[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5004-S5010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1754. A bill to designate the United States Courthouse at 235 
North Washington Avenue in Scranton, PA, as the ``William J. Nealon 
United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


     the william j. nealon u.s. courthouse designation act of 1996

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
name the new U.S. courthouse being constructed in Scranton, PA, for one 
of Pennsylvania's most distinguished Federal judges, Judge William 
Nealon.
  Judge Nealon was born and raised in Scranton and attended its public 
schools. After service in the Marine Corps during the Second War, Judge 
Nealon graduated from Villanova University and then received a law 
degree from Catholic University here in Washington. Returning to 
Scranton to practice law, he became a widely respected trial lawyer. 
When a vacancy opened up on the Lackawanna County Court of Common 
Pleas, Judge Nealon was appointed by President Kennedy to serve as U.S. 
district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At the time of 
his appointment, Judge Nealon was the youngest Federal judge in the 
Nation.
  Judge Nealon has served the people of the middle district of 
Pennsylvania for almost 34 years since then, including over 12 years 
chief judge of the court. He has been widely respected among the bar of 
the middle district for his intelligence, dedication, and judicial 
demeanor. Throughout his long career, he has been considered by many to 
be the model of a trial judge.
  Judge Nealon has been active in many efforts to improve the 
administration of justice across the Nation. He served as the 
representative of the third circuit to the Committee on the 
Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States for 6 years. For 4 years he served as a member of the 
Third Circuit Judicial Council, and for 3 years, from 1987 to 1990, he 
was elected by the other district judges in the third circuit to serve 
as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
policymaking body that oversees the Federal courts.

[[Page S5005]]

  To this record of distinction in his professional career, Judge 
Nealon can add a record a community involvement matched by few others. 
It can truly be said that Scranton is a better place because of Judge 
Nealon. He is a former chairman of the board of Mercy Hospital in 
Scranton, of the Scranton Catholic Youth Center, and of the University 
of Scranton. He has also served as a member of the board of Lackawanna 
Junior College, St. Michael's School for Boys, the Everhart Museum, and 
the Scranton-Lackawanna Health and Welfare Authority. He has received 
the Distinguished Service Award from the Boy Scouts of America and was 
the 1995 recipient of the Champion of Youth Award of the Boys & Girls 
Clubs of Scranton, in addition to numerous awards from legal and 
academic institutions.
  One would think that this lengthy record of accomplishment would be 
enough for any one person, but Judge Nealon has also raised an 
outstanding family. He and his wife Jean have 10 children and 26 
grandchildren.
  Earlier this year, I sponsored Senate passage of a bill introduced in 
the House by Representative Kanjorski to name the U.S. Courthouse in 
Wilkes-Barre after Judge Max Rosenn of the third circuit, Wilkes-
Barre's leading jurist. I can think of no one more deserving than Judge 
Nealon of the honor of having the new U.S. Courthouse in Scranton named 
after him.

  I am pleased to introduce this legislation. I hope my colleagues will 
support it and that the Senate will adopt it this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1754

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The United States Courthouse at 235 North Washington Avenue 
     in Scranton, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as 
     the ``William J. Nealon United States Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``William J. Nealon United States Courthouse''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1755. A bill to amend the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act providing that insurance shall be available under the 
Noninsured Crop Assistance Program for native pasture for livestock, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


 the federal agriculture improvement and reform act of 1996 amendment 
                              act of 1996

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, we are having a drought 
in the State of New Mexico that is about as serious a situation as we 
have had. We have read about the forest fires. Obviously, the forest is 
dry, but, also, the grazing land is dry. The ranchers are unable to 
graze cattle. That is a very important part of our life in New Mexico.
  Today, I am introducing a bill. Yesterday, I introduced one with 
Senator Bingaman. He was the prime sponsor. Today he joins me in this 
one, which would take some of the assistance that is given for other 
crops in the event of a disaster and make that apply to the forage that 
goes for cattle. We think maybe it was intended, but it is not clear.
  So this would provide emergency relief to some of the cattle people 
in our State and in the arid parts of America where we are having a 
disaster with drought. It makes some of this available to them. Because 
of the forage they use for the cattle, it would make that subject to 
the same kind of emergency assistance as other crops when those crops 
are in a drought situation.
  Mr. President, yesterday, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a bill 
that would provide short-term assistance for our cattle producers in 
New Mexico and across the United States.
  Cattle producers are suffering economically due to historically low 
cattle prices, and high feed costs.
  In New Mexico, these conditions are made even worse by extensive 
drought conditions, which have had an impact on some areas of the State 
for 3 years.
  The Bingaman-Domenici bill would provide $18 million in feed 
assistance, by extending the authority of the for the Emergency 
Livestock Feed Program through the end of this calendar year.
  This assistance is extremely urgent for livestock producers in 
drought-affected areas.
  In some parts of States like New Mexico, producers typically harvest 
and store feed reserves for the coming winter during the summer months, 
while their livestock graze on high country summer pastures.
  Many of these summer ranges are located on Federal land, and in order 
to prevent overuse during the drought, many of these areas will not be 
available for grazing this year.
  In order to maintain enough livestock to remain in business, many 
producers will be forced to graze areas that would normally be set 
aside for hay and winter feed production, leaving them little or no 
forage to get them through the coming winter.
  The temporary extension of this program through December will allow 
the Secretary to provide these individuals with assistance in obtaining 
these needed feed resources.
  Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that will provide a 
more permanent solution.
  This bill would clarify in law, as is currently the case in USDA 
regulations, that native pasture for grazing livestock would qualify 
under the Noninsured Crop Assistance Program [NAP].
  Specifically, the bill would amend the law to read:

       The term ``eligible crop'' shall include floricultural, 
     ornamental nursery and Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, 
     seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), native 
     pasture for livestock, and industrial crops.

  NAP was created under the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1994 and 
amended in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1966 
[FAIR].
  The NAP is a disaster program for noninsured crops. Following a major 
crop loss, it provides benefits similar to those for insurable crops, 
but only at the catastrophic level.
  This is by no means a windfall for livestock producers; on the 
contrary, catastrophic coverage provides a minimal benefit in a 
disaster, or emergency cases of the most dire need.
  This bill has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO], however, if CBO scores a cost with the bill I will provide an 
offset to ensure that it remains budget neutral.
  I understand that the current regulations provide NAP catastrophic 
coverage for improved and native pasture.
  I am concerned, however, that without the clarification provided by 
this legislation, the inclusion of native pasture may be at risk as the 
administration promulgates its new regulations under the FAIR Act.
  Mr. President, I believe that failing to provide assistance to our 
ranchers today will cost us tomorrow. Many communities in New Mexico 
depend on the cattle industry.
  In fact, livestock products accounted for $1.1 billion of cash 
receipts for all agricultural commodities in New Mexico in 1994.
  The support we give our livestock industry during this period of 
drought, low prices, and high feed costs will save numerous small, 
family-owned business in these devastated areas.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this clarification to 
existing law.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1756. A bill to provide additional pension security for spouses 
and former spouses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                 The Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, pension policy decisions will 
determine, in no small part, the kind of life Americans will live in 
their older years. The amount invested in retirement savings has an 
important impact on our national savings rate, our economy generally, 
and the kind of life every American lives today. Now, more than ever, 
therefore, all Americans

[[Page S5006]]

need to consider the role that pensions play in determining the quality 
of life for retirees, and the implications of pension policy decisions 
for our society as a whole.
  Pension issues are convoluted yet critically important. I am reminded 
of a poem written by the late Karl Llewellyn, a professor at my alma 
mater, the University of Chicago, in connection with an introduction to 
the study of the law.
  Entitled ``The Bramble Bush,'' the poem said: ``I jumped into the 
bramble bush and scratched my eyes out; I jumped out of the bramble 
bush and scratched my eyes in again.'' As a student, I had no idea what 
he was talking about. Later in life, I understood that he meant the 
bramble bush as an analogy to the law. One had to master the 
complexities and details of it--by jumping in--in order to reach 
understanding of the whole--upon jumping out.
  And so it is, I think, with pension reform. The subject has been 
called esoteric, abstruse, mysterious, even eye glazing, but in the 
final analysis it is really about whether our society will arrange a 
system of security for people who have gone past their earning and 
working years, or whether our society will make retirement a 
determinant of a widening income gap between the rich and the poor. It 
is about fairness and gender equity and economic power. It goes to the 
heart of our challenge to treat the end of life as the golden years 
rather than the disposable years. It is about the permanence of the 
American dream.
  The importance of retirement savings and investment to our Nation's 
economy, as well as to individuals, cannot be overstated. We should 
encourage private saving, and our pension laws should reflect that 
policy goal. It is equally important that these laws be reality based, 
and that reform should address the elimination of historical and 
institutional inequities and unfairness. Fairness is fundamental. 
Women, however, have traditionally been the overlooked and silent 
unintended beneficiaries of policy decisions which reinforce 
institutional sexism.

