HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS ON H.R. 3006

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 376
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2004
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: March 7, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

Approvad For Release 2005/04/21 : ClA-RDP66B00403R000400280906-0
(No. 6)
HEARINGS
BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
ON
ER. 3006
TO AMEND TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
INCREASE THE RATES OF BASIC PAY FOR MEM-
BERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
FEBRUARY 26, 27, 28, MARCH 5, 6, AND 7, 1963
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
EionTY-EIGHT11 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
CARL vnisoN,
L. MENDEL RIVERS, South Carolina
PHILIP J. PHILBIN, Massachusetts
F. EDWARD ataxia, Louisiana
ARTHUR WINSTEAD, Mississippi
MELVIN PRICE. Illinois
0. C. FISHER, Texas
PORTER HARDY, Ja, Virginia
CLYDE DOYLE, California
CHARLES B. BENNETT, Florida
RICHARD E. LANKFORD, Maryland
GEORGE HUDDLEST014, Ja., Alabama
JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL S. STRATTON, New York
JEFFREY COHELA.N. California
VICTOR WICKERSHAM, Oklahoma
OTIS G. PIKE. New York
JOE hi. KILGORE. Texas
RICHARD H. ICHOR.D, Missouri
LUCIEN N. NEDZL Michigan
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
A. FERNOS-ISERN, Puerto Rico
B.OEMET W. SMART, WI oomnies
Georgia. Chairman
I EA LIE C. ARENDS, Illinois
LEON H. GAVIN. Pennsylvania
WALTER NORBLAD, ONgon
ILLIAM H. BATES, Meesachusette
ALVIN E. OtONSKI, Wisconsin
?VILLIAM O. BRAY, Indiana
FOB WILSON, Ca
Moral'.
FRANK C. OSMERS, Je., New Jersey
CHAR (,Efi S. GUBSECR, California
ritAN4 I, BECKER, New York
TIARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, Miehlipin
ALEXANDER PIRNIE, New York
I.URWARD 0, HALL, Missouri
DONA I,D D. CLANCY, Ohio
LOBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
El) FOREMAN, Texas
Butcomurratz 7.%-cl. 1
L. MENDEL RIVERS,
PORTER HARDY, Ja., Virginia
CHARLES E. BENI:I:TT, Florida
GEORGE HUDDLESTON, is., Alabama
SAMUEL S. STRATTON, New York
JOE Af. 'KILGORE, Texas
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
JOHN B. BLAND7ORD, eglined
Soath Carolina, Chairman
LEON H. GAVIN. PennivIvailia
WIT.L-ANI FL BATES. Masonehusetts
PON WILSON, rollfornla
FRANK C. OSMERS. Is.. New Jersey
CHARLES S. GUBSER, California
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :,CJA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
[No. 61
SUBCOMMIT'TEE NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3006, TO AMEND
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE RATES OF
BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITEEE ON ARMED_SERVICES2_
SUBCOMMITTEE No. O.
Washington, D .0 Tuesday, February 26,1963.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 :07 in room
313?A, Cannon Building, Hon. L. Mendel Rivers (chairman of the
subcommittee) prosidin.g.
Mr. RIVERS. Let the committee come to order.
Members of the. subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, we are begin-
ning here today on H.R. 3006, the most important legislative item this
subcommittee will consider this year insofar as the personnel of our
armed services are concerned.
I would like to say at the outset that while we normally think of
the armed services as conistimr of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard when serving with the Navy, never-
theless the pay scales that we write into law also cover the commis-
sioned officers of the Public Health Service and the Coast and Geo-
detic Survey. Thus, there are seven services involved when we refer
to the uniformed services.
Before we hear our first witness today, I would like to make some
observations about this proposed legislation.
I have had an opportunity to study the bill and I have arrived at
certain conclusions as a result of that study which lead me to the con-
clusion that the bill should be modified in several major respects.
The bill covers 19 separate items.
The first and most important part of the bill is section 2 which con-
tains the new proposed basic pay scales. The increases recommended
range from $1.80 per month for an E-1 recruit to $120 a month for
an E-9 sergeant major so far as enlisted personnel are concerned.
The increases range from $27.70 a month -for second lieutenants to
$95 a month for the highest officer grade.
The increases in basic pay alone, on an annual basis, will exceed $985
In general, I believe the recommended basic pay increases are rea-
sonable. For the first time in 13 years the entering pay of second
lieutenants and privates will be increased.
The major increases will be found in certain career enlisted points
and at certain critical points in the officer pay scales.
(1397)
85066-63?No. 6--1
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/413g8p1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
General and flag officers, for practical purposes, receive on Iv a cost-
of-living increase.
1 believe sonic minor adjustments should he considered by the sub-
conunit tee, particularly in the grade, where an increment, in pay
has been cut back frOill thts "over s years of service.' point to iteover
6 years of service" point, and in the W- .1 grade IA here the. maximum
pay, just as in existing law, does not become effective until the W-4
lots completed 30 years of service. Since the law requires a W-4 to
retire 60 days after the completion of 30 years of service, it would
make better sense to me if that maximum increase took effect at the
"over 26 year" point?because to me it scents senseless when it gets
to 30 vears, you kick him oui and he doesn't get the benefit of it, so
ht him get the benefit of it when he gets the promotion.
With these exceptions, however, I lind myself in general accord
with the proposed pay scales. Certainly they are modest, and in no
instance could they be called excessive. In many areas military per-
sonnel ?vill still draw far less pay than their civil service courrerparts,
but nevertheless any pay increase is welcome to the recipient, and I
recognize the fact that there. are financial limitations that must be
acknowledged.
Hut here are Is other items in this bill which must be discussed.
ant not in agreement with sect ioo 2(b) of the proposed legislation
which will be found on page 3 of I I.R. 3006. This section, in effect,
provides that it member of the Reserves who is performing inactive
duty trainimi for which he is entitled to pay will be paid under exist-
ing pay scales and will not benefit by the proposed new rates.
I cannot agree to a privosal that discriminates bet ween an obligated
reservist and an unobligat . These youmr men have all
served on active duly in one service or another while some of their
civilian friends have IleVer per' f(winvd any military- service whatsoever.
To discriminate between a reservist who has not f. ilhil led his reserve
obligation and the reservist who continues his inactive dui v trainin!,
on a V0111111 arc basis is unwise, and as far as I am concerned. I hope that
sect ion of the bill will be eliminated.
On page -4 of MR. 3006 is section 1, entitled "Constructive Service.
Credit for Purposes of Appointment, Promotion, and Basic Pay.-
This sect ion seeks to extend the awarding of constructive credit to
those who hold postgraduate degrees in professions that are not now
recognized for that purpose in exist in law.
As you know, we award constructive credit today to physicians,
dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, chaplains, and ccrt sin individuals
who hold Ph. I rs in sciences allied with medicine.
Hut under exist Our law, there is no method by which other indi-
viduals can be awarded construct ivy credit for appoint mem. promo-
ion, and pay purposes.
As you will note in the iLiotlysis of this section, only phys'el:uis and
dentists May now COMA their constructive credit for longevity pay
purposes. This section would grant all who are awarded construct ive
credit the right to count that credit. for longevity purposes. 1 do not
quarrel with the concept. But the section, in my opinion, does not
belong in it pay bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1ntA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
This is basically a promotion and appointment problem, and I would
rather see this section considered in the so-called Bolte proposal rather
than take the time to discuss its feasibility in this pay proposal.
I would also call your attention to the fact that this section as writ-
ten would vest in the Secretary concerned the authority to determine
what postgraduate degrees would be recognized. I do not believe we
should delegate this authority; I believe Congress and Congress alone
should make the determination as to which postgraduate degrees will
be so recognized. But beyond that, I would also call your attention to
the fact that this section is not retroactive except for those who entered
on active duty or were commissioned, or enlisted, less than 3 years
ago. In other words, while this section would provide constructive
credit to a newly commissioned lawyer, which he could count for pay
purposes, it would only be applicable to a lawyer hereafter appointed,
or a lawyer who has only served 1 or 2 years on active duty.
This means that lawyers and others entering on active duty would
receive longevity credit for their constructive service, but lawyers and
those with postgraduate degrees already on active duty will not receive
longevity credit, presumably on the theory that they have already
served 3 or more years and therefore are drawing longevity credit
for that period of time.
In my opinion, this section requires far more consideration, and
therefore I will recommend that this section be deleted from the bill
so that the matter may be considered more fully at a later date.
Now, if you will turn to page 11 you will find the section entitled
"Retired Pay and Retainer Pay."
This, of course, is a highly controversial section in the minds of
many people. I would remind the subcommittee that in 1958 the Con-
gress departed from the traditional concept of applying existing pay
scales to the retired pay of those who had retired prior to the enact-
ment of new pay scales.
It is probably not correct to say that we fully departed from tradi-
tion in 1958 because in 1949 we completely rewrote the disability
retirement laws and, as a result, many thousands of personnel retired
for disability, who did not have a sufficient degree of disability or
sufficient length of service to qualify under the 1949 pay scales, have
continued to draw their retirement pay under the 1942 Pay Readjust-
ment Act. However, they received cost-of-living increases in 1952,
1955, and 1958.
The section before you provides that individuals retired prior to
June 1, 1958, who are paid under the Career Compensation Act, may
recompute their retirement pay under the present pay scales that went
into effect on June 1, 1958, and, in addition, receive a 5-percent cost-of-
living increase in their retirement pay. Therefore, all those in receipt
of retirement pay will be placed on an automatic cost-of-living ad-
justment basis.
In other words, the section provides that each year a determination
will be made as to the cost of living, and whenever the culmidative
eff ett of the increase in the cost of living equals 3 percent or more,
retirement pay will be adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent
to reflect that increase.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0442*: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Now this makes the issue clear cut. The Congress is asked to de-
( lade once and for all which polio, shall apply in computincr
eetirement pay.
There will be many persons who will arynie that we should hot de-
part from the old tradition of computing retirement. pay on the basis
of new pay scales. There are oth erswho recognize t he fact t hal, there
are nearly 350,000 mil ttary personnel on the military retired lists and
hat this number is growing by 50.900 or more each year. Retneinent
costs for mita ary personnel alone exceed Si billion annually, at at will
exceed 53 billion annually in the years ahead.
The proposal submitted by the Department of Defense peruits
large group of offivers and enlisted personnel to recompute their
retired pay under existing pay scales.
Now I think I should remind the subcommittee that in 1958 we
provided sonic rather substantial pay increases, par.icularly for the
senior officers and noncommissioned officers. As a Atsult. thee has
been widespread dissatisfaction among the more senior retired per-
sonnel who, because they retired prior to .1one I, 1958, were net able
to compute their retirement pay under the higher pay scales that
went into effect on that date.
These individuals, under the proposal before us, will be allowed to
recompute under the. higher pay scales provided in the 1958 law, but
they will not be permitted to recompute, their retirement pay on the
proposed new is scales in this legislation.
However, the pay increases recommended for the general and flag
officers in the proposed legislation arc approximately 5 percent. and
all retired personnel will receive a 5-1)q-rent. increase in their retired
pay under the proposed legislation.
Dollarwise, therefore, there will be relatively little differen2e for
these more senior officers.
On the other hand, those now retired are concerned about future
pay increases. As I have said, the titne for decision has nos % been
reached, and the Congress must make up its mind whether it will
adopt t lie automatic, cost -of-1 iving adjust mem concept, st art mg now,
or whether it will go back to the old concept of applying retirement
pay to existing pay scales no matter when they go into effect.
This matter has given me. much concern. But I have concluded. that
we must recognize that retirement costs, although they are a part of
our national defense costs, are reaching such staggering sums that
unless we apply a reasonable principle to the retirement system we
may well jeopardize the entire. retirement procedure. One of the
great privileges that exist. today among military personnel is the
privilege of applying for retirement regardless of age upon the
completion of '20 or more. years of service. No other Government
employee, and probably no employee of private industry. has this
privilege., except FBI agents, to the best of Illy knowledge.
However, there are ninny tirgument,t in support of this privilege,
and I personally feel it. is something that must las retained. On the
other hand, unless we take positive steps now to protect this retire-
ment system. we may eventually be for-ed to change the Nit ire system.
For that reason. I will stale now that I will support the rt4irement
proposal submitted by the Department of Defense because I bAieee
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2114ui : CJA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
it does eliminate the gross discrimination that existed between those
retired prior to June 1, 1958, and those who retired after that date, and
at the same time provides a guarantee to all future retirees that they
will automatically receive a cost-of-living increase wheneverthe
cumulative cost of living goes over 3 percent. Under the provisions
of this bill, no further legislative action will be necessary. Thus the
retired serviceman's dollar purchasing power will be preserved and
guaranteed.
Stated another way, I have come to the conclusion that a bird in
the hand is worth two in the bush.
Now let me turn to another item in the proposal before us. You
will find this on page 16, under the title "Submarine Pay for Mem-
bers Training for Duty on Nuclear-Powered Submarines." .
I recognize the fact that the Navy is having difficulty in obtaining
volunteers for the POLARIS and other nuclear submarine programs.
I do not believe we should pay submarine pay to a recruit who enters
into this program, but I certainly believe that we should continue
submarine pay for those who are already qualified submariners who
are accepted for advanced training for nuclear submarine duty. This
section is probably too broad, as written, but the concept is sound
and I intend to support it.
Likewise, I find myself in accord with section 7 of the bill which
would provide incentive pay of either $55 a month for an enlisted
man, or $110 for an officer, who is on duty "inside a high- or low-pres-
sure chamber." Present law already provides incentive pay for those
who are on duty as a "low-pressure-chamber inside observer," and the
law would be amended to include duty in a low- and high-pressure
chamber, regardless of whether or not the individual is an observer.
. Also, I find myself in accord with section 8 of the proposed legisla-
tion which permits an individual to draw two incentive pays. Today
the law restricts an individual to one incentive pay.
Right there, Mr. 131andford, give them an example of two incentive
pays about the paratrooper or one of our dangerous missions.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is in the next paragraph.
Mr. RIVERS. While there will not be many cases of this nature,
nevertheless I believe that if an individual is qualified and is perform-
ing duties in two incentive pay areas, then there is no reason he should
not draw the two incentive pays. Ihave not seen a cost estimate on
this section, but it will be very small.
MT. BLANDFORD. 1 have a figure of $1,900,000.
Mr. RIVERS. For example, we provide paratroopers incentive pay
and we also provide incentive pay for those who handle demolitions.
There are also paratroopers who must be demolition experts?and
when you combine the two together, it is obvious that it becomes an
extremely hazardous occupation. There is no reason why individuals
performing duties of this nature should not draw two incentive pays.
Next we come to section 9 on page 17 of the bill, which repeals the
authority for special pay for sea and foreign duty.
This special pay is applicable only to enlisted personnel and under
this provision of law enlisted personnel draw amounts ranging from
$8 for an E-1 to $22.50 per month for the E-7's, 8's, and 9's. This
type of pay is intended to provide a small amount of compensation
to the enlisted man who serves at sea, or is stationed overseas. In
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04l2j1): CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
fiscal 1961 it is estimated that this provision of existing law will cost.
approximately $133 million.
The proposed legislation seeks to repeal this provision of law and
substitute in its place special pay for duty involving unusual hardship
:which will be found on page 12 of the proposed legislat ion.
I am advised that the fiscal est innu-c! for 1964 for duty involving
unusual hardship. if it is implemented, would only iavolve about $30
million. It is intended to be applicable to officers as well as enlisted
personnel, and it will be in amounts equal to 15 percent or 25 percent
of the basic pay of the member concerned. l'nder the proposal, we are
asked to delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority to deter-
mine who would be cut itled to this extra pa:v.
Today any enlisted man who goes to .sea, or any enlisted man who
goes overseas, is entit led to sea or foreign duty pay. The subititute
proposed would obviously be applieabh. to far fewer persons titan now
draw sea and foreign dot y pay.
Frankly, I do not believe we should repeal the present law which
provides sea and foreign duty pay for all enlisted personnel.
In the first place, if it is repealed, it will immediately result in many
individuals receiving a very small pay increase after they liav.2 been
led to believe they will receive a fairly substantial pay increase. In
fact, in the case of E--1's, they would have to be protected against a
reduction on a saved-pay basis, and continue to draw sea pay because
the increase in their basic pay would not be equivalent to their sea par.
I rather suspect that if we were to adopt the section dealing with
unusual hardship that very few people now at sea. would qualify. I
believe that any enlisted man who goes to sea for ext (gide(' periods of
lime is Pm it led to some extra compensat ion.
am very much afraid that if we eliminate sea pay we will seriously
affect the morale of our enlisted personnel in the Navy and Coast
Guard. I think the same reasoning is true in the case of our enlisted
personnel who are serving overseas.
T would he the first to admit that there are undoubtedly many in-
dividuals dra wino- sea and foreign duty pay who are not cut ii led to
extra compensat ion. For example, I don't believe that. an indi vidual
assigned to a ship who is living ashore and who spends every evening
home with his family should draw sea pay.
And T find it difficult to believe thou duty in Wiesbaden, or Tokyo,
or Paris, or Thmolulu, or Naples is diflicult duty. _1s a matter of fact,
there are many enlisted personnel who would like to Lave more of this
type of duty. But. the fact that there are some who are drawing sea
and foreign duty pay where it is probably not justified does not con-
vince MC that the entire concept of sea and foreign duty pay should
be eliminated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned. I will not support.
the proposed repeal of sea and foreign duty pay, evcn though it. will
add $133 million to the cost oft he bill.
On page 12, you will find section 10 which repeals the authority for
responsibility pay. This pay has never been implemented by the
Department of Defense. It was inserted in the 1958 Pay Act by the
Senate, and the House Committee on Armed Services never con-
sidered the proposal as a committee. Members of the commit tee NIVI
remember we accepted it in Congress. It u
is Inc nderstanding t
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2114Q1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
the Army and Marine Corps are opposed to the implementation of
this provision of law. As far as I am concerned, if the Department
of Defense wants to repeal the authority since they do not intend to
implement it, then I would have no objection. however, we should
discuss the pros and cons involved.
The question of whether or not we should approve section 11, on
page 18, which provides special pay for duty involving unusual hard-
ship will depend upon what we decide to do with sea and foreign duty
pay. I can visualize situations that would fully justify the hardship
special pay recommended in this provision. There are many remote
areas of the world where our officers and enlisted personnel are serv-
ing. Certainly nothing could be more remote than sitting in front
of a radar screen on 'a mountaintop many miles from civilization.
Certainly no one could quarrel with the unusual hardship of serving
on a destroyer between New Zealand and McMurdo Sound near the
Antarctic. Certainly no one can argue that living in the jungles of
South Vietnam is not an unusual hardship. But there are also other
problems involved which are not covered by this proposal?such as
the unusual amount of temporary duty that certain personnel of our
Services must perform.
All of you have undoubtedly received correspondence from Air
Force personnel, in particular, who have had their per diem allowance
eliminated while on temporary duty. I will discuss this matter fur-
Thor when we come to the family separation allowance provision.
If we retain sea and -foreign duty pay, and I believe we should, then
undoubtedly the provision dealing with unusual hardship should be
eliminated. I don't believe we can justify both. We save $30 million
annually by deleting this section.
This leads me then to page 19 and section 12, entitled "Career
Incentive Payment."
The concept of this provision is that the services should be allowed
to pay a bonus to certain individuals with critical skills ranging from
$500 to $2,400 when they come up for their first reenlistment.
Today, existing law provides reenlistment bonuses up to a maximum
of $2,000 in the following amounts: On the first reenlistment, an
enlisted man receives a bonus consisting of his monthly pay multiplied
by the number of years for which he reenlists. On his second reen-
listment, he receives two-thirds of his monthly basic pay times the
years for which he reenlists. On his third reenlistment, he receives
one-third of his monthly basic pay times the number of years for
which he reenlists; and in the fourth and subsequent reenlistmonts,
one-sixth of his monthly basic pay times the number of years for
which he reenlists. But he may not be paid more. than the maximum
of $2,000.
You will be interested to learn that in fiscal 1962 the military serv-
ices paid bonuses to 246,000 servicemen involving more than $133
million, or an average of about $500 per man.
The present system of paying reenlistment bonuses would be phased
out under the proposed legislation and in its place we are asked to
substitute a career incentive payment which would amount to one
payment at the first reenlistment. Those with the highly critical skills
could receive as much as $2,100, and those with lesser skills as little
as WO.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1404
The theory behind this concept is that. the first reenlistment is the
critical point in determining whether an individual will make a career
of the armed services. And in support of this, the Department con-
tends that those who have reenlisted once or more have it reenlistment
rate of approximately SS percent.
A.1.3, concern, however, is that by phasing out the present reenlistment
bonus systetn, the career reenlistment rate of SS percent may begin to
decline. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether the
second and subsequent reenlistment rates are affected by the present
reenlistment bonus system.
Frankly, I do not think we should adopt the career incentivt. system
proposed in the bill before us because_ I think it. might have a very
serious ailed upon future. reenlistmenLs.
But in iuldition. I would like to call the subconanittee's attention
to the fact that the Department of Defense has never fully imple-
mented the proficiency pay system that was authorized in the 1958
pay act. That year, we authorized three types of proficien.7,y pay-
ments for enlisted personnel with special skills. We authorized a P-1
rating in the amount of Sat a month; a 1-.2 rating in the amount. of
$100 a month; and a P-3 rating in t he amount of Slat a month. You
will be interested to learn that the maximum amounts paid today are
$30 for P-i's, $60 for P-22s, and the P-3 program has never been im-
plemented. At present, there are. 2.,225,000 enlisted personnel on
active duty in our Armed Forces. Of this number, 205,000 enlisted
personnel receive P--1 pay, and only 41,000 receive P---2 pay.
Before we delegate additional authority to th a
e Secretry of :Defense
or authorize another system to encourage the reenlistment of those
with critical skills, I tItink it might be wise if the. Department im-
plemented the law we gave them in l958. For the reasons I have
stated. I am opposed to the enactment of the career ticentive payment
as suggested in the proposed legislation.
That brings me to page .24, and special pay for those Nvho are subject
to hostile fire.
As you know, the Congress enacted a Combat Duty Pay Act in
1952, but under the terms of that law it is restricted to the geographical
location of Korea. I might mention, for the benefit of the. subcom-
mittee, that the Combat Duty Pay Act of 1952 was never considered
by the Committee on Armed Services: it was added as a Senate amend-
ment to a Veterans Affairs bill and became law.
recognize that there are many arguments in support of a special
pay for individuals who are exposed to enemy tire, bat the more I read
this section, the more I foresee serious problems of implemernation.
