Nuclear Terrorist Threat Reduction Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 100) to restate, clarify, and revise the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this session the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I introduced, along with now more than three dozen of our distinguished colleagues, H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as a top legislative priority of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. With the war on terrorism and hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world, it is important that we lessen the burdens that they and their loved ones may face at home as a direct result of their service.

H.R. 100 will strengthen the rights and protections afforded U.S. military personnel called to active duty so that they are not harmed in civil, financial or legal proceedings. I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation has attracted broad support from veterans groups, military associations and the legal community. H.R. 100 is a complete restatement of the law known as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. A ``restatement'' of a law has long been understood to mean a law that has been updated, clarified and strengthened, including a gathering of the relevant judicial interpretations and a measured casting aside of those few interpretations that do not comport with the author's understanding of the law's intent.

This revision of the act has been in the works for a number of years. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs originally held hearings on a similarly intended measure, H.R. 4763, in the 102nd

Congress. Last year, the Subcommittee on Benefits held 2 days of hearings on an almost identical measure, H.R. 5111.

The need for a Federal law such as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act goes back to at least the Civil War, and a State law in Louisiana was passed as far back as the War of 1812. The first modern relief law was enacted in 1918. While H.R. 100, the bill before us, retains the time-tested basic rights and protections of the 1940 version of the law and its 1942 amendments, it also reflects the evolution of our legal processes during the past 60 years. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has filed a bill report which contains a detailed explanation of the restatement. I recommend the bill report to those who seek a more detailed understanding of H.R. 100, as amended.

The current law is potentially applicable to a large number of personal transactions and any civil legal proceeding involving a servicemember. The courts have generally been understanding of the situation of the servicemembers who invoke its protections. They understand that these servicemembers are absent because they are doing the most important work of all, defending our national interests, our freedoms and our way of life.

In explaining the act, countless authors have been quick to remind us that the act is intended to give a temporary reprieve to a servicemember and that it reflects the need to be fair to all parties by relying upon the courts to determine whether the servicemember's ability to protect his or her rights or to meet obligations has been materially affected by military service. Those purposes are faithfully carried forward in this restatement.

Many of the provisions in the act and in H.R. 100 would only be of interest to persons involved in legal proceedings. Let me outline some that apply more generally to all servicemembers. For example, servicemembers would be protected against what amounts to a clever evasion of the prohibition against double taxation of a servicemember's military income when they must live outside the State where they are legal residents. What is happening is that some States where nonresident military personnel are stationed are counting a servicemember's military pay on which income taxes are paid elsewhere for determining the service- member's graduated tax rate on family income earned within the State. This is an outrageous exploitation of servicemembers who cannot even vote against the politicians who are doing it, and H.R. 100 would put a stop to it.

Any servicemember whose military service materially affects his or her ability to pay a debt incurred before entering military service is entitled to have the interest rate on this debt reduced to 6 percent. There has been dispute whether interest in excess of the 6 percent was deferred or forgiven and whether the lender must reduce the monthly payment. H.R. 100 makes it clear that such interest is forgiven and the monthly payment is reduced in keeping with the act's policy objective of reducing monthly obligations at a time when mobilized National Guard or Reserve members are likely to have a reduced income.

Active duty servicemembers who have permanent change of station orders or who are being deployed for more than 90 days would be allowed to terminate housing leases. Right now, servicemembers can be forced to pay rent for housing they cannot live in because our government sent them somewhere else.

An eviction proceeding against a servicemember could be delayed for at least 90 days if he or she invokes the act.

Eviction protection would be updated to reflect the increase in the cost of rental housing. The current act only applies to leases of less than $1,200 per month. H.R. 100 would increase that amount to $1,700 per month, and the amount would increase each year in accordance with a housing rental index.

The act protects against the lapse of life insurance policies when an individual enters military service. The act's life insurance coverage would be raised from $10,000 to $250,000, or the SGLI maximum, whichever is greater.

All motor vehicles and other property would be included in the act's installment contract provisions so that in the case of a service member who, for example, has fallen behind on car lease payments, the lessor must obtain a court order before repossessing the car.

The current act does not clearly apply to simple administrative proceedings, which are far more common today than they were in 1940. H.R. 100 would include administrative proceedings, such as license and zoning manners, under the act's rights and protections.

There are, Mr. Speaker, many other provisions which affect particular rights or particular statutes such as Federal mining and reclamation acts. Many of the other changes in language and terms merely reflect the language of the law as it is practiced today.

Mr. Speaker, the actual preparation of this bill was a collaborative effort between our committee counsel, the Office of Legislative Counsel, and, most importantly, representatives of the judge advocates general of the military departments. The JAG officers played a crucial role in relating how the current law is understood by their fellow JAG advisors, who must often counsel servicemembers on their rights and obligations under the law and who have direct experience with the issues and the problems that arise under it.

