[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 69 (Friday, May 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5996-S5997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cochran, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 1035. 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 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. More than 200,000 reservists are serving their country in the 
war against terrorism at home, abroad, and in the conflict with Iraq. 
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. As Charles Cragin, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently noted, ``The nature and 
purpose of reserve service has changed since the end of the cold war. 
They are no longer weekend warriors. They represent almost 50 percent 
of the total force.''
  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. The recent conflict 
has only further underscored the demands placed on the National Guard 
and Reserve. Before the war on terrorism began, reservists were 
performing about 13 million man-days each year, more than a 10-fold 
increase over the one 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 nor do they take into account the number of 
reservists who have been deployed in the current military action 
against Iraq. There is little doubt there will be a dramatic increase 
in the number of man-days for 2002 and 2003. 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

[[Page S5997]]

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.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1035

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN AGE FOR RECEIPT OF MILITARY RETIRED 
                   PAY FOR NONREGULAR SERVICE.

       (a) Reduction in Age.--Section 12731(a)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``at least 60 
     years of age'' and inserting ``at least 55 years of age''.
       (b) Application to Existing Provisions of Law or Policy.--
     With respect to any provision of law, or of any policy, 
     regulation, or directive of the executive branch, that refers 
     to a member or former member of the uniformed services as 
     being eligible for, or entitled to, retired pay under chapter 
     1223 of title 10, United States Code, but for the fact that 
     the member or former member is under 60 years of age, such 
     provision shall be carried out with respect to that member or 
     former member by substituting for the reference to being 60 
     years of age a reference to the age in effect for 
     qualification for such retired pay under section 12731(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month 
     beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to retired pay payable for that month and 
     subsequent months.
                                 ______