The costs of the war in Iraq are most obviously measured by the deaths of troops and by the size of the war budget. Earlier this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee began by addressing some less obvious costs and quickly expanded the hearing to the complicated matter of helping families of servicemen and women who have been killed or wounded. Some of the questions raised are not immediately answerable, but a simple change to death benefits is and should be supported by the full Congress.

As of last year, the military’s “death gratuity,” the lump-sum amount families were sent immediately after the death of a child or spouse serving in the military, stood at a miserly $6,000, and it was taxable. Sen. Susan Collins, who serves on Armed Services, got the amount doubled and made tax free, but the committee understood that even that increase was inadequate. Now bipartisan legislation by Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, backed by the White House, would raise that amount to $100,000, retroactive to October 2001. It would further raise the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance from $250,000 to $400,000 and pay for the extra coverage for troops in combat zones. Both Maine Sens. Collins and Olympia Snowe support the increase.

Both of these benefits have been raised periodically over the years and, given the more than 1,400 deaths in Iraq, Congress is of a mind to raise them substantially again, which it should. As the committee heard repeatedly Tuesday, no one can put a value on the loss of a life, but the families that had been relying on the service member’s salary still have bills to pay and will, of course, for years after. Sen. Sessions referred to a bond that exists between the public and the military, that part of the bond was being able to reassure the troops risking their lives that their families would be taken care of in the event of their deaths. While the military has a half dozen programs and benefits for helping, its own studies say what they currently offer is inadequate.

Congress is likely to agree. There remain details to work out in this legislation and a couple of other versions of the bill, but it seems clear that the payments should be retroactive and should not make a distinction between combat and non-combat deaths. In a statement, Sen. Collins told the committee, “The death gratuity is a small token, but it assists the grieving families with their immediate financial needs.” Making it something more than a small token (and, as was suggested at the hearing, calling it something besides a gratuity) is the next step for Congress.

Beyond that, however, the committee began thinking further about how body armor is saving lives but returning many more soldiers with missing limbs, gratefully alive but dramatically changed. All branches of the military report having programs to care for these troops, but how is their earning potential after life in the military affected?

On the question of insurance, how are service members being educated to understand the benefits of coverage they are offered and to watch out for inadequate, overpriced products that are foisted on them? What responsibility does the government have to notify a beneficiary such as a spouse if a service member cancels the life insurance? The committee seems aware that just as the troops have a duty to the nation, the Congress has a duty to troop families.

It can begin by raising death benefits substantially.