[House Report 107-44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-44
======================================================================
FOR THE RELIEF OF NANCY B. WILSON
_______
April 20, 2001.--Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 392]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 392) for the relief of Nancy B. Wilson, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 2
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 3
Markup Transcript................................................ 4
Dissenting Views................................................. 9
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 392 would allow Nancy Wilson to receive Social
Security benefits based on her deceased husband's income. Mrs.
Wilson has been denied these benefits because she and Mr.
Wilson were not married for at least 9 months prior to his
death.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In 1950, Mr. Wilson had to commit his first wife to a
mental institution in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts law
prohibited divorce on the grounds of insanity. Five years
later, he and Nancy Wilson began living together. Mrs. Wilson
stayed home and raised three children, two of which were Mr.
Wilson''s children with his first wife. After 19 years, Mr.
Wilson's first wife died in the mental institution and the
Wilsons immediately married. However, Mr. Wilson was already
ill with multiple cancers and died 7 months later. Mrs. Wilson
did not work outside the home to any significant degree while
raising the children, and as a result, her Social Security
benefits are minimal. Nine months of marriage is required by
the Social Security Administration to allow widow's insurance
benefits.
Had Mr. Wilson not been restricted by Massachusetts divorce
law, he clearly would have been married to Mrs. Wilson much
longer than the 9 months required. There is precedent for
private claims bills to allow a widow benefits which have been
denied because of circumstances beyond their control. And more
specifically, there is precedent giving benefits to a widow who
did not meet the 9-month marriage requirement because of an
untimely death when there was clearly a long term co-habitation
of the couple.
Hearings
The Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held
no hearings on H.R. 392.
Committee Consideration
On March 14, 2001, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims met in open session and ordered favorably reported the
bill H.R. 392, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On March 28, 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 392,
without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(l) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The objective of H.R. 392 is to provide Mrs. Nancy B.
Wilson with Social Security benefits that she is not otherwise
entitled to because of an anomaly created by the effect
Massachusetts divorce law has on the operation of the social
security system regardiing qualifying widows.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 392, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 392, a bill for
the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kathy
Ruffing, who can be reached at 226-2820, and John R. Righter,
who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 392--A bill for the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.
Under the Social Security Act, an individual must have been
married at least nine months to qualify for a widow's benefit.
H.R. 392 would deem Mrs. Wilson's marriage to have lasted the
minimum period, thus qualifying her for additional Social
Security benefits. CBO estimates that the bill would increase
direct spending by about $50,000 over the 2001-2006 period.
Those outlays would not be subject to pay-as-you-go rules
because they would come from the Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund, which is off-budget.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Kathy Ruffing,
who can be reached at 226-2820, and John R. Righter, who can be
reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by Robert A.
Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next order of business is H.R.
392, a private relief bill for the benefit of Nancy Wilson.
[H.R. 392 follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania to make a motion.
Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims reports favorably the bill H.R. 392 and moves its
favorable recommendation to the full House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 392 will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania to
strike the last word for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gekas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Most of the members of our Subcommittee are pretty well, by
now, familiar with the saga of Nancy Wilson. This bill would
allow her to receive Social Security insurance benefits based
on her deceased husband's income. When she met Mr. Wilson, the
individual that eventually became her husband, he was already
married, but his wife had been committed to a mental
institution in Massachusetts. Massachusetts law prohibits
divorce by anyone where the defendant would be committed to a
mental institution. Thus, Nancy, who later became Mrs. Wilson,
began cohabitation with Mr. Wilson. They stayed together for 19
years, raised three children, two of whom were of the first
marriage and one between the two individuals.
And then, after 19 years, after many years, Mrs. Wilson, in
the mental institution, died. Immediately, thereafter, Mr.
Wilson married Nancy so they now were legitimized, so to speak.
Seven months later, Mr. Wilson dies. That left a gap where, in
the Social Security law, before Social Security benefits can be
conferred on a widow, they have to have been married at least 9
months. Here it was only 7 months, and Mr. Wilson died. This
bill plugs up that gap, recognizes that, indeed, she was, de
facto, the--should be the beneficiary of the deceased's Social
Security benefits.
So, with that, I ask for a unanimous vote in favor of this
bill, which we had taken up before.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the
balance of his time?
Mr. Gekas. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any further discussion on striking
the last word?
If not, are there any amendments to the bill?
Hearing none, the question occurs on the motion to report
the bill favorably. Do we have a reporting quorum now?
We're one short of a reporting quorum. Without objection,
the previous question is ordered on reporting H.R. 392, and
when we find an additional member, we will act on that and the
Subcommittee rules.
[Staff Note: Intervening Business.]
The question now occurs on the motion to favorably report
the bill H.R. 503.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Excuse me, 392, I'm sorry. Wrong advice by the staff. I
appreciate the--H.R.--the question occurs on the motion to
report favorably the bill H.R. 392.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it. The motion to report favorably is
adopted.
Without objection, the chairman is authorized to move to go
to conference, pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes,
and all members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental
or minority views.
We have a vote on the House floor. It seems to me this is a
good time to break. I would ask the members to come back
promptly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would ask unanimous consent that my
statements regarding the Subcommittee Rules of Procedure for
Private Immigration Bills and Private Claims Bills, and H.R.
392, be submitted into the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
I supported H.R. 392 during the last Congress and support it now as
it would allow a woman to receive social security benefits based on her
deceased husband's income, as she has been denied benefits according to
Massachusetts state law which requires at least nine months of
marriage. She was married for only seven. I support this bill as it
will grant much needed relief.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee is in recess. Please
return promptly.
Dissenting Views
I respectfully dissent from the Committee's favorable
reporting of H.R. 392, for the private relief of Nancy Wilson.
My objections to this legislation are not over Mrs. Wilson
herself. I do not know her personally and wish her no harm.
Rather, my objections would remain concerning any other bill of
this nature.
The committee reports this bill based on its belief that a
long term cohabitation should be regarded as marriage for
purposes of Social Security benefits. Not only do I find this
to be an unwise policy decision, I believe it is an unwarranted
intrusion upon the sanctity of marriage that has long been
recognized through our history. Moreover, I dissent from
reporting this bill because it is another example of an
overreaching Federal Government. For whatever reason,
Massachusetts has determined that divorce on the grounds on
insanity is an unhealthy practice and as such has taken steps
to discourage it. By reporting this bill, I believe we
implicitly override the state's policy decision. The logical
end of this bill is to say that since cohabitation is the
equivalent of marriage, the first marriage must, of necessity,
have ended. This seems little more to me than a Federal
dictation of state divorce law, not to mention a dictation of
divorce in this particular circumstance. I find neither of
these acceptable and therefore, oppose the reporting of this
bill.
John Hostettler