1 Includes death, physical disability, resignation with no indication, removal from State.

FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE

During fiscal year 1967, the overall "quit rate" among civilian employees in the Executive Branch was 9.93 percent. Excluded from that computation are transfers between Federal agencies, termination of temporary employment, and eliminations by reason of reductions in force.

Women comprise about 25 percent of the Federal work force. The "quit rate" of women, many of whom perform clerical work in the lower grades, is higher than that of men in the Federal program. Statistics are not available to permit the weighting of the Federal rate for valid comparison with the National Guard technician program, where women constitute only 3.7 percent of the force. The percentage of losses among a hypothetical group of Federal employees constituted with the same relative proportion of males and females as the National Guard program would be less than the 9.93 percent actual loss.

Senator CANNON. Now, this bill in a sense codifies the present technician program permitting the employment of technicians in connection with the training and supplies for the National Guard. In addition, however, it goes beyond any existing authority by permitting technicians to be employed in such other duties as the Secretaries concerned may prescribe.

This language amounts to a broad open ended authority permitting any future Secretary to involve technicians in any duty he may desire. Do you believe that this language should have some limitation? General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, right now this is the same thing that is happening right now with our technicians. For example, we are maintaining Active Army vehicles in our Army National Guard. We are maintaining Active Army missiles in the Nike-Hercules program. We are also at the present time, we have a contract with one of our States for our technicians in their shops to maintain such things as the atomic radiological monitoring device in which we have the skill and we are maintaining that for another governmental agency, sir. That would all be covered by the Secretary, sir.

Senator CANNON. Not all of it. All of the first examples, every example you gave except one would be covered under that subsection 2, the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to the National Guard or the Armed Forces. Now that would cover every example except the last one you gave.

General WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. And might even cover it, I don't know, because I am not quite familiar with enough of just what they are doing. So I am just wondering if whether the Secretary does need any open ended authorization such as is proposed in subparagraph 3.

General WILSON. I don't know, sir. We feel at the present time there will be no problem with it but we will certainly take another look at it and put a statement in the record on that.

Senator CANNON. It is possible that some of the Governors might not desire to be subjected to such a broad authority which could certainly go far beyond the present scope of the technician program. General WILSON. That is correct, sir. We will certainly look at it and give you a statement for the record on that.

(The information referred to follows:)

The restrictive language of current law has been construed by the Comptroller General as precluding the use of Army National Guard technicians to repair aircraft of the active Army and Army Reserve. While proposed new subsection 709(a) (2) of title 32 would provide the necessary authority to support other elements of the armed forces, authority such as clause (3) would provide is necessary to permit utilization of National Guard technicians for other governmental purposes. For example it might be desirable to permit the utilization of National Guard technicians to calibrate instruments for the Office of Civil Defense, to furnish truck drivers to the Post Office Department in emergencies, and to operate fire fighting equipment to assist the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture in combating forest fires. It is anticipated that this assistance to other Federal departments and agencies would be relatively infrequent, and ordinarily of an emergency nature.

Senator CANNON. The civilian Guard technician program normally refers to men on Guard or support units who work as civilians on a full-time basis but are available to be called in on a military status when the unit is mobilized. It is understood, however, that there are a sizable number of technicians employed in various State Guard headquarters whose mobilization assignments are not in combat or in combat support units, but are in such positions as civil defense, and so on. In one State insofar as civilian employment is concerned, one technician is charged with the administration of the technician program.

Now I would like to raise the question of the wisdom or necessity of including technicians other than those in combat support or training units as a part of the technician program.

General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have in the Guard about 4 percent of what they call nontechnicians or nonmilitary members of the technician groups. These are the ones that are clerks, typists, and people that are working in the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office, which are not required by our regulations at the present time to be military members of the organization.

We have certain designated spots in each organization. For example, a GS-3 clerk, it is almost impossible to hire a military man for the pay and salary of a clerk of this grade, and that is the grade we are talking about, sir, as a military member. Therefore, if this bill were to go through, this employee or these nontechnician employees would be hired from the regular civil service rolls.

Senator CANNON. The example that you gave there, they are not required to have military membership either.

General WILSON. No, sir; they are not.

Senator CANNON. So that wouldn't be covered here.

General WILSON. No, sir.

Senator CANNON. But I am talking about the ones that are actually required to have military membership.

General WILSON. Those that are required to have military membership, sir, are required to go on active duty with the unit when it comes in, sir. This is one of the basic principles that we have gone on, and on those positions that are described by the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force as requiring military members, they will go in these units.

Senator CANNON. Yes, but I think the point that I was trying to distinguish there is the difference between the combat or the combat support units. Now if a man is in a civil defense position, what position does he go on active duty with?

General WILSON. All right, sir, as you know, we have in military support a civil defense headquarters in each one of our States, sir, which is for the purpose of planning an action, being the area commander of the State, in case of a requirement or an atomic attack against the United States, in which the military support of civil defense headquarters would be in command of all military forces in the State. The man that was in that job would go with this unit. This is their mobilization assignment and this is their job at the present time, sir.

Senator CANNON. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. General Wilson, the bill describing the scope of the duties that might be assigned to technicians would permit the Secretary of the Army or Air Force to employ such people in the performance of such other duties as the Secretary concerned may prescribe. This language contains no limitations as to how far the Secretary could go.

I would like to raise the question as to whether some future Secretary could not include civil rights activities within the scope of technician duties.

General WILSON. Senator Smith, I would certainly think that the technicians are there for the purpose of the maintenance of Federal equipment there, and I wouldn't think that it could. Now it had never occurred to me the use of these on civil rights or civil disturbance things.

