[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12667-S12668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 271, S. 1371.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1371) to establish felony violations for the 
     failure to pay legal child support obligations, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, let me take a moment to explain the Deadbeat 
Parents Punishment Act of 1997, which I introduced with Senator DeWine 
and which I drafted with the help of the administration. This measure 
toughens the criminal penalties we created in the Child Support 
Recovery Act of 1992 and creates new gradations of offenders to target 
and punish the most egregious child support evaders. It ensures that 
more serious crimes receive the more serious punishments they clearly 
deserve. And, Mr. President, this measure sends a clear message to 
deadbeat dads and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, 
and you will pay a high price. In other words, pay up or go to jail.
  When Senator Shelby and I introduced the original Child Support 
Recovery Act, we knew that Federal prosecutors had a role to play to 
keep these parents from shirking their legal, and I would argue moral, 
responsibilities. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents 
fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and 
children could be taken off the welfare rolls. In fact, Mr. President, 
since that legislation was signed into law in 1992, over 386 cases have 
been filed, resulting in at least 165 convictions to date. And not only 
has that law brought about punishment, but it has also brought about 
payment. Collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 
billion to $11.8 billion, and a new national database has helped 
identify 60,000 delinquent fathers--over half of whom owed money to 
women on welfare. Although we should be proud of that increase, we can 
not merely rest on our laurels. More can be done--and today the 
Senate's passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act is a step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. President, as you know, 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, the current law, by 
providing for a maximum punishment of just 6 months in prison for a 
first offense, makes violations only a misdemeanor. A first offense--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 have the teeth to adequately deal with more serious cases--those 
cases in which parents move from State to State, or internationally, to 
intentionally evade child support penalties. Those are serious cases 
that deserve serious felony punishment and, under this new measure, 
that serious punishment will be available.
  Mr. President, I believe that making the Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
Act law will make a difference in the lives of families across the 
country. I thank my friend from Ohio, and this bill's original 
cosponsor, Senator DeWine for his efforts on behalf of children and 
families, and I commend my colleagues in the Senate for passing this 
important message. I look forward to this measure quickly passing the 
House and being signed into law by the President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 1371, The Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
                              Act of 1997

       The ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997'' amends the 
     current criminal statute regarding the failure to pay legal 
     child support obligations, 18 U.S.C. 228, to create felony 
     violations for aggravated offenses. Current law makes it a 
     federal offense to willfully fail to pay a child support 
     obligation with respect to a child who lives in another state 
     if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year 
     or is greater than $5,000. A first offense is subject to a 
     maximum of six months of imprisonment, and a second or 
     subsequent offense to a maximum of two years.
       The bill addresses the law enforcement and prosecutorial 
     concern that the current statute does not adequately address 
     more serious instances of nonpayment of support obligations. 
     For such offenses a maximum term of imprisonment of just six 
     months does not meet the sentencing goals of punishment and 
     deterrence. Aggravated offenses, such as those involving 
     parents who move from state to state to evade child support 
     payments, require more severe penalties.
       Section 2 of the bill creates two new categories of felony 
     offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term. These 
     are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than one year or is 
     greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a 
     support obligation regarding a child residing in another 
     state if the obligation has remained unpaid for a period 
     longer than two years or is greater than $10,000. These 
     offenses, proposed 18 U.S.C. 228(a) (2) and (3), indicate a 
     level of culpability greater than that reflected by the 
     current six-month maximum prison term for a first offense. 
     The level of culpability demonstrated by offenders who commit 
     the offenses described in these provisions is akin to that 
     demonstrated by repeat offenders under current law, who are 
     subject to a maximum two-year prison term.
       Proposed section 228(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
     states that the existence of a support obligation in effect 
     for the time period charged in the indictment or information 
     creates a rebuttable presumption that the obligor has the 
     ability to pay the support

[[Page S12668]]

