[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2072-H2073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RUTH HAIRSTON

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2729) for the private relief of Ruth 
Hairston by waiver of a filing deadline for appeal from a ruling 
relating to her application for a survivor annuity.
  There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill as follows:

                               H.R. 2729

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

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF DEADLINE FOR APPEAL.

       For purposes of a petition by Mrs. Ruth Hairston for review 
     of the final order issued October 31, 1995, by the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board with respect to its docket number 
     SF-0831-95-0754-I-1, the 30-day filing deadline in section 
     7703(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is waived.

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2729, 
a Private Bill For the Relief of Ruth Hairston Relating to Her 
Application for a Survivor Annuity. I introduced this legislation in an 
attempt to provide relief for my constituent, Mrs. Ruth Hairston.
  This legislation seeks a waiver of the 30-day period to file an 
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Mrs. Hairston requested 
reconsideration from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on May 
26, 1995 of their decision to deny her survivor annuity benefits under 
the Civil Service Retirement System as the ``former spouse'' of Paul 
Hairston. The Hairstons were married for more than 45 years when their 
marriage ended in divorce on March 16, 1987. Mr. Hairston had almost 35 
years of civil service when he retired on June 11, 1990. When he 
retired, he selected a survivor annuity for Mrs. Hairston with a 
reduced annuity for himself.
  Mrs. Hairston started to receive retirement annuity payments in 1988 
but these payments were stopped after Mr. Hairston's death on February 
22, 1995, because it was concluded that she was not entitled to 
benefits as a ``former spouse.'' When Mr. Hairston retired, there was 
no statutory provision which would have allowed Mrs. Hairston to 
receive a survivor annuity as a divorcee (former spouse). However, the 
Civil Service Retirement Spouse Act of 1985 changed this, and allowed 
Mr. Hairston to elect a survivor annuity within two years following the 
divorce.
  Mr. Hairston did not make a formal request for Mrs. Hairston to 
receive a survivor annuity after the divorce (as a former spouse), 
neither did he make an annuity adjustment to stop Mrs. Hairston from 
receiving the larger portion of his retirement annuity which were due 
to her under community assets. He was informed that he was still being 
charged for a survivor annuity after his divorce and that he no longer 
had to allow Mrs. Hairston to have the larger portion of his annuity, 
yet he did not change this. The fact that Mr. Hairston did not change 
this annuity arrangement establishes an ``intent'' for Mrs. Hairston to 
received a survivor benefit after his death. Intent is one of the 
grounds to excuse the failure of Mr. Hairston to make a formal election 
(Valee versus Office of Personnel Management).
  On October 31, 1995 the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the OPM 
decision to deny Mrs. Hairston a survivor annuity. At the time, Mrs. 
Hairston was severely ill and under doctor's care and could not file a 
timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Mrs. Hairston remains in 
poor health and faces eviction from her home because of her inability 
to meet her financial obligations. She desperately needs

[[Page H2073]]

the survivor's annuity she deserves. It is because of these extreme 
circumstances that relief through private legislation is necessary. 
Therefore, I commend my colleagues for supporting this bill and 
providing Mrs. Hairston with an opportunity to appeal the denial of her 
survivor's annuity.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This concludes the call of the Private 
Calendar.

                          ____________________