Mr. MAHON. All right, put that in the record. I would be interested in that information and I think others would. (The information requested follows:) The following listings show the employer rate contributions under each State law: States now permitting particiption in a State retirement system States whose laws will permit participation when Federal funds are made States that have retirement systems, but whose laws do not now permit Funds were included in the budget estimates submitted to OSD and BOB by both the Army and Air National Guard, based on the above percentages by State. However, in the review of the estimates by the Bureau of the Budget when they limited the rate to 6.5 percent including social security, old age and survivors insurance contribution, they only considered the first two categories of States listed above. The budget estimates submitted to the Congress did not include any funds for the States that have retirement systems, but whose present laws do not now permit participation by Army and Air technicians in the State retirement systems. All of the rates indicated above were used by both the Army and Air National Guard in computing the requirements for contributions to State retirement funds. BUREAU OF THE BUDGET LIMITATION General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense asked the Bureau of the Budget for authority to do that. The Bureau of the Budget included in the President's budget-the past administration's budget-up to 612 percent. In this budget we have $1.9 million. The 62 percent limitation is what I presume you are getting letters on from some of the States, because when you take social security, which is 3 percent, and it goes up to 311⁄2 in a year and then on up to 4 percent and 42 percent, it leaves less than 2 percent to go along with the State retirement programs, which do not equal or do not meet the States' requirements. So, the Department of Defense has asked the Bureau of the Budget to reconsider the 62 percent and they feel that it should be the same as that offered to other State employees. Mr. MAHON. Well, would it vary by States? General WILSON. Yes, sir, it varies by States. Mr. MAHON. And you think it is not improper for the Federal Government to pay a larger percentage in some States than it does in others? General WILSON. No, sir; if we are going to give these people some chance for retirement. We should match what the States do on their normal State retirement programs. Mr. MAHON. What we are doing is matching the State funds? : General WILSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS Mr. MAHON. What provision of law is cited as a support for this? How do you document the authority of the Federal Government to do what is being done here? General WILSON. That is under section 709, title 32. Mr. MAHON. Let us insert that in the record at this point. General WILSON. All right, sir. (The matter referred to follows:) SECTION 709, TITLE 32 Section 709(a), title 32, states that the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe funds allotted by them for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard may be spent for the compensation of competent persons to care for material, armament, and equipment of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Section 109 (f), title 32, states that the Secretary concerned shall fix the salaries of clerks and caretakers authorized to be employed under this section, and shall designate the person to employ them. Mr. MAHON. What is the meat of that section? General WILSON. For example, under social security we now pay the States' share of the social security, which has been done for the last 8 years, I would say. Mr. MAHON. Yes. General WILSON. All this is doing is making that same thing applicable to the State retirement systems, and the Secretary would be the one who would fix the compensation. Mr. MAHON. Is it appropriate to pay both the social security and the State retirement for these people? General WILSON. In most cases, sir, the social security and State retirement are tied together. For example, if a State had a 6 percent or, say, 7 percent State retirement system, 32 percent of that is already being paid under social security, and it would be the difference between the 32 percent and the 6 or 7 percent, whichever it is. Mr. MAHON. Now, the Department of Defense is urging the Bureau of the Budget to do what? General WILSON. They had requested the Bureau of the Budget to allow the amount to be paid by the Federal Government to equal that which is normally paid by the States. Mr. MAHON. And, therefore, you would need to go higher than the 62 percent which has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget? General WILSON. That is all, sir. Mr. MAHON. How high will it have to be in the most extreme case? General WILSON. The most extreme case, I believe, is 11.8 percent which is New York, sir. Mr. FORD. That would be a combination of retirement and social security? General WILSON. That is right, sir. Mr. MAHON. This has given me some concern. I can understand how this would make the service more attractive. General WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MAHON. Colonel, do you have any comment to add to that? Colonel MEIS. No, sir. I just wanted to indicate some States preclude both, such as California, Illinois, Missouri, and others. Mr. MAHON. Will you repeat that for the record? Colonel MEIS. Some States preclude the payment of both social security and the State retirement. Mr. MAHON. Please give us a list of those States. Colonel MEIS. I know of four at the moment: The States of California, Illinois, Missouri, and Nevada. Mr. MAHON. Check the record and make your statement as accurate as you can with reference to this matter. Do you think this program is completely justified, General Wilson? General WILSON. Yes, sir; I do. I think a person should be given a chance to work toward a retirement program, Mr. Chairman. We