[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 8 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S683-S686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUARD AND RESERVE ENHANCEMENT BENEFITS ACT
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this past weekend we witnessed a very
important step forward in Iraq, as citizens around the country turned
out to vote for a new National Assembly. Many Iraqis appear to have
embraced the election and I, as so many others, was encouraged to see
millions of them exercise their right to vote. But this past weekend's
vote also really pushes to the forefront an important question back
here, right here at home, about what we are doing to take care of the
thousands of American soldiers who are serving us so honorably in this
still very dangerous country.
Just before the elections, several news outlets reported that the
Army had decided to keep our troops at their current level in Iraq for
at least another 2 years. I have one of those stories here from the
Tuesday, January 25, edition of the Washington Post. It is headlined,
``Army plans to keep Iraq troop level through '06.''
I want to read a portion of that story. It says:
With the Pentagon having relied heavily on reservists to
fill out deployments to Iraq, military officers have warned
recently that the pool of available part-time soldiers is
dwindling. By later this year, when the Army is scheduled to
begin its fourth rotation of troops since the invasion in
March 2003, all 15 of the National Guard's most readily
deployable brigades will have been mobilized.
Although other Guard troops remain and could be tapped for
Iraq duty, they belong to units that historically have not
received the same priority in equipping and training as the
brigades chosen to go in the rotations so far.
``It doesn't mean that the cupboard is bare,'' Lovelace
said. ``It just becomes a challenge then for the National
Guard.''
As the Army reaches farther down in the reserve force,
Lovelace said, the amount of ``pre-mobilization'' time
necessary to get the troops ready to send to Iraq is likely
to increase.
``We're not going to send anybody into combat who is not
trained and ready'' the three-star general said. But he noted
that already in each rotation, the amount of pre-mobilization
time required has increased.
To continue to be able to draw on the better trained
reservists, Army officials have said they are considering
petitioning Rumsfeld to extend the 24-month limit on the
total time a reservist could be caned to active duty.
Madam President, I ask that the full text of the story be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2005]
Army Plans To Keep Iraq Troop Level Through '06--Year-Long Active-Duty
Stints Likely To Continue
(By Bradley Graham)
The U.S. Army expects to keep its troop strength in Iraq at
the current level of about 120,000 for at least two more
years, according to the Army's top operations officer.
While allowing for the possibility that the levels could
decrease or increase depending on security conditions and
other factors, Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace Jr. told reporters
yesterday that the assumption of little change through 2006
represents ``the most probable case.''
Recent disclosures that the Pentagon plans to beef up
training of Iraqi security forces and press them into action
more quickly has fueled speculation that the Bush
administration could be preparing to reduce the number of
U.S. troops significantly this year. As more Iraqi troops
join the fight, the thinking goes, U.S. troops could begin to
withdraw.
But Lovelace's remarks indicated that the Army is not yet
counting on any such reduction. Indeed, the general said, the
Army expects to continue rotating active-duty units in and
out of Iraq in year-long deployments and is looking for ways
to dip even deeper into reserve forces--even as leaders ofthe
reserves have warned that the Pentagon could be running out
of such units.
``We're making the assumption that the level of effort is
going to continue,'' Lovelace said.
In a related development, Senate and House aides said
yesterday that the White House will announce today plans to
request an additional $80 billion to finance the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. That would come on top of $25 billion
already appropriated for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
White House budget spokesman Chad Kolton declined to comment.
White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten is to describe
the package to lawmakers today, but the budget request will
come later, the aides said. Administration
[[Page S684]]
officials have said privately for several weeks that they
will seek the additional funding, the result of continuing
high costs incurred battling an unexpectedly strong
insurgency in Iraq.
Lovelace, who assumed his post of deputy chief of staff for
operations in October, spoke to a small group of Pentagon
reporters in what had been billed as an informal ``meet and
greet'' session. The conversation quickly focused on the
Army's planning for Iraq.
The number of U.S. Army and other forces in Iraq rose to
150,000 last month in what Pentagon officials described as an
effort to bolster security ahead of Iraqi elections this
weekend.
Lovelace made it clear that the Army's assumption about
future U.S. force levels was not meant to prejudge likely
trends in either Iraq's security situation or development of
its security services. He said the planning is intended to
ensure that enough units would be ready if needed and to give
U.S. troops a basis on which to organize their own lives.
``It's really about us providing the predictability to our
own soldiers,'' he said. ``It has nothing to do with the
Iraqi army; it has everything to do with our own
institutional agility.''
