[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR COVERAGE OF FORMER SPOUSES OF JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF 
                            COLUMBIA COURTS

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
the District of Columbia be discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3676) to amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity 
Act of 1988 to provide for coverage of the former spouses of judges of 
the District of Columbia courts, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, but I yield, under my reservation of objection, to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] for an explanation of the 
bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for yielding to me, and I suggest to him that 
H.R. 3676 merely includes judges in the survivor benefits and health 
insurance provisions of former spouses that was enacted by the District 
of Columbia. The gentleman from California is unaware as to why judges 
were not included before now, and it seems a matter of equity that they 
should be included as every other employee in the District of Columbia, 
and this bill would merely include D.C. judges under the provisions 
that are accorded to survivors for every other employee in the District 
of Columbia, and I ask for its adoption today.
  Mr. Speaker, retirement benefits for many employees of the Government 
of the District of Columbia are set by the Federal Civil Service 
Retirement System [CSRS] (5 U.S.C. 8401). In 1978 and 1984, when 
Congress added spouse equity benefits for Federal employees, those D.C. 
Government employees received that added coverage.
  In 1989, the District of Columbia Government added to the retirement 
systems of most of the rest of its employees--police officers, fire 
fighters, teachers, and many others hired after October 1, 1987--the 
same benefits for former spouses of employees that Congress adopted in 
1978 and 1984 for Federal employees and for some of the District's 
employees.
  Judges and many local court employees were not covered by either the 
Congressional or D.C. Council amendments. Because Congress has reserved 
to itself authority to amend Title 11 of the District of Columbia 
Code--relating to organization of the courts--which includes the 
retirement system for D.C. judges, the Council of the District of 
Columbia was not able to include former spouses of judges in its 1989 
law. H.R. 3676 corrects that deficiency. H.R. 3676 will conform the 
retirement systems for all judicial employees to the other retirement 
systems.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Stark] for his explanation, and, further reserving the right to object, 
I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], 
the sponsor of the bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] for yielding to me.
  Judges were left out of the District's Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 
1988 only because the District of Columbia does not have the right to 
enact any laws affecting the courts, title XI of our code. The bill 
before us may affect all of one person; over the life of the bill, 
maybe it will affect ten. May I apologize that a small matter of purely 
local concern has to take the time of a body that needs every minute it 
can spare to take care of the Nation's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that these excursions into the trivia of 
city government will soon convince this body that the Congress needs to 
have the District have its right to self-government as much as the 
District needs that right.
  I am pleased that today we are taking up this bill to amend Title 11 
of the D.C. Code in order to extend coverage of the District's Spouse 
Equity Amendment Act of 1988 to District of Columbia judges. Both 
Congress and the District already have determined that spouses are 
entitled to a share of the annuity benefits earned during the course of 
a marriage.
  This problem is an unintended flaw brought to our attention by the 
former wife of a retired D.C. judge. She was awarded part of the 
judge's pension benefits in a divorce settlement. Both parties agreed 
to this provision as part of the settlement, and the court decree 
reflected their agreement. However, when the wife attempted to collect 
the benefits, she learned that the law in the District of Columbia 
covered all but one group of employees--D.C. judges--and therefore did 
not allow her to effectuate the voluntary agreement included in the 
divorce settlement.
  A little bit about the history of this omission law will make clear 
that what we are doing today is simply providing administrative relief 
that unfortunately, because of limitations in the District's self-
government authority, only the Congress has the authority to provide. 
There is no additional cost to the taxpayer. In 1989 the D.C. Council 
enacted the ``Spouse Equity Amendment Act of 1988'' to bring the 
District's retirement system into conformance with the Federal 
Government's Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS], under which former 
spouses of retirees may receive retirement benefits and survivor 
annuities. The original purpose of the D.C. Spousal Equity Act passed 
by the Council was to apply to D.C. police, firefighters, teachers, and 
judges provisions similar to those in the Federal law, which permits a 
court to order the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to pay a share 
of a CSRS retiree's vested pension directly to a former spouse and to 
order that existing survivor annuities be given to former spouses.

  The Judges' Retirement System, set forth in Title 11 of the D.C. 
Code, had to be omitted from the D.C. Council's Spousal Equity Act, 
however, because the Home Rule Act prohibits the Council from enacting 
any laws with respect to title 11, which relates to the organization 
and jurisdiction of the courts. Under current law, District judges are 
not covered by the Federal or D.C. Spousal Equity Acts, and therefore 
are the sole group among District or Federal employees whose former 
spouses are denied appropriate and legal access to the judges' 
pensions.
  To address this situation and others like it, I introduced this 
noncontroversial legislation to extend rightful coverage and benefits 
of the current D.C. Spousal Equity Amendment Act to D.C. judges, 
thereby carrying out the purpose of the Act as intended by the D.C. 
Council and the Congress when the law was enacted in 1988.
  May I apologize that a small matter of purely local concern has to 
take the time of a body that needs every minute it can spare to take 
care of the Nation's business. I can only hope that noncontroversial 
excursions into the trivia of city government will soon convince this 
body that the Congress needs the District to have its democratic right 
to self-government as much as the District needs that right.
  Mr. BLILEY. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in support of H.R. 3676.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3676, a bill to amend the 
District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988. In September 1992, the 
House unanimously passed S. 1880 which amended this act to provide 
employee benefit protections to the former spouses of members and 
retirees of the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Park Police (P.L. 102-
422). H.R. 3676 simply extends these same protections, enjoyed by other 
Federal and District employees, to former spouses of federally 
appointed judges who serve in the District of Columbia.
  There is no cost to the Federal Government as it does not increase 
the amount of benefits, but merely addresses how benefits are 
distributed.
  There was no opposition to the 1992 legislation and I am not aware of 
any opposition to H.R. 3676.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 3676

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF FORMER SPOUSES OF JUDGES OF DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA COURTS UNDER SPOUSE EQUITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the District of Columbia 
     Spouse Equity Act of 1988 (sec. 1-3002, D.C. Code) is amended 
     by striking ``(A) and (C)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________