National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2473 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2433

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is a pending amendment offered by Senator Chambliss numbered 2433 which I am going to seek to amend.

With the permission of the Presiding Officer, I would speak to that issue at this moment. We are working with the Parliamentarian on the exact number of this amendment we will be offering. There is no agreement at this time. If I might, I want a few minutes to speak to the amendment I am offering, if that would meet with the approval of the Senator from Nevada.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. For the information of my colleagues, the amendment we are going to offer to the Chambliss amendment is designated as 2473.

Madam President, most Senators are probably unaware of the real differences between the military retirement system for Reserve components compared to Active components of our military forces. A person who joins the active-duty military and has 20 years has the option to retire at that point and draw half their pay. A young person at age 18, with 20 years in service--age 38, still relatively young, moves on to a new career, new source of income--still receives half of their military pay.

For a member of the Guard and Reserve, it is different. As you might expect, retirement pay from a part-time career is lower than at the end of a full-time active-duty career. It makes sense.

The major difference, however, lies in the length of time the reservist retiree must wait to start to receive retirement pay. Under the current system, a person who completes 20 years in the Reserve component becomes eligible to receive retired pay but cannot begin to draw the pay until they reach the age of 60. In the Reserves, a young person age 18 can enlist, complete 20 years of dedicated service to our country, and at the end of 20 years reach the age of 38 and retire. But that person has to wait 22 years before receiving the first penny of retirement pay.

That is entirely too long. Many have recognized the system needs to be changed. The Military Officers Association, Reserve Officers Association, National Guard Association, Enlisted Association, the National Guard, all have called for Reserve retirement age to be reduced from age 60 to 55. There have been several Senate proposals to accomplish it.

I offered this bill in the last Congress. Senators Corzine and Graham introduced bills in the current Congress. I am a cosponsor of both bills. All are worthy approaches to accomplish our goal.

Unfortunately, the plan that has been offered in the form of the amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, falls short of being a good age 55 Reserve retirement proposal. In fact, I have some concerns and I offer an alternative approach. The Chambliss amendment offered a modest reduction in the retirement age and then only offers it to about half the members of the Guard and Reserve. Under the Chambliss amendment, half of all reservists still draw no retirement pay until the age of 60. It rewards only those who are called up. There is little or no incentive to stay. This amendment lowers the retirement age for those called up for an extended period in support of major military operations and then only reduces the retirement age by 3 months for every 3 months the member spends on duty.

At this point, more than 450,000 reservists have been mobilized since September 11, 2001. Over 330,000 have been deployed overseas. But we must remember, there are roughly 860,000 members in the select Reserve. That is, members of the National Guard and Reserve who dedicate a minimum in service in the Reserve of 1 weekend each month plus 2 weeks each year to maintain military readiness. So while roughly half of our reservists have been called up for duty, about half of them have not. They have continued to perform every weekend, gone to their annual training periods.

For this segment of our dedicated force, I am afraid the Chambliss amendment does nothing at all. A retirement system should create an incentive to serve. The Chambliss amendment rewards mobilization but does nothing to create the incentive for further service. It simply provides a future benefit to those who get called up. We want to honor the members of the Guard and Reserve who are selected in order to go overseas.

Yes, we want to reward service that takes members of the Guard and Reserve away from their families and careers for a year and puts them in harm's way. But we must ask ourselves if such a modest adjustment in the retirement pay eligibility age is the best way to do it.

With recruiting targets being missed by our Reserve components and retention holding steady, but under severe pressures, what we need to do is to revise the retirement system so that it is both fairer to members of the Guard and Reserve and a more powerful incentive to continued service. We should make changes to the system which reward long and continued service, not just volunteering--or being involuntarily selected--for a mobilization.

We can do better for our men and women in uniform.

The amendment I offer is a substitute approach. Under my amendment, members of the National Guard and Reserve are encouraged to stay in the force by offering them a 1-year reduction in the retirement age for every year of service beyond 20 years. That is an incentive to stay in the force. A reservist can begin to draw retirement pay as early as age 55, but in order to do so, they would need to serve an additional 5 years.

