Guard/Reserve Omnibus Bill provisions

[James48843]

I just saw that in the Omnibus Spending bill passed by the House this week, the provisions for paying Federal Workers, who are also members of the Reserve Components, their full salary while called up, made it into the bill.

This is enormous for those of us who are Guard/Reserve members: This was previously striped out by Republicans in prior years- but is now part of this bill.

Here is the language:
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
`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 those terms 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.'.

• (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING 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.'.

• (c) 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.

• SEC. 752. Not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, each executive department and agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a report stating the total size of its workforce, differentiated by number of civilian, military, and contract workers as of December 31, 2008. Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the Committee a comprehensive statement delineating the workforce data by individual department and agency, as well as aggregate totals of civilian, military, and contract workers.

 

[ChemEng]

Sounds like a great idea...

 

[Callme_CO]

looking at a potential deployment in the near future this would be awesome.

 

[James48843]

This was first introduced by Senator Durbin back in 2004, and passed the House and Senate in 2005, but was stripped out in conference by the republican majority in 2005, and again in 2006. Here is a newspaper article from back then describing the bill, and what happened to it.

If it becomes law now, this is great for federal employees!
Here is the article:

From 2005:
-----------------------
Senate agrees to compensate Nat'l Guard



By Chelsea Trull
On April 13th, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate agreed yesterday to make sure that federal employees serving in the National Guard and Reserve don’t lose pay when they are activated.

It also agreed to expand benefits for the families of soldiers killed, regardless of whether the deaths occurred in combat.

The measures were added to an $80.6 billion emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other costs. They are among a series of Democratic amendments that have been politically awkward for Republicans eager to show support for troops, but also looking to contain costs.

On Tuesday, Republicans defeated a proposal to add $2 billion for veterans health care. But yesterday, several members of the GOP majority voted to go along with Democratic proposals.

The amendment to make up the salary difference for federal employees activated for National Guard or Reserve duty was approved in a voice vote after a Republican attempt to derail it failed, 61-39.

Its prospects of becoming law are uncertain. The Senate bill will have to be reconciled with a $81.4 billion version of the spending bill the House approved last month. In recent years, House-Senate negotiators have quietly stripped similar provisions from other legislation, said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the amendment’s sponsor.

Durbin said about 120,000 U.S. government employees serve in the Guard or Reserve and, when activated, they lose an average of $368 a month, the difference between their civilian and military pay. He said pay issues are a main reason members of the Guard and Reserve don’t re-enlist.

But Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said Guard and Reserve members understand the financial implications of serving when they enlist. Paying federal employees their full salary would make them higher-paid than regular service members, which could harm morale, he said.

Durbin’s office said making up the pay difference would cost about $170 million over five years.

For soldiers who die in combat zones, the Bush administration proposed an increase in death benefits. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won a voice vote to extend those higher benefits to include soldiers whose deaths are not combat-related.

“You can be driving a car and have a car accident in a combat zone and you qualify for that upper level (death benefit),” Kerry said of the administration’s proposal. “But if you’re serving on an aircraft carrier or elsewhere and you’re training personnel and you die … you don’t get the same benefit, even if you’re preparing to send troops to war.”

A Republican effort to set Kerry’s amendment aside was defeated, 75-25.
Stevens argued that “fallen heroes” should be entitled to higher death benefits than a service member who dies in a drunken driving accident in the United States.

Republicans also agreed in a voice vote to a Kerry proposal to let the families of soldiers killed in action stay in military housing for up to a year, instead of the current 180 days.

The Senate bill would give Bush most of the money he sought for fighting wars, though the total is less than the $82 billion he requested. Republican Senate leaders hope for passage by next week and have been trying to avert lengthy debates on immigration and border security amendments that could delay the bill.

---------------------------

That was then, when the republicans controlled the Senate.

Now we have a different day-

one where dems will honor the work of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

 

[Callme_CO]

But Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said Guard and Reserve members understand the financial implications of serving when they enlist. Paying federal employees their full salary would make them higher-paid than regular service members, which could harm morale, he said.

But if a civilian company wanted to do this it's ok? becuase 30 some odd soldiers in my unit were paid the difference. I didn't feel my morale harmed.