Beyond that is the quest ion of whether or not such a provision should
be made retroactive for those who have already been subjected to
hostile the in such places as South Vietnam, the Congo, and in air-
craft that have been shot down by Communist aircraft or Communist
missiles.
This section, if enacted, may also involve us in some very interesting
international complications. If we have, troops in certain parts of
the world who are suppmsed to be there for training purposes, could
we announce in an appropriation net that. they are being paid the
equivalent of combaf duty pa-v?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 14131-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Beyond that is the question of the philosophy involved as to whether
or not an individual should be paid extra pay -for performing the
duties for which he is basically employed. For these reasons, I am
of the opinion that the section should be deleted from the bill. Since
there is no money in the budget for this provision, I am unable to
project a cost savings if we delete this section:
This takes us to section 15 dealing with an increase in basic allow-
ances for subsistence for officers.
At present, all officers are entitled to a monthly subsistence allow-
ance of $47.88; the proposed bill would increase this amount to $77
per month. The estimated cost of this increase amounts to $120 mil-
lion per year. The $77 figure was arrived at by multiplying the daily
present ration allowance which is granted to enlisted men serving in
an area where Government messing facilities are not available.
I think there is little doubt that without increasing the subsistence
allowance for officers, and particularly the officers in the junior grades,
the overall increases proposed in this bill would not be adequate to
bring about the results that are sought.
On the other hand, I cannot justify in my own mind an increase in
subsistence allowances for officers without taking some action to in-
crease the $1.03 per day commuted ration now being paid to the
800,000 enlisted personnel who are allowed to draw this allowance,
as well as those few enlisted personnel who draw the $2.57 per day
allowance that is authorized when messing facilities are not avail-
able. I believe, therefore, it would be desirable for us to consider
establishing a statutory commuted ration of $1.25 per day for en-
listed personnel who are permitted to mess separately. This would
add $54 million a year to the cost of the bill. The figure of $1.25
will provide for the increase in the cost of food to the consumer,
and will also represent the savings to the Government reflected in re-
duced logistic support, messing facilities, and food handlers.
I believe we should also increase the $2.57 per day now authorized for
certain .enlisted personnel by 26 percent, or 68 cents a day, which is
approximately the increase in the cost of food away from home since
the allowance was last increased in 1952. This would add about $15
million a year to the cost of the bill.
Insofar as officers are concerned, I suggest we increase their present
subsistence allowance of $47.88 per month by approximately 6.6 per-
cent?the increase in the actual cost of food since 1052. I suggest
$51 a month, since this figure is divisible by 30 and is easier to
administer. Such an increase will cost $13 million a year.
However, since junior officers and junior warrant officers, in par-
ticular, will be affected by this proposed reduction in the subsistence
allowance, I further suggest that we increase the basic pay scales
of all first and second lieutenants, and all MT-1's and W-2's by $15
a month; and that we increase all other officer and warrant officer
pay scales by $10 a month.
This will increase the cost of the 'bill approximately $47 million
a year, but approximately 20 percent of this will be returned to the
Government in income taxes.
To recapitulate my suggestion on subsistence, let me say this:
1. The estimated increase cost of the subsistence allowance for
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/01144 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
officers is $120 million annually. This was based on an increase of
$29 it month.
2. No increase in subsistence was recommended for enlisted
personnel.
Aly proposal would result in the following cost. estimates:
I. Establish a statutory ctuntuuted ration for enlisted perionnel
of $1.25 a day over the present rate. This vill cost $:1.1 million a year.
2. Increase the $2.57 now authorized for enlisted personnel where
messing facilities are not available by about 26 percent, or a cents
a day. This will cost about $15 million a rear.
3. Increase the subsistence allowance for officers about 6.6 !percent
from $47.88 to $51 a month. This is the increase in the cost of food
since 1952. This will cost about $13 million a year.
.1. Increase the basic pay scales of all first and second lieuttnams,
and all W fs, and W-2's, by $15 a month. This will cost about
$20,160,000 a year.
Increase the basic pay of all other officers by $10 a month. This
will cost $27 million it year.
0. Total cost of my proposal is $129,160,000, as opposed to the
estimated $120 million for the increase in subsistence propoied in
the bill for officers.
7. Part. of this cost will be returned to the Government in income
taxes.
8. To offset this, however, future retirement costs will be increased
as it result of increasing the basic pay scales.
fully realize that my suggestion does not give. officers as much
take-home pay as the amounts recommended in the Department of
1)efense proposal.
(hi the other hand, we cannot justify a substantial increase in sub-
sistence allowances for officers, without providing al increase for en-
listed personnel in those areas where they are emitkd to draw either
a commuted ration or a ration where messing facilities are not
available.
In my tentative proposal. I have tried to stay within the 81211
million figure that_ was recommended for the increase in subststence
allowances for officers.
My suggestion means that officers will receive from $11 to $16 a
month less in take-home pay than the amount suggested in Cie-De-
partment. proposal. If we restore the elllire autumn and put it in
the pay scales, we will of course go well beyond the $120-indlion
increase recommended in the hill for this provision. If the sub-
committee decides to provide. further increases in the basic pay scales
soI out officers will receive the increases proposed by the Depalment
of Defense, (heti I will support. such a change. Tins will be up to
the subcommittee. In taking this action we must. remember that
subsistence allowances lia?e the advantage of being nontaxab:e, and
the disadvantage of not being considered a part. of pay for retire-
ment purposes. On the other hand, increases in basic pay are taxable,
but kale the advantage of increasing retirement pay.
Section 16 of the bill deals with the quarters allowances that are
payable when a husband and wife are both members of the- uniformed
services. This is a technical provision whirh. is not applicable to a
substantial number of people. However, it is a correction that. is
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : Alev-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
necessary in the law. It will benefit some, and wit houta savings pro-
vision, would also bring about a reduction in allowances for others.
Briefly, what the section will do is to provide that where a husband
and wife are both members of the uniformed services and they are in
the same area, then the husband may draw a quarters allowance pay-
able to an individual with dependents unless either one voluntarily
occupies Government quarters. Under existing law, each can draw a
single quarters allowance but neither can draw any allowance if there
are single quarters available to each of them on the base.
Section 17 will be found on page 31, under the heading "Family
separation allowance."
This section is intended to permit an individual with dependents
who is assigned to an area where his dependents are not permitted to
be with him and there are no Government quarters available to him,
to draw a station allowance which will include an amount equal to the
basic allowance for quarters for a member without dependents. I
can best illustrate the purpose of this section by giving an example.
If a major is assigned to an area outside the United States, where
there are no Government quarters available and his family is pro-
hibited from joining him, he draws the quarters allowances payable
to an officer with dependents. This allowance, however, merely covers
the cost of his household in the United States. In determining his
oversea allowance, however, he is only allowed the difference between
the allowances paid to a member without dependents and the allow-
ances paid to a member with dependents. The difference obviously is
insufficient in many areas to cover the cost of commercial housing
which he must obtain for himself.
On the other hand, the title of the section is somewhat misleading
for I believe that members of the armed services were anticipating
an actual family separation allowance which would provide a sum of
money to the head of the household when his family was separated
from him because they were prohibited from joining the bread-
winner.
Certainly there are many costs that are incurred when a wife is
maintaining a household without the assistance of her husband, not
the least of which is fixing a leaky faucet, cutting the grass, shoveling
snow, repairing the roof, fixing 'broken windows, and the multitude
of other chores that undoubtedly add to household expenses when the
husband is not present to do the work.
In addition, it will be noted that this section is only applicable to
an individual who is assigned to a permanent duty station. As I
mentioned earlier, there is no provision in the bill which compensates
the individual separated from his home for long periods of time on
temporary duty. In addition, the Department of Defense recently
eliminated the per diem allowances for individuals who are on tem-
porary duty even for long periods of time if they are in an area where
housing and messing facilities are available.
have been impressed with the munber of reasonable and sensible
complaints that I have received from well-meaning citizens who take
exception to this elimination of per diem allowances. I think there
are times when we are penny wise and pound foolish, and I think
this is an excellent example.
Personally, I believe the family separation allowance section in this
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04121 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
bill, as written, should be modified, mid that we should provide an
adequate benefit. Certainly we should not limit ourselves to a very
minor part of a very large problem. I suggest we amend this section
by adding the following language to section 17:
When a member of the uniformed services with dependents is assigned to a
temporary duty station for a period in excess of 30 days, his por diem allowance
shall not be less than 1 per day.
Except in time of war or national emergency hereafter del-tared by the Con-
gress, when a member of the uniformed servkes is entitled to a basic allowance
for quarters as a member with dependents, limier section -103, title 37, United
Slates Code, as amended, and is assigned to a permanent duty station whcre his
dependenets are precluded by competent anti ority from residing at or near his
Permanent duty station, including duty aboard a ship, or when a member with
dependents entitled to a basic allowance for quarters its a member with depend-
ents, under section -103, title 37, United States Code, as amended, is assigned to
a temporary duty station for a period in excess of 30 days, Le is entitled to ;t
special family separation allowance of one-third of the quarters allowanc9 pay-
able to a member without dependents for his grade. or :-.=20, per month, which-
ever is greater. in addition to any per diem allowance to which the member may
otherwise be entitled.
This language will cost about $5U million a year, and will at, least
recognize the costs involved in long family separations. I realize that
language may have to be revised, but it will give N-01t the general idea
of my suggestion.
Section lk deals with the advance movement of dependents, bag-
gage, and household yams.
Today there is authority for such action, but ot* limier unusual
and emergency conditions. The propa-ed sect ion would broaden this
to take care of other situations in which it is necessary for individ-
uals to return to the rnited States before a permanent chancre of
station set of orders have been issued to the service member.
That brings us to section 19 on page 34, dealing with travel and
transportation allowances which are authorized for travel perfcrmed
under orders that are cancelled, revoked, or modified.
I ant in full sympathy with the objectives of this section for it
would permit an individual to he paid for travel and transportation
costs incurred after he has left his last duty station and has proceeded
toward his new duty station, and then new orders are issued can-
celling the original orders.
However, I would call the attention of the subcommittee to Cita fact
that this provision is retroactive. It is the only provision in the
bill which is retroactive and I do not believe it would be wise for
us to consider in this bill any provision which is retroactive. I
believe this section should stand or fall on its own merits and that
it should he considered as a separate legislative item. For that reason,
I am of the opinion that it should he deleted from the bill.
Section 00 of the bill deals with uniform allowances for officers
of the re!rular components. As you Inow, Reserve officers now re-
cieve a uniform allowance of S.20o upon entering on active duty.
Under this suggested provision, all officers, Reserves and Regulars
:dike, who herea'-fter enter on active duty will be authorized a uni-
form allowance of $250.
Frankly, I do not believe we can justify giving a uniform allow-
ance to Regular officers. This is their .areer and they have tenure of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : pil&RDP661300403R000400280006-0
office. This is not true of reservists. While I recognize that regular
officers of the Public Health Service receive this benefit, I do not
believe we can properly extend this benefit to all Regular officers.
This brings us to page 37 and readjustment pay for enlisted mem-
bers who are involuntarily released from active duty.
This, of course, involves the question of quality control. We have
readjustment pay today for reservists and for Regular officers,. and
this section seeks to extend readjustment pay to regular enlisted
personnel who are released from active duty involuntarily or not
accepted for an additional tour of duty after serving 5 or more years,
of continuous active duty.
This, in effect, is an extension. of an existing benefit to enlisted
personnel of the regular services. It would entitle a regular en-
listed man to as much as 2 years of basic. pay if he is not reenlisted.
This section must be carefully analyzed by the subcommittee, be-
cause there are arguments both for and against the proposal.
Parenthetically, I handled the Reserve incentive-1 mean separa-
tion bill now on the statute books, and we wanted to pay them when
they got out. This reverses the whole philosophy. We simply want
to keep the enlisted men, yet we give them a bonus to get rid of
them. So I want the subcommittee to look at this thing pretty
closely.
Finally, we come to page 39 and the effective date proposed, Oc-
tober 1, 1963.
Last year I was impressed with the need for an increase in quarters
allowances because allowances had not, been increased for 10 years.
They finally went into effect, however, on January 1 of this year.
1 believe we are all convinced that a pay increase is fully justified
for members of the uniformed services. But I know of no provision
in this bill which has created more dissatisfaction among service
personnel than the proposed effective date of October 1, 1963. Al-
ready individuals have delayed requests for retirement; others who
are to be retired involuntarily in the months ahead are complaining,
with considerable justification, that they are being denied a pay
increase which will not be reflected in their retirement pay because
of the proposed effective date. And finally, there are those who argue
that if a pay increase is justifiable, it is justified now.
find myself in complete accord with these arguments. For that
reason I am of the opinion that the effective date should be the
first day of the first month following the month in which it is en-
acted; and in addition to that, I believe we should insert a provision
in this proposed legislation to the effect that any individual who
retires during calendar year 1963 will be able to compute his or
her retirement pay under the new pay scales when they go into
effect. This will stop some Reserve officers who will soon be invol-
untarily retired, from enlisting in the Army or Air Force and then
applying for retirement after the effective date of the act. It will
also stop many individuals from turning in to hospitals to wait
out the effective date of the act. Finally, it will eliminate pressures
on the services to retain individuals on active duty until the new
law goes into effect.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/94q1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Frankly, it will eliminate man v I liiuizs I eall'i now ,onceive of.
sI let's put them all under the same tent and got it over with.
Nov. members of the subcommittee. I have given you my candid
observations ,and recommendations on the proposed legislation and I
hope they will be helpful to you. Yon also ha VI' be hue von it com-
mittee print NI:111dh. analyzes present law, proposed law, and provides
continents concerning the various changes.
liefore I conclude I tVollht like to say this: perhaps we may have
deler 10 1 lie executive branch of the Government when it con :es to
question of missile .thrust. weapons production. or awarding or can-
celing contracts, lint he area of pay and benefits for the armed serv-
ices. I am confident that we need not defer to anyone. The ConA it ti-
t ion says we shall raise and support armies and provide for a itavv,
and we atom, have this responsibility.
We appreviate all of the recommendat ions that are lie borv ii.. but
we also have some highly qualified experts of our own right here
this committee. I believe that collectively we have more knowledge in
the area of pay and benefits than any comparable group in the execu-
tive branch of Government, iind I believe we should now proceed to
demonstrate that competence.
That is my short, concise statement.
1-,aught en]
Mr. I Nun% Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to compliment von
tile comprehensive nature of your statement and on your conclu-
sions.
Mr. llivEas. Thank you. sir.
Mr. Jimmy. I hope you will permit one other question. I t rust
the chairman, who has expressed himself rather positively oil some
provisions of the proposed bill, reserves the right to change his mind
after he heats (he test imuny ?
Mr. Itavnts. 'Well, I have already sa nit hat .
Those of von who don't know the subcommittee have a lot to learn,
and a surprise ahead. This subcommittee has It mind of its ovvo.
We are complimented this morning having our dist ingiushed chair-
man here. That demonst rates his intense interest iii t tis area.
We have hind numerous and many nivel mugs with 1.11(` ChairMall,
lilandford ;old 1, and he has gone over this bill many I hoes, and his
presence here this morning demonstrates to all iii .V011 his (lilertilina-
1 ion that a fair and equitable bill be fortlicuminn from this session of
the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, would you like to say something
Chairman ViNsoN. 'Mr. Chairman, I Via 111 I joi 1 Mr. Hardy Ii
complimenting you On this very tine analytical statement. r think
it lays before the committee the facts ii such a manner that yon can
get right down to the controversy.
eompliment you on your splendid analysis of it.
Mr. ErvEns, Thank .you very much, Mr. Chairmao. We urn very
appreciat ivy ancl grateful for your appearance.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :101A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now, we will hear from the Honorable Norman S. Paul, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manpower.
Mr. Paul, we will be very pleased to hear from you at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN S. PAUL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR MANPOWER
Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to emphasize, if I may, that the statement I am about to
read is a statement of the Secretary of Defense, and to express kis
regrets that he could not be with the subcommittee this morning. He
is tied down with the German Defense Minister at the moment, and,
as you all know, or many of you know, has just completed some GO
hours of testimony before committees of the Congress.
So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read this statement,
then submit myself to questions.
Mr. RIVERS. Go right ahead, sir.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee:
I welcome the opportunity to submit this statement in support of the proposed
Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963, which was submitted to the Congress by
the Department of Defense on behalf of all the uniformed services. We are
prepared to explain the bill in whatever detail the committee may desire. In
this statement, however, I will limit my remarks to a discussion of the background
and major objectives of H.R. 3006, which I hope will receive your favorable
consideration.
BACKGROUND AND MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The proposed adjustments in compensation for members of the uniformed
services are based upon a comprehensive staff study of military compensation
undertaken during the past year by the Department of Defense at the direction
of the President.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, this study took 10 months of very
concentrated work by a number of individuals.
The bill now before you for consideration implements the President's recom-
mendations concerning needed adjustments in compensation for service mem-
bers contained in his budget message to the Congress for the fiscal year 1964.
In his message, the President stated:
In this era of increasingly complex weapons and military systems, a large part
of the effectiveness of our defense establishment depends on the retention of
well-trained and devoted personnel in the armed services. General military
pay was last increased 4% years ago. Since then, higher wages and salaries in
private industry have provided strong inducement for highly trained military
personnel to leave the service for better paying jobs in civilian life. To help
meet this serious problem, and in fairness to the dedicated personnel in our
Armed Forces I will shortly submit to the Congress specific recommendations for
increases in military compensation rates effective October :1, 1963."
Since the primary function of the military pay system is to attract and retain
sufficient qualified personnel to sustain our military forces at required levels
of effectiveness, the .first phase of the Defense study of military compensation
Involved an exhaustive analysis of the current and prospective manning situ-
ation in the Armed Forces. Following the manning analysis, the compensation
system itself was examined to determine if changes were necessary to improve
the system, and the compensation adjustments which should he made for mem-
bers in the different pay grades. Accordingly, in evaluating the merits of H.R.
3006, it may be helpful to consider the manpower situation in the Armed Forces
today, and the retention problems which principally determined the pattern of
he pay increases which we are proposing in this bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/9401 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
TILE MANPOWER SITUATION IN TILE -kR.M1-31 FORM'S
ENI..1s-rEo riltstix NEI.
Procurcmcat
The Armed Forces, with an enlisted strength of approximately 2.-4 million, are
required to re dace almost one-half in n I hit ei I menalters annually, or ap-
proximately one-lifth of the tidal enlisted force. All the armed services, except
the Army. are meeting their enlisted manpower needs through voluntary enlist-
ments. The Army continues to obtain a part of its requinffliebt fi:r new recruits
from induetions.
Voluntary enlistments undoubtedly reflect a sincere motivation on the part of
mar young people to serve their rountry. There is lilt10 ctniihl, hoW0x0r. 11014.
1110 0X hit 011( -0 of the draft has been. a most important factor in this picture.
llecause the art exists. tile 111.fljori ty 1,f young 111011 assume that they will be
required to serve in the Art ii' Ft rips at some time after reaching the age of
1s1.:2 years.
fliti0/1
Wilk' Ha' Armed Foreps have been quite successful in ohtaining the rtquired
number if 1111'1 i for enlistml servire. Hwy have hail far less success in retaining
them beyond the first enlistment or induction period. 'Mae retnlistmen- rates
for first-term Hirst ter-niers are those who have served an initial aetive duly
tour as a _Regular I Regulars are shown in chart l.
There are it number of reasons for this, but two reasons stand out alive all
others. First and probably foremost, is that a large mainber of men come into
the military set-vire Wit Ii 110 illf0111 loll Of making it a pareer. The see aid reason
is that the imy and other tangible incentives whit-ll the Aimed Fort-es min
adrer have not kept lame with those of private industry and civilian govemmeut
employment. and in fact lire insufficient tip induip barge numbers to continue in the
military service as a career.
(Chart 1 is :is follows :1
II A WI' 1.-lren 1/4/ awn! ratcs for firxt-term regulars, by major occupational
groups, fiNcat year 1957 to fiscal pear 1962
Major ocoujoitIonal group
All occupations
round minim t
Electronics
(1118-r Le _ - -
Administrative derma _
echanics and repairmen
Crafts
Services _
Nliscellanernp
11,57
.11.11
Al. 6
34. 5
4
25. 9
16. 3
.11.4
is. 5
1958
1959
11/r41
11151 19112
27.
30.11
21.2
2.5.3
27.4
21.3
24.6
18. 6
27.7
26. 6
24. 8
26. 8
Ir. 9
20.1.
25. 5
23. 2
2
22. 3
25. 8
26, G
27. 0
31. 6
24.9
27. 4
28. 8
32 2
32 3
22. 0
25.1
27. 2
29_ 7
33. 4 i
24. 1
2.5.
27. 5
34.5
17.5
211.7
32.11
33. 5
24. 4
21. 4
16. 1
20. r.
24. 1
Since 1957 the overall reenlistment rate of first-term regulars has th.ctuated
Bround 1i ier cent. However, the rates vary ronsiderahly by career field and
military slice-tatty. The lowest rates tire in ciectronies and other technical career
fielits widen are in greatest demand by intinst ry.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at this point, that the chart on
page -I shows a fairly consistent reenlistment rate for first-telm reg-
ulars. Although these are actualy figures. I would like to call the
committee's attention to the fact that there is quite a variation within
each of these categories (lint. I have indicated.
Also, I would like to emphasize to the committee, as I believe I do
in my statement, that the retention rates we desire in certain of these
categories are quite different than they are in others. I will point
that out later 05.1 115. Luy 6L5.t,43Mmatt.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CWRDP661300403R000400280006-0
Overall retention rates are useful as indicators of trends, but in the final.
analysis it is the number of men retained by skill groups which is important.
The military services have determined the desired percentage of careerists
(regular enlisted men serving on a second or subsequent enlistment) for each
skill grouping which is identified as the "desired career ratio." A desired
career ratio of 65 percent in a particular skill would mean that 65 percent of
all men in that career field should be careerists. 35 percent first-termers.
As a general rule the higher the training costs, and the more complicated the
skill, the more desirable it is for the career ratio to be stabilized at a high level.
Rapid turnover of highly trained personnel boosts training costs and lowers the
operational effectiveness of the force. In fields where the training period is
short and training costs low there are certain advantages in replacing a large
proportion of enlisted members very early in their careers. This minimizes
future compensation and retirement costs without reducing combat effectiveness.
For example, in the services category, a desired reenlistment rate
there or career rate would be '25 percent. In other skills, such as
electronics, it is much closer to 50 percent, or higher.
