[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.

                          ____________________