Troop morale is Achilles heel for Bush

[Tiger Al 0]

The Independent UK reported earlier this week ("White House is Ambushed by Criticism From America's Military Community," Sept. 20, 2003) that "the dissenters — many of whom have risked deep disapproval from the military establishment to voice their opinions — have set up Web sites with names such as Bring Them Home Now. They have cried foul at administration plans to cut veterans' benefits and scale back combat pay for troops still in Iraq."

Yes, that's right. Adding insult to injury, the Pentagon issued an interim budget report in July recommending a dramatic 47 percent drop in combat pay and family separation allowances for our soldiers.

Combat pay is to be cut from $225 a month to $150 a month, and family separation allowances (which support soldiers' families back home) are to be cut from an already inadequate $250 a month to a truly pathetic $100 a month.

Link

[CarolinaTiger 0]

wow...

i guess we should just pack 'em all up and bring 'em home, huh? that'd solve everything!

as far as the cut in benefits...i must've misread that.... is it additional pay the families/soldiers get when a troop is separated from the family for an extended period of time? if so, then you gotta sort of pick which position you want to harp on: "the war/rebuilding effort is costing too much", or "we should support our troops".

as for the student-assistant in the library...

To place these cuts in perspective, I now receive, working part time as a student library assistant, roughly the same pay as the soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

how many of you believe a PT student assistant makes 'roughly the same' pay as soldiers?

TIGERAL, do YOU believe this? do our soldiers really only make around $7,800 a year?

could it be that this objective reporter meant to refer to the ADDITIONAL pay soldiers receive for 'separation' duties, and not a soldier's total pay?

just an oversight, i'm sure; not an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to make a cause look worse than it really is.

TIGERAL,

i'm curious: what was your point in posting this article?

[Ranger12 46]

That whole article is bs. I made more then that in a year, ten years ago as an E-1. When I got out as an E-4, my gross base salary was aroun $1200 a month. That did not include my living and food allowance I got by having a family. Also did not include jump pay and hazardous duty pay when I received it. We were well taken care of when I was in. The writer did not seem independent to me at all, but completely biased and seemed to use uneducated sources. I am still involved in the military and the 75th Ranger Regiment Association. The majority of the troops back the President 100%. Sure, they hate being away from their families, but they know that was the risk they took when they volunteered. They know it is their job and what they trained for. They love doing what they are trained for, but hate being away from loved ones. It is articles like these that are full of lies and spins that cause dissent in the country. About the websites being started-anybody can start a website and claim to be a veteran or current member. Trust me, this happens alot. One of the things that the 75th RRA does is expose scumbags that claim to be Rangers and combat veterans. So, some website with "military personnel" against Bush tells me nothing about what the troops really feel. How many verifible troops did the article interview? Tell me that. You can't. I also would like to know where the info came about Bush wanting to cut pay and benefits. Looked all over the place on the internet and then made a few phone calls and seems that info seems to be quite unreliable or downright a lie. Another liberal spin on nothing they know anything about. TigerAl, you usually post stuff that can be legitmately debated, but you dropped it on this one. Comparing a part time library assitant to what a soldier makes and also getting their opinion. Give me a break.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i hadn't even considered the fact that these websites may not have even been started by true military personnel.

even AL would have to agree that the arguments set forth in this article would have to be questioned as either highly suspect, anecdotal, or outright contrived (as in the case of the library assistant's claim to make 'roughly' the same $$...).

[Tiger Al 0]

as far as the cut in benefits...i must've misread that.... is it additional pay the families/soldiers get when a troop is separated from the family for an extended period of time? if so, then you gotta sort of pick which position you want to harp on: "the war/rebuilding effort is costing too much", or "we should support our troops".

It's just what he said. Combat pay and separation pay. They are extras. A third position might be: "Bush sends troops to war and then wants to cut their pay when he campaigned on being a friend of the military. Bush lies."

how many of you believe a PT student assistant makes more pay than soldiers?

TIGERAL, do YOU believe this? do our soldiers really only make $7,800 a year?

could it be that this objective reporter meant to refer to the ADDITIONAL pay soldiers receive for 'separation' duties, and not a soldier's total pay?

just an oversight, i'm sure; not an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to make a cause look worse than it really is.