The critical importance of our training and retention problem can be illustrated
by the following figures : First, the total cost of technical training in the Depart-
ment of Defense is nearly $1 billion per year. Nearly one-half of this cost is
associated with the training of electronic technicians, because of the longer train-
ing periods and the high cost of the training equipment. Our studies indicate
that the average cost of initial training for the electronics specialist is approxi-
mately $4,500, as compared to only $2,000 per man in administrative and clerical
skills.
For this reason the military services all recognize that there is a need for a
relatively high proportion of careerists in the most technical enlisted skills,
with desired ratios averaging aboilt 60 percent. Actual career manning in these
skills, however, at present averages only about 40 percent for the Department
of Defense as a whole.
The situation I have described is, of course, an average picture which varies
considerably by service and by individual specialty. The cause of the low tech-
nician career ratios lies, of course, in the low first-term reenlistment rates in
these skills.
The reenlistment rate of individuals completing their second or subsequent
enlistments is quite satisfactory, averaging almost 90 percent. Undoubtedly
the military retirement system- is of paramount importance in the reenlistment
decision of most individuals, who have completed their second enlistment. This
generally occurs at about the 8- to 10-year point. Relatively few men feel they
can give up 8 or more years of service toward future retirement even if offered
substantially more salary in a civilian occupation. Under the military retire-
ment system, a member receives nothing in retirement benefits if he leaves the
service before completing at least 20 years of active service except, of course,
in the case of a member retired for physical disability.
In summary, there is abundant evidence that the critical retention problem
in all the services is associated with retaining individuals in most of the tech-
nical occupations upon completion of their initial term of service.
OFFICER PERSONNEL
General
The experience composition of the officer corps is characterized by two peaks
and an intervening valley. The largest numbers are in the 2 through 3
years of service group and the 19- through 21-year group. The valley is the
result of inadequate retention during the past 15 years and small annual input
of new officers following World War II. The 1- through 3-year peak highlights
the turnover of personnel upon completion of their obligated service; the 19-
to 21-year peak is the World War II officer "hump" as shown on chart 2, following.
85066--63--No.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 20044/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
55,000
20,000
(5,000
(0,000
5,000
CHART 2.?Dol Iollker distribution by years of service.
YEARS
upylig II IS 4 514 IE 10 li (3 16 14 13 141 a III
04410 la el 63 BO 511 67 64 65 64 63 52 ao dit 41I 4? 44(45
'MEW
1????6
--- =MD
ACTUAL
ie
44
10
43
31
41
41
ZS
40
32:81315
t4
3?
ET
36
54154
35 34
511
11
The ?mplications of this ' experience" distribution are of vital imp irtance to
the Armed Forces, The Armed Forces have boon able to live with the shorttges
in the 5 to 17 years of service group by assigning officers front World War II
to positions which normally would be tilled by officers with less service and
experience, and by assigning junior officers from the 1- to 4-y tar group to po-
sitions normally requiring more service and experience. This, of course, has
not been entirely satisfactory. Whatever other attributes a junior officer may
bring to his tasks, he cannot bring experience.
Although the services have benefited from the extraordinary experience level
created by the World War 11 hump, it has created certain undesirable situa-
tions. For example, it has limited the number of new officers that could be
brought into the services. It has affected the normal rate of promotion by slow-
ing promotions for those officers immediately behind the hump and by acceera-
ling promotions for those officers immediately ahead of the hump. In ether
words, it has generally disrupted normal career progression patterns.
The shortages in the middle management group depict a situation unique to
Ille military services. Unlike private enterprise which, when faced will a
similar situation, can hire men of the necessary experience to fill the voids, it
is necessary for the military services to bring aboard young inexperienced ofhcers
anti hope to retain them,
Procurement
Prom a variety of sources, the services have obtained each year as many junior
officers as force limitations would allow. Mille, the desire to serve their country
undoubtedly plays a part in attracting new officers into the service, in a large
olio it must hv ass:Ullied OW Ow P,Tistynce if the draft has been responsible in
substantial part for uhis suir,v.
Rf.ten t
officer retention rates have varied among the services anti among the pronire-
mem sources. As a group, service academy graduates are the most likely to
remain in service: approximately 85 percent have remained beyond their obli-
gated service period. Army and Air Force officers commissioned from officer
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : iTIMRDP661300403R000400280006-0
candidate school (00S) have a retention factor of about 75 percent. Retention
of Air Force aviation cadet graduates since 1957 has ranged between 65 and 90
percent.
The reasons for the high retention rates among officers commissioned from
these three sources are understandable. Graduates of the service academies are
among the most highly motivated and career intentioned of all officers; their
environment, associations, and experiences at the academies have brought them
to this desirable state by well-planned steps. For the OCS graduate, the change
from enlisted to officer status is a powerful career motivation. The aviation
cadet program, by obligating its graduates to 5 years of service, tends to attract
career-oriented volunters. Also their flight status entitles them to extra pay
which undoubtedly enhances their career interest. However, these three sources
together have been contributing annually only about 10 percent of the new
officers required. The remainder enter through sources with much poorer
retention experience.
The retention rate of ROTC graduates, which is a major source of officer
personnel, is a disappointing 33 percent. The Navy officer candidate school,
which provides about one-third of the officers annually commissioned by the
Navy, has had a consistently low retention rate of about 12 percent. Officers
commissioned from the latter program serve an obligated tour of 3 years?then
most of them return to civilian life. The major procurement sources for naval
flying officers are the aviation cadet and aviation officer candidate programs;
these sources have had, with the exception of Naval Academy graduates, the
highest Navy retention rates, 45 percent and 30 percent, respectively.
The services' inability to induce more officers to remain beyond their obligated
period of service directly affects the quality of the middle-management group,
and increases training costs. In order for the services to put into the career
force annually at the 4-, 5-, and 6-year points. the 11,000 to 13,000 officers they
require, they have had to accept from 93 percent to 08 percent of the officers
who apply for indefinite career status. Obviously, from a quality standpoint
alone, the military services would welcome an opportunity to be more selective.
In addition, beter retention and selection is desired from a cost standpoint.
Each officer represents an appreciable investment in precommission and train-
ing costs. When officers leave after serving the minimum tour of duty these
costs must be repeated with the procurement and training of replacements.
ADJUSTMENT OP MAJOR ELEMENTS OF MILITARY COMPENSATION
The military compensation system consists of several items that are received
by all members, and other items that are available only under special circum-
stances. Examples of the first are basic pay, quarters, and subsistence:
examples of the second are flying pay and oversea pay. It is a radically different
system from that which generally applies to civilians, where a single amount,
called a wage or salary, is paid. Some of the items received by military per-
sonnel are in cash, others are furnished directly to the member or his depen-
dents, in kind.
To facilitate discussion, I will use the term "regular compensation" of mili-
tary personnel to include basic pay, quarters, subsistence, and the value of the
Federal income tax exemption on quarters and subsistence, whether in cash
or in kind.
Tins is what they all get.
While this is not wholly equivalent to the wage or salary of a civilian it is
very largely so. Accordingly, I will discuss the existing system and the pro-
posed changes in such terms.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005{I*321 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Chart 3 shows the relative proportion of each of these elements for two ?dicer
and two enlisted it grades. In general, as you will see, the higher the grade,
the larger basic pay bulks as a proportion of regular compensation.
Chart 3 follows :
CitAla 3
COMPONENTS Of PIGULAR COMPENSATION - RAL.`fl) ON PROPOSED RATES
(SELECTED GRAD(S)
Tax Advattage 7.5% Tax Advantage 8.1 %
Saaektance 5.7%
COLONEL
Tax Advcritage 6.1%
Subs Wow, 6.1%
NO LIEUTENANT
E- 7
(-4
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : irWRDP661300403R000400280006-0
The proposed adjustments to each of the elements of compensation were
developed in the context of their effect on regular compensation.
The proposed alterations in regular compensation which would be effected
by art. 3006 were developed separately for officers and enlisted personnel.
I will discuss the basis for the adjustments, the resultant change in regular
compensation, and the estimated dollar impact of the proposed changes on the
DOD budget.
(A) OFFICER PERSONNEL
For officers, the largest percentage increases in regular compensation which
would be provided by UR. 3006 are in the first lieutenant and captain grades.
The percentage increase becomes progressively lower with each higher grade.
I believe that this pattern of increase will be most effective in meeting the
junior officer retention problem which I discussed earlier.
Between 1952 and 1955 the median earnings of full-time employed professional,
technical, and kindred workers, a group generally comparable to officer per-
sonnel, increased about 9 percent. The Career Incentive Act of 1955 increased
the regular compensation of officer personnel by about 7.6 percent on the aver-
age, with the largest increases given to the higher grades.
Between 1955 and 1958 the median earnings of professional, technical, and
kindred workers increased by 20 percent. The Military Pay Act of 1958 in-
creased the total pay of officers to an average of 8.6 percent, and again most
of the larger increases went to the higher grades; second lieutenants received
very little increase, first lieutenants received a 4.7-percent increase, and the
higher grades received increasingly higher percentage increases up to 21.9
percent for two-star officers. The 1958 pay adjustment was designed to retiavo
salary "compression" and to increase junior officer retention by improving the
long-term attractiveness of a military career. The percentage increase in regu-
lar compensation in 1955 and 1958 is shown on table 1.
Table 1
Grade
1955
1958
Grade
1955
1958
General
21. 5
1 28.0
lieutenant colonel
7.5
14.9
Lieutenant general
14. 1
22.2
Majoi
8. 2
0. 5
Major general
5. 8
21. 9
Captain
8.8
7.4
Brigadier general
6.3
21.2
1st lieutenant
8.9
4. 7
Colonel
8.1
10.2
2d lieutenan t
2.4
.7
1 Includes C/S.
While it is impossible to say what might have happened to junior officer reten-
tion in the absence of the 1958 pay adjustment, there has been little change in
the numbers of officers retained since that time. About 12,000 officers a year
have remained beyond a first tour of duty, and that is a number insufficient to
allow the services appreciable selectivity.
Between 1958 anti 1962, the median earnings of professional technical and
kindred workers increased by 15 percent.
In order to determine the probable effect of pay increases on the career moti-
vation of junior officers, an extensive series of surveys was conducted. While
these surveys are not reliable predictors of future retention they do provide
a guide to the level of increase which is likely to have a significant impact. The
surveys indicate that an increase of between $100 and $200 a month would sub-
stantially raise junior officer career intentions. Higher increases indicate only
marginal improvements.
Development of recommended changes in the individual elements of regular
compensation proceeded from a prior determination on the appropriate overall
level of compensation for each pay grade. The proposed basic pay scales were
developed after taking into account each of ?the other elements of compensation:
the increase in the BAQ, which the Congress granted last year and became effec-
tive on January 1, and the proposed increase (from $47.88 to $77 a month) in
the subsistence allowance provided by section 15 of the bill.
Illustrative examples of the present regular compensation for commissioned
officers and the compensation which would be provided by H.B. 3006 are shown
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/1041/.21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
ill a Itaehment 1 ttt the end Of this statement. For a gi'lleral %%lilt :10 years'
service. the proposed increases amount to a till a I ncrease of 0.0 percent. in regular
vompensation. lour a raptain with s years cif serviei in the exbinple
shown, a total increase in regular compensation of 17.4 percent. would i it pro-
vided by this bill.
During the past year Congress provided lilt ncrease in I lit ba-de II 1111:11
for quarters for members of the uniformed s,rvices. This iiwrease took ,.fffect
on January 1. 19l1:, As this increase is now effect, it has been included in the
-present compensation" ill I he examples vve have slaiwui.
I. NI.IS FED l'1.11140N
Almost 5 years have elapsed since the lust military pay aiEusi meld. In till
interim some erosion has taken place in the real value of tIn
these members and substant nil hiss rid:: live to the wage and salary gains of
workers in the civilian econolliY.
AS ill the case of the officer compensation review. changes iii I he
wages of cottiltarable groups sinee 11112 Ivere examined ill the process
of del erniming an appropriate increase in compensat ion for enlisted
personnel. 11etween 1 9:i2 and llj 1 he Nvitge increase for Arm \--Air
Force blue collar workers amounted to ii percent ; tiw ('alter
lye Act: of 195:i provided tin average nu tease ill regular compensation
of about, 11 percent. to t hose in grades E I and al tove. The pay 1 was
ure, although. applied select its, alining pa,v grades, %vas aimed
at increasingly ext reinely low ret el it loll across t he board.
Between 1955 anti 195s hinc-collar WageS I 151` 17.5 pereent : the Militar.,- Pay
Act of 1958 increased enlisted regular compensation in I.; I alai above by 7 per_
cent. By 1958 overall retention had become generally adequate. The praliliall
had become selective; 111111 is to say, the services 11 Prt. unable to retain adi [mate
numbers of enlisted personnel in niany teehnical oectipat ions. By June of 196:z.
Army-Air Forel. wage board 141w-collar wage rates hail he?reased by Is iwreent
over the level prevailing at tile time of the 111s pay a (lia,t1 meal
IIIIIStratiVe examples of tilt' present regular IIrttlh}l'u.5ht tItli rm enlisted member:
and the compensation which would be provided by ILIA. :1006 aro shown ill attach-
ment 2, also at the end of I Iii St itteinviti refort?iirv to I t.xa !nide!, ?:homi
it can be seen that for an E- 6 with 14 years of servive. he promiscil 12.7-1wrcent
increase in baste pay amounts to 7.14-perciall increase Ill regular compemation.
Poi. an 1.1-4 with 5 years Or Viol. the 17,f i-pi?-711.111 111(100:044. ill ,iasic pay aiwittuts
Iii 8.9-percent increase in regular compensation.
The largest increases have lawn provided for enlisted niendiers in pay run Its
E-7. N-8. 111111 K-9 at the 26-years-of-service point. lintel the present pay scale.
enlisted iii eillbVI'S in flay grqulcs F. ti and rcITive only ono lungevily in..rcase
if $10 a month liehveen 20 and 30 yuairs of ,-,o;vice. NII hIlgI vity- increases are
provided in the present scale for iin E 7 between 211- and :10-year service points.
lilt. :4006 would correct these delicienvies by providing substantial increases for
all three senior enlisted grades at the 22- and 20-year service points. At the
year point. the amount of the increase provided is 14120 for pay grades E s awl
E--9, and $100 for pay grade E 7. These inereases are designed to provide an
incentive for longer careers of highly qualiied, experienced iiii'iiiitt'r IIInowt
service requirements.
Son-le-what ille sante pltiloophy Hutt applied in 1 9:",ti \dim the ladr.-
preSs1011 was relieved ni lite officer pay rates.
The proposed changes in eimitteiv?al len for the lower enlisted grades are based
upon different considerations than those applicable to I In' higher grades. In illy
judgmient, the level of pay is not a significant Partin. in the recruitment of en-
listed personnel needNI for military duty. A sizable increase in ;my scale- :it the
point of entry hito service Nv,ittlii have tittle effect in attracting more pia simnel
or in linproving the quality of initial input.
Under the proptised pay SI.:1 leg tilt' raw of 1,ity 1 ir meniliers in pay grade E- 1.
with less than 2 years of service is :FS5 a niontli. In order o provide an ade-
quate pay differential bet?vemi the three hi,WC.Si pay grades. the rales proposPd
for members in grades E 2 and E--:1 I with less than 2 years of service) bre $95
and $11 5, respectively.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : 9,WRDP661300403R000400280006-0
INACTIVE DUTY DRILL PAY
Under existing law (section 206, title 37, United States Code), a member of
the National Guard or a member of a Reserve component of a uniformed service
performing inactive duty training is entitled to compensation for each regular
period of instruction of at least 2 hours' duration at the rate of 1 day's pay (i.e.,
one-thirtieth of the monthly basic pay) for a member of corresponding grade on
full time active duty.
II.R. 3006 provides for an increase in the present rates of drill pay for non-
obligated members of the Reserve components. This is considered necessary
to enhance the ability of the Reserve Forces to retain members beyond the
obligated service period.
The proposed legislation provides: that a member of the National Guard or of
a Reserve component of a uniformed service who has not completed. the obli-
gated period of Reserve component service imposed by law would continue to
receive drill pay based on the present rates of basic pay. At the same time, this
change provides for appropriate recognition due those members who voluntarily
have assumed an additional period of service after having completed that obli-
gated period of service imposed by law.
No change would be made by H.R. 3006 in existing provisions of law governing
rates of pay for a member of the National Guard or a member of a Reserve
component of a uniformed service when on active duty. All such members when
on active duty for any purpose, including active duty for training, irrespective
of whether they are serving an obligated period of service or not, would receive
the same rates of basic pay as members of the Active Forces.
The estimated DOD cost of providing higher rates of inactive duty drill pay
for members who have completed the obligated period of service imposed by law
is $27 million for fiscal year 1964 with an effective date of October 1, 1963.
Mr. BLANDrolin. May I interrupt at that point, Mr. Secretary. It
also contemplates a savings of $38 million by not paying that much to
the obligated reservist on inactive duty training; is that not correct?
Mr. PAUL. I believe that is an annual savings, yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Thank you.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, if I could go to two major changes in our
special pays.
TWO MAJOR CHANGES IN SPECIAL PAYS
H.R. 3006 would also effect two other major changes in the present coinpen-
sation system for members of the uniformed services. The first of these changes
would provide for a new system of career incentive payments. to replace over -a
period of time the present reenlistment bonus system. The second change would
repeal existing provisions for sea and foreign duty pay and provide instead a
new special pay for duties involving unusual hardship.
Career incentive payments
The current reenlistment bonus is not well designed for the retention problem
described earlier in my statement. It is paid to all individuals who reenlist,
regardless of skill, and the $2,000 ceiling is received over several reenlistment
periods. Consequently, its value as an inducement for initial reenlistment i.s
minimized. At subsequent reenlistment points, other aspects of the compensa-
tion system become more important, such as basic pay advances realized with
promotions, and the accumulated equity in retirement.
To replace the present reenlistment bonus entitlement II.R. 3006 would provide
for a system of variable payments keyed to critical skills and applicable to all
future first reenlistments. Designated "Career Incentive Payments," the new
entitlement would provide variable payments up to a maximum amount of $2,400
to individual's reenlisting for the first time in the most critical areas. A mini-
mum sum of $500 would be paid to all members reenlisting for the first time,
irrespective of their skill criticality, provided the period of prior service and the
period of reenlistment totaled at least 6 years.
Men reenlisting for the first time in a noncritical skill and who later retrain
into a critical skill would be entitled to receive the higher payment, less the
amount of the payment received at the time of first reenlistment. This feature
will provide a needed incentive :for voluntary retraining into more critical and
arduous occupations in short supply.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/10$41 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Members on active duty on the effective date of Mit. WOG who are serving on
a first or subsequent reenlistment would have to option of ren,aining unthr the
present reenlistment bonus system.
inerentental expenditure would be required for implementation or the
career incentive payment system. It would by phased in with the funds now
all to the reenlistment Imams.
special pay for duty involving v11118,4(11 harthth
Under I 1.11. 3006, additional compensation in the form of special pay at rates
of 15 pereent and 25 percent ((f basic pay would he authorized for membt is of
the uniformed services while on duty at specired locations or stations, mel :Wing
sea duty. Concurrently. llw 1.111 11.-?,11111 rtls`::1 existing provisions for sett and
foreign (NO' ;lay for enlisted members,
exist itia III iv. extra ',ay is not authorized for commissioned or warrant
I fficers assigned to oversea stations Ir sea duty, irrestiectivo of location or degree
of -hardship" inviiived. Enlisted menthers iire authorized extra pay for "spa
and foreign duty" ranging from *8 to $.22.50 per month, as the chairman f?tated
in his earlier statemelit.
The legislalive hisfory 4 ibis provision, however, makes ,?lear that i: was
neither intended nor designed as a seleetive extra pay for duty at locations of
unusual hardship. Consequently, the settle is the sante irrespective of location
outside the vont mental United Slates.
We believe I hat from tho standpoint of achieving 111:1X111111111 benefit from per-
sonnel dollar expenditures, extra pay for duty at speeified remote. and isolateil
locations ( including scant( sea duty) would Ice more effective than the present
system of sea and foreign duty pay.
The following conditions would govern tile entitlement to extra pay for duty
in unusual inirdships.
ii) Enlisted members and officers would be eligible on the same basis.
(2) Only two rates of special pay would be authorized. This would reduce a.
inneh as possible the problems inherent in attempting to effect subtle gradations
in hardship.
The amount of extra pay authorized for all grades would be 15 or 2:5
percent of basic pay, depending upon the "hardship" elassiliv:ition given to the
partitailar station or locality.
Provision of such extra pay as a percentage of basic pay rather titan a flat
solo would be in accordance with prevailing law and practice elsewhere in the
Federal Government.
'Phe proposed rates of 15 and 25 percent are based on judgmental factor,,,
in part, and in part upon consideration of the range I 10 21 percent now
authorized for Foreign Service and civil service employees. Consequently, 15
percent of haste pay is considered the minimum amount necessary to achieve the
intended purpose. The rate of 25 percent of .tasic pay would be authorized only
for those stations or locations, including specified sea duty, which inv?)lve
high degree of hardship. For planning purposes, it has been assumed that un-
usual hardship pay would be paid to about 611,000 likenthers at an average t.nnual
individual cost of $500, or a total DOD cost of approximately $22.1 million in
fiscal year 1961.
lit summary, the basis for the recommendation that a system of remote and
isolated duty pay be authorized, and the authority for sea and foreign ditty pay
be repealed, is that the purpose of both pays is the same: that is, morale. It
would recognize. however, that from an etiuitable standpoint this extra pay
should he provided on a selective basis with due regard given to the widely
varying conditions under which our personnel serve outside the continental
1111111S of the United States.
Al).11-STMENT OF' HETII:EMENT PAY
Few issues in military compensation are as complex or as difficult as those
affecting retired members of the military services and their ret rement or retainer
pay. The complexity steins in major part ftom the host of retirement laws en-
acted over past decades and the differing formulas prescribed In law for ,-iompu-
tation of retirement pay for different categories of personnel.
MR. WO contains two major provisions affecting present and future retire-
ment pay for members of the uniformed services. The first provision would, in
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
1421
general, repeal existing provisions of law which authorize recomputation of re-
tirement pay or retainer pay whenever the rates of basic pay for members on
active duty are changed. A new system would be provided for adjustment of
retirement pay in the future, based on increases in the Consumer Price Index.
The second provision deals with the problem of what adjustments should be made
in the retirement pay or retainer pay of members already retired, so as to provide
a fair and equitable base for transition to the proposed new system of retired
pay adjustment for all members in the future.
I will discuss each of these provisions in turn.