By providing a way for reservists to draw retirement pay at age 55 rather than being forced to wait until age 60, this amendment brings the retirement age for reservists down to the Federal civil service retirement age, as was intended when the reservist retirement age was set 50 years ago. Our reservists make tremendous sacrifices. They risk their lives in combat zones. And, in far too many instances, they give their lives for our country. At the very least, they should have the same retirement age as Federal civil servants.

By replacing the current, inflexible approach with a sliding scale that provides earlier receipt of retirement pay in exchange for more years of service, we can create a powerful system of incentives to retain our personnel and maintain a strong Reserve.

This is the approach my amendment takes.

Many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues who, like me, are cosponsors of S. 337, the Guard and Reserve Retention Act, introduced earlier this year by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, will no doubt recognize this concept. The mechanisms are very similar.

I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in making a meaningful reform of the Reserve retirement age--one that encourages long and continued services, not simply rewarding after mobilization; one which will incentivize all of the force to stay in service longer, not just the half--roughly, 50 percent--who are tapped for a callup.

The amendment is endorsed by some significant groups: the National Guard Association of the United States, the Military Officers Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.

I ask my colleagues, as you consider the Chambliss amendment and my modification to that amendment, keep in mind the organizations that represent the men and women in uniform in the Reserve, who are literally serving our country and risking their lives, believe the approach I am suggesting is preferable. I hope my colleagues will feel the same.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Stephen Koper, retired brigadier general from the U.S. Air Force, who serves as president of the National Guard Association of the United States, be printed in the RECORD.

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

National Guard Association of the United States, Inc.,

Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.
Senator Richard Durbin
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DURBIN: I am writing on behalf of the members of the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) in support of your amendment to reduce the age at which reserve component members receive their retirement pension.

An active component member retiring at 20 years of service may receive a pension immediately upon retirement. A reserve component member serving the same amount of years cannot. Reducing the age from 60 to 55 will be a big step in mitigating this disparity. A more equitable retirement program will aid greatly in recruiting and retaining members in the National Guard. When the age limit for receipt of retired pay by National Guard members was set decades ago, the National Guard was not relied upon the way it is today.

The objective of NGAUS is to support the reduction of the age for retirement eligibility from its current level.

I look forward to working together in support of a strong and viable National Guard. Again, on behalf of the members of NGAUS, thank you for all your hard work on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General, USAF, (Ret.), President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2476

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I joined with Senator Dorgan of North Dakota in offering amendment numbered 2476. It is an amendment on which we both worked. Over the years we have shared billing on it because we both believe it is essential. It is an amendment which calls for the creation of a Truman-like commission to make certain we are spending our defense dollars effectively, we are not wasting money, and that the money spent is for the security of America and the protection of our troops.

In a report on defense logistics issued in March of this year, the Government Accountability Office found that U.S. troops experienced shortages in seven of the nine items that the GAO reviewed. The report reads:

These shortages led in some cases to a decline in the operational capability of equipment and increased risk for troops.

The items included generators for assault vehicles, armored vehicle parts, lithium batteries, meals ready to eat, truck tires, body armor, armored vehicles, and add-on armor kits. The GAO Comptroller, David Walker, testified in a Senate subcommittee hearing that the Department of Defense doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any degree of reliability and specificity how we spend tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Walker then went on to say:

Trying to figure out what appropriated funds were being spent on is like pulling teeth.

Shortchanging the taxpayers is not acceptable. Shortchanging our troops, especially when they are risking their lives for America, is absolutely inexcusable. We have been talking about personal and vehicle armor shortages for months.

I will never forget my first visit to Walter Reed to see the first injured veteran from Iraq, a member of the Ohio National Guard, who had lost his left leg below the knee. I asked him what happened. He said: It is those humvees. They don't have any armor plating on them.

