Amendment No. 1901, as Modified

Amendment No. 1901, as Modified

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN], for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Biden, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1908.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been offered before and agreed to before. Unfortunately, it has not been enacted into law. It does very well on the floor of the Senate. It just doesn't do very well in conference committee. For some reason, when it gets to a conference committee, it is usually removed. I hope this will be an exception because I think what we are talking about with this amendment is something that most Senators on both sides of the aisle would agree with.

The premise behind this amendment is as follows: If you are willing to serve in the Guard or Reserve and if you are willing, when activated, to leave your job and your family behind to risk your life for America, we should do our best as a nation to stand behind you. That is it.

How do we stand behind the men and women of the Guard and Reserve when they are activated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan? In a variety of ways. Communities come forward, churches, friends, community groups help the family of a soldier who is overseas. But there is one other thing that happens that is as important, if not more. Many times that activated Guard or Reserve member faces a cut in pay. They have a good job. They have been activated. They have to serve for a year or more. They are being paid less during the time they are serving our country. So we encourage employers across America to stand behind their employees. If your employee is activated, stand behind your employee. Make up the difference in their pay.

It turns out that hundreds of corporations across America have said that is the right thing to do. That is the patriotic thing to do. Yes, we will stand behind the men and women activated into the Guard and Reserve. We will make up the difference in pay so that their families back home have financial peace of mind that they can pay the mortgage, the utility bills, keep the family together while that soldier is risking his life overseas.

We think so highly of these companies for their patriotism and dedication to our soldiers that we have created a Web site at the Department of Defense. You can go to it. It is a site that congratulates these employers for their devotion and allegiance to our troops.

Unfortunately, there is one employer that refuses to do this. It turns out it is the largest single employer of all the Guard and Reserve who are being activated. One employer that refuses, despite this Web site, despite all these speeches, one employer that refuses to stand behind the soldiers who were activated in the Guard and Reserve and to make up the difference in pay if they are paid less when they are activated than they were paid in civilian life. Who is this deadbeat employer that won't listen to these calls for patriotic responsibility to the men and women in uniform? What employer in America, after all that these soldiers have been through, will not stand behind them and make up the difference in pay? That employer is the Federal Government of the United States.

One out of 10 Guard and Reserve serving today are Federal employees. The Federal Government refuses to make up the difference in pay for those who have had a cut in pay because they are risking their lives for America.

I have offered this amendment time and again. I don't understand why it gets killed in conference committee every time I offer it. So many Senators come to the floor and say what a great idea it is. Yet when it goes to conference committee, it doesn't survive. This amendment brings the Federal Government into the 21st century and into line with countless other major employers. So many of America's top companies do the right thing for members of the National Guard and Reserve.

So many of these are good patriotic corporate citizens in our private sector. But in the public sector, 24 State governments, including my home State of Illinois, provides the same income protection for their State government workers. Counties do it, cities do it, villages do it at great sacrifice, and we thank them for that.

This amendment simply allows the Federal Government to catch up with the times, to match what other major employers are already doing, and to provide the same type of income protection for our Federal Government civilian employees who also serve in the Guard and Reserve.

I propose this amendment because it is not clear that a real opportunity to offer it will ever come on the Department of Defense authorization bill this year.

The Senate is on record as supporting this measure. We have passed it on three previous occasions. Two of those occasions were amendments to appropriations bills, such as the one before us.

This is the same language as reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress, except this version does not include any retroactivity provision. Though I personally support that, this amendment doesn't go that far.

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this measure has a cost but not a budget score. It is not retroactive. It is prospective only and subject to available appropriations. The funds to provide this differential pay to these Federal employees in the Guard and Reserve can come from funds already appropriated to the agencies for salaries. Twenty-four State governments do this. We have letters from those States attesting to the fact that the benefit has required no additional appropriations.

Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported this measure in the past, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for standing with our men and women in uniform.

Let me show data which is illustrative of what we are facing.

Recent data from the Department of Defense's newest ``Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components'' tells us that 51 percent of reservists lose income during mobilization, and 11 percent lose more than $2,500 per month.

So in addition to the sacrifice of being separated from their family, risking their lives in service to their country, many of them are taking substantial cuts in pay.

