[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 35 (Thursday, March 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2416-S2418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE BANKRUPTCY BILL WILL NOT DISADVANTAGE WOMEN AND CHILDREN

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know my colleagues are accustomed to 
seeing me leave the Chamber 5 minutes after the last vote to catch a 
train to go home. As a colleague said today when I indicated I was 
going to speak this evening, they are sorry to see I am not on the 
train today. They are very happy that I commute every day.
  The reason I am speaking at this time is that I did not want to 
postpone the vote on the bankruptcy bill which, I might add, to state 
the obvious, passed overwhelmingly, with overwhelming bipartisan 
support. Only 14 Democrats voted against it and 1 Republican, as I best 
counted. So this was an overwhelming vindication of the point that this 
bill is at least thought by the vast majority of the Senate in both 
parties to be a fair and equitable bill.
  But I want to go into some detail on this point, and it will take me 
somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 minutes to do it. This is the one 
portion of the bill that particularly Democratic colleagues most asked 
me about: Are women and children disadvantaged by the new bankruptcy 
law we passed today, assuming it becomes law after conference and is 
signed by the President? The resounding answer is: No.
  When some in the credit industry came to me and asked for my support 
for this legislation early on, I indicated I would be unable to support 
the legislation as initially proposed several years ago. I thought it 
required some significant changes. And not to my surprise, but to my 
satisfaction, there was little or no opposition to the proposed changes 
with which I was most concerned. I want to thank Christian Cabral, who 
is with me this evening on the floor, for putting together the material 
I asked for, which I am about to speak to, which will demonstrate just

[[Page S2417]]

how much better off women receiving alimony or support payments are 
under the new proposed legislation, which just passed out of here with 
83 votes, than they are with the present law.
  As I have indicated, I have heard a lot in recent days about how this 
bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and 
children who depend on alimony or child support. The critics claim that 
by making sure more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill 
will make it harder for women and children to get payments that should 
be coming to them through alimony and child support.
  Mr. President, I am particularly proud of my record in protecting 
women and children during my 28-year career in the Senate. I am most 
proud of my work in drafting and passing the Violence Against Women 
Act, to protect women who are victims of domestic violence and all 
violence. I am also proud of my work to track down and hold responsible 
deadbeat dads.
  As long ago as 1992, I was on the Senate Democratic task force for 
child support enforcement. While I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, we enacted two major child support initiatives. As far as I 
am concerned, this bill is an extension of years of work on my part and 
others' to protect and enhance family support enforcement.
  I am here today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric we 
have heard tossed around on this floor over the last couple weeks, this 
bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend 
upon child support. I specifically would like to speak to how this bill 
targets the problems they now face under the current bankruptcy law and 
turns the bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current 
national family support collection system.
  S. 420, the bill we just passed, is so far superior to current law 
that the National Child Support Enforcement Association, representing 
60,000 child support professionals, supports it. These are the people 
from Salt Lake City to Wilmington, DE, in their family courts or 
whatever you call them in your respective States, who have the job of 
collecting support that is ordered by the court or agreed to in a 
settlement by a father for his children. Sometimes it is a mother, but 
overwhelmingly it is the father who has a support requirement to take 
care of the financial needs of the children who are with the mother. 
These are 60,000 child support professionals, hardly harsh people.
  The National Council for Child Support Directors supports the 
legislation we just passed.
  S. 420 is so far superior to current law that the National 
Association of Attorneys General supports this law. The association's 
letter of support is personally signed by 27 State attorneys general.
  The attorney general of the State of Vermont endorses the family 
support protection in this legislation.
  The attorney general of Minnesota endorses this law, along with the 
attorneys general of Illinois, Massachusetts, California, Montana, 
North Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington.
  S. 420, the bill we passed tonight, is so far superior to current law 
that the National District Attorneys Association, representing more 
than 7,000 local prosecutors, supports this legislation.
  In particular, California embraces this bill, the California Family 
Support Council, whose 2,500 enforcement professionals carry out the 
child support program in California. The California District Attorneys 
Association, consisting of elected district attorneys from each and 
every one of California's 58 counties and over 2,500 deputy district 
attorneys--they all support this bill that we were told is so heartless 
to children and women.
  Support enforcement professionals west of the Mississippi support 
this bill. The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, 
composed of child support professionals from the private as well as the 
public sector west of the Mississippi, wanted this bill passed.
  Finally, the corporation counsel of the City of New York supports the 
domestic support provisions. Yes, even New York City loves this bill.
  Why has this legislation earned such overwhelming support from 
professionals who are out in the field, who are in the trenches trying 
to collect money from regular dads and deadbeat dads who owe child 
support for their children or alimony to their wives if this is such a 
compassionless bill? They support it because the system is broken and 
this bill fixes it.
  When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, 
what happens to mom and the kids? If the dad is actually making 
payments, those payments stop. They stop now. That is right, the 
payments stop cold. Mom then has to find a lawyer or a government 
advocate, take time off from work, go to the bankruptcy court, and try 
to get those payments started again.
  When she goes to court, her claim may not be heard that day, so she 
will have to return again. If she is late, she will miss her day in 
court. In the meantime, the kids are getting no support payments.
  This bill changes all that. She will be paid, and her children will 
get their child support payments while every other creditor has to wait 
for the bankruptcy court proceedings to unfold. This is a major 
improvement over current law.

