[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3476-H3492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FINANCIAL PENALTY RESULTING FROM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute, revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, an enormous unrevealed financial penalty
will result from same-sex marriage recognition, but there has been
little discussion. Why is the media looking the other way? Do seniors
not have the right to know it will affect their Social Security
benefits? Do taxpayers not have the right to know that it will affect
their taxes, both State and Federal? Does the public not have the right
to know that it means less money for roads, schools, medical research,
veterans benefits? In fact, it was the Social Security issue that side-
lined a similar proposal in the Canadian Parliament.
What is the cost? I include in the Record a GAO report outlining
1,138 Federal programs impacted if same-sex marriages are recognized in
this country, an enormous price tag, hundreds of billions of dollars.
The American people have the right to know. We need to discuss this
issue. We are going to give benefits to same-sex couples we do not give
to Americans caring for disabled and elderly relatives. We are going to
give it to same-sex couples who have no children and give them the same
benefits we give married couple with several children.
We need to discuss this issue. It is going to cost billions of
dollars.
U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, January 23, 2004.
Subject: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Frist: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
provides definitions of ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' that are
to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and,
thus, affect the interpretation of a wide variety of federal
laws in which marital status is a factor. In 1997, we issued
a report
[[Page H3477]]
identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to
the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and
privileges are contingent on marital status or in which
marital status is a factor. In preparing the 1997 report, we
limited our search to laws enacted prior to September 21,
1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked
us to update our 1997 compilation.
We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving
marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996,
and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory
provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended
in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor.
Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research
identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions
classified to the United States Code in which marital status
is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and
privileges.
To prepare the updated list, we used the same research
methods and legal databases that we employed in 1997.
Accordingly, the same caveats concerning the completeness of
our collection of laws apply to this updated compilation, as
explained more fully in our prior report. For example,
because of the inherent limitations of any global electronic
search and the many ways in which the laws of the United
States Code may deal with marital status, we cannot guarantee
that we have captured every individual law in the United
States Code in which marital status figures. However, we
believe that the probability is high that the updated list
identified federal programs in the United States Code in
which marital status is a factor.
We have organized our research using the same 13 subject
categories as the 1997 report. As agreed with your staff, in
addition to providing you with a primary table of new
statutory provisions involving marital status, we have
prepared a second table identifying those provisions in our
prior report that subsequently have been repealed or amended
in a manner that eliminates marital status as a factor.
Finally, in a third table, we have listed those provisions
identified in our 1997 report that have since been relocated
to a different section of the United States Code. We have
also attached a brief summary of the 13 research categories;
a full description of each category is set forth in the 1997
report.
We plan no further distribution of this report until 30
days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies of this letter to interested congressional
committees. The letter will also be available on GAO's home
page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-
8208 or by E-mail at [email protected]. Behn Miller Kelly and
Richard Burkard made key contributions to this project.
Sincerely yours,
Dayna K. Shah,
Associate General Counsel.
[[Page H3478]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.001
[[Page H3479]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.002
[[Page H3480]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.003
[[Page H3481]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.004
[[Page H3482]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.005
[[Page H3483]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.006
[[Page H3484]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.007
[[Page H3485]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.008
[[Page H3486]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.009
[[Page H3487]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.010
[[Page H3488]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.011
[[Page H3489]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.012
[[Page H3490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.013
[[Page H3491]]
Appendix 4--Categories of Statutory Provisions
category 1--social security and related programs, housing, and food
stamps
This category includes the major federal health and welfare
programs, particularly those considered entitlements, such as
Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food
stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these
provisions are found in Title 42 of the United States Code,
Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title
7, Agriculture.
category 2--veterans' benefits
Veterans' benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the
United States Code, include pensions, indemnity compensation
for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home
care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational
assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of veterans have
many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital
relationship.
category 3--taxation
While the distinction between married and unmarried status
is pervasive in federal tax law, terms such as ``husband,''
``wife,'' or ``married'' are not defined. However, marital
status figures in federal tax law in provisions as basic as
those giving married taxpayers the option to file joint or
separate income tax returns. It is also seen in the related
provisions prescribing different tax consequences, depending
on whether a taxpayer is married filing jointly, married
filing separately, unmarried but the head of a household, or
unmarried and not the head of a household.
category 4--federal civilian and military service benefits
This category includes statutory provisions dealing with
current and retired federal officers and employees, members
of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which
marital status is a factor. Typically these provisions
address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and
insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in
federal service and their families.
category 5--employment benefits and related provisions
Marital status comes into play in many different ways in
federal laws relating to employment in the private sector.
