[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4232-H4234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FEDERAL BENEFICIARY CLARIFICATION ACT

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 1316) to amend chapter 87 of title 5, 
United States Code, with respect to the order of precedence to be 
applied in the payment of life insurance benefits.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 1316

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

     SECTION 1. DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

       Section 8705 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting 
     ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (e), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) Any amount which would otherwise be paid to a 
     person determined under the order of precedence named by 
     subsection (a) shall be paid (in whole or in part) by the 
     Office to another person if and to the extent expressly 
     provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce, 
     annulment, or legal separation, or the terms of any court 
     order or court-approved property settlement agreement 
     incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 
     separation.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a decree, order, or 
     agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be effective 
     unless it is received, before the date of the covered 
     employee's death, by the employing agency or, if the employee 
     has separated from service, by the Office.
       ``(3) A designation under this subsection with respect to 
     any person may not be changed except--
       ``(A) with the written consent of such person, if received 
     as described in paragraph (2); or
       ``(B) by modification of the decree, order, or agreement, 
     as the case may be, if received as described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(4) The Office shall prescribe any regulations necessary 
     to carry out this subsection, including regulations for the 
     application of this subsection in the event that 2 or more 
     decrees, orders, or agreements, are received with respect to 
     the same amount.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 
read for amendment.


           Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

       Section 8705 of title 5, United States Code, is amended----
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting 
     ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (e), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) Any amount which would otherwise be paid to a 
     person determined under the order of precedence named by 
     subsection (a) shall be paid (in whole or in part) by the 
     Office to another person if and to the extent expressly 
     provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce, 
     annulment, or legal separation, or the terms of any court 
     order or court-approved property settlement agreement 
     incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 
     separation.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a decree, order, or 
     agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be effective 
     unless it is received, before the date of the covered 
     employee's death, by the employing agency or, if the employee 
     has separated from service, by the Office.
       ``(3) A designation under this subsection with respect to 
     any person may not be changed except----
       ``(A) with the written consent of such person, if received 
     as described in paragraph (2); or
       ``(B) by modification of the decree, order, or agreement, 
     as the case may be, if received as described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(4) The Office shall prescribe any regulations necessary 
     to carry out this subsection, including regulations for the 
     application of this subsection in the event that 2 or more 
     decrees, orders, or agreements, are received with respect to 
     the same amount.''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECTED ASSIGNMENT.

       Section 8706(e) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended----
       (1) by striking ``(e)'' and inserting ``(e)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) A court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 
     separation, or the terms of a court-approved property 
     settlement agreement incident to any court decree of divorce, 
     annulment, or legal separation, many direct that an insured 
     employee or former employee make an irrevocable assignment of 
     the employee's or former employee's incidents of ownership in 
     insurance under this chapter (if there is no previous 
     assignment) to the person specified in the court order or 
     court-approved property settlement agreement.''.

  Mr. MICA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings] each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today and at this time is a time we have designated for 
technical corrections. This is a procedure that was instituted by the 
Republican leadership when we assumed majority control of the Congress, 
and it is an effort to try to expedite legislation technical in nature 
but necessary for the conduct of business both for the Congress and in 
the operation of our Federal Government, and that is the purpose of our 
proceedings here this morning.
  Today we take up a bill in rapid order. It has moved through our 
Subcommittee on Civil Service and through the full Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight to the floor today in rapid time and 
was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins]. And let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, H.R. 1316, 
addresses an inequity in the Federal Government Employees Group Life 
Insurance program.
  Under current law, domestic relations orders such as divorce decrees 
or property settlement agreements do not affect the payment of life 
insurance proceeds. Instead, distribution of the proceeds is controlled 
by statute. When the policyholder dies, the proceeds are paid to the 
beneficiary designated by the policyholder, if there is one, or to 
other individuals specified by statute.
  H.R. 1316, which again is introduced by the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Collins], amends the law to require that the Office of Personnel 
Management should pay the proceeds in accordance with certain domestic 
relations orders or court-approved property settlements. This is 
similar to the law's treatment of retirement annuities, which the 
Office of Personnel Management must also allocate in accordance with 
divorce decrees.
  The bill also allows courts to direct an employee to assign the 
policy to a specific individual identified in a domestic relations 
order or court-approved property settlement agreement. Thus, employees 
will not be able to frustrate these orders by terminating the policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the technical corrections made in this legislation, H.R. 
1316, provide a greater protection for former spouses of Federal 
employees and children of previous marriages.
  This bill has a broad bipartisan support, and I want to take just a 
moment to commend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], the 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for 
his work and leadership in expediting this legislation. I also want to 
thank other members of

