Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Murray amendment. This is an emergency supplemental bill. We are considering funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I voted against this war. I didn't think we were prepared. I didn't think we had a coalition to stand behind us that would send in the soldiers and bring the resources to the battle. Our military went into this war and performed admirably. We were well prepared for the military invasion. Clearly we were not prepared for what happened afterward.
For 2 years now we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. For 2 years we have seen the casualties come home and we have seen the body bags and caskets come home as well. We have lost over 16,000 of our best and bravest in Iraq to this day. Among our allies, thank goodness there have been fewer losses. But in comparison it shows we are carrying the burden of battle. Our sons and daughters are carrying the burden of battle. The taxpayers, with this bill, will put the resources into material and equipment so these soldiers can do their job and come home safely.
How many of us have stood up on the floor of the Senate on both sides of the aisle praising these men and women in uniform, saying we have to stand behind them, keep them in your thoughts and prayers, don't be ashamed to wave that flag? We are all proud Americans.
Senator Murray comes to us today and asks whether our pride in our fighting men and women is enough for us to declare it an emergency to make sure our veterans hospitals and clinics are up to the task of serving these men and women. For us to give all the great speeches about how much we admire the soldiers and then, when they are hurt and come home, to throw them into a VA system unprepared to take care of them is a mockery. If we truly believe in the goodness of the men and women who risk their lives for America, why wouldn't we vote for the Murray amendment to put the money in the veterans hospitals so the very best doctors and nurses and equipment is there for our sons, our daughters, the husband, and wives of people we love.
Let me tell you about one element of this which I am particularly proud that Senator Murray has added at my request. It is estimated that at least one out of every five soldiers who serves will come home and face a condition known as posttraumatic stress disorder. What is it? If you saw the movie ``Patton,'' you can recall that scene where George C. Scott, playing Patton, went in the military hospital, saw a soldier on a cot and asked: Where were you hit, soldier? The soldier responded: I wasn't hit. I just can't do it anymore. And Patton reached down and slapped him. He slapped that soldier and that slap reverberated across America, a scandalous headline that this general would slap a soldier because he couldn't face battle.
In all honesty, it is that attitude and denial which have led the United States to ignore this very real problem. It wasn't until 1980, 25 years ago, that the Veterans' Administration acknowledged the fact that when you take men and women in America, train them to be soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen, serve in the Coast Guard, put them into battle, they can have life experiences and witness events which will have a dramatic impact on them personally. They may need help and counseling to come home and set their lives on the right path. The first time we acknowledged posttraumatic stress disorder was 1980. They used to call it shell shock and battle fatigue. But it was never acknowledged as a medical problem that needed attention until 1980.
A few weeks ago I went across my State of Illinois. I went to five different locations for roundtables. I invited medical counselors from the Veterans' Administration to tell me about the soldiers who were trying to come to grips with this torment in their minds over what they had done and what they had seen. I was nothing short of amazed at what happened. In every single stop, these men and women came forward and sat at tables before groups in their communities, before the media, and told their sad stories of being trained to serve this country, being proud to serve, and going into battle situations which caused an impact on their mind they never could have imagined, and coming home with their minds in this turmoil over what they had done and seen, and many times having to wait months and, in one case, a year before they could see a doctor at a VA hospital.
I couldn't believe the stories of World War II veterans. A veteran in southern Illinois who was in the Philippines couldn't come to my meeting because ``I just can't face talking about it,'' 60 years after his experience. Veterans from Korea where my two brothers served, veterans from Vietnam who came home rejected by many, who couldn't resolve their difficulties because they were afraid to even acknowledge they were veterans, tormented by this for decades.
The ones that gripped my heart the most were the Iraqi veterans. I will never forget these men and women. The one I sat next to at Collinsville, a bright, handsome, good looking young marine, talked about going into Fallujah with his unit and how his point man was riddled with bullets, and he had to carry the parts of his body out of that street into some side corner where he could be evacuated, at least the remains could be evacuated. Then he served as point man and went forward. A rocket-propelled grenade was shot at him, and it bounced off his helmet. One of the insurgents came up and shot him twice in the chest. This happened in November. He was there. He survived.
When he came home, he couldn't understand who he was because of what he had seen and been involved in. He had problems with his wife, difficult, violent problems, and he turned to the VA for help.
I said to this young marine: I am almost afraid to ask you this, but how old are you?
He said: I am 19.
Think of what he has been through. Thank goodness he is in the hands of counselors. Thank goodness he is getting some help, moving in the right direction.
