A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to make permanent the rates of hostile fire and imminent danger special pay and family separation allowance for members of the uniformed services as increased by the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003.

Mr. President, I have joined Senator Daschle in introducing a bill today that would make permanent the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance passed by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Last spring, when the Senate considered the Budget Resolution, it passed, by a vote of 100 to 0, an amendment I offered with Senator Landrieu that would have allowed for $1 billion to cover the increase in these special pay categories.

Then when the Senate considered the Fiscal Year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, it unanimously accepted an amendment I offered with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, increasing these pay categories for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The amendment we offered to the supplemental, sunset these pay increases, not because we wished to end them, but simply to allow the Armed Services Committee--the Committee of Jurisdiction--to increase these pay levels in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill, which it did.

Now, when soldiers are dying in Iraq and military families have been separated for many months, we hear that the administration wishes to cut these pay increases in the conference committee.

The Statement of Administration Policy on the House version of the bill objects to the provision increasing both pay categories, saying it would ``divert resources unnecessarily.'' The statement on the Senate bill only objects to the increase in Family Separation Allowance.

When confronted with questions about why the administration wanted to reduce these pay categories, Defense Department spokesman, Under Secretary David Chu, came up with the classic Washington non-denial denial. On August 14, Chu said:

I'd just like very quickly to put to rest what I understand

has been a burgeoning rumor that somehow we are going to

reduce compensation for those serving in Iraq and

Afghanistan. That is not true . . .

What I think you're pointing to is one piece of a very

thick technical appeal document that speaks to the question,

do we want to extend the language Congress used in the Family

Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay statutes. And

no, we don't think we need to extend that language. That's a

different statement from, are we going to reduce compensation

for those in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .

What do these statements mean?

Evidently the administration wants to claim that it will keep compensation the same for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, through other pay categories, but does indeed intend to roll back the increases to Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance.

This means that a soldier getting shot at fighting the war on terrorism in Yemen or the Philippines would receive less money than one who is similarly risking his or her life in Iraq. This means that a family bearing huge costs because of burdensome, long-term deployments would only be helped if the service member is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, but not if that same service member is deployed anywhere else in the world.

It is unfair to cut funding intended to help military families that are bearing the costs of far-flung U.S. deployments. It is unacceptable that imminent danger would be worth less in one combat zone than in another.

The bill we introduce today makes a clear statement that these pay categories should be increased permanently and should not be cut in conference.

Until these pay levels were increased in the supplemental, an American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who put his or her life on the line in imminent danger only received an extra $150 per month. My amendment increased that amount to $225 per month--still only an acknowledgment of their courage, but an increase nonetheless.

Prior to the increase in the Supplemental Appropriations bill, Family Separation had been only $100 per month. We succeeded in raising it to $250 per month.

These increases are only part of a normal progression of increases-- for example, in 1965, Imminent Danger Pay was $55; $100 in 1985, and raised to $150 in 1991. Family Separation Allowance was $30 in 1970, $60 in 1985, $75 in 1991, and $100 in 1997.

Family Separation Allowance was originally intended to pay for things that the deployed service member would have done, like cut the grass, that the spouse may then have had to hire someone to do. That may well have been appropriate in the past, but now most families have two working spouses--sometimes two working military spouses--and the absence of one or both parents may add huge child care costs that even the increased rate is unlikely to cover.

Military spouses sometimes find that they must give up their jobs or curtail their working hours in order to take up the family responsibilities that otherwise would have been shared by the missing spouse.

Examples of increased costs that families may incur when military personnel are deployed, in addition to increased child care costs, include: health care costs not covered by TRICARE; for example, the cost of counseling for children having a difficult time with their parents' deployment; costs for the family of an activated Reservist or National Guard member to travel to mobilization briefings, which may be in another state; various communication and information-gathering costs.

I would like to quote for the Record from an article that appeared in The Washington Post on April 11, 2003, entitled ``Military Familes Turn to Aid Groups,'' that outlines how military families have had to rely on private aid organizations to help them when their spouses are deployed. The article highlights the case of one mother, Michele Mignosa and says:

The last 18 months have brought one mishap or another to

Michelle Mignosa. Her husband, Kevin, is an Air Force

reservist who since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has

been away from their Lancaster, Calif., home almost as much

as he's been there. First, there were the out-of-state trips

to provide airport security. Then he was deployed to Turkey

for 2\1/2\ months last spring. Now he's in Greece with an

air-refueling unit. . . . And while he has been gone, the

problems have piled up at home. . . . Strapped for cash since

giving up her part-time job because of Kevin's frequent far-

off postings, she didn't know where the money would come from

to resolve yet another problem.

