[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21292-21293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 THE SERVICEMEMBERS AND MILITARY FAMILIES FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 
                            2001 (H.R. 3173)

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 31, 2001

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, these are enormously challenging times 
for our country. Yet, we are doing what we can to meet these 
challenges. We are reaching across party lines to show national unity. 
We are reaching across social and ethnic lines, native-born citizens 
and immigrants alike, to show that we will not turn away from our 
nation's highest values, or from each other.
  We are exercising caution and common sense. We are going about our 
daily lives. In my case, and that of my fellow members of Congress, 
going about business as usual has been a little more difficult in 
recent days. But--as this productive week demonstrates--it has not made 
our work impossible.
  And, as parents, we are reminding our children how much we love them. 
Those are a few of the important steps that each of us is taking. And 
we can be proud of them. However, no group of Americans has made--or 
will make, as long as this effort lasts--as valuable a contribution, or 
as great a sacrifice, or will have as much to be proud of, as the 
people who are the men and women of our armed forces--full-time 
uniformed personnel, as well as reservists and members of the National 
Guard called up for active duty.
  They are seeking peace for us and for our allies around the globe. 
Their own security has been put on hold so that we can go about our 
lives freely and free of fear. Last week, I introduced legislation to 
ease at least a handful of their many burdens.
  My bill is admittedly a modest effort when compared to the full scope 
of challenges which they face. After all, I cannot give them the kind 
of blanket protection that I wish for them. I cannot ensure that no 
harm comes to them on the field of battle, or while in transit or 
training for their mission. However, it is worth remembering that among 
the many hazards and challenges faced by men and women in uniform, not 
all of them are found on the battlefield, or foreign soil, or on the 
high seas.
  Some confront them here at home. Even while they are far from home. 
And, to make matters worse, they are challenges that face not only the 
men and women who sign up for duty--but face their family members too.
  These challenges are financial. In various ways, members of the armed 
forces--and in particular, members of the National Guard and the 
Reserves who leave 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 my powers to do something about that.
  Last week, I introduced legislation, ``The Servicemembers and 
Military Families Financial Protection Act of 2001'', aimed at giving 
men and women called up for duty--and their families--new financial 
protection and peace of mind.
  First, my bill will help ensure that members of the military who are 
called away from home

[[Page 21293]]

still have a home to which they can return. When members are deployed 
and separated from their jobs, their household income levels often drop 
dramatically. Yet, there are still bills to pay--in particular, the 
monthly rent or mortgage payment.
  My bill would prohibit the removal of an activated military member's 
family from their place of residence due to a failure to meet monthly 
housing payments. This protection would be in place during the term of 
active duty and continue for up to an additional three months after 
active duty is over.
  If a landlord initiates eviction proceedings during that period, a 
judge would be directed to first rule on whether the family's income 
has been ``materially affected'' by the military service. An eviction 
can only occur only if a judge finds that the family's income has not 
been so impacted. This relief would apply to a service member's family 
whose monthly housing payment is $1,950 per month or less.
  Under current law--the Sailors' and Soldiers' Civil Relief Act--such 
relief is limited to families whose monthly housing payments are $1,200 
or less. I seek to increase of that threshold by about 37.5 percent. I 
think that my proposal is reasonable. If you have given up your bed, 
and the comfort of home and the security of having your own roof over 
your head . . . and have traded that it for an army cot in a pup tent 
or a barracks--you are certainly entitled, when your service is 
completed, to return to your home. And, just as important, you are 
entitled to know that even if you cannot be at home, at least your 
family is there.
  The second major element of my proposal ensures that a family will be 
well provided for in the event--the very rare event, I hope-- that 
something unfortunate occurs. Again, our country's reliance on members 
of the guard and reserves helps illustrate the need for a change in 
current law, Our military cannot operate without the contributions of 
civilian soldiers--medical personnel, academics familiar with foreign 
countries and languages, engineers and people from a vast array of 
fields--who agree to give up good jobs and good wages here at home to 
serve where and when they are needed.
  The economic needs of full-time uniformed personnel are just as 
great, and only increase with more years of service. As it stands right 
now, however, significant barriers prohibit those men and women from 
knowing with confidence that their families will be adequately 
safeguarded if something should happen to them.
  Today, armed services personnel are eligible for life insurance paid 
through an affordable monthly premium, and administered through the 
Service members' Group Life Insurance program, or SGLI. However, 
current law caps payouts at $250,000. Far too low.
  Meantime, it is standard practice for private life insurance policies 
to include clauses that deny payouts for deaths resulting from 
incidents occurring as part of war-related service. My bill would 
enable personnel covered by SGLI to opt for considerably higher payouts 
for their beneficiaries--if they so desire and if they are willing to 
pay for it.
  Under my bill, military personnel could opt for coverage in 
increments of $250,000 above the current ceiling, up to a total of $1 
million. This represents a potential increase of $750,000 above the 
current limits for members of the Guard and Reserves; an increase of 
$900,000 for uniformed personnel.
  All increased benefits would be the result of higher premiums 
deducted from military paychecks. Coverage usually costs approximately 
8 cents per month per every thousand dollars of coverage. Again, this 
would be optional and it would be achieved at no additional cost to the 
government.
  In fact, assuming that the pool of policy holders remains steady and 
perhaps increases due to this added incentive, it could lead to greater 
revenues for government coffers. We know that military service is 
dangerous. But, the already significant risk should not be compounded 
by additional financial risks to one's dependents.
  My hope would be that not a single family ever has the need to take 
advantage of this increased level in benefits. But, even if that is the 
case--it still will have done some good for all of us.
  A member of the military can carry out duties better if there are 
fewer worries about what could happen to his or her family.
  And finally--as long as we are updating current law to reflect the 
true needs of members of the military--I think it is crucial that the 
law better reflects the true composition of the military.
  As we all know, that includes women.
  The same holds true for our country's economy, and the earnings of 
the typical family. 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 so. Unfortunately, current law inexplicably uses 
the phrase ``wife'' to describe dependents eligible for protection 
while a member is on duty. My bill replaces such references with 
gender-neutral language.
  Such a change has practical value. Let's make certain that no court 
or agency denies a family relief on the basis that a mother or wife 
serves her country. Yet, if some people think that changing the 
language in this manner is mostly ``symbolic''--so be it. This is a 
time when symbolism matters.
  And, among our foes is a Taliban that degrades women to a degree that 
is beneath civility and decency. Let's take every opportunity to remind 
them--and ourselves--that our country's success and our country's 
strength is achieved because in our nation women can carry out any role 
that they choose for themselves.
  I am confident that my colleagues will join me in agreeing that 
risking life and limb for one's nation should never be compounded by a 
family's potential loss of shelter or economic security. Please join me 
and cosponsor my bill, H.R. 3173.

                          ____________________