This soldier told me he couldn't wait to get his new leg so he could get back in combat. That is the kind of fighting spirit which we love to see in the men and women who are serving this country. Shouldn't we have the same fighting spirit when it comes to providing them with the equipment they need so they can come home safely with their mission accomplished, truly accomplished? If we waste money with profiteers and those who try to gouge the Federal Government at the expense of our troops, we are not doing our soldiers any favor.

These shortages, especially of armor, have sent young men to Walter Reed for a long time, with missing arms and legs, and other serious injuries. I have met them. I don't know how we can face them and honestly say we have not tried to do everything within our power to make certain their fellow soldiers are protected. Our current system does not work.

In 1941, Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced a resolution creating a special committee to investigate the national defense program. Who was the President at the time? Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat from New York. We had a Democratic Senator calling for an investigation of the War Department of a Democratic President. Those were the days--and you have to search the history days to remember them--when there was real oversight in Congress, regardless of the party affiliation.

We find exactly the opposite today. The Republican majority in Congress refuses to accept the responsibility of oversight because they might embarrass the Republican administration in the White House. This is not about protecting the President from embarrassment. This is about protecting our troops.

This Truman Commission cost very little money in those days, but it saved us billions of dollars. It is a valuable lesson for today. Then, as now, skyrocketing contract costs, rapid allocation of funds meant we were wasting money. Harry Truman stated when he came to this Senate, the same Chamber, almost 64 years ago:

I'm calling the attention of the Senate to these things because I believe most sincerely they need looking into. I consider public funds to be sacred funds and I think they ought to have every safeguard possible to prevent their misuse or being mishandled.

Senator Truman went on to say:

I think the Senate ought to create a special committee with authority to examine every contract.

The National Archives describes the Truman Committee:

The committee earned a high reputation for thoroughness and efficiency. After the end of the war the committee turned its analysis to wartime experiences in order to make recommendations that improved postwar and future national defense programs.

It was a real national service. We continue to offer this amendment on the Democratic side of the aisle and we cannot find a single Senator, or very few, I should say, on the Republican side even interested in talking about it. Why? Why wouldn't they be interested in making certain the taxpayers' dollars are well spent in the Department of Defense? Why wouldn't they want accountability when it comes to the equipment to protect our troops?

I joined with Senator Dorgan with this amendment to create a new Truman committee to oversee contracting awards in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. We need this committee. As Goldman Sachs International Vice President Robert Hormats stated:

There is nothing more corrosive of support for a war anywhere in the world, the war against terrorism or dealing with the problems in Iraq, than the concern that taxpayer money is not being used well.

The simple fact is we need better oversight. We need this committee. We need to identify the weaknesses in our current system. We need the best practices to be followed by our Department of Defense.

We learned earlier this year that $8.8 billion that was managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq simply disappeared. We brought back Mr. Bremmer, the head of that Coalition Provisional Authority for the United States, and gave him a gold medal. I wish we had found the $8.8 billion before we gave him a gold medal. Reports indicate that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under the control of that authority were inflated with thousands of ghost employees. The United States Inspector General for Iraqi reconstruction has said:

We believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor management.

The list goes on and on.

We owe our troops and our taxpayers better oversight of their money. This bipartisan special committee called for in the Dorgan-Durbin amendment will accomplish that.

So many Members come to the Senate today and say not one penny is going to be spent for Hurricane Katrina or to safeguard America against avian influenza unless we offset it. We are watchdogs when it comes to new programs. Why not be watchdogs for existing programs? If Congress is not exercising its power of oversight, for goodness sake, let us create a Truman-like commission that will. Let's ask the hard question and get the right answers. Let's protect our troops and protect the taxpayers.

I reserve the remainder of my time and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Dorgan-Durbin amendment numbered 2476.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2483

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that Senator Bayh and I are offering this amendment. It turns out that we have had the same basic concept and idea. We kind of came at it a little differently. I spoke to him on the telephone a few moments ago. I am going to defer to him in allowing him to be the lead sponsor on this amendment because together we might have a better chance of success, and that, of course, is the ultimate test of the wisdom of this concept.

