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 inac curate 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 coveraage 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? P8410:94-32 CORRECT CERTAIN INEQUITIES IN THE CREDITING OF POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 100 A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO TANFORD R Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey 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) |