
in consultation with the child protective services agencies,
must demonstrate to the Secretary of HHS that they have
developed policies and procedures for identifying and screening
children who are either victims of sex trafficking or are at
risk of becoming victims. The states must also determine the
appropriate state action and services that will be made
available for any child who the state reasonably believes is a
victim, or is at risk of being a victim, of domestic sex
trafficking. At state option, this provision applies to all
youth up to age 26, regardless of whether or not that youth was
in or is currently in or never was in foster care.
Two years after enactment, the state must demonstrate to
the Secretary that it is implementing these policies and
procedures.
The Committee Bill also requires that each state's Foster
Care and Adoption Assistance plan contains a description of the
specific measures taken to protect and provide services to
children who are victims of sex trafficking. State plans must
also ensure state child welfare workers: identify and document
each child within the child welfare system who is identified as
being a victim of sex trafficking; and report information on
missing and abducted children to law enforcement authorities
and requires law enforcement authorities to notify the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) when a child
is missing from state care.

ANOTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT (APPLA) AS A PERMANENCY
OPTION

Many children and youth who are trafficked are considered,
``throw away'' kids, kids who have run from foster care who
have no permanent connection to a family or legal guardian.
Many children in the foster care system are determined to be
ineligible for adoption, reunification or placement with a
legal guardian. Sometimes those designations occur at a very
young age.
The Committee finds that a designation that a child will
never have a permanent family contributes to that child's
vulnerability for a variety of negative outcomes, including
domestic sex trafficking.
The Committee Bill would require the court to submit
findings as to why, as of the date of the hearing, another
planned permanent living arrangement is the best placement
option for the child and identify barriers to permanency
outcomes other than another planned permanent living
arrangement for the child. This section would prohibit an APPLA
designation for youth under the age of 16.

CASE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

Many youth in foster care report they have no ``say'' in
their foster care plan. As a result they report feeling
confused and disenfranchised from their lives, leaving them
vulnerable to negative outcomes. The Committee finds that youth
in foster care should have the opportunity to play a bigger
role in their case planning process.
The Committee Bill requires states to include two members
of case planning team of a child over the age of 14 who are
chosen by that child and who are not the foster parent or the
caseworker. A state may reject an individual if the state has
good cause to believe an individual would not act in the
child's best interest One individual selected by the child may
be designated to be the child's advisor and as necessary
advocate with respect to the application of the reasonable and
prudent parent standard.
The Committee Bill requires the case plan to include a
written document that describes the child's rights with respect
to education, health visitation and court participation and to
staying safe and avoiding exploitation and a signed
acknowledgement by the child that the child has been provided
with a written copy of such document.

DOCUMENTATION

The Committee find that there is an all too frequent
scenario in foster care, where an 18 year old is
``emancipated'' from foster care, has her few belongings
stashed in a garbage bag and is driven to a homeless shelter
where she is routinely preyed upon by traffickers. Many youth
``emancipated'' from foster care have no form of
identification, meaning they cannot rent an apartment, secure
employment or travel.
The Committee Bill requires states to ensure that every
child who is emancipated from foster care have a copy of his or
her birth certificate, a Social Security card, state ID, and a
fee-free or low fee bank account. A state faces a penalty in
the form of one percentage point in federal reimbursement for
administration costs for every ten children the state
emancipates without a birth certificate and a bank account
unless the child, after consultation with the child's selected
members of the case planning team, elects not to have a bank
account.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC SEX TRAFFICKING

The Committee Bill creates a National Advisory Committee on
Domestic Sex Trafficking (Advisory Committee). The Advisory
Committee will be comprised of experts and government officials
from the trafficking, child welfare, and other associated
fields. The Advisory Committee's first duties will be to
develop a uniform definition of domestic minor sex trafficking
and then to develop best practices for states on trafficking
prevention and intervention.

TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT AND WORK PROMOTION

Under the current federal Child Support Enforcement
program, states have the option to recognize child support
orders from other countries, and many of them do.
Unfortunately, at times other countries do not reciprocate our
states' efforts to collect child support from a noncustodial
parent living abroad. To address this problem, the United
States negotiated and signed the Hague Convention on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of
Family Maintenance in 2007. The Senate then gave its consent in
2010, but the United States cannot implement the treaty without
enacting implementing legislation.
The Committee Bill provides the implementing language
needed to ratify the Hague Convention, a structured system for
information exchange and enforcement of child support cases for
participating countries, enabling states to more easily collect
on child support orders involving parents abroad. The Committee
Bill requires states to enact legislative changes so their
State laws are consistent with the treaty, although some have
already made such changes. States will need to enact these
changes or risk losing Federal administrative funds. Ten States
have already enacted these changes, but their provisions will
not be in force until all States have and the treaty is
ratified.
Under current law, an individual with outstanding child
support arrearages is prohibited from getting a passport.
The Committee Bill recognizes that, in the current global
economy, a growing number of employment opportunities may
involve overseas travel. Accordingly, the Committee Bill would
create the opportunity for overseas training, employment, and
project completion by allowing certain people with child
support debts to obtain a passport. In order to qualify for a
passport under this provision, an individual is required to
have arrears-only debt, a history of regular, good faith
payments on their child support debt for at least a year, and
the applicant's annual earnings must be under $100,000,
regardless of family size. Additionally, the children for whom
the child support is owed must be eighteen years or older. The
responsibility would be on a qualified individual to apply to
the Department of State for an exemption from the passport
prohibition. The Department of State would be responsible for
developing an application process for the exemption, in
addition to creating an approval process. The State Department
would inform HHS when such an exemption was provided and HHS
would inform the state with jurisdiction of child support case.
The Committee Bill also gives federally recognized Tribes
who operate Child Support Enforcement programs the ability to
access the federal parent locator service. Tribes are also
given the same ability as states to apply for a Child Support
Enforcement Program waiver. In addition, the Committee Bill
also provides non-married parents the opportunity to enter into
parenting time arrangements. This provision does not seek to
change the fiscal responsibilities of non-custodial parents,
but instead encourages both the fiscal and social involvement
of custodial and non-custodial parents in a child's life.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE ACTION

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TITLE I OF S. 1870

In 1997, Congress established the Adoption Incentives
program to provide bonus payments to states that increase the
number of children who appropriately leave foster care for a
permanent home with adoptive families. The incentive program
was part of a package of policy reforms included in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) that were
intended to ensure timely actions by child welfare agencies to
find safe and appropriate permanent families for children who
would otherwise remain in foster care. The Adoption Incentive
program was extended by the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-145) when Congress--responding to the data showing
the poor chances of adoption for older children remaining in
foster care--added a new award category to specifically reward
states' success in increasing the number of adoptions of older
children (age 9 years or more). The Adoption Incentive program
was again extended in 2008 as part of the Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351).
In addition to this extension, the 2008 Fostering
Connections Act included a range of new child welfare policies
intended to encourage the well-being of children in foster care
and to provide additional federal support for children's
permanency. Among the changes made by the 2008 law were--a new
option for states to use federal funds (authorized under Title
IV-E of the Social Security Act) to offset a part of the cost
of providing kinship guardianship assistance to each eligible
child leaving foster care for a permanent home with a legal
relative guardian; creation of Family Connection grants to
support public and private agencies efforts to use kinship
navigator, family group decision-making, intensive family
finding, and residential family treatment programs to
strengthen the families of children who are in, or at risk of
entering, foster care while improving those children's chance
of staying connected to their families; and, via a phased in
broadening of the federal Title IV-E eligibility criteria for
children with special needs who are adopted, increased federal
support to states providing ongoing Title IV-E assistance to
these children.
Since ASFA's enactment in 1997, the annual number of
children leaving foster care for adoption has risen from
roughly 30,000 to more than 50,000 and the average length of
time it took states to complete the adoption of a child from
foster care declined by close to one year (from about four
years to less than three). Over the same time period, and in
significant measure due to the greater number of children
leaving foster care for adoption and at a faster pace, the
overall number of children who remain in foster care on a given
day declined by more than 29%--from a peak of 567,000 in FY1999
to 400,000 in FY2012. Despite these successes, however, the
number of children ``waiting for adoption'' (102,000 on the
last day of FY2012) is roughly double the number of children
who are adopted during a given year. Adoptions of older
children remain far less common than adoptions of younger
children, and some 26,000 youth aged out of foster care in
FY2011, compared to just 19,000 in FY1999.
On April 23, 2013, the Senate Committee on Finance held a
hearing to consider reauthorization of the Adoption Incentives
program, to extend funding for Family Connection Grants and,
more broadly, to consider the kinds of changes necessary to
make further improvements in the provision of foster care. The
hearing revolved around the story of Antwone Fisher, who spent
his entire childhood in foster care before ``aging out'' (just
before his 18th birthday) to live in a homeless shelter. Mr.
Fisher, who through personal perseverance and after enlisting
in the U.S. Navy, became a successful adult, recounted his
story for the Committee.
Among other things, he highlighted the need for child
welfare agencies to actively work to--find a permanent family
for each child in foster care, ensure the safety and well-being
of children while they are in care, and provide them with
meaningful opportunities to prepare for adulthood.
Other witnesses at the hearing stressed many of these same
points. Gary Stangler, Executive Director of Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative and a former state child welfare
administrator in Missouri, focused on the need to engage youth
in taking charge of their lives, including through transition
planning and a form of individual development accounts known as
``Opportunity Passports.''
Eric Fenner, a managing director at Casey Family Programs,
and former director of the Franklin County (Ohio) child welfare
agency, talked about that agency's work to move from a
``punitive'' system with a single ``fault-finding'' response to
one that was collaborative and family-centered (providing
responses commensurate with the family's needs and concerns).
Mr. Fenner also discussed the county's use of flexible federal
funding (made possible under Ohio's Title IV-E waiver) to
invest in community-based services.
Kevin Campbell, Founder of the Center for Family Finding
and Youth Connections, asserted the need for child welfare
agencies to place a greater value on finding and involving
family in meeting the needs of the children they serve and
suggested the need for them to develop a more systemic approach
to identifying family members. Further he advocated requiring
greater enforcement of, and new reporting on, current federal
requirements (added to the Title IV-E program in 2008) for
child welfare agencies to identify and give notice to adult
relatives of children entering foster care.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TITLE II OF S. 1870

The federal government recognizes that older youth in
foster care and those aging out are vulnerable to negative
outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the state as
adults, either through the public welfare, criminal justice, or
other systems. Federal law includes provisions to improve the
well-being of these older youth. Under the federal foster care
program, states may seek reimbursement for youth to remain in
care up to the age of 21. States have been permitted to extend
foster care to these older youth as of FY2011, following the
passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351). In addition, a limited number of
federal provisions are aimed at improving case planning for
older youth and ensuring that these youth are involved in
decisions about their care. For example, as added by P.L. 110-
351, states must assist youth with developing what is known as
a transition plan. The plan is to be directed by the youth and
is to include specific options on housing, health insurance,
education, local opportunities for mentors, workforce supports,
and employment services. The law requires that a youth's
caseworker, and as appropriate, other representative(s) of the
youth, assist him or her in developing the plan.
Separately, federal law addresses sex trafficking primarily
through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA, P.L. 106-
386), as amended (most recently by the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013, P.L. 113-4). The act authorizes
funds for services provided to child victims of sex
trafficking, but limited funding has been appropriated for this
purpose. Neither the TVPA nor federal child welfare law address
the child welfare response to sex trafficking; however, some
provisions in S. 1870 would amend Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act to require child welfare agencies to identify and
screen youth at risk of sex trafficking, and these provisions
would reference ``sex trafficking'' and ``severe form of
trafficking'' as they are defined under the TVPA.
The Senate Committee on Finance has taken recent action to
focus on the needs of older children in foster care and those
who have been victimized by sex trafficking.
On April 27, 2012 the Committee convened a roundtable
discussion, ``Child Well-being in Foster Care: Examining the
Relationship between Data and Efforts to Effect Positive
Outcomes for Children.'' In attendance were Senators Baucus,
Hatch, and Wyden; Committee and Committee Member staff; and
child welfare stakeholders, including representatives from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and current and
former foster youth. Participants addressed a number of issues
pertaining to child well-being, such as mental health,
education, and permanency for children in foster care. A focus
of the roundtable was on the need to normalize the experiences
of foster children and improve permanency for older youth in
care. Three youth described their experiences in foster care as
alienating because they were not permitted to engage in age-
appropriate activities.
On June 11, 2013 the Committee held a hearing on ``Sex
Trafficking and Exploitation in America: Child Welfare's Role
in Prevention and Intervention.'' The Committee heard testimony
from the following individuals: Asia Graves, Maryland Outreach
Services Coordinator and Survivor Advocate for FAIR Girls;
Michelle Guymon, Probation Director for the Los Angeles County
Probation Department, Innocence Lost LA Task Force; Susan
Goldfarb, Executive Director of the Children's Advocacy Center
of Suffolk County, MA; and Joette Katz, Commissioner of the
Connecticut Department of Children and Families. Ms. Graves
discussed her past victimization by sex traffickers and current
work training youth, educators, and child welfare staff on
identifying and responding to children who may be vulnerable to
sex trafficking. Testimony from Commissioner Katz described how
the Connecticut Department of Children and Families enables
child victims of sex trafficking to be ``screened in'' for
child welfare services. Ms. Guymon and Ms. Goldfarb testified
about the types of partnerships that have formed between child
welfare and other entities (i.e., Children's Advocacy Center,
juvenile justice system, probation department, medical and
mental health professionals) as part of the child welfare
response to child sex trafficking.
On September 25, 2013, researchers with the Institute of
Medicine and National Research Council of the National
Academies briefed Committee staff on findings from their
report, ``Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex
Trafficking of Minors in the United States.'' Commissioned by
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) within the Department of Justice's Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), the report discussed evidence that commercial
sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors within the
United States has serious consequences for these youth and
their families. Further, the report found that efforts to
prevent commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of
children are largely absent, and that efforts to identify and
respond to these acts of exploitation are under-supported and
uncoordinated. The report acknowledged that ``extensive efforts
ultimately will be required to prepare a child welfare system
that is not currently equipped to respond to the needs of these
youth.'' The recommendations of the report include, among other
items, improving collaboration and information sharing across
multiple sectors such as the federal government, state and
local governments, academic and research institutions,
foundations and nongovernmental organizations, and the
commercial sector.
Legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress that
addresses both older children in foster care and children in
foster care involved in sex trafficking. On June 7, 2013,
Senator Wyden (with Senators Bennet, Blumenthal, Brown,
Cantwell, Kirk, and Portman) introduced the Child Sex
Trafficking Data and Response Act of 2013 (S. 1118). The bill
would amend Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to require
state child welfare agencies to identify and screen youth at
risk of sex trafficking and report to the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) the number of children in foster care
who are identified as victims, among other related changes. The
bill also includes stand-alone provisions that would address
child victims of labor trafficking. On September 18, 2013,
Senator Hatch introduced the ``Improving Outcomes for Youth At
Risk for Sex Trafficking Act of 2013'' (S. 1518). S. 1518 would
make numerous changes to Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social
Security Act, including provisions to prevent and respond to
sex trafficking of children; support normalcy for children in
foster care (including through implementation of a ``reasonable
and prudent parenting standard'' for foster caregivers); limit
use of the permanency plan option ``Another Planned Permanent
Living Arrangement (APPLA),'' and better facilitate successful
transitions to adulthood for all youth who experience foster
care.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TITLE III OF S. 1870