  Rather than putting women at a disadvantage, this bill empowers 
women. It gives them a say in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to 
her absent spouse. Once a father is under a bankruptcy plan and he 
fails to make his support payments, a mother can march to bankruptcy 
court and ask the court to dismiss his bankruptcy plan.
  The court will call the dad back to explain himself. He does not want 
to make payments during the bankruptcy plan: that is what he says. That 
is how it was before. He did not have to do it before. Fine. He can be 
thrown out of bankruptcy and find himself back at square one.
  Under current law, when the dad's bill collectors show up in the 
bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over the child support.
  In asserting her claim, she is not the No. 1 collector in the line, 
nor No. 2, 3, 4, or 5. She is No. 7 in line, the seventh to be paid. 
The current code handicaps her at the starting line by permitting other 
bill collectors to beat her in the race to get dad's assets.
  Why is this so important? As a practical matter, she does not have to 
find room in her hectic schedule to make an appearance in bankruptcy 
court, an intimidating place for most people. She can go to work 
without interrupting her day. She can run her errands. She can pick up 
her kids from school and, under this bill, she will automatically be 
first in line for her support and alimony claim. She will continue to 
receive her payments during the bankruptcy proceeding.
  When we pass this bill, she does not have to work her way through the 
bankruptcy system; the system will work its way for her, not against 
her.
  Another provision added to this bill in the managers' package was the 
moment the husband declares bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court is 
required to file with and notify, immediately, the spouse. So just in 
case the old man had not mentioned that he has these payments and there 
is not a record of it, she knows immediately. The court is required to 
notify the spouse if he files for bankruptcy.
  The system will work for the mother. That is the beauty of the bill. 
It is self-executing. The provisions to be added to the bankruptcy code 
will function automatically, and that is vital. Women who do not have a 
lawyer to help them will be most helped by this aspect of the bill.
  Under the current code, they have to get an attorney, go to court and 
assert their claims, and, again, they are No. 7 when they assert their 
claims.
  There are other important ways in which this bill will remove real 
obstacles to justice that exist in the current bankruptcy law. This 
bill not only lifts the stay on support payments in bankruptcy--let me 
emphasize that.
  The husband goes into Delaware and files for bankruptcy. What 
immediately happens is a stay on all the payments he makes occur. The 
family court wonders why he ``ain't'' paying. They automatically stay 
the payment when they get a notice that he has filed for bankruptcy. 
Bankruptcy can go on for weeks, months--a long time. In the meantime, 
what does that mother do? How does she feed her children if, in fact, 
that is her primary source of income for her children?

[[Page S2418]]

  That is how it works now. That is how it works now in almost every 
State.
  I have an order in my pile of papers. I will refer to the order.
  In my home State of Delaware, a woman went to court and requested a 
restraining order against her abusive husband. He had already filed for 
bankruptcy. Incredibly, the judge found that under the current 
bankruptcy code, a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is 
automatically stayed.
  Did my colleagues hear what I just said? This is a woman who says she 
is being abused. She wants an order to keep her abusive husband away 
from her. The husband has filed for bankruptcy, and the court finds 
that under the current bankruptcy code, a proceeding for a domestic 
abuse restraining order is automatically stayed ``by operation of 
law.''
  All those folks who stand on the floor--and I heard them lecture me 
about how abusive this law is--do not understand the present system and 
the part we are trying to correct and what we do correct in this 
bill. That is right. We have judges out there right now who look at 
today's bankruptcy code and find that filing bankruptcy stops all other 
proceedings. They find we have failed to write an exception for 
proceedings such as those for domestic violence. They find their hands 
are tied.

