[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10702-S10705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Amendment No. 1901, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is now
the Leahy-Bond amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I have a modification at the desk. I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 228, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For an additional amount for ``National Guard and Reserve
Equipment'', $1,300,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the amount available under this
heading shall be available for homeland security and homeland
security response equipment; Provided further, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the
conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress).
Mr. STEVENS. There was one problem. The number of the Congress has
been changed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1901, as modified.
The amendment (No. 1901), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment before us?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
Amendment No. 1908
Mr. DURBIN. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
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:
[[Page S10703]]
(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)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS
PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2005''.
(b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the
uniformed services or National Guard
``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of
employment with the Federal Government in order to perform
active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or
order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in
section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while
serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period
described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by
which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have
been payable to such employee for such pay period if such
employee's civilian employment with the Government had not
been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined
under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with
respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if
the employee's civilian employment had not been
interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to
reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect
to the position from which such employee is absent (as
referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive
basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other
paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of
such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which
an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter
43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of
section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section
4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or
apply for employment or reemployment following completion of
service on active duty to which called or ordered as
described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee
shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to
pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in
the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's
civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in
consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions
of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and
`uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as
given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to
an employee entitled to any payments under this section,
means the agency or other entity of the Government (including
an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with
respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under
chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable
under section 5304.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5537 the following:
``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in
section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
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
[[Page S10704]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to amendment No. 1908.
The amendment (No. 1908) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
[[Page S10705]]
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there
will be no further action on the Defense appropriations bill tonight.
____________________