[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8177-H8178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H8177]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

      MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
           AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued
                              {time}  2100

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First let me again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for 
his incredible leadership year in and year out to our servicemen and -
women. As the person in this House who has responsibility for 
overseeing personnel matters, he has been a tremendous leader and I 
thank him. Our military families are living a better quality of life 
because of his leadership.
  I am very grateful that today we are not disagreeing with the vote on 
this motion to instruct, while there may be some subtle difference in 
what the approach should be. In terms of responding to the gentleman's 
comments, I just say, I would welcome his leadership in helping us work 
on a bipartisan basis to address any inequities to our servicemen and -
women that are single parents. Obviously, a single parent with two 
children back home that is separated from those children has an 
additional cost of living. I am not sure either the House or Senate 
position on this bill really addresses that inequity. I thank the 
gentleman for pointing out that problem, and I hope we could work 
together with him on that.
  Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, why I think clarity is 
so important, and I do not think the gentleman argues with this at all. 
Let me read some excerpts from some letters from soldiers in my 
district where Fort Hood is represented, the only two-division Army 
installation in America today, an installation that presently has over 
18,000 troops deployed to Iraq.
  One letter said to me, ``Congressman, I am sickened with the flow of 
information regarding the upcoming cut in separation pay and hostile 
fire pay. I keep asking myself, Why? Our government is giving away 
billions of dollars to help other countries and millions just for 
information. Yet they are going to cut our benefits by $225. If 
anything, our military should be getting paid more, not less.''
  The second letter, reflecting also the confusion out there across our 
military families: ``Congressman, is it true that the government is 
trying to make obsolete the family separation allowance and the 
hazardous duty hostile fire pay that soldiers are receiving while they 
are overseas? My husband is over in Iraq and he works hard for his 
country to see that his family has a safe life over here. I'm trying to 
convince him to reenlist, but with what the government is doing to 
these soldiers, it's hard to try and convince them that the military is 
the best way to go.''
  The letter goes on to talk about the sacrifices of the families. I 
think it just emphasizes the point that, right or wrong, there is 
confusion across the country with our military families about whether 
their separation pay and hostile fire pay is going to be cut in the 
next several weeks. If the conferees will accept this motion to 
instruct, then we can get rid of those rumors, get rid of the 
uncertainty and send a clear message that we do respect our servicemen 
and -women, their families and their sacrifices with our actions and 
not just with our words.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to 
support this motion to instruct, support our troops wherever they might 
be serving in harm's way. We can thank them tonight with a meaningful 
commitment to ensure that their pay is not going to be cut in the weeks 
ahead.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the 
gentleman from Texas, to permanently raise the hazard pay for all 
members of the U.S. military and family separation pay for those they 
left behind.
  As a former soldier, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, as an American, as a human being . . . I am appalled at the 
insensitivity of the administration in not adequately providing hazard 
pay for our soldiers at a time when our mission in Iraq is not yet 
accomplished. Nor, more importantly, is our mission in the larger war 
on terror.
  I very much understand the dynamic that led us to this place--this 
nation simply cannot afford the cost to our Nation to wage a worldwide 
war, and raise taxes on our children through tax cuts now. Our economic 
policy has become folly in the 21st Century.
  But that is a topic for another debate--today my colleague from 
Texas, Mr. Edwards, offers a very important matter for the House to 
consider. Today conferees are meeting on the Defense Authorization bill 
and I join my colleague from Texas in urging the conferees to 
permanently increase hazard pay for our military personnel fighting our 
wars overseas--and to permanently increase family separation pay.
  The administration should be ashamed. This Congress should be 
ashamed, too, if we do not support the motion by my Texas colleague and 
follow this issue to the end of the process. For if we only instruct 
our conferees, yet do not actually change the policy, we will not have 
done the job.
  Mr. Speaker, any member of this chamber would be hard-pressed to find 
anyone in this nation who disagreed with the prospect of increasing the 
pay of our soldiers currently dodging bullets in Iraq--and always in 
danger in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We would also be hard-pressed to 
find anybody who disagreed with the prospect of offering a supplement 
to the families of military personnel, who are making do on less salary 
and are all alone in raising their children and conducting the business 
of the household--while their loved one is fighting a war we sent them 
to fight.
  We all knew a war would be expensive. The cost of a war is high in 
the blood of Americans, in the loss to the family income of Reserve and 
Guard troops called to service, and most directly, in the actual 
expense of building and maintaining equipment and prosecuting the war.

[[Page H8178]]

  We send young people to war from this branch of government. Let us 
not abandon them on combat pay. Let us not abandon their families as 
they live their lives as best they can without their loved ones, and 
without the salary their loved one brings to the family if they are in 
the Guard or Reserve.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion to stop 
outrageous plans to cut hazard and separation pay for troops. In fact, 
Mr. Speaker, I think it's appalling that we would balance the budget on 
the backs of our troops.
  It is critical that we make the increase in imminent danger pay and 
the family separation allowance permanent for our Armed Services and 
their families and make it available to everyone in imminent danger, no 
matter where they are serving.
  In April, Congress approved a much deserved pay raise for our men and 
women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This was the least we could do for those who are risking their lives 
to secure our freedom.
  It wasn't a lot of money--increases of $75 a month in ``imminent 
danger pay'' and $150 a month in ``family separation allowances.''
  In fact, this was the first raise in ``imminent danger pay'' in over 
10 years, and the first increase in the ``family separation allowance'' 
in over 5 years.
  Now, as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the 
privilege of spending time with military personnel on the day of their 
deployments.
  With 500 men and women of the Marine Corp. 2nd Battalion at 
Plainview, NY as they left for the Middle East and said goodbye to 
their families with the brave men and women at the U.S. Navy and Marine 
Reserve Center in Amityville.
  One of my most vivid memories from that day is of a Marine kissing 
her child and saying, ``I'll be back soon.''
  In her eyes, I saw determination and strength and faith and courage.
  Could we ever look another soldier in the eye, if we allow these 
increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance to 
expire?
  The right thing to do is to make the increases permanent. We know 
that the war on terrorism will be a lengthy one. it will require a 
deepest commitment.
  Just yesterday, another American soldier was killed and another 
wounded in a bomb attack on their vehicles northeast of Baghdad.
  The slain soldier was the 287th U.S. service member to die in the 
Iraq War. Sadly, we know that he will not be the last.
  In the 24 hours before the soldier's death, the Pentagon reported 
that there had been 14 attacks on U.S. forces. Clearly, no one can ever 
doubt the bravery of our forces.
  They know that sacrifices are necessary in the global campaign 
against terror. For the first time since the Vietnam War, army 
personnel are facing the possibility of doing back-to-back combat 
tours.
  To fail to make these benefits permanent is to shortchange the moral 
contract we have with our soldiers. This is our chance to stand with 
our troops at home as they fight for our freedom abroad.
  Many of our servicemen are already under severe financial stress due 
to their extended deployment. The effect on reservists and members of 
the National Guard has been particularly devastating.
  Let's keep our promise to those in uniform. Vote for this motion to 
instruct the conferees and authorize the necessary funds to help those 
who are fighting for us, for our families, and our future.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________