[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 48 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3436-S3437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 2250. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 
to 55; to the Committee on Armed Services.
 Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
that would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard 
and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow 93,000 reservists 
currently aged 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits and would restore 
parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees 
and reservists.
  In the interests of fairness, the United States must act quickly to 
restore parity between the retirement age for civilian Federal 
employees and their reserve counterparts. When the reserve retirement 
system was created

[[Page S3437]]

in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for 
civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees 
could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, 
since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered 
by 5 years, while the reserve retirement age has not changed.
  The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would 
have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the 
reserves not changed substantially over the past five decades. But 
America has never placed greater demands on its ready reserve than it 
does now. Today, some 80,000 reservists are serving their country in 
the war on terrorism, both at home and abroad. America's dependence on 
our ready reserve has never been more obvious, as reservists are now 
providing security at our nation's airports and air patrols over our 
major cities.
  With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from 
home, serving the Nation as a reservist has taken on more of the 
trappings of active duty service than ever before. Before the war on 
terrorism began, reservists were performing about 13 million man-days 
each year, more than a 10-fold increase over the 1 million man-days per 
year the reserves averaged just 10 years ago. These statistics, the 
latest numbers available, do not even reflect the thousands of 
reservists who have been deployed since September 11. There is little 
doubt there will be a dramatic increase in the number of man-days for 
2001 and 2002. In my view, with additional responsibility should come 
additional benefits.
  The Department of Defense typically has not supported initiatives 
like this. The Department has expressed concern over the proposal's 
cost, which is estimated to be approximately $20 billion over 10 years, 
although CBO figures are not yet available. However, I am concerned 
that the Department's position may be shortsighted.
  At a time when there is a patriotic fervor and a renewed enthusiasm 
for national service, it is easy to forget that not long ago, the U.S. 
military was struggling to meet its recruitment and retention goals. In 
the aftermath of September 11, defense-wide recruitment and retention 
rates have improved. However, there is no guarantee that this trend 
will continue. Unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, 
there is little reason to believe that we will be able to attract and 
retain highly-trained personnel.
  Active duty military personnel have often looked to the reserves as a 
way of continuing to serve their country while being closer to family. 
With thousands of dollars invested in training active duty officers and 
enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when 
personnel decide to continue with the reserves. But with reserve 
deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists 
away from their families and civilian life for longer periods, the 
benefit of joining the reserves instead of active duty has been 
severely reduced. The more we depend on the reserves, the greater 
chance we have of losing highly trained former active duty servicemen 
and women. The added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide 
an important inducement for some of them to stay on despite the surge 
in deployments.
  Enacting this legislation will send the clear message that the United 
States values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during these 
trying times. The legislation has been endorsed by key members of the 
Military Coalition, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air 
Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the Retired 
Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve 
Association, and the National Guard Association. The bill would restore 
parity between the reserve retirement system and the civilian 
retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reserve 
service, and provide essential personnel with an inducement to join and 
stay in the reserves until retirement.
                                 ______