Most provisions appear in Title 29 of the United States Code,
Labor. However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and
Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; and
Title 45, Railroads. This category includes laws that
address the rights of employees under employer-sponsored
employee benefit plans; that provide for continuation of
employer-sponsored health benefits after events like the
death or divorce of the employee; and that give employees
the right to unpaid leave in order to care for a seriously
ill spouse. In addition, Congress has extended special
benefits in connection with certain occupations, like
mining and public safety.
category 6--immigration, naturalization, and aliens
This category includes federal statutory provisions
governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter
and remain in the United States, be deported, or become
citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
The law gives special consideration to spouses of immigrant
and nonimmigrant aliens in a wide variety of circumstances.
Under immigration law, aliens may receive special status by
virtue of their employment, and that treatment may extend to
their spouses. Also, spouses of aliens granted asylum can be
given the same status if they accompany or join their
spouses.
category 7--indians
The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a
special legal relationship with the federal government
through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25,
Indians. Various laws set out the rights to tribal property
of ``white'' men marrying ``Indian'' women, or of ``Indian''
women marrying ``white'' men. The law also outlines the
descent and distribution rights for Indians' property. In
addition, there are laws pertaining to health care
eligibility for Indians and spouses and reimbursement of
travel expenses of spouses and candidates seeking positions
in the Indian Health Service.
category 8--trade, commerce, and intellectual property
This category includes provisions concerning foreign or
domestic business and commerce, in the following titles of
the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and
Banking Title 12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights,
Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19. This category also
includes the National Housing Act (rights of mortgage
borrowers); the Consumer Credit Protection Act (governs wage
garnishment); and the Copyright Act (spousal copyright
renewal and termination rights).
category 9--financial disclosure and conflict of interest
Federal law imposes obligations on members of Congress,
employees or officers of the federal government, and members
of the boards of directors of some government-related or
government chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent
conflicts of interest. These individuals are required to
disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions.
Many of these requirements, which are found in 16 different
titles of the United States Code, apply also to the
individual's spouse.
category 10--crimes and family violence
This category includes laws that implicate marriage in
connection with criminal justice or family violence. The
nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with
spouses as victims of crimes, others with spouses as
perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18,
Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some statutory provisions,
dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in
Title 42, Public Health and Welfare.
category 11--loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture
Under many federal loan programs, a spouse's income,
business interests, or assets are taken into account for
purposes of determining a person's eligibility to participate
in the program. In other instances, marital status is a
factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to
which a person is entitled or the repayment schedule. This
category includes education loan programs, housing loan
programs for veterans, and provisions governing agricultural
price supports and loan programs that are affected by the
spousal relationship.
category 12--federal natural resources and related provisions
Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection
with a variety of transactions involving federal lands and
other federal property. These transactions include purchase
and sale of land by the federal government and lease by the
government of water and mineral rights.
category 13--miscellaneous provisions
This category comprises federal statutory provisions that
do not fit readily in any of the other 12 categories. Federal
provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
marital status are included in this category. This category
also includes various patriotic societies chartered in
federal law, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the Gold
Star Wives of America.
____
H.R. 2426--Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
of 2003
Summary: H.R. 2426 would provide fringe benefits to
domestic partners of federal employees. Same-sex and
opposite-sex domestic partners of federal employees would be
entitled to the same benefits available to spouses of federal
employees. Those benefits would include survivor annuities,
health insurance, life insurance, and compensation for work-
related injuries. Additionally, H.R. 2426 would amend the
Internal Revenue Code by exempting domestic partner benefits
from federal income taxes.
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct
spending by $137 million over the 2004-2008 period and by
$242 million over the next 10 years. Discretionary spending
under the bill would increase by $525 million over the 2004-
2008 period and by about $1.3 billion over the next 10 years,
assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. The bill would
also affect federal revenues; those effects would have to be
estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
H.R. 2426, as introduced, would extend benefits to domestic
partners of active federal employees and of current and
prospective retirees. At the request of the sponsor, this
estimate excludes the cost of extending such benefits to
domestic partners of currently retired federal employees.
