Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the news this morning tells us Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the leaders of our Government to be in touch in the field to let them know we are on their side. I am glad the Secretary is there. I know when he visits there, he often learns things--things that help us wage this war more effectively.
Do you remember not so long ago when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had an open meeting with the soldiers in Iraq? He invited them to comment on how the war was going. A member of the Tennessee National Guard stood up and said: Mr. Secretary, why as a soldier do I have to dig through a dump to find a piece of metal to put in my humvee to protect me and my fellow soldiers? Why has it come to this?
It was a moment of great embarrassment for the Secretary. It was a moment of embarrassment for our Nation. We ask these young men and women to take an oath to defend this country and risk their lives in uniform for us every day. We stand and sit in the comfort of this Chamber on Capitol Hill with all of the protection around us, and they wake up every morning putting on a uniform knowing it may be their last day on Earth.
Now take a look at this amendment. Take a close look at this amendment. This amendment is designed to give us better control of our borders, and we need it. Our borders are out of control. There are 500,000 illegal people crossing them every year, at least. We know that has to change, not just because of the immigration issue, a terrible challenge to America to get it right, but because of security. So we all support, on both sides of the aisle, more resources at the borders, more people, more technology, better efforts to stop this illegal flow of immigration.
It is a serious problem, and we should take it seriously. That is why the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, has offered this amendment, an amendment which provides the resources for the border. He says it is an emergency; it should be treated as such. I couldn't agree with him more.
But listen to the other side of the aisle. Senator Gregg on the Republican side said we can only pay for border security at the expense of soldiers in the field. He takes the roughly $2 billion out of the military account to make our borders stronger. That is not fair to the soldiers. It is not fair to the men and women who are risking their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We know we have failed them many times. This administration has failed to provide the body armor these troops needed. Senator Dodd of Connecticut had to offer an amendment to allow ordinary American families to deduct from their taxes the cost of body armor that they would buy for their soldiers which they sent overseas. I have met them in Illinois, families who said: I got tired of waiting for the Army to give my son protection; my wife and I bought it ourselves.
Another one said: We had a little potluck supper at church to raise money for body armor for our soldiers.
Think about that. We know about these humvees. They were death traps for entirely too long. They were not well protected. We know what happened. We had helicopters in the field that didn't have good defense devices, and they were shot down.
Now the Republican side says let's take more money away from the defense of our soldiers so our borders are more secure. What a terrible choice to ask of this Senate, but what an easy choice for many of us.
I am not going to take money away from these soldiers. This Senator voted against this war in Iraq, but I have voted to give this President and this administration every penny they have asked for to wage this war for one basic reason. I thought to myself: What if it were my son or daughter, would I want them to have the best equipment and best supplies, even if I felt the foreign policy was wrong? You bet. And when it comes to this choice in this amendment, it is very clear. We can take the Republican approach of making our borders safer while making our soldiers less safe, or we can take the approach which Senator Reid is suggesting: Declare this an emergency at our borders that deserves emergency status.
Isn't it interesting, when it comes down to these choices, so many on the Republican side of the aisle say: Now we are going to be fiscal conservatives, fiscal conservatives at the expense of our soldiers. It is plain wrong.
I ask my colleagues: Read these amendments carefully. Understand the stark choice we are being given. Support Senator Reid's amendment which declares it an emergency to have strong enforcement at the borders but not at the expense of our men and women in uniform who risk their lives while we stand in the safety of this Capitol Building.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside all pending amendments and call up amendment No. 3632.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed services or member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had occurred)
On page 117, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD
SEC. 1312. (a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2006''.
(b) IN GENERAL.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or National Guard
``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of employment with the Federal Government in order to perform active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have been payable to such employee for such pay period if such employee's civilian employment with the Government had not been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if the employee's civilian employment had not been interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect to the position from which such employee is absent (as referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section 4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or apply for employment or reemployment following completion of service on active duty to which called or ordered as described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office, prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall, in consultation with the Office, prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and `uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to an employee entitled to any payments under this section, means the agency or other entity of the Government (including an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable under section 5304.''.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5537 the following:
``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or National Guard.''.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, more than half the men and women serving the United States now in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of Guard and Reserve units. Not that long ago they were working civilian jobs with regular payroll and, of course, performing their responsibilities in the Guard and Reserve on weekends and during summer duty. They understood when they volunteered that they could be activated. They have been. In my State, 80 percent of the Guard units have been activated. They have served this Nation bravely, selflessly. They have done it at great sacrifice to themselves and their families: The pain of separation to be away from your family for a whole year, sometimes longer, to be gone when important family events occur, and an additional hardship that comes with this service.
Some of these service men and women find that when they are activated in the Guard and Reserve units, they are paid less by the military than they were receiving in their civilian capacity. So the expenses they incur, the bills they have to pay--whether it is for a mortgage, utility bills, education expenses for their children--continue, even though as they serve our country they receive less money. We are fortunate that many of their civilian employers have stepped up and said: We will protect you. If you will stand up for America, we will stand up for you. We will make up the difference between your pay as you serve our country in the Guard and Reserve and what you would have earned if you would have stayed here.
We appreciate that. As a nation, we should be grateful, thankful that these companies stand by these men and women when they need it most so that as they worry about the pain of separation and coming home safely, they don't have to worry about whether the bills will be paid. We create Federal Government Web sites paying tribute to these companies that stand by Guard and Reserve Units. Some of the companies and some of the entities involved include Ford Motor Company, IBM, Verizon, Safeway, the State of California, Los Angeles County, and Austin, TX. The list goes on and on. There are some 23 different States that have said: If any of our State employees are activated, we will make up the difference in pay.
So why do I rise today with this amendment? Because the largest single employer of Guard and Reserve members in the United States fails to make up that difference in pay. There is one huge employer that will not say to these activated men and women: We will stand by you. If you are going to lose money, we will make up the difference.
Who could that employer possibly be? The United States Government. The Federal Government does not make up the difference in pay for these Guard and Reserve members. Why? If we value their service, if we praise these private entities and State governments and local governments that stand by these men and women, if we say they are setting a great example for America, why aren't we setting an example as the Federal Government? Why aren't we making up the difference in pay?
Some would argue there may be a disparity, that you may have two sergeants serving in the same place: one is in the active military being paid less than one who is having a supplemented salary as a former Federal employee, now activated as a sergeant serving overseas. Think about the current disparity, a disparity where this soldier, in private life a few weeks or months before, incurred expenses for his family which he thought he would be able to pay, and now, because he is serving his country, he cannot. I don't think the active military soldier will resent this. They will understand it and be glad they have a fellow soldier standing by them, leaving the comfort and security of a civilian life to serve our country so well.
What this amendment says is that the Federal Government will stand behind its employees activated in the Guard and Reserve to make up the difference in pay for them. It is a reasonable suggestion--in fact, so reasonable it has passed in the Senate several times, last time by an overwhelming vote. More than 90 Senators voted for it. Sadly, when it goes to conference where the House and Senate come together, it doesn't have a good fate. It turns out the Department of Defense and this administration don't care for the idea much, and they usually kill it once it gets to conference.
I am going to give them another chance for this Government to stand behind these soldiers. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me, as well as my other colleagues--Senator Mikulski of Maryland, who is a cosponsor, Senator Allen of Virginia, Senators Biden, Bingaman, Landrieu, and Lautenberg. We offer this amendment and hope that it will be adopted.
http://thomas.loc.gov/