[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8167-H8172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Edwards moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1588 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in sections
606 and 619 of the Senate amendment (relating to the rates of
pay for the family separation allowance and imminent danger
pay).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XX, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member of the opposing party
each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to control the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh)
will control the time in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, my motion would instruct the conferees working on the
Defense authorization bill to recede to the Senate bill on section 606
and 619. Specifically, Section 606 would make permanent the increase of
military separation pay from $100 per month to $250 a month. Section
619 would make permanent the increase to hostile fire and imminent
danger special pay from $150 a month to $225 a month.
Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about here is that in the
past year, Congress voted to show respect to our
[[Page H8168]]
service men and women making tremendous sacrifices fighting the global
war on terrorism, service men and women, who are in all parts of the
globe from South America to Europe to Asia to the Middle East, to
virtually every section of the globe. What we are saying is that when
they leave their family for 6 months or 12 months and when they are put
into a hostile situation, a country ought to thank them as a serviceman
or woman and we ought to thank their family not just with our words of
rhetoric, but with our deeds here in the House, and this is why we gave
in effect a $225 increase to those service men and women under the
threat of hostile action, serving also away from their families.
Now $225 a month may not mean a lot to some Americans, but to our
hardworking, dedicated, patriotic service men and women, it is
oftentimes the difference between paying their bills that month or not
while their loved ones are split because of service to country.
What the House version of this bill would do is not provide certainty
to these service men and women serving in Nations such as Liberia
today, serving in Kosovo and Bosnia, that their income each month will
not be cut. The Senate version actually would provide certainty and say
to them we respect what they are doing, we are not going to cut their
pay. I think it would be tragic that at a time when our service men and
women and their families are making incredible sacrifices on behalf of
our country for us to leave any uncertainty that hundreds of thousands
or them, or tens of thousands of them could actually have a pay cut
during a time of war, during our fight against global terrorism.
So what this motion to instruct is all about is respect to our
service men and women about certainty so that they do not have to
worry, while they are worrying about the very lives of their loves ones
in combat situations and hostile situations, they do not have to worry
also about their monthly income being cut by the same government that
is thanking them daily in speeches here on the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say, I think it is fair to state from the outset that all of
us in this distinguished body, the House of Representatives, are very
strongly committed to ensuring an adequate, fair and really just level
of compensation for those service members that my friend, and he is my
friend and my colleague, from Texas, has so adequately and so
appropriately mentioned, as they are bearing the leadership, as they
are literally putting their lives in harm's way.
Just yesterday, I had the very sad but high honor of attending a
funeral for a 24-year-old specialist from my district, from the 10th
Mountain Division who was killed in Afghanistan, and I think that any
suggestion that this House would ever support any cut in diminution to
the pay and to the support that we have been giving these troops would
be a very, very wrong-headed suggestion. I do not believe any of us
support that, and I know I certainly do not, and I commend the
gentleman from Texas for bringing this forward.
I have been to Iraq. I have seen the conditions firsthand. I have
been to Uzbekistan. I have been to Afghanistan. I know what these young
men and these young women and these brave men and women are going
through, and certainly they are serving proudly and we must not, we
should not and I feel very confidently that we will not allow these
troops to suffer a loss of income and the history of how we have
implemented these increases to the supplemental pay is the imminent
danger pay and to the family separation pay is well-known, well-stated,
and we do need to take action in the bill referred to in the
gentleman's motion to instruct to ensure that there is no diminution of
those pays and to that support.
Having said that, there is a difference of approach. There is a
difference as to how we focus this. The reality is, and I am stating
this just for the record, Mr. Speaker, rather than to express any
opposition to my friend's motion, is that under the Senate's proposal,
we are not just dealing, for example, on family separation pay, with
those who are in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan, the
Philippines, Korea, Iraq. In fact, under the Senate's approach, if
someone from my State of New York were deployed to one of the training
centers for 30 days or more, they, too, would receive the separation
pay, and it is the Department's position, given the difference in the
cost of how the approach that they would prefer and how the approach
the Senate prefers would be significant, about I believe $280 million,
that that they wish to target it more precisely.