  Our pension system was not designed for working women, either those 
in the work force or in the home. Countless statistics show that women 
are far more likely to spend the final years of their lives in poverty. 
Women make up 60 percent of seniors over 65 years old, but 75 percent 
of the elderly poor. An elderly woman is twice as likely as a man to 
live below the poverty line. These women are more likely than not to 
live alone. The demographics of mortality differences between men and 
women were never adequately addressed in the development of policy for 
retirement security. That a woman is more likely to be widowed, or 
divorced in retirement was similarly not taken into account. Pension 
policy making has traditionally been predicated on a fictionalized 
model of women's role in the society and the economy.
  Over a lifetime, women earn about two-thirds of a man's income. Since 
pensions are based on a formula which combine the number of years of 
work and salary earned, women suffer a gender gap that carries over 
into retirement. As a result, women are far more likely to receive 
inadequate pension support. Moreover, because women are more often 
called upon to interrupt jobs in order to raise children or care for 
sick relatives, pension security is a more illusive objective for us.
  A 25-year-old man--on average--will spend 70 percent of his adult 
life in the work force, while a woman will spend less than 45 percent 
of her adult life in the work force. What this can mean is that a woman 
with a 40-year career who takes 7 years out of the work force may get 
half of the pension benefits she might have enjoyed with continuous 
employment. Our real support for the care-giving role of women in our 
society is more accurately reflected in this fact than in all of the 
platitudes given ``family values.''
  For women who never enter the work force, the jeopardy of divorce or 
widowhood can mean the difference between security and penury. It is 
estimated that nearly 80 percent of women who are poor as widows were 
not poor before their husbands died.
  These are costs not just borne by the individual affected directly, 
but by our society as a whole, as the widening income gap occasioned 
and influenced by pension inequities shows up as increased demand for 
transfer payments and public support.
  Retirement security has been likened to a three-legged stool. Social 
Security, private pensions, and personal savings constitute the basis 
of an income stream for the later years of life.
  Social Security, contrary to popular opinion, is not now nor has it 
ever been adequate to support a comfortable retirement. The average 
Social Security benefit earned by a woman who worked outside the home 
today provides about $538 a month, less than the minimum wage. Social 
Security provides about 40 percent of a workers' income while working. 
Our system assumes the other legs of the stool will help make up the 
difference.

  However, only one third of private sector retirees receive a private 
pension. Of those, there are essentially two variants: the defined 
benefit plan and the defined contribution plan. The former is 
structured around the guaranteed payout or benefit upon retirement. The 
latter is structured around the treatment of payments into the plan 
during the working years. It is probably a commentary on the change in 
the climate of policy making that the traditional benefit plan is being 
overtaken as the approach of choice by the newer products associated 
with contribution plans.
  As to personal savings, we have in this country the lowest private 
savings rate in the industrialized world, a source of great hand 
wringing among economists and policy makers. Given that the baby boom 
is about to become the elder explosion--with a baby boomer turning 50 
every 7 seconds this year--efforts to promote personal frugality are 
among the policy challenges of the pension debate.
  And yet, pensions represent a major part of the wealth of our Nation. 
There are 700,000 private pension plans in this country worth $3.4 
trillion dollars (one trillion equals $1 per second for 32,000 years). 
The Federal Government provides about $75 billion annually in tax 
incentives to encourage pension savings, a tax expenditure which has 
never really been coordinated with the direct investment in Social 
Security. Pension contributions now total roughly $42 billion annually, 
making them the single largest source of private investment capital.
  A playing field this vast has got to be fair to the whole community, 
and so the need for equity for women has never been greater.
  The Congress has taken steps to correct the inequities facing women. 
In particular, the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 made several important 
changes, requiring that workers receive the consent of their spouses 
with regard to retirement benefits after death. It also required that 
private pension plans honor State court orders to divide pension 
benefits in divorce proceedings. This legislation made pensions 
accessible to millions of workers, widows, and divorced homemakers, but 
only if they understand the law or the legal forms. These, and other 
reforms, have made a difference. However, the issues continue to 
confound us, and further change is essential.
  Pension maintenance, particularly in the context of divorce and 
widowhood, remains a challenge. In 10 years the IRS has not come up 
with clear guidance for the circumstances under which one can sign away 
pension rights. It is time to provide for informed decisionmaking, and 
for the equitable division of such rights in case of divorce. 
Similarly, the rules pertaining to pension distribution among 
Government employees--both military and civil service--should not 
penalize the divorced or widowed spouse.
  I am here today to introduce legislation which will begin to address 
the problems women face as they try to hold on to their pension for 
their retirement. The Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996:
  It creates a simple model of the form that a woman must sign in order 
to waive her benefits if she survives her husband.
  And by the way, I point out that the language of the bill is gender 
neutral, so in that regard it would refer to men as well.
  It creates a model of the form that couples must use if they wish to 
divide a pension upon divorce that includes contingencies for pre- and 
post-retirement survivors benefits.
  It allows a widow or divorced widow to collect their husband's civil 
service pension if he dies after leaving his civil service job and 
before collecting his pension benefits.

[[Page S5007]]

  It allows a court that awards a woman part of her husband's civil 
service pension upon divorce, to extend that award to any lump sum 
payment made if the husband dies before collecting benefits.
  It extends the military pension benefits awarded to a spouse upon 
divorce in cases where the husband rolled that pension over into a 
civil service pension.
  It allows a spouse to continue receiving Tier II railroad retirement 
benefits awarded upon divorce, upon the death of her husband.
  I should like to take a moment to further describe what these 
provisions do and give some examples of the problems this legislation 
solves.
  Sometimes a woman buries her husband only to discover that she has 
nothing. Her husband did not understand--and neither did she--that if 
they signed the survivor benefits waiver, she would get nothing if he 
died.
  As one woman wrote:

       My husband . . . died 12/11/91. [He] and I were together 
     for 40 years . . . At . . . retirement he opt[ed] to get the 
     maximum. I know that he didn't realize what he had did 
     because he kept telling everyone that his wife would be 
     independent if he predeceased me. . . .
       Till the day before he passed he must have know something 
     was happening to him. He told me ``you have nothing to worry 
     about.'' I was shocked when his job told, ``I would get 
     nothing''.
  That was an actual quote, and you can see that the Syntax and the 
grammar were a little fractionated in the letter.
  This woman is not educated. She and her husband counted on his 
pension to carry them through retirement. When they signed some pension 
forms from the company, the forms did not state clearly enough that she 
would lose her pension if he died.
  This happens, unfortunately, all too frequently it is a very sad 
situation to face.
  Women also unknowingly give up their future right to a share of their 
husbands' pension benefits when they divorce and do not sign a complete 
Qualified Domestic Relations Order, QDRO. Pensions are often the most 
valuable asset a couple owns--earned together during their years of 
marriage.
  Judy Horstman of Joliet, IL, was divorced in October 1989, after 23 
years of marriage. She was awarded half of her husbands pension from 
his 18 years of service with General Motors. Her husband continued to 
work in the plant until he died in November 1990. When he died, she 
received no pension from General Motors. She was informed that she was 
no longer entitled to any of his benefits because her divorce decree 
only referred to joint and survivor's benefits, not pre-retirement 
benefits in case he died. Because he died before retirement and not 
after, and because her lawyer forgot to put one line in writing, she 
lost her rights to a pension.
  Judy Horstman lost her right to retain part of her husbands pension 
because her lawyer did not know the right questions to ask. They missed 
something when they wrote the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and so 
now, 7 years later, Judy still has no pension benefits from her 24 
years of marriage.
  This bill simplifies the spousal consent form so that average women 
can read and understand it. It also simplifies the QDRO for women, 
lawyers, and businesses so everyone knows what to consider and include 
in a divorce decree.
  And it also includes provisions to correct some of the most illogical 
parts of pension laws that are unduly harmful for women. Let me give 
you four examples of the problems the bill will fix.
  First, when a couple is married for 30 years, and the husband is in 
the military, upon divorce the court can ensure that the wife receives 
50 percent of the pension benefits.
  If, however, the husband leaves the military after the divorce, 
enters the civil service, and rolls his military pension over into his 
Government pension, his wife loses any claim on her spouse's pension. 
This legislation ensures that this kind of injustice will not occur in 
the future.
  Second, a husband working in the civil service leaves his job to work 
outside the Government. He does not begin collecting his pension yet, 
because he has not yet retired.
  If he dies after leaving the civil service and before collecting 
pension benefits, his widow receives nothing. If he died while working 
in the civil service or after retirement, she would receive a 
survivor's pension from the Federal Government. This legislation 
ensures that this kind of injustice will not occur in the future.
  Third, a husband dies before retirement and his civil service pension 
is rolled over into a lump sum payment to whomever he names as his 
beneficiary.
  The courts cannot require that he name his ex-wife as a partial 
beneficiary even if the court awarded her a portion of his pension. 
This legislation ensures that this kind of injustice will not occur in 
the future.
  Fourth, an ex-wife has been awarded a portion of her husbands tier II 
railroad retirement benefits. The tier II benefits are the equivalent 
of a private pension for the railroad retirees. The ex-husband dies and 
her Tier II benefits cease immediately.
  In other words, at the moment he dies her private pension rights die 
with him.
  This legislation ensures that this kind of injustice will not occur 
in the future.
  These are just some examples of the kinds of unjust, ridiculous, 
confusing, and harmful pension laws this legislation addresses. These 
initiatives help bring about equity in the pension system for married 
women.
  I am keenly aware that we must address broader issues as well. And we 
will address them. We should focus on making participation in private 
pension plans easier, and not the game of roulette which all too often 
leaves people surprised at their retirement. Women, particularly, 
should not be penalized for career interruptions by vesting rules which 
require long-term employment. Current vesting rules depend on 5 years 
of continuing employment. The average job tenure for women is around 4 
years--again, going in and out of the work force because of family 
demands very often. Women should not be penalized for taking care of 
their families.
  Portability, an issue which is even now being debated in the Congress 
in the context of health security, remains a hurdle for retirement 
security.
  The President's recently unveiled Retirement Savings and Security Act 
addresses portability in regards to the popular 401(k) plans, and is a 
welcomed advance in this area. We need to continue to address the 
ability of workers to transfer earned pensions.
  Women who have spent many years in the work force should be able to 
count on their own pension income during retirement. It is important 
that we both improve the situation for women after a divorce or the 
death of a spouse, and the situation for women entering the work force. 
It is important to recognize that these issues of financial security go 
hand in hand. I will continue to work with my colleagues to bring 
pension equity to all aspects of the nation's pension laws.
  Retirement security is not an expense we cannot afford. It is an 
investment we cannot avoid. Our economy will benefit. Our society will 
benefit. Our people will benefit if we undertake the macro and micro 
challenges of this issue.
  The Bramble Bush illustrates that we are all in this together, and, 
if with Grace, we live long enough to retire it ought not be a 
punishment of longevity. The haves and have nots share an equal stake 
in the outcome of pension reform. That advocacy, in my opinion, is 
patriotism in the most classic sense, seeking to preserve the American 
dream for future generations.
  There is no reason that this legislation cannot be enacted right 
away. The benefits are obvious and the changes simple.
  I urge every one of my colleagues to support the rapid adoption of 
the Pension Equity Act of 1996. This legislation is being cosponsored 
by Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator John Kerry.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a summary of its 
provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1756

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Pension Equity Act 
     of 1996''.