(Including benefits for the domestic partners of currently
retired federal employees would increase direct spending by
an additional $448 million over the 2004-2008 period and $1.4
billion over the 2004-2013 period; it would not result in
additional discretionary costs.)
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2426 is shown in the following
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
functions 550 (health) and 600 (income security).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Increase in FEHBP Benefits (future 4 9 14 19 25 32 40 49 58 69
retirees)................................
Net Increase in FECA Outlays \1\.......... 2 2 * * * * * * * *
Postal Service FEHBP and FECA Costs (off- 54 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
budget)..................................
Reduction in Survivor Annuity Payments.... -3 -7 -10 -13 -17 -21 -25 -29 -32 -36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Direct Spending................ 57 63 3 5 8 11 16 20 26 32
CHANGES IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Agency Costs for FEHBP Benefits (active 91 96 102 109 117 125 134 143 152 162
employees)...............................
[[Page H3492]]
Agency Costs for FECA..................... 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Discretionary Spending......... 92 97 105 112 120 128 137 146 155 165
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The outlays shown are net of receipts from federal agencies.
* = Less than $500,000.
Notes: FEHBP = Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. FECA = Federal Employees Compensation Act. Components may not sum to totals because of
rounding. This estimate assumes that the bill will be enacted by October 2003. The estimate does not reflect changes to the Internal Revenue Code;
those effects would have to be estimated by JCT.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
2426 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2003 and that
domestic partners would be eligible to begin receiving
benefits in November 2003. CBO estimates that about 2 percent
of federal employees would elect to provide health care
and retirement benefits for a domestic partner if given
the opportunity. Approximately 83 percent of the costs
would come from partners in opposite-sex partnerships and
approximately 17 percent of costs derive from partners in
same-sex partnerships. These figures are based on
information from state and local governments as well as
corporations that have adopted similar policies. In
addition, domestic partners of workers who retire after
the bill goes into effect would be eligible to opt for
survivor annuity coverage, as well as retiree health care
benefits.
Direct spending
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for
Future Retirees. H.R. 2426 would extend eligibility for
health benefits to the domestic partners of retiring federal
employees. An employee who retires after enactment of the
bill would be allowed to maintain family coverage for his or
her domestic partner. Unlike premiums for current workers,
the government's share of health care premiums for retirees
is classified as direct spending. For each year of the 2004-
2013 period, CBO projects that approximately 1,000 additional
family coverage policies would be added to the FEHBP by
retiring non-Postal Service workers choosing to cover
domestic partners. As a result, direct spending would
increase by $71 million over the next five years and by $319
million over the next 10 years. The costs associated with
providing benefits to the domestic partners of both active
and retiring Postal Service workers are discussed below.
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) Benefits. FECA
provides compensation to federal civilian employees for
disability due to personal injury sustained while in the
performance of duty. Married workers currently receive
slightly higher FECA benefits for wage replacement than do
single workers. Additionally, if an employee dies of an
employment-related injury or disease, his or her spouse
receives monthly compensation equal to 50 percent of the
deceased employee's salary. CBO projects that H.R. 2426, if
enacted, would provide FECA benefits to approximately 1,200
domestic partners of non-postal federal employees each year.
Additional costs would total $35 million; agencies would have
to cover those costs over time from appropriated funds (see
below). Because increases in agency contributions would lag
behind the increased costs, there would be a net increase in
direct spending of $4 million over the 2004-2013 period.
Postal Service Employees. Postal Service employees would
also be eligible for domestic partner coverage under H.R.
2426. CBO estimates that providing health benefits to the
domestic partners of active postal workers would result in
about 11,000 postal employees moving from individual to
family coverage plans. Additionally, CBO anticipates
that approximately 500 of the postal workers who would
retire each year would maintain FEHB coverage for their
partners. Together, these benefits would cost $311 million
over the 2004-2008 period and $814 million over the 2004-
2013 period. Additionally, extending FECA benefits to
Postal Service employees would cost $15 million over the
next five years and $30 million over the next 10 years.
