[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7760-H7762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS--CHILDREN'S EQUITY ACT OF 2000

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2842) to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, to 
enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee and his or her 
family in the FEHB Program when a State court orders the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2842

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Children's Equity Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN.

       Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) An unenrolled employee who is required by a court 
     or administrative order to provide health insurance coverage 
     for a child who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may 
     enroll for self and family coverage in a health benefits plan 
     under this chapter. If such employee fails to enroll for self 
     and family coverage in a health benefits plan that provides 
     full benefits and services in the location in which the child 
     resides, and the employee does not provide documentation 
     showing that such coverage has been provided through other 
     health insurance, the employing agency shall enroll the 
     employee in a self and family enrollment in the option which 
     provides the lower level of coverage under the Service 
     Benefit Plan.
       ``(2) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a 
     health benefits plan under this chapter and who is required 
     by a court or administrative order to provide health 
     insurance coverage for a child who meets the requirements of 
     section 8901(5) may change to a self and family enrollment in 
     the same or another health benefits plan under this chapter. 
     If such employee fails to change to a self and family 
     enrollment and the employee does not provide documentation 
     showing that such coverage has been provided through other 
     health insurance, the employing agency shall change the 
     enrollment of the employee to a self and family enrollment in 
     the plan in which the employee is enrolled if that plan 
     provides full benefits and services in the location where the 
     child resides. If the plan in which the employee is enrolled 
     does not provide full benefits and services in the location 
     in which the child resides, or, if the employee fails to 
     change to a self and family enrollment in a plan that 
     provides full benefits and services in the location where the 
     child resides, the employing agency shall change the coverage 
     of the employee to a self and family enrollment in the option 
     which provides the lower level of coverage under the Service 
     Benefits Plan.
       ``(3) The employee may not discontinue the self and family 
     enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services 
     in the location in which the child resides for so long as the 
     court or administrative order remains in effect and the child 
     continues to meet the requirements of section 8901(5), unless 
     the employee provides documentation showing that such 
     coverage has been provided through other health insurance.''.

[[Page H7761]]

     SEC. 3. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 8421a(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the 
     reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective with 
     respect to the annuity supplement payable for each month in 
     the 12-month period beginning on the first day of the seventh 
     month after the end of the calendar year in which the excess 
     earnings were earned.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to reductions required to be made in 
     calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 2842.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill accomplishes two objectives. First, it 
protects children who are entitled to health insurance under a court 
order. Second, the bill changes the timing of certain adjustments to 
annunities to allow OPM, that is the Office of Personnel Management, to 
make more accurate calculations.
  Federal agencies currently cannot guarantee that a Federal employee's 
child is covered in accordance with a court or administrative order. 
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, Federal law already requires that protection 
for children whose parents work for an employer other than the Federal 
Government. Current law provides that Federal employees may enroll in 
an FEHBP plan, that is the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, either 
as an individual or for self and family coverage. They are under no 
obligation to do so however.
  This important legislation will enable the Federal Government to 
enroll an employee in a self and family plan in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program when a State court orders the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill delays adjustments to annunity 
supplementals received by certain FERS retirees. No one will be denied 
a benefit as a result of this delay, but the additional time will 
permit OPM to calculate these annunity supplements more accurately and 
ensure that the correct level of benefits is being paid.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
bill, it was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  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 and the children who will receive health care under 
this bill, thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough); and also we extend our 
appreciation to the members of our Subcommittee on Civil Service, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who 
have affirmed their commitment to children by cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  H.R. 2842 also enjoys the support of Senator Levin who introduced the 
companion Senate bill, S. 1688, in the Senate.
  According to the 1990 United States Census, 78 percent of 
noncustodial parents had health coverage available through their 
employers, but only 23 percent had their children covered voluntarily. 
The legal right to health care was denied to children by absentee 
parents, even though they had the option to include them in their 
medical insurance plan for little or no cost.
  The Department of Agriculture estimates that in 1998, over 10 million 
children had no health care coverage. H.R. 2842 will allow the Federal 
agencies to join States and provide health insurance for children of 
its employees.
  The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 required States to 
enact legislation requiring employers to enroll a child in an 
employee's group health plan when a court orders the employee to 
provide health insurance for the child but the employee fails to do so.
  The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program law provided that a 
Federal employee may enroll in a FEHB Plan. The law does not allow an 
employing agency to elect coverage on the employee's behalf.
  Further, FEHB law generally preempts State law with regards to 
coverage and benefits; therefore, a Federal agency is unable to ensure 
that a child is covered in accordance with a court order.
  To correct this inequity, H.R. 2842, would enable the Federal 
Government to enroll an employee in his or her family in the FEHB 
program when a State court orders the employee to provide health 
insurance coverage for a child of the employee.
  If the affected employee is already enrolled for self-only coverage, 
the employing agency would be authorized to change the enrollment to 
self and family. If the affected employee is not enrolled in the FEHB 
Program, the employing agency would be required to enroll him or her 
under the standard option of the service benefit plan Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield.
  Finally, the employee would be barred from discontinuing the self and 
family enrollment as long as the court order remains in effect, the 
child meets the statutory definition of family member, and the employee 
cannot show that the child has other insurance.
  I am pleased that H.R. 2842 is supported by the Association for 
Children for Enforcement of Support. ACES is the largest child support 
organization dedicated to assisting disadvantaged families entitled to 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, someone once said that children are the living messages 
we send to a future we may never see, and when we think about what we 
are doing here, it is a very important deed providing children with 
health care coverage. I have often said it is not the deed, but it is 
the memory, and if we can have children that can gain health care when 
they need it and can look back on their lives and had access to doctors 
and could get well throughout their lives, I think they will be able to 
look back, not only on pleasant memories, but they will be able to look 
back on a healthy life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and by 
doing so, we send a very powerful message to this future that we may 
never see.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my distinguished colleague and 
one who has been at the forefront of issues regarding Federal employees 
and children.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding the time 
to me and, Mr. Speaker, I also want to join with my other friend, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Montgomery County, Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella) in strong support of this Federal Employee Health Benefits 
Equity Act of 2000.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) have explained very well the purposes of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to, perhaps, discuss this in a little different 
perspective, but I think an important one. Many pieces of legislation 
come to this floor and we focus on them because they seek to focus on 
personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in America today too many 
people believe that having children is not a personal responsibility. 
They believe that perhaps it is biologically their child, but somehow 
not their responsibility.
  We have passed legislation and the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is 
on the floor,

