[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22350-22351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   INCREASING MILITARY PAY CATEGORIES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have joined Senator Daschle in 
introducing a bill that would make permanent the increases in imminent 
danger pay and family separation allowance passed by Congress in the 
Fiscal Year 03 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  Last spring, when the Senate considered the Budget Resolution, it 
passed, by a vote of 100 to 0, an amendment I offered with Senator 
Landrieu that would have allowed for $1 billion to cover the increase 
in these special pay categories.
  Then, when the Senate considered the Fiscal Year 2003 Emergency 
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, it unanimously accepted an 
amendment I offered with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, increasing 
these pay categories for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  The amendment we offered to the Supplemental sunset these pay 
increased, not because we wished to end them, but simply to allow the 
Armed Services Committee--the Committee of jurisdiction--to increase 
these pay levels in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill, 
which it did.
  Now--when soldiers are dying in Iraq and military families have been 
separated for many months--we hear that the Administration wishes to 
cut these pay increases in the Conference Committee.
  The Statement of Administration Policy on the House version of the 
bill objects to the provision increasing both pay categories, saying it 
would ``divert resources unnecessarily.'' The statement on the Senate 
bill only objects to the increase in Family Separation Allowance.
  When confronted with questions about why the Administration wanted to 
reduce these pay categories, Defense Department spokesman, Under 
Secretary David Chu, came up with the classic Washington non-denial 
denial. On August 14, Chu said: ``I'd just like very quickly to put to 
rest what I understand has been a burgeoning rumor that somehow we are 
going to reduce compensation for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
That is not true. . . . ''
  ``What I think you're pointing to is one piece of very thick 
technical appeal document that speaks to the question do we want to 
extend the language Congress used in the Family Separation Allowance 
and Imminent Danger Pay statutes. And no, we don't think we need to 
extend that language. That's a different statement from are we going to 
reduce compensation for those in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .''
  What do these statements mean?
  Evidently the administration wants to claim that it will keep 
compensation the same for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan through 
other pay categories, but do indeed intend to roll back the increases 
to imminent danger pay and family separation allowance.
  This means that a soldier getting shot at fighting the war on 
terrorism in Yemen or the Philippines would receive less money than one 
who is similarly risking his or her life in Iraq. This means that a 
family bearing huge costs because of burdensome, long-term deployments 
would only be helped if the service member is deployed to Iraq or 
Afghanistan, but not if that same service member is deployed anywhere 
else in the world.
  It is unfair to cut funding intended to help military families that 
are bearing the costs of far-flung U.S. deployments. It is unacceptable 
that imminent danger would be worth less in one combat zone than in 
another.
  The bill we introduce today makes a clear statement that these pay 
categories should be increased permanently and should not be cut in 
conference.
  Until these pay levels were increased in the Supplemental, an 
American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who put his or her life on 
the line in imminent danger only received an extra $150 per month. My 
amendment increased that amount to $225 per month--still only an 
acknowledgment of their courage, but an increase nonetheless.
  Prior to the increase in the supplemental appropriations bill, family 
separation had been only $100 per month. We succeeded in raising it to 
$250 per month. These increases are only part of a normal progression 
of increases--for example, in 1965, imminent danger pay was $55; $100 
in 1985, and raised to $150 in 1991. Family separation allowance was 
$30 in 1970, $60 in 1985, $75 in 1991, and $100 in 1997.
  Family separation allowance was originally intended to pay for things 
that the deployed service member would have done, like cut the grass, 
that the spouse may then have had to hire someone to do. That may well 
have been appropriate in the past, but now most families have two 
working spouses--sometimes two working military spouses--and the 
absence of one or both parent may add huge child care costs that even 
the increased rate is unlikely to cover.
  Military spouses sometimes find that they must give up their jobs or 
curtail their working hours in order to take up the family 
responsibilities that otherwise would have been shared by the missing 
spouse.
  Example of increased costs that families may incur when military 
personnel are deployed, in addition to increased child care costs 
include: health care costs not covered by TRICARE, for example, the 
cost of counseling for children having a difficult time with their 
parents' deployment; costs for the family of an activated Reservist or 
National Guard member to travel to mobilization briefings, which may be 
in another state; various communication and information-gathering 
costs.
  I would like to quote for the Record from an article that appeared in 
The Washington Post on April 11, 2003, entitled ``Military Families 
Turn to Aid Groups,'' that outlines how military families have had to 
rely on private aid organizations to help them when their spouses are 
deployed. The article highlights the case of one mother, Michelle 
Mignosa and says:

       The last 18 months have brought one mishap or another to 
     Michelle Mignosa. Her husband, Kevin, is an Air Force 
     reservist who since Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has 
     been away from their Lancaster, Calif., home almost as much 
     as he's been there. First, there were the out-of-state trips 
     to provide airport security. Then he was deployed to Turkey 
     for 2\1/2\ months last spring. Now he's in Greece with an 
     air-refueling unit . . . . And while he has been gone, the 
     problems have piled up at home . . . . Strapped for cash 
     since giving up her part-time job because of Kevin's frequent 
     far-off postings, she didn't know where the money would come 
     from to resolve yet another problem.

  I applaud the efforts of private aid groups to help military 
families, but I believe that it is the duty of the U.S. Government to 
cover more of the costs incurred because of military deployments. It 
should not matter to which country the service member is deployed. Cuts 
must not be made to funds helping military families that are bearing 
the costs of war, homeland security, and US military commitments 
abroad.

[[Page 22351]]

  To say that pay will not decrease to those serving in Iraq or 
Afghanistan is ignoring the truth--rolling back family separation 
allowance from $250 per month to $100 per month will cost our military 
families and could be especially painful to those living on the edge.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill that Senator Daschle and I 
have introduced and make a strong statement to the Defense Department 
that Congress will not stand for cutting imminent danger pay and family 
separation allowance.

                          ____________________