EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (Senate - April 13, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to support a cause which is essential to the continued prosecution of our war on terrorism. It is essential to preserving our National Guard and Reserve as a vital force in defending our country, and it is essential to defending our moral obligation to those who defend our Nation.
No one--particularly those citizens who have placed themselves in harm's way at our bidding--should be forced to choose between doing right by their loved ones and doing right by our country.
The amendment I have submitted will prevent that moral tragedy from happening.
What I refer to as the patriot penalty--the cut in income those who are called to active duty in our Guard and Reserve must suffer--has become a very serious problem. We now have about 180,000 Active-Duty Guard and Reserve personnel; 40 percent of the forces in Iraq have been called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve. The deployments are now lasting longer on average than any time since the Korean war.
Since that conflict, it had been our practice to not summon the Guard and Reserve for active duty for more than 6 months. Today it is routine they are called to service in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere for longer than that period of time, making these deployments not reasonably anticipatable on behalf of these individuals and their families.
Mr. President, 51 percent--more than half--of the guardsmen and reservists who are called to active duty suffer a loss of income, the patriot penalties. The average loss is $4,400 per citizen soldier--a material amount of money for the average American family. The General Accounting Office in a recent study indicates that there is growing financial strain on these families, even up to bankruptcy. It is morally unacceptable. It is unacceptable from a national security standpoint and from our obligation as fellow citizens that those we place in harm's way and ask to make the ultimate sacrifice physically should also be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice financially.
That is what this amendment would stop. It is hard, not just for the soldiers and their families involved; it is also undermining the vitality of the Guard and Reserve and the essential role they play in service to defending our country. Fully five out of six of the Reserve branches did not meet their recruiting goals in the most recent period. General Helmly, the head of the Army Reserve, has described the Army Reserve as a broken force. At a time when we are relying upon our Reserve and our Guard men and women more than ever before, they are on the cusp of becoming, according to their commander, a broken force. We must not let that happen. Of the 78 percent of these individuals who are considering not reenlisting in the Guard and Reserve, fully 75 percent, three-quarters, cite the loss in income as a material factor in their decision to not reenlist.
Many laudable firms in my State and, I am sure, in the State of Mississippi, the State of South Carolina, and elsewhere, are doing their part. About one-third of employers are seeking to make up this penalty, the patriot penalty, on their own; 23 States are helping. It is important we do our part as well.
Our amendment would provide, after someone has been called to active service for more than 6 months--therefore a period of time more than was reasonably anticipatable--for up to $10,000 in lost income be made up for these individuals, meaning that more than 95 percent of those who suffer this penalty would be made whole.
We provide incentives for the two-thirds of employers currently not contributing to making up these penalties, for them to do their part as well, making it a public-private partnership. The cost over the next 5 years is estimated to be about $535 million. Given the scope and the magnitude of the undertakings in Afghanistan, in Iraq, the costs we are incurring for so many other activities, including to try to train, equip and put into place Afghans and Iraqis to defend their countries, this is well within our budget. This is well within what we can afford as a country, to do right by those who are attempting to implement freedom abroad, to ensure that they can do right by their loved ones and their families at home.
Objections, of course, are raised to anything in the Senate. The principal one is that it will lead to an inequality of pay to those on the battlefield, permanent Active-Duty personnel versus Reserve and Guard men and women who have been called to serve by their side. These are unequal circumstances. As I said, for those who are Active-Duty and have made that commitment to our country, they can plan for that circumstance. For those in the Guard and Reserve who have been called to service for a period of time that was not anticipatable because it is longer than any time in the last half century, they require and deserve somewhat different treatment. I simply say, we do not call upon our Active-Duty personnel to take a cut in pay when they enter combat. We should not ask our guardsmen and reservists to take a cut in pay when they do likewise. That is why the patriot penalties must be made up.
In conclusion, we should find it within both our hearts and our wallets to do right by those who defend our country. It is important to the fight against terrorism. It is important to the preservation of the Guard and Reserve as a vital component of our Nation's security. It is important and essential that we fulfill our moral obligation to those we have called to duty so that they can do right by their loved ones, just as we are asking them to do right by their company.
I respectfully ask for my colleagues' support of this urgent and worthwhile initiative.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov