The third remark I have is with reference to the reserved retired pay at age 60, while the fact that tens of thousands of other civil service employees are also in this category without any cut in their civil service retirement pay. Also, each with their statement of costs for social security funded by Federal funds completely ignored the years before social security coverage was given, which was 1955.

If one even complained that those without vested interest had in social security would probably earn it by good quarters paid by their participating in reserve military duty. This could be true of all civil service employees, including Congressmen and Senators.

I would like to point out in 1969 practically all technicians had social security benefits. At this time the maximum taxable income was $7,800 per year. If we had retired at that time, we would have received maximum benefits from social security.

Congress rightfully only gave us 55-percent credit for annuity computation purposes at that time. Things have changed. In the past 7 years, the maximum taxable income for social security has risen to $14,100.

Now social security is not as important as it was in 1968. Now because of erosion, we will only receive minimum benefits, $93.80 per months, reduced further if taken at age 62.

The technician contributes to the social security fund during the short period spent on annual training, then only base pay.

Another item to note, relative to social security, is that in the next year disability coverage will have halted for National Guard technicians. This is true because of the fact one must complete 20 covered quarters prior to the last 40, in order to qualify for benefits under social security.

The second point I would like to make is, neither was there any mention made of the fact that this was the first group in who had received all their previous pay from Federal funds, who were so discriminated against. The gist of their testimony was that the act of 1968 was it, and nothing should be done to change it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, we appreciate your testimony. For the benefit of witnesses, many of you who come here several times, we ask you to notify us if there will be additional witnesses. We try to confine ourselves to 1 hour and thereby adjust ourselves so that members can go on to other meetings.

I woud be happy to hear the next witness.
Dr. WOLKOMIR. We did list them.

Mr. WHITE. It said "accompanied by."

Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Chairman, I'm Charles Stephens, president of Local 1671, Arkansas Air National Guard statewide.

Prior to 1969, approximately 31 of the States were not covered by any type of retirement for the technicians. For instance, in my own State of Arkansas, we had tried on numerous occasions to be taken into the State retirement system, only to be told we were Federal employees, paid wholly by Federal funds, and as such we could not be included in the State system. When we went to the Comptroller General of the United States, we were informed we were States employees by virtue of the Governor's control over the Guard. Due to this and many other things, we suffered for many years by the fact that many people spent

their lives working for the Guard and ended up with no protection for themselves or their families.

But thousands of technicians like myself have hung on with the belief we would finally get fair treatment from the Government.

You can imagine our surprise in 1969, when the bill was passed and we received only half credit for full credit worked. While we realized that the bill was grossly unfair, it was better than nothing and we felt in the years coming it would be rectified.

It's important to note at this time that the Senate has attempted on three previous occasions to rectify this inequity, and again this year on June 16 have again passed this important legislation.

It's also noteworthy that the House has compounded the inequity by failing to act on the National Guard technicians retirement legislation.

Addressing the cost of the $128 million figure mentioned by the Civil Service Commission, this figure would in our opinion be justified further by the passage of this legislation. It would enable several or many or a great number of the people now serving in the GS-13 step 10 grades to retire at age 55. They can't do this at this time due to mortgages, insurance premiums, children still going to college, and so forth.

If we could get it through, it would open up not only the grade, it would open up the Guard program to our younger technicians. For this reason we are appearing here, asking for this legislation. And I guess we're ready for any questions.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Tilton, do you have a statement?

Mr. TILTON. No, Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. Fine. I appreciate the testimony you all have made. Do any of you have any knowledge of an agreement in 1969?

Dr. Wolkomir. I'd like to say something. To the best of our knowledge this agreement first appeared in testimony given by Congressman Montgomery, not this year, but the previous testimony. That agreement was between General Wilson, who was heading the National Guard Bureau, and Senator Stennis and others, but not with the guard.

The first we became aware of such an agreement was in the testimony presented before the committee.