[[Page H4233]]

the committee, including the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], our vice chairman, and 
others who are not on the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and others who have 
supported expediting of this legislation to benefit our Federal 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1316, which does nothing more than make a 
technical correction in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance 
Program. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], our distinguished chairman, for 
their leadership in bringing this very important measure to the House 
floor today.
  As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] indicated, this bill simply 
ensures that a domestic relations order issued by a court is considered 
a binding designation of a beneficiary by an employee's agency or the 
Office of Personnel Management. Under current law, domestic relations 
orders such as divorce decrees or property settlement agreements do not 
affect the payment of life insurance proceeds. Instead, when the 
policyholder dies, the proceeds are paid to the beneficiary designated 
by the policyholder, if any, or to other individuals as specified by 
statute.
  Because an employee could still frustrate the court order by 
terminating the policy, the bill was amended in committee to allow 
courts to direct the employee to assign the policy to a specific 
individual.
  I also want to take time, Mr. Speaker, to recognize those people in 
our committee on our side. Of course, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] has already recognized the members on the Republican side, but 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] were also very instrumental in 
bringing this resolution to the House floor as swiftly as we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins], the distinguished author of this legislation.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1316 will amend the Federal Employee Group Life 
Insurance Act and ensure that there is a level playing field between 
State laws that govern private insurance and Federal statute that 
provides guidelines for life insurance policies held by Federal 
employees.
  This legislation will clarify that a domestic relations order, issued 
by a court, is considered a designation of beneficiary in the event 
that no designation of beneficiary has been filed.
  Currently, if a Federal employee dies without properly naming a 
beneficiary for their life insurance policy, the law provides a strict 
prioritized list of individuals that are eligible to receive the 
benefits of that policy. Unlike most State laws, the Federal Code does 
not provide for consideration of an existing court decree that may link 
that policy to a beneficiary as a part of a settlement agreement. There 
are real instances where this inequity in Federal law is causing 
confusion for Federal employees who are beneficiaries. This legislation 
will correct this inconsistency and ensure that a court decree is given 
appropriate consideration.
  The Department of Health and Human Services, the Child Support 
Division and the Office of Personnel Management have reviewed the 
legislation and do not oppose this change. I have appeared before the 
Corrections Advisory Group chaired by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Camp] and have their support, and during the 104th Congress this is 
actually part of the Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act as reported by 
the committee, and additionally the legislation was favorably reported 
by the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight.
  My thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cummings] and the committee group, committee members, for their support 
and work on this bill at the subcommittee and committee levels.