Until the Military Pay Act of 1958, adjustment of retired pay was linked to
changes in rates of basic pay for the Active Force. The system of adjustment,
referred to as "recomputation," involved adjusting the pay of retired military
personnel on the basis of the active duty basic pay rates. Whenever the latter
were changed retired members had their retirement pay recomputed.
Apart from historical precedent, recomputation has certain advantages. Since
retirement pay is based on active duty, disparities in rates of retirement pay
between members of the same grade and length of service were avoided. More-
over, a member retired either involuntarily or voluntarily, whether for age,
physical disability, or length of service had no reason to seek a delay in his
retirement. He knew that his retirement or his retainer pay would be the
same whether he retired before or after a pending pay increase. Under recompu-
tation the retirement date as such was not crucial since the level of retirement
pay always bore the same relationship to active duty basic pay.
On the other hand, some inequities are entailed in the recomputation system.
The major one of these revolves around the issue of preserving the real value
of the retirement annuity. Under recomputation, changes in retirement pay grew
out of changes in the management needs of the active duty force, and these are
not always consistent with preserving the value of retirement pay. For example,
some grades have received a very liinited increase since 1952 while other grades
have received a relatively substantial increase. Such selective increases are
likely to be the basis for future changes in rates of basic pay; they are likely
to be designed exclusively ?to meet the needs of the active duty force. And we
believe strongly they should be designed to meet those needs. It would be inevita-
ble for some groups on the retired lists to suffer real income erosion if strict
adherence to recomputation were practiced.
But the most important drawback of recomputation, Mr. Chairman, involves
the inevitable constraint which it places on the management of the compensation
of the active duty force, which must remain of paramount concern.
When the number of retirees was modest relative to the number of men in
the active duty establishment, the retirement cost impact of increasing active
duty pay was minimal. In 1954 there were 5.8 men on the retired rolls for each
100 men on active duty.
However, as the retired rolls increased with the pending retirement of large
numbers of men who entered military service during World War II, the impact
of recomputation would grow proportionately. Currently, there are 12 men on
the retired rolls for each 100 in the active duty force; by 1970, assuming our
active duty force remains at the current level, 25 will remain in retirement for
each 100 men on active duty.
By then, if a recomputation system were in force, the cost impact of changes
in the active duty rates on retirement cost could have a profound and negative
impact on efficient management of the compensation of active duty personnel.
The most promising alternative we have found to recomputation is adjust-
ment of retirement pay on the basis of increases in the Consumer Price Index.
Placing future increases in retired pay on a cost-of-living concept would allow
the Department of Defense maximum flexibility in managing the active duty
forces, offer some prospect of holding the cost of the retired rolls within reason-
able limits, and achieve the primary objective of stabilizing and maintaining
the purchasing power of the retiree's annuity.
Acceptance or this principle, however, does not reconcile the Government's
obligation with respect to those members now on the retired lists who were de-
nied recomputation in 1958. The question is whether they should be allowed to
recompute on the 1058 pay rates with the explicit understanding that henceforth,
all personnel retired, or to be retired, will have periodic adjustments to retired
pay made on recognized changes in the cost of living. The alternative would be
to apply the straight cost-of-living adjustment to all persons now retired, ir-
respective of the base upon which their present retirement pay was computed.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0$21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
For two reasons the Department of Defense has concluded that the first
course of action should be taken and we recommend it to this eonnuittee: First,
those who were in the active duty force prior to 1058 and were retired prior to
June 1, 1058, bad every reason to expect that their retirement pay would be
based on active duty pay scales at the time of retirement and thereafter. Re-
computation was provided for by law and had been practiced for 100 year4. Iii
other words (no notice had been given that the system woul(l change). Sccond,
the objective of the 1958 pay adjustments was to correct 'compression' which
had occurred since 1912, by raising most sharply the pay of those in the higher
ranks. The 'compression' did not take place ecause the pay of the low grades
was too high, but, rather, because that of the high grades was too low. rhus.
those senior retired officers who were denied recomputation were in effect being
told that while they were on active duty they had been underpaid, but that they
would not be able to enjoy recognition of this fact ( as embodied in the 1958 Pay
Act( through recomputed retirement pay.
The cost of recomputation for this gyunp will aniount to $32 million for the
lirst 12 months following the effective date of the bill. The lifetime cost is esti-
mated at WO million, but of course this is a cost projected over some 40 rears
in the future.
After reconllmitithm based on the 195:S pay scalps f II Heise members whose
retired pay is computed under the Career Compensation Act of 1940 (the 1958
scales are already applicable to the great majority of personnel heretofore re-
tired), all those on the retired list would have their retirement pay increased by
5 percent, the increase in the Consumer Priee Index between June 1958 and
I ha-ember 1962.
All members whose retired pay is currently more than they would lativiye
under the 195S scales (e.g., persons for whom the d-percent increase in 1058 was
more than they would have received under recomputation on the 1958 scales)
would retain their present rate of retired pay, increased by 5 percent.
The overall cost of the 5-percent increase to all members On the retired list
is approximately $56 million for the first 12 months following the effective date
of H.R. 3000.
Enactment of H.R. 2606 would require, Mr. Chairman, affil it band annual ap-
propriations to the Department of Defense of $1.2 billion, not including an esti-
mated increase in accruing retirement costs of $230 million. Apart froze the
increase in quarters allowance which was voted by the Congress last year, this
proposed bill represents the first increase In eompensation which the members
of our Armed Forces will have received in almost 5 years?a period of time dur-
Mg which the wages and the cost of living of both the public and private St ctors
of our economy have increased substantially. Although the cost of the increases
we are now proposing are substantial, we feel they are fully justified and in the
national interest.
In addition to the specific proposals before you, I wish to state that it is my
hope that. in fairness to [he dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces,
future adjustments in their compensation can be kept abreast of changes la the
national economy on a timely :1[1(1 regularized basis. Toward this end, the De-
partment of Defense plans to review military compensation annually. Changes
in productivity and price levels as reflected in pay rates for the civilian sector
will be used as a guide to determine appropriate adjustments in military pay
scales. This procedure ?-ill result in more frequent and consequently more mod-
est increases in military pay.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman. while I have been discussing badly needed
adjustments in military pay. I should like to say that pay alone cannot insure
degree id' dedication and sacrific which we demand. MU! receive, from the
nit-mbers of our armed services. Whether or not we will continue to have
the most eflemiye Armed Forces in the world will depend ultimately OIL the
motivation of the people involved in it. This involves a combination of national
and personal pride. of rootidenct. in leadership and of a feeling that the efforts
:111(1 saerilices that the individual must make in serving his (-omit ry. particularly
in time of peace, are respected and recognized by the C011111 ry as a while. An
important element or this recognition, however. is proper compensation for
the unique services be is rendering. It is to this element that I address toy
statement today. and I wish to express my appreciation to the House Armed
Services Committee and to this sube(aninittee for your prompt consideration
of I Li. measures we have proposed.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
(The tables referred to are as follows:)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
"0
"0
0
? Examples of regular compensation for officers under present and proposed scales (H.R. 3006) CD
a-
[All figures are on a monthly basis]
11
Pay grade
0-10 - -
0-10
0-9 0-8
0-7_ -
0-6 _
0-5_ Title
Years of
service
Basis pay
Quarters
allowance
Subsistence
allowance
Tax
advantage
Total,
regular
compensa-
tion
0
Percent
increase
to basic CD
pay only
Chief of Staff
General; admiral
Lieutenant general; vice admiral_ _
Major general; rear admiral (upper
half).
Brigadier general; rear admiral
(lower half).
Colonel; captain
Lieutenant colonel; commander
Major, lieutenant commander _
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H, R. 3006
Increase--.
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3008
Increase
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase_
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present _
11.11. 5008.
Increase
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3006_
Increase __
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.Present
H.R. 3005
Increase
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
30
30
30
30
28
24
21
19
$1,875
$1,970
$95
4.2
$1,700
$1,785
$85
4.1
$1,500
$1,575
$75
4.0
$1,350
$1,420
$70
4.1
$1,175
$1,235
$60
3.9
$910
$1,000
$90
7. 5
$745
$835
$90
8.9
$630
$725
$95
10.9
$201
$201
$201
$201
0
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$170
$170
$15.8
$158
$145
$145
$48
$77
$29
1.5
$48
$77
$29
1.4
$18
$77
$29
1.9
$48
$77
$29
1.7
$48
$77
$29
1. 9
$48
$77
$29
2.4
$48
$77
$29
2.9
$48
$77
$29
5-5
$148
$183
$35
1.5
$136
$160
$24
1. 1
$121
$143
$22
1.2
$112
$131
$19
1.1
$101
$117
$16
1.1
$74
$90
$16
1.3
$59
$76
$17
1.7
$49
$63
$14
1.6
62.272
$2,431
$159
7.0
$2, 085
$2,223
$138
6.6
$1,870
$1,996
$126
6. 7
$1,711
$1,829
$118
6.9
$1, 525
$1,630
$105
6.9
81,202
$1. 3.37
$135
11.2
$1.010
$1, 146
$136
13. 5
$872
$1, 010
$138
15.8
9.1 CD
01
5.0
5. 0 ? ?
t?D 0
5.205
1:1
5,1 co
CO
9. 9
C.4
52.1
15.1
co
05
E.rample8 nj reyular conipcn8ation for bgicer.N un (kr prrm'nt and proposed 3006)--Con 'mod
0-1 [ All figures are on a monthly bitS181
(D
a. Pay grade
-11
0
Title
Years v(
ser vice
Basic pay
QuarterS
41110walwe
$130
$130
0
0
$120
$120
0
0
$110
$110
0
0
4.5
$145
0
0
$130
0
0
$120
Cl Sn
0
0
$110
$110
0
0
Subsistence
allowance
$48
$77
$29
4.3
$49
$77
$29
7.0
$48
$77
7.0
115
$77
$29
3.7
$48
$211
4 2
$48
$77
$29
4. 7
$49
$77
$29
7.3
Tax
advent age
$41
$60
$9
1.3
$37
$4e1
1. 6
$3.5
$41
66
1.5
1,412
$57 ,
$11
I . 4
$41
$60
$9
1.3
*37
$9
I. 3
$35
642
$7
2.3
Total.
regular
rani petisa-
ion
Pert.en4
inerek1S0
40 boSie
Pay Only
Xcro
to 0-2
tri
sr:3
W-4
. .
W-3
0
-0
W-2
CO
730
Captain; lieutenant
Flrxt lieutenant ; lieutenant (J.g.)
Second lieutenant ; ensign_
Chief warrant; commissioned war-
rant.
Chlef warrant; rommnsioned war-
rant.
Clad vi arrant emmnnsioned war-
rant,
11"orront officer, ?,%.,rrant office'
Present
H.R. 3006.
Increase
Percent increase in regular comt ensa-
don-
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase
Percent increase In regular compensa-
/1.R. 3006
Increase........ ........ .....
Percent Increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present ............. . . _ ....
11. 3006
Increase . .........
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase
Percent Increase in regular compensa-
tion.
Present
H.R. 3006
Increase
Percent increase In regular compensa-
tion.
Present .
H.R. 3006.
Increase .
Percent increase In regular compensa-
tion.
4
0
24
21
IC
14
.
..
6460
$540
$80
11.8
$370
$43,5
$61',
11.3
$222
$260
$28
6.7
$543
$633
$92
liii .
$470
$540
$70
10. 2
$406
6470
$64
10.2
$354
$405
$51
11.3
$679
$7147
Ills
17.4
$372
$678
$103
17.9
$415
6478
$63
15.2
8-792
$914
$132
111,11
3699
$71.17
9109
15.7
$;11
$712
$101
IA. 5
$547
$634
$27
16.0
17.4
17. 6
12, 6
..-..... - ? ?
18.9
14. 9
.
.....
14.4
. _ _
NOTE.- The tax ad vantage is computed on the basis o(3 dependents, except 2 dependents for 0-2 and 1 dependent for 0-1.
oo
c
0
0-90009Z0017000t1?01700899dCltl-VI3
Examples of regular compensation for enlisted personnel under present and proposed scales (H.). 3006)
[All figures are on a monthly basis]
Pay grade
Title
Years of
service
Basic pay
Quarters
allowance
Subsistence
allowance
I E.
I
I gH
4n W;s5
Total,
regular
compensa-
tion
Percent
increase
to basic
pay only
E-9
Sergeant, master; master chief petty
Present
20
$430
$120
_
$31
$614
officer.
H.R. 3006
$485
$120
$31
$670
12. t
Increase
$55
0
0
$56
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
8.9
0
0
9. 1
E-8
Master sergeant; senior chief petty
Present
19
$360
$120
$31
$544
officer.
H.R. 3006
$415
$120
$31
$599
15.::.
Increase
$55
0
0
$55
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
10. 1
0
0
10. 1
E-7
Sergeant; chief petty officer
Present
18
$340
$115
$31
$518
H.R. 3006
8365
$115
$31
7.5
Increase
$25
0
0
$25
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
4.8
0
0
4. 8
E-6
Staff sergeant; petty officer, 1st class
Present
14
$275
$110
$31
$447
H.R. 3006
$310
$110
$31
2482
12.1
increase
$35
0
0
$35
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
7. 6
0
0
7. 8
E-5
Sergeant; petty officer, 2d class
Present
10
$240
$105
$31
$406
H.R. 3006
$260
$105
$31
$426
8. ;
Increase
$20
0
0
$20
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
4. 9
0
0
4. 9
E-4
Corporal; petty officer, 3d class
Present
5
$170
$105
$31
$336
H.R. 3006
$200
$105
8.31
$366
17.1
Increase
$30
0
0
$30
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
8.9
0
0
6.9
E-3
Private, 1st class; seaman
Present
1
$99
1 $18
$31
$159
H.R. 3006
$115
1218
$31
$175
16.1
Increase
$16
0
0
$16
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
10. 1
0
0
10. 1
E-2
Private; seaman apprentice
Present
1
$86
1 $18
$31
$146
H.R. 3006
$95
1 $18
$31
$155
10. I
Increase
$9
0
0
$9
Percent increase, in regular compensa-
tion.
6.2
0
0
6. 2
E-1
Private; seaman recruit
Present
2 0
$78
1 $18
$31
$138
H.R. 3006
$65
'$18
$31
$145
9.1
Increase
$7
0
0
$7
Percent increase in regular compensa-
tion.
5. 1
0
0
5. 1
I Government cost of quarters in barracks. 2 linder 4 months.
NOTE?The tax advantage is computed on the basis of 8 dependents in grades E-9, E-8, E-7, E-6; 2 dependents in E-5: 1 dependent in E-4; no dependents in E-3, E-2, E-1.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :12114-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/9N1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. RivEns. Thank volt very nitwit, Mr. Secretary.
Members of the committee, I am going to ask the. subcommittee to
meet this afternoon, and then, ask Mr. Blandford, to ask the Secretary
some quest 101 IS.
If you don't mind, we wiH come back here at 2 o'clock and ince; this
a-ft ernoon.
So the commit toe will recess until 2 o'clock I his a ft ernoon.
(Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., a recess NA as taken unt il :2 p.m. the same
(lay.)
.?yrynNoox- SESSION
Mr. litvERs. 'rite committee will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, ill order I hat we get started here, down in the south-
ern area of agreement, or disagreement, have you had a chance to
look at lie statement I made ?
Mr. Yes, sir I have. had a chance to look at it, Mr. Chair-
man. I have not had an opportunity to, of course, discuss it with
the Secretary or with the, services, as vet.
Mr. I FARM You are up here representing the Secretary. You are
supposed to be able to express your opinion. As far as the seivices
aro concerned, they are going to do what you tell them, anyhow.
Mr. 1).?i-b. They may have an opinion on sonic of these issues. We
have not had a chance to discuss it with I hem.
Mr. I !mow. If they express an opinion contrary to yours I would
bo surprised.
r. liivtats. Let us start on page 2 where we suggest a change in
will ask Mr. Blandford to take on right there.
Mr. I ILANroan. All right, sir. 1'11de]. present law, i he E-4 has the
basic pay increment at (lie over-8-year i Ullit YOUI: proposal puts that
hack to the over-G-year point. A rapid calculation indicates there are
about 00,000 E-1's who have over G years of service who would be
frozen at the over-G-year point at $210. Now, we are reducin.a bv one
increment t he increase t here, and therefore I here are 90,000 individuals
now serving on active duty who while r hey will get a pay increase in
I his proposal, nevertheless they will be frozen at the over-G-year point
rather than at the over-8-year point.
If we should make any upward adjustments, a figure, say, of $10 a
month, to take that to $220, I think the subcommittee should under-
stand 1 hat any I Eine you make these adjust !twills in pay, for example,
even a simple adjustment of $10 a month at that point, i.e. at the over-
8. increasing the pay $10 more than at t he over-G, would involve about
$12 million.
Mr. limeas. You start ol1 with the first, it would be roughly 40,000
I he first ?
Mr. lir.A.Noroan. The breakdown in your hooks - -
Mr. I:EVERS. There are about 10,(i00 allect ed.
Mr. I ii,ANDrom). At t he over-8-year point there are DOW about 10,000.
If von will turn to your tali in your hook--
Mr. ThivEas. Five or four ?
Mr. lit.Axnroao. Tab -1. You will sce at the over-G-year point the
E---1's by ninnber. The proposal is to take I lieni up $.1 0 a month which
is quite a handsome increase, percentagewise, 16.7 percent. However,
under present law they have a u 1(1i MI 011( 11 illcrense m their has pay
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 I1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
at the over-8-year point, and you propose to freeze them at the over
six point.
Now, what we are doing there, as you can see from the column, there
are 40,743 E-4's who have over 8 years of service, 24,000 with over 10,
14,000 with over 12, 7,000 with over 14, and then it stretches out, you
have even 8 with over 30 years of service.
The only reason this point was raised is that, of course, out of a
total of E-4's in this grade, and there are a total of 451,000, it is per-
fectly obvious from a career viewpoint that the bulk of these people
are making E-4 prior to 6 years of service, and those who continue
beyond the 6-year point I think we can say, without being derogatory,
have certainly not made the same progress in proportion to the vast
majority of their counterparts in that grade.
Is this the reasoning behind the reduction in the increment?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, that is the reasoning behind it, that the majority
of them achieve that higher rate prior to that time.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes; in other words, to make it clear to the com-
mittee, of the 451,000 E-4's there are about 90,000 who have 8 years
of service, or more.
Now, to bring in an increment at that point would cost about $12 mil-
lion a year, and the question is, what do you obtain for that additional.
$12 million, considering the fact that they also will get a pay increase,
because the basic pay will stop at 210, and their basic pay today in that
category is 190. So they will get a $30 a month increase notwithstand-
ing the fact their increment stops at the over-6-year point.
You do not recommend going beyond that point, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. PAUL. We had not; no, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You do not now recommend we go beyond that
point?
Mr. PAUL. I don't recommend it, although there is some validity in
your position on it.
Mr. RIVERS. It stays at 210.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Ile does get a $30 a month increase. It i.s just a
question of whether he should get a $30 or $40 a month increase. That
is really what it boils down to.
Mr. TARDY. Do you know why we put that over-8-year cutoff point
before?
Mr. BLANDFORD. This was the promotion flow at that time, basically.
This was the promotion flow.
There is another chart in your book here which shows you the normal
promotion points, and I think that you will find that the E-4?you
will find on chart 6?that the average E-1 who was promoted to E-5
has 5.6 years of service, or 5.9 as a BOD average.
Now, if this is the increment concept throughout the pay scale, it
would appear to make sense, Mr. Hardy, that the pay scales must be
geared to a normal flow of promotion, so that if your average man is
getting promoted at average points in this career, then following the,
ori.gin al concept of the Hook Commission and the changes made in the
Cordiner report which we modified in 1958, when We cut back some
of the increments, then it would make sense to stop this increment at
the E-4 point at the over 6 years of service.
Mr. Many. Well, that would seem to indicate that this period of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014r21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
promotion has moved, has been shorter?the period served as E---1 has
been moved down to a shorter t ime 1 10111 it WaS
Mr. BLANDFOIM. I would think nerhaps there has been some modi-
fication. perhaps by a few months, perhaps a year. that I hey are niak-
1 ng somewhat sooner that what we %%TIT led to believe was I akino-
place in 19:IS.
Mr. I huov. if that is the case, this WOUld seelit to lilt reasonabie
(-moil point.
Mr. Iii,..,Norotzo. Yes. I think the only reason Mr. Rivers wanted 10
ii1'IJ1j it 011t iii ilK sltteiiitiit WaS III indiCat e hese factors have all been
considered. In other \words. I here will be people who \VW say "why
did you stop at the over 6, \viten exist tug law says over Sr' ow,W
have the explanation as to why the Department did this.
Now. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the I tepixtment hes any
objection to moving the W---1 at the o? er-36-yea1's point at US5. back
It) the over-29-vears on the reasoning. Mr. Rivers used I his morning
that, We require our warrant officers IV- 4 to retire 60 days after they
romplet e years of service.
Mr. Rivnas. They should. because of the big untidier.
Mr. No, sir; 1 th?ink that makes a lot of sense.
Mr. RivEns. This will give him the benefit of the promotion.
Mr. IIAlitiv. What does that do in terms of cost.?
RIANI,Fum). $7s:),990. am I corrol in that !
liENADE. About S292.090.
Mr. ItivEus. .1 year
Mr. linAxoroan. A year, yes.
Mr. RivE0s. Where does that take us!
Mr. IleAxiwonn. 972. W---fs who Inive over G. and they will he
drawitr- $6sri a month, rather than Ii;66.) a month. years SO011el than
they would otherwise draw under the I woposal.
Mr. Il Alloy. The increase as it is set 00 here in the bill is meaningless
as far as tliese people are concerned.
Mr. lii.ANot-oan. That is right. because they only draw it for GO days
and t hen retire.
Now, Mr. Chairman. if we are goinr to go through your statement
I suggest we turn to something reasonably controversial, wit eh is
sect ion '2 ( and I would like to refresh the sithcommittec's mild on
this.
There is about $:18 million iii volhere. What 'lie Department
proposes to do- -and this only applies to inactive duty I raining. it. does
not apply to net ive duty t raining or active duty. What the Depart-
n tent proposes is I hat t hose persons who st ill have an obligated service ;
in other words, people who must continue to serve in the Ready
Reserve, by going to drill one night a week, or weekends, if that is
necessary, will only be able to compute their basic pay, and they are
entitled to a: 301 h of a month's pay. or I -day's pal: for 2-1lour's drill,
and this has been traditional on the I 9:iS pity scales.
In other words what the Department _.)roposes is tutul we freeze these
individuals under existing pay scales, and not apply tile. new- pay wales
to them. Time. chairman's position is that this is nut unjustified dis-
crimination bet wee!' the obligated and moiling:tied reservists partici"-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2114tIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
larly at a time when only about 50 percent of the eligible males in this
country are actually serving on active duty in one -form or another.