I am persuaded by what the gentleman says and I am not going to ask a
single Member of this House on either side of the aisle to oppose this
motion. I, in fact, would encourage them to support it, if for no other
reason than to significantly demonstrate the agreement that we all hold
amongst ourselves that our brave men and women in combat and those
facing these hardships should not suffer any diminution, but just for
the House's knowledge, the Department has perhaps a position that none
of us agree with but a few or none or all, but a position that does
have some merit in these very difficult financial times when they want
to target these.
But I do want to say that as someone who has had, for the past two
terms, the honor of serving as the chairman of first the Subcommittee
on Military Personnel, and now the Subcommittee on Total Force, I will
not support, and I believe I can speak for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and all of the leadership of both the committee
and the House, anything, anything that cuts by one cent the pay to our
brave men and women who are serving in very dangerous places like Iraq
and Afghanistan.
So in the spirit of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, I
would urge my colleagues to support this motion, to vote for it and
certainly to join us as we go forward in trying to ensure that the
brave men and women who are serving us are fairly and adequately
compensated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the
House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the time, and I rise in support of the motion to instruct
the conferees, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for
this motion to instruct.
This motion will direct the House conferees on the National Defense
Authorization Act for next year to accept the Senate Defense
authorization provisions that provide for a permanent increase in
imminent danger and hostile fire special pay, as well as family
separation allowance.
{time} 2030
Under the Senate bill, section 606 would make permanent a $75
increase in the family separation allowance, and section 619 would make
permanent a $125 increase in imminent danger and hostile fire special
pay. By accepting the Senate provisions, servicemembers and their
families would continue to receive increases that were originally
included in the first Iraq war supplemental, but which will terminate
on September 30 of this year.
The Department of Defense originally expressed concern about the cost
to continue these special pays and allowances. However, recent public
statements by officials within the Department indicate that the
administration has reversed its position and now supports continuation
of these important benefits, especially as American forces continue to
face hostilities around the world, particularly in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Our troops put their lives on the line every day. They do this for
our country, particularly in Iraq, where guerilla warfare has become a
daily occurrence. As of this morning, 179 servicemembers have given
their lives in combat. Another 1,186 have been wounded in action.
Additionally, another 110 have been killed, and 313 wounded in
nonhostile action while deployed to that region. It would be
fundamentally wrong, wrong to reduce imminent danger and hostile fire
pay for these brave men and women.
[[Page H8169]]
Military families back home have recently been informed that longer
deployments for our men and women in uniform will become the standard
for the foreseeable future. The increase in family separation allowance
authorized in the Senate bill is the least we can do to recognize the
sacrifices of these servicemembers as well as their families. Almost
all families face increased household costs while their servicemember
is deployed. Mailing letters, packages for morale, making long-distance
phone calls are just a few examples of the additional expenses that
families incur while they were separated from a military member.
Increasing imminent danger and increasing the hostile fire pay as well
as the family separation allowance permanently is the right and
honorable thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of
this motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to instruct the
House conferees.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume.
There are no Members in this House in whom I hold higher regard on
issues of concern of military men and women and their families than the
gentleman who just spoke, the distinguished ranking member. Certainly
nothing he said here this evening would in any way change my attitude
and my perspective.
But I do think, again for the record, and in urging my colleagues
still to vote for this motion, that another concern that the
administration and the Department have expressed, and that I think at
least merits our thoughts as we go forward, is that the Senate bill, as
it is currently constructed and construed, actually treats two
soldiers, to use one example, who are doing the exact same job, perhaps
on the exact same patrol, whether it be in Sherkat in the mountains of
Afghanistan, or be it on the streets of al Falusha, very, very
differently. In the Senate bill, one member of that patrol would
receive $75 added pay, the other would receive $250; and they are both
exposed to the same danger. They are both exposed to the potential of
the same fate.