I especially salute Robert Preiss of my staff, who is a fellow serving in my office who has come to us from the military and has worked night and day in trying to make certain that we help those who are in the Guard and Reserve and Active military. He has put an awful lot of time into this amendment. When some procedural questions came up that were important to be resolved, we turned it over to Robert Preiss, and he did an excellent job. That is the reason we can come before you today with confidence that this amendment can be considered under this important Defense authorization bill. It is critically important. I would like to explain it for my colleagues to understand why Senator Bayh and I decided to offer it and now offer it together.

The Department of Defense status of forces survey of Reserve component members, released in September 2004, revealed that 51 percent of our National Guard and Reserve said they suffer a loss in income when mobilized for long periods of active duty because their military pay is less than what they were receiving in their civilian job. The average reservist says that he or she loses $368 a month, but 11 percent report losing more than $2,500 a month. Imagine that you joined the Guard and Reserve, volunteered to serve the country, and then you are activated. You leave your job and family, go overseas and risk your life and worry about coming home safe. Many of our Guard and Reserve members are also worried about what is happening to the family back home. There is less money for the monthly budget, less money for the mortgage, less money to pay gasoline bills. It all adds up.

If you take a look, this is kind of an illustration that 51 percent of the reservists lose income when mobilized, and 11 percent lose more than $2,500 per month. This income loss represents a disparity in the ranks and poses on reservists a burden not experienced by many Active-Duty troops. Many Active-Duty troops experience increases in income during deployments due to tax advantages, hazardous duty pay, family separation allowances, and other special pay enhancements. Those reservists with incomes higher than the deployed military suffer a loss. Their ongoing financial commitments continue for their children, for their families, for their homes, their automobiles. You know the list as well as I do. Their basic expenses are based on civilian income, but when they are activated, they are receiving military income. The resulting financial problems on the homefront can distract a man or woman who has said: I am ready to serve my country and even risk my life.

The amendment I offer with Senator Bayh allows reservists mobilized for extended periods to receive up to $3,000 per month in extra pay to make up for differences between their military and civilian salaries. To qualify, a reservist must have a pay gap of at least $50 a month.

The language I offer today is identical to that in the House bill, with one exception. This amendment provides these income replacement payments for Reserve component members mobilized for 6 months or more. The House bill says that you have to be called up for 18 months or more to qualify for this income supplement. That is entirely too long. It is rare that a reservist is going to be called up for 18 months. So the bill as it comes from the House really doesn't do much. This is entirely too long, to expect a reservist to wait 18 months before we give them some income supplement. Indeed, with most callups currently lasting around 18 months, the practical effect of a qualification period that long would be that few reservists would ever get a dime of help. We can do a lot better than that. America can do better for its men and women in uniform. I urge my Senate colleagues to pull together. The House plan is good, but the qualification period is unrealistically long. We can make it better.

This language was proposed by Congressman McHugh. He is the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel. He originally proposed a 12-month qualification period. It was extended to 18 months through hasty action in the committee that may not have been carefully considered. As I have said, the language I offer today with Senator Bayh is the same with the exception that this version we offer calls for a 6-month qualification period.

According to an Army Times article about this provision, Chairman McHugh said something needs to be done. I agree with him. He said: ``We have a crisis.'' I agree with that. He repeated that the extended deployments are raising this issue time and time again for many of the very best who serve our country. I have to agree with Chairman McHugh 100 percent. We have made a sound proposal because we do, indeed, have a crisis. Recruiting numbers are down for our military. That is a fact of life. With the Reserve components missing their recruitment targets, we must look to the retention of existing members to keep up force strength.