Where did you come up with $7800? Here are military pay scales. I think his point is to illustrate the fact that these people don't make a lot of money to begin with and while they are actively engaged in dodging bullets, Bush wants to trim a little off of, ironically, the extra pay they get for actually dodging those bullets.

TIGERAL,

i'm curious: what was your point in posting this article?

My point is that your president is a bold-faced liar and most in the media pass on his lies as the truth. If his foot soldiers are beginning to see through his lies, when will you? Sooner or later his wall of deception will come down and he'll be revealed to all but the most Kool-Aid drunk neo-cons as the scumbag that he is.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ranger, you either need to make a more concerted effort with your internet searches or you need to use a better search engine. Here's an article about the pay cuts. Here are many websites that are opposed to this war. All are affiliated with the military in some form, be it families of active duty personnel, Gulf War veterans, Vietnam veterans, veterans who served, active duty members, etc. If you'll visit them, which I doubt you will, I would especially like to direct your attention to the 'Letters' section. You'll find many, many letters from all kinds of military folk. Also, look at the 'About Us' 'Who We Are' sections and you'll also find veterans galore. You just have to be WILLING to listen to someone other than Bush's propogandists.

Bring Them Home Now

Citizen Soldier

Military Families Speak Out

Veterans Against The Iraq War

Veterans For Common Sense

Veterans For Peace

Vietnam Veterans Against The War

Soldiers For The Truth

[Ranger12 46]

Again TigerAl, you are using websites and articles that anybody can post. Are you directly associated with the military as I am? Do you talk to current and former military personnel on a daily basis? Do you personally know several NCOs and officers at the Pentagon, COs and XOs in charge of ROTC programs at colleges all across the nation? I looked at those websites and they are bs. There has been no talks about cutting pay and benefits. Actually, quite a few current military personnel I have talked to has said that the pay scale is going up in October when the new government fiscal year starts. Do I tell you the goings on in the medical profession and the question your knowledge of it? No. Why would I? Because I know nothing about your world except for what my wife tells me because she is a radiology tech. Why would you try to get into something you know about through internet sites and articles, but then question somebody who is heavily involved in lobbying for the military and veterans. I did not mention the 75th RRA because I was simply a member, but because we are very involved in the governmental process of supporting the military, financially and emotionally. Funny how all the RRA board members I spoke to about this basically laughed about it. Again, all the websites about military personnel dissenting, anybody can claim to be a current or former veteran and get away with it until somebody does a military background check on them. That limits their credibility big time. How come you did not post links from independent organized military support sites that outnumber these few sites a hundred times over. I am not disagreeing that there are current and former military personnel that probably disagree with the President, but please don't be foolish enough to think that those "dissenting' webistes" mentioned represents the feelings of the majority of current and former military personnel. Those current and former soldiers that disagree with the president or in the majority, trust me. I would bet my life on that. If Bush ever did anything like your bogus article and info suggests, then I will be the first to tell you I will not vote for him again. GoAU, as a Ranger also, if you read this, do you have anything you would like to add to this?

[rexbo 104]

TigerAl: If his foot soldiers are beginning to see through his lies, when will you?

This from the guy that slammed me for questioning his patriotism; posts a topic implying that a significant number of soldiers are questioning their own duty, patriotism and Commander in Chief, unbelievable. I am really beginning to wonder which side he wants to win. TigerAl, if Bush and the American troops are successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, America, freedom, liberty and democracy succeed; and fascism, terrorism, intolerance and brutal dictatorships are defeated.

[Ranger12 46]

TigerAl,

I have even made a few more searches and still can't find one credible legit site that talks about Bush wanting to cut soldier's benefits. I am also yet to find it on military support sites or government sites. Congressman Richard Shelby is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and I commuicate with him a few times a month on different issues as a part of the 75th RRA. He keeps the RRA and other military groups very well informed of issues concerning the military, because he is a very big supporter of the armed forces. The RRA has not heard of any such legislation being proposed and neither has any of the other support organizations. The only thing that Bush is proposing that remotely represents anything related to cuts and the military is that he is proposing cuts to civilian jobs (civil service) under the jurisdication of the military. That has been ongoing for about a year now, but has yet been put into legislation. Like Col. North said "Would you rather be fighting the war on terrorism on your street or in another land in basically the middle of nowhere?"

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, ranger12, I didn't realize that the Atlanta Journal Constitution was considered an unreliable, liberal newspaper. Had you read the article you would have seen a reference to this Army Times editorial. Here is a quote that deals with what I posted before.