But in another meeting in southern Illinois, another soldier said, in front of the group: As part of this battle, I killed children, women. I killed old people. I am trying to come to grips with this in my mind as I try to come back into civilian life.
A young woman, an activated guardswoman from Illinois, said when she came out, still in distress over what she had seen and done, they stopped her at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin and sat her down and asked: Any problems? Of course, that should have been the time for her to come forward and say: I have serious problems. She didn't.
Because if you said you had a problem, you had to stay at Camp McCoy for 3 more months. She was so desperate to get home she said: No problems.
She came home and finally realized that was not true. She had serious psychological problems over what she had been through. When she turned to the VA and asked for help, they said: You can come in and see a counselor at the VA in 1 year.
What happens to these veterans, victims of posttraumatic stress disorder, without counseling at an early stage? Sadly, many of them see their marriages destroyed. One I met was on his fourth marriage. Many of them self-medicate with alcohol, sometimes with drugs, desperate to find some relief from the nightmares they face every night. These are the real stories of real people, our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands and wives who go to battle to defend this country and come home with the promise that we will stand behind them.
If we stand behind them, we need to stand by the Murray amendment--$2 billion to make sure these hospitals and clinics have the very best people to treat our soldiers coming home; money as well to make certain that there is family therapy, something that is often overlooked. How many times do you hear the story of the wife who says: Who is this man who came back from battle? He is not the soldier I sent away. He is so distant. He doesn't talk to me. He gets angry in a hurry. He wants to be away from us. That is not the man I sent to battle. The spouses and their children need help, too.
I implore my colleagues. I know it is considered unusual to come in on a President's request and add money for the Veterans' Administration. But we are not doing our duty as Senators to only provide the money for the troops for the battle. We have to do more. We must do that. But we need to provide the physical and mental medical help these same soldiers need when they come home.
I thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this amendment. I wish it were a bipartisan amendment. There is certainly bipartisan support for our troops. But maybe when the vote comes, we will find if the same Senators who have said such glowing things about the men and women in uniform will stand by them when they come home and need a helping hand.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN], for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 356.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the 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, I have offered this amendment before. It has passed the Senate twice. For some reason, as soon as it passes the Senate and goes to a conference committee, it disappears, it dies. I don't understand it. It seems that the Senate by overwhelming numbers supports the concept of this amendment, but somewhere, either in the executive branch of this Government or in the House of Representatives, there is opposition to this amendment.
When I explain the amendment and what it does, you may be as puzzled as I am. Here is what the amendment says in a few words: If you are a Federal employee who is activated to serve in either a Guard or Reserve unit, the Federal Government will make up the difference in pay while you serve.
That is it. You understand, I am sure, as we all do, that we have thousands of men and women across America who are members of Guard and Reserve units who are now being activated and deployed overseas for extended periods of time, interrupting their daily lives and putting some hardship on their families and their businesses, but they serve their country. We find that many employers have decided to do not only the right thing but the patriotic thing and have said: We will stand behind our employees. If they are going to serve America, we will make up any loss of pay which they experience during the period of their service activation.
It is something we all applaud. In fact, the President has given speeches about it. There are not too many Senators who have not given speeches applauding those employers who stand behind these Guard families and Reserve families.
It turns out, when we look at all the employers across America, there is one notable omission. The U.S. Government does not make up the difference in pay between the guardsmen and reservists who are activated. So you find many Federal employees going off to serve our country are serving next to someone from the private sector who has the helping hand of their employer while those employees of our Federal Government are being disadvantaged.
America's Federal employees are a valuable asset to our Nation, not just in the public service they perform every day to keep America's Government going but today about 120,000 Federal employees serve America as well in the National Guard or Reserve--120,000. Indeed, about 17,000 have been mobilized and deployed overseas as I speak--17,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, their employer, the U.S. Federal Government, lags behind leading businesses and States and local governments, which provide support to their workers who are activated. The Federal Government does not.
The amendment I propose is an opportunity to correct this shortcoming, update the Federal Government's support for these workers, and keep pace with the high standards set by other employers. For many years now every employer in America has had to consider how to respond to having workers activated in the Guard and Reserve. In times of peace, companies must accommodate staffing, schedule duties for the requirement for workers to be sent for training or drills. The law requires that they do this, and they follow the law.
In wartime, however, workers can be called away for duty for months, sometimes even years. It is a big challenge for employers.