The operations of the Postal Service are classified as off-
budget (like Social Security), although the total federal
budget records the agency's net spending (outlays less
offsetting collections). The Postal Service's mandate
requires it to set postage rates to cover its operating
expenses, and thus it would be expected to cover 100 percent
of the increased costs associated with H.R. 2426 from postage
receipts. However, the Postal Service Retirement System
Funding Reform Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-18) effectively
froze postage rate increases until 2006. Therefore, for the
2004-2005 period, the increased costs resulting from H.R.
2426 would not be offset by higher postal receipts. Beginning
in 2006, the Postal Service would be able to raise postage
rates to account for its increased costs. As a result, CBO
estimates that extending FEHBP and FECA benefits to the
domestic partners of Postal Service workers would increase
off-budget direct spending by $113 million over the 2004-2005
period and would have no net effect after that.
Survivor Annuities. Under current law, a federal employee
who is eligible to receive retirement benefits may elect to
provide his or her spouse with a survivor annuity by reducing
the value of the employee's annuity. Participants in the
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) face different
reductions and survivor annuity benefit levels than
participants in the Federal Employees' Retirement System
(FERS). Under both plans, those who elect survivor benefits
face a reduction in their current annuity of between 5
percent and 10 percent.
Under H.R. 2426, federal employees who retire would be able
to choose to reduce the value of their own annuities in order
to provide survivor annuities for their domestic partners.
CBO estimates that 85 percent of federal employees with
domestic partners would elect survivor benefits if given the
opportunity. On that basis, CBO projects that approximately
2,000 newly retired federal employees each year would add
survivor annuities for their domestic partners and thus
collect smaller annuities. However, some of these individuals
would die and their partners would begin collecting survivor
benefits. Over the next 10 years, the savings from the
reduction in retirees' annuities would outweigh the
additional costs for survivors' annuities. CBO estimates that
direct spending would decrease by $51 million over the 2004-
2008 period and by $194 million over the 2004-2013 period.
Coverage of Current Retirees. H.R. 2426, as introduced,
would extend domestic partner benefits to all current federal
retirees, as well as active workers. However, the
sponsor indicated to CBO that this was not the intent of
H.R. 2426 and requested that CBO estimate the costs of the
bill under the assumption that it would be changed to
include only active workers and those who retire after the
bill's enactment. The above estimate reflects that assumed
change. If all current retirees were to receive the same
benefits that new retirees would receive under H.R. 2426,
the cost of the bill would increase by an additional $448
million over the 2004-2008 period and $1.4 billion over
the 2004-2013 period.
Discretionary spending
Health Benefits for Active Employees. H.R. 2426 would allow
federal employees to add domestic partners to their health
insurance policies. CBO estimates that about 80 percent of
employees who add a domestic partner would switch from
individual coverage to family coverage. Federal agencies pay
about 72 percent of health-care premiums for active
employees; thus, as premiums rise, so do agency
contributions. In 2004 family coverage policies for active
employees are projected to cost the federal government
approximately $3,800 more than individual coverage policies.
CBO estimates that providing additional family coverage
policies to about 24,000 non-postal employees who would elect
domestic partner coverage would increase spending subject to
appropriation by $515 million over the 2004-2008 period and
by $1.2 billion over the 2004-2013 period.
Federal Employees' Compensation Act Benefits. As discussed
under the direct spending section, this bill would result in
increased spending for federal workers' compensation. The
reimbursement of FECA expenses paid by the Department of
Labor comes from discretionary salary and expense accounts of
federal agencies. Because these expenses are ultimately borne
by the employing agency, CBO estimates discretionary spending
would increase by $11 million over the 2004-2008 period and
by $26 million over the 2004-2013 period to pay for these
benefits.
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Benefits.
Under current law, the federal government pays one-third of
basic life insurance premiums and employees pay two-thirds.
Optional coverage that provides benefits above the basic
level is paid for entirely by the employee. H.R. 2426 would
allow federal employees to purchase Option C coverage, which
would insure a domestic partner for up to $25,000. The
premium for this option is actuarially sound; over time,
premiums paid in to the account equal the payouts from the
account. While the cash flow in any given year could be
positive or negative, the overall impact on the federal
budget would be negligible.
Tax changes
H.R. 2426 contains provisions that would amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986. Those changes would likely have tax
implications that CBO does not estimate. The Joint Committee
on Taxation normally supplies the estimate of the tax effects
of legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Van Swearingen and Geoff Gerhardt.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
____________________