[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8968-8969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 981

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the 
desk, and I ask for its first reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for 
the first time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 981) 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.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is with some measure of frustration 
that I rise to again introduce the Reservist Pay Security Act. This 
bill allows members of the National Guard and Reserve who are Federal 
employees to maintain their normal salary when called to active duty by 
having Federal agencies make up the difference between their military 
pay and what they would have earned at their Federal civilian job.
  This is not a radical concept. Many of the major employers in America 
offer a similar benefit for their employees in the Guard and Reserve 
who are mobilized and, due to lower military pay, suffer a loss of 
income. Companies such as Ford, General Motors, IBM, 3M and, in my own 
State of Illinois, Sears, as well as the Illinois State government and 
that of 23 other States provide this same exact security for their 
workers.
  Why do they do this? For two reasons: First, These employers are 
patriotic members of American society who want to step up and do their 
part for the country while it is engaged in a war. Second, they want to 
send a clear message to their employees that they are valued where they 
work and that the organization is looking forward to their return. The 
Department of Defense operates a highly respected program known as 
Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve, or ESGR, which pays tribute 
to more than 900 such patriotic employers.
  It is nothing less than shameful that the largest employer in 
America, the United States Federal Government, is not on that list 
because we do not provide a similar benefit for our employees in the 
Guard and Reserve.
  I must note, however, that my colleagues in the Senate have generally 
recognized this and have joined me to correct this situation by passing 
the Reservist Pay Security Act. In October 2003, the Senate approved, 
by a vote of 96 to 3, my amendment to S. 1689, the supplemental 
appropriations for 2004. In June of 2004, it was agreed to by a voice 
vote as an amendment to S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for 2005. Most recently, on April 13, the Senate passed this needed 
measure as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill for 
2005. That was the third time this measure has passed the Senate. In 
each of those instances, this measure has been dropped in conference 
with our colleagues in the

[[Page 8969]]

House of Representatives. It is unfortunate that some of our colleagues 
fail to appreciate the need to pass this bill.
  The Senate knows this is important. The Reserve Officers Association 
knows that it is important. The National Guard Association of the 
United States knows that it is important. The Enlisted Association of 
the National Guard of the United States knows that it is important. And 
I can assure you that we in the Senate will not give up on this matter.
  Today I introduce this measure with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, 
Allen, Landrieu, Leahy, Lautenberg, Kerry, Sarbanes, and Bingaman. This 
bill is identical to the Reservist pay amendment to the supplemental 
with the exception that this measure provides a mechanism for possible 
retroactive payments for those who have served since October 11, 2002.
  Of the nearly 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserves, 
some 120,000--approximately 10 percent--are also Federal employees. As 
of January 2005, more than 43,000 Federal employees had been activated 
since September 11, 2001. More than 17,000 are currently on active 
duty.
  Income loss hurts Reserve component retention. Of the top 10 reasons 
cited for leaving the National Guard/Reserve, income loss was No. 4, 
trailing only family burden, deployment frequency and deployment 
length.
  This measure has not been scored by CBO. Funds would likely come from 
existing appropriations. In addition to my own State of Illinois, 23 
other State governments have similar salary continuation laws for State 
employees: Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 
Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Most of these States report 
that this has required no additional appropriations. The differential 
was paid from funds already appropriated for government employee pay. 
With the exception of any retroactive payments, that would be true of 
our measure as well.
  Reservists bring to military service their civilian professional 
skills and provide their civilian employers with the expertise and 
experience they have gained in the Armed Forces. This adds value to 
America.
  Last year, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee saw the value of 
supporting our citizen soldiers and reported this measure to the floor, 
but it did not see action as a free-standing bill before the Congress 
adjourned. I hope we can make it as a freestanding bill or as an 
amendment on some other legislation this year.
  Our bottom line is simply this: Federal employees should not lose 
income when mobilized for extended duty in the National Guard and 
Reserve. Major American employers already protect their workers from 
such loss. It is time for the Federal Government to support our troops 
by doing the same.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and 
in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 
XIV, I object to my own request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard, and the bill will be read 
for the second time on the next legislative day.

                          ____________________