How are they responding? What we have seen since 9/11 is that America's business communities and State and local governments not only provide the employment and reemployment protections required by law, but many of them go above and beyond requirement and patriotically provide even greater benefits and protections for their workers mobilized for duty in the Guard and Reserve. Many of these same businesses and State and local governments continue health insurance and fringe benefits for the families of those Guard and Reserve soldiers who are overseas. Some provide continued full salary for a few months, and more and more employers make up the difference in lost pay that the workers suffered during mobilization.
Covering the pay gap is an important benefit because some Reserve component members suffer a loss of income during mobilization. A recently released Department of Defense study in May of 2004 reveals that 51 percent of the members of our National Guard and Reserve suffer a loss of income when mobilized for long periods of active duty because military pay is less than pay in their civilian jobs. The average reservist loses $368 a month. That calculates out to about $4,300 a year in income. For many families, that $368 a month has a significant impact. Not only must they deal with the absence of someone they love but now on top of it must also tighten the family financial belt a notch or two and endure a decline in perhaps their standard of living, pressure on the family back home, and certainly more pressure on the soldier who worries about them as they serve our country overseas.
While the average monthly income loss was $368, the DOD Status of Forces Survey found that some reservists were losing a lot more. Eleven percent of all reservists report losing income of more than $2,500 a month, $30,000 a year for the year that they are activated and deployed. That is a huge sacrifice to make in the service of your country on top of risking your life every single day.
The Department of Defense operates a program called Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve--ESGR for short. Its purpose is to help employers understand and comply with the new law regarding protections for members of the Reserve. The program highlights and recognizes those employers who do more than the law requires, particularly those who are supportive of the Guard and Reserve.
To publicize these outstanding employers, ESGR lists them on their Web site. If you scroll down the Web site, you will see listed more than 1,000 companies across America, nonprofit organizations, State and local governments, all of which stand behind their Guard and Reserve while the Federal Government does not. Of those that are listed, more than 900 are saluted for providing pay differential. Think of it: 900 companies, 900 units of government that say, We will stand behind that soldier, we will make up the difference in pay.
On the first page, you will see 3M, A.G. Edwards, Abbot Laboratories, ADT Security Service, and Aetna. That is just the beginning. If you scroll down, you will see ICBM. I am proud to say you will see Sears & Roebuck from my State of Illinois, General Motors, United Parcel Service, and Ford Motor Company. In my State of Illinois, not only Sears but Boeing, State Farm Insurance, the State of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and many other Illinois companies, local governments, and institutions cover the pay differential for Reserve and Guard members called to active duty.
More and more American employers are providing a pay differential benefit to their workers who are mobilized for active duty. The number of ``outstanding employers'' recognized on the ESGR Web site for providing pay differential has been steadily growing. Even as the war goes on, more and more companies are stepping up for their people. They are stepping up in the private sector for their employees. How can we in the Federal Government do anything less? While the major employers in America are rushing to support the guardsmen and reservists, our Federal Government has not done so.
In a recently released DOD survey, they asked Reserve component members what factors they took into consideration before they decided to leave the National Guard and Reserve.
Let me show you that list. First, as I mentioned earlier, 51 percent of those in the Reserve who are activated lose income when they are mobilized, and 11 percent lose more than $2,500 per month.
I also mentioned this Web site. The employer-supported Guard and Reserve Web site based out of Arlington, VA, has a long list of over 1,000 employers who helped their activated Guard and soldiers, and 900 of them have provided pay differential for indefinite periods of time, some for 12 months and some for 6 months. But they are standing behind their Guard and Reserve units.
When you take a look at the number of outstanding employers who are making a greater sacrifice for their members of Guard and Reserve units, look at what happened since October of 2003. The number of employers making the pay differential for their employees called to Reserve duty has been increasing. But the U.S. Government is still not one of them. They ask the members of the Reserve and Guard: Why didn't you re-up, why didn't you reenlist? Here are the reasons they gave in a survey: 95 percent said it was too great a family burden, 91 percent said too many activations and deployments, 90 percent said activations-deployments are too long, and 78 percent said income lost.
This is a factor in retention and recruitment. It is a factor in the lifestyles of these families of Guard and Reserve unit members.
How can we come before this Congress asking for additional funds for the soldiers overseas and overlook the obvious? The Federal Government is not providing its share of helping these same soldiers. How can we throw bouquets, as we should, to all of these other employers who meet their responsibility and fail to meet our own?
With recruiting numbers falling short in virtually every branch of service, we need to do everything we can to lessen the burden. By ensuring Federal employees, if they are mobilized, that their families will not have to endure loss of income, we can help reduce one of the major factors that drive people away from the Guard and Reserve.
