Are you familiar with any agreement that would limit the 55-percent credit being passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee?

Mr. WEBBER. I was just checking with Mr. Hobt. He said there certainly was an agreement, but it was among the members of the Armed Services Committee; not between the employees who were involved and the Armed Services Committee.

I'm sure that the conditions at that time were possibly that that was the best that the Armed Services Committee thought could be done. I think on reflection certainly these people deserve to be treated in the same way other employees are treated in regard to their retirement. Mr. MCCLUSKEY. I think in 1972, I have been informed that checking past records and hearings, that General Greenlief came forward on behalf of the Department of Defense and stated that the Depart ment was for 100 percent credit.

As I understand it from different sources, after that there was some sort of letter, it's rumored, that came from Mr. Stennis to Mr. Melvin Laird stating what is Greenlief testifying for 100 percent for, we had an agreement; at which point DOD withdrew their approval of the 100 percent.

Mr. WEBBER. There may have been an agreement between the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee, and I don't recall our organization agreeing to an amount of that kind.

At that time they were eligible for representation under the repre sentation provisions of the discount I have ordered until the time there were designated to be Federal employees. So certainly we were not involved in any agreement of that kind.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. I'm not saying your association was. I was just wondering if you had any further information to add.

Perhaps this so-called agreement wasn't one that was meant to be steadfast, but rather, one of convenience.

Mr. WEBBER. I would think it would be to expedite the passage of the bill at that time. Here it is 6 years later and people are suffering under the provision of the 55-percent legislation. Certainly it appeared to me it would be an appropriate time to make them whole.

Mr. WHITE. Well, actually going further on to this agreement matter. I started earlier asking about it.

There was a Senate report, as I recall, that made reference to this agreement at the time the Senate passed out the 55-percent partici pation bill.

Are you familiar with that?

Mr. WEBBER. Only to the extent that I have heard about it.

Mr. WHITE. What about the National Guard representative?

Mr. HOBт. I'm familiar with it, too, to about the same extent, but it was credited based on the fact that the Government had credited to State and social security retirement systems the amount of approxi mately 55 percent.

Mr. WHITE. That's not the question I'm asking. Who took part in that agreement?

Mr. HOBT. To the best of my understanding it was the staff members of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WHITE. You mean to say that no member of the National Guard technicians' organization or the National Guard was any party to any kind of an agreement?

剔

Mr. HOBT. Not to my knowledge, sir. Now, as far as what understanding and agreements the people from the National Guard Bureau might have had, I don't know, but I know of none.

Mr. WHITE. I think what has irked some of the members, not necessarily myself but I have been listening to the questions that have been posed earlier and I'm citing this because many of the members are not here now. Many times organizations come to Congress and ask for certain types of relief. They say, "You give us this and we will never ask for anything more." So there's an official understanding as to that; the relief is granted and a few miles down the road the organization is back when another Congress is in. I think that is one thing that has kept your bill back in the House for a number of years.

There was a recitation in the Senate report of this agreement.
Does counsel have that Senate report here?

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Has counsel read it? Can you tell us for the record who was party to that agreement?

Mr. RAYMOND. There's no reference as to what parties were involved in the agreement. It's just a Senate report as to why the Senate took the action they took.

Mr. WHITE. What did the Senate say?

Mr. LOCKHART. The 55-percent formula resulted from the contributions that the Government had made to the State retirement systems and to social security. The report shows that the Government contributed to State retirement systems and social security about 55 percent of what it would have contributed to civil service retirement. But for some reason they decided to allow retirement credit for 55 percent instead of the 45-percent which would have been the logical figure based on the contributions.

Mr. WHITE. Now, Mr. Lockhart, you're saying then there was no hard-and-fast agreement then and we can set that to rest.

Mr. LOCKHART. I don't know. I was not a party to that.

Mr. WHITE. Well, we won't carry that line of questioning any further.

Mr. Webber, I didn't have this statement in advance, so I haven't analyzed your statement in entirely; but I do certainly appreciate your presenting yourself this morning on behalf of the National Guard technicians.

I'm sure the committee will be acting on this bill. There will be some corrections perhaps in the bill itself, but I'm sure the House will receive this bill.

Thank you for

your appearance.

Mr. WEBBER. Thank you very much for letting us testify on this. We do appreciate the expeditious handling that you have given to all of the legislation this year, and we just hope we get favorable action in Congress as speedily as we have out of your committee.

Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. HOBT. Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. The next witness is Dr. Nathan T. Wolkomir, president, National Federation of Federal Employees, and accompanied by Mr.

J. Gene Raymond, Air National Guard, Columbia, S.C., and Mr. Charles Stephens, Army National Guard, Little Rock, Ark.

Mr. Raymond, your Congressman was detained, but he will be coming here.

Mr. J. G. RAYMOND. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NA TIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY J. GENE RAYMOND, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, COLUMBIA, S.C., AND CHARLES STEPHENS, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, LITTLE ROCK, ARK.

Dr. WOLKOMIR. For the record my name is Nathan T. Wolkomir, to my left is George Tilton, deputy general counsel, to my right is Mr. Gene Raymond, who is vice president of our National Guard council. and to his right our regional vice president, who is also a National Guard technician, Mr. Charles Stephens.

NFFE is the largest of the independent Federal Guard employees. The NFFE represents National Guard technicians in a number of States, including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Utah, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and others. This makes NFFE the representative of one of the largest blocks of National Guard technicians in the country. It is on behalf of these employees that we today speak in support of legislation which would grant 100 percent retirement credit to National Guard technicians for service prior to January 1, 1969.

