It's nice to see Sen Bayh get some good press in the
military-related newspapers.

tinyurl.com/9r3eo

Lawmakers want pay protection for reservists

By Rick Maze
Army Times staff writer

With negotiators about to wrap up work on the 2006
defense authorization bill, 74 members of the House
have made a final plea for inclusion of a
Senate-passed provision to protect the income of
mobilized reservists.

The House and Senate versions of the defense bill
include similar provisions creating a new benefit for
National Guard and reserve members whose military pay
is less than they receive in their private-sector
jobs. Both plans would provide a monthly minimum of
$50 and maximum of $3,000 for those who suffer income
losses when mobilized, but there are large differences
in eligibility.

The Senate was more generous; its plan would begin
income-replacement payments starting after six months
of mobilization. The House bill would not start
payments until after 18 months of mobilization, which
would exclude most National Guard and reserve members
called up for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation
Enduring Freedom.

The letter to negotiators, prepared by Reps. Tom
Lantos, D-Calif., and Sam Graves, R-Mo., calls the
House proposal “regrettable” and asks negotiators to
support the Senate plan.

National Guard and reserve members “are struggling to
keep up with mortgage, car, child care, and education
payments on substantially less income than they
enjoyed as civilians prior to extended deployments,”
the letter states.

“Fifty-one percent of the members of the National
Guard and reserve report that they suffer a loss of
income when mobilized for long periods of active duty
because their military pay is less than their civilian
pay,” the letter says. “While the average is $368 per
month or $4,400 per year, over 10percent report losing
more than $2,500 a month — certainly a material amount
of money for the average American family.”

Lantos, who has backed income replacement for several
years and has tried, without success, to at least get
the federal government to partially make up salary
differences for federal workers who are mobilized,
said he hopes Congress will act this year.

“The prospect of a substantial loss of income is
having a profound effect on our country’s ability to
recruit and retain our citizen-soldiers,” Lantos said
in a statement. “These men and women are a valuable
and necessary component of our armed services. It is
unconscionable that we would make [them] choose
between the financial security of their families and
service to our country.”

Graves, who has been working with Lantos despite the
fact that House Republican leaders have been cool to
the idea of paying more money to mobilized reservists
than to active-duty people doing the same job, said
National Guard and reserve members are making enough
sacrifices.

“I don’t think soldiers should have to take a pay cut
for serving their country,” he said. “This is a
bipartisan, commonsense bill that will help many
soldiers and their families.”

The Senate provision was authored by Sens. Evan Bayh,
D-Ind., and Richard Durbin, R-Ill.

Lantos said the difference in starting payments after
six and 18 months of service would equal a potential
income gap of up to $54,000, which he called “a
coldhearted short-changing of those who serve in our
name.”

The provision in the Senate bill is an important step
in fixing the “pay gap,” one of the top problems
facing Guard and reserve members.

More than half of reservists report that they face a
loss of income when mobilized for long periods of
active duty because their military pay is less than
their civilian pay. The average income loss is $4,400
per year.

At the same time, recruitment rates for the year are
currently 24 percent below normal for the Army
National Guard and 20 percent below normal for the
Army Reserve.