The new ``Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components'' also reveals that income loss is one of the top factors cited by National Guard and Reserve components as reasons they might choose to stop serving in Reserve components. This is not only an injustice that we in the Federal Government are not making up the pay differential, it, in fact, is one of the reasons some in the Reserve and Guard say they are not going to re-up. We cannot retain their good services to our country because of the economic sacrifice which that service creates.

The Department of Defense operates a program called Employer Support of Guard and Reserve--ESGR for short--which recognizes and pays tribute to those patriotic, outstanding employers who go beyond the legal minimum job protections in support of their workers who are citizen soldiers. ESGR operates this Web site which lists 900 companies, nonprofits, and State and local governments which offer this pay differential for mobilized workers. Search our Government Web site all you will, but you will not find the Federal Government on the list. We do not provide the same benefit to these men and women in service to our country as these other employers.

The number of employers providing this type of support to their workers in the National Guard and Reserve has grown steadily, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for the love of country and devotion to our men and women in uniform, but the Federal Government is still not one of those employers.

I think this measure is long overdue. The Federal Government should not be lagging behind major corporations and roughly half of the governments of the States of the United States in terms of the quality of support for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve.

We should be a leader, not a follower. We should set the example right now with this amendment. We can fix this problem, and we can do it quickly.

Let me briefly make a few points for the minority of my colleagues who might continue to have reservations about this concept.

This measure does not bust the budget. Certainly, it results in some expenditures, but the money to make up for any lost income by these mobilized Federal workers is drawn from the funds already previously appropriated to the same agency the workers were serving in before they were activated. The money is already there. State governments that provide similar benefits report that they require no additional appropriations to meet this responsibility.

Second, this measure is not additional pay for military service. Reservists continue to receive the same military pay for the same military job. Any differential pay they receive from their Federal civilian employer is separate and apart from that and is simply intended to keep such employees financially whole while they are away. It is a reflection of the value they provided to their Federal agency before they were mobilized and a reflection of the value they will provide again when they return.

The military pay a reservist gets during mobilization is for the military role he or she performs and is utterly unchanged by this amendment.

Third, the wisdom of this amendment is readily understandable by the entire force, whether Active Duty or Reserve. Some people ask how to explain to an Active-Duty soldier or his or her family why a Reserve soldier sharing the same foxhole--to use an old colloquialism--performing the same duties, is allowed to draw both military pay as well as the lost portion of their civilian income. This is easy to explain and easy to understand.

Unlike Active component troops, Reserve component troops structure their lives and make their financial commitments based on their regular civilian income. Their house payments, their car payments, the kids' tuition payments--everything in their financial picture is based on the income of a civilian life. When that income disappears during mobilization and is replaced by lower military income, the family suffers a real hardship.

The Active component family may not suffer that hardship. They understood going in what the parameters of their family budgets were. Allowing a Federal civilian employer to alleviate this hardship for their workers, as many private employers already do, makes clearly explainable and understandable sense.

Soldiers take care of one another. No troop wants to see his buddy struggle or suffer problems with their family. Certainly, no Active-Duty soldier wants that Reserve soldier standing by his side helping him to fight this war to be distracted by financial hardship back home.

Let me tell you who endorses this legislation: the American Legion, the National Military Family Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.

The reason to support this measure is simple and straightforward: the Federal Government cannot and should not do less for its employees in the Guard and Reserve than other major employers in America. It is time for the U.S. Government to be an employer which is as supportive of our troops as Sears, IBM, Home Depot, General Motors, and 24 State governments. They have already passed similar legislation. They have already made a commitment to our troops. How can we commend all these other employers who go the extra mile to support our troops while we fail to do so? Can we hold them up as examples and not be an example ourselves? I think the answer is no.

What we can do is adopt this amendment. I invite all my colleagues to come together once more to adopt the Reservist Pay Security Act, and I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, when this amendment is adopted, for goodness' sake and for the sake of these soldiers, don't kill it in conference committee. Stand by these soldiers all the way through the process. For years now, these soldiers have been shortchanged. It is time for us to make a difference in their lives and make a commitment to these great men and women.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHAFEE). Is there a sufficient second?

At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I withdraw that request and ask for the adoption of the pending amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/