I want to commend, Mr. Speaker, all of the dedicated and capable members of the various staffs who worked so hard to prepare this legislation. Beginning with H.R. 4763 back in 1992, the JAG officers who provided the technical services for the very important initial draft of H.R. 4763 were Commander Christopher Gentile, U.S. Naval Reserve; Lieutenant Colonel Amy J. Griese, U.S. Air Force Reserve; Gregory M. Huckabee, U.S. Army; and Major Teresa J. Wright, U.S. Marine Corps.

The JAG officers who provided the excellent technical services for the updated draft for H.R. 5111 were Lieutenant Colonel Patrick W. Lindemann, U.S. Air Force; Major Eugene J. Martin, U.S. Army; Mr. Eric C. Stamets, civilian employee from the U.S. Army. Lieutenant Colonel Griese returned to the restatement effort by providing extensive technical services on the bill report for H.R. 100. Colonel Steven T. Strong, U.S. Army; and Colonel Wanda Good, U.S. Army also provided highly effective services on H.R. 5111 and H.R. 100, the bill before the committee and the Department of the Defense.

The Committee on Veterans Affairs counsel who prepared the hearings in 1992 and 2000 and were the lead staff members on H.R. 4763, 5111, and the bill before us today, H.R. 100, are Patrick Ryan and Kingston Smith. Minority committee counsel also worked very hard in drafting these bills, Mary Ellen McCarthy and Geoffrey Collver. Committee staff assistants who helped with research and proofreading are Summer Larson and Devon Seibert. Also Robert Cover of the Office of Legislative Counsel performed invaluable drafting services on each of these three bills and the final product that is before the body today.

Most especially I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). My good friend and colleague is the committee's ranking Democrat who has been my active partner on this legislation and many other bills that we have brought before the House and who proposed coverage for the act for certain National Guard members that became part of the law last year.

Although the revision of this law has been in preparation for more than 10 years, I cannot think of a better time for this body to be considering it than today. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that I have a markup at the Committee on International Relations and I would like to get to it, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be controlled by the gentleman from the great State of Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I simply want to add my support for this legislation. Prior to coming to this body as a Member of Congress, I was in the U.S. Army Reserves for a number of years, over 30 years. I have had the experience, the personal experience, of commanding a unit that received an activation notice; and I have had the personal experience of being involved with not only deployed soldiers but soldiers whose families have been left behind. I have received that phone call from the wife of a deployed soldier saying, I cannot afford to pay the rent. My husband made more money in the civilian sector than he made as a deployed soldier, and I am behind in my rent, and I run the risk of being evicted. And I have had to wrestle with that issue even to the point of offering to pass the hat among those unit members who stayed behind to see if we could help her stay in her home while her husband was overseas defending our Nation, our people, our values, and our interests.

I have had a deployed soldier come back to find that there was no job even though he thought his job was guaranteed. In fact, the job he had as the head of a division of a larger corporation was restructured and reorganized. So the division was no longer there; so the job was no longer there.

It is incumbent upon us as Members of Congress to ensure that these anecdotal, but horrible, stories do not occur again. It is incumbent upon us as Members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs to ensure that the public policy of this Nation treats our veterans, our reserves, and our National Guard fairly and equitably when they are called up, activated, and deployed to fight for us in foreign lands around the world, to ensure that their jobs are waiting for them when they return, to ensure that their families are not put under a financial burden as a consequence of their service.

This is not an issue relative to one party or another. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is an issue which we as Americans must address, and that is what this legislation does. I thank my colleagues in the committee for their bipartisan approach to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) from the first district, which I understand has more veterans per capita than any other district in this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record copies of letters between our committee and the Committee on Financial Services regarding section 207(d) of H.R. 100, as amended.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2003.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding

section 207(d) of H.R. 100, as amended, the Servicemembers

Civil Relief Act. I understand your concern about the

section's definition of the term ``interest'' and will amend

it to reflect the substance of the current provision on

interest in section 206 of the current Soldiers' and Sailors'

Civil Relief Act.

While the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction

over soldiers' and sailors' civil relief under clause 1(r) of

rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I

appreciate the interest of the Committee on Financial

Services in all matters under its jurisdiction including

those stated in your letter.

Our letters will be included in the record during floor

consideration of H.R. 100, as amended, and you may be assured

of my continued consultation on these matters.

Sincerely,

Christopher H. Smith,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, introduced by my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers are now courageously serving our Nation in Iraq and other dangerous parts of the world. No group of Americans has made or will make as valuable a contribution or as great a sacrifice or will have as much to be proud of as the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The legislation before us today will ensure that these brave men and women serving overseas and defending the ideals of our Nation are not preoccupied with financial security and the well-being of their families at home.

Among the many hazards confronted by men and women in uniform, not all of them are found on the battlefield or on foreign soil or at high seas. Some of their challenges originate here at home, even though they are countless miles away. To make matters worse, these are challenges that not only the men and women who sign up for duty must face, but their family members as well.

