MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

The facts are not in dispute. In March 1991, the debtor’s former spouse, Sondra Leibowitz, applied for and received public assistance on behalf of herself, and her and the debtor’s minor children. In so doing, Ms. Leibowitz assigned to the County of Orange (hereinafter “County”) all rights to support from any person she had on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children by operation of law pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 11477 and 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(26)(A).

On May 12, 1992, the County obtained a judgment against the debtor pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code §§ 11350 and 11475.1 for child support in the amount of $372 per month, and for $5,580 for reimbursement of public assistance provided for his children. On June 5,1996, a stipulation and order was entered into by the debtor and the County reaffirming the prior welfare reimbursement debt.

On September 27, 1996, the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition which listed the County as a creditor. On November 1,1996, the debtor’s driver’s license was suspended pursuant to a collection action by the County for non-compliance with the judgment for reimbursement. On December 31, 1996, the debtor was granted a discharge of all dis-chargeable debts. On March 6, 1997, the County caused to be served an Earnings Withholding Order upon the debtor’s employer. Currently, fifty percent of the debtor’s income is being withheld by the debtor’s employer and surrendered to the County pursuant to the Earnings Withholding Order.

The instant adversary complaint was filed by the debtor, Paul Leibowitz, on April 8, 1997, against Defendants, the County and the District Attorney for the County, seeking to enjoin actions in violation of discharge, and for determination of dischargeability. At a hearing on the debtor’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 12, 1997, this court held that the suspension of the debtor’s driver’s license was void as being in violation of the automatic stay. The debtor’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was otherwise denied.

Defendants brought the instant motion for summary judgment contending that the debt is not dischargeable due to the recent amendments to the Bankruptcy Code and part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, which changes became effective August 23, 1996. The debtor opposed the motion, contending that because the reimbursement obligation here arose prior to any order for support, the debt is not enforceable under part D and therefore is not within the exception to discharge provision of § 523(a)(18). The debtor relies upon two Ninth Circuit opinions decided under § 523(a)(5) which held that an obligation for reimbursement of Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments arising prior to a support order, was dischargeable. Visness v. Contra Costa County (In re Visness), 57 F.3d 775 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1099 , 116 S.Ct. 828 , 133 L.Ed.2d 770 (1996), and County of Santa Clara v. Ramirez (In re Ramirez), 795 F.2d 1494 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1003 , 107 S.Ct. 1624 , 95 L.Ed.2d 198 (1987).

II. DISCUSSION

The passage of Public Law No. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, also known as the Welfare Reform Act, signed on August 22, 1996, amended 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b). The effective date with respect to bankruptcy cases is the date of enactment, August 22, 1996. Because the debtor filed his petition on September 27, 1996, the amendment is applicable in this case. The debtor does not dispute the applicability of the new amendments.

The amendment of § 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code added subsection (18), which provides for the nondischargeability of a debt:

Based upon the language of § 523(a)(18), the only salient factors which must be present for a debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(18) are: 1) the debt is owed under State law, 2) the debt is owed to a State or municipality, 3) the debt is in the nature of support, and 4) the debt is enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.). Each factor will be discussed separately, although the debtor appears to dispute the existence of only two factors — that the debt is in the nature of support and/or that the debt is enforceable under part D.

A.The Debt is Owed under State Law

The debt is a welfare reimbursement order originally ordered in 1992 under Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code §§ 11350 & 11475.1, and renewed by stipulation in 1996 under Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code §§ 11350.1 and 11475.1. The current Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 11350(a) states that in a case of separation or desertion which results in aid being granted, the noncustodial parent is obligated to the county in an amount equal to either (1) the amount specified in a support order, or, in the absence of such order, (2) the amount of support which would have been specified in an order for the support and maintenance of the family during the period of separation or desertion. Cal. Welf.’ & Inst.Code § 11350(e) provides that the amount of the obligation established under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) “shall be determined by using the appropriate child support guidelines currently in effect.”

The Judgment here, renewed by Stipulation executed by the debtor and his legal counsel on June 5, 1996, is pursuant to the Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code and is thus a debt owed “under state law.”

B.Debt is Owed to a State or Municipality

The Stipulation renewing the Judgment states that the debt is owed to the County, which is a municipality as a political subdivision of the State. 11 U.S.C. § 101 (40).

C.Debt is in the Nature of Support

The Stipulation renewing the Judgment states the debt is owed for public assistance provided to the debtor’s family. The Judgment likewise termed the obligation “reimbursement of public assistance provided” for the minor children. The public assistance was provided for the support of the minor children. The fact that the debt now takes the form of reimbursement to the County does not alter the original purpose of the public assistance which was paid out by the County. That purpose was the support of the debtor’s minor children. Thus, the underlying debt is “in the nature of support.”

D.Debt is enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act

The fourth and final requirement of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(18) is that the debt be enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act. In conjunction with the amendment of § 523(a), the Welfare Reform Act also amended 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b), effective August 22, 1996. Subse quently, in 1997, 42 U.S.C. § 656 (a) was also amended. Whereas the previous version of 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b) provided that a “debt which is a child support obligation assigned to a State under section 602(a)(26) ... is not released by a discharge in bankruptcy,” the amended version of 42 U.S.C. § 656 , in its entirety, now provides as follows:

Thus, under the newly added § 523(a)(i8) and the revised 42 U.S.C. § 656 , a debt in the nature of support is not necessarily “child support,” and yet a debt “in the nature of support” may be enforceable under part D of the Social Security Act.