Asked about the Army's assumption, Lawrence T. Di Rita, the
Pentagon's main spokesman, said he was ``not surprised'' to
hear that the Army has chosen such a number, noting the need
for service leaders to do such planning. ``But it's not going
to be the Army's determination,'' he said. ``Ultimately, the
determination will be made by the commanders'' in the field.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's belief, Di Rita
added, ``is that we will continue to see Iraqi security
forces grow in capability. We will continue to see the need
for the foreseeable period ahead to have a significant
commitment of U.S. assistance as that capability develops.
But there isn't anybody who has made any determination about
timing or numbers.''
Rumsfeld and other senior officials are reviewing
recommendations from Army Gen. Gary Luck about measures to
accelerate the training and boost the performance of the
Iraqi security forces. Luck, who has returned to Washington
after visiting Iraq last week, has endorsed plans by field
commanders to increase the number of trainers substantially.
But this increase is to come by shifting the missions of U.S.
troops already assigned to Iraq rather than by deploying more
forces, officials said.
``I don't think anyone has a notion that we're talking
about forces in addition to what's already out there,'' Di
Rita said. ``It's a question of how to use those forces in a
different way.''
With the Pentagon having relied heavily on reservists to
fill out deployments to Iraq, military officers have warned
recently that the pool of available part-time soldiers is
dwindling. By later this year, when the Army is scheduled to
begin its fourth rotation of troops since the invasion in
March 2003, all 15 of the National Guard's most readily
deployable brigades will have been mobilized.
Although other Guard troops remain and could be tapped for
Iraq duty, they belong to units that historically have not
received the same priority in equipping and training as the
brigades chosen to go in the rotations so far.
``It doesn't mean that the cupboard is bare,'' Lovelace
said. ``It just becomes a challenge then for the National
Guard.''
As the Army reaches farther down in the reserve force,
Lovelace said, the amount of ``pre-mobilization'' time
necessary to get the troops ready to send to Iraq is likely
to increase.
``We're not going to send anybody into combat who is not
trained and ready,'' the three-star general said. But he
noted that already in each rotation, the amount of pre-
mobilization time required has increased.
To continue to be able to draw on the better trained
reservists, Army officials have said they are considering
petitioning Rumsfeld to extend the 24-month limit on the
total time a reservist could be called to active duty.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the effect of that policy is very
clear. It means longer deployments, more time away from home, and a
further strain on our entire military.
It is no secret that some of our soldiers are hit especially hard by
this news. I am talking, of course, about our Guard and Reserve
soldiers who have already faced extended deployments and long stretches
away from their jobs, away from their homes, away from their families.
We honor all of our troops serving overseas, but I am very concerned
that these Guard and Reserve soldiers are not receiving some basic
services and help that they have earned--basic services and help they
most certainly deserve.
Last week I reintroduced legislation to increase services and
benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves when they are
called to active duty. I offered this Guard and Reserve Enhancement
Benefits Act last year to expand health care, education, financial
benefits, and family assistance to help ease the burden on our Guard
members and their families.
We made some progress in the Senate last year, but those important
provisions were never signed into law. Now, in this new Congress, we
have another opportunity to provide for our Guard men and women, our
reservists, and all their families. This coincides with the
introduction of S. 11, the first Democratic bill for this Congress. It
is the first Democratic bill of this Congress to help increase
protections for our troops and Reserve members.
Thousands of citizen soldiers from across my home State of Washington
have been called to active duty over the past 2 years. These very brave
men and women and their families deserve the same support that other
military units receive when they sacrifice to serve our country. My
bill tells Guard and Reserve members across America that we are
committed to providing them and their families with the health,
financial, and social support services necessary to get through this
difficult time.
According to the Pentagon, 239,000 National Guard members have been
called to active duty. Currently, 192,500 Guard and Reserve members are
serving on active duty as part of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thousands of Washington State Guard members
have been activated over the past 2 years. This is the largest
activation since World War II.
Hundreds of Washington State reservists have also been activated, and
150 local Marine Corps reservists will soon be deployed to Iraq as part
of the Yakima-based Bravo Company 4th Tank Battalion. That is why this
legislation is so important at this time.
As many other Members, I have sat and talked to our reservists as
they have been called up, and I have talked with their families who
have been left behind. It is critical that we provide the support and
services they need so they can do this important job that this country
has asked them to do.
My legislation would begin by extending the current Family and
Medical Leave Act protections to the spouses of guardsmen and
reservists called to extended active duty. This is really important.
The families who are left behind are struggling as single parents to
try to raise their family. They should not have to worry about losing
their jobs and their income when their loved one is sent overseas. So
the first part of our bill simply extends the Family and Medical Leave
Act protections so these spouses who are left behind can take care of
the issues they need to take care of as their spouse is called
overseas.
