The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE FINANCIAL PENALTY RESULTING FROM SAME-SEX MARRIAGES” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3476-H3492 on May 20, 2004.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 ReportHon. 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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY04.013
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)...............................
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.
____________________