"For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." But, read the whole thing as it mentions cuts in family housing, too.

If this doesn't do it for you, here's a press release from Senator John Edwards. Or, perhaps, this introduction of a bill in the Senate by Senators Daschle and Durbin addressing this issue will be the credibility you need. Scroll to the line entitled "SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS," it's about 1/4th of the way down.

rexbo, you seem to feel that to be patriotic means to blindly follow our government's lead without question. And that to object to its' actions or methods is to be un-American. If that is the way you operate and are comfortable with it, then drive on. I can't accept that kind of obedience. I don't have a problem with our going into Afghanistan because they were/are harboring the terrorist responsible for the attack and murder of Americans. The case that was made initially for Iraq was plausible, so it was acceptable. That case has subsequently deteriorated and all of the reasons given for us to be there have turned out to be inaccurate, either by deception, indifference or incompetence. That is unacceptable.

As for dissention among service members, their families and veterans, both of you used words in your posts like 'majority' and 'significant number of soldiers.' I never attempted to quantify the numbers of soldiers or percentages of dissentors. I don't know how many or what percent there are. I didn't post links to the kinds of sites you mentioned because I sincerely doubt that they are the least bit concerned about this kind of advocacy. That is not their focus. If I could provide you with proof of the legitimacy of every single one of the people on all of those sites and you would still find some other 'reason' to dispute them and what they say. That's your choice. All I can do is present you with the water.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

this thread may ahve gone beyond the point to where its necessary to respond to my earlier post, but the $7,800 was a bogus figure based on my reading the $150 as a weekly figure, and not a monthly figure. sorry! i still find it hard to believe a part-time student assistant makes over $15,000, but we're beyond that point of the discussion now.

ct

[Wishbone 0]

Many of the folks against the war are disingenuous, basically Commies parading around as normal Americans. They don’t fool anyone. The people with legitimate gripes about the war, such as Pat Buchanan, understand that you don’t pull the rug out from under the troops while they’re over there. Once the war started, you don’t attack your own side with enemy propaganda. Only a real lowlife would do something like that, hence your typical left wing ***** against the war for disingenuous reasons.

[Wishbone 0]

Tiger al,

Decent people get upset when they see others sell out their own countrymen to further their own political causes. Why do you feel the need to be such a Hanoi Jane?

[Tiger Al 0]

Wishbone, the propaganda was disseminated at the beginning of the year which is why we are in this war to begin with. I'm truly sorry that that seems to be the case because, as Americans, we deserve to be given the truth by our leaders.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Propaganda? :roll: The information Bush and his administraton used was what was available at the time. It was also much of the same information used by Clinton on his "Aspirin Factory Impeachment Distraction" bombing of Iraq but all these same Dems that are now screaming about the President lying were at this time lauding Bill for his decisive action and about the need to take out Sadaam (if you want links I can supply them but we are all already familiar with this FACT). Information changes daily - Bush acted on the information he had at the time a decision was required. Until we actually got into Iraq, we had no way of being 100% sure - and it is STILL too early to tell. It is only propaganda because it comes from the Bush administration - it is only a lie because the Republicans said it and the Dems are desperate for an election issue.

[rexbo 104]

I don't think the mass graves they keep finding are propaganda. I don't think the fact that 70% of the Iraqi people are happy that Bush removed Saddam is propaganda. I don't think the fact that the Middle East is MUCH closer to establishing a true, liberal democracy right in the middle of a cabal of dictators is propaganda. The world is better off with a free Iraq rather than Saddam in a box, with or without WMDs, that is a fact, and one the Democrats cannot see because of their personal dislike for one man. The truth is they do not want to see HIM succeed, no matter what the cost is to freedom, democracy and US interests.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Preach on, brother Rexbo!! To beat Bush in 2004, I believe the Dems in Congress and the DNC would sell their collective soul (they would all have to pool what little they each had to create a whole one). Their hatred for him in staggering, considering he has truly done nothing to deserve HATRED. Disagree with him and his policies all you will, but the personal hatred is UNREAL. Any hatred Republicans had for Bill was personal stuff, not always policies. I hated Bill for his lack of morals and lack of character. Can't taint GWB with that brush, no matter what the Dems try.