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act, offers Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) recipients and non-recipient families a number
of services including; parent location, paternity
establishment, establishment of child support orders, review
and modification of support orders, collection of child support
payments, distribution of support payments, and establishment
and enforcement of medical child support orders.
In Fiscal Year 2010, the CSE expenditures totaled nearly
$5.8 billion and the program collected $4.88 in child support
payments for every dollar.
On February 7, 2013 the Senate Finance Committee held a
roundtable; ``Child Support Enforcement: Addressing Immediate
and Future Challenges for Child Support Enforcement Agencies.''
The roundtable discussants were state child support
administrators, judges, congressional staff, and other
stakeholders. The Committee heard a number of recommendations
to improve collection and delivery of payments and services to
custodial and non-custodial parents.

International enforcement of child support

It is often difficult to enforce child support obligations
in cases where the custodial parent and child live in one
country and the noncustodial parent lives in another. The
United States has to date not ratified a multilateral child
support enforcement treaty dealing with this issue. The Hague
Convention/Treaty related to international child support
enforcement (see below) has not yet been ratified. P.L. 104-193
(the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996) established procedures for
international enforcement of child support. For many
international cases, U.S. courts and state Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) agencies already recognize and enforce child
support obligations, whether or not the United States has a
reciprocal agreement with the other country. Currently, the
federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE, within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)) has reciprocal
agreements regarding child support enforcement with 15
countries. However, many other foreign countries will not
enforce U.S. child support orders in the absence of a treaty
obligation.
The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child
Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (referred to
hereinafter as the Convention) was adopted at the Hague
Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007.
The Convention contains procedures for processing international
child support cases that are intended to be uniform, simple,
efficient, accessible, and cost-free to U.S. citizens seeking
child support in other countries. On September 29, 2010, the
U.S. Senate approved the Resolution of Advice and Consent
regarding the Convention. Before the Convention can take
effect, implementing language must be passed by Congress and
the President must sign the instrument of ratification for the
Convention. Once the Convention is in force, it would apply to
cases involving countries that are party to the Convention.
On September 28, 2010, Senators Menendez and Grassley
introduced S. 3848 (the Strengthen and Vitalize Enforcement of
Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act). It included provisions
that would have implemented the Convention. On July 19, 2011,
the SAVE Child Support Act was reintroduced as S. 1383 by
Senators Menendez and Grassley. On March 7, 2013, the SAVE
Child Support Act was reintroduced as S. 508 by Senators
Menendez and Grassley. Two subsequent bills--S. 1870 (the
Supporting At-Risk Children Act) and S. 1877 (the Child Support
Improvement and Work Promotion Act)--would provide the
implementing language needed to ratify the Convention. S. 1870
was agreed to by the Senate Finance Committee on December 12,
2013 by voice vote. S. 1877 was introduced by Senators Baucus,
Hatch, Grassley, Rockefeller, Wyden, and Menendez on December
19, 2013. S. 1877 is substantially similar to Title III of S.
1870. Additionally, both bills would require the Secretary of
HHS to use federal and, if necessary, state, CSE methods to
ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated
with any multilateral child support convention to which the
United States is a party. Further, both bills would amend
federal law so that the federal income tax refund offset
program is available for use by a state to handle CSE requests
from foreign reciprocating countries and foreign treaty
countries. Both bills also would require states to adopt the
2008 amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
(UIFSA) verbatim to ensure uniformity of procedures,
requirements, and reporting forms.

Federal Parent Locator Service

The Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) was part of the
CSE statute when it was first enacted into law in 1975 (P.L.
93-647). The FPLS is an assembly of computer systems operated
by HHS's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to assist
states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and
custodial parties for the establishment of paternity and child
support obligations, as well as the enforcement and
modification of orders for child support, custody, and
visitation. The FPLS also assists federal and state agencies in
identifying overpayments and fraud.
The FPLS was expanded by P.L. 104-193 (enacted in 1996) to
include the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), a central
repository of employment, unemployment insurance, and wage data
from State Directories of New Hires, State Workforce Agencies,
and federal agencies; it also contains several other automated
systems and programs. In addition, the FPLS has access to
external sources for locating information such as the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration
(SSA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department
of Defense (DOD), National Security Agency (NSA), and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Under current federal
law, the FPLS is only allowed to transmit information in its
databases to ``authorized persons,'' which include (1) child
support enforcement agencies (and their attorneys and agents);
(2) courts; (3) the resident parent, legal guardian, attorney,
or agent of a child owed child support; and (4) state foster
care and adoption agencies.
The NDNH is a major component of the FPLS. It is a database
that contains personal and financial data on nearly every
working American, as well as those receiving unemployment
compensation. Since its enactment in 1996, access to the NDNH
has been extended (by law) to several additional programs and
agencies to verify program eligibility, prevent or end fraud,
collect overpayments, or assure that program benefits are
correct.

Passports

P.L. 104-193 authorized the Secretary of State to deny,
revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents whose child
support arrearages exceed $5,000. P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005) included a provision that lowered the
threshold amount from $5,000 to $2,500 for denial of a passport
to a noncustodial parent who owes past-due child support.

CSE Programs for Indian tribes

Although states were always required to provide CSE
services to members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations
that were part of their CSE caseloads, tribes were not
specifically included in the CSE statute until the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-193) was enacted. The 1996 law allowed any state that
has ``Indian country'' within its borders to enter into a
cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe if the tribe
demonstrated that it had an established tribal court system
with the authority to establish paternity, and establish,
modify, and enforce child support orders.
In addition, P.L. 104-193 gave the Secretary of HHS the
authority to make direct payments to Indian tribes that have
approved CSE programs. In contrast to the federal matching rate
of 66% for CSE programs run by the states or territories, the
CSE program for Indian tribes or tribal organizations provides
direct federal funding equal to 100% of approved and allowable
CSE expenditures during the start-up period; provides 90%
federal funding for approved CSE programs operated by tribes or
tribal organizations during the first three years of full
program operation; and provides 80% federal funding thereafter.

Parenting time

In order to promote visitation and better relations between
custodial and noncustodial parents, P.L. 104-193 provided $10
million per year for grants to states for access and visitation
programs, including mediation, counseling, education, and
supervised visitation. Known as the Access and Visitation
Grants program, this funding is separate from funding for
federal and state administration of the CSE program.

CSE task force

P.L. 100-485 (the Family Support Act of 1988), among other
things, created a Commission on Interstate Child Support. The
Commission was composed of 15 members. The Commission's
directive was in part to submit a report to Congress that
contained recommendations for improving the interstate
establishment and enforcement of child support awards.
On September 16, 1991, a Senate Finance Subcommittee
hearing was held on the implementation of the CSE provisions in
the Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485), including a review the
of the Commission's 120 draft recommendations. On August 4,
1992, the Commission released the 442-page ``Supporting Our
Children: A Blueprint for Reform.'' Senator Bradley introduced
legislation (S. 3291) on October 1, 1992 that incorporated many
of the Commission's recommendations. The majority of the
Commission's recommendations were included in the child support
title of P.L. 104-193, which was enacted on August 22, 1996.

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

TITLE I--STRENGTHENING AND FINDING FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN

Title I of the Committee Bill may be cited as the
``Strengthening and Finding Families for Children Act.''

SUBTITLE A--ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS

SEC. 111. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2016

Three-Year Extension of State Eligibility to Earn Awards and of Funding
Authority

Present law
States are eligible to earn incentive awards for increasing
adoptions from foster care during each of FY2008-FY2012. Up to
$43 million is authorized to be appropriated to pay these
incentive awards (on a discretionary basis) for each of FY2009-
FY2013. Any amount appropriated to pay the incentives remains
available until expended, except that none of the funds may be
available after FY2013.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would extend states' ability to earn
incentive funds for three years (FY2013-FY2015) and would
extend discretionary funding authorization at the present law
level for three years (through FY2016). It would further
provide that no funds appropriated for incentive awards could
be expended after FY2016.

SEC. 112. IMPROVEMENTS TO AWARD STRUCTURE

State eligibility to earn awards in any category independent of
performance in other award categories

Present law
A state may not earn an incentive award for increases in
the number of special needs adoptions (of children under age 9)
unless it has, in the same year, increased its number of foster
child or older child adoptions, or improved on its highest ever
foster child adoption rate.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would strike this eligibility language,
effectively permitting a state to earn an award in any category
allowed by the law, independent of its performance in any other
award categories. (Section 112(a) of the Committee Bill)

State must report data (to permit determination of state performance)

Present law
To be eligible to receive incentive awards a state must,
for each fiscal year, submit data necessary for the HHS to
calculate the number of foster child, older child, and special
needs (under age 9) adoptions, and to calculate the state's
foster child adoption rate. These data must be submitted to HHS
via the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS). (Section 473A(c)(2))
Committee bill
The Committee Bill is the same as present law except that
states would be required to submit data necessary to determine
rates in each of four award categories included in the
Committee Bill (described below) and that states may also be
required to provide certain information necessary to determine
rates of foster child guardianships separate from AFCARS
reporting.

Award categories and award amounts

Present law
A state that increases the number of adoptions it achieved
in a specific category in the given fiscal year may earn an
incentive award. Specifically, for each--
Foster child adoption that is above the number of
those adoptions completed by the state in FY2007, the state
earns $4,000;
Older child adoption (age 9 years or more) that is
above the number of those adoptions that the state completed in
FY2007, the state earns $8,000;
``Special needs'' adoption of a child who is
younger than 9 years of age, a state may earn $4,000.
A state's incentive award amount is equal to the sum of the
awards it earns in each of these categories. However, if there
are not enough funds appropriated to pay those amounts in full,
HHS must pro-rate the award amount paid to a state based on its
share of total incentive payments earned in these three award
categories.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would replace these award categories
with four new award categories based on improvements in a state
rate (or percentage) of adoptions and/or guardianships.
Specifically, a state that improved its rate of--
Foster child adoptions would receive $4,000 for
each foster child adoption calculated to have been completed
due to the state's improved foster child adoption rate;
Special needs (under age 9) adoptions would
receive $4,500 for each such adoption calculated to have been
completed due to the improved rate;
Older child adoptions or older child guardianships
would receive $8,000 for each such adoption or guardianship
calculated to have been completed due to the improved rate; or
Foster child guardianships would receive $4,000
for each such guardianship calculated to have been completed
due to the improved rate.
A state would be found to have improved its rate in any or
each of these four categories if the rate (or percentage) of
adoptions and/or guardianships it achieved in the given
category for a fiscal year was higher than the average rate it
achieved in that award category for the three immediately
preceding fiscal years. (That rolling three-year average rate
for each award category is referred to as the state's ``base
rate'' for the given award category. These state-specific
rates--discussed more below--is the base measure against which
the state's most recent performance would be compared.)
The sum of any amount earned in each of the four award
categories would be paid at the same time to each state out of
any available appropriations. If funds were insufficient to
fully pay the awards, HHS would be required to pro-rate
payments based on a state's share of total incentives earned
across all four award categories.

Timely adoption pool

Present law
If in a given fiscal year, the appropriated Adoption
Incentive funding exceeds the amount needed to make full
incentive payments to states that increase their number of
foster child, older child, and/or special needs (under age 9)
adoptions (in any of FY2008-FY2012), HHS must provide an
additional inc0entive amount to any state that improves upon
its ``highest ever foster child adoption rate.'' A state is
considered to have made this improvement if its foster child
adoption rate for a fiscal year is higher than the rate it
achieved in FY2002 or in any succeeding fiscal year (prior to
the fiscal year for which the award is being determined). The
award amount for an improvement on a state's highest foster
child adoption rate is equal to $1,000 multiplied by the number
of adoptions calculated to have been completed by the state due
to the improved rate. These additional incentive award
provisions applied to adoptions completed in FY2008 through
FY2012. (Sec. 473A(d)(3))
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would strike this provision and include
instead the following: If in a given fiscal year, the
appropriated incentive funding exceeds the amount needed to
make the awards for the four award categories described above,
these unused funds must be considered the ``timely adoption
award pool.'' Further, HHS must award additional incentive
payment funds to each state that it determines to be a ``timely
adoption award state.'' A state is a timely adoption state if
it is one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and if
HHS determines that more than 50% of the foster child adoptions
that were finalized in the state during the fiscal year were
for children for whom an adoption was finalized not more than
12 months after the date on which the child became legally free
for adoption. [A child is considered legally free for adoption
when all parental rights to the child have been terminated.]
These additional incentive award provisions would apply to
timely adoption performance by states for each of FY2013
through FY2015.
The Chairman's Mark was modified to accept this amendment
proposed by Senator Hatch.

Definition of foster child adoption, associated rate and base measure

Present law
A ``foster child adoption'' is defined as the final
adoption of a child, who at the time of the adoptive placement,
was in foster care under the supervision of the state. A
state's base number of foster child adoptions is the number of
those adoptions it completed in FY2007. A state's ``foster
child adoption rate'' is the percentage determined when the
state's number of foster child adoptions that occurred in the
fiscal year is divided by the number of all children who were
in the state's foster care caseload on the last day of the
preceding fiscal year. (For example, if the state completed 150
adoptions in the fiscal year and it had 1,000 children in
foster care in the last day of the preceding fiscal year, its
foster child adoption rate would be 15%.) A state's ``highest
ever foster child adoption rate'' is the highest percentage of
foster child adoptions the state completed in any fiscal year
(beginning with FY2002) that is before the fiscal year for
which an incentive award is being determined. (Section
473A(g)(1),(3) (7) and(8))
Committee bill
Under the Committee Bill, the definition of ``foster child
adoption'' and ``foster child adoption rate'' would be
effectively the same as in present law. A state's ``base rate
of foster child adoptions'' would be a rolling percentage equal
to its average foster child adoption rate for the three fiscal
years immediately preceding the year for which the award is
being determined. (There would be no definitions of ``base
number of foster child adoptions'' or of ``highest ever foster
child adoption rate.'')

Definition of foster child guardianship and associated rate and base
rate

Present law
No provision.
Committee bill
Would define a ``foster child guardianship'' as a child's
exit from foster care to a legal guardian if the state agency
reports to HHS that it has determined all of the following: 1)
the child was removed from his/her home pursuant to a voluntary
placement agreement or a judicial determination that the home
was contrary to the welfare of the child; 2) returning the
child to that home is not an appropriate option; 3) the child
demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective legal
guardian and the prospective legal guardian has a strong
commitment to caring permanently for the child; and 4) if the
child is at least 14 years of age, he/she has been consulted
regarding the legal guardianship. Alternatively, a foster child
guardianship could also mean any exit of a child from foster
care to a legal guardian if the state reports to HHS the
alternative procedures it used to determine that legal
guardianship is the appropriate option for the child.
A state's ``foster child guardianship rate'' would be the
percentage determined by dividing the number of foster child
guardianships that occurred in the state during the fiscal year
by the number of children who were in foster care in the state
on the last day of the preceding fiscal year. The ``base rate
of foster child guardianships'' would be equal to the state's
average foster child guardianship rate for the three fiscal
years immediately preceding the year for which an award is
being determined.

Definitions of an older child adoption or older foster child
guardianship and associated rate and base rate

Present law
An ``older child adoption'' is defined as the final
adoption of a child who is age 9 or older, if, at the time of
the adoptive placement the child was in foster care under the
supervision of the state or, if the state had entered into a
Title IV-E adoption assistance agreement on the child's behalf.
The ``base number or older child adoptions'' is the number of
older child adoptions the state finalized in FY2007. There is
no rate associated with older child adoption award category.
Committee bill
Under the Committee Bill, an older child adoption would be
defined as in present law. An older foster child guardianship
would mean the placement into legal guardianship of a child who
is age nine or older if at the time of that placement the child
was in foster care under the supervision of the state. A
state's ``older child adoptions and older foster child
guardianships rate'' would equal the percentage determined by
dividing a state's combined number of older adoptions and older
foster child guardianship finalized in the given fiscal year by
the number of children age nine or older who were in the
state's foster care caseload on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year. A state's ``base rate of older child adoptions and
older foster child guardianships'' would be the average of the
older adoptions and older foster child guardianships rate for
the state for the three fiscal years immediately preceding the
year for which an award is being determined. (There would no
longer be a ``base number of older child adoptions''
definition.)

Definitions of special needs adoption (of children under age 9) and
associated rate, and base rate

Present law
The term ``special needs adoption'' refers to the final
adoption of a child on whose behalf the state has entered into
an adoption assistance agreement (under the Title IV-E foster
care and adoption assistance program).
The term ``base number of special needs adoptions that are
not older child adoptions'' (i.e., the number of special needs
adoptions of children under the age of nine) is the number of
those adoptions the state completed in FY2007. There is no rate
associated with special needs adoptions.
Committee bill
In the Committee Bill, the term ``special needs adoptions
that are not older child adoptions'' would be effectively the
same as in present law, i.e., adoptions of children who are
under 9 years of age and for whom the state has entered into a
Title IV-E adoption assistance agreement. The state's ``special
needs adoption that are not older child adoptions rate'' would
be the percentage determined by dividing the number of those
adoptions in the state during the fiscal year by the number of
children in the state's foster care caseload who were under age
9, on the last day of the preceding fiscal year. A state's
``base rate of special needs adoptions that are not older child
adoptions'' would be the average of the special needs adoptions
that are not older child adoptions rate for the state for the
three fiscal years immediately preceding the year for which an
award is being determined.

SEC. 113. RENAMING THE PROGRAM

Present law

The incentive program is named in statute as ``Adoption
Incentive Payments.''

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would rename the program ``Adoption and
Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments'' and make conforming
amendments throughout the program provisions, including
headings to reference both adoption and legal guardianship.

SEC. 114. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS

Present law

A state must spend incentive awards it earns in this
program to provide any of the broad range of child welfare-
related services to children and families that are authorized
under Title IV-B or Title IV-E, including post-adoption
services. The state may not count spending of these incentive
awards as non-federal spending for purposes of meeting
``matching'' requirements for programs authorized in Title IV-B
or Title IV-E, (i.e., Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services Program, Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program,
Foster Care Maintenance Payments and Adoption Assistance
program, and Chafee Foster Care Independence Program).

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would retain these limitations on state
use of incentive funds received under this program. The
Committee Bill would further stipulate that a state must use
any such incentive awards earned to ``supplement, and not
supplant'' any federal or non-federal funds used to provide
services under Title IV-B or Title IV-E. Additionally, any
state that is paid such an incentive award in a given fiscal
year that exceeds $100,000 would be required to spend at least
25% of this award to provide services to children who have been
reunited with their families to support and sustain the
reunification. This includes services to youth who after
emancipating from foster care return to their families (to
support and sustain those returns).

SEC. 115. STATE REPORT ON CALCULATION AND USE OF SAVINGS RESULTING FROM
THE PHASE-OUT OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION ASSISTANCE;
REQUIREMENT TO SPEND 40 PERCENT OF SAVINGS ON CERTAIN SERVICES

Present law

States are required to document savings in state spending
(if any) that result from expanding federal eligibility for
Title IV-E adoption assistance and to spend any of that savings
on the broad range of child welfare-related services to
children and families that are authorized under Title IV-B or
Title IV-E, including post-adoption services. [This expanded
eligibility was authorized by the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) and is
primarily the result of removing income eligibility for Title
IV-E adoption assistance]. (Section 473(a)(8))

Committee bill

Under the Committee Bill, states would be required to
calculate the savings (if any) resulting from expanding
eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance using a
methodology specified by HHS, or one proposed by the state and
approved by HHS. Each state would be required to report
annually to HHS on--1) the method it used to calculate the
savings (regardless of whether any savings were found); 2) the
amount of any savings identified, and 3) how any such savings
are spent. This report would need to be provide a ``detailed
account'' of the spending (in accordance with requirements
established by HHS) to ensure the state meets the requirement
for reinvesting these savings in child welfare services.
Additionally the report on any spending of these funds would
need to be made separately from other reports on spending made
by states to HHS for programs under Title IV-B or Title IV-E.
Additionally, states would be required to spend not less
than 40% of any state savings identified (due to expanded
eligibility for federal Title IV-E assistance) to provide 1)
post-adoption or post-guardianship services and 2) services to
support and sustain positive permanent outcomes for children
who otherwise might enter state foster care. This spending
would need to be used to ``supplement, and not supplant'' any
federal or non-federal funds being used to provide any child
welfare-related service authorized under Title IV-B or Title
IV-E.
Finally, HHS would be required to post the annual reports
made by each state regarding any such savings and how they are
spent on the agency website in a location that is easily
accessible to the public.

SEC. 116. PRESERVATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS WITH A SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN

Present law

To be eligible for federal (Title IV-E) kinship
guardianship assistance a child must, among other requirements,
have entered foster care after having been removed from a home
with low income and must have lived with the prospective legal
relative guardian for at least six months while in foster care.
(Section 473(d)(3))

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would permit a child who has already
been determined to be eligible for Title IV-E kinship
guardianship assistance to remain eligible (without re-entering
foster care or otherwise re-determining eligibility) in the
event his/her relative legal guardian dies or becomes
incapacitated. Specifically, the Committee Bill would allow the
Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance payments made on the
child's behalf to be paid to a successor legal guardian who is
named in the child's Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance
agreement (including any amendment to that agreement).

SEC. 117. DATA COLLECTION ON ADOPTION AND FOSTER CHILD GUARDIANSHIP
DISRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION

Regulation to require state collection and reporting of data on
adoption

Present law
HHS was required to establish, by regulation, a data
collection system, to provide for comprehensive national
information with respect to children in foster care and those
who are adopted. Any data collection system developed was
required to assure that the data collected are reliable across
jurisdictions through the use of ``uniform definitions and
methodologies.'' Pursuant to these requirements, HHS developed
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System
(AFCARS), which, effective with FY1995, required states to
submit case level data on children in foster care and children
adopted with child welfare agency involvement. The data must be
reported using a set of data elements that are provided in
regulations.
States are required to report annually to HHS on their
planned and actual spending of funds received under the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (Title IV-B, Subpart
2), including, separately funds spent for ``adoption promotion
and support services.''
Committee bill
The Committee Bill, no later than 12 months after
enactment, would require HHS to promulgate final regulations
providing for states to collect and report information
regarding children who enter foster care because their
adoptions or foster child guardianships disrupt or are
dissolved. The regulations would need to require that the
information collected and reported include the numbers of such
children, and, for each of those children, the length of
adoptive or foster child guardianship placement before
disruption or dissolution, the reason for the disruption or
dissolution, and the agency that handled the adoption or foster
child guardianship placement. Further, the regulations would
need to require states to collect and report this information
for children born in this country or another country. However,
with regard to children born in another country, states would
only need to report this information with regard to disrupted
and dissolved adoptions (not foster child guardianships) and
states must also be required to report the country of birth for
each of any such children.
The regulations would further need to provide for state
reporting of additional illustrative, supplemental or
descriptive material elaborating on reasons for disruptions and
dissolutions of adoptions or foster child guardianship, as well
as use of pre- and post-adoptive services to lower rates of
disruption and dissolution. Finally, the regulations would need
to require states to report how they spend funds received under
the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program to promote
adoption, and separately, to provide pre- and post-adoptive
support services.
Generally, HHS would need to require that this collection
and reporting of data occur via AFCARS. However, as
appropriate, the regulations would permit HHS to require states
to report any ``supplementary, descriptive, or spending
information'' in a separate system or as part of other already
required reporting under Title IV-E or Title IV-B.

HHS required to provide annual data on disruptions and dissolutions

SEC. 118. EFFECTIVE DATES

Generally the provisions of this subtitle (related to
Adoption Incentives, successor guardianship, and other
adoption-related issues) would be made effective as if enacted
on October 1, 2013. However, the provisions changing the
incentive payment structure and renaming the program would not
take effect until one year later, October 1, 2014 and are
subject to additional transition rules. Under these transition
rules, incentive awards made in FY2014 (for adoptions finalized
in FY2013) would be paid under the incentive structure
described above as present law. Further, awards paid in FY2015
(for adoptions or foster child guardianships completed in
FY2014) would be paid as one-half of any amount a state would
earn under the incentive structure in present law (as described
above) plus one-half of any amount a state would earn under the
incentive structure included in the Committee Bill. Finally,
the incentive structure included in the Committee Bill would be
fully implemented with FY2016.

SUBTITLE B--EXTENSION OF FAMILY CONNECTION PROGRAM

SEC. 121. EXTENSION OF FAMILY CONNECTION GRANT PROGRAM

Continue mandatory funding for family connection grants

Present law
Family Connection Grants support demonstration projects to
implement four kinds of services: kinship navigator programs,
intensive family finding efforts, family group decision making
meetings, and residential family treatment programs that
address substance abuse and mental health issues. Annual
funding for these grants ($15 million) was provided on a
mandatory basis for each of FY2009-FY2013. The FY2013
appropriation was subject to sequestration which reduced
program funding provided for that year to $14 million.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would extend annual mandatory funding of
$15 million for these grants for three years (FY2014-FY2016).

Entities eligible to apply for family connection grants

Present law
HHS may award Family Connection grants to state, local, or
tribal child welfare agencies or to private nonprofit
organizations that have experience working with foster children
or children in kinship care arrangements.
Committee bill
Would additionally permit HHS to award Family Connection
grants to ``institutions of higher education'' as defined in
Section 101 of the Higher Education Act.

Foster family homes for youth in care who are parents

Present law
Kinship navigator programs supported with Family Connection
Grant funding are intended to assist kinship caregivers in
finding and accessing services and programs to meet their own
needs and the needs of the children for whom they care. Among
other requirements these programs must promote partnerships
between public and private agencies--including schools,
community-based or faith-based organizations, and relevant
government agencies--to increase knowledge among these entities
of the needs of kinship caregiver families and to promote
better services for those families.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would provide that the efforts to
promote public-private partnerships to improve awareness of,
and services for, kinship care families must also extend to
individuals who are willing to be foster parents for youth in
foster care who are parents.

Reservation of funds

Present law
HHS must annually reserve $5 million in Family Connection
Grant funding to support kinship navigator programs.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would do away with this specific
reservation of Family Connection funds (although grants could
still be made available to support these programs on the same
basis as the other authorized services).

SUBTITLE C--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

SEC. 131. IMPROVING THE COLLECTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
OVERPAYMENTS THROUGH TAX REFUND OFFSET

Present law

States are required to have certain laws in place as a
condition or receiving federal funds related to Unemployment
Compensation. The Treasury Offset Program authorizes states to
recover certain state unemployment benefit overpayments but
does not require them to do this.

