National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
June 18, 2004
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mr. DURBIN. I call up amendment No. 3196.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment will be set aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN], for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3196.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. DURBIN. This amendment is being offered by myself, Senators MIKULSKI, LANDRIEU, SARBANES, CORZINE, MURRAY, DAYTON, and BIDEN. This is an amendment that will be a familiar amendment to many Members of the Senate. It is an amendment I offered before on an appropriations bill and was adopted with an overwhelming vote in the Senate. Unfortunately, it was stripped out of the bill in conference.
This amendment to the Defense authorization bill addresses the financial burden facing many of the men and women who serve in the military Reserve and National Guard and are forced to take unpaid leave from their Federal jobs when called to active duty. I offered this amendment to the fiscal year 2004 supplemental. It passed by a margin of 96 to 3 before it was removed in conference. The vote recognized the reality that since the end of the cold war, employment of our Reserve forces has shifted profoundly, from being primarily an expansion force to augment active forces during a major war to the situation today, where the Department of Defense admits that no significant operation can be undertaken by the United States of America without Guard and Reserve components.
Think of how often we, as individuals, both elected and unelected, have come forward to congratulate employers who stand behind their employees when activated. We salute them. We say it is a great show of citizenship that when an employee of a company is activated in a Guard or Reserve capacity that the company makes up the difference in their paycheck; continues their health insurance; of course, promises them a job when they return. We salute all these great employers.
This amendment addresses an employer that has turned out to be a deadbeat when it comes to Guard and Reserve. That employer happens to be the Federal Government. Yes, that is right, the United States Federal Government is an employer which does not offer Guard and Reserve activated employees the same benefits being offered by State governments, local governments, and private companies.
One might ask, How many Federal employees are in the Guard and Reserve? Today, there are about 1.2 million members in the National Guard and Reserve. Of that number, 10 percent, 120,000, are Federal employees. More than 43,000 Federal employees have been activated since 9/11. That is more than one-third of those Federal employees who are members of the Guard and Reserve have actually been activated.
Currently, more than 15,000 Federal employees remain activated with Guard and Reserve. They are dedicated. They are loyal. They are serving their country. They have chosen not only to work for our Federal Government but also to volunteer for the Guard and Reserve. But they do it at a price.
While these individuals receive pay for the time they are on active duty, the salary gap many times between military pay and their Government pay and allowances can be considerable.
A Department of Defense survey of 35,000 reservists, including Federal employees, found that 41 percent of all reservists suffer lost income during mobilization and deployment. Of the 41 percent reporting a loss, approximately 70 percent said their annual income was reduced by almost $4,000. Approximately 7 percent, however, reported an annual loss ranging from $37,000 to $50,000.
So imagine this scenario: Someone works for the Department of Transportation of the United States of America. They have signed up for the Army Reserves. They have a job that pays $60,000 a year, being a Federal employee. Now they have been activated and they are being paid $30,000 a year. What about that salary gap?
A lot of State governments and local governments and private companies say: We will make up the difference. We will stand with you. You are serving your country. You are risking your life. We will stand by you-but not the Federal Government. Many companies, State and local governments-companies such as Ford, IBM, Verizon, Safeway; and the State of California, Los Angeles County, Austin, TX-recognize the burden and voluntarily pay the difference between Active-Duty military salary and civilian salary for reservists. Typically, these employers cover their reservists anywhere from 90 days on, with possible extensions of up to 18 months.
In my State of Illinois, Boeing Aerospace, State Farm Insurance, Sears, Roebuck & Company, the State of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and many other Illinois companies and local governments and institutions, cover the pay differential for Reserve and Guard members. The State of Alaska has passed legislation, which Governor Murkowski signed into law, that allows the government to make up the difference in pay and continue some or all health benefits for State employees called to active duty in the Reserves and National Guard. The authority would be discretionary, triggered by an order of the Governor. The bill's effective date is retroactive to September 11, 2001.
In addition to Illinois and Alaska, similar legislation has been enacted in at least 21 other States, including the Commonwealth of Virginia. I know the Senator, who is chairman of this committee, is particularly proud that his State stands behind State employees who have been activated for the Guard and Reserves and makes up the difference in salary.
But what an embarrassment it is for us to stand on the floor of the Senate and say the Federal Government does not do the same thing. That is right: The Government of the United States does not offer the same benefits offered by Illinois, Alaska, Virginia, and many other States across the Nation. These States have gone above and beyond the requirements of law in many circumstances. They stand behind these people. In fact, when you look at the private sector, hundreds of companies provide full salary differential for at least 90 days when the Guard and Reserves are activated.
The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. We, in Washington, are the first to stand up and salute our troops, as we should. But instead of just saluting, why don't we give these troops a helping hand? For goodness' sake, these Federal employees-activated time and time again, causing great hardship to their family-deserve the same consideration as those employees of State and local governments and private companies.
My amendment will help alleviate some of the financial burdens faced by these Federal employees who have been mobilized. Federal employees, without hesitation, take time off their jobs, away from their families, to serve our Nation.
On October 11, 2002, I voted against the resolution to give the President authority to go forward with this war. That decision was a tough one. The decision was made by this Congress to go forward anyway.
What has happened since? We have found a war that we hoped would be short in duration has become much longer. We now have some 135,000 to 140,000 troops in the field in Iraq. We hope they will come home soon, but there is no end in sight. Many of my activated Guard and Reserve units have been extended. They are over there for extended periods of time, causing great hardship, really assaulting the morale of many of these units. Yet they continue to serve, and they continue to risk their lives. Some have been mobilized for more than a year. Many have had their tours involuntarily extended. Some are subject to stop-loss orders.
Given the increased commitment of Reserve components-the longer tours, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan-and concerns over recruiting and retention, this legislation is timely and a vote of support for each and every Federal employee who is also a citizen soldier. We have to provide our reservist employees with financial support so they can leave their civilian lives to serve our country without the added burden of worry about whether their loved ones back home can make a monthly mortgage payment or provide new shoes for the kids. They are doing so much for us, we can do no less for them.
Let me also say, this is an authorization, and it is an authorization with a retroactive date back to October 11, 2002, when the Senate initially enacted my reservist pay security bill. The amendment provides for the authorization of $100 million to cover retroactive payments from October 11, 2002, through the date of enactment. Of course, this $100 million is subject to appropriation.
Prospectively, the funds come from discretionary funds for each agency, so that as Federal employees in each agency are activated into Guard and Reserve units, serving and risking their lives overseas, the agencies will understand they are going to stand by these employees while these employees are standing by our country.
I believe this is a reasonable amendment. I think it is one that the Senate has embraced with an overwhelming bipartisan rollcall vote of 96 to 3. It belongs in this authorization bill so we can say to Federal employees: We respect you no less than all of the others who are serving in the Guard and Reserves. We believe you should be given a helping hand to keep your family together as you volunteer to serve this country.
Mr. President, at this point I would ask that this amendment be set aside and I be given an opportunity to call up another amendment which I have pending at the desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3225.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if we could-
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could we first discuss this amendment a minute?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I would be happy to discuss it. In fact, I did not know the Senator wanted to, but I am anxious to.