HR-6903-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Beth Van Duyne (R-TX)
What it does
The Ensuring Children Receive Support Act would modify federal child support enforcement mechanisms to improve the collection and distribution of child support payments to families. The full text of the bill was not provided beyond its title and procedural status, so the specific mechanical provisions — such as changes to wage garnishment, interstate enforcement, or benefit offsets — cannot be detailed with certainty. Based on the bill's title and civil rights categorization, it would likely expand or strengthen existing federal child support enforcement tools under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
Who benefits
Custodial parents (most often mothers) who are owed child support payments. Children in single-parent households who depend on support income. State child support enforcement agencies that may receive additional federal tools or funding. Low-income families for whom child support represents a significant share of household income. Taxpayers, if stronger enforcement reduces reliance on public assistance programs.
Who is hurt
Non-custodial parents subject to stricter enforcement, garnishment, or penalties — including those with genuine inability to pay. Non-custodial parents in low-income brackets who may face compounding financial hardship. Employers who may bear administrative burdens from expanded wage withholding requirements. State agencies that may face unfunded implementation mandates if federal support does not cover new compliance costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that approximately $113 billion in child support goes uncollected nationally, leaving millions of children in poverty despite court-ordered obligations. They contend that stronger federal enforcement tools close gaps that allow non-compliant parents to evade obligations across state lines, and that every dollar collected in child support reduces public assistance expenditures — making enforcement both a children's welfare and a fiscal responsibility issue.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that aggressive enforcement mechanisms can trap low-income non-custodial parents — disproportionately men of color — in cycles of debt, license suspension, and incarceration that reduce their earning capacity and make compliance less, not more, likely. They contend that punitive enforcement without income-based modification procedures can harm the very children it aims to help by destabilizing the non-custodial parent's ability to contribute at all.