[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3042-H3046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
                DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT OF 1998

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3811) to establish felony violations for the failure to pay 
legal child support obligations, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3811

       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 1998''.

     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.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Wexler) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 strengthens Federal law 
by establishing felony violations for the most serious cases of failure 
to pay legal child support obligations.
  H.R. 3811 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and is 
nearly identical to a bill we moved through the Subcommittee on Crime 
in the Committee on the Judiciary last month. The bill is also similar 
to one the Justice Department submitted to the 104th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, our current penalties for deadbeat parents are 
inadequate. It is currently a Federal offense to fail to pay a child 
support obligation for a child living 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 6 months of 
imprisonment; and a second or subsequent offense, to a maximum of 2 
years. But the law fails to address the problem of more aggravated 
cases. This bill remedies the problem.
  H.R. 3811 establishes two new felony offenses. The first offense is 
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 1 year or is greater than $5,000.
  The second offense is 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 2 years or is greater than 
$10,000.
  Both of these offenses involve a degree of culpability that is not 
adequately addressed by current penalties. As such, the bill provides 
for a maximum 2-year prison term for these offenses.
  H.R. 3811 includes several additional measures which clarify and 
strengthen Federal child support enforcement provisions. The bill 
clarifies how these penalties apply to child support orders issued by 
Indian tribal courts. The bill also includes a venue section that 
clarifies that prosecutions under the statute may be brought in any 
district in which the child resided or which the obligated parent 
resided during a period of nonpayment.
  This bill is a reasonable and appropriate step by the House to do 
what it can to hold accountable those parents who neglect next their 
most basic responsibilities to their children. The abdication of moral 
and legal duty by deadbeat parents calls for unequivocal social 
condemnation. This bill expresses such condemnation, even as it seeks 
to deter such unacceptable dereliction of duty.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) until he arrives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would 
say that we agree with the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our full committee.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the parameters of this bill have been well 
explained by Mr. McCollum. It is a good bill. It is a necessary bill. 
It is overdue to punish those who abdicate their fundamental and their 
legal responsibility to provide for their children.
  This legislation deals with the consequences of the disintegration of 
the family. We do not have an awful lot of power to keep families 
together, but we can ensure strong condemnation is directed against 
those who neglect their children in violation of law.
  In doing so, we take a small, but important, step to support the 
family institution and the legal duties of parents to their children. 
The punishment

[[Page H3043]]