  Then they send a woman in here to get the bankruptcy court to lift 
the automatic stay so she can go back into court and get a stay to keep 
the abusive husband away from her. This bill permits that restraining 
order to go forward, while the current law does not do that.
  If anyone thinks it is fair, if anyone prefers this state of 
affairs--and I know the Presiding Officer does not--I guess you will 
think we passed a bad bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill. I am 
surprised opponents failed to take note of the important improvements 
this bill has made for women and children. If they have their way in a 
conference or when it comes back here, women and children in this 
country depending on alimony and child support will be robbed of real 
protections we have in this bill. I think that would be a crime.
  This is another way the bill provides women with the resources and 
the influence they now lack under the current bankruptcy code. Section 
219 of the bill requires the U.S. bankruptcy trustee to notify a woman 
of her rights to use the services of her State child support 
enforcement agency, and gives her the agency's address and phone number 
the moment the husband files. Better yet, the trustee, likewise, 
notifies the agency independently of the woman's claim.
  That is striking. The bankruptcy judge is now, if we pass this law, 
required to notify the child support agency of what is going on, in 
addition to the woman. A woman who needs help will get information they 
need because the bankruptcy system is charged with reaching out to 
family support professionals, acting under the family Federal support 
collection law, which I helped pass, and putting them at the service of 
women and children who need these services.
  This last item needs stressing because so much has been made about 
what will happen after someone who owes family support payments comes 
out of bankruptcy. The claim is that ``a more powerful creditor will 
push women and children aside and strip the dad bare before he can make 
any payments to his family.'' That makes for a very moving story. 
However, it is plain, ordinary fiction. As one of our former colleagues 
used to say, with his great sense of humor, Senator Simpson of Wyoming, 
how many times through the years I served on this floor with him in the 
Judiciary Committee, and he turned and said: I understand the gentleman 
is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own 
facts. He is not entitled to his own facts.
  The facts are, that after the bankruptcy payment is made, after they 
have worked out if they are in a chapter 7, afterwards, the bankruptcy 
trustee is required to notify both the woman and the family support 
collection professionals about the dad's release from bankruptcy, his 
last known address, the name and address of his employer, and a list 
naming all of the bill collectors that will still be there trying to 
collect from dad. This section helps mother both during and after 
bankruptcy. The new notification procedures will help a mother and the 
support enforcement agencies keep track of the father, where he is 
working, and what other bills he is required to pay. Because of this 
monitoring, which would be put in place by the bankruptcy system under 
this bill, mothers and collection agencies can more easily go to court 
and get that portion of the father's wages that now belong to them. Dad 
may complete his bankruptcy plan, but his obligations to mom will not 
stop.

  These new procedures guarantee that family support claims of women 
and children will always receive No. 1 priority during and after 
bankruptcy. The process for obtaining a portion of the father's wages, 
through a wage attachment, already guarantees priority to women and 
children over all other collectors, whoever they are.
  Under the wage attachment, the money is taken out of his paycheck 
before he even sees it. He can't be forced ``by powerful creditors'' to 
choose between them and his alimony or child support. These payments 
are automatic. Again, the picture of the greedy bill collector, rushing 
in front, elbowing mom out of line, and the starving children, is a 
dynamic story-telling device, but it is only that--story telling. It is 
a plain story. As I said, quoting my friend from Wyoming, everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
  Even if a father does not earn wages, support enforcement agencies 
still have many tools to ensure that the mother and children get paid. 
Support enforcement agencies can intercept taxes, unemployment 
benefits, revoke driver's license, professional recreational licenses, 
deny passports, institute criminal and contempt proceedings. All of 
this she is unable to do now because she doesn't know where dad took 
off to but the bankruptcy court is required, even after he works out a 
bankruptcy, to tell her, and tell her who the collectors are. That is 
why, even compared to any imaginary powerful creditor you might be able 
to conjure up, mother and children have real, tangible, protections and 
resources at their disposal to bring a first priority claim against 
father's wages after bankruptcy, or anything else dad has.
  Finally, let me conclude where I began, with the enthusiasm for this 
legislation that we have heard from the folks in the trenches. This is 
what the National Association of Attorneys General asserts. The bill 
``improves the treatment of domestic support obligations,'' and when 
the current code ``obstacles are removed, as this legislation seeks to 
accomplish, we believe that our State and local support enforcement 
offices will continue to be able to collect those moneys effectively, 
regardless of whether the lower priority creditors remain.''
  The National District Attorneys Association, with more than 7,000 
local prosecutors in their membership, is convinced that women and 
children will not be disadvantaged by this bill. ``To the contrary, 
support collectors have vastly more effective, and meaningful, 
collection readiness before a bankruptcy case is filed, or after the 
case is completed, than any other financial institution. It is under 
the current law, during bankruptcy, that support collectors have the 
greatest difficulty, because they are in competition with all other 
creditors for bankruptcy estate assets and because their most effective 
collection remedies have been stayed. This legislation provides a major 
improvement to the problems facing child support creditors in 
bankruptcy proceedings.''
  I worked very hard to see that many of these things got in the bill. 
I support enthusiastically the reform that enforcement professionals 
call for from New York City to California, from Minnesota to Vermont, 
from Massachusetts to Michigan. I want to save women and children from 
having to fight their way through a broken bankruptcy system, and even 
if they get there, they end up seventh in line. I want to make some 
system work for them and not against them. I believe all those who 
voted for this bill today voted to do just that. That is why I so 
strongly supported the bill.




                          ____________________