[[Page S5008]]

     SEC. 2. MODEL SPOUSAL CONSENT FORM AND QUALIFIED DOMESTIC 
                   RELATIONS ORDER.

       (a) Model Spousal Consent Form.--
       (1) Amendment to internal revenue code.--Section 417(a) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Consent form.--The Secretary shall develop a form not 
     later than January 1, 1997, for the spousal consent required 
     under paragraph (2) which--
       ``(A) is written in a manner calculated to be understood by 
     the average person, and
       ``(B) discloses in plain form whether--
       ``(i) the waiver is irrevocable, and
       ``(ii) the waiver may be revoked by a qualified domestic 
     relations order.''.
       (2) Amendment to erisa.--Section 205(c) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1055(c)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) The Secretary of the Treasury shall develop a form 
     not later than January 1, 1997, for the spousal consent 
     required under paragraph (2) which--
       ``(A) is written in a manner calculated to be understood by 
     the average person, and
       ``(B) discloses in plain form whether--
       ``(i) the waiver is irrevocable, and
       ``(ii) the waiver may be revoked by a qualified domestic 
     relations order.''.
       (b) Model Qualified Domestic Relations Order.--
       (1) Amendment to erisa.--Section 206(d)(3) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(O) The Secretary shall develop a form not later than 
     January 1, 1997, for a qualified domestic relations order--
       ``(i) which meets all the requirements of subparagraph 
     (B)(i), and
       ``(ii) the provisions of which focus attention on the need 
     to consider the treatment of any lump sum payment, qualified 
     joint and survivor annuity, or qualified preretirement 
     survivor annuity.''.
       (2) Amendment to internal revenue code.--Section 414(p) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) The Secretary of Labor shall develop a form not 
     later than January 1, 1997, for a qualified domestic 
     relations order which--
       ``(A) which meets all the requirements of paragraph (1)(A), 
     and
       ``(B) the provisions of which focus attention on the need 
     to consider the treatment of any lump sum payment, qualified 
     joint and survivor annuity, or qualified preretirement 
     survivor annuity.''.
       (c) Publicity.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Labor shall include publicity for the model 
     forms required by the amendments made by this section in the 
     pension outreach efforts undertaken by each Secretary.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF TIER II RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO 
                   SURVIVING FORMER SPOUSES PURSUANT TO DIVORCE 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     payment of any portion of an annuity computed under section 
     3(b) to a surviving former spouse in accordance with a court 
     decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation or the 
     terms of any court-approved property settlement incident to 
     any such court decree shall not be terminated upon the death 
     of the individual who performed the service with respect to 
     which such annuity is so computed unless such termination is 
     otherwise required by the terms of such court decree.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. SURVIVOR ANNUITIES FOR WIDOWS, WIDOWERS, AND FORMER 
                   SPOUSES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO DIE BEFORE 
                   ATTAINING AGE FOR DEFERRED ANNUITY UNDER CIVIL 
                   SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Benefits for Widow or Widower.--Section 8341(f) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (A) by inserting ``a former employee separated from the 
     service with title to deferred annuity from the Fund dies 
     before having established a valid claim for annuity and is 
     survived by a spouse, or if'' before ``a Member''; and
       (B) by inserting ``of such former employee or Member'' 
     after ``the surviving spouse'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member 
     commencing''; and
       (B) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member 
     dies''; and
       (3) in the undesignated sentence following paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``former employee or'' before ``Member''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``former employee or'' 
     before ``Member''.
       (b) Benefits for Former Spouse.--Section 8341(h) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by adding after the first sentence 
     ``Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a 
     former spouse of a former employee who dies after having 
     separated from the service with title to a deferred annuity 
     under section 8338(a) but before having established a valid 
     claim for annuity is entitled to a survivor annuity under 
     this subsection, if and to the extent expressly provided for 
     in an election under section 8339(j)(3) of this title, or in 
     the terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court 
     order or court-approved property settlement agreement 
     incident to such decree.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``or annuitant,'' 
     and inserting ``annuitant, or former employee''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii) by inserting ``former employee 
     or'' before ``Member''.
       (c) Protection of Survivor Benefit Rights.--Section 
     8339(j)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``The Office shall provide by regulation for the 
     application of this subsection to the widow, widower, or 
     surviving former spouse of a former employee who dies after 
     having separated from the service with title to a deferred 
     annuity under section 8338(a) but before having established a 
     valid claim for annuity.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply only in the case of a former employee who 
     dies on or after such date.