that we as a society direct against wrongdoing is a clear indication of 
what we value and of what we hold dear. This bill represents our 
commitment to be vigilant on behalf of our families and our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) whose impetus to get this bill to the floor has 
been very strong, very effective, and who supports this bill, who was 
present at the creation, and deserves a great deal of credit for its 
existence. I want to acknowledge that publicly, and I hope we get a 
large affirmative vote.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This is a 
very important bill. This country is built on rights and 
responsibilities. It is the job of the government to protect the rights 
of the citizens and to make sure that they discharge their 
responsibilities. There is no responsibility more sacred than that of a 
parent to a child, to provide for, to care for, to make certain that 
their children are well.
  The ideal situation, I believe, is one in which both parents share 
the child-rearing responsibility. But even in the too-numerous single-
parent households, the other parent has a responsibility, at the least, 
to contribute financially.
  There was a period where we, as a society, did not enforce that 
obligation very rigorously. I am glad to say that that period is over. 
Through accommodation of stiff penalties and aggressive enforcement 
strategies, child support collections are way up in the past few years.
  This is a lot like what has happened with drunk driving. By 
toughening law enforcement and relentlessly sending the message that 
what was once tolerated will not be tolerated any longer, we have been 
able to change behavior for the better.
  This bill will make a significant improvement in current law. It is 
aimed at people who move from one State to another to avoid paying 
child support. A custodial parent in Florida can have a very difficult 
time trying to collect child support from a parent who has moved, for 
instance, to Ohio.
  In 1992, Congress passed the first law establishing Federal penalties 
for crossing State lines to evade child support. This statute has been 
an important piece of the very successful effort by the Clinton 
administration to increase child support collections. Under this 
current law, first offense is a misdemeanor.
  H.R. 3811 will toughen the law so particularly egregious first 
offenses, those that involve a debt of more than $10,000 or one that 
has been outstanding for more than 2 years will be felonies punishable 
by up to 2 years in prison.
  I want to note that H.R. 3811 is identical to H.R. 2925, which was 
introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and marked up by 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I want to commend both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for their leadership on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 
legislation dealing with deadbeat parents and particularly adding 
additional felonies for those who willfully do not pay child support. 
This legislation deals more with the idea of financial compensation. It 
sometimes deals with the very survival of children.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with women from around my 
community. We, of course, were talking about what I consider a felony 
as well, and that is, the present bankruptcy bill that we are marking 
up that does not respond to protecting child support in its present 
form.
  In the course of discussing that legislation, Mr. Speaker, the pain 
of expression of the need and dependence on child support was made very 
clear. In many instances, women or men with custody who have to rely 
upon the civil process system time after time after time find that the 
parent that owes the money does not pay child support many times.
  The civil proceedings are not raised to the level of enough intensity 
to require those parents to do what they should do! They usually 
abscond and then make those individuals who are dependent upon child 
support parent and child, fight for their survival.
  One of my constitutes talked about the intimidation of her spouse who 
held up child support payments by requiring the parent to do something 
special to receive those child support payments. But the worst thing is 
not being able to find those individuals who owe the child support 
payments as they move from State to State. So I want to commend the 
chairman for this very vital and important bill.
  I hope that we can also confront this important issue as we revise 
the bankruptcy code that needs to be revised, but it needs to be 
revised with the input and insight of those who also are negatively 
impacted by it.
  Child support is many times a life-or-death matter, Mr. Speaker; I 
hope that my colleagues will support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3811 the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. 
We must protect our children who rely on child support, and create 
stiffer penalties for those parents who avoid their financial 
obligation to their children. Deadbeat parents must understand that 
this type of irresponsible behavior is unacceptable and that they can 
be punished for attempting to avoid child support payments by moving 
between states, or out of the United States.
  As Chair of the Children's Congressional Caucus and a strong child 
advocate, I firmly believe that we must consider children our first 
priority. For this reason, I cosponsored H.R. 2487 the Child Support 
Incentive Act, legislation which reformed the child support incentive 
payment plan, and improved state collection performance. I am also 
currently opposing H.R. 3150, which would allow credit card companies 
to have the same priority as parents seeking child support during and 
after a debtor's bankruptcy.
  Child support is an issue critical to the well-being of our nation's 
children. According to a recent study by the Department of Health and 
Human Services, between 1989 and 1991, 21-28% of poor children in 
America did not receive any child support from their non-custodial 
parent. In 1994, one in every four children lived in a family with only 
one parent present in the home. In the same year, the Child Support 
Enforcement system handled 12.8 million cases of non-payment. Yet, the 
system was only able to collect $615 million of the $6.8 billion due in 
back child support. The result is that the average amount of overdue 
child support payments is a shocking $15,000 per parent.
  In Texas alone, there were 847,243 cases of child support payment 
delinquencies. Too many families and children in this country are 
forced to rely upon government assistance because absent parents have 
attempted to beat the system. We must protect the welfare of our 
children and support tough and fair child support enforcement laws.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler) to assume the remainder of the time on the 
minority side.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who introduced the bill with 
identical language that we are speaking of now.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding and being so generous in the yielding of time. I thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), whom I just saw leave the floor. I 
know the gentleman made a statement on this bill before, but I want to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) introduced legislation to deal 
with the deadbeat parent problem of those leaving States to avoid the 
payment of child support. There was a problem that existed because 
States were faced with requests to enforce misdemeanor offenses in 
another State, and the State of residence of the deadbeat parent was 
reluctant to act.
  I went to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and said I wanted to 
introduce legislation to up the penalties for these serious, egregious 
failures to pay child support. He agreed. I introduced that 
legislation. I am very pleased that