Second, it provides childcare assistance grants to parents or
guardians of dependents of guardsmen and Reservists called to active
duty. This is really important. Most of these Guard and Reserve members
are not on a base, so they don't have access to childcare facilities
that Regular Army and other people have on the base. They are out in
our communities, across my State and across this country.
So child care is especially important to them when their spouses are
sent overseas and they are left with how to deal with child care--an
issue that is always critical to families.
It becomes extremely critical when you lose half of your family, when
they go to a place that can't help with child care. Childcare
assistance grants are an important part of our package.
My bill also expands the GI bill for members of the Guard and
Reserves who are called to active duty for 12 consecutive months or 24
months out of a 60-month period.
This is something that is really important. When we send these men
and women overseas to serve, they should have access to the GI bill
when they return so they can enhance their own lives and get a job and
be productive members of our society.
Next, our bill provides relief from interest and defers payments of
unsubsidized student loans.
I met with Reserve members before they left. Many of them were
students or were just finishing college, and they were extremely
worried about how they were going to pay their student loans while they
were deployed, or when they returned before they would be able to get
back into the job market and have a steady income. We put special help
in our bill for these men and women who serve us by providing relief
from interest and defer payments of unsubsidized student loans so they
can
[[Page S685]]
get their lives back together when they return before they start to pay
back their obligation.
Next, our bill requires any college receiving Federal funds to offer
students returning from active-duty service readmission without penalty
or additional fees.
You can imagine, if you are in college attending classes and you are
called up to serve your country as a member of the Guard and Reserve,
you are concerned that when you return you will not be able to get back
into that school and finish the college degree that you started. Our
bill provides assurance to these students who have been called up that
they will be readmitted into any college that receives Federal funds,
so they will know when they return that they can continue their lives.
Next, we reduce the age for members of the Guard and Reserve to
receive retirement pay. This is a critical issue for many of our Guard
and Reserve families who face extreme hardship as their family member
serves overseas. We want to make sure they can receive retirement pay
at an age that benefits them.
Next, our bill requires the Federal Government to cover the pay
differential for Federal employees who are called to active duty. When
I talked to these Guard and Reserve family members, they were worried
about how they were going to make sure their families would be able to
pay the mortgage on their home, or how they were going to pay their
school costs and put food on the table because of the reduced pay from
the Government.
This bill will make sure the Federal Government that is calling these
members up to serve pays the differential for our Federal employees so
they do not lose income while they serve this country overseas.
Next, our bill allows employers to claim up to $15,000 in tax credits
for the pay deferential of Guard and Reserve members. Across this
country and in my home State, we have many businesses that have
employees who have been called up to go overseas and serve their
country. It is especially difficult for small businesses that lose
their employees for 6 months, for 12 months, or longer. And this bill
provides a tax credit to help them make up the pay of those employees
when they go overseas.
Finally, our bill makes access to TRICARE permanent for all members
of the Guard and Reserve and their families, regardless of employment
or insurance status. This is an extremely important provision of this
bill.
I think probably the No. 1 issue I heard from these families as I
talked to them was, What do I need to do about our health care? We had
our health care under a member who has been called to serve overseas.
When we lose that, how do we transition? What do we do about a sick
child with ongoing illnesses and family members with health care
challenges? How do we get through this?
I think it is important that this year we enact into legislation
assurance for the family members of those who serve overseas that their
family left behind will have access to TRICARE and health care.
Tours of duty are being extended and new units are being deployed. I
believe we have an obligation to ease the burden for these Guard and
Reserve families.
Supporting our troops means more than just passing multibillion-
dollar supplemental appropriations bills whenever the President asks.
Supporting our troops must also mean that we look after the soldier and
his family's well-being back at home. It means ensuring they get
quality education, it means ensuring they get good health care, and it
means access to a job, and childcare for their families.
I have spoken many times on this floor and in every corner of my
State about the need to take care of our troops. Oftentimes, that means
supplementing our floundering veterans care system. I talked about it
on the floor extensively last week.
But with this legislation I am talking about today, we have an
opportunity to provide help where it is needed now--help for the
thousands of heroes and their families who are dedicating their lives
to all of us by serving us around the globe.
I hope my colleagues will support our efforts. I look forward to
working with anyone who will help move this legislation this year.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we were encouraged to learn yesterday that
the administration has announced that it will support an increase in
death benefits for our troops and their families. This has been a
priority for the Democrats in Congress as well as many Republican
Senators who have suggested it.