     SEC. 5. COURT ORDERS RELATING TO FEDERAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS 
                   FOR FORMER SPOUSES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8345(j) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Payment to a person under a court decree, court 
     order, property settlement, or similar process referred to 
     under paragraph (1) shall include payment to a former spouse 
     of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
       (2) Lump-sum benefits.--Section 8342 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c) by striking ``Lump-sum benefits'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (j), lump-sum benefits''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``the lump-sum credit 
     under subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``any 
     lump-sum credit or lump-sum benefit under this section''.
       (b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--Section 8467 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Payment to a person under a court decree, court 
     order, property settlement, or similar process referred to 
     under subsection (a) shall include payment to a former spouse 
     of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. PREVENTION OF CIRCUMVENTION OF COURT ORDER BY WAIVER 
                   OF RETIRED PAY TO ENHANCE CIVIL SERVICE 
                   RETIREMENT ANNUITY.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement and Disability System.--(1) 
     Subsection (c) of section 8332 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) If an employee or Member waives retired pay that is 
     subject to a court order for which there has been effective 
     service on the Secretary concerned for purposes of section 
     1408 of title 10, the military service on which the retired 
     pay is based may be credited as service for purposes of this 
     subchapter only if, in accordance with regulations prescribed 
     by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the 
     employee or Member authorizes the Director to deduct and 
     withhold from the annuity payable to the employee or Member 
     under this subchapter, and to pay to the former spouse 
     covered by the court order, the same amount that would have 
     been deducted and withheld from the employee's or Member's 
     retired pay and paid to that former spouse under such section 
     1408.''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of such subsection is amended by striking 
     out ``Except as provided in paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4)''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--(1) Subsection 
     (c) of section 8411 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) If an employee or Member waives retired pay that is 
     subject to a court order for which there has been effective 
     service on the Secretary concerned for purposes of section 
     1408 of title 10, the military service on which the retired 
     pay is based may be credited as service for purposes of this 
     chapter only if, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
     the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the 
     employee or Member authorizes the Director to deduct and 
     withhold from the annuity payable to the employee or Member 
     under this subchapter, and to pay to the former spouse 
     covered by the court order, the same amount that would have 
     been deducted and withheld from the employee's or Member's 
     retired pay and paid to that former spouse under such section 
     1408.''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of such subsection is amended by striking 
     out ``Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3)'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and 
     (5)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 1997.
                                                                    ____


[[Page S5009]]

                   Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996


                            Private Pensions

       Require the IRS to create a model form for spousal consent 
     with respect to survivor annuities.
       Background--In 1984, Congress passed the Retirement Equity 
     Act (REA) which provided, among other things, that survivor 
     annuities were to apply automatically and any opt-out could 
     be obtained only with spousal consent.
       Problem--The consent forms are not in plain language and do 
     not contain sufficient explanation, i.e. that the decision is 
     irrevocable even in the event of divorce. For the past 10 
     years, the IRS, at the urging of the GAO, has been preparing 
     a model consent form for couples that choose to take a larger 
     annuity during the husband's life and give up the survivor 
     annuity--but that form has never been completed.
       Require the Department of Labor to create a model QDRO 
     form.
       Background--The 1984 REA required pension plans to honor 
     court orders dividing pensions upon divorce. But the law does 
     not protect spouses automatically. The divorced woman, or her 
     lawyer, must ask for a court order specifically including the 
     pensions in the divorce settlement. Without a qualified 
     domestic relations order (QDRO) spelling out how, to whom, 
     and when the pension should be paid, plans don't have to pay 
     the divorced spouse a dime.
       Problem--(1) Many lawyers do not know to ask for a QDRO. 
     (2) There are no model QDRO's for lawyers, or couples who 
     divorce without a lawyer, and pension plans will not honor 
     the orders unless they are complete. (3) Pre- and post-
     retirement survivor benefits are often forgotten.


                    Civil Service Retirement System

       Make widow or divorced widow benefits payable no matter 
     when the ex-husband dies or starts collecting his benefits.
       Background--If the husband dies after leaving the 
     government (either before or after retirement age) and before 
     starting to collect retirement benefits, no retirement or 
     survivor benefits are payable to the spouse or former spouse.
       Problem--The widow or divorced wife loses everything: the 
     ex-wife's benefits never start because he didn't choose to or 
     didn't live to start collecting his benefits, and the widow's 
     benefits are canceled because he wasn't working in the 
     federal government at the time of his death.
       Authorize courts to order the ex-husband to name his former 
     wife as the beneficiary of all or a portion of any refunded 
     contributions.
       Background--In the case of a husband dying before 
     collecting benefits, his contributions to the CSRS are paid 
     to the person named as the ``beneficiary.'' The employee may 
     name anyone as the beneficiary.
       Problem--A divorce court cannot order him to name his 
     former spouse as the beneficiary to receive a refund of 
     contributions upon his death, even if she was to receive a 
     portion of his pension.


