technicians who did not acquire a vested interest in the state plan benefit not at all. Yet they too suffer the 45 percent loss of credit for prior service.

Similarly, why should technicians in the 31 states which did not cover them under their state retirement systems, have their annuities reduced to reflect the Federal contribution to the retirement systems of the other 20 states and Puerto Rico which included technicians under those systems?

Why should service before 1951, when technicians were not covered by the Social Seurity Act or any other federally-supported system, be subject to the 55 percent formula?

The Senate report (p 9) states that some 20,000 technicians had already earned 40 quarters of coverage and had a vested right to Social Security benefits. It did not go into much detail with respect to the 17,000 or 46 percent of the technician force that had not, and might not ever, earn the necessary 40 quarters of coverage because of their conversion to the Federal program and loss of Social Security Act coverage. Nothing was said of the $58.3 million contributed by the technicians themselves to match the Federal contribution as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (p 9). Obviously some or all of the $58.3 million contributed by this 46 percent of the force, plus the interest earned in the interim, is a windfall to the United States, which the Senate report neglects to talk about.

And it is appropriate to observe that 1,756, or 4.39 percent of the technicians eligible to be covered by the Federal Civil Service Retirement program on January 1, 1969, elected not to do so, remaining instead under their local state programs. Neither they, nor the 389 District of Columbia National Guard technicians who had always been participating and contributing members under the Federal system, were hurt or helped by the prior service formula and will be wholly unaffected by any change that may be made at this time.

This committee is rightly concerned with increases in the unfunded liability of the Civil Service Retirement Fund. On the other hand, hundreds of millions of dollars of retired pay are paid annually to military retirees, and all of the Federal Government's liability to the Armed Forces is unfunded. The Civil Service's unfunded liability is increased every day by the appointment in the Civil Service of a veteran whose military service is creditable without contribution of the employee or Government. The fact that annuities are computed on the basis of the employee's high three salary years rather than on the amount of his own contributions is practically a built-in guarantee of increased unfunded liabilities, as are increases in pensions resulting from consumer price index increases.

I will accept the Civil Service Commission estimate of $128 million as the long range cost of giving the additional 45 percent credit required to provide 100 percent credit for past technician service. However, I view it in a different light. I view it as the amount of money of which this group of employees has heretofore been unjustly deprived. I see it as the amount of money that must be expended if the axiom and keystone of the Federal Service System-“Equal pay (including equal retired pay) for equal work"-is to be applied with respect to this group, as it has been in every other instance.

I hope that you will bear in mind that since the first legislation was introduced to provide retirement at the level provided in this bill, such legislation was: (1) recommended by the Department of Defense and the Civil Service Commission, approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and passed by the House of Representatives in 1967; and (2) twice passed by the Senate (1973 and 1974).

I think it is unfortunate that the Department of Defense has seen fit to reverse its position.

I strongly urge this committee to correct the very great injustice which the current law insures.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I should know you would start the committee hearing on time. I congratulate you for it.

I would also like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify on H.R. 100, to provide 100 percent credit for technicians for service before January 1, 1969. This would be in lieu of the 55 percent credit provided by the National Guard Technician Act of 1968. The concept of providing 100 percent credit for prior service was endorsed

by the Department of Defense, Civil Service Commission, Office of Management and Budget, and the House of Representatives in 1967. While not adopted by the Senate in that year, the Senate has supported it, Mr. Chairman, and in the last 2 or 3 years have sent bills over that did have the 100 percent credit.

As the committee knows, in every other instance, from May 22 of 1920, through July 1, 1960, similar groups of employees with the Federal connection were given full credit for prior service. It is this same equity and fair treatment that our National Guard technicians are seeking, through passage of H.R. 100. There have been many inaccurate and incomplete statements made concerning coverage by State retirement programs and our social security benefits for these technicians. As pointed out in my detailed testimony, such statements do not fully explain the situation and are highly misleading when applied to all National Guard technicians. Mr. Chairman, over half of the technicians are not covered by State retirement because they have not invested and probably never will. Almost half of the technicians have not attained the required number of quarters for social security coverage and probably will not. Becauuse of this great disparity and amount of coverage available to National Guard technicians, I think it is very important that we pass H.R. 100 in order that all technicians be treated equally in their retirement years.

