COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN, Maryland WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, Michigan PAUL SIMON, Illinois NORMAN Y. MINETA, California JOHN W. JENRETTE, JR., South Carolina EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois (Ronald P. McCluskey, Assistant Counsel, Room B-345 (d), Rayburn Building-Ext. 56831) (II) CONTENTS Testimony of- Greenlief, Maj. Gen. Francis S., NGUS (Ret.) executive assistant, Na- Hickey, Charles, national vice president, National Association of Gov- ernment Employees, accompanied by William Carson, Maryland Air National Guard; and William Spears, West Virginia Army National Montgomery, Hon. G. V., a Representative in Congress from the State Paterno, Vincent J., president, Association of Civilian Technicians___ Tinsley, Thomas A., Director, Bureau of Retirement, Insurance, and Occupational Health, U.S. Civil Service Commission___. Webber, Clyde M., president, American Federation of Government Em- Webster, Raymond S., special assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secre- tary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, accompanied by Richard B. Selby, Office of Civilian Personnel Policy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and Bernard Hurlock, Deputy Chief of the Office of Techni- Williams, Sgt. Maj. Virgil, president, Enlisted Association, National Wolkomir, Dr. Nathan T., president, National Federation of Federal Employees, accompanied by J. Gene Raymond, Air National Guard, Burbach, Donald W., president, Enlisted Association of the Nebraska 123 Carlton, Col. John T., executive director, Reserve Officers Association 123 Ginn, Hon. Bo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia_ Greenlief, Gen. Francis S., executive assistant, National Guard Associa- tion of the United States, letter dated June 17, 1975___ Hanley, Hon. James M., a Representative in Congress from the State 112 Huband, James E., director of Maintenance, Virginia National Guard, McGee, Hon. Gale, chairman, Senate Committee on Post Office and 115 Melcher, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 114 Ranzenback, Robert F., president, National Guard Association of Merdinian, Stepan M., vice president and managing director, Hotel Page 121 114 115 123 115 St Germain, Hon. Fernand, a Represenative in Congress from the 116 Sapp, Oliver J., president, Local 2953, American Federation of Gov- 122 117 Stover, Francis W., director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States__ 120 Udall, Hon. Morris K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Webster, R. S., Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary 111 26 Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of 117 Administration reports received from— Office of Management and Budget, letter dated June 9, 1975- 130 132 Copy of H.R. 100__. Summary of recommendations on the legislation__ 128 127 CORRECT CERTAIN INEQUITIES IN THE CREDITING OF NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIAN SERVICE TOWARD RETIREMENT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room 304 of the Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richard C. White (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Mr. WHITE. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee has convened this morning to begin extensive deliberations on the 19 National Guard Technician bills now in the subcommittee. These bills would, in effect, amend the National Guard Technician Act of 1968 to grant 100-percent retirement credit for pre-January 1, 1969, technician service for annuity computation purposes, and to allow all former technicians in Government service credit for their pre-January 1969 technician service. Thus, the 19 bills would, in one way or another, delete the 55-percent credit allowance now granted to technicians and bring the 55-percent figure up to a full 100-percent credit for annuity computation. Further, the bills would repeal the restriction that benefits and annuities be granted only to those technicians serving in the National Guard program on and after January 1, 1969. This would allow all former technicians in other Government service on and after January 1, 1969, to also receive full service credit for their pre-January 1969 technician service. We shall begin these hearings by hearing first from Congressman G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery of Mississippi, author of H.R. 100, which is a very significant number, which was the first of the 19 bills received by the subcommittee. Mr. Montgomery, would you approach the witness stand. The procedure in this committee is you may deliver your testimony in full or summarize, and your statement can be placed in the record in full as you wish. We do ask you to keep it to approximately 10 minutes, if possible. STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. MONTGOMERY. I would like to submit my full statement in the record and summarize. Mr. WHITE. Without objection it will be done. [The complete statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. MONTGOMERY I am happy to appear before this committee to urge its favorable action on legislation to provide 100 percent credit for service before January 1, 1969, the effective date of the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968, instead of the 55 percent credit which that Act provides. As you know, I introduced, in this Congress, H.R. 100 which was co-sponsored by Mrs. Holt, Mr. Mitchell of New York, Mr. Sikes, Mr. Myers of Indiana, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Cochran. There are at least 21 other bills in this Congress, at last count, all with the same objective of giving these deserving men and women-and their survivors-the retirement benefits to which they are fairly entitled. A short review of the history of this legislation may help. The Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems recommended to the President (p. 43, H. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong, 2d Sess.) that National Guard technicians (all of whom were paid entirely from Federal funds at rates fixed by Federal authorities) be treated as Federal employees for retirement purposes. The U.S. Civil Service Commission recommended the establishment of this status, with 100 percent credit for all prior service. The Department of Defense concurred. The Office of Management and Budget approved. HR 2, embodying this principle, was supported by Administration witnesses and passed the House on February 20, 1967. As passed by the House, it would have provided 100 percent prior service credit for technicians. When the Senate disagreed, House conferees argued unsuccessfully for restoration of title II of the bill which covered National Guard technicians (Conference report on HR 2, House Report No. 925 dated November 14, 1967). The Senate Armed Services Committee devised the totally unprecedented 55 percent formula, and in its report of July 22, 1968, to accompany S. 3865, (Senate Report No. 1446, 90th Congress, 2d Session), gave an extensive, if unsatisfying, explanation of its reasons. As this Committee knows, in every other instance, from May 22, 1920, (the inception of the Federal Civil Service Retirement System) through July 1, 1960, when thousands of Agricultural Stabilization County Committee employees were brought under the Federal Civil Service Retirement by Public Law 86-568, every single one of those groups was given full credit for all prior service. The groups include rural mail carriers. D.C. Government employees, the F.B.I., Congressional employees, Members of Congress, and a host of others, including those brought under by administrative action authorized by the Congress. Full credit was given to the Cooperative Agricultural Extension employees who were administratively covered in the system in 1945, despite the fact that some of their prior service was covered by State retirement systems and the Federal Government had contributed the employer's share of the cost. Full credit was given for the prior service of the County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee employees by Public Law 86-568 although that service had been covered by the Social Security Act and the Federal Government had paid the employer's OASI tax. Never before had the fact that a Federal civilian employee was giving part of his off-duty time to participation in reserve training, which would entitle him like every other participant to retired pay at age 60 with 20 or more years of military service, been used as an argument to reduce the amount of his Civil Service annuity, in complete contravention of the letter and spirit of section 1336 of title 10, United States Code. I would like to point out a few of the most flagrant inequities of the current law. Technicians covered by the retirement laws of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada and Ohio, numbering 3.098 on July 1, 1968, according to the tables contained in the Senate report (p. 34), were not covered by the Social Security Act. Why should their annuities be reduced to reflect the Social Security Act contributions made by the Federal Government to technicians in other states? Moreover, while 4,450 technicians had a vested interest in state retirement systems, according to the Senate report (p 9), there is no discussion whatsoever of the plight of the other 11,481 technicians who were covered by state systems (p 34) but did not have and, in all probability, never would acquire a vested interest under the state plan, or derive any benefits whatsoever for their prior partici. pation. Assuming a windfall to the States resulting from the uncommitted Federal contribution, as the Senate report does (p 17), it is crystal clear that those |