[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT AND SUNSHINE IN LITIGATION ACT

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I introduced two bills, the 
Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997, and the Sunshine in Litigation 
Act of 1997. Both address issues that are of enormous importance to our 
communities and country.
  First, Senator DeWine and I introduced a measure to toughen the 
original Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 to ensure that more serious 
crimes receive more serious punishment. Our new proposal sends a clear 
message to deadbeat parents: Pay up or go to jail.
  Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to 
pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the 
obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater 
than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 
months in prison for a first offense and a maximum of 2 years for a 
second offense. A first offense, however, no matter how egregious, is 
not a felony under current law.
  Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law 
effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do 
not adequately deal with more serious cases, those cases in which 
parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support 
penalties or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 
years--serious cases that deserve serious felony punishment.
  In response to these concerns, President Clinton drafted legislation 
that would address this problem, and we dropped it in last month.
  This new effort builds on past successes. In the 4 years since the 
original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President 
Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion 
to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a 
new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, 
over half of whom owed money to women on welfare.
  Nevertheless, there is much more that we can do. It is estimated that 
if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 
800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. So our 
new legislation cracks down on the worst violators and makes clear that 
intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will 
not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue 
to fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they 
deserve.
  With this bill, we have a chance to make a difference in the lives of 
families across our entire country. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to 
effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family 
obligations.
  The second bill I introduced 2 weeks ago was the Sunshine in 
Litigation Act of 1997, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of 
secrecy orders issued by Federal courts. All too often, our Federal 
courts will allow vital information that is discovered in litigation 
and which directly bears on public health and safety to be covered up, 
to be shielded from people whose lives are potentially at stake and 
from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and 
safety.
  All of this happens because of the so-called protective orders, which 
are really gag orders issued by courts--and designed to keep 
information discovered in the course of litigation secret and 
undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request 
to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants 
threaten that, without secrecy, they will refuse to pay a settlement. 
Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these 
situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for 
secrecy, typically they do not because both sides have agreed and 
judges have other matters they prefer to attend to. So judges are 
regularly and frequently entering these protective orders using the 
power of the Federal Government to keep people in the dark about the 
dangers they face.
  This measure will bring crucial information out of the darkness and 
into the light. The measure amends rule 26 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure to require that judges weigh the impact on public 
health and safety before approving these secrecy orders. It is simple, 
effective, and straightforward. It essentially codifies what is already 
the best practices of the best judges. In cases that do not affect the 
public health and safety, existing practice would continue, and courts 
can still use protective orders as they do today. But in cases 
affecting public health and safety, courts would apply a balancing 
test. They could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs 
the public's need to know about potential public health and safety 
hazards. Moreover, courts could not, under this measure, issue 
protective orders that would prevent disclosures to regulatory 
agencies.

  I do want to mention that identical legislation was reported out of 
the Judiciary Committee last year by a bipartisan, 11-to-7 majority. I 
do want to remind people that this issue is not going away: A number of 
States are currently considering antisecrecy measures; the Justice 
Department itself has drafted its own antisecrecy proposal--one that in 
many ways goes further than my own. The grassroots support for 
antisecrecy legislation will continue and grow, as long as information 
remains held under lock and key.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to do more to combat deadbeat parents and limit court 
secrecy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized to 
speak for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________