So far, retention has been pretty good. I salute the men and women for staying on in the military even though we ask more and more of them each day. But the existence of this income loss is going to hurt us with retention. Let's be honest about it. Of the top 10 reasons cited in the status of forces survey for leaving the National Guard and Reserve, income loss was No. 4. The others are obvious: family burden, too many activations and deployments, activations are too long, and loss of income. We ask a lot of sacrifice from the men and women in uniform. They march off and do their duty, whether it is responding to Hurricane Katrina at home or going over to risk their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan. We understand that we can do something about the income loss. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this measure. Pass this amendment and include it in our Senate bill language so that when we get together with the House of Representatives, we can ensure that something does get done this year to eliminate or at least reduce the income loss suffered by families of some of our guardsmen and reservists. By standing behind a qualification period of 6 months, we lay down a clear marker that we in the Senate stand for more than just symbolism. We really want to help. We stand for real help in addressing the pay gap for the good of the members of our Reserve components, for the good of their families, for the long-term good of the force, and for the good of our Nation.

I urge my colleagues, if they think this is a worthy amendment and will join us in it, Senator Bayh and I would welcome their support. This should be a bipartisan amendment. I don't know how we can argue over whether we should protect the income of the men and women who fight for us. If they are going to be away from their families and separated, not there for the important decisions that are being made by their families, the least we can do is make sure they don't face some unreasonable hardship because of income loss.

I see Senator Landrieu is here. I salute her. She has done so many things recently on Hurricane Katrina and other issues. But she has been one of the strongest voices in the Senate for the Guard and Reserve and our military. She and I spoke the other day about this issue. She said: We have to have an amendment to help Guard and Reserve. I am glad she has come to the Chamber at this moment because it is timely. We are trying to make sure this bill doesn't leave the Senate without a provision in it that is going to help these men and women in uniform.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I know the Senator is wrapping up his remarks, but I would like to ask the Senator, is he aware that a complementary amendment we have worked on for a couple of years, giving a tax credit to employers who are filling that pay gap, is the Senator aware that has still not passed this Congress?

Mr. DURBIN. I was aware of it. I say to the Senator from Louisiana, a lot of people are not aware of it. They think we have already done these things. We make these proposals on the floor of the Senate. Some of them pass the Senate, then they disappear in conference committees. We all pat ourselves on the back and say we are standing up for the men and women in uniform. At the end of the day, there is no law for the President to sign.

A lot of our colleagues, myself included, will be at Veterans Day events this week. I will be traveling all over Illinois. We are going to stand there. We may be holding the flag. We will say we are for our soldiers and our veterans. But the real proof is in our votes. That is a good one to say to employers: If you are willing to stand behind that man or woman in uniform who is leaving your employment for a short period to do their duty for our country, why shouldn't we stand behind you with the Tax Code?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I ask him, is there any reason he could believe or think the American people wouldn't put the Guard and Reserve at the top of the list for a tax cut or a tax credit? Is there any other group you can think of that is more deserving than the men and women who leave their homes, put on the uniform, leave their jobs, leave their businesses, and go to the frontline to take the bullets? Would the Senator be able to identify any other group that would be more worthy of a tax credit or a tax cut if we had extra money to give?

Mr. DURBIN. From my point of view, absolutely none. But it is interesting, what a timely question. We are about to consider a tax bill. This tax bill will give a break to millionaires. If you happen to be a millionaire in America, we think you need a tax break of $35,000 a year. Poor souls. If you happen to be making between $50 and $200,000, the tax break turns into $112 dollars; under $50,000, $6. The point is, we are going to spend billions of dollars giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and not giving a helping hand to the men and women in uniform and the employers who patriotically stand behind them.

I say to the Senator from Louisiana, she couldn't have a more timely observation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. First, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Virginia, who served his country not only in the Navy but as Secretary of the Navy, and also as the longest serving Senator in Virginia. Didn't the Senator from Virginia break the record recently?

Mr. WARNER. I am No. 2 for life.

Mr. DURBIN. And very popular in the State of Virginia.

I say to him, consider two things. Let's assume the Senator is in a unit that is in combat and he learns the fellow next to him who has been activated as a Guardsman used to work for Sears Roebuck, a Chicago-based company. And because Sears Roebuck is such a good and patriotic corporation, they have decided they are going to protect his income. They are going to give him more than his military pay. They are going to keep him at the same level of pay he received before he was activated.

