[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21992-21995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 1614. A bill to designate a portion of White Salmon River as a 
component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1614

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Upper White Salmon Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (16 
     U.S.C. 544 et seq.) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     study the Upper White Salmon River for possible designation 
     as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (2) The study, conducted by the Forest Service, included 
     extensive public involvement by a broadly inclusive task 
     force.
       (3) The study determined that the Upper White Salmon River 
     and its tributary, Cascade Creek, are eligible for inclusion 
     in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System based on their 
     free-flowing condition and outstandingly remarkable scenic, 
     hydrologic, geologic, and wildlife values.

     SEC. 3 UPPER WHITE SALMON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph at 
     the end:
       ``(  ) White Salmon River, Washington.--
       ``(A) Designation.--Segments of the main stem and Cascade 
     Creek, totaling 20 miles, to be administered by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture as follows:
       ``(i) 1.6-mile segment.--The 1.6-mile segment of the main 
     stem of the White Salmon River from the headwaters on Mount 
     Adams in Sec. 17, T. 8 N., R. 10 E., downstream to the Mount 
     Adams wilderness boundary shall be administered as a wild 
     river.
       ``(ii) 5.1-mile segment.--The 5.1-mile segment of Cascade 
     Creek from its headwaters on Mount Adams in Sec. 10, T. 8 N., 
     R. 10 E. downstream to the Mount Adams Wilderness boundary 
     shall be administered as a wild river.
       ``(iii) 1.5-mile segment.--The 1.5 mile segment of Cascade 
     Creek from the Mount Adams Wilderness boundary downstream to 
     its confluence with the White Salmon River shall be 
     administered as a scenic river.
       ``(iv) 11.8-mile segment.--The 11.8-mile segment of the 
     main stem of the White Salmon River from the Mount Adams 
     Wilderness boundary downstream to the Gifford Pinchot 
     National Forest boundary shall be administered as a scenic 
     river.''.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS.

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall limit the suitability of the 18.4-mile segment from the 
     Gifford Pinchot National Forest boundary to the confluence 
     with Gilmer Creek for designation as a wild and scenic river 
     under section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1274(a)).

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and administer 
     the comprehensive management plan required by section 3(d)(1) 
     of the

[[Page 21993]]

     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)(1)) for the 
     designated sections of the Upper White Salmon River in 
     general accordance with that portion of the preferred 
     alternative of the Forest Service Wild and Scenic River Study 
     Report and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 
     for the Upper White Salmon River dated July 7, 1997, 
     addressing only the designated sections.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1615. 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; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1615

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

     SECTION 1. MAINTENANCE OF INCREASED RATE OF HOSTILE FIRE AND 
                   IMMINENT DANGER SPECIAL PAY.

       (a) Rate.--Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$225''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

     SEC. 2. MAINTENANCE OF INCREASED RATE OF FAMILY SEPARATION 
                   ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Rate.--Section 427(a)(1) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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.

[[Page 21994]]

  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_____
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1616. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to prevent the preemption of State community property law as it 
relates to nonforfeitable accrued retirement benefits; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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

[[Page 21995]]

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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1616

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

     SECTION 1. STATE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW RIGHT TO RETIREMENT 
                   BENEFITS NOT PREEMPTED BY ERISA.

       (a) In General.--Section 514(b) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1144(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as (9) and 
     (10), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if--
       ``(i) under the community property laws of any State the 
     spouse of a participant of a pension plan is entitled to any 
     portion of the participant's nonforfeitable accrued benefit; 
     and
       ``(ii) the spouse's interest in such benefit under such 
     laws passed to an individual other than the participant by 
     reason of the death of the spouse;

     then subsection (a) shall not apply to an order issued by a 
     court of such State disposing of such interest.
       ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to 
     allow a claim--
       ``(i) for a benefit directly from a pension plan;
       ``(ii) against a qualified joint and survivor annuity or 
     qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity of a surviving 
     spouse of the participant; or
       ``(iii) against the participant during his or her 
     lifetime.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to orders regarding the estates of decedents dying 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1617. A bill to amend the employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide comprehensive 
pension protection for women; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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.

                          ____________________