More importantly, the bill would afford the same type of coverage to technicians as given to other similar Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, I will accept the Civil Service Commission's estimate of $128 million as the long-range cost of giving the additional 45-percent credit required to provide 100 percent credit for past technician service. I view it as the amount of money of which this group of employees has previously been denied. I see it as the amount of money that must be expended in order to insure equal pay, including equal retired pay, for equal work.

Mr. Chairman, this is the concept applied to other Federal employees and no less should be done for our National Guard technicians. I strongly urge this committee to correct this situation which the current law has brought about.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Montgomery. You, as having extensive service and also, I understand you are a general in the National Guard and have intimate knowledge of their needs and the disparity that has existed through the oversight of the law. You spoke of a 1967 arrangement between the various agencies of Government. Is this the arrangement you refer to in your prepared statement? Mr. MONTGOMERY. In 1967 the House of Representatives, with the approval of the OMB and also of the administration, did pass a 100 percent credit retirement for the National Guard technician. The Senate saw fit at that time not to give 100 percent credit and they unprecedentedly came up with the figure of 55 percent credit. That was adopted in conference. That was accepted. That's the way the 55 percent came about. I guess my point was that the House in its wisdom, did pass 100 percent credit and the Senate changed it. Since that time, almost every year the Senate has sent a bill over here raising it to the 100 percent credit and the House has not taken any action on it. Mr. WHITE. You spoke of a $128 million figure cited from the raise of the 55 percent retirement to 100 percent retirement. You probably

don't have this figure. This would not include the cost voted in the Social Security Act for those who were former employees, and if it does not

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It does not.

Mr. WHITE. You don't know what that figure is?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. This is the $128 million figure that would cover the 25,000 technicians.

Mr. WHITE. In your testimony you cited, among other States, Connecticut, Nevada, Massachusetts and Ohio, that were not covered by the Social Security Act, and their States. These are among the States you are speaking of? You say about 50 percent do not have such coverage.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. That is correct. Mr. Chairman, about half the technicians that we mention. Let me put it like this: They did not get in 40 quarters under the social security program, so they would draw no social security. This has been one of the windfalls referred to by some as to why the bill has not been enacted-that these technicians would draw social security. This is not correct. Only about half of them get in the 40 quarters, and those who did get in the 40 quarters, would draw the minimum because they have not paid into the program since they came under this civil service retirement.

Another large group of National Guardsmen, about 20 States out of the 50 States, had State retirement programs that covered technicians at the time the 1969 technicians bill was enacted. In the other 30 States there was no coverage, and I might say that in my particular State, we had the technicians covered. When we passed the 55 percent technicians bill they were taken out from under State laws and the money they had contributed was sent back to them. They have no State retirement coverage. Some of the technicians did qualify for retirement either by length of service or disability; so there are obligations against the State retirement systems.

Mr. WHITE. For the record, could you describe the duties of the National Guard technician, what generally would they do so we can have this in our minds.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. He has a dual purpose Mr. Chairman. He is a full-time civilian employee under the adjutants general of the individual States and he is paid by the Federal Government. Most are also members of the National Guard. He has a dual purpose, in effect, when there are State emergencies. The Governor of the State can call this technician to State military duty in natural disasters such as tornados, floods, storms, and for other purposes such as civil disorder. He can also be called to active Federal military duty by the President of the United States, who is also his Commander-in-Chief. His main civilian day to day job is to take care of the equipment and supplies and perform administrative duties in the different armories in your community and my community, and Mr. Daniels' community. They plan for and exercise supervision over military training at drills and during the 2-week annual training duty. Others maintain and repair the tanks, trucks, airplanes, helicopters, and other equipment. Still others perform the administrative tasks required by the Army and Air Force.

Mr. WHITE. He is a full-time employee? That is the only job he can hold?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. That is correct.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much. Mr. Daniels.

Mr. DANIELS. I welcome my distinguished colleague and neighbor and want to compliment you on your testimony. You say the technician is a full-time employee. That is his only job?