Committee bill

As a condition of receiving federal funds related to
Unemployment Compensation, the Committee Bill would require
states--after two years of attempting to collect state
unemployment benefit overpayments--to recover any remaining
state overpayments through reduced federal income tax refunds.

TITLE II--IDENTIFYING AND SERVING YOUTH VULNERABLE TO SEX TRAFFICKING

Title II of the Committee Bill may be cited as the
Protecting Youth At-Risk for Sex Trafficking Act.

SUBTITLE A--ADDRESSING THE RISKS THAT MAKE YOUTH VULNERABLE TO SEX
TRAFFICKING

SEC. 211. IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING YOUTH AT RISK OF SEX TRAFFICKING

Present law

State child welfare agencies are required as part of their
current Title IV-E plan to report to an appropriate agency or
official known or suspected instances of physical or mental
injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment or
maltreatment of a child receiving aid under any federal child
welfare program authorized in Title IV-E or Title IV-B.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would amend this Title IV-E plan
provision to further require that the state child welfare
agency, in consultation with the state child protective
services agency or unit, develop policies and procedures for
identifying, screening, and determining appropriate state
actions and services for any child who the state has reasonable
cause to believe is a victim of sex trafficking or is at risk
of being a sex trafficking victim.
These policies and procedures would need to apply to any
child (individuals under the age of 18) without regard to
whether that child is in foster care as well as to any
individual in foster care up to age 19, 20, or 21 (if the state
has chosen to provide foster care up to that older age).
Additionally, states would be permitted to apply these policies
and procedures to any individual (regardless of current or
former foster care status) up to the age of 26. Each state
would need to demonstrate to HHS that it had developed these
policies and procedures no later than one year after the
enactment of this provision, and would need to demonstrate that
it was implementing them no later than two years after
enactment of this provision.
Sex trafficking would be defined, as it is in the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act,+ as the ``recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person
for the purposes of a commercial sex act'' and any severe form
of trafficking in persons in which a commercial sex act is
induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person
induced to perform the act is under 18 years of age.

SEC. 212. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANOTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT
(APPLA) AS A PERMANENCY OPTION

APPLA may not be the permanency plan for a child under 16 years of age

Present law
A state must have procedures to ensure that each child in
foster care has an annual hearing (in a court or before a
court-appointed administrative body) to determine (or re-
determine) a plan for how the child will achieve permanency. A
child's permanency plan may be established as 1) reuniting with
parents; 2) adoption; 3) guardianship; or 4) if the state has
documented for the court a compelling reason that none of these
permanency plans is in the child's best interest, ``another
planned permanent living arrangement'' (APPLA).
Further, a state must have a service program designed to
help children in foster care achieve permanency through
returning to their parents (when safe and appropriate),
adoption, guardianship, placement with a fit and willing
relative, or, if none of those options is appropriate,
placement in some other planned permanent living arrangement
(including residential education programs).
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would amend both of these provisions to
further stipulate that no child under age 16 may have a
permanency plan of APPLA. Further, before APPLA could become
the permanency plan for a youth in foster care, the state would
need to document for the court why, as of the date of the
permanency hearing, there was a compelling reason to determine
that reunification, adoption, or guardianship was not in the
youth's best interest.

Additional permanency hearing and other requirements for youth with
APPLA as permanency plan

Present law
As part of its case review system, a state must have in
place procedures to ensure that each child in foster care has a
permanency hearing within 12 months of entering foster care,
and every 12 months thereafter while he/she remains in foster
care. The permanency hearing must be held in a court (or by a
court-appointed administrative body) and it must determine, or
re-determine, the child's permanency plan (i.e., reunification,
adoption, guardianship or APPLA). Further, the state must have
procedures to ensure that any court or court-appointed
administrative body holding the permanency hearing consults
with a child, in an age-appropriate manner, regarding any
proposed permanency plan.
Additionally, certain consideration must be made at the
permanency hearing for children in specified circumstances.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require additional actions at any
annual permanency hearing involving a youth for whom the
permanency plan is APPLA and additional state agency
appearances before a court for any youth with APPLA as his or
her permanency plan. Specifically, at each permanency hearing
involving a youth with APPLA as his or her permanency plan:
The state child welfare agency must document for the court
the ongoing, but, to date, unsuccessful, efforts to return the
youth to his/her parents or to secure a placement for the youth
with an adoptive parent, legal guardian, or a fit and willing
relative. These efforts must include use of search technology
to locate biological family members of the child.
The court or court-appointed administrative body holding
the hearing must--
Ask the youth if he or she wants to be adopted;
Determine, separately, the compelling reasons why
it continues to be not in the child's best interest to be
returned home, placed for adoption, placed with a legal
guardian, or placed with a fit and willing relative;
Identify barriers to permanency plans other than
APPLA for the child;
Make a new determination regarding whether APPLA
is the appropriate permanency plan for the child and submit
findings as to why, as of the date of the hearing, APPLA is the
best permanency option for the child; and
Require the state child welfare agency to
document, at the child's next permanency hearing, the intensive
efforts to address those identified barriers and allow a
different permanency plan to be established for the youth.
Additionally, for each child living in another planned
living arrangement, would require the state child welfare
agency to appear before the court (or an administrative body
appointed or approved by the court), at least once every six
months to demonstrate--
That an individual other than the child's
caseworker is the child's caregiver for purposes of making
reasonable and prudent parenting decisions on the child's
behalf, including signing permission slips and giving informal
permission for the child to participate in age-appropriate
activities; and
The steps being taken to reduce barriers
(including paperwork) to the child's regular and ongoing
opportunities to engage in age-appropriate activities,
including social events.

Conforming amendments: definition of ``reasonable and prudent parent
standard,'' and ``age or developmentally appropriate''

Present law
Includes definitions that apply to the federal foster care
program under Title IV-E, as well as other child welfare
programs in Title IV-E and in Title IV-B. (Section 475)
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would add definitions of the
``reasonable and prudent parent standard'' and of the related
term ``age or developmentally appropriate.''
The ``reasonable and prudent parent standard'' would be
defined as ``characterized by careful and sensible parental
decisions that maintain a child's health, safety, and best
interests while at the same time encouraging the child's
emotional and developmental growth,'' and, further, as the
standard that a caregiver--the child's foster parent or a
designated official at the child care institution where a child
is placed--must use when determining whether to allow a child
in foster care to participate in extracurricular, enrichment,
and social activities.
``Age or developmentally appropriate'' would be defined as
``activities or items that are generally accepted as suitable
for children of the same chronological age or level of maturity
or that are determined to be developmentally appropriate for
the child, based on the development of cognitive, emotional,
physical, and behavioral capacity that are typical for an age
or age group.'' With respect to a specific child, the term
would mean ``activities or items that are suitable for that
child based on the developmental stages attained by the child
with respect to the child's cognitive, emotional, physical and
behavioral capacities.'' The Committee Bill would stipulate
however, that if any of these activities have implications
relative to a child or youth's academic curriculum, nothing
included in Title IV-E or Title IV-B would be permitted to be
understood as authorizing an officer or employee of the federal
government to ``mandate, direct, or control a state, local
educational agency, or school's specific instructional content,
academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or
program of instruction.''

Conforming amendments: State plan requirements

Present law
As part of their program plan under Title IV-B, Subpart 1
(Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program) states
must meet all the requirements of the case review system for
each child in foster care. Under the Title IV-E program plan,
states are required to meet some of the case review procedures
on behalf of children in foster care who are eligible for Title
IV-E foster care assistance. In addition, federal regulations
require states to meet all requirements of the case review
system as a condition of eligibility for federal foster care
maintenance payment support under the Title IV-E program.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require states to meet all case
review system requirements, including the new provisions
related to children with APPLA, as part of their Title IV-E
plan. Would also require states to meet the new case review
system requirements, related to APPLA, under their Title IV-B,
Subpart 1 state plan.

Collected child support directed to certain youth in care

Present law
States are required to use any child support payments
collected on behalf of a child (while the child is receiving
Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments) to pay back the
cost of the foster care maintenance payment. The child support
funds collected must be divided between the state and the
federal government in proportion to their share of the Title
IV-E foster care maintenance payments made.
Committee bill
Under the Committee Bill, for any youth with a permanency
plan of APPLA and who is receiving Title IV-E foster care
maintenance payments, the state child welfare agency would be
required to deposit all child support payments collected on the
youth's behalf into an account specifically for the youth and
which must only be used by the state for payment of fees or
other costs attributable to the child's participation in age or
developmentally appropriate activities. Any funds remaining in
a youth's account at the time he or she exits care (for any
reason) must be provided to the youth.
Also under the Committee Bill, for any youth in foster care
under the responsibility of the state at age 18 or any older
age, up to 21 (as elected by the state), the state would be
required to pay any child support collected on his or her
behalf directly to the youth. None of the funds would be
returned to the federal government and none of them could be
used by the state to reimburse its part of the cost of foster
care maintenance payments.

Procedures to implement these child support collection efforts must be
documented by child support agency

Present law
To receive federal child support funds states must have a
plan for child support enforcement (CSE) that meets federal
requirements.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require each state, as part of its
CSE plan, to provide a description of the procedures it has in
place to comply with the requirements related to distribution
of child support collected for youth with an APPLA permanency
plan or for youth who are in foster care at age 18 or older.

Effective dates for Section 212

Generally, all of the changes in Section 212 related to use
of APPLA and child support collected on behalf of certain youth
in foster care are effective one year after the date of
enactment of the bill. However, in the event the state needs to
enact legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds)
to enable it to meet the new child support requirements (under
Title IV-D) it may have specified additional time to meet the
requirements.

SUBTITLE B--EMPOWERING OLDER YOUTH VULNERABLE TO DOMESTIC SEX
TRAFFICKING AND OTHER NEGATIVE OUTCOMES

SEC. 221. EMPOWERING FOSTER YOUTH AGE 14 AND OLDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THEIR OWN CASE PLAN AND TRANSITION PLANNING FOR A SUCCESSFUL
ADULTHOOD

Case planning for youth age 14 and older

Present law
Each child in foster care is to have a written case plan.
Among other items, the plan must (1) provide certain
assurances, including that the child receives safe and proper
care, and that services are provided to the parents, child, and
foster parents in order to improve the conditions in the
parents' home and to enable the child to return home or to
another permanent setting; and (2) address the needs of the
child while in care, including a discussion of the
appropriateness of the services that have been provided to the
child under the plan.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would add that the case plan for any
youth 14 and older must be developed and amended in
consultation with the youth--and at the youth's option, up to
two members of the case planning team who are chosen by the
youth and who are not the youth's foster parent or caseworker.
The Committee Bill would permit a state to reject an individual
selected by the child if the state has good cause to believe
that the individual would not act in the best interests of the
child. Would also note that one individual selected by the
child to be a member of the case planning team may be
designated as his or her advisor, and, as necessary, advocate,
with respect to application of the reasonable and prudent
parent standard.

Permanency hearings for children

Report to Congress on case planning team

Present law
No provision.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require HHS to submit a report to
Congress, within two years of enactment, that includes: (1) an
analysis of how states are administering the requirements
pertaining to the youth selecting up to two members of their
case planning team for purposes of developing and amending
their case plan and permanency plan; and (2) a description of
best practices of states with respect to the administration of
this requirement.

Planning for a successful adulthood for older youth

Present law
In addition to other case plan requirements, the case plan
for youth in foster care at age 16 or older, where appropriate,
must also include a written description of the programs and
services that will help the child prepare for the transition
from foster care to independent living.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would stipulate that this case plan
requirement would extend to all children age 14 and older, and
would replace ``independent living'' with ``a successful
adulthood.''
Present law
The court or administrative body conducting the permanency
hearing--including any hearing regarding the transition of the
child from foster care or independent living--must consult, in
an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the
proposed permanency plan or transition plan for the child.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would replace the reference to
``independent living'' with ``a successful adulthood.''

List of rights included in case planning for children age 14 or older

Present law
No provision.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require that the case plan for a
youth who is age 14 or older and who is in foster care or who
receives federal adoption assistance or kinship guardianship
assistance payments must include a written document that
describes the youth's rights. The rights to be listed would
pertain to education, health, visitation, and court
participation, and to staying safe and avoiding exploitation.
The document would need to be signed by the youth to
acknowledge that he or she was provided with a written copy of
the rights.

Credit reports for children age 14 or older

Present law
As part of the case review requirements, the state child
welfare agency must provide any child in foster care at age 16
or older a copy of any credit report pertaining to the child
(in each year that he or she remains in care), free of charge,
along with assistance in resolving any inaccuracies in the
report.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require state child welfare
agencies to make credit reports and assistance in resolving any
inaccuracies in the report available to any child age 14 or
older.

SEC. 222. ENSURING FOSTER CHILDREN AGE 14 OR OLDER HAVE A BIRTH
CERTIFICATE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, DRIVER'S LICENSE OR EQUIVALENT AND A
BANK ACCOUNT

Case review system requirement for birth certificate, Social Security
card, and bank account, and credit reports

Present law
The state child welfare agency must provide any child age
16 or older a copy of any credit report pertaining to the child
(in each year that he or she remains in care), free of charge,
along with assistance in resolving any inaccuracies in the
report.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would amend the credit reporting
requirement to ensure that a child age 14 and older who is
exiting foster care, must also have a copy of his or her
official birth certificate, Social Security card, driver's
license or identification card issued by a state in accordance
with the requirements of Section 202 of the REAL ID Act of
2005, and fee-free or low-fee bank account established in his
or her name at an insured depository institution or insured
credit union. However, a youth could, after consulting with the
youth's selected members of his or her case planning team (if
any), elect not to have a bank account.

