Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates expanded child‑support enforcement measures emphasizing faster collections and employer reporting
Summary
On the final day of the 1997 session the House debated and amended (unsuccessfully) a broad child‑support enforcement package modeled on federal reforms. Sponsor Kenny Prampson said the bill modernizes enforcement—new‑hire reporting, SSN recording, expedited processes and stronger lien and withholding authority—to get money to children faster.
Representative Kenny Prampson, sponsor of the floor presentation, told the House that Senate Bill 64 is intended to strengthen the state’s ability to collect child support and reduce reliance on welfare. Prampson said the bill, which runs more than 100 pages, adds tools including recording Social Security numbers for child‑support enforcement purposes, a central registry for support orders, a new‑hire registry and tighter, expedited enforcement measures such as broadened subpoena authority, expanded income‑withholding and strengthened lien provisions.
Prampson said the measure mirrors effective processes used in other states and meets federal requirements, noting that Congress had mandated quicker employer reporting—within 20 days of hire—and certain penalties for noncompliance. He said the bill carried a positive fiscal note and would help the state increase collections and reduce welfare caseload pressure.
Representative Chris Lane Hammond offered a floor amendment to remove language that tied visitation orders to child‑support provisions; Hammond argued visitation belongs in separate legislation and the linkage gave the child‑support bill an unintended tone. Other members pressed the sponsor on fairness concerns and the likelihood of contentious debate in the Senate if the amendment remained. The motion to amend failed on a recorded voice/roll call, and debate returned to the sponsor for final summation.
Several members questioned implementation details for employers, including how employers would identify obligated payors and what systems would be required; Prampson said reporting could be electronic or form‑based and reiterated that some penalties reflected federal law. A transition schedule was discussed; an October implementation date was mentioned for the reporting requirements.
The House concluded floor action on the measure and moved the bill for final handling consistent with the House calendar and transmittal procedures. The debate focused primarily on enforcing obligations to children while limiting new substantive policy ties to visitation and protecting due‑process safeguards in lien and penalty provisions.
Next steps: the bill was returned in the House process for further clerical action and transmission to the Senate as appropriate per the journaled actions recorded on 03/05/1997.