[[Page H3044]]

the gentleman has now introduced similar legislation in the last few 
days, and we have this on the floor. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) and I have worked very closely on this.
  I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, rise in strong support of this 
legislation, which sends a clear and unmistakable message to deadbeat 
parents who attempt to use State borders as a shield against the 
enforcement of child support orders. That message is, you can run, but 
you cannot hide from the child support you owe.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act 
along with my friend, whom I mentioned earlier, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
Deadbeats Act is a companion to legislation introduced by Senator Kohl 
of Wisconsin, which unanimously passed the Senate this year.

                              {time}  1545

  This legislation will stiffen penalties for deadbeat parents in 
egregious interstate cases of child support delinquency. It will also 
enable Federal authorities to go after those who attempt to escape 
State-issued child support orders by fleeing across State lines.
  Under the Child Support Recovery Act sponsored by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in 1992, to which I earlier referred, parents who 
willfully withhold child support payments totaling more than $5,000 or 
owe for more than 1 year, are presently subject to a misdemeanor 
offense punishable by not more than 6 months. Current law also provides 
that a subsequent offense is a felony punishable by up to 2 years in 
prison.
  H.R. 3811 addresses the difficulty States frequently encounter in 
attempting to enforce child support orders beyond their borders. This 
legislation will augment current law by creating a felony offense for 
parents with an arrearage totaling more than $10,000 or owing for more 
than 2 years. This provision, like current law, would apply where the 
noncustodial parent and child legally reside in different States.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will make it a felony for 
a parent to cross a State border with the intent of evading a child 
support order where the arrearage totals more than $5,000 or is more 
than 1 year past due, regardless of residency.
  H.R. 3811 is not simply about ensuring just punishment in intentional 
severe cases of child support evasion; it serves to complement other 
Federal child support enforcement measures to help States establish and 
enforce child support orders.
  The ultimate goal, of course, Mr. Speaker, is to put deadbeat parents 
on notice and to induce compliance. Our cumulative efforts, Mr. 
Chairman, will increase parental accountability, decrease child poverty 
and dependence on public assistance, and erase the notion that 
nonpayment of State-ordered child support is a viable option.
  Congress, of course, cannot force anyone to be a loving, nurturing 
and involved parent. However, by acting together, we can strengthen the 
government's ability to make parents fulfill their minimum moral and 
legal responsibility, which is to provide financial support for the 
children they bring into this world.
  The deliberate neglect of this obligation should warrant serious 
consequences for the parent, as serious as the consequences are for 
that child who is in need of those provisions. The Deadbeat Parents 
Punishment Act of 1997 will ensure that this is the case, even for 
those who attempt to use State borders as a barrier to enforcement of 
child support orders.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation today, 
and I want to thank the 50 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation, 
especially, as I said, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say, as someone who has practiced 
law for over a quarter of a century, who, in fact, tried his last case 
in 1990 prior to our changing the rules which prohibit me from 
practicing law further, I was always concerned about how child support 
was perceived to be perhaps less important to deal with than some other 
matters that came before our courts; that it was sort of put at the end 
of the docket, and that the practical judgment was that clearly we 
cannot incarcerate a father, because then he will not be able to pay it 
all. I say ``father,'' because over 80 percent of those parents who are 
referred to as deadbeat parents are the fathers who believe that they 
can participate in bringing a child into the world, but then somehow 
not participate in supporting that child. Indeed, the consequence of 
that is many times to expect a result in the rest of us supporting that 
child. We have talked a lot about responsibility.
  We talked about responsibility in the crime bill. We talked about 
responsibility in the welfare bill, where we expect work. Here we are 
talking about an expectation of responsibility as a parent.
  As I said earlier, we cannot make a parent love a child. They ought 
to, and we would hope they would. But we can certainly expect that they 
will support that child and try to bring that child up in a way that 
will give that child some opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, again I thank the members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his 
help with this legislation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, children are at the heart of the need for this 
legislation. No child should go to bed hungry, miss a medical 
appointment, not have adequate housing or be deprived of quality 
education. We have no more precious resource than our children. We have 
no greater responsibility than the protection, development and security 
of our children.
  The greatest uncollected debt in our country, unfortunately, is child 
support. Thankfully, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 
strengthens Federal law by establishing felony violations for the most 
serious cases to pay legal child support obligations.
  H.R. 3811 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
and is one that all my colleagues should support.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our 
nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding 
a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug 
prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the 
current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving 
the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which 
prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from 
what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and 
especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of 
Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents 
irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil 
liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
  Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited 
powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas 
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For 
every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or 
consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, 
or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to 
governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that 
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of 
central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding 
the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it 
differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their 
constitutional ``hats'' on the interstate commerce general welfare 
clauses, both of which have been popular ``headgear'' since the FDR's 
headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
  The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent 
states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as 
against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did 
an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative 
consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was 
never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to 
intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest 
could concoct a ``rational basis'' for the enacting such legislation.
  Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition 
upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed

[[Page H3045]]

in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any 
latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or 
ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of 
which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central 
government's encroachment on liberty.
  Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, 
Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under 
suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are ``non-
controversial.'' House Resolution 423 pledges the House to ``pass 
legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect 
our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and 
violence''. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal 
prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called 
``Progressive era'', the threshold question must be: ``under what 
authority do we act?'' There is, after all, a reason why a 
Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government 
to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different 
drug (alcohol)--without it, the federal government had no 
constitutional authority. One must also ask, ``if the general welfare 
and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with 
the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?'' 
Whether any governmental entity should be in the ``business'' of 
protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own 
perceived stupidity is certainly debatable--Whether the federal 
government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to 
one's sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what 
liberty is all about.

  Today's second legislative step towards a national police state can 
be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. 
This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to 
meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. 
Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the 
federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution 
prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, 
liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this 
constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be 
innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called 
``the Winship doctrine,'' the prosecution is allocated the burden of 
persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the 
crime . . . charged.'' The prosecution must carry this burden because 
of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely 
that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this 
case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held 
notion of ``innocent until proven guilty'' alone warrants opposition to 
this bill.
  Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional 
protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal 
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal 
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high 
seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period 
of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was 
concurrently a federal and state crime). ``Concurrent'' jurisdiction 
crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of 
felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens 
to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense 
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no 
person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United 
States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being 
tried by both the federal government and a state government for the 
same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger 
of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is 
that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to 
being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for 
federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is 
neither prudent nor constitutional.
  The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized 
criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less 
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those 
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the 
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the 
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via 
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as 
full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those 
who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal 
government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which 
allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal 
government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, 
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from 
one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed 
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon 
states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified 
police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to 
centralization of police power.