I applaud the efforts of private aid groups to help military families, but I believe that it is the duty of the U.S. Government to cover more of the costs incurred because of military deployments. If should not matter to which country the service member is deployed. Cuts must not be made to funds helping military families that are bearing the costs of war, homeland security, and U.S. military commitments abroad.

To say that pay will not decrease to those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is ignoring the truth--rolling back Family Separation Allowance from $250 per month to $100 per month will cost our military families and could be especially painful for those living on the edge.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill that Senator Daschle and I introduce today and make a strong statement to the Defense Department that Congress will not stand for cutting Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance.

3_____

Mr. President, the Senate is expected to consider important legislation that will affect the pensions of millions of Americans and

their families during the 108th Congress. In the last Congress we provided greater security to pensions by correcting the accounting abuses that lay at the heart of the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies-- bankruptcies that caused the employees of these companies to lose their life savings and hurt the investment portfolios of thousands of individual investors.

Today, I am introducing legislation to correct a unique problem under ERISA for States with community property laws. The issue came to light in the 1997 Supreme Court decision in the case of Boggs v. Boggs. The Court held that ERISA preempted the application of Louisiana's community property law in the disposition of pension benefits. While the case originated in Louisiana, the holding tears a hole in the fabric of community property laws of seven other States, Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Idaho.

Long before the women's movement, community property laws stood for the basic premise that a marriage is an economic, as well as social, child rearing partnership in which the ownership of property acquired during the marriage is shared equally. The Boggs case involved a husband and wife. The husband began accumulating benefits in a pension plan after they got married. The wife did not have a pension plan, but under the community property law of Louisiana, half of her husband's benefits were hers. The wife died before her husband retired, and before the plan's benefits were subject to distribution. In her will she left her interest in the pension benefits to her husband for the rest of his life, with the remaining interest to her sons for after her husband died. The husband subsequently remarried, retired, and ultimately died, leaving property to his second wife and an interest in his remaining assets to his sons. The sons attempted to enforce their State-law interest in the pension benefits bequeathed to them by their mother against the second wife. The Supreme Court held against the sons, saying that they were not beneficiaries of, nor participants in, the pension plan under ERISA.

This holding goes against the fundamental principles of community property. What the Court is saying is that although a husband's 401K plan may contain a million dollars of deferred earnings accumulated during the course of his marriage, if his wife dies before he retires, her interest terminates; she co-owned none of it. The fundamental principle of marriage as an equal partnership under community property is rendered meaningless by this decision.

The Boggs ruling will also lead to conflicting results in the disposition of assets at death in community property States. If, instead, the money had been put in an ordinary savings account that is not covered by ERISA, half of it would have been owned by the wife as community property in recognition of her contribution to the marriage. At her death, she would have been free to dispose of the assets as she saw fit. Furthermore, after Boggs, if a couple has both a 401K plan and a savings account, upon the death of the wife the husband gets all of the 401K plan plus half of the savings account; the wife's estate gets only half of the savings account. That is not the equal outcome community property laws seek.

The legislation that I am proposing will create a narrow exception within the ERISA preemption provisions to address the circumstances under Boggs. Instead of losing the community property interest in any non-forfeitable accrued pension benefits at death, a spouse will retain that interest and will be able to pass that interest on to his or her heirs. This is not an exceptional change to ERISA. What I am proposing does not affect the joint and survivor annuity required by ERISA nor does it prevent the participant from having the use and enjoyment of the entire retirement asset until his death. It does not place any new burden on the retirement plan administrators. It envisions that upon the death of the participant, the State probate court will apply normal community property principles, taking into account the value of the retirement assets at the time of the participant's death, in distributing the participant's property between the heirs of the participant and the heirs of the predeceased spouse. Furthermore, each community property State will have the freedom to implement the amendment by whatever means the State deems best, including the option not to implement the amendment at all.

ERISA already contains exceptions to its preemption provisions. One applies to divorce or other Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. This exception, added to ERISA by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, allows States to apply their community property laws or equitable division laws to retirement assets when a couple gets divorced. A divorced spouse can retain an interest in the undistributed pension assets of their ex-husband or wife. As it now stands, therefore, ERISA is more favorable to a spouse who divorced the participant before dying, than a spouse who remained married to the participant until death.

