Rep. Calvert, Military Experts Respond to Government Employees Union Regarding REDUCE Act

Today, Congressman Ken Calvert (CA-42) and respected military experts responded to the concerns raised by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) regarding his legislation, the REDUCE Act. Earlier this month, Rep. Calvert introduced the REDUCE Act (H.R. 4257), which would require the Department of Defense (DOD) to make civilian workforce reductions over the next five years in a systematic manner without compromising our ability to maintain a strong national defense over the long term. Rep. Calvert is a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

"If we fail to make the tough but necessary decisions required to get our military budget under control, there's no doubt our national security will be negatively impacted," said Rep. Calvert. "I'd rather that we bring down costs responsibly through civilian attrition and performance-based decisions instead of on the backs of our warfighters."

"What the Union conveniently misses is that the DOD is grossly overstaffed and large efficiencies can be gained with reduced staffing," said Secretary Gordon England. "Their assumption is that government employees will be replaced with contractors, a false assumption."

Gordon England served as the 29th Deputy Secretary of Defense from January 2006 to February 2009. He previously served as the 72nd and 73rd Secretary of the Navy and as the first Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

"The REDUCE Act is a sensible attempt to ensure that those providing "back office" support to our fighting forces are reduced by percentages at least commensurate with the sharp reductions in the levels of those forces, if not more so," said Dr. Dov. Zakheim. "Those who oppose these reductions are not sufficiently sensitive to the requirements mandated by our national security."

Dr. Zakheim has served in the Department of Defense in many roles including as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 2001 until April 2004.

For a more detailed explanation of the REDUCE Act click HERE.

Myth vs. Reality

Myth

"Rather than letting DoD decide who should be doing the work, Rep. Calvert's legislation would hamstring the department into using more costly contractors and military personnel."

- American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr.

Reality

• After a 17% increase during wartime, the civilian workforce is simply too big.

• The REDUCE Act should not be viewed as a justification to shift the cost to contractors. Rather, it is one important component in a holistic approach to getting our Defense Department to operate more efficiently.

• The Department of Defense's total force mix has to be analyzed as a whole in terms of where reductions need to take place, and the REDUCE Act is an important part of this long overdue reform that will translate into meaningful savings - an estimated $82.5 billion over the first five years.

Myth

The legislation ignores the fact that significant cuts already have been imposed on the civilian workforce.

- American Federation of Government Employees

Reality

• Under the DOD's proposal, the civilian workforce would be cut by only 5% while the cuts to active duty personnel would be much deeper. In fact, the DOD proposal would cut the Army by roughly 13% - cuts that would shrink our Army from 520,000 active duty soldiers to 440,000, its smallest size since before World War II.

• These defense cuts continue to trend in the wrong direction!

• From 2001 to 2012, the civilian defense employees grew by 17%, while the active duty military grew by 3.4%. Based on these statistics, the Department's current reduction plans will do nothing to address this significant imbalance that was created over the last 10 years.

• The REDUCE Act will get us to a more balanced workforce in progressive manner, and translate into real savings – an estimated $82.5 billion over the first five years! Funds that should stay within DOD to fund higher end strength and resetting the force.

Myth

"If Rep. Calvert really was interested in saving taxpayers money, he would author legislation encouraging DOD to insource more of its work and reduce its overreliance on costly contracts."

- American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr.

Reality

• AFGE assumes that a civilian task or job created in wartime must be done forever. They also ignore that a contracted task can be terminated as needs change or based on performance – things that are almost impossible to do with a civilian position.

• Reducing the defense civilian workforce will yield tangible savings. According to former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, each defense civilian reduction of 7,000 personnel saves at least $5 billion over five years. Using his numbers and calculating a 15% reduction from the current level of 770,000 civilian employees, the REDUCE Act would save $82.5 billion over the first five years.

• The savings generated from the REDUCE Act should stay within the Department and be redirected to fund Service priorities such as modernizing weapons systems, readiness, resetting the force and, most importantly, providing for our fighting men and women in uniform.

• It is important to note that a contractor can be fired but it is incredibly difficult to fire a civilian federal employee after they have passed their probation period. The cost of the civilian employee over the lifetime of their career includes more than just salary, it is also health benefits for life and a federal pension.

Myth

"This bill would undermine DOD's ability to perform its mission."

- American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr.

Reality

• The REDUCE Act will allow the Secretary of Defense to make the necessary reductions in a thoughtful manner over a reasonable period of time.

• Moreover, the bill includes explicit language that provides the Secretary of Defense the authority to assign greater weight to the performance factor, rather than other factors such as tenure, in a Reduction in Force. This emphasis on performance will ensure that the best and brightest are kept on when reducing the workforce.

• Reducing the most non-essential positions will not result in work being contracted out; rather, it will result in the work being done more efficiently, and some tasks certainly no longer need to be done.

###