  It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well 
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, 
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes, 
governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. 
We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this 
country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior 
products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the 
dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow 
someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary 
exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of 
scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further 
centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force 
rather than voluntary exchange.
  When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with 
their feet to a ``competing'' jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not 
want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using 
medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move 
to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of 
government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax 
at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding 
state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC 
and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try 
to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will 
then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In 
other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their 
oppression.
  As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more 
difficult to vote with one's feet to escape the relatively more 
oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample 
opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away 
from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law 
makes such mobility less and less practical.
  For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further 
and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government 
and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Deadbeat 
Parents Punishment Act of 1998. I thank Mr. Hyde for introducing this 
measure and for supporting the right of children to receive the support 
payments to which they are legally and morally entitled.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent many years working on the issue of child 
support enforcement. As part of that work, I had the honor of serving 
on the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support Enforcement. This 
commission conducted a comprehensive review of our child support system 
and issued a series of recommendations for reform. I am pleased to be 
able to say that many of those recommendations have been made part of 
federal law.
  One of the recommendations of the commission was that willful non-
payment of support should be made a criminal offense. We have already 
done that under federal law. Federal law currently carries a six-month 
jail term for deadbeats who refuse to pay. Willful failure to pay child 
support is a misdemeanor.
  This bill today toughens the federal law by making willful non-
payment of child support a felony. It maintains the six-month jail term 
for first-offenders and establishes a prison sentence of up to two 
years for second offenders. It also requires that deadbeats who are 
convicted and sent to jail still have to pay the support that they owe.
  In addition, there is an important legal distinction in making this 
crime a felony. A felony conviction carries more than just a jail term. 
A convicted felon loses the right to vote, to be licensed in many 
professions, to hold public office and many other rights.
  This is a good bill and it will be a good law. But we must not stop 
here.
  This bill applies only to non-support cases that cross state lines--
when the deadbeat parent and his or her child live in different states, 
or when the deadbeat moves to another state to avoid payment. It does 
not apply to deadbeats who live in the same state as their children. We 
must pass legislation requiring that the states make non-payment of 
support a criminal offense under state law as well. Only then will all 
the children who are not receiving support get the legal protection to 
which they are entitled.
  The federal government has wisely adopted federal criminal penalties 
for those who cross interstate lines to avoid child support. But to 
reach everyone, states should use criminal penalties for those who 
choose to ignore their legal, financial and moral obligations.

[[Page H3046]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is a national disgrace that our child support 
enforcement system continues to allow so many parents who can afford to 
pay for their children's support to shirk these obligations. The so-
called ``enforcement gap''--the difference between how much child 
support could be collected and how much child support is collected--has 
been estimated at $34 billion!
  Failure to pay court-ordered child support is not a ``victimless 
crime.'' The children going without these payments are the first 
victims. But the taxpayers are the ultimate victims, when the parents 
who have custody are forced onto the welfare rolls for the lack of 
support payments being withheld by deadbeats.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make deadbeats pay up or face the consequences. 
Let's let them know that they can run, but they can't hide.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3811, which 
establish felon violations for parents who fail to pay child support. 
This legislation will help encourage non-custodial parents to pay their 
court ordered support payments in a timely fashion or face a 
substantial fine or up to $10,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to 2 
years.
  The purpose of this bill is to help local law enforcement officials 
collect outstanding court-ordered child support payments. This will be 
especially helpful in situations where the parent has moved to another 
State in the hopes of avoiding paying child support. There are far too 
many cases of this occurring in our Nation each year. The children are 
the ones who are being hurt the most. Those ``dead beat parents'' who 
refuse to take responsibility for their children and pay child support, 
as ordered by the court, should be ashamed of themselves. These support 
payments are supposed to be used for their children's basic needs such 
as, clothing and schooling, and in most cases, this additional money is 
desperately needed in order to provide a decent life to these children.
  Just one example of how this failure to pay affects families is in 
the quality of child care received. Because the parents are divorced 
and the custodial parent must work, these support payments are used to 
help defray the cost of child care for their children. When a parent 
refuses to make their child support payments, the custodial parent has 
to make choices and if they have to choose between buying groceries and 
using the best day care center in town, a parent would have to choose 
the former. However, the child still needs to be in day care, and they 
may not be able to attend the best facility available. As a result, the 
children are unnecessarily put in harm's way, because their parent 
dodged his or her responsibilities and denied his child monetary 
assistance.
  This bill will help the States identify these parents residing in 
different States than that in which the order was initially issued and 
hold them accountable for failing to pay child support, by making it a 
felony under Federal law with punishments of fines and jail sentences. 
Additionally, the parent will still be responsible for making 
restitutions of all unpaid child support which is still owned at the 
time they are sentenced.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this measure 
which will help our Nation's children and make parents assume their 
responsibility for their children.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3811.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________