PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment from DOD deferred pending further study..
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 1999
Uniformed Services Former Spouses Equity Act of 1999 - Requires payment from the monthly disposable retired pay of a member to his or her former spouse in compliance with court orders (division of property) to terminate upon the remarriage of that spouse, effective as of the last day of the month in which the remarriage occurs. Provides that, in the case of a member to whom a final decree of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation is issued before the member begins to receive retired pay, the disposable retired pay of such member, for purposes of such monthly payments, shall be computed based on the pay grade and length of service of the member while married. Increases such amount concurrently with retired pay increases. Requires a member's spouse or former spouse to obtain a court order for reapportionment of a member's monthly disposable retired pay by the later of the following dates: (1) two years of the date of the final decree of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation; or (2) six months after the enactment of this Act. Prohibits the court from treating as part of a member's disposable retired pay amounts which have been waived from such pay in order to receive veterans' disability compensation.
People & committees
Rep. Stump, Bob [R-AZ-3] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment from DOD deferred pending further study..
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E49)
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.72 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.72 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.72 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.72 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.