Mr. HARDY. Find out how you got the number?
Mr. BLANDFORD. The statement indicated it was merely the fact they
have an obligated service, but certainly we ought to understand their
position.
Mr. Palm. That is substantially it. The fact that this particular
group is serving through regular obligation, which usually runs be-
tween the ages of 18 and 26, either through beino, assigned to Ready
Reserve units following having been inducted for ''2 years, or as volun-
tary enlistees, or part of the 6 months' training program. It was
intended principally on our part to provide an additional incentive by
raising the pay of the unobligated reservists, an incentive to have
more of them to seek to continue in the Reserves. It does not reflect or
was not intended to reflect, Mr. Chairman, the idea that we want to put
our foot on the obligated people in the Reserve forces. Our interest
is to have a maximum Ready Reserve force. There was no reflection
intended by our proposal on the people who happened to be in the
Reserves because they are obligated.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The net result is that you do SO, is it not?
Mr. PAUL. Well, there is a distinction between the treatment between
the two ? that is right.
Mr. ltvims. He walks into it with his eyes open, he knew what he
was getting, the obligated?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. The principal desire is to cut down the expense of
the bill.
Mr. BLANDFORD. $38 million is involved in this.
Mr. PAUL. I think the whole subject of drills is one on which there
has been considerable discussion. Probably a lot more study ought to
be given to it. The man is paid 1 day's pay -for 2 hours of drill, or 2
days' pay for a multiple-drill period. I think the only reason I can
give, Mr. Chairman is the one I had in my statement.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Chairman,
would not take great exception if the commit-
tee deleted that part of the bill?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Blandford, I really can't assume final responsibility
in these matters. As you know, I am working for the Department of
Defense. I have not exposed these to the Secretary.
Mr. HARDY. That puts us in a right awkward sort of position,
though, to try to work out anything here, with the expectation we
have any understanding from the Department as to whether or not
we are going to have strong opposition. I thought Mr. McNamara?
you made his speech for him this morning. He didn't think enough
Of this to come down himself. I thought you would be able to speak
for him. We wouldn't have to ask anybody else. He couldn't come
d.OV1111.06?'fle is with the German Defense Minister today.
lYtq!"9
cc
DIArilli)underst,a.ndthat.
0,00,0B,D. beneve you will. find this is the reason Mr. -Rivers
nthaenNo.stsaistiaantiSmeereptary ?f Defense would.
,,Aav b o r. s statement, that
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/240: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
the responsibility for writing a pay bill is the responsibility of the
Congress.
Mr. RIVERS. lie told us what. he thought. Let's go to the next. thing.
Mr. BATEs. Is there any other distinction?
Mr. BLAxDroun. I was asking if the Secretary will agree with that
Ste lenient ?
Mr. Run,. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Therefore what. we decide to do is merely meeting
our responsibilities.
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. I3landford a moment ago mentioned how many
People would be Etliected by this particular section, I believe.
How many people. would be affected by this $38 in ?
Mr. BLAxorono. 400,000-odd -
Mr. PAUL. I have some figures on that if that will help.
Approximately 960,000 people are in the. Ready Reserves now, Mr.
Osmers. Of that number close to 69 percent. are in the obligated
category. Under the chairman's proposal, they would be entitled to
get the increased pay.
Mr. OSMERS. And the increased pay that has been proposed amounts
to about $38 million?
Mr. Put. That would be the annual cost of the inere.ase.
Mr. OSMERS. The annual cost of the increased pay for all of the
obligated reservists.
Mr. liLANDH am. No, sir. There is a $38 million SRN if you don't
apply the new pay scales to the obligated reservists.
There is, of course, also an annual increase, in the pay of reservists,
because you will have many reservists drawing inactive duty pay for
obligated and unobligated service. The question here is whetlwr you
want to enact a law which will discrimnate between the obligated and
unobligated reservists. it is as simple as that.
Mr. Osmr.us, I am very glad to have the matter chili ied.
Mr. BATEs. Is there any such distinction anywhere else in the law,
with people of the same rank at di Greta pay ?
r. PAt:L. Not, that I know of. Mr. Bates.
Mr. Il.vms. In retired cases, of course, but outside of the ietired
cases?
Mr. PAt-h. Not that I know of.
Mr. BENNEW. I was intrigued with something- you said, Mt. Sec-
retary, although you said it was not directly pertinent to this. This
is the first time I had this thought brought to my attention. You
brought out, that these people actually are being favored at the. present
time, because they put in '2 hours a day when others put in a full day's
work. In other words they are being discriminated for.
If that is your thinking, is there any law?or I ask is there ary law
that requires you to pay them on a 2-hour basis or is t hat a regulation
wit hin the Department ?
11-r. That is the law.
Mr. BENNETT. Have you made any recommendations for chnaging
the I o
that law?
nn amendment to the
rArl.. Only to the extent of the present. pri Ill topos2/
the ?wig:area reservists, their pay would not f?now pq hef th?Jr.
elle? ?16
artiVe (bay foreC. ThUt WOUld
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1431
Mr. 13ENNETT. Personally it seems to me there is some merit in what
you said along this line, but it seems to me like you said also, the thing
ought to be handled in a different way. I don't like the idea myself
of discriminating between people just because they are obligated or
unobligated. This doesn't appeal to mo as being very logical. If you
are going to bring about equality, maybe they ought to have equality.
Maybe you ought to pay them more equally. Presently you say the
benefits run the other way. So maybe you ought to bring it into the
law to correct that.
Mr. PAUL. It is a matter we are studying. We have no recommen-
dations to make on it at this time.
Mr. HARDY. I have this comment, if the Chairman will permit. We
are talking now in terms of incentive and in terms of people perform-
ing in the service' either reserve or otherwise. If they've got obli-
gated service, you don't have to pay them an increase in order to keep
them, is that right?
Mr. RIVERS. If you have them obligated you have them obligated.
Mr. HARDY. Of course that is right. The unobligated is a volun-
tary proposition.
Mr. PAUL. Generally, in our proposed active duty pay scales, the
greater increases are at the points where a man makes the decision
whether he is going to elect to make a career of the armed services.
Lesser increases were made in grades where members are in an
obligated_ category.
Mr. HARDY. You don't have to give them a financial incentive in
that situation?
Mr. PAUL. No, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I ask this question, Mr. Secretary. I am un-
der the impression that the appropriation for paying these reservists
comes out of the appropriation for reserves.
Mr. PAUL. Yes, that is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now,
then, this $38 million that you would save
would merely accrue to the reserve appropriation, and if this section
is deleted from the bill, this will not result in any net savings to the
Federal Government as such, it will merely result in a net increase
of $38 million to be available for reserve participation.
Mr. PAUL. I believe that is correct. Is that correct?
Colonel BENADE. That is correct.
MT. BLANDEORD. Yes. In other words, we don't cut down anything.
Striking out this section merely means the reserve appropriation will
have to pick up the $38 million some place.
Mr. PAUL. Yes, they would have to seek an additional
appropriation.
Mr. 13LANDForte. Not necessarily an additional appropriation, be-
cause obviously they haven't anticipated this as yet.
Mr. PAUL. No.
Mr. RIVERS. Will you admit that we have a pretty fair observation
here?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDEORD. Let's get to something that is really extremely
complicated, and as the chairman has indicated for several reasons
does not belong in this bill, and that is the question of constructive
credit.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/V9: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I a the first place, under the sect ion as you write :t, each Se.1:etary
would decide which holders of post-graduate degrees would receive
constructive credit. To refresh the committee's memory on this. I
mention the fact we do have constructive credit today in many areas:
doctors, dentists, veterinarians, chaplains, Ph. D.'s allied with medi-
cine and lawyers. I foweyer, only physicians and dentists may count
their constructive credit for longevity pay purposes. This is some-
thing this committee did deliberately in 1957, in order to prmide an
inducement to keep some of these doctors from leaving the service.
It, has worked out fairly successfully, even though they lie way
behind their counterpart in the Veterans' Administ rat n,ii. \e,ortlie-
less, it stopped the exodus. -We made special provisions for dentists
and doctors, insofar as constructive longevity pay is concerned.
Let me tell you what constructive credit means, so we will under-
stand what this is about : It is the concept that %viten you cuter on
active duty you are presumed for promotion purpose:-; to have already
served on active duty for up to 3, 1, or 5 years. Now, if this helps
you for promotion purposes only, this means that you could come on
active duty as a first lieutenant or captain, depending on the amount
of constructive credit awarded to you, and then that makes yon eli-
gible for promotion at an earlier (line. The theory behind con-
structive credit is that if you went to college with John Smith, who,
when he graduated, immediately weir on active duty in the Armed
Forces, lie would now be a captain if he had, say, G years of active duty.
On the other hand, if von had gone to law school at your own expense
for 3 years, von would t la, 3 years behind him if you entered on active
duty. Yet flie services are using you ai a lawyer, and they are taking
your training and making use of it. So we give constructive credit to
certain groups of people. But we only give constructive credit for
longevity pay purposes by special law to physicians and dentists.
Now, what the Department seeks here. and unfortunately this
whole question is tied up with t In' so-called Nolte ligislation, which
we do not have as vet, but is under active consideration in the I )e-
partment of Defense. What we have here is it concept that we ,:hould
allow each Secretary to provide constructive credit for those with
postgraduate. degrees. Unfortunately, those degrees are not muned.
This would be up to the Secretary to decide which postgraduate
degree holders would receive this constructive credit, and beyond
that is the fact that this provision, ai written, is not for pract ical
purposes retroactive. This means a lot in dollars and. cents. I..rt air
give you an example of what I am talking about. Two brothers
fro to law school. One brother graduated from law school and was
admitted to the bar 4 years ago, and came on active duty in the armed
services. The other brother graduates this year, and enters on active
duty under the proposal before its. I asked the departments to 1.1111
a cost analysis of what this would mean under this proposal over a
20-year period. Under this proposal the officer who is commissioned
aria given constructive credit for longevity pay purposes, which
would not be applicable to his older brother who has already served
on active duty for 1 years, would receive St more pay than his
older brother over a period of .20 years of service.
Mr. GAVIN. What is constructive credit
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 lpfik-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. Constructive credit is a credit that is given to an
individual who has obtained advanced training at his. own expense
and, therefore, it is recognized when he comes on active duty that
they should give him a grade commensurate with the amount of
his training. Its purpose is to put him on the list so he will come
up for promotion and be in the same grade his counterpart would
be in who graduated from college at the time he did, but who did not
acquire a professional degree.
Mr. GAVIN. In other words, professional background entitles him
to more consideration?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is it; yes, sir.
Now, under these circumstances, Mr. Secretary, would you agree
that in order to expedite a pay bill, and this is, after all, a pay
bill, that this is more of a promotion and appointment problem than
it is a pay problem, even though the constructive credit feature is
involved here, and that it would be
Mr. RIVERS. Don't you think it would be better to have it put in
the report?
Mr. PAUL. Certainly, it does have elements of promotion, perhaps
predominantly over pay. It could have been in either piece .of
legislation. We do feel quite strongly that this is a worthwhile
provision, and as long as Congress is willing to consider it, just
which bill they wish to consider it in is something we would defer
to your judgment.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, may I sug-
gest the Department further consider the very serious problem, when
you have a, retention problem of officers, and when you say to an officer
who served on active duty for 4 years, and this is the man you are
trying to appeal to, when you say to that man, we don't care about
you, we are only worried about the man who comes in next, you are not
going to help your retention problem, because the retention problem
involves the man who already has served 4 years. There is a retro-
active problem here that must be considered.
Mr. BATES. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the services select
people according to their professional ability, and there might be
two or three individuals competing for a certain school.
The first year they might select the best man. The next year the
second best man, the third year the next best man. You set this bill
up so that the worst of the three would get entitled to more pay under
this bill, according to the timetable.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Mr. BATES. I think we ought to put this on the side and take it up
separately.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. IInuny. I think we ought to put it to the side, I don't know
whether we ought to take it up or not.
I have another problem. I don't know whether you want to do it
here or not, but I know eventually if we do take it lit) I would like to
have a clearer explanation made of why there is any merit in permit-
ting constructive credit for longevity pay for a period when they
weren't serving in the military service. That is what it amounts to.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1-134
I can subscribe to the propriety of c,onstructive credit, but if you aro
going to give a man credit for longevity pay based on the period of
lime he wasn't even in the military services, then we better start a
whole new concept.
Mr. liArcs. It is just as good a case as somebody gett ing paid at
graduate school while they were in the service.
AEI% BENNETt. Iwo wrongs don't make a right.
Mr. hams. No.
Mr. HARDY. I le may have been in military service, and been
st tidying.
Mr. RIVERS. They wanted me to include all of tin' service academie,i
in this bill.
Mr. GAvix. While you are on the particular subject. take the three
academies. flow long do they serve, say, the U.S. Military Acne:witty,
how long are they required to serve after they graduate!
Mr. l'o.ANDroan. Four years for all services now.
Mr. ( ;.Vi. I N. For the Navy, too!
Mr. BLANDFORD. All are 4 years now. We finally have them all
uniform. It took quite a while to do it, but they are all uniform.
Mr. RIVERS. This is a comprehensive bill, so comprehensive the
chairman said he would appreciate it if we would get out a pay
bill. This is why we want to tailor F as close as we can to a pay
bill. We have had many conferences with t lie chaientan. and le? has
heii here a lot of summers with us.
Let us go to the next point.
Mr. Ilr.Axnronn. If I may. unless von wish to get into retiree. and
retainer pay, I -would like to leave (hat for the last discussion.
Mr. GAVIN. What page is that ?
Mr. Br:A:Norma). On pa!re3 of the cnairmau's statement, pages 3,
6, and 7, page 12 oft lir bill. I believe.
Mr. Hiyrns. I /o you want to leave this until the last
Mr. iii,iNnroun. I think this is going to create more questions
than anything else. We could go back to it today, bat 1 won't like
to consider eliminating smile of these other provisions we discussed
in order that we can narrow the field of issues here :is much as
possible.
r. ItivEns. We pretty well agree with him on Ciat. on the re-
tirement. pay.
,et us go to the next point.
Mr. BI.ANIWURD. Let IIS turn to page 9 of the chairman's statement.
l'affe 16 of t he bill. which is submarine pay for nuinbers trailing
for duty on nuclear-powered submarines, f)age 9 of the chain-Ian s
stateinent, and page. 16 of the bill.
I think everybody understamk basically what the problem is, and
that is we. have got to do something to pay these "submariners,' and
I use that word advisedly, who, if they transfer, or are ordered to
a school for advanced training in nuclear submarnes, lose their
submarine pay while they are in school. Of course, this inetAis a
considerable loss in their income, because they are now on submarines,
therefore, they do not volunteer for this duty because they prefer to
stay on snorkebt submarines. or the conventional submarines,
and t lals retain their submarine pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1435
The Navy has a very serious problem. The chairman's objection
was that the bill as written was a little bit too broad. I might say
that the subcommittee print that was prepared is a little bit too re-
strictive. So somewhere in between is the answer to this whole prob-
lem of submarine pay, I think we are all familiar with submarine pay,
and also familiar with the fact that, with the exception of the double
crews for the Polaris submarine if you are gone from a submarine
I think it is for more than 15 days, there is one exception, I think
you can be hospitalized for 30, perhaps, or maybe you can go on
leave for 30, and be hospitalized for 15, one or the other, but sub-
marine pay is something you lose very quickly if not assigned to and
serving on a submarine. In that respect, it is different from flight
pay. You can't make up submarine pay by going out and making
four dives at a later date. This has been traditional and the Navy
has no problem with it.
There is a severe problem as far as the Navy is concerned today
in obtaining volunteers for the nuclear force.
Mr. BATES. Do we have a statement to that effect
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am really quoting from the panel study on this,
Mr. Bates. I am sure Admiral Smedberg will certainly comment
on it in his testimony.
Mr. RIVERS. I might say at this point to the chiefs of personnel?
this isn't designed in anywise to proscribe your capacity to give your
views in this hearing, whenever you are free to discuss them. I am
sure you can discuss any area you want to. We want to get the views
of the Secretary as relates to what is good and what is bad in my
statement so far as he is concerned. We have only gone nine pages so
far.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 10 of your statement, Mr. Chairman, deals
with inside a high- or low-pressure chamber. Now, we changed the
law several years ago to provide special pay or incentive pay, not
special pay, and we have got to be careful of terminology?special
pay is one thing, and incentive hazard pay is something else.
The present pay already takes care of the man who is a low-pres-
sure chamber inside observer. However, that is not always the man
who is in danger, as I understand the situation. There is as much
danger in a high-pressure chamber, and it doesn't make much dif-
ference whether you are there on duty or as an observer, you can
get blown apart one way or the other, either inwardly or outwardly,
depending on whether it is a high- or low-pressure chamber.
I don't know what the backup evidence is in support of this, whether
there has been any fatalities. I think if anybody who has taken the
chamber test out at Andrews Air Force hospital?I have not, but I
have been told about it to the point where I am not sure I want to
take it now?when you are exposed to these various changes in pres-
sure, that there are some very definite physical changes that take
place in your body, and I am told sometimes for several days there-
after you have trouble hearing, among other things.
Mr. PAUL. That is right.
Mr. 13LANDFORD. What is your justification, Mr. Secretary, for add-
ing the high-pressure chamber, and also eliminating the word "ob-
server"?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014R : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. PAUL. I think pretty much for the reasons you stated, Mr.
Blandford. There is an increasing need for human volunteers in
these fields of experimentation, particularly in the aeronautical field.
As our air and undersea weapons get more sophisticated, these ex-
periments are going to be more and more frequent, and more danger-
ous. I don't know of any deaths that have occurred, but, as you point
out it doesn't make any difference wbether you are there as an ob-
server or subject, you are in the same chamber and subjected =ci the
same dangers.
There have been permanent physical injuries, that I do know. This
is also a volunteer program.
Mr. Timmy. In the incentive pay areas, how long do these -,ncen-
t Ivo pay rates continue?
Air. Iit...kxnFortn. Only while they are assigned to training.
Mr. IIAany. Then it is of short duration?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well. the Only type of incentive pay that attaches
to a man that can go through his career regardless of whethet lie is
serving in the Pentagon or at an airfield, is flight pay. This is done
for a very good reason, because of the fact that the man must remain
proficient in flight, and he must fly so many hours a year, and do so
much instrument flying, because, if he didn't do it, our accident rate
would go up and we would lose more in loss of aircraft and men than
the cost of flight pay.
But this is the only one, to my knowledge, where the man can draw
this incentive pay when he. is actually not assigned to a duty involving
flying. In other words, where the primary duty is flying. All other
incentive pays are tied in with the primary duty involved, such as
handling demolitions, or as a paratrooper. A paratrooper, for ex-
ample, under the regulations, I believe, if he is gone for 30 days he
doesn't draw his paratrooper pay for that month.
Mr. Thum-. If he is what for 30 days?
Mr. BLANDFORD. The paratrooper who has gone away from his out-
fit for more than :30 days?I am not sure of these regulations, they
are different for the different incentive pays?but most all of them,
other than the flight pay, attach only while I he man is assigned to
and serving on that particular type of duty.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BATES. how is that language going to read now?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It will read?I will need title 37 to read the whole
thing.
Mr. RIVERS. You have it right liere,lia.ven't you.?
Mr. IltAxnFoao. The law start i oft.
INCENTIVE PAY HAZARDOUS urry
(a) Subject to regulations prescribed by the President, a member of a uni-
formed service who is entitled to basic pay Is also entitled to incentive pay, in
the amount set forth in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, far the perform-
ance of hazardous duty required by orders. For the purpose:; of this subsection,
"hazardous duty" means duty?
( 11 As a crewmeinher, as determilast lly the Secrerary concerned, in-
volving frequent alai regninr inirtioipal inn in nerinl fligin :
(9) On hoard a submarine, including, in the case of nuclear-powered sub-
marines, peritals of training and rehabilitation after assignment thereto,
as determined by the Secretary cmicerlied, and including submarines under
constructbm hi on the time builders trials begin ;
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1207-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
(3) As an operator or crewmember of an operational, self-propelled sub-
mersible, including undersea exploration and research vehicles;
(4) Involving frequent and regular participation in aerial flight, not as
a crewmember under clause (1) of this subsection;
(5) Involving frequent and regular participation in glider flights;
(6) Involving parachute jumping as an essential part of military duty;
(7) Involving intimate contact with persons afflicted with leprosy;
(8) Involving the demolition of explosives as a primary duty, including
training for that duty;
(9) As a low-pressure chamber inside observer?
is the one we would amend to read?as a low or
Mr. BATES. Just as inside a high- or low-pressure chamber. That
is the only language?
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes, but you see you have got to go back to the
previous page?"for the purposes of this section. hazardous duty
means duty inside a high- or low-pressure chamber." So if his duty
requires him to be in that low- or high-pressure chamber, then he will
qualify.
General Accounting Office would require a set of orders directing
him to perform that duty.
Mr. BATES. There was some reason why they used the word "ob-
server."
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think in the original justification the point was
they were putting people through these tests. The idea of the observ-
er was to have somebody with them there all the time. You don't pay
the man taking the test.
If I go to Andrews and they put me through the pressure-chamber
test, even if I am on active duty I won't draw the pay. The chap
whose duty it is to be there day in and day out, while other people are
taking the test, the word "observer" means he will pull me out if he
decided I was decelerating too rapidly or something. Now, we have
to prepare these people not only for the high pressure but the low
pressure type of duty.
Mr. PAUL. It is not only observers, either. It is the people who are
actually the subjects of this test.
Mr. BATES. That is what I wanted to find out.
Mr. PAUL. It is not just the fellow, as Mr. Blanford said, who
simply goes through to get his flight ticket, but the fellow assigned to
that duty to test out a certain new type of chamber, or to withstand
conditions that might be encountered in flight. He has to appear in
that chamber a frequent number of times. He is assigned to duty in
that particular field.
Mr. BATES. Ho is a high- or low-pressure person. That is one set
of circumstances. And the other is he must be assigned.
Mr. PAUL. Assigned too, yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. He will be assigned to that for the purpose of taking the
test. Under this he would be entitled to incentive pay.
Mr. 13LANEFORD. Not unless it is his duty.
Mr. BENNETT. Why does he take the test?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am saying it would be his duty to take one test,
but not as a part of his continuing duty.
Mr. BENNETT. It doesn't say anything about continuing duty in
-the statute, as far as I can see.