do it in the Federal civil service, and we do it in industry and we do it everywhere. About the only group that I know of which is not covered is your Army and Air Guard technicians. Mr. MAHON. In other words, we do it for the regular military people and the regular military civil servants? General WILSON. That is right, sir. Take, for instance, these people who are under civil service and who are employees in the Air Reserve technicians program, which is a counterpart to the air technicians. They are under civil service because that is Mr. MAHON. That is strictly Federal; whereas, this is technically not Federal, but it has many of the aspects of the Federal program? General WILSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. AVERAGE UNITS, BASES, AND MILITARY STRENGTH, 1959-62 Mr. MAHON. Will you please provide for the record a tabulation of the numbers of Air National Guard units, the bases, the officers and airmen and technicians, in average numbers, for fiscal years 1959 through 1962? General WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MAHON. Of course, your figures for 1962 will be estimated figures. General WILSON. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) Air National Guard units, bases, officers and airmen in average numbers for fiscal years 1959 through 1962 Mr. ANDREWS. General, is this budget request based on the assumption that the guard strength will be reduced from 400,000 to 360,000? General WILSON. No, sir; that has nothing to do with the Air National Guard. This is the Air National Guard and we are remaining at our 72,000 drill pay ceiling, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. How much is your request before the committee at this time for O. & M., Air National Guard? General WILSON. $193.4 million. Mr. ANDREWS. What was your original request, and where was it cut and how much? INCREASE IN FLYING HOURS General FRIEDMAN. There were two submissions, Mr. Andrews. As you recall, in previous discussions we indicated that there were four budget submissions-the two lower budgets-the so-called A and B budgets at $195.4 million and the C and D budget submissions which were at $205.4 million. The difference between the two submissions was largely in the area of flying hours-increasing the flying hours per pilot from 125 to 140 and from 150 to 170. Mr. ANDREWS. Is that the only major program that was eliminated by the reduction of this budget? sir. General WILSON. Yes, sir; it was tied primarily to the flying hours, Mr. ANDREWS. Was that a cut in your flying hours for 1962 over 1961? General WILSON. No, sir; that was holding them at the same level. Mr. ANDREWS. How long have you had that level? General WILSON. For about 6 years, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. Well, it seems to be working all right, does it not? General WILSON. Yes, sir. We are going to more complex airplanes and the commands with whom we are working feel that the minimum flying time requirement for a jet pilot should be approximately 150 hours and that we should have 200 hours for the average transport type pilot. Mr. ANDREWS. Have you ever had 150 hours for your jet pilots and 200 hours for your transport pilots? General WILSON. No, sir, we have held to the 125 hours and, as you know, Mr. Andrews, this budget is about $2 million less than the A and B request referred to by General Friedman. * ། Mr. ANDREWS. How are you getting along with the KC-97's? General WILSON. Real fine; real fine. It is a real fine program. The boys have taken to it and are enjoying the mission. We feel it is a real fine mission for the guard and we are getting our people combat ready in that service; in fact, we are running trips right now in MATS to Tokyo with our air crews as they become combat proficient, because they are required to take a MATS run at least twice a year to be combat ready. Mr. ANDREWS. Do you have any KC-135's? General WILSON. No, sir; only the KC-97's. SALE AND DELIVERY OF C-119's TO INDIA Mr. ANDREWS. You told us several weeks ago that some of your men flew some C-119's, I believe, to India. General WILSON. That was the Air Force Reserve; yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. You did not know at that time who gave the aircraft to the Indians or anything about it except that you people flew them over there. General WILSON. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. ANDREWS. Have you learned anything since that time about it? General WILSON. Since that was primarily the Air Force Reserve and not the Air National Guard, I believe General McCarty furnished that for the record. Mr. ANDREWS. Do you know anything about why the gift was made? Mr. ANDREWS. How many did we send over there and leave? Mr. ANDREWS. All you know is that you flew them over there and left them? General FRIEDMAN. It was under the mutual security military sales program. Those aircraft were excess to the Air Force, and the sale included some equipment on board, such as multiman liferafts, to go along with them. Mr. ANDREWS. Did the mutual security program reimburse the Air Force for those planes? General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir; aircraft in the best possible condition were selected, and the Government of India agreed to accept the aircraft in an "as is, where is" condition. Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would insert in the record for me the original cost of those planes and the total amount realized by the Air Force for the 29 that were turned over to the Indian Government. General FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) COST OF C-119 AIRCRAFT SOLD TO INDIA During June and July 1960, Air Force Reserve crews ferried 21 of the 29 C-119 aircraft delivered to India. These aircraft were excess to the needs of the U.S. military services and were purchased by the Indian Government from their own resources, under the mutual security military sales program. The |