Many of these challenges are financial. In various ways, members of the Armed Forces, and in particular members of the National Guard and Reserve who leave jobs, good jobs, homes and families at a moment's notice, face tremendous economic burdens as a result of their willingness to serve. It is at least within our power and the power of this Congress to do something about that, to provide some level of economic security and stability.

I am pleased that measures that I proposed in my bill from the 107th Congress, H.R. 3173, are included in the legislation before us today. One of these provisions is the inclusion of a monthly rental protection increase. Under current law, an activated military member's family with housing payments of $1,200 or less cannot be evicted for failure to pay rent. H.R. 100 raises the protected rental amount to $1,700, a figure that will be indexed.

When the members of our Armed Forces trade in the comforts of their home for barracks in a country thousands of miles away, they should have the peace of mind they are not going to be evicted and their families put on the street. I applaud the inclusion of this specific measure.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act also makes technical updates and clarifies the old law that dates back to 1940. I am pleased that changes in H.R. 100 changes the language of the Soldiers and Sailors Act to better reflect the true composition of our military, and the brave and willing women who sacrifice for our Nation are now included. A family's loss of income does not simply occur when a father or husband leaves his regular job for service, but when a mother or wife does the same.

Outdated language, such as the use of the word ``wife'' to describe dependents eligible for protection while a member is on duty, flies in the face of these brave women honorably serving our Nation. I appreciate that among the technical changes and updates, H.R. 100 replaces such references with gender-neutral language.

I support H.R. 100, and am pleased that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do as well. I urge a yes vote on this important and timely bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of American service personnel serve our Nation proudly around the world in the name of freedom. In Indiana alone, over 4,000 National Guard and Reserve units have been called to active duty in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as homeland security.

Over the past several months, many of us have been asked by constituents what they can do to help lessen the burden on our military personnel and their families. Today, by voting in support of H.R. 100, each of us has an opportunity to make a real difference.

This legislation strengthens and expands protections to our service personnel and their families during Presidential call-ups like those in place today.

Specifically, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: (1) Provides some protections to the families of our armed forces from eviction due to nonpayment of rent while on active duty--up to certain limits; (2) provides automatic stays on civil court proceedings while on active duty; and (3) provides a ceiling on interest of 6 percent on outstanding loans while they are on active duty.

While this legislation does provide some measures of reprieve, I support Chairman Smith's efforts in this bill which reflects the need to be fair to all parties involved by imposing on the courts the obligation to determine whether the military service of the individual had a material effect on his/her ability to protect the rights or to meet financial obligations.

This legislation also includes substantive changes I sought to address concerns regarding protections to services members and their families who fall behind on car lease payments while called to active duty.

However, not all my concerns could be addressed. I am working with my colleagues as well as the private sector including the Automobile Alliance to address this matter in another form.

Finally, while this measure provides substantive economic protections to those who serve and their families, those in the private sector should realize that this bill and other federal laws merely set ceilings and not floors. Specifically, we set the ceiling of 6 percent on the amount of interest on loans that were incurred before entering military service.

Those who have answered our President's call to serve are doing so at some financial burden--in some cases at a great financial burden-- though they do so willingly and are making this Nation proud. To that end, a grateful Nation comes to them on bended knee in appreciation.

Therefore, I challenge those in the financial services sector to match what some have done on their own, like the Congressional Federal Credit Union, and lower their interest rate on existing loans to 0 percent while our men and women are carrying out their missions both here and abroad.

I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 100 and for the private sector to meet the challenge I have set forth.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

I do rise today in support of H.R. 100. This remarkable piece of legislation restates, clarifies, and strengthens the legal protections afforded the courageous men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. The current Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 has had only a few minor changes since World War II. The law is in need of a comprehensive updating to reflect the considerable changes that have taken place in the United States over the past 60 years. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 is one of the most far-reaching laws on the books, and its constitutional authority is derived from article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the War Powers Clause. Its provisions impact all Federal, State, and administrative law.

The process that we come to today of updating this act has been 10 years in the making at the hands of numerous military and government officials and has been a project of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs on which I served for over a year. Each provision has been fully vetted and carefully crafted by experts in the areas of civil law and military affairs. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman; the attentive Committee on Veterans Affairs staff; and everyone who has had a hand in this particular project over the last decade.

H.R. 100 will bring many major improvements. It will increase coverage in maximum monthly rent of $1,200 to $1,700 to prevent evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers and their dependents. It will expand the right to terminate real property leases by allowing lease termination if a servicemember, while serving, executes a lease and then receives orders for a permanent change of station move or a deployment order of 90 days or more, and it requires a court order before a lessor can terminate a servicemember's installment contract for lease of any personal property, which would apply to all automobile leases.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 100 brings modern relief to our modern Armed Forces and has strong support from the veterans service groups and military associations.

As President Bush said, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on the United States Armed Forces. That trust is well placed and our valiant servicemembers deserve to have their

burdens, the ones that they and their loved ones face, reduced as they fight the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 100 we are doing our duty to help ease those burdens.