So I think we have got to remember that there are legitimate
differences of opinion here. However, the objective that we all have
and we all, I think, need to pursue is that of paying and compensating
these brave men and women to the highest extent possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished senior member of the
House Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I greatly respect the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, and I am grateful to see he has decided that he should
support this resolution. I think it is timely, I think it is in order,
and while the gentleman says that the pay level is fair and adequate, I
would really argue that even with the increases, for the burdens these
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines bear, in hostile circumstances,
this pay increment is really minimal.
Last year, when we did the Iraqi supplemental, providing $79 billion
for the war in Iraq and more for Afghanistan in the war against terror,
$63 billion was allocated to Iraq. And, naturally, we said with
soldiers about to go in harm's way, surely we should increase the
minimal amount that is being paid to them right now, which was $100.
That is all, $100 a month for family separation pay, and $150 for
imminent danger pay. We increased those to $250 for family separation
pay and $225 for imminent danger pay, but only for 1 year. Unless we
act in the defense authorization bill to make this permanent law, as
provided in the Senate authorization mark, then this will expire on
September 30. And that would be a terrible calamity.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon this summer issued a reclaimer to the
committees in conference indicating that they thought that these two
increments were too costly to sustain and recommended that they either
be dropped or reduced. They met with a firestorm of protest, including
a published statement from me and the ranking member on our committee,
that I thought it would be outrageous at this point in time to do it.
So tonight we can seal the decision and make it permanent law that
these levels of incremental pay will be provided to soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines who go in harm's way and are separated from their
families. They get all the $475.
The gentleman was saying he was in Iraq, and we all know when we go
out in the field and we see these soldiers and sailors and airmen, we
realize they do not work 8-hour days. They work 18-hour days,
continually. And they never know whether danger might befall. The least
we can do to help them is pay the way, particularly in the
circumstances they now find themselves, doing duty they were not
trained for. And a hard and bitter duty it is, in an inhospitable
environment. The least we can do is to provide them this pay
settlement.
Let me make one more argument, though, if this were not enough, and
that is we can either pay now or pay later. Because if we do not
provide these increments and somehow or another help our deployed
troops bear the burdens that we have imposed upon them, then we are
going to pay for it in terms of recruitment and retention just over the
horizon. We are going to be paying big reenlistment bonuses. We will be
losing E6 sergeants, with the kind of training we need for years to
come. We are going to be risking real damage, long-term damage,
particularly to our ground forces.
So it is only smart, not just fair, not just good policy, it is just
smart personnel policy to continue these payments at the level that is
established now in law and to make it permanent law.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, so everyone understands, the House bill
makes permanent the increases that the gentleman just mentioned for
imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 and family separation pay from
$100 to $250 a month. Not a single soldier, airmen, sailor, Marine, or
even Coast Guard, if they happened to be deployed to that region, would
ever lose a cent if they were assigned to Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq,
Afghanistan under the House bill either.
There are some differences on the motion with respect to family
separation pay and the application of imminent danger pay that I
previously mentioned; but, again, none of us want to see those in
direct harm's way lose that money. And I am very confident that under
either bill that will not happen. I am very confident that under
whatever agreement that comes out of this that that will not happen
either.
If we do not have an agreement by October 1, I feel absolutely
certain we will either move a separate piece of legislation or do the
conference committee agreement retroactively. So we are all on the same
page there.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. Larsen), who is a distinguished member of the
House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edward) for bringing this motion to instruct to the
floor today.
Today, I met with Corporal Jeremiah Olsen, a soldier from Coupeville,
Washington, which is in my district. Corporal Olsen will be awarded the
Silver Star medal by the President for his heroic actions during
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Corporate Olsen and his fellow servicemembers have fought bravely,
and they have represented our country honorably in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and around the world on our
behalf. They deserve our respect and our thanks. For this reason, I
think it is important that we pass an extension of the pay increase
that we authorized earlier this year.