Mr. BATES. That is the reason I brought the question up, to try to
determine exactly how you are going to work.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/N1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
-Mr. BLAND-roan. I think this colloquy right here will be enough for
GAO to put in pret ty st ringent restrict ions.
As a matter of fact, what we are talking about here is $145,000 a
year.
Nfr, ninny. Well, that may be $145,0(10 a year, hut you have got also
of eligibility, if that arises. I don't know if we intended to
eliminate any lucent ive pay to the fellow going down there just to be
list ed, to take the test, himself. If we did, I don't believe that we
have got it in this language. .May we have in the colloquy, but I
think we ought; to be sure what we are talking about.
We also have anot her sect ion here that. comes right on behind it, and
I hat is this question of double incentive pay.
Mr. thvgas. That is right.
Mr. IImmv. If an individual is assigned to duty inside, a. low-
pressure chamber for a couple days a month, and he is assigned to
duty in connection with handling demolitions for a couple days, or
something, is that going to constitute a basis for double incentive pay ?
Mr. BLANDFoao. Mr. ITardy, let me suggest since General Bowman
is working on regulations, if they are completed?aro they cow plete
by any chance, General ?
General BowmAN. I didn't hear the question.
Mr. TILANnroun. have you completed the regulations applicable to
low- and high-pressure duty ?
General liowmAx. No. We are working on that.
Mr. BLANoraitn. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, we attempt to
put in the hearings at this point t he proposed regulations that will
control the payment of this pay.
Mr. IImarr. I can see an awful lot of opportunity for abuses of this
thing through regulations unless we do have an understanding of
what is involved.
Mr. BLAxiwonn. We can certainly put it in the report so there won't
be any question.
Mr. lb vEas. I think we. ought to know exactly what they are,
Mr. MA-Nut-olio. We can put. it in the report before they complete
the regulations. There will be no problem.
Mr. PATTL. We can set the basic conditions for it.
Mr. BLANFouo. I think we. understand basically what we are talk-
111.!r about.
Mr. Timmy. If the duty of the individual involves two or more of
these responsibilities that would en( it le him to incentive pay, and they
are ,oncurrent, and have any considerable duration, why, certainly, he
oui-dit to be entitled to two incentive pays. That is the thing W2 were
talking about a minute ago.
If. however, t here is a limited period in the same calendar period
of time. in which he is involved in one and then in another, I iave a
little t rouble understandini, how in ti .e. world he could be enti.Aed to
two pa:vs.
Mr. BLANDroun. I think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hardy's point is well
taken. I think we ought to be pretty clear here so there. isn't any
possible abuse, because if there is they will lose the whole thing.
Act nallv, there is $1,941 ,000 contemplated in fiscal 191.11-. for the double
incenlive imvnienis That isn't very many people. This is tie next
subject.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CilfgFDP66600403R000400280006-0
It goes right into what Mr. Hardy is talking about. Now, for
example, it would be a little bit silly to pay a man flight pay and then
have him come in once a month to go through a low-pressure chamber
and have him draw two incentive pays.
Mr. HARDY. That is exactly what I am talking about.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We ought to know before we approve this exactly
what they have in mind. That goes to the double incentive. We
already discussed it. The example is the paratrooper who is also a
demolition expert. I think they jump separately, but notwithstand-
ino' I wouldn't want to involve myself in either one.
notwithstand-
ing,
brings us to sea and foreign duty pay, and the question
Mr. RIVERS. What page?
Mr. I3LANDFORD. Page 11 of your statement, section 9, page 17, of
the bill.
Now, this is a $133 million item. The chairman this morning ex-
pressed himself clearly without any reservation as being opposed to
the section which would repeal sea and foreign duty pay.
Mr. RIVERS. I believe I can be backed up pretty strongly by Admiral
Smedberg.
Mr. HARDY. As a matter of fact, I showed the Secretary yesterday
a letter, that convinced him we ought not to eliminate sea and foreign
duty.
Mr. PAUL. That was a very impressive letter, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. BLANDFORD. In that case, let US go to the next subject, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. BATES. You ought to take at least 5 minutes for $133 million.
Mr. I3LANDFORD. Mr. Bates, to be perfectly honest, I have yet to
meet the first individual who recommends the enactment of this section.
Mr. BATES. Well, behold the
Mr. PAun. Well
MF. BLANDFORD. With present company excepted, of course I have
to except the Secretary, who is giving the Secretary of Defense's
position in this matter. But this is a serious problem. It is a serious
problem because you are in effect saying to many people now serving
at sea that after this long-vaunted pay increase you are about to get
we are going to give you the grand total of a $2.50 a month increase.
The letters we are getting indicate that this and the effective date
are the sorest points in this pay bill, without any doubt.
I am sure if the author of the Reader's Digest article, the Drake
article, had gone from the District of Columbia directly to a naval
base, where a ship had just put in and told the crew they were going to
take away sea pay, there would have been a couple of paragraphs added
to that article about elimination of sea pay. This is an important part
of an enlisted man's income when he goes to sea. It is an important
part of an enlisted man's income when he is overseas. It has been tra-
ditional since 1942 to pay people extra pay when they are overseas, or
when they are at sea. It may not purchase the sort of thing that the
Department of Defense would like to see purchased insofar as quality
control is concerned. But you can't run the armed services with just
technicians. Somebody has got to do some fighting now and then.
These are the people that are involved here. This is the common,
ordinary seaman variety type of man. He may not know exactly what
happens when he pushes a button, but he knows when to push the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 20051(1021 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
button. This is the man who keeps the Navy and Coast Guard going,
who mans the outfits overseas, this is the man who is serving in South
Vietnam, this is the man serving in Berlin, this is the man serving in
Okinawa. If you start taking this kind of money away from him,
then all the morale effect you are trying to create is going right out
the window, because it is perfectly obvious the $133 million taken
away here is only to be replaced by a $30 million item, a great portion
of which could go to officers.
Mr. PAUL. May I speak to this, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Mr. PAUL. It is true that the unusual hardship pay that we are pro-
posing would apply to a considerably lesser number that preksently are
entitled to sea and foreign duty pay. it may well be that the reFtric-
tion we placed on the number that, would be eligible for that pay cuts
it down a little too fine, considering the needs of the services. But I
would like to say we have felt and do feel that sea pay and foreign
duty pay, and I would say particularly foreign duty pay, penults
certain people to draw a special pay for reasons we are not aware of
any justification for. This pay was, as I understand it, originally
set up as a morale pay, something to give men a little bit more who
were operating under special conditions. There are certain areas of
the world, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out in your own statement,
that can hardly be described as placing any undue hardship on the
individual concerned. In fact, these assignments are very much
sought after.
So I do think that. whatever the desires of the committee are, we
ought to be permitted to review this whole subject of whether or not
across-the-board blanket application of this type of a pay is really in
our best interest. Are webuying anything by it? And, by the same
token, if we take it away from certain of these individuals, am we
losing anything?
I believe that probably something between the position we have
taken and the complete restoration of all these pays makes more sense.
Mr. Chairman, just one other thing I would like to say on this. I do
think we ought to give some recognition to the difference in the typo
of oversee, or sea duty certain individuals have to perform.
Now, again, as you pointed out in your statement, duty down in
McMurdo Sound is not all the same as duty in certain areas of the
Caribbean. There are certain places where the hardships are con-
siderably greater than others. I have seen some of them, I am sure
you gentlemen have, too.
I would urge we don't throw out the window the concept cf the
differential between degrees of hardship, because there are degrees of
hardship. My only plea to this commit tee would be, lc: us take a good,
long look at this one before we completely restore one awl completely
do away with the other.
Mr. i3ATEs. Mr. Secretary, did you ever give any thought to the
averaging out of the different set of circumstances that people meet
during a career? In other words, if we are trying to equate every-
thing simultaneously, we just can't accomplish that. But over a pe-
riod of a career, some duty you get is good, other duty is not so good,
some is a little bit in between. But it averages out, generally. The
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1441
old chief petty officers used to say it all adds up on 30, something like
that. . .
I think we run into quite a problem here trying to equate every duty,
as there are all kinds involved.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, I think the Secretary's point coin-
cides pretty much with your own statement to that effect, that there
are certainly areas of sea pay, very limited areas of sea pay, for ex-
ample, duty on a harbor craft, we will say a man who goes home every
night for dinner, and who may be piloting the tug around in the har-
bor at Norfolk, you can hardly say he is entitled to sea pay to the same
extent a man who goes aboard a carrier or destroyers and maybe puts,
into his home base maybe twice in 14 months, or something of that
nature. There is a considerable difference.
I think the chairman pointed that out in his statement that them
are areas of sea pay and oversea pay. where probably it is not justified.
Mr. RivEns. You gave an analysis of a tug in a harbor. I don't
know anything rougher than a service on a seagoing tug.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If they are at sea, yes.
Mr. RIVERS. If they have to be called out to go offshore in a storm
or something, they don't have it easy all the time. It is hard as Mr.
Bates says, it is difficult to average it out.
Mr. PAUL. Yes sir; that is a very pertinent remark.
Mr. GAVIN. W110 reaches the decision now as to what the status is?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Sea and oversea pay is not subject to regulation.
Mr. I3ATEs. The ship must be a commissioned ship, isn't that still
the criterion?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Admiral Sinedberg can answer that.
Admiral SIVIEDBERD. We do not give sea pay to yard and district
craft today. A fleet tug, however, Mr. Chairman, as you say, which
does go out long distances, and tow in ships, does get sea pay, but the
yard and district craft do not.
Mr. BATES. Even though they are commissioned?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir; they do not. Yard and district craft
are not commissioned craft.
Mr. BATES. My point is, years ago wheel' this was put into effect,
the criterion was whether or not a ship was commissioned, is that still
in effect?
Admiral SMEDRERG. I would say people in any commissioned ship
would draw sea pay, sir, I can't think of an exception.
Mr. BATES. I know in 1942 they specifically mentioned a commis-
sioned ship.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, may we go on into page 18, section
10, dealing with responsibility pay?
Now, just to quickly summarize this law, this law was put in as a
Senate amendment and is applicable if it s ever implemented
Mr. RIVERS. What page are you on, applicable, if
uss ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 18.
This section would repeal the authority for responsibility pay.
This has never been implemented. Under the law the Secretary
may designate positions of unusual responsibility which are of a criti-
cal nature to an armed force under his jurisdiction, and may pay
Special pay in addition to other pay prescribed by law.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/00444 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
If they are so designated, they would receive monthly pay rates of
$150 for the 0-6, $100 for the 0-5, $50 for the 0-4, and $50 for the
0-3, and parenthetically, that is probably the way we should have
written proficiency- pay, and we wouldn't have these reduced payments
going on today.
The Secretary concerned shall subscribe the criteria as to who is
eligible for this special pay, and not more than 5 percent of the num-
ber of officers on active duty in an armed force in pay grade 0-3, or
not more than 10 percent of the 0-4's, 0-5's, and 0-6's may be. paid
special pay. This has never been implemented by the Department.
Tho Department now wants to repeal it. Stated, I think, more sim-
ply, the Navy and Air Force would implement it if the Secietary
of Defense approved their request, and the Army and Marine Corps
would prefer not to implement it. It is as simple as that. The posi-
tion of each of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff on responsibility pay will
undoubtedly be stated if they are asked to do so.
I think this basically is something that the Senate. put in, but on
the other hand we concurred in it when it became law, and perhaps
you might want to direct your questions at the various Deputy Chiefs
of Stair when they testify.
Mr. PayEns. Of course we are equally responsible, we accepted it
in conference, but it is not our baby.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, that takes us to hardship pay,
which of course in your statement you indicate that if we do not re-
peal sea and foreign duty pay we would probably not be able to
justify having both.
The Department, of course, proposes unusual hardship provision in
lieu of sea and foreign duty pay, the dollars indicating obviously the
number of people who would get this would be considerably less than
those who are now getting sea and foreign duty pay. It may t
. be that.
the subcommittee may wish to have both, with the understanding that
an individual could not draw both.
Mr. HARDY. Since we are going to pass over the other one for fur-
ther study, I thing the things are so related?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the point., we ought to go on to the next
one.
Mr. RivEns. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That takes us to page 19, section 1,2, career incen-
tive payment.
Now this proposal submitted?
Mr. GAVIN. Will you tell us what page you are on, please?
Mr. 13nAxorortn. I am on the bottom of page 14.
Mr. GAN. Where is it in the bill.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 19, section 12..
This is the proposal that would eliminate or phase out and even-
tually eliminate the present reenlistment. bonus sptent.
You have heard Mr. Paul's st atement and this is one of the qutaity
control concepts that the pay panel recommended to the Secretary of
Defense.
Under this proposal an individual would receive one payment, only,
other than the individual mqualifying---would receive one payment.
only of up to $2,100 if he was in a highly Tit ical skill, oi! $500 in a less
critical skill, and I presumeI tint anyonm being reenlistkal would draw
$500.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214461A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. There are arguments on both sides of this ques-
tion, there is no doubt about that. The theory is that 88 percent of
our people today, reenlist if they have once reenlisted. Thus there is
some question as to whether there is any necessity to pay a man a re-
enlistment bonus at, say2 in his 8th or 10th or 12th year.
The rest of the idea is that this would give the Secretary a tool to
use when he needed certain skills. For example, if they were short
of electronics experts, you could attach a $2,400 price tag to a man
who would reenlist one time, in that critical skill, and he could get up
to $2,400 so long as his combined service, prior service, and reenlist-
ment, were 6 years or more, if I remember correctly.
Is that right ?
Colonel BENADE. The draft bill does not so specify. Actually it
was intended in the administrative regulations which would imple-
ment this that the period involved would be 10 years, to reach the
maximum of $2,400.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The Department's point on this current incentive
payment is that this would be a method of paying people for a skill
that is needed at the time.
Now, it might be that a year after that they have all the electronics
specialists they want. I was amazed to find the other day, when I
made a trip for the subcommittee, that we are in very short supply
in the Air Force of mechanics on propeller-driven aircraft. The me--
chanics in that area are in short supply, because most people have
been concentrating on jet aircraft. And they have a reenlistment
problem, and they also have a shortage in this particular skill.
Now, certainly, I know Mr. Paul will have other arguments in
support of this.
On the other hand, there are other arguments against this, one of
them as the chairman has pointed out is that the Department has
never utilized the law we gave them in the first place.
We set up a proficiency pay system in 1958, and this subcommittee
worked long and hard to come up with proficiency pay system. We
bragged to the world it would be possible for an enlisted man to
make $10,000 a year under this pay proposal.
The law was written so a man could get up to $150 a month profi-
ciency pay if he had a real critical skill.
Mr. RIVERS. I remember that vividly.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We used a figure of more than $10,000 for the E-9,
drawing $150 a month, and the pay of the E-9, and everything else
that went with it.
Now, the Department has only implemented proficiency pay to the
tune of $30 a month, or a buck a day for the P-1, $60 a month for
the P-2, and we have never implemented the P-3, but now they want
authority to buy critical skills by giving them a lump sum payment
of up to $2,400. We don't know what we are going to do to our
present reenlistment rate which is presently high, it might start to go
down if we take out the present reenlistment bonus system. rfleis
another factor here and that is that human nature being what it s,
once you have handed an individual $2,400 in one lump sum, which
seems like a lot of money at the time, after he has bought that second-
hand Ford, or whatever he buys with it, that same inducement no
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/F414kCIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
longer exists. There isn't any inducement thereafter to stay in the
service, it is a one-lump-sum payment. Parenthetically, I might add
all of it is taxable in one year for income tax purposes. Anybody who
figures this out today, is going to figure that as a factor to be taken into
consideration. The man won't get. $2,400. You just tell hirn he is
going to get $2,400. Then the Government will take at least 20 per-
cent of it. back, because it is subject to taxes. So there are many
arguments on both sides of this point, but probably the best aronment
against the section is the fact that the Department hasn't even imple-
mented the law we have already given them.
Mr. PAUL. Well, the idea of the career incentive payment, and as
a matter of fact the idea of the current reenlistment bonus, is that it is
an incentive pay. 1 think this WaS reflected in the action of the. Con-
gress in 1949 when this whole system was changed to provide more
money after the first obligated tour. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what
we are proposing here is not an entirely new system. It is a proposed
change in the current system.
As of now, 57 percent of the money that is in the menlistment bonus
system goes to reenlistments beyond the first one. I think me have
reliable figures that indicate the. retention rates beyond that first re-
enlistment are pretty good.
Mr. IIARDr. Why don't we cut it off right there, then, and save
some money, instead of going into this other deal that you stated in
here.
Mr. BnANcn-Ann. The answer, Mr. hardy, is the possibility that
the 57 percent reenlistments now taking place, may be due in part to
this reenlistment bonus. We don't blow how much effect this present
reenlistment bonus system has on the present high reenlistment rate.
If we change it we may find to our sorrow that this had a very impor-
tant part in the high reenlistment rate. But this is the problem we
face. We don't know the answer to that.
Mr. BExxErr. May I ask a question again?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. Couldn't you use the legislation we have to accom-
plish about what. you want to do in this? Is there anything that.
says under that proficiency pay it has to stay with the man forever;
can't it come or go as the man is needed or not needed?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir; it can, and should.
Mr. TinxxErrr. Why don't you make that work?
Mr. PAUL. Well, we feel that. both proficiency pay and career in-
centive payment. are needed to get at. the problem of the retention of
critical skills. They are different things. The advantage of the
career incentive payment is that it has its maximuni. impact at the
time a man is about to make that big decision. It. is flatly stated
to be a bonus.
On the other hand, the proficiency pay provides n. continuing incen-
tive to the man in the service to acquire a specialty, to acquire a skill
that is needed by that service, and then to maintain that skill.
Mr. HARDT. You already have a certain reenlistment:: bonus now.
You also have a proficiency pay system.
A rid I think von would be in lot bet lee shape if yot would cc4ne in
here having tried to utilize what you have got, hut you haven't done it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : 914eDP661300403R000400280006-0
It may be that you've got a good point in suggesting that they be
cut off at 10 years, I don't know, maybe the reenlistments would go,
down after that if you did, but if your reasoning is correct, then it
would seem to me the sensible thing to do would be to continue on the
present reenlistment bonus schedule, cut it off at 10 years, and see
what happens to it.
Mr. BENNETT. I am looking to the other side of this coin. What
I think you ought to do is take the proficiency pay bill you have now
and get it as close to this sort of thing you are asking for as you can
get it. It looks to me like it could be identical, and the same motives
could be stimulated in either case, it seems to me.
Mr. PAUL. It is directed to the same problem.
Mr. BENNETT. You already told me, maybe I didn't get my question
across to you, but I thought I got the answer from you that if a man
was very proficiency in something you no longer needed, like threading
needles, making a sail or something, you could get rid of the proficiency
pay paid to him, because he is no longer needed. If that be the case,
it looks to me like you could use this proficiency pay to get the quality
of man you needed.
Mr. PAUL. That is right, there is no difference in that sense. It is
related to critical skills, and the degree of criticality can change.
Mr. BENNETT. They can utilize the proficiency pay more nearly to
what you wish.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, is the theory behind dropping the re-
enlistment bonus after the first reenlistment that the man has enough
years of his life invested already and it can be presumed he would
be more than likely to continue at his career?
Mr. PAUL. Tlfat is a big part of it, Mr. Gubser.
Mr. GUBSER. Now, you are talking here about the seventh year in
most cases, aren't you? Three-year enlistment and four-year re-
enlistment?
Mr. PAUL. That would be the average, yes, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. Do you have the figures about the difference in the
reenlistment rate of a man in the 7th year of his career, or entering the
8th year of his career, and one entering the 12th year of his career?
Mr. PAUL. I don't have those.
Mr. GUBSER. I would suspect it would be very significant, because
a man can turn his back on 7 years rather much more easily than he
could turn his back on 11 years, it seems like.
Mr. GORHAM. We have done extensive surveys on career intentions
and have looked at the actual rates of reenlistment by year of service.
In general the rates go up, as you said, from the 7th to 12th year.
At about the 10-year point rates approach 90 percent, in some
cases go above 90 percent. At the 7-year point the rate is approxi-
mately 70 percent or 80 percent.
Mr. GUBSER. You would say that there is a marked difference
between the first and the second reenlistment?
Mr. Gonunm. That is the sharpest difference.
Mr. GUBSER. Still a considerable difference between the second and
third, but from then on it is the same?
Mr. GORHAM. I would say between the second and third reenlist-
ment there is a marked difference.
85066-63?No. 6 4
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005{(14(21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. GLIISER. Didn't you say about 20 percent. a little while ago?
Mr. GORHAM. In the neighborhood of 10 to 20 percent. I would
have to check the figure.
At this point in a man's career he has much invested toward a. 20-
year retirement. At 10 years if he leaves the military department he
gets nothing out of the retirement system.
Mr. GAVIN. That. particular individual you were trying to select
knew that after he served maybe two terms, two reenlist merits, and got
a bonus for it, he was going to get cut off. He may say, "Well, what
is the use of getting in now? After 10 years they are. going to st-op
the bonus. Why do with the Navy or any other branch?" They will
find out quick enough what you are going to do, and it will determine
their future and their decision.
What would you do? Would you take a job if you knew you were
going to get no bonuses, and then after the two bonuses they i.vere
going to take it away from you ?
Mr. PATTI,. Tinder our proposal, Mr. Gavin, anyone who is presently
beyond the first reenlistment would continue_ to get his reenlistment
bonus until he has reached the maximum of $2,000 he is now entitled to.
Mr. GAVIN. You are talking about 10 years, now?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is prOSped iVe in application, Mr. Gavin, because
there is a savings provision to retain the present law for those who
have already reenlisted once.
But the point, that you make is a point that Mr. Rivers made, and
that is, we are dealing here with an unknown quantity. We just don't
know whether the present favorable reenlistment rate of those who
have already reenlisted one or more times would be seriously affected
by this phase-out of this present reenlistment bonus concept.
Mr. CI-Avg-N. Ile would be. I presume, if he couldn't do better on the
outside, but if he could do better on (lie outside he certainly is not going
to stay in the Navy. He is going where lie gets more money.
Mr. GUITSER. Mr.Chairman, if I may continue.
I presume the Department has come to the. conclusion that the
reenlistment rate would not be adversely affected if cut off after the
first reenlistment. If you come to that ...onclusion, maybe you must
have had some hard, concrete scientific evidence to back up your con-
clusion. What was it?
Mr. PA-t-r,. As I say, we can get more detailed figures and submit
them for the record, but the retention rates after the first- reenlistment
are really very good.
The amount of a reenlistment bonus that a man gets on his first
reenlistment-and later 'ones gets progressively smaller under the pres-
ent system. I don't believe that to give a. man a few hundred dollars
for that later reenlistment, when he already has 1 he investment c.f
munher of years in the service, is going to swing him one way or the
other. A tut the retention figures appear to back us up.
