[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 156 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14296-S14297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1883. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an 
inequity on the applicability of early retirement eligibility 
requirements to military reserve technicians; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


    the dual status national guard technicians retirement equity act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
seeks to remove an inequity in retirement pay benefits for critical 
personnel in our National Guard and Reserve units who are Dual Status 
Technicians. They are called ``Dual Status'', Mr. President, because 
they serve both as military and civilian personnel. There are about 
40,000 Dual Status Technicians covered by retirement requirements and 
restrictions contained in Title 32 of the United States Code. These men 
and women are the backbone of the National Guard and Reserve structure. 
They are the mechanics, pilots, engineers, equipment operators, supply 
and support technicians who keep things running so that the Guard is 
able to respond to natural disasters and national emergencies, as well 
as serve on active duty in accordance with the ``total force concept'' 
that integrates active and reserve forces in the military.

[[Page S14297]]

These hardworking men and women are often the first called to duty in 
an emergency.
  As essential as Dual Status Technicians are, they suffer from the 
worst of two employment worlds. These technicians are by statute both 
military and civilian employees. Guard technicians must maintain their 
military job and grade in order to keep their technician status and 
remain a federal employee. In the event of separation from military 
service, however, they are denied the retirement benefits of those who 
serve in the same grade in the active military. Frequently, Dual Status 
Technicians who are separated from the military must wait years to 
qualify for their Federal Service retirement benefits.
  The bill I am introducing in the Senate today is a companion bill 
already introduced on the House side by Representative Abercrombie. It 
seeks to eliminate retirement inequities--a problem we just addressed 
head on in the Armed Services Committee when we included a provision in 
this year's Defense Authorization Bill the eliminate retirement 
inequities between active duty personnel who retired before or after 
1986. We voted this year to effectively eliminate the ``Redux'' 
retirement benefit program because of the lower benefits it offered to 
personnel who retired after 1986. The action I am proposing in this 
legislation is somewhat similar.
  This bill will permit Dual Status Technicians to retire at any age 
with 25 years of service or at 50 with 20 years of service. Those 
benefits are similar to benefits provided to Federal police and fire 
employees. They're similar to federal employees who retire from the 
Congress.
  I am pleased to see, Mr. President, that this year's Defense 
Authorization bill took a step to provide equitable benefits to Dual 
Status Technicians, but in doing so, it crated an inequity within the 
Technician community itself. A provision in the bill provides for early 
retirement after 25 years at any age, or at age 50 with 20 years of 
service--but only for those employed as Dual Status Technicians after 
1996. Those same benefits are withheld from those employed before 1996. 
In other words, Mr. President, we created a situation similar to the 
one the Senate dealt with regarding the ``Redux'' retirement program in 
the Defense Authorization bill. The bill I offer today would remove 
that inequity in the same way the Senate voted to remove the inequity 
for active duty personnel who retired under the ``Redux'' program.
  Mr. President, the cost of equity is not high. An initial estimate by 
the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill could cost 
about $54 million over a five year period. That number will vary, of 
course, depending on the number of Technicians who would choose to take 
advantage of the change in the law when this bill is enacted. Of 
course, we're not only paying for equity here, Mr. President. We're 
paying appropriate, equitable compensation to the men and women who 
have devoted their careers to service for the nation both at home and 
abroad--our National Guard and Reserve who serve us all so well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge my fellow Members 
to support this effort through cosponsorship.

                          ____________________