[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]]




                          ____________________