Mr. WHITE. The gentleman was not in the National Guard?
Dr. WOLKOMIR. He was heading the National Guard Bureau.
Mr. WHITE. But was he considered a National Guardsman?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. Well

Mr. WHITE. You would say "yes," or "no" in court?
Dr. WOLKOMIR. In court I would say, probably, "yes."
Mr. WHITE. Fine.

Dr. WOLKOMIR. But he was not speaking for the technicians. He was speaking for the hierarchy and the general consensus of those appointed AG's.

Mr. WHITE. Was he principal agent for the National Guard at that time?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. He was head of the National Guard at that time, speaking for the Bureau and probably speaking for the DOD. But as far as their technicians are concerned, I can almost speak with firm conviction that he was not speaking for the technicians work

ing for the National Guard. That is the first time we became aware that there was an agreement behind closed doors and in the smokefilled rooms.

Mr. WHITE. At the time of the passage of the bill, if such area has been mentioned by Mr. Stephens, wasn't inquiry made to determine why the 55 percent bill was passed?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. Oh, yes. Actually it was strictly a dollar and cost proposition. What they were doing in that particular commission in this testimony indicated the fact that based upon the contributions and, if I remember Tom Tinsley's testimony, all they were doing were quoting figures and they were indicating the fact that, due to the 45 percent contribution previously, and the fact that the Government and, if you don't mind, I can even refer back to the total page.

One page 2 of Mr. Tinsley's testimony, he indicated the fact that if an employee is a technician up to 1969, he received credit for 55 percent of his 1969 technician service. The reason for it in view of the committee was that it was a compromise between the former so-called what he considered non-Federal service to be credited to the full retirement.

In actuality, what they were doing was talking in terms of dollar and cent contributions, 45 percent, 55 percent. They were talking about not service values. It has nothing to do with the issue.

Mr. Tinsley's testimony has nothing to do with the isue. He's merely interested in the "buck" and the dollars and cents, not the equity of any determination.

Mr. WHITE. We won't worry about the agreement right now. I do have some other questions I wanted to get to.

Now, as I understand your testimony, the present law does notunder the present law anyone after 1969, who is a National Guard technician, that is 100 percent credit. Those who had service prior to 1969 get 55 percent credit for their time. So the only ones we're really thinking about at all—or worried about-are the few that, whatever number, that were before 1969.

Dr. WOLKOMIR. That is right, sir.

Mr. WHITE. What number are we talking about?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. Do you know the exact number of how many people were involved prior to 1969?

Mr. TILTON. We had a large number, but it's in excess of 30,000, I believe.

Mr. WHITE. OK.

Now, some of those not in the 31 States but in the other States are eligible and were then eligible to participate in a State retirement system. Am I correct?

Mr. TILTON. Correct.

Mr. WHITE. All right. At the present time it's felt that the inequity exists in that these people, who had served prior to 1969. are not receiving their full credit and full percentage of the retirement system? Dr. WOLKOMIR. Yes,

Mr. WHITE. Now, if the Congress gives 100 percent credit prior to 1969 services, is it not then equitable if the Congress provides for the National Guardsmen to make an election between the retirement systems prior to 1969. for the same time and the same duty and the same service. I'm not talking about as National Guard time, I'm not talking

55-933-75 - 4

about any time he may have had on a private job. I'm talking about the same type of work.

Dr. WOLKOMIR. According to the figures, there were 3,098 people that were affected by the State programs prior to the enactment of the original act in 1969, the question came up about this possibility, going one-way or the other, and the technicians clearly indicated to us that they would be only too glad, most of them, to move their State retirement credit into the Federal sector and go 100 percent.

Our problem was the funding of the Federal Government into the State retirement plan to these people, and the States were supposed to make retribution and pay back to the Federal Government, and they won't do it. This is the big problem we had at that time.

I believe you will find that the majority of technicians, should they be put to a vote, will agree to move their State retirement time into the Federal.