Reduced Federal Title IV-E administrative support for failure to ensure
youth leaving foster care at age 14 or older have certain
documents

Present law
Under the Title IV-E program, states are entitled to
receive 50% federal reimbursement for eligible program
administrative costs.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would stipulate a penalty for states
that do not comply with the requirements to provide each child
exiting foster care at age 14 or older with an official birth
certificate, Social Security card, a driver's license or state-
issued identification card, and a bank account (unless the
child determines not to establish the bank account).
Specifically, the penalty would be one percentage point in
federal reimbursement for Title IV-E administration costs (not
including training or certain data collection and related
costs) for every ten children that are discharged from foster
care without such documentation or bank account within a given
fiscal year quarter. The penalty would be imposed in the fiscal
year quarter following the quarter for which the non-compliance
is identified by HHS. It could not exceed 25 percentage points,
which would equate to 250 youth.
Effective date for Section 222
Generally, all of the changes in Section 222 related to the
case review system requirement for the official birth
certificate, a driver's license or state-issued identification
card, Social Security card, and bank account--and the reduced
federal Title IV-E administrative support for failure to comply
with this requirement--would be effective as of October 1,
2015. However, in the event a state needs to enact legislation
(other than legislation appropriating funds) to enable it to
meet these new requirements (under Title IV-B or Title IV-E) it
may have specified additional time to meet the requirement.

SUBTITLE C--DATA AND REPORTS

SEC. 231. STREAMLINE DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING ON SEX TRAFFICKING

State plan requirements on data collection and reporting on sex
trafficking and on missing or abducted children

Present law
No provision.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require, as part of the Title IV-E
plan, state child welfare agencies to identify and document
appropriately in agency records each child identified as a
victim of sex trafficking who is in foster care or otherwise
under the supervision of the state, including a child who is in
foster care, a child for whom a state child welfare agency has
an open case file but whom has not been removed from the home,
and a youth who is not in foster care but is receiving services
under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.
The Committee Bill would further require each state child
welfare agency to include in its Title IV-E plan a regularly
updated description of the specific measures it has taken by
child welfare agencies to protect and provide services to
children who are victims of sex trafficking, including efforts
to coordinate with state law enforcement, juvenile justice
agencies, and social service agencies, such as runaway and
homeless youth shelters.
For purposes of these Title IV-E state plan provisions, sex
trafficking would be defined as the ``recruitment, harboring,
transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the
purposes of a commercial sex act'' and any severe form of
trafficking in persons in which a commercial sex act is induced
by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to
perform the act is under 18 years of age. These definitions are
taken from Section 103(9)(A) and (10) of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act.
The Committee Bill would also add as part of the Title IV-E
plan, that state child welfare agencies immediately report (and
in no case later than 24 hours after receiving) information on
missing or abducted children to the law enforcement authorities
for entry into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and
to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC). The NCIC is a computerized index of information on
crimes and criminals that is maintained by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). NCMEC is a non-profit organization that
receives federal funding from the Missing and Exploited
Children's program and other sources to support law enforcement
agencies and families in missing children and child sexual
exploitation cases.

State reporting via adoption and foster care analysis and reporting
system (AFCARS)

Present law
Twice a year states must report certain data to HHS via the
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System,
(AFCARS). Among other things, these data concern each child in
foster care, including the child's age, current placement
setting, and length of stay in the current setting.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require HHS to promulgate
regulations to ensure that states report, via AFCARS, on the
number of children in foster care who are victims of sex
trafficking. Further, to the extent HHS determines this
feasible, the regulations may also require states to report on
the number of other children who are victims of such sex
trafficking and over whom the state child welfare agency has
responsibility for supervision (including children for whom it
has an open case file but who have not been removed from the
home, and youth who are not in foster care but are receiving
services under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program).

HHS reporting on sex trafficking victims

Present law
HHS must annually submit to Congress a report on the
performance of each state with regard to achieving specific
child welfare outcomes (e.g., ensuring placement stability for
children in foster care, finding children adoptive homes as
appropriate) and must examine in this report the reasons for
variation in state performance and, when possible, suggest how
states could improve their performance. HHS must also include
in this annual report, state-by-state data on the number of
children in foster care who are visited by their caseworkers on
a monthly basis.
Committee bill
As part of this existing report the Committee Bill would
require HHS to annually include information on the aggregate
number of children in foster care who are victims of sex
trafficking beginning in the first fiscal year for which those
data are reported by states.
The Committee Bill would separately require HHS to submit a
report to Congress within two years of enactment that contained
information (based on a survey of states) on the number of
children in foster care who are victims of sex trafficking, as
well as other children who are under the supervision of the
state child welfare agency and who are victims of sex
trafficking (including children for whom the agency has an open
case file but who have not been removed from the home, and
youth who are not in foster care but are receiving services
under section 477). The report would also include any
information HHS determines appropriate related to the
identification of, and provision of services for, these victims
of sex trafficking.

Effective date for Section 231

Generally, all of the changes related to the Title IV-E
state plan requirements would be effective one year after the
date of enactment of the Committee Bill, without regard to
whether final regulations are promulgated to implement a
related data reporting requirement described below. However, in
the event a state needs to enact legislation (other than
legislation appropriating funds) to enable it to meet these new
requirements (under Title IV-E) it may have specified
additional time to meet the requirement.

SEC. 232. RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS FOR EXPANDING HOUSING FOR YOUTH
VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING

Present law

No provision.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would require that within one year of
enactment, five agencies--Department of Defense, HHS,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of
Homeland Security, and Department of Justice--must submit a
report to Congress that contains recommendations for
administrative or legislative changes necessary to use
programs, properties, or other resources owned, operated, or
funded by the federal government to provide safe housing for
youth who are ``victims of trafficking'' and to provide support
to entities that provide housing or other assistance to such
victims. The Committee Bill would require the report to include
(with respect to programs, properties, or other resources
owned, operated, or funded by each of the four agencies)
information regarding (1) the availability and suitability of
existing federal, state, and local housing resources that are
appropriate for housing youth victims of trafficking or for
providing support to entities that provide housing or other
assistance to such victims, including in rural and isolated
locations; and (2) the feasibility of establishing or
supporting public-private partnerships to provide housing for
such victims or support to entities that provide housing or
other assistance to such victims.
In this section ``victim of trafficking'' would refer to
both sex trafficking and certain labor trafficking.

SUBTITLE D--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC SEX TRAFFICKING

SEC. 241. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC SEX TRAFFICKING

Present law

No provision.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would create the National Advisory
Committee on Domestic Sex Trafficking.

Committee composition and compensation

The Committee Bill would require the HHS Secretary to
establish the National Advisory Committee on Domestic Sex
Trafficking and to appoint all members of the committee (in
consultation with the Attorney General) within 180 days after
the date of enactment. The Committee Bill would require the
committee to be composed of not more than 21 members ``whose
diverse experience and background enable them to provide
balanced points of view with regard to carrying out the duties
of the committee.'' The Committee Bill stipulates that the
committee must not be composed solely of federal officers or
employees and that appointments would be made for the life of
the committee.
Further, a vacancy in the committee would be filled in the
same manner in which the original appointment was made and
would not affect the powers or duties of the committee.
Committee members would serve without compensation, except that
they would be reimbursed for official travel expenses and per
diem for travel expenses.

Committee duties

The committee would advise the HHS Secretary and the
Attorney General on practical and general policies concerning
improvements to the nation's response to domestic sex
trafficking of minors from the child welfare system and the
commercial sexual exploitation of children. The committee would
also advise the HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on
practical and general policies concerning the cooperation of
several entities--(1) federal, state, local, and tribal
governments; (2) child welfare agencies; (3) social service
providers; (4) physical and mental health providers; (5) victim
service providers; (6) state or local courts with
responsibility for conducting or supervising proceedings
relating to child welfare or social services for children and
their families; (7) federal, state, and local police; (8)
juvenile detention centers and runaway and homeless youth
programs; (9) schools; and (10) businesses and organizations
that provide services to youth--on responding to domestic sex
trafficking of minors and the commercial sexual exploitation of
children, including the development and implementation of:
Successful interventions with children and teens
who are exposed to conditions that make them vulnerable to, or
victims of, domestic sex trafficking and commercial sexual
exploitation;
An understanding that the safety and well-being of
children and teens can be compromised by the sexualization of
children; the commodification of children; and a lack of
normalcy characterized by isolation, disconnection from
positive appropriate, and healthy relationships with peers and
adults, and an inability to engage in age appropriate
activities; and
The relationship between children and teens who
are trafficked and the overall coarsening and desensitization
of society to violence that puts the public safety of
communities across the nation at risk.
The committee would also be required to recommend a
comprehensive definition of what constitutes the ``commercial
sexual exploitation of children.''

Best practices for states

The Committee Bill would require the committee to develop
two tiers (Tier I and Tier II) of recommended best practices
for states to follow in combating the domestic sex trafficking
of minors and the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
Tier I would provide states that have not yet addressed
domestic sex trafficking of minors and the commercial sexual
exploitation of children with an idea of where to begin and
what steps to take. Tier II would provide states that are
already working to address domestic sex trafficking of minors
and commercial sexual exploitation of children with examples of
policies that are already being used effectively by other
states to address trafficking issues. The best practices would
be based on multidisciplinary research and promising, evidence-
based models and programs; would be user-friendly and
incorporate the most up-to-date technology; and include the
following:
Sample training materials, protocols, and
screening tools to prepare child welfare personnel to identify
and serve youth who are at-risk or are victims of domestic sex
trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation.
Multidisciplinary strategies to identify victims,
manage cases, and improve services to meet the unique needs of
this youth population.
Sample protocols and recommendations for
effective, cross-system collaboration between several
entities--(1) federal, state, local, and tribal governments;
(2) child welfare agencies; (3) social service providers; (4)
physical and mental health providers; (5) victim service
providers; (6) state or local courts with responsibility for
conducting or supervising proceedings relating to child welfare
or social services for children and their families; (7)
federal, state, and local police; (8) juvenile detention
centers and runaway and homeless youth programs; (9) schools;
and (10) businesses and organizations that provide services to
youth. The Committee Bill would require these protocols and
recommendations to include strategies to identify victims and
collect, document, and share data across systems and agencies,
and should be designed to help agencies better understand the
type of trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation involved;
the scope of the problem; the needs of the population to be
served; ways to address the demand for trafficked children and
youth and increase prosecution of traffickers and purchasers of
children and youth; and the degree of victim interaction with
multiple system.
A list of recommendations to establish safe
residential placements for foster youth who have been
trafficked (as defined by the committee) as well as training
guidelines for caregivers that serve children and youth being
cared for outside the home.

Reports

The Committee Bill would require the committee to submit an
interim and a final report on the work of the committee to the
HHS Secretary, the Attorney General, the Senate Finance
Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee. The
Committee Bill would require the interim report to be submitted
not later than one year after the committee is established and
the final report to be submitted not later than two years after
its establishment, unless the Secretary establishes an
extension period for the committee. In this case, the final
report would be submitted not later than the last day of this
extension period.

Committee administration

The Committee Bill would require the HHS Secretary to
direct the head of the Administration on Children, Youth and
Families (ACYF) to provide all necessary support for the
committee. It would also require the committee to meet at the
call of the HHS Secretary at least twice a year to carry out
the duties of the committee, and more often as otherwise
required. The Committee Bill would require the Secretary to
call all of the meetings, prepare and approve all meeting
agendas, attend all meetings, adjourn any meetings when the
Secretary determines adjournment to be in the public interest,
and chair all meetings when directed to do so by an official or
entity to whom the committee reports.
The Committee Bill would authorize the committee to
establish subcommittees or working groups, as necessary and
consistent with the mission of the committee. The Committee
Bill would require any such subcommittees or working groups to
operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act of 1972, the Sunshine in Government Act of 1976, and other
appropriate federal regulations. Any such subcommittees or
working groups would have no authority to make decisions on
behalf of the committee or to report directly to the HHS
Secretary, Attorney General, or any other official or entity
that are referenced under the committee's duties (i.e., child
welfare agencies, social service providers, physical and mental
health service providers, etc.). The Committee Bill would
require that the records of the committee and any subcommittees
or working groups be maintained in accordance with appropriate
HHS policies and procedures, and be maintained for public
inspection and copying, subject to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).

Termination of committee

The Committee Bill would require the committee to terminate
two years after the date it is established, unless the HHS
Secretary determines that more time is necessary to allow the
committee to complete its duties, in which case the committee
would terminate at the end of the extension period established
by the Secretary (not to exceed 24 months).

Funding

Present law
Provides certain mandatory funds for the Census Bureau to
carry out the Survey of Income and Program Participants (SIPP).
Committee bill
Would transfer $400,000 of unobligated mandatory funds for
the SIPP to establish the commission and allow it to carry out
its duties. The $400,000 would not be subject to reduction
under a sequestration order issued under the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Any amounts made
available for the commission that are unobligated on the date
on which the committee terminates would be returned to the
Treasury.

TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Title III of the Committee Bill will be cited as the Child
Support Improvement and Work Promotion Act.

SUBTITLE A--INCREASED RELIABILITY OF CHILD SUPPORT

SEC. 311. COMPLIANCE WITH MULTILATERAL CHILD SUPPORT CONVENTIONS

Secretary's authority to ensure compliance with multilateral child
support convention

Present law
The United States has generally dealt with international
child support enforcement cases by negotiating bilateral
agreements with individual countries. The U.S currently has
bilateral agreements with 15 countries and 12 Canadian
provinces/territories. Unlike multilateral agreements, the
procedures and forms of bilateral agreements vary from country
to country. Although courts and child support enforcement
agencies in the United States already recognize and enforce
most foreign child support orders, many foreign countries have
not been processing child support requests from the United
States.
On November 23, 2007, after four years of deliberation, the
Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support
and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (referred to herein as
the Convention) was adopted at the conclusion of the Twenty-
First Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference on Private
International Law at The Hague, The Netherlands. The United
States delegation was the first country to sign the Convention.
Other signatories currently include Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the European Union, Norway, and Ukraine. The
Convention offers the United States the opportunity to join a
multilateral treaty, saving the time and expense that would
otherwise be required to negotiate bilateral agreements with
individual countries around the world. The Convention is
expected to result in more U.S. children receiving the
financial support they need from their noncustodial parents,
regardless of where the parents live.
The Convention does not affect intrastate or interstate
child support cases in the United States. It only applies to
cases where the custodial parent and child live in one country
and the noncustodial parent lives in another country.
On September 29, 2010, the U.S. Senate approved the
Resolution of Advice and Consent regarding the Convention. In
order for the Convention to enter into force for the United
States, Congress must adopt, and there must be enacted,
implementing legislation for the Convention.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require the Secretary of HHS to
use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement
methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations
associated with any multilateral child support convention to
which the United States is a party.