                              {time}  1045

  I appreciate the opportunity to bring this bill, H.R. 1316, before 
the House for consideration and urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], dean of the Maryland delegation, who has worked 
over the years on these issues and played a major, major role in this 
House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cummings], the distinguished ranking member, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and 
congratulate the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this forward. I 
regret that I did not focus on it earlier, for I would, and have 
discussed with the committee, an additional what I believe to be also a 
technical correction.
  This deals with life insurance; it does not, however, impact the 
annuity payment of a survivor that would also be part of a domestic 
relations divorce or domestic agreement resolution. As a result, I want 
to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], chairman of the 
committee, and the staff, as well as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cummings], both of whom I have talked to about this problem.
  It was too late in the cycle and we would have slowed this bill down, 
but we did not want to do that, because this is effecting an excellent 
solution to an existing problem. But I want to thank the chairman for 
agreeing to address this issue in future legislation. It is my 
understanding that there will be some legislation coming along, either 
in July or shortly thereafter, and I believe this is an important step 
forward, but I believe the spouse, in a resolution of a case dealing 
with the annuity as opposed to life insurance, finds themselves in 
exactly the same situation as it relates to their ability, pursuant to 
court order, and/or pursuant to agreement, particularly when that court 
order incorporates an agreement of the parties. It seems perverse that 
we do not have the same kind of positive dealing in that instance.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia. I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their agreement to address that issue as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to comment that I have committed to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who indeed is a leader in civil service issues, to 
address the problem he has enumerated on the floor today. We look 
forward to working with him as we move new legislation through the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Corrections Advisory Group, 
I am pleased to again appear before the House under the Corrections 
Calendar to correct an unintended consequence of current law.
  Passage of this bill will once again place the scissors of efficiency 
on the hunt for redtape.
  My distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. Collins, a fellow member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced H.R. 1316 on April 14, 
1997, to correct what we all agree was an unintentional byproduct of 
Federal law affecting Federal employees.
  There is a law of physics that says for every action there is an 
equal and opposite reaction. Unfortunately, there is no law that says 
these reactions must be beneficial.
  Currently when a Federal beneficiary dies, the Federal life insurance 
benefits are granted to the individual named as beneficiary. If, 
however, no beneficiary has been named, there may be uncertainty and 
turmoil that can result. So in these trying times, families are often 
faced with difficult decisions on benefits and are made to face court 
challenges from others who seek to take advantage of the Federal 
employee's inaction in naming a beneficiary.
  Unfortunately, under current law, State domestic relations orders 
such as

[[Page H4234]]

divorce decrees or property settlements do not affect the life 
insurance payments of Federal employees if no beneficiary has been 
named. So the net effect of current law can punish children and family 
members because of the benefactor's failure to designate a new 
beneficiary.
  H.R. 1316 could require the Office of Personnel Management to pay the 
Federal employee's insurance proceeds in accordance with State domestic 
relations orders. This would make sure that, in the event that no 
beneficiary had been named, the life insurance benefits are granted to 
family members and children as based on State court orders. This small 
change will ensure that family and children are cared for.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee 
and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Collins]. This is the second bill reported by the corrections committee 
to be considered on the House floor. The first, the nurse aide training 
bill, was introduced, passed by the House and Senate and signed into 
law in 2 months.
  It is the unique quality of the corrections committee that brings 
these bills to the floor in a streamlined way.
  The committee works in a bipartisan manner. We work with the 
committee chairs who handle these issues and we are able to forge a 
consensus among Members and bring needed improvements and changes to 
the House floor. This legislation before us today enjoys strong 
bipartisan support, and again I commend my colleagues for introducing 
this improvement to our Nation's laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to address a few issues that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] spoke on. First of all, I want to thank the chairman for the 
bipartisan way in which he has worked with myself and the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. I think it is extremely important, the 
issues that he has brought up. And in that spirit of bipartisanship 
which we have shared since I have been the ranking member, I just want 
to thank the gentleman again for his cooperation, because I know it is 
a major issue for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and many 
other people throughout the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this noncontroversial legislation passed the House last 
year as part of the omnibus civil service bill. That comprehensive 
legislation was not enacted. Therefore, it is appropriate that we bring 
forward this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to vote favorably.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just in closing, I would like to also thank again our ranking member, 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], for the bipartisan manner 
in which this legislation has been handled. I am pleased that we could 
participate in this Corrections Day in this manner and make a 
correction to legislation in a bipartisan fashion. It shows, first, 
that the Congress does work; and, second, that the government system 
does function when we see a problem that can be corrected, when we are 
all rowing in the same direction.
  So I am pleased again for the leadership provided by the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Collins] in introducing this legislation and the 
bipartisan support we have had in passing this legislation today, 
bringing it before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and on the bill.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________