Senator SMITH. Will you check that?
General WILSON. Yes, Senator.

Senator SMITH. And if you wish to expand for the record, I would like it very much.

General WILSON. Yes, Senator.

(Information requested follows:)

The language of proposed section 709(a) (3) is broad enough to permit the Secretary concerned to include civil rights activities. For example, National Guard technician personnel officers might be charged with responsibilities in connection with the Federal equal employment opportunity program. However the intent is to obtain authority to assist other Federal departments and agencies on an emergency or part time basis, in fighting forest fires, transporting the mails, repairing vehicles, and other governmental functions.

Senator SMITH. It is understood that there are a number of assistant adjutants general who are presently technicians. I would like to ask whether these people, upon becoming Federal employees, will be determined to be key Federal employees within the meaning of Mr. McNamara's 1964 screening directive.

General WILSON. No, Senator, they would not. In other words all members, all of them, the assistant adjutants general and others are all in the Ready Reserve and have a mobilization assignment, Senator Smith, and they are available for military service.

Senator SMITH. There would be no such thing then as exemption for key Federal employees.

General WILSON. No, Senator.

Senator SMITH. It would also appreciate comment as to the desirability of having assistant adjutant generals serving as technicians in the technician program. As we all know, these are State officers subject strictly to appointment by the Governor. Furthermore, the mobilization potential of these particular position would be seriously questioned.

We have heard earlier in this testimony that a crucial reason for the present realinement program is the matter of meeting the military needs of States for the purpose of maintaining law and order. Moreover, the Governors have indicated they need at least 400,000 men for this purpose.

The Guard is being realined in part of meeting solely State needs. We have the anomaly of reorganizing the Guard to meet State purposes. ses. Yet at the same time, the Federal Government in title II of the bill is assuming an ever-increasing part of the financial burden of supporting State requirements.

I would note that in 1961 legislation was enacted authorizing Federal funds to be used as the employer contribution to State retirement systems up to 61/2 percent. I could appreciate, General Wilson, a comment as to why there has not been greater cooperation among the States as to this general problem thus far.

General WILSON. Senator Smith, on the assistant adjutants general that are technicians, I would like to give you for the record the total number. It is very few of those. I can only think of one right now. There may be others. These have been members of the Guard for a long time, very highly qualified people, and have progressed along in the Guard after many years of service.

Now on the other question of State retirement, as you know, the Congress authorized a 61/2 percent, which included also social security, if that State had social security together with its retirement program. There are many States which do not feel that these people are State employees, and their State law precludes them from being in their retirement system. There are other States, for example, I can think of one, New York, where the 61/2 percent would not meet the requirements for the employer's share, and there is a great variance among the States.

We have one State that covered its technicians for a short period, and then later on repealed that enabling legislation.

Senator SMITH. But you will expand on that for the record.
General WILSON. Yes, Senator, we will expand on that for the

record.

(The information referred to follows:)

The 31 States which do not now include National Guard technicians in their public employees retirement systems consider that they are not State employees because the authority for their employment and compensation stems from Federal law (32 U.S.C. 709), their numbers, qualifications and rates of pay are fixed by Federal authorities, and they are paid by Federal checks and Federal finance officers from federally appropriated funds.

To include them in retirement programs could be construed as recognition of State status for other purposes, thereby creating State liability for their negligent acts or omissions, and for claims under local workmen's compensation laws.

Finally, the Federal contribution of 61⁄2 percent (less such amount as may be contributed toward the cost of the employer's Social Security tax) in many cases is insufficient to defray the cost of the current employer's contribution to State retirement. Moreover, as the base or the rate used in computing Social Security taxes is increased, the balance available from the Federal Government decreases and the State's own contributions will have to be increased. This militates against the enactment of special legislation bringing National Guard technicians within the coverage of the State's retirement program.

Senator SMITH. I understand the Guard prefers to have their Reserve officer technicians eliminated under the ROPA provision, which nominally forces out a lieutenant colonel at about age 53, after 28 years of service, and a colonel at age 55 after 30 years of service. Under existing law there is authority to retain guardsmen to age 60, if they are in a State headquarters.

General, isn't there an inconsistency in Guard policy in desiring to retain one group to age 60, while at the same time desiring to eliminate others at a lesser age?

General WILSON. Yes, ma'am, and of course, as you know, the law makes an exception for officers assigned to State headquarters. Many of the personnel have been a long time with the Guard, Senator. Some are in the military support of civil defense section and will be used in that category. The normal ROPA provisions apply to officers in the combat and combat support units in the Guard, but there have been a few of those officers that have been transferred to State headquarters.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, that is all that I have at the moment. If you will excuse me, I would like to go to the Appropriations markup where the chairman is going and I will try to come back.

General WILSON. Senator Smith, I have just found a record. We have one assistant AG in the Army National Guard and two in the Air National Guard-a total of three people.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, sir.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Senator Smith.

Just a further question on that, General. The staff advises me there are 13 in that category, so you might recheck your records on that. General WILSON. I am sorry, there were 12, one in the Army National Guard and 11 in the Air National Guard. I am sorry that is correct. We now have nine in the Air National Guard.

Senator CANNON. Senator Jackson.

Senator JACKSON. General Wilson, on page 4 you mentioned in the third paragraph "The National Guard technician shares the dangers common to private employment, and in addition faces the absolute certainty of losing his job at age 60 or earlier because of ROPA or deterioration of his health, which will disqualify him for military service."

Am I correct in understanding that the States must have a tenure act, a civil service act for the technicians? Are the employees protected by tenure?