It's officially called a "death gratuity," a tip given to the family of a member of the armed forces killed in combat. In 2003, Congress doubled what is better known as "the death benefit" from $3,000 to $6,000. Lawmakers also decided that the late soldier's family should no longer have to pay taxes on the money. The gratuity is scheduled to increase by $420 this month. Big of Congress, wasn't it?

The treatment of the families of soldiers killed in action is a national scandal. With the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan nearing 1,500, several members of Congress want Americans to do a better job of showing that they value the sacrifice of those who lost their lives in service to their country.

The bills filed so far vary in their particulars, but one leading candidate, sponsored by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, would raise the death benefit to $100,000 and make families of those killed in war eligible for an additional $150,000 payment through the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. The bill's sponsors also recognize that survivors should not be penalized because soldiers felt they couldn't afford the insurance or gambled that they would not need it. The benefit would be paid to nonsubscribers as well as to those with coverage and would be made retroactive to include the families of all those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sessions's bill or something similar should pass. Any legislation, however, should extend the death benefit to all who die from injury or illnesses while serving in nations where Americans are in a combat or peacekeeping role.

Though America has been at war for more than three years, the president has sought no sacrifice from citizens save for those in the military and their families. That's wrong. Members of the military reserve and National Guard are being forced to serve after their terms of enlistment are up. That's wrong. Some reservists who haven't worn a uniform for nearly a decade are being called up and sent to war with minimal training. That too is wrong.

Raising the death benefit won't right these wrongs, but it will show respect for those in uniform and take a big step toward fulfilling the responsibility the nation owes to their families.

Too often, when a service member dies, his or her loss means sudden and serious financial hardship for those left behind. If he or she qualifies, a survivor's spouse is eligible to collect a monthly payment equal to 55 percent of what the soldier would have received in his or her pension. Many get an additional benefit that increases with the size of the family. But the payments are small, and it's not uncommon for survivors to find themselves faced with poverty.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were sparked by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. So a comparison between the benefits given to families of soldiers and those of the 9/11 victims is fair and startling.

According to a study by the Rand Corp. cited by writer Frank Schaeffer in The Washington Post, the families of those killed in their office buildings received an average award of $3.1 million. The survivors of police and firefighters were compensated, on average, with $4.2 million.

That day of tragedy has blessedly been a one-time occurrence, and in its aftermath, a stunned nation reacted with magnanimity. But America has been niggardly when compensating the families of those killed to prevent future attacks. That's a wrong Congress can and should redress.