Mr. MONTGEMERY. That is his only job and plus, Mr. Daniels, he has to be a member of the National Guard. He has to belong to that unit. Mr. DANIELS. You made reference in your testimony to the agreement entered into in 1967 between the technicians and, I believe, OMB, and that Senate Legislative Committee which had under consideration the bill passed by the House granting 100 percent civil service protection, reduced it to 55 percent. Now, I understand that it was clearly understood at that time, at least I have been made to understand, that this agreement was a compromise agreement, and there would be no further demand for an increase in that percentage. Do

you know if my understanding is correct, or was that a false rumor? Mr. MONTGOMERY. I appreciate the question. I think I have the correct answer for the record, and it has been that feeling that there was a general agreement among the technicians. Actually, the agreement was made, and I have permission to state it, by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who at that time was Gen. W. P. Wilson, and General Greenlief, the Assistant Chief of the Bureau. It seemed as if they were going to lose the legislation in the Senate. So these generals agreed with the Senate on what was proposed by the Senate Armed Services staff of the 55 percent. No technicans were involved in it whatsoever. They did not participate in the agreement.

Mr. DANIELS. Without the agreement of the rank and file.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The rank and file knew nothing about it, had nothing to do with it. I talked to General Greenlief about this only 2 days ago. He mentioned this was the agreement. The rank and file had nothing to do with it.

Mr. DANIELS. In the past, I understand.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It wasn't done to hurt the technicians by General Wilson and General Greenlief, Mr. Daniels.

Mr. DANIELS. I am familiar with this legislation and every session since that time bills have been introduced in order to attain the 100percent recurrent benefits. During these years, one of our good mutual friends, a distinguished Member of the House, Mr. Hébert, has steadily fought any increase in this compensation. I am wondering if you are aware of that?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I am very aware of it because I also introduced the bills you mentioned. In effect, I can't speak for Mr. Hébert, But he could have thought there was some kind of agreement among the technicians. The technicians had nothing to do with the 55-percent agreement.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hébert was the author of the bill in 1967 and called for the 100 percent.

Mr. DANIELS. I want you to know I have supported this legislation and don't want you to think, by my questioning, I am opposed to it. On the contrary, I have supported it in the past and propose to support it now. But I think it may be worthwhile, inasmuch as you are a neighbor and good personal friend of Mr. Hébert, if you try to

solicit his support for this legislation; I think it would be quite helpful to insure the passage of the bill. I think it is worthwhile legislation. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, sir. I will talk to Mr. Hébert.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Jenrette.

Mr. JENRETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Montgomery, I wonder if you would tell me please. I noted in your testimony you did not give the Department of Defense reversal in their earlier position. Do you have any position you could give the total committee on the Department of Defense reversal in their earlier position?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. They supported it, Mr. Jenrette, in 1967. They generally supported the 100 percent to the technicians. Quite frankly, I do not know their position at this time. I have the feeling that they generally would support it, but I just don't have the answer. Have you heard yourself?

Mr. JENRETTE. I have not. I was just wondering, who do these technicians report to?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. They are responsible to the unit commander and then the unit commander is responsible to the adjutant general of the State. That is their responsibility, but they are paid by the Federal Government.

Mr. JENRETTE. Would the unit commander be in a position to dismiss or fire a technician?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. A technician can be dismissed by the unit commander and cleared through the adjutant general. It does not have to be cleared through the Federal Government.

Mr. JENRETTE. I was of the impression the unit commander could not dismiss. I was a commander and dismissed somebody and got some trouble on the spot. The company commanders of the National Guard, and generals, such as Mr. Montgomery, jumped in one of my tanks and it had 3 feet of water in it. I dismissed the technician on the spot. I support the bill. I have for a long time supported the National Guard. It is my first term here. I do feel it's bad for the technicians for this statement about some agreement having been made in the past. I have been trying to find where the agreement was made and cannot do so.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I would like to emphasize again the agreement was made by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau just to get some type of program going. The rank-and-file technicians were not involved in the agreement.

Mr. JENRETTE. Thank you. I have nothing further.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. Does counsel have any questions?

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. No, sir.

Mr. WHITE. There being no further business, the committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon the committee was adjourned.]