The Senate should act to reaffirm the principles of community property. My legislation upholds the basic ideal of community property law: that marriage is a partnership that values as equal the contributions of both the husband and the wife. This notion of equality holds true whether one spouse worked and the other stayed at home. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that is as simple as it is significant. It promises our soldiers that while they fight to protect us, we will do what we can do protect them and their families by not allowing their pay to be cut.

Each day brings a fresh reminder of the debt we owe our men and women in uniform. Today, well over 200,000 Americans are stationed abroad, many facing hostile fire in difficult conditions, thousands of miles from home. In spite of enormous difficulties, they have served magnificently, bringing honor to their families and their country.

In light of all that we read in our daily newspapers about our soldiers' heroic performance, it should be unthinkable that anyone would consider cutting their pay. But this isn't a rumor or some errant bureaucratic proposal. Unless the President and the Congress act soon, many of our soldiers will see their monthly pay reduced by as much as $225 at the end of the current fiscal year. My legislation would help us honor the debt we owe to our soldiers by making permanent the rates of pay currently provided to our soldiers.

Unfortunately, we have received very mixed messages from the administration about their position on this issue. In July, the Defense Department issued a position paper to the Congress expressing its views on military pay and a series of other legislative proposals. According to the official Pentagon document, the Defense Department urged Congress to reduce our troops' pay. Last month, the San Francisco Chronicle, in an article entitled ``Troops In Iraq Face Pay Cut,'' reported, ``The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness, and 120-degree plus heat. . . . The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments and a host of other priorities.''

Not surprisingly, these reports triggered a fire storm. The administration quickly backpedaled. Its latest position is that pay will be kept at current levels for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but pay for troops deployed abroad in other countries should be cut. This does a disservice to the men and women who have chosen to risk their lives for their country and have been deployed far from their homes and their families.

At a time when we are asking so much of these troops and their families, it is inconceivable to me that this Nation can't sustain current pay levels for all troops deployed abroad and that the administration would not fully support this proposition.

The legislation would send a clear signal to all of our troops, both those deployed abroad and those facing the possibility of deployment in the coming weeks and months. This Nation recognizes and appreciates the risks they take on our behalf and we honor our commitment to them. I urge the administration and my colleagues to join with me in this effort. Our troops and their families deserve no less.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Women's Pension Protection Act of 2003, and I commend her for her commitment.

Retirement security is essential for all Americans, but too often we have failed to meet the needs of women on this basic issue. Women live longer than men, but they continue to earn far less in wages over their lifetimes. Women are much less likely to benefit from the private pension system. Just as women receive less pay and less recognition of their contributions in the workplace, they also receive fewer retirement benefits.

Women's lack of retirement security is based in the unfair treatment they face in the workplace. Women still earn only 76 percent of the wages of men, and this gap in pay leads to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lower pay over their careers. Women are twice as likely as men to work in part-time jobs without benefits. They are much more likely to spend time out of the workforce to meet their family responsibilities. All of these factors translate into seriously inadequate retirement income for vast numbers of women.

The realities of this injustice are grim. According to the most recent Census data, fewer than 20 percent of women age 65 and over are receiving private pension income--and these women are receiving an average of only $4,200 a year in such income, compared with $7,800 for men. Minority women are in even more desperate straits--only 15 percent of African-American women and 8 percent of Hispanic women receive pension income.

As a result of these lower wages, longer lifespans and unfair pensions, nearly one in five older single women are living in poverty.

Almost twenty years ago, we modified federal pension laws to provide greater protections for women in their retirements. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 required defined benefit pension plans to pay survivor benefits, unless the spouse waived this protection. The time has come to extend and expand these protections. In many cases, the amount a spouse receives as a survivor benefit is often far too little to provide adequate support. The existing protections do not cover 401(k) and other defined contribution plans--which are now the only retirement assistance for over half of the American who have private pensions.

Under the legislation we are introducing today, women will have greater retirement security. They will have greater say in the management of their husband's 401(k) funds. Widows will have more generous survivor benefits. Divorced women will have a greater ability to receive a share of their former husband's pension after a divorce. Our legislation offer long overdue improvements in the private system, so that retirement savings programs are more responsive to the realities of women's lives and careers. Congress must do all it can to strengthen women's retirement security and end the many inequities that affect women in our current pension laws. I urge my colleagues to support the Women's Pension Protection Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.