     obligation for that period. Although ``ability to pay'' is 
     not an element of the offense, a demonstration of the 
     obligor's ability to pay contributes to a showing of willful 
     failure to pay the known obligation. The presumption in favor 
     of ability to pay is needed because proof that the obligor is 
     earning or acquiring income or assets is difficult. Child 
     support offenders are notorious for hiding assets and failing 
     to document earnings. A presumption of ability to pay, based 
     on the existence of a support obligation determined under 
     state law, is useful in the jury's determination of whether 
     the nonpayment was willful. An offender who lacks the ability 
     to pay a support obligation due to legitimate, changed 
     circumstances occurring after the issuance of a support order 
     has state civil means available to reduce the support 
     obligation and thereby avoid violation of the federal 
     criminal statue in the first instance. In addition, 
     the presumption of ability to pay set forth in the bill is 
     rebuttable, a defendant can put forth evidence of his or 
     her inability to pay.
       The reference to mandatory restitution in proposed section 
     228(d) of title 18, United States Code, amends the current 
     restitution requirement in section 228(c). The amendment 
     conforms the restitution citation to the new mandatory 
     restitution provision of federal law, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, 
     enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
     Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132, section 204. This change 
     simply clarifies the applicability of that statute to the 
     offense of failure to pay legal child support obligations.
       Proposed subsection (e) clarifies that prosecutions for 
     violations of this section may be brought either in the 
     district where the child resided or the obligor resided 
     during a period of nonpayment. Inclusion of this language is 
     necessary in light of a recent case, Murphy v. United States, 
     934 F.Supp. 736 (W.D. Va. 1966), which held that a 
     prosecution had been improperly brought in the Western 
     District of Virginia, where the child resided, because the 
     obligor was required, by court order, to send his child 
     support payments to the state of Texas. Proposed subsection 
     (e) is not meant to exclude other venue statutes, such as 
     section 3237 of title 18, United States Code, which applies 
     to offenses begun in one district and completed in another.
       For all of the violations set forth in proposed subsection 
     (a) of section 228, the government must show the existence of 
     a determination regarding the support obligation, as under 
     current law. Under proposed subsection (f)(3) the government 
     must show, for example, that the support obligation is an 
     amount determined under a court order or an order of an 
     administrative process pursuant to the law of a State to be 
     due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child 
     or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living. 
     Proposed subsection (f)(3), however, expands the scope of 
     covered support obligations to include amounts determined 
     under a court order or an order of an administrative process 
     pursuant to the law of an Indian tribe. Subsection (f)(1) 
     defines the term ``Indian tribe'' to mean an Indian or Alaska 
     Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community 
     that the Secretary of Interior acknowledges to exist as an 
     Indian tribe pursuant to section 102 of the Federally 
     Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. The 
     expanded definition permits enforcement of the statute for 
     all children for whom child support was ordered by either a 
     state or tribal court or through a state or tribal 
     administrative process.
       Proposed subsection (f)(2) of section 228 amends the 
     definition of ``state,'' currently in subsection (d)(2), to 
     clarify that prosecutions may be brought under this statute 
     in a commonwealth, such as Puerto Rico. The current 
     definition of ``state'' in section 228, which includes 
     possessions and territories of the United States, does not 
     expressly include commonwealths.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at 
the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1371) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

                                S. 1371

       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 ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF FELONY VIOLATIONS.

       Section 228 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations

       ``(a) Offense.--Any person who--
       ``(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with 
     respect to a child who resides in another State, if such 
     obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 
     year, or is greater than $5,000;
       ``(2) travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation, if such obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is 
     greater than $5,000; or
       ``(3) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with 
     respect to a child who resides in another State, if such 
     obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 
     years, or is greater than $10,000;
     shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Presumption.--The existence of a support obligation 
     that was in effect for the time period charged in the 
     indictment or information creates a rebuttable presumption 
     that the obligor has the ability to pay the support 
     obligation for that time period.
       ``(c) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under this 
     section is--
       ``(1) in the case of a first offense under subsection 
     (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more 
     than 6 months, or both; and
       ``(2) in the case of an offense under paragraph (2) or (3) 
     of subsection (a), or a second or subsequent offense under 
     subsection (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for 
     not more than 2 years, or both.
       ``(d) Mandatory Restitution.--Upon a conviction under this 
     section, the court shall order restitution under section 
     3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid support 
     obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing.
       ``(e) Venue.--With respect to an offense under this 
     section, an action may be inquired of and prosecuted in a 
     district court of the United States for--
       ``(1) the district in which the child who is the subject of 
     the support obligation involved resided during a period 
     during which a person described in subsection (a) (referred 
     to in this subsection as an `obliger') failed to meet that 
     support obligation;
       ``(2) the district in which the obliger resided during a 
     period described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) any other district with jurisdiction otherwise 
     provided for by law.
       ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe 
     List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a);
       ``(2) the term `State' includes any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States; and
       ``(3) the term `support obligation' means any amount 
     determined under a court order or an order of an 
     administrative process pursuant to the law of a State or of 
     an Indian tribe to be due from a person for the support and 
     maintenance of a child or of a child and the parent with whom 
     the child is living.''.

                          ____________________