I have cosponsored legislation with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio
proposing increases in death benefits as well as health insurance and
educational assistance for the families of those soldiers who lose
their lives in service to our country.
In fact, one of the highest priorities on the Democratic side is a
second bill standing with our troops which embodies that particular
proposal that the President endorsed yesterday. But there is a lot more
that needs to be done.
In the bill on the Democratic side, we proposed that there be
additional provisions for our troops, and Guard and Reserve forces and
their military families and American veterans. Unfortunately, we have
not heard from the administration that they support these other
proposals.
Let me tell you, though it is incredible to believe, if a soldier
gives his life in service to his country today in combat, that
soldier's family is entitled under the law to $12,000 in death annuity
benefits--tax-free death benefits. Twelve thousand dollars is hardly
enough to give to a spouse and her children when a soldier dies in
combat. We have proposed that be increased at least to $100,000. I
support a proposal that it also be increased by $25,000 for each
dependent; that life insurance, if you can acknowledge that, is
virtually the same thing--that this death benefit is going to be
adequate to help that family through some extraordinarily challenging
financial circumstances.
The bill that the Senate Democrats have proposed, S. 11, would also
include systemic improvements to the Pentagon's ability to manufacture
and distribute the best equipment to our troops, including $7 billion
for the Army and Marine Corps to replace equipment destroyed in Iraq.
This provision will ensure that we pay death gratuities to fewer
families in the future. Keeping our troops safe is the best thing to do
to bring those soldiers home with their mission accomplished, and being
attentive to the issue raised by the Tennessee Guardsman who stood up
just a few weeks ago and asked Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Why do I have
to rummage through a dump to find pieces of metal to put on the side of
my Humvee to protect myself? It was an embarrassing moment for the
Secretary and for our country to think we spent billions of dollars and
sent 251,000 of our best and bravest into harm's way in Iraq and have
this circumstance.
We believe we must, in the first instance, let our troops have the
training and the equipment they need to be safe. In addition, Democrats
believe they should have full access to military TRICARE benefits, all
reservists and their families. TRICARE is the health insurance for the
military. There is a limitation. For example, if a combat soldier dies
in the line of duty, the TRICARE benefits or health care benefits are
extended to his dependents only for a 3-year period. That is
unrealistic. If you have a young child in a family who lost a soldier
overseas, we believe the TRICARE benefits should be extended until that
young person reaches the age of 21. I believe it should be age 23 if
they are going to college. That is a reasonable proposal. It was not in
the suggestion of the administration yesterday, but we believe it
should be included.
We also believe there should be tax incentives for private companies
to make up the difference between civilian and active military pay when
the reservists and guardsmen are called to duty, and a requirement that
the Federal Government do the same.
This is a project that is near and dear to my heart. Twice on the
floor of the Senate I had an amendment passed that said the Federal
Government should make up the difference in pay for Federal employees
who are activated as guardsmen or reservists to
[[Page S686]]
serve in Iraq and other places around the world. We salute all the
private companies that do that. Sears & Roebuck is a good example, and
many others in my State--and many units of State and local government.
But it is shameful to know and acknowledge that the Federal Government
does not make up the difference in pay.
How can we say that all of these other companies did the right thing
by standing by their employees who are risking their lives for America
and the Federal Government does not do the same thing?
If someone has a pay check for $60,000 a year working for the Federal
Government, and they are a member of the Illinois National Guard and
activated for service and their military pay is only $40,000 a year, I
believe the Federal Government should make up the difference of $20,000
a year. Private companies do it; State governments do it; local units
of government do it. Why doesn't the Federal Government do it?
Twice we passed an amendment on the floor only to see it die in
conference committee. I think it is important that this finally pass.
In addition, we want to repeal the prohibition against receipt of
both the Survivor Benefit Plan and the Dependent and Indemnity
Compensation so the soldiers can receive the full amount of the
survivor benefit owed to them. We want to have full concurrent receipt
for all disabled military retirees of both disability compensation and
retirement provisions. We also want to guarantee funding for veterans
health care.
We made a promise to the veterans of America--those who will be
veterans and who are serving today, and those who served in the past.
We promised that we will stand by them for their health care in the
future. We have to put the money in our budget to make that promise
good.
Finally, we want to expand the mental health services. This provision
which we support will improve resources available to the estimated one
out of every six military personnel in Iraq who are at risk of dealing
with posttraumatic stress disorder.
It is a sad fact of life that many of these soldiers who witnessed
horrendous events come back trying to resolve in their own minds the
horror they have witnessed. We need to stand with them and give them a
helping hand. I think that should be part of this administration's
proposal.
____________________