[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S15093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 1979. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide that 
restrictions on application of State laws to pension benefits shall not 
apply to State laws prohibiting individuals from benefitting from 
crimes involving the death of pension plan participants; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                         THE SLAYER STATUTE ACT

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address an oversight in 
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) brought to my 
attention by a constituent of mine in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
  On October 14, 1997, Betty Rambel disappeared. Two days later, the 
burnt-out shell of her car was found. Inside the trunk was an 
unrecognizable body. On October 24, 1997, using dental records, the 
body was identified as Betty. That day, her husband, Steve, was 
arrested for her murder.
  Steve Rambel's trial took place in November of 1998, roughly a year 
ago. After a week-long trial the jury found him guilty of murder in the 
second degree, assault with a deadly weapon, and arson. Steve was 
sentenced to life in prison on March 5, 1999.
  Even once is too often, yet this sort of situation occurs more 
frequently than that: people are killed by people they trust. We read 
the headlines, are bombarded with the lurid details, and our thoughts 
move to other matters when the killer is convicted and sentenced. 
However, for the other victims of these crimes--the family and friends 
of the victim--the nightmare drags on. In the midst of the shock, the 
anger, the inconsolable sorrow of their loss, these victims have to 
pick up the pieces of their lives and go through the business of 
getting back on their feet. I rise today to speak about the 
``business'' of moving on.
  With her sister gone and her brother-in-law in jail, Phyllis Marden 
assumed responsibility for the care of her minor niece and nephew. In 
the midst of settling her deceased sister's estate, Phyllis was 
notified that she was named as the second beneficiary to Betty's 
pension benefits. When coming to agreement with her sister's employer 
on the award of benefits, Ms. Marden was upset to find that, although 
it is prohibited by state law, under ERISA her sister's killer can lay 
future claim to her pension benefits. Justifiably disturbed by this 
oversight in federal law, Phyllis contacted my office.
  ERISA preempts state laws that govern the award of pension benefits, 
even clear-cut rulings like those made against Steven Ramble. To 
correct this situation and others like it, we have drafted a bill which 
would waive the ERISA preemption in cases where a state's ``slayer 
statute'' applies to the application of benefits. This bill simply 
provides that individuals will not have access to ERISA benefits as a 
result of crimes they commit causing the death of pension plan 
participants. While many insurance plans already have language to this 
effect, ERISA does not. The aim of the bill is to codify the direction 
of the court in recent decisions of this issue and the Internal Revenue 
Service decision made on this matter in February 24, 1999, private 
letter ruling.
  While no one thinks that killers should benefit from their victims' 
pension plans, some suggest that waiving the ERISA preemption in these 
cases might start us down a ``slippery slope,'' where we begin waiving 
the ERISA preemption to support and enforce social policy. They would 
prefer to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis. I understand 
this line of reasoning; however, I strenuously disagree. I side with 
the Phyllis Mardens of America.
  Individuals subjected to these tragic, uncommon circumstances have 
been through enough both emotionally and financially; they should not 
be responsible for added legal costs on a clear-cut issue. At a time 
like this, they should not be expected to realize that they need a 
lawyer familiar with the intricacies of ERISA.
  I have alluded to the fact that not all lawyers are familiar with the 
available legal remedies to these problems; ERISA is notoriously 
complex. A bright line should be drawn that--without affecting the 
ERISA preemption on the whole--allows survivors of this specific sort 
of crime relief from further emotional and financial hardship at the 
hands of the perpetrator. I feel that this bill makes that sort of 
clear distinction.
  A day does not pass that Betty is not on Phyllis's mind. Phyllis 
understands that this bill will not affect her situation--she is 
already paying her legal bills. However, she knows that someone else 
will have to go through the legal process she has been through. This 
bill will remove an obstacle from their path and get them on their way 
home.
                                 ______