Will I think less of that fellow soldier because he is receiving some money from Sears and think maybe we shouldn't eat at the same mess table, or stand together and fight together? I don't think so. I think people will say that is good fortune for you.

The second point I would like to raise is this: A person who is active military--I have a nephew who just enlisted in the Marine Corps--a person who is in the active military knows what his or her life is going to be and builds his or her life accordingly in terms of expenses incurred. A person in the Guard and Reserve has a civilian life and civilian financial obligations that he or she knows may come when they are activated and a hardship may come from separation. But they are in different circumstances as they go into this field of combat. One comes from an active military life with a family budget accordingly, and the other comes from the private sector with another family budget.

It seems to me what I am asking is, since we now rely more than ever on the Guard and Reserve, shouldn't we be more sensitive to that? Shouldn't we say that if you are willing to sacrifice your time and your life for your country, we are willing to sacrifice, too, to make sure there is no unnecessary economic hardship?

I don't think the two observations I made are unreasonable. The Senator from Virginia knows better than I because he has been in the military and I have not served. But I would think in a unit, people would be more sensitive to that. To think that soldier who left that job in the private sector or the Federal Government is next to me worried because they missed the second mortgage payment back home wouldn't make me feel any better about my unit and wouldn't make me feel any better to know that is going on.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have different perspectives. But pay is a very significant thing in every military person's life. We have to adjust. We certainly have to recognize.

What you are in a sense doing, Sears has opted as an employer to do as you state, not let their employee accept the consequences, and there is a category of persons coming in from the Reserve and Guard who simply do not have employers such as Sears Roebuck; for whatever reason their employer won't do it.

I don't know, I am concerned about building tensions into these young people in these units.

Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator, in this colloquy through the Chair, consider this whole question about retention. That is a big issue now. We need these men and women in the Guard and Reserve, even active duty, who have developed the skills, understand the mission, can be combat ready in an instant. We need them to stick around. We need them to reup. If they have been through a bitter experience--personal experience, financial experience, separated from their family--we know it lessens that likelihood. If we want the very best to continue serving, I think this is an incentive for that to happen.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. I could even take it a step further. If we didn't have the Guard and Reserve, we would have to carry in peacetime, as well as wartime, a much larger active force. We are fortunate that in wartime conditions, we have these men and women who will respond, and do so willingly and subject their families. The Senator from Illinois is correct on that point.

I have to dwell on this amendment. I just read it. I wanted to have this colloquy, and I appreciate the courtesies the Senator always extends.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my recollection that the Senate already passed an amendment in one of the previous bills where we made up the difference for Federal employees; is that not correct?

Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. We passed it for the third or fourth time. It goes into this strange world of conference committees and disappears.

Mr. LEVIN. In which all of us have participated. We have seen the parts that emerge and the parts that do not, and it is always a little mystery as to what emerges and what does not emerge.

My understanding is that clearly is a precedent for treating all employees. Everybody is activated the same way as Federal employees. That is No. 1. So I think that is a good argument for the amendment. But also the cost of this amendment, it seems to me, given the qualification period of 6 months, as I understand it, the cost over 5 years would be $295 million which would be a little under $60 million a year; is that correct?

Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 2473, AS MODIFIED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the Chamber for 60 seconds.

The last amendment by Senator Chambliss received 99 votes. We all joined in supporting it. It was a good amendment. This amendment, which I am offering, I think is better. Here is why.

Under the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss, you could reduce the age at which you are eligible as a reservist to start receiving your retirement based on the time you spent mobilized, activated. This amendment says you could reduce it by the time served in the Reserve.

Right now, no matter when you start, how long you serve, you cannot draw the first dollar in retirement until you are 60 years old. Under my amendment, if you have served 25 years in the Reserve, you could start drawing it at age 55, which is the common retirement age for civil servants, for Federal employees.

My amendment is endorsed by the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association, and the Reserve Officers Association.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Corzine and Landrieu as cosponsors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/