[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.
____________________