[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.
____________________