Guard and Reserve Enhancement Benefits Act

GUARD AND RESERVE ENHANCEMENT BENEFITS ACT -- (Senate - February 01, 2005)

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 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.

http:thomas.loc.gov