PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 15, 2003
Women's Pension Protection Act of 2003 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to require the spouse's consent for distributions from defined contribution plans (DCPs, which include individual account plans such as 401(k) plans). (Current law only requires such consent in the case of defined benefit plans). Applies joint and survivor annuity rules to DCPs. Prescribes requirements for division of pension benefits upon divorce. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations relating to the time and order of issuance of qualified domestic relations orders. Provides for treatment of former spouses as surviving spouses in certain cases. Revises requirements for joint and survivor annuities. Requires pension plans to offer participants the option of a qualified joint and 3/4 survivor annuity (as an alternative to the current qualified joint and survivor annuity). Amends Federal law relating to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to provide for a survivor annuity to widows, widowers, and certain former spouses of Federal employees who die after having separated from the service with title to a deferred annuity under CSRS, but before attaining the age for such annuity under it (on the same basis as is currently provided to certain survivors of former Members of Congress). Revises CSRS and Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) requirements for court orders relating to Federal employee retirement benefits for former spouses. Revises the order of precedence for disposition of remaining amounts in thrift savings accounts. Amends the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to: (1) entitle divorced spouses to railroad retirement annuities independent of the actual entitlement of the employees; and (2) extend the payment of any portion of Tier II railroad retirement benefits to surviving former spouses pursuant to divorce agreements.
People & committees
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11482-11483)
Introduced in Senate
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 18, 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 S.1617 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 S.1617 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 S.1617 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 S.1617 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.