[[Page H7762]]

and he and I have cosponsored legislation which seeks to ensure that 
once somebody is blessed with a child that they will meet their 
responsibilities to that child. We passed legislation, as the gentleman 
from Baltimore pointed out, in 1993 which said that we were going to 
ensure that children would be covered under the health care policies of 
their parents. However, we did not also include Federal employees, the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, under that provision. We thought 
we had.
  I think that was our concept but we had not and this legislation 
seeks to cure that defect in the language.
  Now, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and I are unreserved supporters of Federal 
employees; but Federal employees, like every other individual in our 
country, need to meet their responsibilities. I believe that I had and 
continue to have a personal responsibility for my children. It is not 
the responsibility of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or the 
responsibility of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), it is 
my responsibility. They are my children. Now, they are all adults now, 
but I view them as a blessing. I view it as a blessing that I have the 
opportunity and the wherewithal, very frankly, to help them.
  I would hope every parent would do that; not only would I hope they 
would do it, it is my expectation that they would do it. And this 
legislation simply says, as the gentleman has pointed out in correct 
detail, that if a court orders you to carry your child on your policy 
and provide them with health care coverage, critical to every child in 
America, then the Federal employer, like every other employer, will 
comply with the law in making sure that you meet that personal 
responsibility.
  So I rise in very strong support of that. Some will say it is an 
additional burden on Federal employees; I say it is not. It is an 
equitable treatment of Federal employees as we want every other 
employee in America to be treated so that children in America will be 
better cared for and will grow up more secure and safe and better 
citizens.
  Although this bill will not get national publicity, it is a very 
important bill, not only for the children that it will immediately 
affect, but for the principle that it adopts of responsibility of 
parents for the welfare and well-being of their children.
  Mrs. MORELLA. 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 want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
for his comments, because his comments really go to the crux of why we 
are doing what we are doing. I think all of us, all of us in this 
Congress accept the fact that we have to do everything in our power to 
make sure children have an opportunity to grow up so that they can be 
the best that they can be.
  And when we think about something like health care, a child able to 
be taken care of if he has the measles or the mumps or has some kind of 
problem, health problem, just to know that that custodial parent is 
placed in a position where he or she can take that child to a health 
care provider and have that child taken care of is so very, very 
important.
  As the gentleman said, this bill may not reach the headlines of our 
papers; but I can tell my colleagues one thing, it will reach the 
headlines of a lot of families, a lot of custodial parents who merely 
want their children to be healthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
legislation. I again, thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella). I want to thank all of the members of our subcommittee for 
the bipartisan effort in our quest to uplift the children of our great 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a little bill that goes a long way, a long way 
as we have heard in terms of helping those children who are most 
vulnerable to make sure that they are provided health insurance. It is 
going to enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee in a self 
and family plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program when a 
State court orders the employee to provide health insurance coverage 
for a child of the employee, but the employee fails to provide the 
coverage.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for 
sponsoring this bill, for recognizing its importance. I want to thank 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough), for helping this bill come forward; the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the full Committee 
on Government Reform; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform; the cosponsors 
and those who have spoken today, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), in effect.
  I do want to ask that the Members of this House unanimously, I hope, 
support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2842, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States 
     Code, concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
     Program, to enable the Federal Government to enroll an 
     employee and his or her family in the FEHB Program when a 
     State court orders the employee to provide health insurance 
     coverage for a child of the employee but the employee fails 
     to provide the coverage, and for other purposes.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________