In April, Congress provided a temporary increase in imminent danger
pay and the family separation allowance that will both expire at the
end of this month. In addition, we authorized a monthly increase for
family separation allowance that helps military families pay rent, pay
for child care, or
[[Page H8170]]
pay for other expenses while their loved ones are away. As a member of
the Committee on Armed Services and as a representative of thousands of
service men and women, it is my view that we need to do everything we
can for our troops and their families.
The Senate-passed defense authorization bill provides an increase for
all of our troops in imminent danger, increases the family separation
allowance provisions, and makes these increases permanent. The House
bill, in my opinion, does not go far enough. The motion to instruct
conferees to accept the Senate provision is an important step forward
toward providing our troops the compensations they deserve, and it
provides it to all of our Armed Forces.
In my view, our women and men in the military are not paid enough as
it is. Now that we are asking them to risk their lives away from their
families and asking their families to bear the burden while they are
away, we should not cut their pay off. Corporate Olsen and all the
other service men and women deserve more than that.
So I urge my colleagues to pass this motion to instruct conferees and
make it clear that this Congress supports our women and men in the
Armed Forces and thanks them for their service.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who represents the very important
installation at Fort Bragg and has done so so ably.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of
the Edwards motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2004
Defense Authorization Act.
Specifically, I support the Senate provision on making the increase
in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance permanent for
all our armed service members and their families and applying the
increase to all those in imminent danger no matter where they are
serving. And let me tell my colleagues why.
In April, Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations bill to fund military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere. I voted for that bill because I strongly support our men
and women in the armed services.
{time} 2045
This bill provided temporary increases in imminent danger pay and
family separation allowances, but they are due to expire on September
30, 2003, less than 3 weeks from now.
Specifically, the bill we passed in April temporarily increased the
imminent danger/hostile fire pay from $150 to $225 a month. It also
temporarily increased the family separation allowance, which helps
military families pay rent, child care and other expenses while the
soldier is away from $100 to $250 a month.
I represent one of the largest military bases in this country, and
when the call comes from the White House, it is the 9/11 post in this
country. Both the House and Senate have passed defense authorization
bills that deal with those expiring provisions, but the Senate-passed
bill is superior to the House version in two key ways. First, the
Senate provision makes permanent the increase in imminent danger and
hostile fire pay and the family separation allowance. The Senate bill
also provides increases for all of our armed services in imminent
danger, whereas the House bill only covers those serving in Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That
provisions leaves our soldiers in dangerous places, and leaves them
out, young men and women serving in Liberia, Kosovo and elsewhere.
When our soldiers are getting shot at for the sole reason they are
wearing our Nation's uniform, it is indefensible to shortchange our
soldiers serving in areas that may not be the political focus of this
Congress or the administration.
As a congressman who represents Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base and
the special operations soldiers that are called on daily to serve
around the world, and many of the guard and reserve units who are now
on duty, I strongly support the permanent increase in imminent danger
and hostile fire pay and family allowances for our soldiers and their
families. Our military personnel and their families right now are under
enormous strain. They are stretched very thin. Our servicemen are being
subjected to longer deployments and more frequent deployments than ever
before.
Just 2 days ago it was announced that the deployment of reservists
and National Guard in the combat theater have been extended from 6
months to 1 year. About half of our active duty Army is currently
deployed abroad, up from 20 percent just 2 years ago.
Let me say I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. I voted to authorize
the President to conduct the operation and rid the world of Saddam
Hussein, but now our servicemen are paying the price. We have now lost
more soldiers lives since the President announced the end of the combat
operation than suffered in combat. Our soldiers are serving in the war
zone. They cannot speak for themselves on this vital issue. They are
counting on their elected representatives in Congress to stand up for
them. I intend to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
for the Edwards motion.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Edwards motion to
instruct conferees on the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization
Act. Specifically, I support the Senate provisions on making the
increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance
permanent for our armed services and their families and applying the
increase to all those in imminent danger, no matter where they are
serving.
In April, Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations bill to fund military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere. I voted for that bill because I strongly support our men
and women in the armed services. This bill provided temporary increases
in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances, but they are
due to expire on September 30, less than 3 weeks from now.
