GovernmentExecutive.com

In the same week, different groups of House Republicans helped kill, and then resurrect, a proposal to pay federal employees called up for National Guard or reserves duty their full civilian salary.

The House Government Reform Committee on Thursday unanimously passed stand-alone legislation to do so. But earlier this week, House and Senate appropriations negotiators rejected an almost identical measure the Senate had approved as an amendment to its version of the fiscal 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill.

This marked at least the fourth time such language died in conference negotiations after strong support on the floor. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., was the only House Republican to vote to retain the amendment during the conference meeting.

Still, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., expressed hope Thursday morning that the stand-alone bill passed by his committee would go through. "I'm optimistic we'll be able to see progress," Davis said.

The 2006 Reservist Pay Security Act (H.R. 5525) would entitle federal employees called to the reserves for more than 30 days to receive their normal civilian base pay in addition to their military compensation.

As it is, many federal employees called to military duty take a severe pay cut. Jim Daum, a safety engineer with the Federal Aviation Administration who served in Iraq in the Delaware National Guard, took a 48 percent reduction, according to his wife, Mary. The cut forced the Daums to rent out their home and stay with family.

A spokesman for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sponsor of Senate language killed in conference, said the senator may look for another bill to which he could attach the language, or may introduce the bill on its own to match the House's newfound momentum.

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., one of the House bill's co-sponsors, said at the Government Reform Committee's meeting Thursday that the federal government's treatment of its employees will set an example for the private sector.

"The Federal Reserve Pay Security Act will correct what I perceive is a failure of leadership by our federal government," Lantos said. "I was shocked to learn that the federal government, the largest civilian employer of National Guard and reserves, was not making up the difference" in pay.

About 120,000 federal employees serve in the reserves and the National Guard, and about 17,000 have been mobilized to Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations, according to Durbin's office.

"We need to set the example," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn. "We're asking the private sector to do something we don't even do ourselves."

"These men and women never expected a long deployment away from their home," said Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio. "I believe we're on the right track to do this federally."

Unless there is specific legislation to close the pay gap, agencies cannot supplement pay for employees called to military duty.

COMMENTS

• As both a federal employee and a reservist who has been called up three times so far, I think I can speak from experience. We all knew what we were doing when we signed up. No one can deny that as federal employees and reservists we do receive extra benefits. We do not, however, deserve to be paid for both positions, nor do we deserve to be paid the higher salary. If called up, we go -- end of story. A study recently reported that 70 percent of those called up make more money on active duty than before. I know that I did. Too many people are willing to take the benefits without being asked to pay for it when necessary. GovExec.com reader Posted October 30, 2006 2:30 AM
• It's a nice idea but I would vote against it. As someone earlier said, many of the people in the reserves are there because they thought it would be a nice "part-time" job where they could get extra money, benefits and another retirement option. However, when the deployments went into effect they found it not to be such a "cushy" job, etc. How about the guardsman or reservist who doesn't work for the government? Are you going you pay his or her salary equivalent? Trying to say that the fed would be setting the example for the private sector to follow is a joke. That is not going to happen. Private industry if there to make a profit, not supplement the government or their employees because they are citizen soldiers. Plus, how are you going to make it fair? Take for example two E-5s, one is a GS-7 and the other is a GS-9. Both are doing the same job in their unit working side-by-side at their military job. Are you going to pay one at the GS-7 level and the other at the GS-9 level? Doesn't sound fair to me! Everyone who signs up for the Guard or the reserves knows what he/she is setting themselves up for and many suddenly act surprised when something like a deployment hits. Sorry but that's what you signed on for. And as for the pay, how about all of those years when it was just a "cushy part-time job"? Billl Goodwin Posted June 12, 2006 12:00 PM
• These people signed up for the Guard and reserve to foster a bigger retirement benefit when considered with their active duty time in the military! Why should they be paid for a government job that they are not doing when called up? They chose to take the risk of getting called up and when it happens they think they should get paid the world for doing nothing? They should be put on leave without pay from their civilian job and paid as military in their Guard or reserve role while called up. If they do not like that they should not sign up for the Guard or reserve! This is all part of the continuing problem of an all volunteer military! Congress needs to revamp the entire system of military pay and benefits to fit a volunteer force. Get rid of military ranks and go to GS ranks for the military and a pay schedule to match the jobs performed. There are far too many in the military paid with my money to do jobs that should not be done (bands and singers for example). Taxpayer Posted June 13, 2006 7:10 AM