Mr. WHITE. If the technicalities can be worked out, you feel it would be equitable to have it with the option on their pre-1969 service? Dr. WOLKOMIR. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Okay, very good. I believe that concludes my particu lar questions.

Counsel?

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Just a couple.

Is it true that a technician must resign if he doesn't meet the health standards of a National Guardsman?

Mr. J. G. RAYMOND. Yes, sir, he does, and we have not covered it. We mentioned it, I think, in other testimony of the Roper program, where an officer must retire at age 55, unless he's waived.

They are not giving any waivers at the National Guard Bureau, so this means that all individuals who are officers must involuntarily retire at age 55. Then this is a 10-year span of no income for them and very little income when they do get their retirement; but they must meet military physicals in order to stay on the job. That is one of our prerequisites of getting into the Guards.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. As I understand, the primary purpose of the 1968 act was to keep Guard technicians in the service; is that correct? The Guard was undergoing a loss of technicians because of the limbo that you gentlemen spoke of?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. Yes. In fact they run a rally, a very intensive type of campaign, using the National Guardsmen themselves as the recruiters into the field.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. So that was the primary purpose to keep the technicians in, and now we want to add to the bill to include all people, even those who are no longer in?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. In actuality, anyone who comes into the Guard now is going to get it for retirement. It's the question of those who are in and the real base core of the Guard. The people we're talking about— incidently I stand corrected, the figure of 3,000 affected by State retirement is not right. It's down to 1,700 plus, rather than 3,000 as of today. So I would say what we're speaking about is in fact the maintenance and the morale, and keeping the necessary skills within the Guard forces, for the people we're speaking about who were in prior to 1969.

Does that answer your question, sir?

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Who were in, but may not have been in after 1969 ?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. That's right.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Yes, thank you.

Mr. WHITE. One other question. Under the way the bill is worded, and I presume they're all just about the same, does this pertain only to those who are presently in the National Guard as National Guard technicians, or maybe that is not the proper word. It is respective? Does it pertain only to those in the National Guard?

Dr. WOLKOMIR. As I understand it, only those who are on duty now as National Guard technicians.

Mr. WHITE. If they retired earlier than this, it would not apply to them?

Mr. J. G. RAYMOND. It does.

Mr. TILTON. At this time it would allow other people, who have since retired or left the system to come back in, the implication being, would there be a windfall? I think the answer is, any other Federal employee can also pay back in, but the question is from a dollars and cents viewpoint is, how many will do so? It's unlikely you will find a large number of people paying back in. Even if they do pay back in, I wouldn't see anything terribly the matter with it, because this would simply be getting whatever any Federal employee could get.

Mr. WHITE. Suppose a man had been a National Guard technician and retired with only 4 years of service, and we passed this bill and he decided he wants to come into the system. He's already retired. Would he then be able to come in, not having qualified earlier, come in and draw on his time?

Mr. TILTON. In the first place you would have to have 5 years before your interest and retirement vests.

Mr. WHITE. That is correct.

Mr. TILTON. You're saying if he had 4 years of regular service. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me for purposes of computation, the prior service would count anyhow.

Mr. WHITE. I know, but he was in, he had 4 years after 1969, and he did not elect to tie on to his previous years. He had only 1 before or 2 years before 1969 and was taking State retirement. Do we now go back and let him qualify?

Mr. TILTON. Well, my understanding of the technicalities of the bill is that this possibly could happen. I believe it would happen, but I don't think there would be any grave inequity.

For example, if you work for the Postal Service or any other Federal agency, you are permitted to pay back. I don't see why we should treat a Guard technician any differently. If he wants to pay back, and he can pay back, I think he should be able to. I see nothing the matter with that.

Dr. WOLKOMIR. Under the present retirement law for all Federal employees, I think everyone is aware of the pay-back clause.

Many employees leave and they have a break in service, and they come back and they want full credit time, but they have withdrawn. They have a right to pay back with interest.

Mr. WHITE. They're in active duty at that time, when they pay back. If they don't invest at the time they retire, they can't join the system

later.