Specifically, the bill we passed in April temporarily increased the
imminent danger/hostile fire pay from $150 to $225 per month. It also
temporarily increased the family separation allowance, which helps
military families pay rent, child care and other expenses while
soldiers are away, from $100 to $250 per month.
Both the House and Senate have passed defense authorization bills
that deal with these expiring provisions. But the Senate-passed bill is
superior to the House version in two key ways. First, the Senate
provisions make permanent the increases in imminent danger and hostile
fire pay and the family separation allowance. The Senate bill also
provides increases for all of our armed forces in imminent danger,
whereas the House bill only covers those serving in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That limitation
leaves out our soldiers in dangerous places like Liberia, Kosovo and
elsewhere.
When our soldiers are getting shot at for the sole reason that they
are wearing our Nation's uniform, it is indefensible to shortchange
soldiers serving in areas that may not be the political focus of the
administration or the Congress.
As the Congressman for Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base and many guard
and reserve units, I strongly support a permanent increase in imminent
danger and hostile fire pay and family allowances for our soldiers and
their families. Our military personnel and their families right now are
under enormous strain. They are stretched ordinarily thin. Our service
members are being subjected to longer deployments and more frequent
deployments than ever before. Just 2 days ago, it was announced that
the deployment of Reservists and National Guard in the combat theater
has been extended from 6 months to 1 year. About half of the active-
duty Army is currently deployed abroad--up from 20 percent just 2 years
ago.
Let me say that I support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I voted to
authorize the President to conduct the operation to rid the world of
Saddam Hussein's evil rule. I am tremendously proud of our men and
women in uniform who have demonstrated the American way of dealing with
tyrants who terrorize their own reigon and threaten the peace and
stability of the larger world. Saddam Hussein got what he deserved. But
now our service members are paying the price. We have now lost more
soldiers' lives since the President announced the end of combat than we
suffered in that combat. Our soldiers serving in the war zone cannot
speak for themselves on this vital issue. They are counting on their
elected Representatives in Congress to stand up for them. I intend to
do so, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the
Edwards motion.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my special friend and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh),
[[Page H8171]]
the fellow co-chair of the House Army Caucus. The gentleman has been a
real leader on military issues here in Congress. I want to thank the
gentleman for asking his fellow Republican colleagues not to oppose
this motion to instruct because as late as 2 hours ago, I heard that
the House Republican leadership was actually going to oppose our effort
to make it absolutely certain and clear we are not going to reduce
family separation pay or imminent danger pay for servicemen and -women
serving in all parts of the globe. I appreciate the gentleman not
asking his colleagues to oppose this motion.
I understand and I respect as he said that there are differences of
approaches. What I would like to make clear is the approach that we are
trying to take in this motion to instruct. There are really four
problems I would like to point out with the House language relative to
the Senate language. First of all, in the House language, there is no
permanence for the increased $225 that a service member and his or her
family can receive today in serving in very dangerous parts of the
world. That pay could go away if we do not have the Senate language.
They deserve clarity. They deserve certainty.
Secondly, under the House language, for a military soldier in Kosovo
or Bosnia today, his family gets $250 a month in family separation pay.
That will drop to $100 a month on October 1 of this year, just in a few
days. People serving in areas that because of the terrorist activities
around the world, because of heightened tension in countries such as
Korea, Kosovo, and Bosnia, could actually have their military pay cut
by the same government that is saluting them daily in floor speeches. I
think that is wrong. I think that is a problem, a serious problem with
the House language, and that is the second reason why I am asking my
colleagues to join me in support of this motion to instruct.
The third problem I have with the House language and approach to this
problem is that soldiers and troops receiving $225 a month in imminent
danger pay right now in countries such as Liberia, Bosnia and Kosovo
could actually have their pay cut under the House language. I do not
know how many of our colleagues have visited Liberia and Bosnia and
Kosovo, but I think most Members would agree, as would the Department
of Defense, that is a dangerous place to be right now and we should not
have them have their imminent danger pay cut by $75 a month while they
are serving in those far reaches of the globe today, far away from
their families.
