[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS ACT

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 922) to provide that a State court may not modify an 
order of another State court requiring the payment of child support 
unless the recipient of child support payments resides in the State in 
which the modification is sought or consents to the seeking of the 
modification in that court.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 922

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Full Faith and Credit for 
     Child Support Orders Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) there is a large and growing number of child support 
     cases annually involving disputes between parents who reside 
     in different States;
       (2) the laws by which the courts of different jurisdictions 
     determine their authority to establish child support orders 
     are not uniform;
       (3) those laws, along with the limits imposed by the 
     Federal system on the authority of each State to take certain 
     actions outside its own boundaries--
       (A) encourage noncustodial parents to relocate outside the 
     States where their children and the custodial parents reside 
     to avoid the jurisdiction of the courts of such States, 
     resulting in an increase in the amount of interstate travel 
     and communication required to establish and collect on child 
     support orders and a burden on custodial parents that is 
     expensive, time consuming, and disruptive of occupations and 
     commercial activity;
       (B) contribute to the pressing problem of relatively low 
     levels of child support payments in interstate cases and to 
     inequities in child support payments levels that are based 
     solely on the noncustodial parent's choice of residence;
       (C) encourage a disregard of court orders resulting in 
     massive arrearages nationwide;
       (D) allow noncustodial parents to avoid the payment of 
     regularly scheduled child support payments for extensive 
     periods of time, resulting in substantial hardship for the 
     children for whom support is due and for their custodians; 
     and
       (E) lead to the excessive relitigation of cases and to the 
     establishment of conflicting orders by the courts of various 
     jurisdictions, resulting in confusion, waste of judicial 
     resources, disrespect for the courts, and a diminution of 
     public confidence in the rule of law; and
       (4) among the results of the conditions described in this 
     subsection are--
       (A) the failure of the courts of the States to give full 
     faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the other 
     States;
       (B) the deprivation of rights of liberty and property 
     without due process of law;
       (C) burdens on commerce among the States; and
       (D) harm to the welfare of children and their parents and 
     other custodians.
       (b) Statement of Policy.--In view of the findings made in 
     subsection (a), it is necessary to establish national 
     standards under which the courts of the various States shall 
     determine their jurisdiction to issue a child support order 
     and the effect to be given by each State to child support 
     orders issued by the courts of other States.
       (c) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to facilitate the enforcement of child support orders 
     among the States;
       (2) to discourage continuing interstate controversies over 
     child support in the interest of greater financial stability 
     and secure family relationships for the child; and
       (3) to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict among 
     State courts in the establishment of child support orders.

     SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1738A the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1738B. Full faith and credit for child support orders

       ``(a) General Rule.--The appropriate authorities of each 
     State--
       ``(1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support 
     order made consistently with this section by a court of 
     another State; and
       ``(2) shall not seek or make a modification of such an 
     order except in accordance with subsection (e).
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ```child' means--
       ``(A) a person under 18 years of age; and
       ``(B) a person 18 or more years of age with respect to whom 
     a child support order has been issued pursuant to the laws of 
     a State.
       ```child's State' means the State in which a child resides.
       ```child support' means a payment of money, continuing 
     support, or arrearages or the provision of a benefit 
     (including payment of health insurance, child care, and 
     educational expenses) for the support of a child.
       ```child support order'--
       ``(A) means a judgment, decree, or order of a court 
     requiring the payment of child support in periodic amounts or 
     in a lump sum; and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i) a permanent or temporary order; and
       ``(ii) an initial order or a modification of an order.
       ```contestant' means--
       ``(A) a person (including a parent) who--
       ``(i) claims a right to receive child support;
       ``(ii) is a party to a proceeding that may result in the 
     issuance of a child support order; or
       ``(iii) is under a child support order; and
       ``(B) a State or political subdivision of a State to which 
     the right to obtain child support has been assigned.
       ```court' means a court or administrative agency of a State 
     that is authorized by State law to establish the amount of 
     child support payable by a contestant or make a modification 
     of a child support order.
       ```modification' means a change in a child support order 
     that affects the amount, scope, or duration of the order and 
     modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made 
     subsequent to the child support order.
       ```State' means a State of the United States, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories 
     and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as 
     defined in section 1151 of title 18).
       ``(c) Requirements of Child Support Orders.--A child 
     support order made is made consistently with this section 
     if--
       ``(1) a court that makes the order, pursuant to the laws of 
     the State in which the court is located--
       ``(A) has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter 
     and enter such an order; and
       ``(B) has personal jurisdiction over the contestants; and
       ``(2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is 
     given to the contestants.
       ``(d) Continuing Jurisdiction.--A court of a State that has 
     made a child support order consistently with this section has 
     continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order if the 
     State is the child's State or the residence of any contestant 
     unless the court of another State, acting in accordance with 
     subsection (e), has made a modification of the order.
       ``(e) Authority To Modify Orders.--A court of a State may 
     make a modification of a child support order with respect to 
     a child that is made by a court of another State if--
       ``(1) the court has jurisdiction to make such a child 
     support order; and
       ``(2)(A) the court of the other State no longer has 
     continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support order 
     because that State no longer is the child's State or the 
     residence of any contestant; or
       ``(B) each contestant has filed written consent to that 
     court's making the modification and assuming continuing, 
     exclusive jurisdiction over the order.
       ``(f) Enforcement of Prior Orders.--A court of a State that 
     no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a child 
     support order may enforce the order with respect to 
     nonmodifiable obligations and unsatisfied obligations that 
     accrued before the date on which a modification of the order 
     is made under subsection (e).
       ``(g) Choice of Law.--
       ``(1) In general.--In a proceeding to establish, modify, or 
     enforce a child support order, the forum State's law shall 
     apply except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(2) Law of state of issuance of order.--In interpreting a 
     child support order, a court shall apply the law of the State 
     of the court that issued the order.
       ``(3) Period of limitation.--In an action to enforce a 
     child support order, a court shall apply the statute of 
     limitation of the forum State or the State of the court that 
     issued the order, whichever statute provides the longer 
     period of limitation.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1738A the following new 
     item:

``1738B. Full faith and credit for child support orders.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 922, the Full Faith 
and Credit for Child Support Orders Act.
  S. 922 is a slightly modified version of H.R. 454 which passed the 
House of Representatives on suspension last year. S. 922 requires the 
authorities of each State to enforce--without modification--the child 
support orders of sister States, except in limited circumstances such 
as where none of the parties nor the child reside any longer in the 
State that issued the original order.
  This bill helps to address the serious problem of parents who move to 
other States and then try to get out of their child support obligations 
through the use of the courts of their new State. The statistics in 
interstate child support cases are telling--indeed, they are tragic--
with only $1 collected out of every $10 owed to the children and their 
custodial parents.
  I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who 
introduced the House companion bill, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] who shepherded the original bill through the House.
  S. 922 is an important piece of legislation for children and for 
families. I urge the Members to vote aye and send this legislation on 
to the President for enactment into law.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], 
the chairman of the committee, has outlined are the main elements of 
this piece of legislation. I must say there was a time when we who were 
involved in support orders and the support court system throughout the 
Nation were satisfied that we had the uniform reciprocal support 
mechanism already in place, but now we have come full circle, because 
that left some undesired results. This piece of legislation plugs up 
that loophole with the full faith and credit portion of our national 
system, and it will yield good results, as it already seems to be 
leading to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the 
committee has very graciously helped us get this bill to this point. I 
appreciate the guidance he has given us in getting this done.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell briefly the story of how this bill 
came about, because I think it is a very important antidote to some of 
the cynicism that, unfortunately, plagues us.
  Mr. Speaker, I got a call from a constituent, who lives in Freetown, 
MA, Susan Riley, and she complained to me that the child support she 
had been ordered to receive by a court in Massachusetts had been 
reduced by a court in another State when she had brought an enforcement 
action against her former husband, who had simply stopped paying. He in 
return had apparently been able to use the courts of the other State, 
when challenged to pay up, to reduce the payment that had been ordered 
by the court in Massachusetts. It was virtually an ex parte proceeding, 
a one-sided proceeding, because she was in Massachusetts with no way to 
get to the other State.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, when she explained this to me, quite 
confidently I pointed out to her that she was wrong and it could not 
happen. I was very logical and very calm, and wrong, because it had 
happened. While I was sure that it could not have happened, she was 
sure that it had, and had it been--couldn't have. I had to acknowledge 
she was right.

  Mr. Speaker, I then worked with the guidance of the staff of the 
Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, with the minority, under the guidance of 
our chairman, and we have come up with a very simple bill that says:

       If you have brought a child into this world and there is a 
     support order against you, you cannot evade it or reduce it, 
     other than by going back to the place where the child is or 
     by mutual consent.

  It is a one step that I think will help enforce that sense of 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the courage of Susan Riley in 
bringing this to my attention, and helping us get this through. I am 
very grateful to the chairman and to the others for letting us take one 
small step towards more equity for children.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for bringing this much needed legislation to the floor. 
There is a need to protect the rights of children who have been awarded 
support funds by a court of competent jurisdiction, from the arbitrary 
actions of another court in another jurisdiction which amends or 
diminishes the support awarded by the original court.
  Children who have been virtually abandoned need the protection of the 
court and another court should not have the authority to amend the 
original order to the detriment of the minor dependent.
  I wholeheartedly support this excellent legislation.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the Senate bill, S. 922.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poshard) Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I 
and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________