                       Military Retirement System

       Transfer the pension benefits awarded during divorce from a 
     military to a civil service pension, if the spouse rolls the 
     military pension into a civil service pension.
       Background--The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' 
     Protection Act of 1982 (USFSPA) provides that a court may 
     treat only the member's ``disposable'' retired pay as marital 
     property. The definition of disposable now includes, among 
     other deductions, government salary or pension.
       Problem--The allowed deductions can leave former wives with 
     little if any pension. For example, if an ex-husband leaves 
     the military and enters the civil service, he can roll over 
     his military pension into his civil service pension and the 
     ex-wife loses the military pension awarded to her during the 
     divorce settlement.


                       Railroad Retirement Board

       Allow payment of a Tier 2 survivor annuity after divorce.
       Background--The Tier 1 benefits under the Railroad 
     Retirement Board take the place of social security. The Tier 
     2 benefits take the place of a private pension.
       Problem--Unlike the nondivorced widow, the divorced widow 
     loses any Tier 2 benefits she may have been receiving while 
     her ex-husband was alive, leaving her with only a Tier 1 
     annuity.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moseley-
Braun today in cosponsoring the Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996. 
This legislation addresses one of the most important issues facing 
women today--retirement security. Of course, both men and women share 
many of the same concerns about growing old and planning for the 
future. But, the fact is that women face a unique set of circumstances 
that put us at a disadvantage for living comfortably in our retirement.
  We are all very aware of the anxiety being felt by our friends and 
neighbors as they see and hear about the wave of corporate downsizing 
taking place in many of America's largest industries. American workers 
no longer expect to hold down one or two jobs throughout their working 
careers. Rather, most Americans expect to hold five or six different 
jobs throughout their careers.
  This job insecurity ripples through every aspect of our lives and 
impacts the way one determines how to afford a home, pay for a child's 
education, and set aside savings for retirement.
  This anxiety is real and it is justified. Working families throughout 
Washington State are telling me they are worried about their futures 
and that of their children. My constituents recognize the skyrocketing 
costs of long-term health care, doubt whether they can ensure a 
successful and prosperous life for their children, and are losing faith 
in the Social Security system.
  We all know that women often play the role of caregiver for sick 
parents or children. In this role, they are forced to leave their jobs 
and, in turn, jeopardize their own future security. As the daughter of 
two aging parents, I understand this anxiety and want to do all I can 
to ensure women are not penalized for doing the right thing--for taking 
care of their families.
  In today's world, it takes two incomes to raise a family. This is not 
solely an issue of improving the security of retired women. This is 
about providing stability and peace of mind for working families and 
their children. It is about opportunities for the future and 
strengthening the resources that families can depend on tomorrow. This 
is about ensuring that both parents' hard work is rewarded.
  The Women's Pension Equity Act corrects current pension laws, which 
often fail to account for the special pattern in a women's working 
life. Our employment patterns differ from our male counterparts in the 
work force. Women's tenures tend to be shorter--4.8 years compared with 
6.6 years for men. Many women leave their jobs before they reach the 
required years of service to qualify for employer retirement plans; 
usually 5 to 7 years.
  Also, under current law, if a woman's husband dies after leaving 
Government service but before starting to collect retirement benefits, 
no retirement or survivor benefits are payable to the spouse. This 
bill, among other things, will amend the Civil Service retirement 
system to make sure the spouse doesn't lose the benefits to which her 
family is entitled.
  We can alleviate some of the anxiety Americans are experiencing. For 
instance, we can help Americans save for their future by expanding 
pension opportunities for the employees of small businesses. Only 24 
percent of all employees in small businesses have pension plans, while 
76 percent of employees in large businesses have pension plans. Or we 
could widen the scope of Individual Retirement Accounts. For instance, 
I am a cosponsor of S. 287, a bill that allows spouses who work at home 
to get a full IRA deduction.
  Congress has the ability to improve the savings opportunities for 
millions of Americans, and Senator Moseley-Braun's bill will do so for 
millions of working and retired women. This legislation makes sense and 
successfully highlights the discrepancy that exists between male and 
female retirees and it lays out several ways to narrow the income 
divide that exists between them.
  The facts are clear. Older women are twice as likely as older men to 
be poor. According to the Older Women's League, more than 70 percent of 
nearly 4 million persons over 65 living in poverty are women. Fewer 
than 25 percent of older women receive any pension income. And in 1993, 
the median pension benefit received by new female retirees was half 
that of men. Given all this, we must keep in mind that once they reach 
65 women live on average 4 years longer than men.
  This bill helps Americans save for the future, and it will make 
retirement life more secure for millions of women. It is an important 
first step to addressing the many obstacles which women face as they 
try to plan for their futures and those of their children. I commend 
Senator Moseley-Braun for her leadership on this issue, and I look 
forward to working with her on behalf of working families across our 
Nation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996, and to thank Senator Moseley-Braun 
and Senators Mikulski, Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein for their 
leadership on this important issue.