Access to the Federal Parent Locator Service

Present law
Under current federal law, the Federal Parent Locator
Service (FPLS) is only allowed to transmit information in its
databases to ``authorized persons,'' which include (1) child
support enforcement agencies (and their attorneys and agents);
(2) courts; (3) the resident parent, legal guardian, attorney,
or agent of a child owed child support; and (4) foster care and
adoption agencies.
The FPLS is an assembly of computer systems operated by the
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), to assist states in
locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial
parties for the establishment of paternity and child support
obligations, as well as the enforcement and modification of
orders for child support, custody, and visitation. The FPLS
assists federal and state agencies to identify overpayments and
fraud, and assists with assessing benefits. Developed in
cooperation with the states, employers, federal agencies, and
the judiciary, the FPLS was expanded by P.L. 104-193 (the
Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996) to include the following:
The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH): a
central repository of employment, unemployment insurance, and
wage data from State Directories of New Hires, State Workforce
Agencies, and federal agencies.
The Federal Case Registry (FCR): a national
database that contains information on individuals in child
support cases and child support orders.
The Federal Offset Program (FOP): a program that
collects past-due child support payments from the tax refunds
of parents who have been ordered to pay child support.
The Federal Administrative Offset Program (FAOP):
a program that intercepts certain federal payments in order to
collect past-due child support.
The Passport Denial Program (PDP): a program that
works with the Secretary of State in denying passports of any
person that has been certified as owing a child support debt
greater than $2,500.
The Multistate Financial Institution Data Match
(MSFIDM): a program that allows child support agencies a means
of locating financial assets of individuals owing child
support.
In addition, the FPLS also has access to external sources
for locating information such as the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD),
National Security Agency (NSA), and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would expand the definition of an
``authorized person'' to include an entity designated as a
Central Authority for child support enforcement in a ``foreign
reciprocating country'' or in a ``foreign treaty country'' in
cases involving international enforcement of child support.

State option to require individuals in foreign countries to apply
through their country's appropriate central authority

Present law
A CSE state plan must provide that any request for CSE
services by a foreign reciprocating country or a foreign
country with which the state has an arrangement must be treated
as a request by a state.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would give states the option to require
individuals in foreign countries to apply for CSE services
through their country's appropriate central authority for child
support enforcement. If the individual resides in a foreign
country that is not a ``reciprocating'' or ``treaty'' country,
the state may choose to accept or reject the application for
CSE services.
The Committee Bill would include requests for CSE services
by a ``foreign treaty country'' that has a reciprocal
arrangement with a state as though it is a request by a state.
It would include a ``foreign treaty country'' and a ``foreign
individual'' as entities that do not have to provide
applications, and against whom no costs will be assessed, for
CSE services.

Note

The Committee Report corrects an error in the Chairman's
Mark. The Paragraph describing that the Mark ``Would give
states the option to require individuals in foreign countries
to apply for CSE services through their country's appropriate
central authority for child support enforcement. If the
individual resides in a foreign country that is not a
``reciprocating'' or ``treaty'' country, the state may choose
to accept or reject the application for CSE services.'' was
omitted from the Chairman's Mark and the paragraph directly
following was repeated twice. The corresponding legislative
text is correct.

Amendments to international support enforcement provisions

Present law
P.L. 104-193 (the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996) established procedures for
international enforcement of child support. The Secretary of
State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of HHS, is
authorized to declare reciprocity with foreign countries having
requisite procedures for establishing and enforcing child
support orders.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would establish a definition for three
terms: (1) ``foreign reciprocating country,'' (2) ``foreign
treaty country,'' and (3) ``2007 Family Maintenance
Convention.''
It would define a ``foreign reciprocating
country'' as a foreign country (or political subdivision
thereof) with respect to which the HHS Secretary has declared
as having or implementing procedures to establish and enforce
duties of support for residents of the United States at no cost
or at low cost.
It would define a ``foreign treaty country'' as a
foreign country for which the 2007 Family Maintenance
Convention is in force.
It would define the term ``2007 Family Maintenance
Convention'' to mean the Hague Convention of November 23, 2007
on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms
of Family Maintenance.
The Committee Bill would make it the responsibility of the
HHS Secretary to facilitate support enforcement in cases
involving residents of the United States and residents of
``foreign reciprocating countries'' or ``foreign treaty
countries.''
The Committee Bill would include ``foreign treaty
countries'' as entities which can receive notification as to
the state of residence of the person being sought for child
support enforcement purposes. It would include ``foreign
reciprocating countries'' and ``foreign treaty countries'' as
entities that states may enter into reciprocal arrangements
with for the establishment and enforcement of child support
obligations.

Collection of past-due support from federal tax refunds

Present law
The Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program collects past-
due child support payments from the income tax refunds of
noncustodial parents who have been ordered to pay child
support. The program is a cooperative effort between the
federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and state CSE agencies. Under
the Federal Income Tax Refund Offset program, the IRS,
operating on request from a state filed through the Secretary
of HHS, intercepts tax returns and deducts the amount of
certified child support arrearages. The money is then sent to
the state CSE agency for distribution.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would amend federal law so that the
federal income tax refund offset program is available for use
by a state to handle CSE requests from foreign reciprocating
countries and foreign treaty countries.

State law requirement concerning the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act (UIFSA)

Present law
In the past, collecting child support across state lines
was difficult. Laws varied from state to state, often causing
complications that delayed the establishment and/or enforcement
of child support orders. Congress recognized this problem and
mandated (pursuant to P.L. 104-193) that all states adopt UIFSA
to facilitate collecting child support across state lines.
(Section 466(f)) P.L. 104-193 required that the 1996 version of
UIFSA be adopted. It has been adopted in every state, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws (NCCUSL) approved additional amendments to UIFSA in August
2001. However, there is no federal mandate for states to enact
the 2001 amendments. To date, only 21 states and the District
of Columbia have adopted the 2001 amendments to UIFSA. In July
2008, the NCCUSL approved amendments to the 2001 UIFSA
(referred to as UIFSA 2008), to integrate the appropriate
provisions of the Convention. Similarly, there is no federal
mandate for states to enact UIFSA 2008. To date, only 11 states
have adopted the 2008 amendments to UIFSA. States that have
adopted UIFSA 2008 now stand ready to immediately implement the
Convention if it is ratified.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would require that for a state to
receive federal CSE funding, each state's UIFSA must include
verbatim any amendments officially adopted as of September 30,
2008, by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws (NCCUSL). States would be required to adopt the 2008
amendments verbatim to ensure uniformity of procedures,
requirements, and reporting forms.

Full faith and credit for child support orders

Present Law
Federal law requires states to treat past-due child support
obligations as final judgments that are entitled to full faith
and credit in every state. This means that a person who has a
child support order in one state does not have to obtain a
second order in another state to obtain child support due
should the noncustodial parent move from the issuing court's
jurisdiction. Congress passed P.L. 103-383, the Full Faith and
Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), in 1994 because
of concerns about the growing number of child support cases
involving disputes between parents who lived in different
states and the ease with which noncustodial parents could
reduce the amount of the obligation or evade enforcement by
moving across state lines. P.L. 103-383 required courts of all
United States territories, states, and tribes to accord full
faith and credit to a child support order issued by another
state or tribe that properly exercised jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter. P.L. 103-383 addressed the need
to determine, in cases with more than one child support order
issued for the same obligor and child, which order to recognize
for purposes of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and
enforcement. P.L. 103-383 restricted a state court's ability to
modify a child support order issued by another state unless the
child and the custodial parent have moved to the state where
the modification is sought or have agreed to the modification.
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) clarified the
definition of a child's home state and made several revisions
to ensure that the full faith and credit laws could be applied
consistently with UIFSA.
One of the most important aspects of UIFSA is its
provisions related to continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
Consistent with UIFSA's policy of ``one order, one time, one
place,'' only one court is authorized to establish or modify a
child support order at a time. UIFSA provides that the court or
administrative agency that issues a valid child support order
retains ``continuing, exclusive jurisdiction'' to modify an
existing order, as long as the custodial parent, the
noncustodial parent, or the child remains in the issuing state.
This provision limits the number of duplicate and conflicting
orders, and reduces ``forum'' shopping by parents seeking to
increase or decrease the amount of child support payments.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would clarify present law by stipulating
that a state court that has established a child support order
has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order if
the order is the controlling order and (1) the state is the
child's state of residence or that of any individual contestant
or (2) the contestants consent in a record or in open court
that the court may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify
its order.
The Committee Bill would also clarify that a state no
longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a child
support order if the state is not the residence of the child or
an individual contestant, and the contestants have not
consented in a record or in open court that the court of the
other state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its
order.
The Committee Bill would provide further clarification of
under what conditions a state could modify a child support
order.

SEC. 312. RELIEF FROM PASSPORT SANCTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS

Present law

P.L. 104-193 (the 1996 welfare reform law) authorized the
Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of
debtor parents whose child support arrearages exceed $5,000.
P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) included a
provision that lowered the threshold amount from $5,000 to
$2,500 for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent who
owes past-due child support.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would allow the Secretary of State to
issue certain noncustodial parents (with child support
arrearages over the $2,500 threshold) passports if the
Secretary of State certifies that the noncustodial parent's
passport application includes evidence that he or she (1) has
an income below $100,000; (2) only owes child support
arrearages (and is not incurring any new child support
obligations); (3) does not owe child support arrearages for a
child under age 18; (4) has been making child support payments
consistently and in good faith for the last 12 months; and (5)
has a current offer to work outside of the United States, an
offer to interview for work outside of the United States, a
professional history of working outside of the United States, a
job that requires travel outside of the United States, or is
enrolled in a professional training program that requires
travel outside of the United States.
The Committee Bill would require the Secretary of State to
revoke a passport issued to a noncustodial parent upon a
determination that the individual has failed to make child
support payments consistently and in good faith for more than
six months.
The Committee Bill would require the Secretary of State to
report the issuance of such passports to HHS. It would also
require HHS to report the issuance of such passports to state
CSE agencies.

Committee note

This provision appears as modified by the amendment offered
by Senator Grassley.

SEC. 313. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS FOR INDIAN TRIBES

Tribal access to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS)

Present law
In contrast to the federal matching rate of 66% for CSE
programs run by the states or territories, pursuant to P.L.
104-193 (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996), the CSE program provides 90%
federal funding for approved CSE programs operated by tribes or
tribal organizations during the first three years of full
program operation, and provides 80% federal funding thereafter.
Tribes and tribal organizations also may apply for two-year
start-up grants which receive direct federal funding equal to
100% of approved and allowable CSE expenditures during the
start-up period. As of June 2013, 51 Indian tribes or tribal
organizations operated comprehensive tribal CSE programs and
nine Indian tribes or tribal organizations operated start-up
tribal CSE programs.
There is no statutory authority for direct tribal access to
the FPLS and federal tax refund offset. However, the tribe
could receive FPLS data from a state through an
intergovernmental agreement. Under current federal law, the
FPLS is only allowed to transmit information in its databases
to ``authorized persons.''
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would provide Indian tribes or tribal
organizations access to the FPLS by designating them as
``authorized persons.''

Waiver authority for Indian tribes or tribal organizations operating
child support enforcement programs

Present law
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is
authorized to fund state demonstration grants to test and
evaluate new policies and practices that are intended to
improve the operation of the child support program.
Committee bill
The Committee Bill would allow Indian tribes or tribal
organizations that operate a CSE program to be considered a
state for purposes of authority to conduct an experimental
pilot or demonstration project under the section 1115 waiver
authority to assist in promoting the objectives of the CSE
program. (An Indian tribe or tribal organization that is
applying for or receiving funding for a start-up CSE program
would not be eligible for section 1115 demonstration grants.)

SEC. 314. PARENTING TIME ARRANGEMENTS

Present law

To promote visitation and better relations between
custodial and noncustodial parents, P.L. 104-193 (the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996)
created the Access and Visitation Grants program. Funding for
the program began in FY1997 with a capped alottment of $10
million per year, with each state required to contribute ten
percent of the total program costs. Each governor designated a
state agency which uses these grant funds to establish and
administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial
parents' access to and visitation with their children. The
statute specifies certain activities which may be funded,
including: voluntary and mandatory mediation, counseling,
education, the development of parenting plans, supervised
visitation, neutral drop-off and pick-up, and the development
of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody
arrangements.
The Access and Visitation Grants program funding is
separate from funding for federal and state administration of
the Child Support Enforcement program. According to data from
the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), all 50
states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands have provided access and visitation services
to over a half million noncustodial parents and their families
since the program became operational in FY1998.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would require states to implement
procedures for the establishment of voluntary parenting time
arrangements (sometimes known as visitation) at the time a
child support order is initiated for unmarried parents, just as
custody arrangements are typically settled at the same time
divorces are finalized. Voluntary parenting time arrangements
procedures are to be implemented in cases that are not
contested (for such services) and where there are safeguards
against family or domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, or stalking.
The Committee Bill would require states, as part of their
CSE State Plan, to provide for a process for including in the
mandatory annual reviews and reports on the state CSE program
(to the HHS Secretary) information regarding the policies and
practices implemented by the state or which the state plans to
implement to facilitate access to and visitation of children by
noncustodial parents.