There is scant legislative history relative to the Congressional intent of the language contained at § 523(a)(18) and 42 U.S.C. § 656 . H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-725, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1996) provides only a brief explanation as to the effect of the House bill (H.R. 3734, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996)) on bankruptcy cases:

H.R.Rep. No. 104-651, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996) contains the identical language in the section entitled, “Explanation of provision.” Collier on Bankruptcy has said only:

Under Visness v. Contra Costa County (In re Visness), 57 F.3d 775 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1099 , 116 S.Ct. 828 , 133 L.Ed.2d 770 (1996) and County of Santa Clara v. Ramirez (In re Ramirez), 795 F.2d 1494 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1003 , 107 S.Ct. 1624 , 95 L.Ed.2d 198 (1987), the Ninth Circuit has held that § 523(a)(5) did not except from discharge reimbursement judgments in favor of municipalities under Cal. Welf. & InstCode § 11350, which were assigned to the municipality prior to the existence of a court decree for support.

At the time Visness and Ramirez were decided, 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(26) had provided that as a condition to eligibility, the applicant was required to assign to the State support rights which “have accrued at the time such assignment is executed.” The Ninth Circuit in Ramirez determined that because the debtor was under no support order or dissolution decree at the time Mrs. Ramirez assigned her support rights to the county, Mrs. Ramirez had no accrued rights to assign. Thus, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Mr. Ramirez’s debt to the County for reimbursement of AFDC payments did not arise from Mrs. Ramirez’s assignment. The debt fell outside the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(26) and was therefore not subject to the nondis-chargeability provision of 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b).

Nine years subsequent to the Ramirez decision, and after 1984 and 1986 amendments broadening the scope of nondisehargeable support obligations under § 523(a)(5) to include those arising from any “order of a court of record,” the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in Visness. Visness was also based upon an assignment made prior to the issuance of any court decree for support. The Ninth Circuit held that Ramirez still controlled. At the time Mrs. Visness executed her assignment to the County there was no court order for support, and thus, no right of support had accrued in favor of Mrs. Visness or the children. Mrs. Visness could not, and did not, assign to the County a debt owed to her or her children by Mr. Visness. Correspondingly, Mr. Visness’s obligation to the county did not derive from a debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor. The debt was held dischargeable.

However, since the rendering of the Visness and Ramirez opinions, § 523(a)(18) was added to the Bankruptcy Code and 42 U.S.C. § 656 was revised. By so doing, there must have been some situation which Congress had in mind to cover which was not already covered by § 523(a)(5). Moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(26) was repealed effective July 1, 1997, and definitions of “support order” and “child support” contained in part D were modified to specifically include “arrearages or reimbursement.” 42 U.S.C. § 662 (b) previously defined the term “child support” to mean:

After the repeal of 42 U.S.C. § 662 , new definitions of “child support” and “support order” appeared at 42 U.S.C. §§ 653 (p) and 659(i)(2), both of which sections became effective upon the date of the enactment of Pub.L. 104-193 (Aug. 22, 1996). 42 U.S.C. § 659 (i)(2) now provides:

Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 65S(p) now defines “support order” to mean:

In addition to these newly changed definitions which now specifically include “arrear-ages and reimbursement” as “child support,” the California Court of Appeal determined that Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 11350 was enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act in State of Ohio v. Barron, 52 Cal.App.4th 62 , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 (1997). The Court there recognized that California has chosen to participate in the AFDC benefit program and that in order to receive federal funding under the AFDC program, the state’s plan must conform with the requirements of federal statutes and regulations. The Court explained:

At the end of part I of that decision, which was the only part certified for publication, the Court stated:

Therefore, I conclude that the debt for reimbursement to the County, arising under Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 11350, is enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act.

I find that all the qualifications for nondis-chargeability set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b) and 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(18) exist. The debtor owes a debt under State law, i.e., under Cal. Welf. & InstCode § 11350, to the County, which is in the nature of support that the County provided to the debtor’s children pri- or to a court order requiring support. Furthermore, based on Ohio v. Barron, and the changes in definitions with respect to “support orders” and “child support” found in part D of title IV of the Social Security Act, this is a debt that is enforceable under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act.

The debt is therefore excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(18) and summary judgment is accordingly granted to the Defendants.

. All citations are to the Bankruptcy Code, unless otherwise noted. . 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). . Section 374(c) of Pub.L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) provides: The amendments made by this section shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code after the date of the enactment of this Act. . Amendment by section 374 of Pub.L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) applies only with respect to cases commenced under Title 11 after Aug. 22, 1996. 42 U.S.C. § 656 (West Supp. 1998). . The amendment to subsection (a)(1) by section 5513(a)(3) of Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) was made effective as if the amendments had been included in section 108 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 at the time such section 108 became law. 42 U.S.C. § 656 (West Supp.1998). . H.R.Rep. No. 104-651, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1438 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2183, 2497. . 42 U.S.C. § 662 was repealed effective 6 months after Aug. 22, 1996, pursuant to section 362(d) of Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 42 U.S.C. § 662 (West Supp.1998).