The National Guard Technician Act of 1968 granted Federal employee status to National Guard technicians. Accordingly, techni cians employed on or after January 1, 1969, were granted the same rights as all Federal employees with regard to leave, death and disability compensation, life and health insurance, severance pay, and tenure. Full retirement credit was granted prospectively but those who remained technicians on or after January 1, 1969, received only 55 percent credit for their pre-1969 technician service. In order to receive this credit the technician must pay 55 percent of the amount otherwise owed as a deposit for the period during which no retirement deductions were made.

The bills under consideration today would delete the 55-percent credit allowance and permit the full 100 percent credit for pre-1969 service for annuity computation purposes. The optional deposit provision would also be extended to cover 100 percent of pre-1969 service. In addition, the bill would repeal the restriction that benefits and annuities be granted only to those technicians serving in the Guard program on and after January 1, 1969. Thus, former technicians performing other Government service on or after January 1, 1969, would receive full service credit for their pre-1969 technician service.

Mr. Chairman, since the inception of the Federal civil service retirement system in 1920, which this union sponsored, the Congress has always given full retirement benefits to groups of employees who were brought into the system. This would include Agricultural Stabilization employees. In no instance that we are aware of has any

group been denied less than full retirement benefits. The present formula of 55 percent is without precedent.

It was devised by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Their rational was premised on the fact that some technicians were covered by State retirement systems and were entitled to social security benefits and military retirement pay. Although this is true, we do not think that this is relevant. Consideration was not given to the fact that although some 4,000 technicians had a vested interest in State retirement pay, the remaining technicians, now about 38,000 persons, had no such interest. It should also be pointed out that retired military pay, based on National Guard service, is not connected with their technician functions. Any person, and there are many Federal employees and Members of Congress in this category, who join the National Guard, is eligible for exactly the same benefit. That pay is based strictly on military service and should not be used as an excuse to reduce a civilian's retirement.

The social security argument is equally transparent. In the first instance, every technician who is entitled to social security has paid for that right through FICA deductions.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that not all Guardsmen are eligible for social security retirement. It has been estimated that same 20,000 technicians do not have a vested interest in the system at the present time. And, we should not forget, all excepted technicians must retire at age 60. This means a possible 5 years with no social security income. Even if a covered technician elected to receive social security at age 62, the payment would be reducd by 20 percent and he would still have no income for 2 years.

The last refuge of those opposed to this legislation is its alleged inordinate cost. We would point out that some find almost any Federal program in which they have no direct interest to be excessively expensive. But in response, we would make two points. First, the legislation is not extremely expensive. It is reliably estimated that the overall cost will be in the nighborhood of $128 million. Second, determining whether this expenditure is justified calls for a subjective judgment on the merits of the legislation. Obviously some will find the expenditure unwarranted.

But though the cost might be considered high, I think when weighed against the inequity of the present formula, the cost is clearly justifiable. The cost should, I suggest, be viewed not as an expenditure per se, but rather as the liquidation of an obligation owed to the technicians. It is simply that amount of money is necessary to achieve quality of treatment for the technicians.

Aside from the question of equity, there is another profound reason why this legislation should be promptly passed. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the direct impact this legislation has on the national defense. The National Guard civilian technician is the true backbone of Army and Air National Guard. They are the people who keep the planes flying and the engines of a modern military in repair. They are also the people who keep the administrative, supply and operational wheels turning. They are also the people who are expected to recruit new members into the National Guard. Without them, the National Guard could not function. But morale is low and getting lower every day. There is

55-933 O-75-5

resentment that their retirement is held hostage to the specious arguments of cost and other retirement systems.

No employee, and the civilian technician is no exception, likes to be treated unfairly. The effects of unfair treatment will necessarily adversely impact on the mission of the agency, in this case, the national defense. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that this country can afford to keep and further depress the morale of this very important element of the national defense. It does not make good sense economically and it makes less sense militarily.

There is yet another element to this aspect of the technician's retirement. Under the present formula, many technicians, who would under normal circumstances retire, are unable to do so for financial reasons. In many instances a technician's retirement pay will result in a retirement that is below the poverty guidelines. This is not only an outrageously shameful way to treat a person who has given years of devoted service to his country, but also actively prevents the retirement of many persons who should retire for health reasons. Throughout the United States, there are many technicians in this category. In time of a national emergency they would be unable to properly carry out their assigned duties.

This situation also adversely impacts upon the national defense. I have personally met many of these technicians. They are dedicated individuals. Many know they are not really fit for duty during an emergency. Given an opportunity, many would voluntarily retire. They cannot, however, afford to do so.

Mr. Chairman, this will conclude my testimony. Gene Raymond and Charles Stephens, both of whom are technicians and have personal knowledge of the inequities the present arrangement has fostered, will address this aspect of the situation. I believe you will find their experiences both helpful and enlightening. Upon the completion of their remarks, we will all be pleased to respond to any questions you might

have.

Mr. Raymond, would you please continue.

Mr. RAYMOND. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Gene Raymond, I am the president of Local 1623 in Columbia, S.C., representing all Air National Guard technicians.

Mr. WHITE. In that area or throughout the country?

Mr. RAYMOND. Throughout the State of South Carolina. And also the 1st vice president of the National Guard General Council.

I would like at this time to refute the testimony given approximately 2 weeks ago to this subcommittee by both the representatives of the Department of Defense and the Civil Service Commission. I have closely examined the testimony of Mr. Webster and Mr. Tinsley both, and find that neither provide any real rationale as to their opposition except that the original act was unchallengeable, or unwise and fully i acceptable to everyone at the time it was passed.

The two both stated prior to 1969, technicians were considered by everyone as State employees. I would like to point out that 31 States did not consider their employees, State employees. And who were these people considered to be State employees by? Surely not the Federal government and the State government wouldn't claim us either. We were in a sort of limbo state.