[Ranger12 46]

Sorry, ranger12, I didn't realize that the Atlanta Journal Constitution was considered an unreliable, liberal newspaper. Had you read the article you would have seen a reference to this Army Times editorial. Here is a quote that deals with what I posted before.

"For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." But, read the whole thing as it mentions cuts in family housing, too.

If this doesn't do it for you, here's a press release from Senator John Edwards. Or, perhaps, this introduction of a bill in the Senate by Senators Daschle and Durbin addressing this issue will be the credibility you need. Scroll to the line entitled "SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS," it's about 1/4th of the way down.

rexbo, you seem to feel that to be patriotic means to blindly follow our government's lead without question. And that to object to its' actions or methods is to be un-American. If that is the way you operate and are comfortable with it, then drive on. I can't accept that kind of obedience. I don't have a problem with our going into Afghanistan because they were/are harboring the terrorist responsible for the attack and murder of Americans. The case that was made initially for Iraq was plausible, so it was acceptable. That case has subsequently deteriorated and all of the reasons given for us to be there have turned out to be inaccurate, either by deception, indifference or incompetence. That is unacceptable.

As for dissention among service members, their families and veterans, both of you used words in your posts like 'majority' and 'significant number of soldiers.' I never attempted to quantify the numbers of soldiers or percentages of dissentors. I don't know how many or what percent there are. I didn't post links to the kinds of sites you mentioned because I sincerely doubt that they are the least bit concerned about this kind of advocacy. That is not their focus. If I could provide you with proof of the legitimacy of every single one of the people on all of those sites and you would still find some other 'reason' to dispute them and what they say. That's your choice. All I can do is present you with the water.

So the Atlanta Journal Constitution is the end all of reputable reporting? Your link to the Army times article, I give you credit for, but for some reason that article never made it to the published issue that I received. Can't figure that out. However, where are all these other credible sources you talked about? Also, I clicked the link about the bill being introduced to the Senate, but all I get is a message saying that page has been deleted or the info has been updated. You say that it was Daschele that introudced it? Are you saying a democratic leader is introducing the bill for something you were criticizing Bush for? Please clarify this since for some reason I can't get that link to pull up any info. You are backtracking when talking about the dissenting military personnel. Your original post made it sound like that the majority of troops morale was low. Heck, just look at your topic title for proof. You said you don't think you should have the need to visit all the other military support sites. Why not? Because you know will not be able to twist it to serve your liberal agenda? As for the comment on another post the Bush served up propoganda before the war, how do you figure that? So you mean Hussien actually was not an evil man that tortured and murdered innocent civilians? You mean he did not murder childred and also imprison them? You mean Iraq is a better country with him as their leader? Geez, whatever happened to just doing the right thing period. With you liberals line of thinking, we should have never entered WWII and got rid of Hitler and put the Japanese empire in it's place. I guess you would rather Hussien had used WMDs first as evidence that he had them instead of trying to head him off before he used them. Liberals are one of the loudest when it comes to criticizing the breakdown of intelligence after something bad happens, but when intelligence is acted upon before something bad happens and it does not pan out, then you want to criticize for acting too fast. Guess that is why you are called liberals-whatever suits you at the time. I served in the military under Clinton's reign and even though I did not vote for him an support alot of things he did, I did agree we should have been in Bosnia because of the evil going on there. I am not close minded enough to let what a political party thinks to cloud my judgement of right and wrong. Seems you and most liberals seem to not be able to do that. Remember all the liberals rallying around the President after 9/11? Seems they only did that to save face for the public. Now most have made a 180 and became the hypocrites they are known to be. The world has one less evil dictator in power, but yet that is a bad thing? I bet that if a Democrat was in office right now and doing the same things that Bush was doing, that all you liberals would be fully supporting him. It is time to take the party blinders off and start doing what is right. That goes for all political parties!!!

[rexbo 104]

ranger12: I bet that if a Democrat was in office right now and doing the same things that Bush was doing...

Ranger, I agree with EVERYTHING you said, except for the implication that a Democrat might be doing what Bush is doing. I am sure if a Democrat were in office we would still be debating whether we should even go into Afghanistan. Remember the liberals sounding doom and gloom when that decision was made by Bush? The fact is that Bush has 1000 times larger cajonies than any major Democratic candidate for President, the most recent President or his former First Lady. That's what really bothers them...

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, ranger. The link expires. Here is a copy of the Senate introduction. You asked a lot of questions so I'll answer them as I go.