The fourth point I would make is that I think it is better for the
Department of Defense to continue deciding which countries should be
designated as imminent danger or hostile fire countries. I do not like
the idea of Congress making that decision in an armed services bill. I
do not think we are qualified to do that.
What my motion to instruct is really about is about two things: It is
about certainty, certainty to our military families that they are not
going to have their pay cut by as much as $225 in the next several
weeks. And it is about respect. It is about respecting the incredible
sacrifices, the risk of limb and life that tens of thousands of our
service members from all across America are facing today.
We should show that respect not just in our speeches, but in a vote
on this motion to instruct.
I do want to clarify one point, and I want to be sure I am clear on
this with my colleague from New York. He talked about, under the Senate
language, two soldiers on patrol in the same place, one soldier could
get more money than the other.
Unless I misunderstand the argument, the reason for that, and I want
to be clear, one soldier is married and one soldier is not married, and
this country pays family separation pay to married troops because they
have families back home that have to pay extra perhaps baby-sitting
costs, they have to pay extra telephone costs to their spouses, they
have perhaps baby-sitting costs that could be very substantial, and
certainly there is a reason why we provide family separation pay to
troops that are married and have families whereas we do not provide
family separation pay for troops that do not have spouses back home,
children back home.
I think that is a logical consequence, and I think it is important
for our servicemen and -women, perhaps they are watching this debate,
to not be confused by that argument.
But again the key point is if we adopt the House language as
presently written, we could have tens of thousands of American
servicemen and -women and their families losing as much as $225 a month
in pay in the next several weeks. Under the Senate language, we send a
clear message, a message they deserve to hear, that that is not going
to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again let me commend the gentleman for his concern. It
is a concern that I have had an opportunity to work with and admire and
benefit from during all of my years in Congress and certainly in our
shared chairs of the Army caucus. The gentleman is doing good and
important work here.
For the record, I have been to Bosnia and Kosovo three times each,
and things have gotten demonstrably better, but I do not think anybody
would argue that is pleasant duty.
I do think it is important to have the administration and the
Department's position on the record here, and the gentleman gave an
explanation of the reason and the construct behind the differentials
were for a man on patrol, a single man would receive $75 in patrol to
Crete or whatever, and the person next to him would receive $250, and
it is by definition of the family, but the Department is making the
argument that is, given the circumstances, too great a discrepancy and
that under some of the constructs and legal definitions of what
constitutes a family that if you are, for example, a single parent,
noncustodial parent, nevertheless you have certain responsibilities and
out of fairness, you do not get family separation pay.
If you have a single soldier who is a substantial supporter of his
elderly parents or her elderly parents, that does not meet the IRS
definition technically of 50 percent support, you do not get family
separation pay. So this is not just in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, an
accounting measure by the Department to try to evade and avoid
responsibility and equity in treating their soldiers, sailors, airmen,
marines and Coast Guardsmen differently or unfairly, but rather
recognizing that definitions may not be as perfect as they should be.
They want to make some changes in other pays that go equally to both
categories of families as well as single to make sure that they all
receive more. We can disagree with that. The House bill did not
develop, it did not embody that position, but I do not think it is
accurate or entirely fair, and I am not suggesting that the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) did this, I do not think that their thoughts
are really on point to suggest that the Department is being uncaring
because I do not think that is their intent.
Their intent is to more precisely target where the merit exists and
to try to not what they feel, whether we agree or not is irrelevant,
but what they feel is a discriminatory approach.
Again, for the purposes of this House, for the purposes of the
defense authorization bill, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) makes some excellent points, and obviously those who spoke in
support of him underscore those points. As the chairman of the
subcommittee with the most direct responsibility, I do not disagree
with one sentence, one paragraph, one period in any of those sentences,
or certainly the motivation of the gentleman's instruction.
In closing, I would urge my colleagues, as I have before, to join in
support of the gentleman's motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8172]]
____________________