Mr. GAvtx. You are talking about S2,-100---t hat isn't a few dollars.
It would't go down to a few hundred dollars on the se2ond or third
one. wimld it ?
Mr. BLANDF(1111). 11 is :1 one-shot prf,posit 1011 1111(11'1' I Ile priripOSill sib-
mit led by the Department, unless they requalify under a critical skill.
I tut, a.!rain, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here wit h tie same prob-
lem 1 lint confronts industry. and everybody else, but ilw
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21140A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
ices are in a little different situation. We seem to always concentrate
on the critical skill man, and yet the armed services must depend on
the man who is doing the fighting' basically. I think we have got to
be careful that we don't get carried away with this idea that a man who
simply is a good barman doesn't have a critical skill. We have lots of
thesepeople. We may not have as many people who understand black
boxes, but that black box is only going to be as good as the man out in
front with the rifles. And yet you are going to give that man as little
as $500 and the man with the critical skill $2,400. This is what
worries me.
Now, we have got a built-in system to take care of the critical skill
man, with the P-1, P-2, and P-3 proficiency system; I still contend
the chairman is absolutely right. Let us implement the law we have
got first before we apply the evils we know not whereof.
Mr. ItivEns. I think it might be well to ask the Secretary what is
wrong with P-3, that you don't want to implement ?
Mr. PAUL. Well, Mr. Chairman, we started off very slowly on the
old proficiency pay system. As of now, 245,000 enlisted men are receiv-
ing-?`pro" pay of one kind or another. I was not a participant in the
initial decision not to go ahead with the P-3 payment, but I believe one
of the essential reasons why the service request for pilot programs was
turned down was that it was felt that the whole proficiency pay system
needed a thorough going over, and that we ought to explore different
directions.
I would agree with this committee that we have not administered
this program to the degree intended. I think one of the problems has
been that the system itself, has been a mixture of an award proficiency
for critical skills and for outstanding performance. As you know, the
legislation has both elements in it.
The services have administered this program quite differently. I
think we have got to find a means, and, in fact, the Secretary has
instructed me to come up by the middle of March with some proposals,
that will make more sense out of this system.
When we are able to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I think we will
be able to do it, we will be able to give the system a better test.
Whether or not $100-plus in a P-3 payment would fit in properly
into that system, I can't say right now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HARDY. Could we get back a little bit to the origin of this
proficiency-pay thing ? All the services were enthusiastic about this
thing, as I recall it, when we considered it in the committee. My re-
collection, we could be wrong, but I think it is correct, was that all
of the services were highly desirous of this particular program. That
was going to enable them to keep these key people. Then, after you
get it, you decide you don't want to use it. It is not the kind of thing
that ought to be rehashed.
Then, I would no right back to the questioning. If my memory
is correct, the testimony that was given to us by the military people
that testified misled us. That was their own thinking, reflecting the
attitude of the folks at home.
Mr. HARDY. Maybe it isn't the military, maybe it is the OSD that
is responsible.
Mr. GAVIN. The colonel was here in 1958, weren't you? You were
familiar with what we were going to do, and how the plan was per-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/413: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
fected with, such accuracy we were going to really save money. Do,
you remember that?
rememberthe Joint Chiefs of Stall', they?the brilliant statements
they made. Can you tell us why this law that we passed at that
time was not implemented and carried out?
Colonel BENADE. Mr. Gavin, I don't think I have anything tO add
to what Mr. Paul has said. The record speaks for itself. It has been
a great deal short of the authority that this committee wrote into law..
Mr. GAVIN. Talk a little louder, will you, please?
Colonel BENADE. The program to date admittedly is a great deal
less than the authority which was granted by this committee in the
1958 pay bill. The figures don't as yet show we have experienced
any substantial increase in retention as a result of proficiency pay, but
that is probably because the level of proficiency pay has not been
enough.
Mr. GAVIN. How much did Mr. Cordiner think we were going to.
save?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $5 billion.
Mr, GAITIN. I remembered the figure, I wondered if you fellows did..
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, if I left the impression with Mr. Hardy,.
that I said that the services were against this proposal, or Averen't
100 percent for it, I didn't mean to. They have ahvays been for it.
Mr. Timmy. Let us get this thing straight.
Mr. RIVERS. One at a time.
Mr. HARDT. I would like to find out exactly what the picture is. I
take it from what. you just said, Mr. Paul, that the services do want
to use it, and OSD has not, notwithstanding the fact Congress put
it into law. They say we have a little better bill for you here.
Is that the purpose of it?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Hardy, the services would have wanted to im-
plement it to a_ much larger degree than they have been permitted todo, that is quite right. What you are saying is right. The number
of people in the program now has increased to 254,000 people. We
are hoping to revise the rates of proficiency pay. We are working on
that very actively right now. The services are 100 percent in favor
of it.
Mr. HARDY. Well, this bothers me. This kind of retention bonus for
reenlistment?to mo is not the kind of thing that is likely to produce
what you seem to want, and I really would feel a whole lot better
about trying to consider a change in the statutory provision if there
had been a pretty good test of what is in the law now. There hasn't
been. And if your basic assumption is correct, that you don't need
to pay reenlistment bonuses beyond 10 years, I would be perfectly
willing to modify the law and save a little money on reenlistment
bonuses, and let you accomplish the objective in another way.
But T don't see the justification for increasing the reenlistment
bonus the way you have set it up here. I think the point Mr. Bland-
ford made is correct. particularly, at this first reenlistment point. with
I e younger people you are Irving to retain. Jr you give them a big
hunk of cash, there is going to be quite a few of them dissipate it
pretty fast. Then after that, the morale is going- to be worse than it
%void(' have been before the payment.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:49A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. PAUL. Very few of them would get $2,400, Mr. Hardy. That
would be the absolute maximum. And that would be for a 10 year
total enlistment.
Mr. HARDY. I am not sure that you have the ability within the serv-
ices to pinpoint your selection of your people so that you come up
with a satisfactory and result.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I want to say on that, but I do think it
might be pertinent to inquire, as Mr. Gavin suggested a minute ago,
where the $5 billion is we saved, if somebody will ever find it we will
have enough money to cover this particular bill.
Mr. GAVIN. In fact, we could increase it. This bill is only $1,200
million. This was 85 billion we were going to save in 1958. It must be
somewhere. Wherever it is it might be used to improve this legislation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Gavin, I might mention that Mr. McElroy was
Secretary of Defense at the time, and after listening to some of the
questions asked by this subcommittee, when he finally testified on the
?pay bill, he said that he could not say that there was going to be a $5
billion savings, and be didn't want to say there was going to be a $5
billion savings. The only thing he was willing to say was that it would
improve the efficiency of the armed services. He would never say there
was going to be any dollar savings in this.
Mr. Cordiner could still argue, that if we adopted his proposal, as
he wrote it, that it might have saved $5 billion because of retraining
savings and things of that nature.
Mr. IIARDY. And he could be just as wrong as he was when he wrote
it.
Mr. RIVERS. I think he wanted to abolish longevity.
Mr. 13LANDFoRD. Yes, sir; step-in-grade increases only.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Paul, what would be the saving in this partic-
ular provision when we repealed the old reenlistmc-t bonus and in-
stitute this one-shot proposition recommended by the Department ?
Mr. PAUL. There wouldn't be any saving, Mr. Huddleston. Not in
the first year, or the first years of it, at least. Because you would con-
tinue on, under the old system, those who had already received the
first reenlistment bonus.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. What would be the savings by the time 1968 came
around? Could you come up here and report to us what we had saved
by making this change ?
Mr. PALL. I think we can give you that figure.
Mr. GORHAM. In 1964, we are planning to spend for first-termers
$57 million for reenlistment bonuses under the current reenlistment
bonus system. For career people we plan to spend $94 million for a
total reenlistment bonus allocation of $151 million.
Mr. IIUDDLESTON. That is what you would be spending. My question
was, what would you be saving?
Mr. GoRnAm. I understand. The $94 million planned for next year
would be reduced each subsequent year, as the career personnel in the
system begin moving out. Enlisted men, who move into the career
force subsequent to the effective date of the pay bill will not receive
reenlistment bonuses. Each year after next there would be a reduced
amount for the reenlistment bonus.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0410: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. IIt-onnEs-rox. Do you have any estimate as to the amount we
would actually save ?
Mr. Goat 1.131. If you spend just what we are now spending en first-
termers, but reallocated among skills of different degrees of criticality,
we would spend something- on the order of $60 million.
Mr. l'At-h. Instead of $151 million. But that would be several years
off, and that may he a low figure, because there probably ought to be
more money than that in a reenlistment bonus or career incentive
payment. system.
Mr. II unnixsToN. Mr. Secretary, do you have records with regard to
the various provisions in this bill, the figure that we would :-ave by
this legislation, similar to what Mr. Cordiner gave us back in l95ti,
of the Sri billion we would save in his recommendations ?
Mr. l'Atn. I think it is an impossible figure, Mr. Huddle:4cm. I
don't think we can give you a figure that would stand up any better
than that $5 billion figure did.
Mr. lartmaxs-ralc. 1 appreciate your honesty, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Os:strats. On this question of reenlistment pay? the history looks
so good for the second and third term reenlistments that I for one
would not like to monkey with it. I think maybe if we removed this
reenlistment bonus in tin' second and third hitches, we might very well
be having the problem in these hitches.
Is there any way of going back into history before the reenlistment
bonus concept was started and seeing what the reenlistment percentage
was for the first, second, and third terms, and see if there had been any
major change since this -reenlistment bill was put into effect ?
Mr. Yes, sir.
Mr. GrolitiAlt. In 1954, t lie reenlistment bonus system was changed.
A larger portion of the bonus was given to the. first- reenlistment, and a
smaller one to the subsequent- ono. Following the 1051 change there
was a continued rise in career reenlistnients.
Mr. linANDroito. 1 'n fortunately, however, that is not quite - - --
Mr. ( jouillaM. You added some money to the bonus at the time.
Mr. BrANDroun. That is not quite ,_!orrect. If you took tine man's
pay grade, and multiplied by the number of years at which he re-
enlisted in that pay grade, and then took two-thirds of the pay, the
next time he came up for reenlistment, that might well have exceeded
the monthly pay when he. reenlisted the first time, because of his
higher grade. o the. figures wouldn't prove anything.
Mr. OSMERS. What is the problem? Why hasn't it been completly
implemented ? II as it been budgetary?the Budget Bureau said you
can't have the money for it?or when, is the problem!
Mr. PAUL. This is a problem of several years' duration, Mr. Osmers.
T don't think I can give you all the reasons, because I just don't know
what they were.
1 do know that the problem we have right now is that in sone cases
if you applied a proficiency pay of greater than $30, which is roughly
the difference in pay bet ween different grades. you ,ould havc an in-
version?that is to say, a lower grade person in a gi VA1 skill might get.
more than the person who was of a higher grade. This, in turn, raises
certain command problems, but I think the main difficulty is that serv-
ices have administered this proficiercy pay quite differently. The
A ir Force has put almost 100 percent. if not 100 percent, in crit ial
specialties. critical skills.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1bi-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
The Army and the Navy have treated it somewhat differently.
They have applied it, in most cases, to the critical skills, because those
are the regulations, but they have also applied it as an outstanding
achievement award. This is perfectly in accordance with the statute
and perhaps in accordance with their needs, but the fact of the matter
is that there has been an inconsistency of administration, and what
we are now trying to do it find the right way as far as all the services
are concerned.
One of the things we are thinking about is having a functional
specialty, or purely critical skills aspect, and apply our proficiency
pay to just that, and in addition to have outstanding effectiveness
awards handled as a separate matter.
I don't think the system as it is now laid out in regulations?and
this is our fault, not the Congress, because we are the ones who have
to write these regulations?makes a sharp enough distinction between
the two elements that an intended to be covered.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I might add, that the law also permits you to ad-
vance a man to a higher pay grade, so you wouldn't have a pay in-
version.
Mr. PAUL. Right.
Mr. BLANDPORD. We had that in mind when we wrote it. If this
man is that critical, or can do a job better than the average can, pro-
mote him.
Mr. PAuL. Right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Give him the pay of that grade. Then you go
back to the Appropriations Committee and say the law says we have
to do this under regulations, and therefore we have to pay it.
Mr. OSIVIERS. You say the services like this "pro" pay. It doesn't
reflect that in a lot of mail I am getting. There has been criticism of
the "pro" pay, that it sets up sort of special cheeks, and so forth, with-
in the services, and I wondered if you ever made a study within the
services of the man who had it and didn't have it, as to its popularity,
and so forth. Is there a morale factor in the services today ?
Mr. nun, Certain aspects of this system are definitely aimed at
morale. I will ask Mr. Gorham to back me up on this, because he has
been charged with studying this particular pay. I know from my own
experience in talking to enlisted men, that a great many of them feel
that this annual examination that has to be taken?I am talking now
of Army enlisted men?is not fair. They feel that, given the strict
percentage limitations on the amount of people that can draw this
pay, one fellow who happens to take exams better, gets an advantage
over the other. Some people perform better, although they are not too
good at taking examinations, and this has created a certain morale
problem. I think that there are other aspects of the system that have,
too.
Mr. OSMERS. I would hope we have the service secretary, or chief of
staff, or somebody come in and talk to us about it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. They are all here, Mr. Osmers.
Mr: OSMERS. Making a complete documentation as to whether it is
working in their particular service, or not.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think One of the reasons it is not working is it
has never been implemented properly. You will note the law does not
limit the number of people who can draw proficiency pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005%11 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. OSMERS. Somebody is limited, I would like to find out really
who.
Mr. BLANDFoal). I think you will find it. in the comptroller's office
of 051) if you look hard. Basically, that is where the question is;
it is simply a question of money.
Mr. STaArrox. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, going back to the question raised, I think by Mr.
Gubser, earlier, with respect to the bonus question. You mentioned
on page 16 of your statement that you made a little study as to what
would be needed_ to keep the junior officers in, and you determined
that an increase of $100 to $200 a month would make a substantial
-difference. You conducted some kind of a survey there. You don't
go into it but I don't know whether you had a Gallup poll or what it
was.
Now, was there any similar survey with respect to reenlistments,
or was this something based on another consideration?
Mr. PAL-i,. Mr. Stratton, Mr. Gorham was the head of our pay study
group. I would like to ask him to answer that question, please.
Mr. GoanAm. We did conduct surveys of both officers and enlisted
men. They were unique surveys, in which we asked different groups
of men, whether or not their career intentions would change if their
pay went up by a certain amount of money. For example, if the
members of the committee were the enlisted force, we would have
asked the three members to my left, whether $50 ould have made
the difference between them staying in or leaving the service.
The next three members we would have asked whether $75 would
make the difference.
The next, $100.
We then drew up a series of?
Mr. STRAIrroN. I tun asking you whether you did the same kind of
thing with regard to the reenlistment bonus?
Mr. Gointm. No, we did what I described only in terms of monthly
pay. We did conduct another series of surveys which indicated to us
how men regarded immediate dollars, that is, bonus money, as com-
pared with increments to his monthly pay. We found that men, in
general, preferred immediate dollars, that is, discounted future dollars
:it a very high rate.
Let me use an example.
Mr. STa.krrox. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
Mr. GokitAm. That is right. That is why we regard a 'veil] stinent
bonus essentially very efficient. That, is not to say you can't pay a
man money?
Mr. S'ra.vrrox. My question was whether the issue was raised
whether you made any attempt to survey the question whether a re-
enlistment bonus at the first reenlistment was more effective than at
the second or third. But. you didn't make any such study?
GoatiAm. Yes, let me answer your question now. I have been
beating around the bush. apparently.
We found that the reenlistment. bonus influences the first reenlist-
ment. inore than it does .the second and subsequent reenlist merits. It
.doesn't appear as a major factor for those in their second and third
reenlist ments.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:49A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. STRATTON. Well, now, this would also, I would think, be some-
thing that you could justify, and I think to some extent you were doing
that also on the basis of your statement that after the first reenlistment
then you have an investment in the service in terms of retirement which
you can't brush aside, lightly.
Mr. l'Aue. No, and you can't cash in on it until you reach retirement.
eligibility.
Mr. STRATTON. I know many who got called up in the Korean con-
flict, for example, reserves, wanted to stay on, as they had acquired 2'
more years in the service, they said we might as well make a career
out of it.
This idea, perhaps in contrast to the other members of the committee,.
seems to appeal to me, Mr. Secretary. The only thing that I can't
understand is why your initial increase isn't a little bit more substan-
tial; if you are really trying to do a job on the first enlistment it doesn't
seem to me an increase from $2,000 to $2,400 is really very significant,,
especially if you are going to knock off $2,000 on two or three succes-
sive enlistments?
Mr. PAUL. I think the difference, Mr. Stratton, is that in the case
of the $2,400 he is paling it all at once. The $2,000 is the maximum
now that a man can get throughout his whole career. He doesn't.
realize anything like $2,000 on his first reenlistment.
Mr. STRATTON. Oh, I see. In other words, what would be the maxi--
mum that he would get on his first enlistment?
Mr. PAUL. IIe gets one month's basic pay times the number of years.
of his second enlistment; $1,200, I think, is about the maximum he
could get for that.
Mr. STRATroN. Now, one other question, also with regard to this
matter of oversea pay versus hardship pay. If I understand this
correctly, you are proposing a kind of hardship pay in place of the
oversea pay. Now, does this hardship pay also embrace the hazardous,
duty pay, and you are going to have these two grades that would deal
with both hazardous duty and hardship, or will this be over and above
what you get for flight pay and submarine pay, and so on?
Mr. PAUL. This is entirely different from hazardous duty pay..
Hazardous duty pay is related to the rigors that the man, himself, has.
to undertake, the dangers he risks as a result of that duty. For ex-
ample, flying an airplane, or being in a submarine.
Unusual hardship pay refers to the conditions under which he lives..
There are an increasing number of men in our services today who,
are in some specialties. For example, in the radar technician field,
a man, if he is adept at a certain type of radar technique, is likely to
end up in hardship posts a good deal of his career.
Mr. STRATTON. Up on the top of Blue Mountain in the Adirondacks ?
Mr. PAUL. For that reason we think there should be some gradation
in compensation, in consideration of the degree of hardship a. person
has to undertake during his career.
In other words, I don't think, in certain technician grades, Mr. Bates,
that it does necessarily even out at 30.
Mr. BATES. That would be reflected in the rating, rather than the
location?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1454
Mr. Slim-1.?x. Your proposal is, there would be 25 percmt for
very hard hardships, and 15 percent for not, so hard; is that correct?
Mr. 1t-i. Yes, those would be the two categories. You could put
it into more categories titan that. 1 believe Mr. Cordiner proposed a
series of different categories of hardship, but we think that it would
complicate the system to make it inure than two.
Mr. STa.vrrox. What is the oversea pay now, is it 10 perevnt
Mr. PALI.. It goes front $8 to $22.50 a month, depending rn the
grade of the individual involved, J is the sante everywhete.
other words. wherever he is. as long as he is overseas or at sea.
:Mr. STRATTox. Thank you.
Mr. lit.ANDronn. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest i hat we take two
items, subsistence allowance and family separai ion allowance. and just
briefly discuss them, and then at 4 o'clock take the Deputy Chad's of
Staff for Personnel, Inbcause they ItaVe !Veil hero all day, and -tomorrow
we have scheduled outside witnesses, and then perhaps tomorrow a Fier-
noon we can go Imck to Mr. Paul, awl i the Deputy Chiefs mild be
here tomorrow afternoon. we could continue this.
Mr. flExNErr. That will be 5 o'clock every day.
Arr. IiI.ANDFORD. Ten to twelve in the. morning.
Mr. liENN arr. It is none, of my business, but I do not think this com-
mittee ought to run on the basis of adjourning at live.
Mr. 131?kxnrotto. The only point is to try to !)-et. the Deputy Chiefs'
test nuttily.
Mr. liENNETT. 1 (100 mind today. but it should not be permanent.
Mr. ItivEas. I would like. thourrh, to :ret the Deputy Chiefs of Staffs
this afternoon. We will not do it every day. We are not going to try
to rush this bill, we will t ake our time and do it right. I f we can't finish
it this week, we will finish it later.
11 we can't get the. Secretary tomorrow, we will get him to come on
Thursday.
Mr. PAT-L. ..kny time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr, InvEns. I do want to .get the personnel chiefs before we adjourn
this afternoon, then we won't try to do this all the, time, late at night.
Of course, it would suit me, but I know my schedule is different from
anybody else's. I will do what the committee wants to do, that is the
main thing.
Mr. Bt.:km-wont). Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss briefly with
Mr. Paul your suggestion concerning subsistence. As We know, there
was a $29 a month increase ill subsi4tence allowance for officers in tins
bill, and nothing for enlisted personnel. The third major part, of the
mail that is coining into the committee, is the resentwent on the part
of enlisted personnel that the subsistence allowance has been increased
for offivers, and there is not lung in the. bill for enlisted personnel.
I am informed by DOD the. cost or food has gone up 6.6 percent
since 19:-.).2.
Also.. I understand that the cost of food away from home, that is,
the meals von buy in restaurants, has gone 26 per,!ent since 1952.
-Presumably the subsistence for an officer is to cover his expenses when
he eat M.g in a commissioned officers' mess or eating at a mess aboard
a naval vessel. There is an interesting surcharge levied against, an
officer when he eat sin an enlisted ITIVSS.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1455
Basically, however, the officers subsistence allowance, which has
undergone several changes over the years. It used to be that officers
in certain grades received three subsistence allowances, up to as high
as $66 a month for certain grades, but when he got to be a colonel, it
dropped. There isn't any rhyme or reason in subsistence allowances.
The $47.88, which appears to be such an incongruous figure in the law
today, was a result of a 14-percent across-the-board increase in allow-
ances which we agreed to in conference in 1952. I don't think that
we can say correctly that it was based upon any set of figures or any-
thing else except that 4 percent was alloted to the basic pay and 11
percent to subsistence and quarters allowance.
But if we can assuine, however, that $47.88 is a reasonable figure,
then the officer is really only entitled to an increase in the cost of food
because presumably that is what he is paying for when he eats in a
commissioned officers' mess or eats at a mess aboard a ship.
Now, unfortunately, the enlisted man basically is subject to two
types of rations. There are only 811 that get the third type so that is
really meaningless. The enlisted man has traditionally been fur-
nished food in a messhall, but he also is allowed to subsist out, that is,
-subsist on his own, on what is known as a commuted ration. This
means he is allowed to mess separately, and we have only allowed
him the actual cost of the food to the Government.