This measure is not only good employee support, it is not only in keeping with the standards established by other leading employers, it is not only the patriotic thing to do, it is prudent management of our Reserve component forces. Reserve component soldiers face different family and professional situations than Active-Duty soldiers. They must not only perform military duties in addition to their civilian career, they have to shift back and forth between these two responsibilities.
Additionally, these Reserve component soldiers bring to their military service something special: all of their accumulated civilian time and civilian career experience.
In Iraq, thanks to Guard and Reserve forces, we have experienced teachers, construction supervisors, civil administrators, engineers, professionals over a wide range of skills, skills particularly helpful in rebuilding that ravaged nation. This derives from the unique nature of the Reserve component service and its value to the nation we must protect.
This provision has already passed the Senate twice. In October 2003, it was agreed to by vote of 96 to 3 as an amendment to the supplemental for fiscal year 2004. In June of 2004, it was agreed to by a voice vote as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill. On both occasions, I watched as this measure went into the bipartisan conference committee and disappeared. Apparently someone is opposed to the Federal Government making up the difference in pay for activated Guard and Reserve soldiers. The same Government that is praising businesses for doing this is deep-sixing this provision when it comes time to consider it in the conference committees.
I have just been handed a letter from the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. I am happy to report it to my colleagues in the Senate.
The Reserve Officers Association, representing 75,000 Reserve component members, supports your amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriation to provide an income offset for mobilized Federal employees.
I might add that it goes on to quote an Army Times article dated March 7, 2005, entitled ``Compensating for lost pay a bad idea, reserve head says.'' It inferred in this article that a Reserve pay differential would be unfair to Active-Duty troops.
This retired Major General Mcintosh goes on to say:
It is a shame that it is considered OK for Reservists to accept year-after-year pay losses during mobilization on top of the losses from missed promotions, missed contributions to a retirement account, missed incremental pay increases with their civilian job.
Helping to maintain the financial health of our military positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic position for the country.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
Hon. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.
DEAR SENATOR DURBIN: The Reserve Officers Association, representing 75,000 Reserve Component members, supports your amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriation, SR 109-052, to provide an income offset for mobilized federal employees.
The Guard and Reserve face financial challenges whenever they are mobilized and ROA continues to hear stories of lost businesses, increasing credit card debt, and families forced to sell their homes. Many employees pay the difference between the civilian and military salary for mobilized Reservists; yet one of the largest employers, the federal government, does not.
In the Army Times Article, ``Compensating for lost pay a bad idea, reserve head says'', dated March 7, 2005, it was inferred a reserve pay differential would be unfair to active-duty troops. It is a shame that it is considered okay for Reservists to accept year-after-year of pay losses during mobilization on top of the losses from missed promotions, missed contributions to a retirement account, missed incremental pay increases with their civilian job.
Helping to maintain the financial health of our military, positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic position for the country. Congressional support for our nation's military men and women in the Guard and Reserve is and always will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McIntosh,
Major General (Ret), USAFR,
Executive Director.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. These folks who passed this amendment twice recognized reality.
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 major war to the situation we face today where the Department of Defense acknowledges that no significant operation can be undertaken without the Guard and Reserve. Today, more than 40 percent of the forces fighting the global war on terrorism are members of our Guard and Reserve. Our part-time warriors have become full-time protectors of freedom.
The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. We must set an example. We must show the initiative. We must stand behind the men and women of the Federal workforce who are risking their lives for us overseas. Similar legislation has been enacted in at least 23 other States.
The Presiding Officer and I had a rare opportunity not long ago. We flew into Baghdad 2 or 3 weeks ago. It was a harrowing trip in the back of a C-130. We were strapped into our combat armor, body armor, with helmets on our head, in the C-130 as it made a corkscrew landing into Baghdad. We shared a wonderful, unforgettable opportunity to meet not only the leadership in the Green Zone but to meet with the marines and soldiers who are there risking their lives.
I sat down across the table from those three marines, recalled the guard unit I met the night before, and I thought to myself, we owe them something, not simply thanks but something significant and something tangible.
For those who work in the Federal workforce, this is something tangible we can do. We can make up the difference in lost pay. We can say to them, worry about coming home safely, but don't worry about whether your family is going to make the mortgage payment and pay the utility bills and keep things together while you are overseas.
That is what this amendment is all about. We express our gratitude in many different ways for the men and women in uniform, but this amendment which I have offered with Senator Mikulski, Senator Allen, and Senator Corzine, says to my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, let us offer to these men and women in uniform not only our thanks and our praise but the financial support they need to give them peace of mind.
http://thomas.loc.gov/