SEC. 315. EFFICIENT USE OF THE NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES DATABASE
FOR FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS IN ACHIEVING POSITIVE LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

Present law

The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) is part of the
FPLS. It is a database that contains personal and financial
data on nearly every working American, as well as those
receiving unemployment compensation. Contrary to its name, the
NDNH includes more than just information on new employees. It
is a database that includes information on (1) all newly hired
employees, compiled from state reports (and reports from
federal employers), (2) the quarterly wage reports of existing
employees (in Unemployment Compensation (UC)-covered
employment), and (3) unemployment compensation claims
The NDNH was established to help states locate noncustodial
parents living in a different state so that child support
payments could be withheld from that parent's paycheck. Since
its enactment in 1996, the NDNH has been extended to several
additional programs and agencies to verify program eligibility,
prevent or end fraud, collect overpayments, or assure that
program benefits are correct.
Current law requires that states have safeguards against
unauthorized use or disclosure of all confidential information
handled by the CSE agency.
In addition, any person who unlawfully discloses the Social
Security number of another person shall be guilty of a felony
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined, imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
Under current law new hire reports must be deleted from the
NDNH 24 months after the date of entry.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would allow the HHS Secretary to provide
access to data in each component of the FPLS as well as
information reported by employers via the NDNH for (1) research
undertaken by a state or federal agency (including through
grant or contract) for purposes found by the Secretary to be
likely to contribute to achieving the goals of Title IV-A of
the Social Security Act (which includes the TANF block grant
program and the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood
programs) or the CSE program (Title IV-D of the Social Security
Act), or (2) an evaluation or statistical analysis undertaken
to assess the effectiveness of a federal program in achieving
positive labor market outcomes (including through grant or
contract), by a specified federal department or agency.
The Committee Bill would stipulate that applicable data or
information may include a personal identifier only if the state
and federal agency conducting the relevant research or the
federal department or agency undertaking the evaluation or
statistical analysis enters into an agreement with the HHS
Secretary regarding the security and use of the data or
information. It would require the agreement to include such
restrictions or conditions with respect to the use,
safeguarding, disclosure, or re-disclosure of the data or
information (including by contractors or grantees) as the
Secretary deems appropriate. The Committee Bill would also
require that the data or information be used exclusively for
the purposes described in the agreement. In addition, the
Committee Bill requires the Secretary to determine that the
provision of data or information is the minimum amount needed
to conduct the research, evaluation, or statistical analysis
and that it will not interfere with the effective operation of
the CSE program. (Note that these provisions are in addition to
the current law provisions concerning disclosure and use of
research information as well as information integrity and
security.)
The Committee Bill would stipulate that any individual who
willfully discloses a personal identifier (such as a name or
Social Security number) in any manner to an entity not entitled
to receive the data or information, shall be fined, imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
The Committee Bill would require that new hire reports be
deleted from the NDNH 48 months after the date of entry.

Committee note

This provision was included as a result of a roll call vote
on an amendment offered by Senator Wyden.

SUBTITLE B--CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE

SEC. 321. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE

Present law

No provision.

Committee bill

The Committee Bill would establish a Child Support
Enforcement Task Force to study and evaluate the effectiveness
of existing CSE programs and collection practices by state CSE
agencies and make recommendations to Congress. The Committee
Bill would require the Task Force to be composed of 15 members:
(1) the Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Youth and
Families (HHS); (2) five members appointed by the Senate, one
selected by the Majority Leader, one selected by the Minority
Leader, one selected by the Finance Committee chairman, one
selected by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and
one jointly selected by the chairman and ranking member of the
Finance Committee; (3) five members appointed by the House, one
selected by the Speaker of the House, one selected by the
Minority Leader, one selected by the Ways and Means Committee
chairman, one selected by the ranking member of the Ways and
Means Committee, one selected jointly by the chairman and
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee; and (4) four
members appointed by the President. The Committee Bill would
require that the appointments of the members of the Task Force
be made not later than six months after enactment. Would
require the Task Force to hold at least three public meetings
which would include: (1) CSE program administrators; (2) family
court judges or judges that preside over issues related to
child support enforcement, child welfare, or social services
for children and their families, and organizations that
represent such judges; (3) custodial parents and/or
organizations that represent them, (4) noncustodial parents
and/or organizations that represent them; and (5) organizations
that represent fiduciary entities that are affected by CSE
policies. The Committee Bill would transfer $2 million from the
unobligated balance of funds for Section 414 of the Social
Security Act (i.e., study by the Census Bureau related to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program) for the
Task Force to carry out its duties. The funds would remain
available through FY2016. The Committee Bill would require the
Task Force to submit its report to Congress by January 1, 2016.

SUBTITLE C--EFFECTIVE DATES

SEC. 331. EFFECTIVE DATES

The Committee Bill would require the provisions to take
effect on enactment, except for the UIFSA amendment and the
parenting time arrangements amendment to the CSE state plan
which would take effect on October 1, 2014. If states must
amend state law to comply with the two amendments mentioned
above, the changes must be made no later than the first day of
the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the
first regular session of the state legislature that begins
after the date of enactment of this Act. For purposes of the
previous sentence, in the case of a state that has a biannual
legislature, each year of the session is considered to be a
separate regular session of the state legislature. The
Committee Bill would require amendments related to relief from
passport sanctions and CSE programs for Indian tribes to take
effect one year after the date of enactment.

List of Terms

ACYF: Administration on Children, Youth and Families
AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System
APPLA: Another planned permanent living arrangement
CSE: Child support enforcement
DOD: Department of Defense
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation
FAOP: Federal Administrative Offset Program
FCR: Federal Case Registry
FOP: Federal Offset Program
FFCCSOA: Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act
(P.L 103-383)
FOIA: The Freedom of Information Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-231)
FPLS: Federal Parent Locator Service
HHS : Department of Health and Human Services
IRS: Internal Revenue Service
MSFIDM: Multistate Financial Institution Data Match
NCCUSL: National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws
NCIC: National Crime Information Center
NCMEC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NDNH: National Directory of New Hires
NSA: National Security Agency
OCSE: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
PDP: Passport Denial Program
SIPP: Survey of Income and Program Participants
SSA: Social Security Administration
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TVPA: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (P.L. 106-386)
UIFSA: Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs

III. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates

The statement of unfunded mandates from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office was not available at the time the
Committee Report was submitted. Pursuant to section 423(f)(2)
of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) the statement
will be published in the Congressional Record in advance of
floor consideration of the Committee Bill.

Cost Estimate

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following statement is made
concerning the estimated budget effects of the ``Supporting At-
Risk Youth Act'' as reported.
January 27, 2014.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1870, the Supporting
At-Risk Children Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are David
Rafferty and Elizabeth Cove Delisle.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
Enclosure.

S. 1870--Supporting At-Risk Children Act

Summary: S. 1870 would make numerous changes to programs
for children and families within the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). Among those changes, the bill would
extend funding for Family Connection Grants, impose new
placement and reporting rules in foster care, and require
states to provide services so that unmarried parents could
establish visitation agreements when setting up their child-
support order.
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct
spending by $487 million over the 2014-2024 period; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply to the bill. Enacting S. 1870
would not affect revenues.
In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
have a discretionary cost of $125 million over the 2014-2024
period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
S. 1870 would impose intergovernmental mandates, as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by increasing the
stringency of conditions on state governments in their
implementation of the Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Child Support Enforcement programs. CBO estimates, however,
that the cost of the mandates would not exceed the threshold
established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($76 million
in 2014, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimated cost to the federal government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1870 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 500
(education, training, employment, and social services) and 600
(income security).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2014-2019 2014-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Parenting Time Arrangements:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 0 15 32 33 35 36 37 39 41 42 44 151 354
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 15 32 33 35 36 37 39 41 42 44 151 354
Identity Documents for Youth in Foster Care:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 0 4 5 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 30 61
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 4 5 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 30 61
Family Connection Grants:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 45
Estimated Outlays....................................... * 10 14 15 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 45
Child Support for Youth in Foster Care:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. * 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 30
Estimated Outlays....................................... * 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 30
Foster Care and Guardianship Assistance:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. * * * * * -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -7
Estimated Outlays....................................... * * * * * -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -7
Data Collection and Reporting Requirements:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Compliance with Multilateral Child Support Conventions:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. * * * * * * * * * * * * -1
Estimated Outlays....................................... * * * * * * * * * * * * -1
Total Changes in Direct Spending:
Estimated Budget Authority.............................. 15 39 57 44 45 45 46 47 49 50 52 245 487
Estimated Outlays....................................... * 34 56 59 50 46 46 47 49 50 52 245 487

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level......................................... 43 43 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 129
Estimated Outlays........................................... 15 36 41 27 6 * 0 0 0 0 0 125 125
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
* = between -$500,000 and $500,000.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted in 2014, that the authorized
amounts will be appropriated for each year, and that outlays
will follow historical spending patterns for the programs.
Direct spending: In total, CBO estimates that enacting S.
1870 would increase direct spending by $487 million over the
2014-2024 period.
Parenting Time Arrangements. Section 314 would require
states to provide services so that unmarried parents could
establish visitation agreements when setting up their child-
support order. (Divorcing parents often establish parenting
time arrangements as part of their divorce proceedings in
family court.) According to HHS, the majority of the 1.2
million child-support orders established each year are for
children whose parents were not married at the time of their
birth. Based on information from the Office of Child Support
Enforcement, CBO anticipates states would establish around
750,000 parenting time arrangements each year. CBO expects an
average federal cost of around $50 per arrangement, as the
federal government reimburses states for 66 percent of their
costs to administer the child support program. As a result,
enacting section 314 would increase direct spending by about
$350 million over the 2014-2024 period, CBO estimates.
Identity Documents for Youth in Foster Care. Section 222
would require states to ensure that certain youth have a birth
certificate, Social Security card, state identification
document or driver's license, and (if desired) bank account
before exiting foster care. The bill also would require HHS to
penalize states that do not comply by reducing the federal
reimbursement to such states for foster-care administrative
expenses. CBO expects that states would achieve a high level of
compliance given the potentially significant penalties--but
that those penalties nonetheless would amount to several
million dollars per year, partially offsetting the federal
costs for implementing this provision. Based on data from the
Department of Homeland Security, Social Security
Administration, state motor-vehicle and vital-records agencies,
and HHS, CBO estimates that on net, enacting section 222 would
increase direct spending by about $60 million over the 2014-
2024 period.
Family Connection Grants. Section 121 would appropriate $15
million for each year from 2014 through 2016 for Family
Connection grants to assist children who are either in foster
care or at risk of entering foster care to re-establish
connections with family members. Based on historical patterns
of spending in the program, CBO estimates that extending the
program for those years would increase direct spending by $45
million over the 2014-2024 period, with most of those outlays
falling in fiscal years 2015 through 2017.
Child Support for Youth in Foster Care. Section 212 would
require states to pass through child-support collections to
specified youth in foster care who are age 14 or older instead
of retaining those collections to reimburse the state and
federal government for foster-care payments on the child's
behalf. Based on data from the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System and HHS, CBO estimates that
enacting this provision would increase direct spending by $30
million over the 2014-2024 period.
Foster Care and Guardianship Assistance. Section 116 would
preserve a child's eligibility for a kinship guardian
assistance payment if his relative guardian were replaced,
because of death or incapacity, with a successor legal guardian
named in the kinship guardian agreement. Based on the
difference in federal costs for eligible children in kinship
guardianships and other child-welfare placements, CBO estimates
that this provision would decrease direct spending by $7
million over the 2014-2024 period.
Data Collection and Reporting Requirements. Sections 117
and 231 would require states to collect in their child-welfare
information systems certain data about disrupted or dissolved
adoptions and guardianships and trafficking victims. Based on
information from state child-welfare and information-technology
agencies and from HHS about likely programming and
implementation costs and federal reimbursement rates, CBO
estimates that enacting those two provisions would increase
direct spending by $5 million over the 2014-2024 period.
Compliance with Multilateral Child Support Conventions.
Section 311 would implement the Hague Convention on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of
Family Maintenance, to which the U.S. Senate gave its consent
in September 2010. The bill would simplify some administrative
steps related to enforcing child support orders involving
another treaty nation. CBO estimates that implementing section
311 would reduce direct spending by $1 million over the 2014-
2024 period.
Other Provisions. Additionally, S. 1870 includes several
provisions whose net effect on direct spending would not be
significant.
Improving Collection of Unemployment Insurance
Overpayments. Section 131 would require states to use the
Treasury Offset Program to seek to recover overpayments of
unemployment compensation. However, a nearly identical
provision that targets substantially the same overpayments was
enacted in December as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013 (Public Law 113-67). Consequently, CBO expects that
section 131 would have little or no additional effect on the
budget.
Identifying and Screening Trafficking Victims.
Section 211 would require states to attest in their state plan
for child welfare that they have developed and are implementing
policies to identify, screen, and provide services to child
trafficking victims. Based on conversations with numerous state
officials about existing state laws and policies regarding
victims of trafficking, CBO estimates that enacting section 211
would not significantly affect direct spending by the federal
government.
Planned Permanent Living Arrangements for Youth in
Foster Care. Several provisions in section 212 would make
changes to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to encourage
or require states to seek reunification with parents, adoption,
or placement with a legal guardian as the planned permanent
living arrangement for youth in foster care age 14 or older.
Consequently, some youth could be placed in a living
arrangement with a higher cost to the federal government (such
as remaining in federally reimbursed foster care instead of
being emancipated from foster care), while others could be
placed in a lower-cost setting (such as a kinship guardianship
instead of foster care). Based on information from several
states and HHS, CBO estimates that the effects of those
provisions in section 212 would roughly offset each other and
thus would not have a significant net effect on direct
spending.
Advisory Committee and Task Force. Sections 241
and 321 would establish an advisory committee and task force to
be funded from unobligated balances in a particular Census
Bureau account. CBO estimates that insufficient unobligated
balances exist to fund the committee and task force.
Furthermore, CBO projects that all of the funds that will be
made available in future years will be spent, leaving no
unobligated balances to use for those new purposes. Therefore,
enacting sections241 and 321 would have no effect on direct
spending.
Spending subject to appropriation: The bill would
reauthorize and amend the Adoption Incentives program through
2016. This program provides payments to states for increasing,
within different categories, the number of children they place
in adoption each year above baseline standards. The bill would
authorize the appropriation of $43 million each year from 2014
through 2016. Based on historical patterns of spending in the
program, CBO estimates that implementing the reauthorization
would cost $15 million in 2014 and $125 million over the 2014-
2019 period, assuming the appropriation of the authorized
amounts. The bulk of that spending would occur in fiscal years
2014 through 2017.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 1870 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON DECEMBER 19, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2014-2019 2014-2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact....................... 0 34 56 59 50 46 46 47 49 50 52 245 487
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: For large
entitlement grant programs like Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Child Support Enforcement, UMRA defines an
increase in the stringency of conditions on states or
localities as an intergovernmental mandate if the affected
governments lack authority to offset those costs while
continuing to provide required services. Under the Foster Care
and Adoption Assistance programs, the bill would require states
to comply with new standards for collecting and reporting
program information to federal authorities. States also would
be required to ensure that a child who leaves foster care
receives a copy of his or her official birth certificate, a
Social Security card, and a driver's license or identification
card, and that the child is able to open an account at a bank
or credit union. S. 1870 also would require states to implement
procedures for establishing voluntary visitation arrangements
at the time a child support order is initiated.
Since these requirements would be additional conditions for
receiving federal assistance from large entitlement programs
and since states have limited flexibility to amend their
responsibilities under those programs to offset the additional
costs, the requirements would be intergovernmental mandates.
CBO estimates the costs to states to comply with the mandates
would total more than $50 million by 2018 but would not exceed
the threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental
mandates ($76 million in 2014, adjusted annually for
inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
CBO has not reviewed section 311 for intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates because section 4 of UMRA excludes from
the application of that act any legislative provisions that are
necessary for the ratification or implementation of
international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that
section 311 falls within that exclusion.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: David Rafferty and
Elizabeth Cove Delisle; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector:
Chung Kim.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.

ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

SENATOR PORTMAN

Post-adoption services are not available to internationally
adopted children, even though they are citizens of the United
States. There was a Reuters series this fall about the
underground ``child trading'' within international adoption
community. Since state child welfare agencies are not involved
in international adoption proceedings, there is really no way
for them to track internationally adopted children at the state
level. I offered an amendment to open up resources for kids and
families who are struggling and need help after the adoption is
complete--before problems rise to the level greater child
welfare or foster care involvement. I am encouraged that the
Chairman has agreed to examine this issue further and has
committed to hold a committee hearing on this subject. In light
of this commitment, I will withdraw my amendment.
I am pleased that the Finance committee will advance
provisions from the Child Sex Trafficking Data and Response Act
as part of a broader child welfare package.
Senator Wyden and I introduced this legislation in June
2013 and we have received strong bipartisan backing from many
members of this committee. This measure is critical because we
know that there are many instances when state child welfare
systems fail to properly identify and assist trafficked and
exploited children. This legislation would streamline data
collection and reporting on sex trafficking. It would ensure
that exploited children qualify for and receive services
through the child welfare system. It would also enhance data
collection on children who have been identified as victims of
sex trafficking.
I am grateful the Chairman and my colleagues for joining me
to support this important measure to better deal with child sex
trafficking.

SENATOR WYDEN

On December 12, 2013, the Senate Finance Committee advanced
legislation that would have an immense positive impact on the
lives of vulnerable children in this country. I am proud of the
work this Committee has done in the arena of child welfare and
profoundly grateful for Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member
Hatch's dedication to advocating for this nation's most
precious resource: our children.
I would like to take this opportunity to describe and
restate my strong support for an amendment that I offered and
the Committee accepted to the Supporting At-Risk Children Act.
This amendment, Wyden #1, would allow specified federal
agencies to access the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH)
for research projects in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
federal policies and programs--many of which were created and
are overseen by this Committee--in achieving positive labor
market outcomes.
In Fiscal Year 2013, the federal government spent over $185
billion on higher education and workforce development programs
including tax subsidies, grants, work study, student loans, and
employment and training programs at various federal agencies.
State and local governments spent even more. Despite these
significant outlays, relatively little is known about the
return on investment of taxpayer dollars.
This amendment would take a critical step forward in
providing the hard data needed to ensure that money is not
being wasted on ineffective programs and policies--and another
important step toward true evidence-based budgeting. In an era
of constrained resources, it is crucial that reliable data is
available to measure performance and conduct cost-effective,
rigorous evaluations of federal investments.
Simply, this amendment would allow the NDNH's earnings
records to be used to determine the extent to which federal
education, training, and social service programs help people
get jobs and earn family-sustaining wages. The language is
identical to language included in H.R. 1896, which was passed
in the House of Representatives by a vote of 394-27.
As some have expressed a concern over the data security and
privacy implications of my amendment, I would like to take this
opportunity to address this concern in more detail. To begin,
it is important to note that this amendment does not authorize
any new data collection; it would narrowly expand the
authorized uses of earnings data that the federal government
currently collects, to enable this data to be used in a smarter
and secure way.
The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of
Child Support Enforcement, where the NDNH is housed, goes
through a rigorous process to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of the data, as required by statute. HHS
follows the Government Accountability Office's recommended best
practices, including ensuring that the NDNH data is only
accessed by authorized parties, is only accessed for narrowly
authorized purposes, that only the minimum amount of data
needed is accessed, and that the data will be protected during
the entire chain of custody--including agency contractors.
Importantly, the NDNH has never had a data breach in its 16-
year history.
Under current practice, the exact same wage record data
contained within the NDNH is accessible for research purposes,
but only after a burdensome and expensive process. Gordon
Berlin, on behalf of MDRC, explained in his testimony before
the House Ways and Means Committee:

Research firms that are funded by federal agencies to
evaluate programs often rely on data collected by
states from employers on employment and earnings, data
that the states already report to the federal
government for certain child support enforcement and
other purposes. These data are housed in accessible
form at the federal level within the National Directory
of New Hires (NDNH) database. However, research
contractors are generally unable to access this
essential database for assessing whether federally
supported programs actually work. Instead, they are
forced to get the very same data directly from the
states, at great cost to the federal government and at
considerable burden in duplicative reporting for the
states. If the NDNH database were made available to
evaluators (with appropriate privacy safeguards), it
would enable Congress and the federal agencies to
assess the impact that social programs have on jobs and
earnings at much less cost and burden to the federal
government and the states.

Current federal law forces researchers and evaluators to
gather data in a piecemeal and state-by-state fashion, and
because state data laws governing data privacy and security
vary widely in strength and enforcement, a singular, defined
federal process will not only improve the quality of data, it
will enhance the security of such data.
This amendment expands access to the NDNH in a narrow way
to facilitate better evaluation and to reduce taxpayer and
state cost and burden. The narrow expansion would allow
particular units within 10 agencies to use the data for a very
specific purpose. Seven of the 10 agencies in the legislation
currently have statutory authority to access the NDNH. This
language simply expands the authorized purposes to include
research and statistical uses to study labor market outcomes,
and allows the data to be used in ways that are more conducive
to research. This limited expansion reduces cost to taxpayers,
burden to states, and has strong safeguards.
The narrow expansion in this amendment would increase
privacy protections. The amendment only allows access to
outside entities if they are acting as agents of the designated
federal agencies. Both the federal agencies and their agents
are subject to a number of requirements designed to protect
privacy and confidentiality--including the Privacy Act and the
Federal Information Security Management Act. The legislation
goes even further than these baseline protections, making
unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information
a Class E felony. Any individual who willfully discloses a
personal identifier in any manner to an entity not entitled to
receive the data or information, would be subject to fines
under Title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
Similarly-sensitive data are safely used for research and
evaluation today. For example, the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) collects and protects such information
about all Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, including
information about individual doctor visits, diagnoses and
prescriptions. CMS has long made its data available for
research purposes, consistent with the Privacy Act and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's strict
privacy requirements.
To conclude, this amendment would eliminate unnecessary and
duplicative data collection efforts, save federal and state
taxpayer money, reduce reporting burdens on state governments,
and improve the quality and efficiency of federally-supported
evaluation research, all while continuing to protect the
privacy of individuals. It would achieve these goals by using
earnings data that states and the federal government collect in
a way that will better inform federal lawmakers and this
Committee's ongoing efforts, without authorizing any new data
collection.

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS BURR, CORNYN, ENZI, CRAPO, and ROBERTS

We respectfully file dissenting views to Wyden Amendment
#1, ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Programs'', which
was adopted during committee consideration to The Supporting
At-Risk Children Act of 2013.\1\ Although we support the
underlying legislation Senator Wyden amended and on which the
Chairman and Ranking Member worked hard to offer for committee
consideration, we have serious concerns over the unintended
consequences this amendment will have for the security of
Americans' data and the proper role of the federal government
in our personal lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\During committee consideration, the Wyden Amendment was adopted
by a vote of 14-10, with all Democrats and Senator Grassley supporting
and all other Republicans opposing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH)
is to provide a national directory of employment and
unemployment insurance information that will enable state Child
Support Enforcement agencies to be more effective in locating
noncustodial parents, establishing child support orders and
enforcing child support orders.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996, Section 4316(i), P.L. 104-193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain other agencies, however, like Social Security, use
NDNH to confirm employment and income verification with
limited, Congressionally-authorized purposes. The Wyden
Amendment would expand the use of NDNH data to allow ``personal
identifiers'', such as Social Security numbers and specific
wage data on all Americans, to be used without apparent limit
on Washington bureaucrats and private research organizations
and for the broad purposes of program evaluation of federal
job-training and education programs.
The Wyden Amendment would expand upon current law's narrow
usage to include the Departments of Labor, Education, Housing
and Urban Development, Justice, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture,
Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Census, and the
National Science Foundation as agencies having access to
personal identifiers. It would then allow private organizations
at request by the aforementioned agencies, again without any
discernible limits within the Wyden Amendment's text, to use
this personal information to conduct various research studies
outside of Congress' oversight or explicit authorization.
Furthermore, it would extend the number of years personal data
could be stored in Washington for these vast new uses from two
to four years.
We share Senator Wyden's goals for this amendment of
eliminating wasteful, duplicative, and ineffective federal job-
training and education programs. In our view, however, the use
of personal information on all Americans for the purposes of
program evaluation and general research by outside groups
raises basic privacy concerns and goes beyond the narrow
purposes for which NDNH was originally created. It also
enhances the possibility one individual in the federal
government, with whom we've entrusted these data, will act in
bad faith and disclose this information.
On this point, Congressional Research Service (CRS) in a
July 15, 2013 report analyzing the expansion of the NDNH for
program evaluation and research goals made the following
observation:

``The expansion of access to and use of personal
information contained in the FPLS, especially in the
National Directory of New Hires, could potentially lead
to privacy and confidentiality breaches, financial
fraud, identity theft, or other crimes. There is also
concern that a broader array of legitimate users of the
NDNH may conceal the unauthorized use of the personal
and financial data in the NDNH. Moreover, concerns
about data security and the privacy rights of employees
have been a point of contention in many of the debates
regarding expanded access to the NDNH.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Congressional Research Service (CRS) ``Hague Convention Treaty
on Recovery of International Child Support and H.R. 1896'', July 15,
2013.

Far from being a controlled expansion or even cautious
authorization by Congress for agencies to conduct a limited
number of studies, the Wyden Amendment amounts to a blank check
for Washington bureaucrats to conduct program research and
evaluation as they choose with the personal data of every
working American at risk and without their knowledge or
consent. Even the worthy goals of program consolidation and
elimination, theoretical at this point as they are, do not
justify the insouciance with which this amendment grants access
to these data to federal agencies.

IV. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with paragraph 7(b) of rule XXVI of the
standing rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, with a
majority and quorum present, the ``The Supporting At-Risk
Children Act'' was amended and ordered favorably reported as
follows:
The Committee on Finance met on December 12, 2013 to
consider an original bill entitled, ``The Supporting At-Risk
Children Act.''
The Chairman's Mark was modified and amended as follows:
Amendment 9, Portman 1--To clarify that post-adoption
services are extended to internationally adopted children and
their families
Amendment withdrawn
Amendment 3, Menendez/Grassley 1--Strengthen and Vitalize
Enforcement of Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act (S. 508)
Amendment withdrawn
Amendment 1, Wyden 1--Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Federal Programs
Approved by roll call vote, 14 ayes, 10 nays--Ayes: Baucus,
Rockefeller (proxy), Wyden, Schumer (proxy), Stabenow,
Cantwell, Nelson (proxy), Menendez, Carper, Cardin, Brown
(proxy), Bennet, Casey, Grassley; Nays: Hatch, Crapo (proxy),
Roberts (proxy), Enzi (proxy), Cornyn (proxy), Thune (proxy),
Burr, Isakson, Portman (proxy), Toomey
Amendment 5, Grassley/Rockefeller/Casey 1--Promoting
Sibling Connection
Accepted as modified
Amendment 4, Hatch 1--Timely Adoption Award Pool
Accepted
Amendment 8, Grassley 4--Allowing Parents With Child
Support Enforcement Arrearages to Petition the Department of
State for a Waiver of Passport Sanctions
Accepted as modified
The Chairman's Mark, as amended, was ordered favorably
reported by a voice vote.

V. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS

A. Regulatory Impact

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee makes the following
statement concerning the regulatory impact of the Supporting
At-Risk Kids Act.

Impact on Individuals and Businesses

In general the bill provides improvements to adoption,
child welfare, and child support programs. Regulations are
needed to implement these provisions and as such will likely
affect individuals eligible for certain services. Businesses
are likely not to be effected.

Impact on Personal Privacy and Paper Work

In general the bill provides improvements to adoption,
child welfare, and child support programs. In the context of
implementing these provisions states may ask individuals
eligible for certain services for information that the state
deems relevant. The bill should not adversely impact or
increase the amount of personal information and paper work
required relative to current law.

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In the opinion of the Committee, in order to expedite the
business of the Senate, it is necessary to dispense with the
requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate (relating to the showing of changes in existing
law made by the bill as reported by the Committee).