[[Page S5010]]

  Mr. President, women are five times as likely to live out their final 
years below the poverty line. Research also indicates that almost 80 
percent of widows living in poverty were not poor because their 
husbands died--while the same is not generally true of men, according 
to the General Accounting Office.
  I am proud to say that my wife, Teresa Heinz, contributed important 
work toward this bill. In April, she sponsored a conference in Boston 
entitled ``Women, Widows, and Pensions--The Unfinished Agenda.'' 
Senator Moseley-Braun was the keynote speaker and I believe many of the 
insights from the conference contributed to this bill.
  But I also want to highlight a letter from a woman named Marian from 
Attleboro, MA. She wrote me recently that she just turned 81 years old 
and worked from 1934 to 1994. Because of family responsibilities, she 
had to take a total of 7 years off from work to raise her children. She 
said that since her various jobs paid less than what a man would make, 
she now receives a worker's benefit that is less than one-half the 
benefit that was earned by her husband when he was alive.
  Mr. President, current pension laws do not take into account the 
circumstances of women in the work force. This bill takes an important 
step toward correcting pension inequities and helps to redress the 
overwhelming poverty suffered by older women.
  The bill would require the IRS to create a model form for spousal 
consent for survivor annuities so that couples understand the 
consequences of taking a larger annuity during the husband's life and 
giving up the survivor annuity. The bill would also require the 
Department of Labor to create a model order so divorced spouses get the 
pensions they deserve.
  Ultimately, we need fundamental reforms to address these pressing 
issues. Fewer women than men receive pensions and they receive less 
because they have fewer years in the work force: the average woman 
spends 11.5 years out of the work force largely due to greater time 
spent in nonpaying caregiving roles. Additionally, women earn less than 
men and are more likely to change jobs frequently and be affected by 
lack of pension portability and high vesting hurdles.
  But, Mr. President, along with the President's recent pension 
initiative the Retirement Savings and Security Act, this bill will move 
toward a day when the laws governing our Nation's pension system are 
truly gender neutral and older women are not faced with living their 
final years in poverty.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1757. A bill to amend the Developmental Disabilities Assistance 
and Bill of Rights Act to extend the act, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


  extension of the developmental disabilities assistance and bill of 
                               rights act

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple 
extension of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
Rights Act. This act is the result of more than 25 years of national 
bipartisan collaboration to secure basic rights for our Nation's most 
vulnerable citizens.
  Before the Developmental Disabilities Act was signed in 1970, 
Americans who happened to be born with developmental disabilities such 
as mental retardation and severe physical disabilities often lived and 
died in institutions where many were subjected to unspeakable 
conditions far worse than conditions found in any American prison.
  As a nation, we had a lot to learn about how we could help people 
with developmental disabilities live more independent and more 
productive lives. We had a lot to learn about: How to help families 
find the strength to bring up their children with developmental 
disabilities in their family home; how to teach children with 
developmental disabilities in our schools; how to make room for these 
citizens to live and work in the heart of our communities; and how to 
ensure safe and humane living environments for those citizens with 
developmental disabilities who remain in residential facilities.
  It has taken courage to face the fact that we had so much to learn. 
Because of the Developmental Disabilities Act, we have made tremendous 
progress across the Nation in all of these areas--education, living 
arrangements, and meaningful participation in community activities for 
many individuals with developmental disabilities. We are still 
learning.
  When we reauthorize the Developmental Disabilities Act, we show that 
we support programs that help people with developmental disabilities 
continue to live independent and productive lives--and with as little 
bureaucracy and government intrusion as possible.
  This goal was almost unthinkable two decades ago. New technology, new 
services, new professional practices, and new ways of thinking about 
Americans who have the most severe and life-long disabilities have 
created opportunities beyond what we thought possible. Research has 
shown that the DD Act programs make significant contributions to this 
progress, and they do it with minimal Federal control.
  The DD Act programs are flexible and responsive to the needs of 
consumers--people with developmental disabilities and their families--
in each State. Federal funding is limited, so successful programs must 
leverage Federal funds by seeking State grants and training contracts, 
and grants from other sources. The programs have demonstrated that they 
can be cost-effective while attaining good results for the people who 
use them.
  Since the DD Act was originally authorized, it has created a lean 
infrastructure of programs including, in each state, a university 
affiliated program to educate university students in developmental 
disabilities-related fields and to conduct research and training to 
meet the needs of State agencies; a Developmental Disabilities Council 
appointed by the Governor of each State to define and carry out State 
initiatives; and a protection and advocacy organization to provide 
legal assistance to persons with developmental disabilities, especially 
those who are living in institutions.
  DD Act networks have been successful at creating new service models 
for people with developmental disabilities without creating new 
bureaucracies. With the 1994 amendments, made only 2 years ago, we can 
reauthorize it as it stands today and know that the continuous 
improvements we expect will be sought. As a nation, we are now able to 
create opportunities for many Americans with developmental disabilities 
to live and work in our communities, where services are decentralized 
and cost-effective. From this success, we have identified new 
challenges, and we still need to work to improve these community-based 
programs so they can meet any client's needs.
  Clearly, our work is not finished. The simple and fundamental rights 
shared by every American citizen--to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness--are not yet secure for those of us who have developmental 
disabilities. For this reason, it is essential that we extend the 
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act this year. 
We must not forget the rights of Americans with developmental 
disabilities this year, or ever again.

                          ____________________