The AJC is simply a mainstream newspaper. I didn't understand your problem with its' or the articles' credibility.

How many credible sources do you need?

Daschle and Durbin introduced it. I'm saying they are introducing a bill to fix the pay cuts.

My original post was simply a quote from a larger body and a link to that body. The title of this thread is the title of the article, that's why I titled the thread as I did.

As I said, "I didn't post links to the kinds of sites you mentioned because I sincerely doubt that they are the least bit concerned about this kind of advocacy. That is not their focus."

As for Bush's propoganda, or lies as they are also known, I have made my position well known, read over my past posts as I'm not going to keep re-typing the same info over and over.

Hussein was a bad guy. That is the only thing Bush has said about this mess that is accurate. My question would be, if that was all we had as a reason to attack Iraq and it was felt to be a good enough reason, then why not make a case to the American people based on that argument? Why the lies about nuclear weapons and attempted uranium purchases? Why make claims about WMD based on intel that was at least five years old in most cases, older in others? Why make the assertion that there was a link between Iraq and bin Laden and 9/11 when all intel agency's said that was highly unlikely? Why keep bringing up what Hussein did in the 80's (gassing his own people) when WE were BACKING him against Iran? Why were we not outraged THEN? Anyway, here's S-1615.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

  By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):

  S. 1615. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to make permanent the rates of hostile fire and imminent danger special pay and family separation allowance for members of the uniformed services as increased by the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003; to the Committee on Armed Services.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that is as simple as it is significant. It promises our soldiers that while they fight to protect us, we will do what we can do protect them and their families by not allowing their pay to be cut.

  Each day brings a fresh reminder of the debt we owe our men and women in uniform. Today, well over 200,000 Americans are stationed abroad, many facing hostile fire in difficult conditions, thousands of miles from home. In spite of enormous difficulties, they have served magnificently, bringing honor to their families and their country.

  In light of all that we read in our daily newspapers about our soldiers' heroic performance, it should be unthinkable that anyone would consider cutting their pay. But this isn't a rumor or some errant bureaucratic proposal. Unless the President and the Congress act soon, many of our soldiers will see their monthly pay reduced by as much as $225 at the end of the current fiscal year. My legislation would help us honor the debt we owe to our soldiers by making permanent the rates of pay currently provided to our soldiers.

  Unfortunately, we have received very mixed messages from the administration about their position on this issue. In July, the Defense Department issued a position paper to the Congress expressing its views on military pay and a series of other legislative proposals. According to the official Pentagon document, the Defense Department urged Congress to reduce our troops' pay. Last month, the San Francisco Chronicle, in an article entitled ``Troops In Iraq Face Pay Cut,'' reported, ``The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness, and 120-degree plus heat. ..... The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments and a host of other priorities.''

  Not surprisingly, these reports triggered a fire storm. The administration quickly backpedaled. Its latest position is that pay will be kept at current levels for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but pay for troops deployed abroad in other countries should be cut. This does a disservice to the men and women who have chosen to risk their lives for their country and have been deployed far from their homes and their families.

  At a time when we are asking so much of these troops and their families, it is inconceivable to me that this Nation can't sustain current pay levels for all troops deployed abroad and that the administration would not fully support this proposition.

  The legislation would send a clear signal to all of our troops, both those deployed abroad and those facing the possibility of deployment in the coming weeks and months. This Nation recognizes and appreciates the risks they take on our behalf and we honor our commitment to them. I urge the administration and my colleagues to join with me in this effort. Our troops and their families deserve no less.

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

  S. 1615

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

  SECTION 1. MAINTENANCE OF INCREASED RATE OF HOSTILE FIRE AND IMMINENT DANGER SPECIAL PAY.

    (a) RATE.--Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$225''.

    (b ) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

  SEC. 2. MAINTENANCE OF INCREASED RATE OF FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.

    (a) RATE.--Section 427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$250''.

    (b ) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have joined Senator DASCHLE in introducing a bill today that would make permanent the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance passed by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2003 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 increases, 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 a 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 does 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 parents 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.

  Examples 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

  Familes 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, Michele 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 the 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. If 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 U.S. military commitments abroad.

  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 for those living on the edge.

  I urge my colleagues to support the bill that Senator DASCHLE and I introduce today and make a strong statement to the Defense Department that Congress will not stand for cutting Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance.