regulations adopted by the Department of Defense and its individual agencies have compromised the intent of the law and have a devastating effect on technician morale. These regulations provide for a selective retention program which subjects technicians to increased risks of involuntary separation and retirement. The greatest fear that technicians have is that they will not be retained despite satisfactory or superior job performance. In addition, the stakes are high for the technicians involved because the result of a civilian technician losing his or her military membership is that he also loses his or her civilian job. The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), unlike the military pension system is not structured to provide a reasonable level of benefits for 20 years of service at any age. Technicians under the CSRS may retire voluntarily at age 55 with 30 years of service, the same as any other federal employee. Unfortunately, because of a number of factors, it is increasingly unlikely that a technician can work until his "normal" age of retirement. If a technician loses his military membership or loses his position in a RIF because of downsizing, his annuity is reduced by 2% per year for every year that the technician is under 55. For example, a 47 year old technician with 22 years of service who is separated would lose 16% of his annuity because of this penalty. This inequity is magnified when technicians' retirement is compared with their AGR counterparts with whom they work side by side. AGR personnel are entitled to a full military retirement following 20 years of service at any age. In summary, technicians can find themselves terminated in their mid-forties, suffer severe reductions in their pensions, and in many circumstances, have few employment opportunities because of the specialized nature of their jobs. We urge the Congress to consider addressing these problems in a manner which does justice to the civilian technician workforce by either granting the technician the opportunity to work his full career or amending the retirement system to accommodate this reduced career period. In reality, because of the prospects of a workforce decreasing in size, NAGE feels that changes to the retirement system, especially if enacted prior to the first wave of separations, would go a long way towards fair compensation of the individual technicians. In addition, the overall morale of the technician workforce would be enhanced because technicians will feel safer in the knowledge that their hard work and service for the Guard and Reserves will not go unrewarded. These changes would recognize and correct for the unique dual-status arrangement that Congress has created for these employees. Mr. Chairman, one year ago, in May of 1991, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs prepared a report for the House Appropriations Committee that detailed the potential and actual problems of dual-status technicians. Technicians are fulltime civilian employees and military employees on a part-time basis, yet this part-time military membership is a condition of their full-time civilian employment. DoD admits that the current civilian retirement system for technicians is inadequate to the needs of technicians because military factors jeopardize their.. ability to serve long enough to qualify for a full civilian. system of early retirement for technicians. We urge that the Committee take up this suggestion, and we would be pleased to work with you to develop a proposal which would balance the needs of the individual technicians and DoD. Another significant problem with the dual-status arrangement involves the following situation: if a dual-status technician suffers a disability significant enough to cause the loss of his/her military membership, yet insufficient to cause eligibility for civil service disability, the technician will lose full-time employment as a technician due to loss of military membership but have no disability protections available unless he or she meets the age and service criteria for an immediate annuity under involuntary separation standards. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, NAGE urges that the FY93 Defense Appropriations Bill take measures to insure that the downsizing of the Guard and Reserve forces be accomplished in a fair, rational, manner, and that in doing so, the retirement needs of the crucial technician workforce are met. NAGE stands ready to assist in any manner possible to accomplish this goal. [CLERK'S NOTE.-The following statement was submitted for the record by the Committee of American Ammunition Manufacturers.] Robert A. Collier (1917-1984) Thomas F. Shannon William W. Scott David A. Hartquist Kathleen E. McDermott Laurence J. Lasoff Christopher J. MacAvoy CEREMONT EN AUSTRALIA Collier, Shannon & Scott Attorneys-at-Law 8050 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 80007 The Honorable John P. Murtha Chairman Subcommittee on Defense U.S. House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Telephone: (202) 842-8400 (202) 342-8505 March 31, 1992 The Committee of American Ammunition Manufacturers ("CAAM") respectfully submits the enclosed statement to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in connection with the Subcommittee's March 18, 1992 hearing on the Administration's ammunition budget request. CAAM asks that the statement be made a part of the official record of the hearing. Thank you in advance for considering CAAM's concerns and views. We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months to craft an appropriations bill that reflects the dual goals of operating within current budgetary constraints and of maintaining a "warm" conventional ammunition industrial base. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is further information I or the individual members of CAAM can supply to you. Sincerely yours, Lauren A. Howard Lauren R. Howard Before The Subcommittee on Defense House Committee on Appropriations March 27, 1992 STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Committee of American Ammunition Manufacturers ("CAAM") is an ad hoc coalition of U.S. ammunition companies whose purpose is to promote the national defense and a viable defense industrial base. CAAM is seriously concerned that the Administration's proposed budget for conventional ammunition will not be sufficient to support a viable ammunition defense industrial base, to the detriment of U.S. national security. The Administration's proposed budget for conventional munitions in FY 1993 amounts to a meager $1.4 billion (including almost $200 million for production base support), which is 70 percent less than the $4.8 billion appropriated for munitions procurement in FY 1986 and a 50 percent drop from the $2.8 billion level of FY 1990. Proposed funding for Army ammunition fared equally poorly. Of the $1.4 billion proposed for all services, only $824 million (including production base support) was requested by the Administration for the Army, or more than 65 percent less than the FY 1986 appropriations of $2.5 billion and more than 45 percent less than the FY-1990 appropriation of $1.9 billion. If the President's budget request is approved by Congress, the reductions in munitions funding will far exceed proposed decreases in the total defense budget and will force U.S. ammunition manufacturers to reallocate their resources to other, more profitable endeavors. CAAM believes that this Subcommittee should share our deep concern about the continued erosion of defense industrial base and the apparent lack of an effective plan to ensure its survival in these less threatening, but more uncertain, times. Although numerous studies have documented the deterioration of the base, the problem is now in danger being studied "to death." While recognition of a problem is a much-needed first step to solving it, the time for studies of this issue is long past. Policies must be adopted now, and funds appropriated to implement those policies, to check the rapid deterioration of our nation's conventional ammunition industrial base. |