Now the actual cost of the food to the Government varies from year
to year, and the last adjustment was made downward, I think, from
$1.05 to $1.03.
This means that when an enlisted man is allowed a commuted ration
he draws $1.03 a day provided he does not eat any meals in the mess-
hall. This, then, is what his wife uses as a cost figure for buying her
food. However, if we translated the actual cost of feeding that man,
am of the opinion that it would be considerably in excess of $1.03 a
day.
Now, for purposes of comparison, what we have done in the pro-
posal before us here, as far as the chairman is concerned, is to take
the $120 million, which was the amount that we set aside in this pro-
posed pay increase for increasing subsistence allowances for officers,
and divide that money up much more equitably than the Department
proposal, insofar as enlisted men and officers are concerned.
We increased the commuted ration and suggest it become a statutory
ration of $1.25 a day. We increased the $257 that the man now gets
if messing facilities are not available by 68 cents a day, which is 26
percent, because that is the increase in the cost of eating away from
home.
The subsistence allowance that was suggested in the Department
proposal is a significant part of the junior officers' pay increase with-
out which the increase would not approach the $100 figure Mr. Gorham
was talking about, and the amount which, the junior officers said
would be the amount of money that would make them think twice
about making a career of the armed services. If we take away the
entire $29, from the second lieutenant or the first lieutenant, and only
give him the basic pay increase, then we fall short of the $100 increase
per month, in increased, pay that the junior officer said would be impor-
tant in his consideration when it came to a question of making a career
of the service.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2oo5/oft4m : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
So the chairman has suggested, because the figures eon& out. to $129
million as opposed to $120 million for subsistence, that we increase
ilia officers' subsistence front $1-7.88 to $51.00, that we establish a. statu-
tory computed ration of $1,25, that we increase the $2.57 for messing.
facilities, when they are not available, by 08 cents, and that we then
give the junior officers, first and second lieutenants and WA's and
a $15 a month across-the-board increase. This would cost
:71;20026.000. Then increase all ot her basic pay scales for officers by
$10, which comes to some $27 million.
NOW, adding all of these figures up, the proposal that the chairman
offers as a substitute collies to $120 million as opposed to the $120
million that the Department proposal submitted for only increasing
the subsistence allowance of officers.
This still will not bring the junior officer up to the point that the'
Department thought was neceary from a take home pity viewpoint to.
make it as attractive as the Department proposal.
So the question here is, Should we do something with the enlisted
man's subsistence allowance ? That is the first question. Would you
comment on that, Mr. Secretary'?
Mr. IZINTEns. Ask him why they were left out.
Mr. PAUL. 'Well, with respect to the commuted ration change, Mr.
Chairman, that is propose,d here, of $1.25 frankly, it is hard for me to
say whether I think that is a good idea, or whether that is the right
amount. This is an awfully hard figure to compute, and I don't know
how you can arrive at a good figure.
The figure of $1.03 a day is based on the cost of the ration, and, as
I understood it, that has been the statutory requirement.
So I am at a loss, Mr. Chairman, to comment specifically on the
c,ommuted ration change.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am at an equal loss because all we did was multi-
ply 800,000 by 22 cents, and came out with $54 million, when we added
up all the other figures we came out to $129 million. The $129 million
that is in the chairman's proposal is awfully close to the $120 million
that you people were going to spend on officers alone.
I think Mr. Gorham would agree that there is an added
charge- -let's put it this way, if 800,000 enlisted men suddenly de-
scended upon the messhalls of this country, and said take your com-
muted ration, I don't want it. I will eat every meal in the mess hall,
I think it would cost you considerably more than $1.03 a day to feed
them.
Mr. PAUL. Of course a lot more would be eating there at that. time.
Tho average might go up or down, I don't know.
Mr. HuorieEsToN. I think Mr. Paul is trying to answer this series
of questions with a recommendation in the cold. Ik is coming back
tomorrow afternoon. Why can't we ask him to give us his reaction
at that time. It would be a little more meaningful.
Mr. BLANDPORD. We can do the same thing with the rest of the
provisions, also. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ITAany. I think it ini!rht he a :.zooil idea if we could have a
little clearer understanding of the basis for doing some of these
things.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:49A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Actually, we are working on a completely irrational approach to the
proposition, even the thing which Mr. Blandford has suggested, we
are taking $15, simply multiplying it with an arithmetical figure.
That isn't very logical. You took a $77 figure there for your officers,
not based on anything that is rational at all. It obviously was a
device to try to increase somebody's take home pay without any logical
basis for it at all. It is not related to the cost.
Mr. RIVERS. Let me explain this to the committee.
Mr. Hinny. I am talking about what Mr. Paul says.
Mr. RIVERS. That is exactly the reaction Mr. Blandford and I got.
?We tried, after we had gotten all this legerdemain, or whatever we
want to call it, we tried to figure out a way to say within that $120
million. The nearest we could get to it was S129 million. Ana I
right, Mr. Blandford?
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Itivinns. Then we found out the junior officers were short
changed.
We are just trying to find out a way to stay close to the $120 million.
Mr. HAnny. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to back up and do this
whole thin?. over. I think the approach that the Secretary has made
in these subsistence allowances are just as cockeyed as it can be. I
don't think we ought to undertake to use that as a device to give a
lower officer grade an increase in base pay to which they are reason-
ably entitled.
Mr. RIVERS. You remember I said in my statement the committee
will have to work it out.
Mr. HAnny. I certainly agree; I am going to go to work on that $77
thing.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's see if we can work out something a little better on
this.
Obviously, they don't want to take my suggestion, and I don't think
we like theirs.
Mr. Secretary, thank you. We will excuse you.
Do you think he will be back tomorrow afternoon?
Mr. BLAND-FORD. I think he will be here tomorrow morning also.
MR. PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. You are prepared to stay with us?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, at any time.
Mr. RavEns. General Vittrup, we will ask you to come up and say
what you have to say on this.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN, RUSSELL L. VITTRUP, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, US. ARMY
General VITTRUP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
I am happy to have the opportunity to appear before you in support
of the Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963.
The Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Army in their appear-
ances before the House Armed Services Committee and the Depart-
ment of Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Commit-
tee have already expressed their views on the importance of a pay
raise for the military services.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/14) CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
In this respect I know of no way to better emphasize the position
of the Army than to quote from General Wheeler's testimony:
"I should like to state briefly at this point that the Army is highly apprecia-
tive that the Congress has always recognized In this scientific age that men are
not machines, that high morale and esprit de corps do play an important part in
operational effectiveness, and that investments in personnel benefits do ;itty divi-
dends in the increased effectiveness, motivation, and usefulness of the individual.
This recognition and understanding of the value of the individual to thy modern
military service is baste to our continued development and improvement.
lt Is plain, I think, that the Army's greatest resource is the professioaal-style
soldier with the highly specialized skills needed to man the modern army. Our
ability to attract, develop, motivate, and retain people of this caliber depends
to a large extent on such things as troop housing, pay, benefits, family and
bachelor quarters, and family life. I strongly support the need for a pay raise
for the military, and believe there is agreement on this point generally. At the
same time, I recognize that there will be some controversy as to the amount
of the raise. I am content to leave decision on this in the calm:dile I ands of
the Congress anti this committee, since there is no logical ,vay one eat equate
salary received with the sacrifices which the nom and women itf the Army are
making now and are prepared to make when called on.
I krillg been in the, personnel business during the past couple of
years aird having had the problem of trying to get a soldic-r with
the right qualifications at the right place at the right time, particu-
larly during the Berlin buildup, and the Cuban criss, and to concur-
rently meet other high priority requireMents including Vietni;in and
Korea, certainly makes me realize(lie
great inqmrtance of not only
getting but retaining, on a long-term basis, competent people. Cer-
tainly adequate pay is a major factor in such retention. I ani sure
that it is not necessary for me to undertake to amplify this point
fort her with this committee.
Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement.
Mr. IZTVEIN. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions?
.Jr. I Noir-. I have just one, Mr. Chairman.
General, I wonder if you can tell the committee what contribution
your office or the Chief- of Staff (Alice or the Secretary of Army's
Ake made in the, preparation of this pay legislation that has been
before us.
General Vryruce. I didn't get the question completely.
Mr, I Nail-. I want to know what contribution you and the Army
111:0 to in the preparation of this bill we are considering.
General Vilma-v. Actually, sir. as aas been indicated, this special
committee niade most of the study in connection with the bill.
The Army, the same as I believe the other services, made certain in-
put, to that committee in data and little studies on the side that they
requested.
We also ?went over certain action officers, so to speak, and made
presentation to them on certain things like the ability to retain certain
people in certain categories, and such as that.
V. I Nan% Did you advocate this particular approach, this ap-
proach of the reenlistment, bonus?
General ViTracr. To the best of my knowledge, we did--
Mr. HARDY. Don't you know whether the Army did or not, Gen-
eral? This is your baby. This is your responsibility.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1311*-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
General Virritur. We did not advocate that particular "gimmick"
so to speak
Mr. Timmy. That is what I asked you.
General VITTRUP (continuing). In the preparation of the study.
However, at the time we had an opportunity to comment, we did
not object.
Mr. HARDY. So it was passive acquiescence?
General VITTRUP. Sir, you said that. [Laughter.]
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? General,
you heard Mr. Rivers' comments on the proposed bill?
General VITTRUP. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Would you advocate the elimination of oversea
pay?
General VITTRUP. The position taken by the Army at that time was
that we would not object to the elimination of the oversea and foreign
duty pay, provided the remote duty pay was implemented to a com-
parable and commensurate degree.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do you think $30 million for unusual hardship
and $133 million for sea pay indicates that would be the way it
would be implemented?
General Virritur. I do not.
Mr. HARDY. He knew we were going to take care of that, didn't
you General?
Mr. RIVERS. Did you read the statement I made this morning?
General VirrRur. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rivims. Do you agree with this last paragraph, where I said we
had some professionals on this committee?
General VITTRUP. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, General.
Mr. STRATTON. May I ask the general a question?
Mr. RIVERS. Excuse me.
Mr. STRATTON. I didn't understand your answer to Mr. Bland-
ford's question. You say you would have no objection to elimination
of oversea pay, provided the pay given to those on remote stations
was increased by a comparable figure.
General VITTRUP. What I said, I believe, I can quote it exactly here:
We have no objection to the elimination of sea and foreign duty pay
in its current form. It should be dropped only if compensatory pay
on a commensurate basis is added in the form of remote and isolated
duty pay, and family separation allowance.
In other words, to compensate; these two things are to a degree
in the same category.
Mr. STRATTON. You are saying
Mr. BATES. You don't want to give it a different name?
Mr. STRATTON. If I understood you correctly, what you are saying
is you don't mind the elimination of the oversea pay provided those
who are actually in remote stations are compensated accordingly on
the basis of their hardship, is that correct?
General VITTRUP. That is the idea.
MT. STRATTON. NOW, the amount of money that is Spent in total
doesn't have anything to do with it, does it?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/9462)1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
There would be presumably fewer people who would be undergoing
these actual hardships and would in fact he overseas, or would in -fact
be at se-a, isn't that. correct ?
General Vrrntur. Not necessarily.
Mr. STRATroN. Not everybody as the chairman hinmelf pointed out
eloquently in his statement?not everybody overseas could be said to be
in a hardship stat-us.
General V rrrace. No, sir; but. the percentages used in the compu-
tation, either 15 or 25 percent. I would think would sort of up the
ante on the amount of money involved?the number of people you
have in Vietnam, for example. They are. drawing foreign duty pay
now, but if they were given it 25-percent differential in pay, rather
tilian the foreign duty, there would be some. difference in the pay ArhiCh
they would receive, I would think,
Mr. STRATTON. It is conceivable, is it not. even if 3 on were to give
this higher pay, that the total munbers would be smaller, so therefore
the total figure would lie less? I took .Mr. Mandford to suggest that
because the totals were different, that. this had some significance which
I didn't. quite understand, but you agreed wit ii his St a tement.
General Virratie. My feeling is that he order of magnitude of $133
million versus $30 million leaves sound t lung left to be added to the $30
million.
Mr. STRATroN. In oilier words, your idea is there ore so many people.
who are in a hardship status, that if you were to give a larger bonus
to those who are in a hardship status, the total amount expended would
be pretty much the same?
General Vrrntur. Pretty close.
Mr. RivERs. Would you say that you would like for the committee
to look at this pretty hard?
General Virrniu r. Sir?
Mr. RIVERS. Do you say you would like -for the committee to look at
this whole deal very carefully'?
General Vrrnunr. Yes, sir; I am sure they will.
Mr. RivEas. You wouldn't object, would you?
General Vrrriaur. No, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Don't let's give the man any more trouble. The first
thing you know somebody is going to ask him how many people are
in Vietnam, how long they have been in Vietnani, and under what
arrangements they got there, and all these things, that the public
doesn't generally know. Don't let's ask the General. We want to
see him live a little longer.
Mr. BENxErr. Section 312 of this bill, page 24, provides for spe-
cial pay relative. to hostile fires, something comparable to combat pay.
Do you favor inclusion of that?
General Vrrnwir. Yes, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. There is one section of this that does give me some
concern, however, the overall section I am very much in favor of,
but I have some question about subsection 4,.
i which says, this pay will
be paid when a person is captured by a hostile force, or become miss-
ing under circumstances indicating hostile action was involved_
It. seems to me this might be subject to criticism of being; contrary
to public policy to pity somebody I hat was ruptured. I am not saying
it is throwing aspersions on anybody, hut I never heard of paying
people for that event.
a
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : W1RDP661300403R000400280006-0
General VITTRUP. That is sure a possibility, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. Wouldn't you look on this as a negative force. in
this particular section? Do you have any comments you would like
to make on that particular subject?
General VITTRUP. I didn't register on that particular point, to be
perfectly honest with you, when I looked at the bill.
Mr. BENNETT. YOU do favor combat pay?
General VITTRUP. Very definitely. I think the people that are being
shot at, ought to get a little better shake than the others.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, General.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. W. R. SMEDBERG III, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (PERSONNEL AND NAVAL RESERVE)
AND CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
Admiral SMEDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the
committee. I am, as you know, the Chief of Naval Personnel. I am
also Chief of the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Then I am Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Personnel and the Naval
Reserves.
It is a great privilege to me to be able to testify before this com-
mittee on behalf of a pay bill for the uniformed services; the first
military pay bill since 1958. Since that time there has been an ad-
justment in the allowance for quarters, but other important fields of
basic pay, subsistence allowances, and hazardous duty incentive pays
have not been increased.
It is my belief that very few of the citizens of this country are aware
of the degree to which the compensation received by the military man
has declined relative to compensation in industry and in all other
government activities since the military pay revision in 1958.
During this period, military men have been subjected to financial
pressures of two types. First, the pressure of a slow but steady in-
crease in the cost of living totaling close to 5 percent. Secondly, the
economic pressure generated by the continuing rise in compensation
of employees at all levels in the overall national economy. This in-
crease has been estimated at anywhere from 18 to 23 percent by various
sources, even more in some areas known to me.
The effect of these two pressures has been particularly severe on the
Navy. Navy families, because of the nature of our calling, are for the
most part concentrated in the areas where the cost of living is highest;
namely, around the great cities and seaports of this country. The skill
specialties which are so essential to the effective operation of our
modern Navy are the very ones in the greatest demand in the civilian
economy, and the ones for which the greatest financial inducements are
offered.
In addition to economic pressures, there is a third important factor
which adversely affects the Navy's retention of skilled personnel. I
refer to the long and frequent deployments of ships away from home
ports, which is required by the Navy's role in the cold war, with re-
sultant family separation. During calendar year 1961, the last year
for which compiled statistics are available to me at the moment, the
crews of three essential types of combatant ships in the U.S. Navy?
carriers, cruisers, and destroyers?spent 70 percent or more nights
85066-63?No. 6 5
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/H1221 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
away from home. Durimr a 4-vettr tour of duty, days away iron'
home for men in such ships totals approximately 3 years out tit) 4.
The Nay v is also being squeezed by !he increasinii sophistication
of our hardware vliiclt has intensified i 1.() need for longer and more
expensive trainiwr of personnel before t !ley can become skilled in the
operation and maintenance of our complex weal mus systems. Thus,
failure to retain personnel beyond their first enlistinvit ill many of
the technical ratings is a matter of continuing grave concern to me.
As Chief of Naval Personnel, I am responsible to the Secretary of the
Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations for providing trained per-
sonnel for Mir ships and their weapons systems.
Al:ty I give you an example taken from the records of a division of
a ship engaged in missile research. As you know. a division is an
important functional part of a ship's organization.
This division of which I speak normally has 11 electronics tech-
nicians ranging front third class (E-1) to (.1iief petty officer ( h-7).
Duritnr the past Is months, the enlistments of 12 of the 1:1 have ex-
pired. One chief electronics technician with 161/ years' service re-
enlisted. The II who did not reenlist ramred in g.rade from third
class t E-4) to chief petty officer I.; -7) with 4 s) years' service. We
know that seven left for jobs in industry with a startitn, salary of
::46t)t) per month strataht time, plus overtime and an expense allow-
ance. These men Were 11i1Vd by six different electronic.; firms, at least
four of which are known t() have excellent ret irement, hospitalization,
and insurance plans.
I II IIIN' the last 2 years, .1% ilaY0 lost
19 machine accountants to industry.
Frnfortunately, these, are not. isolated incidents. 'Ile number of
skilled petty officers in (Tit ical ratings lias been subjected to a st catty
erosion. Our shortage. of these petty offieers, as of On ober 1962. vin-
over 32,000 in our critical ratings ta'Ione. We also have a substantial
shortage of experienced officers, over 4.0uo, in the grados of lieutenant
and lieutenant commander zdone.
Admiral Anderson, in his statement before this full committee,
spoke of the _Navy's challenging problem of rapid turnover of
personnel.
This is. of course, primarily due 10 our inability to reir.in sufficient
numbers of our skilled technical personnel. The actual umnbers in-
volved. are startling aIld Will be of intm.est to this committee. If ant
sure.
I want ti digress a, little from my text here because I see it (lc:esti:I.
sax quite what I meant. I wanted to say the number involved in the
I turnover of our personnel, the numbers are startlinlr, and will be, of
interest to this con midi ee, I 'm sure.
We are talking about a total turnover in this present fiscal year.
1963, of 290,000 officers and men who are either entering or leaving
the Navy-144,2:52 entering and 14:),907 leaving. For fiscal 1964. we
forecast that, under present conditions, the turnover will be about
300,000 officers and men.
As this committee is well aware, the Armed Forces are proud that
ours is a profession of service. But. office.ff, and men must have a
reasonable wherewithal for themselves and their families. An
adequate increase in pay is clearly imperative.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1463
In my fourth year as Chief of Naval Personnel, based On experience
gained under three different Secretaries of the Navy and the three
Assistant Secretaries of Defense (Manpower) , I am convinced that,
without such adequate recognition of the value of our officers and
men, the Navy will be in serious straits in the next few years.
am confident that today, as in the past, this committee will take
the necessary action.
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify. This completes my
prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.
I might say, sir, incidentally, because you have a lot of what I like to
call gold, instead of brass here today, I have brought a second-class
electronics technician with me who is in the back of the room. I
will bring him every day I am here before your committee. I took
him off the cruiser Long Beach. He is drawing the highest pro-
ficiency pay authorized, $60 a month. He has a wife and three small
children. no is the nuclear reactor console operator on the nuclear
cruiser Long Beach, and I really brought him because I was shocked to
the core when I read the other day in an official piece of paper that his
opposite number in the SS Savannah, the only merchant nuclear ship,
draws $14,000 a year, and his union is negotiating for a 50-percent
increase for him. This young fellow gets $397 a month, with the
highest proficiency pay we can give him.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I have so many questions I want to ask, maybe I better
let Mr. Hardy start off.
Mr. HARDY. I wanted to ask the same question I asked General
Vittrup, just what did your office, or the Secretary of Navy, con-
tribute to this piece of legislation we have before us?
A chili ral SMEDBERG. I will say first, sir, we contributed the same
group of people to work with Mr. Gorham's committee. We made
presentations outlining our problems. In the short time that we had
to see the results of the committee, both our Secretary and Admiral
Anderson protested vigorously against this career incentive payment
system.
The letters are a matter of record, I'm sure.
Mr. f ARoy. The incentive reenlistment?
Admiral SMEDBERG. This career incentive payment system we are
talking about, the reenlistment bonus; yes, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. Were very much against it, Admiral, did you say?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir, they expressed very strollg views
against this proposal.
Mr. STRArroN. The present system?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir; I'm talking about the proposed system.
Mr. HARDY. The system that is contained in this bill, is that right?
Admiral SMEDBERG. The system that is contained in the House bill,
not Mr. Rivers' bill.
Mr. HARDY. That is what I'm talking about, the House bill.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
MI:. HARDY. I think, Mr. Chairman, we ought to have at least in our
hearing record, a copy of these, so that we can understand fully the
arguments that have been made on this point so that our record will
be complete.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005{V1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mi'. RivEits. Can we get those, Mr. lilititlford
.Mr. Bi.,,NDFoRD. I think it is really a question here of executive
communications, which I don't like to raise, but I presume if. the com-
mittee requested the Navy to submit. to it its recommendations con-
(erning the career incentive payments that there will be little the
Secretary of the Navy could do except to comply with the request.
\Ii' IIiiy That is the request I am making, Mr. Chairman. I
hope you will honor my request.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's see if we can't get that.
Mr. lin:km:wow). May I ask, Mr. Chairman, in that connection, if
Admiral Smedberg thinks this bill, as written by DOD, %yin go it
long way toward solving the Navy's problem?
Mr. Ilium% In light of the procedure -
BLANDFORD. Well, the DOD bill, as a whole..
Mr. Rivnits. I assumed Admiral Smedberg didn't recommend we
discontinue the sea pay.
Admiral SMEDBERG. To answer the first question first, sir, if I may,
although the seniority is less.
In my opinion I definitely feel that the problems of retention which
we now face in the. Navy will continue to exist under this bill.
Mr. BLANDEORD. You think that the chairman's proposal is an
improvement?
Admiral SMEDBERG. AS I see it I think the chairman's proposal is
an improvement, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You think this will do more to help solve your
problem of retention?
Admiral Smr:Denizu. 1 think it will help more, sir.
Mr. BLANDroaD. It won't solve. it?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Are you satisfied with the increases provided for
officers?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Personally, sir, I am not.
Mr. BLANDroun. Do you think we have made sufficient increw-e for
he junior officers?
Admiral Su metilai. Personally I do Lot feel, sir, that---I don't want
to volunteer in formation, I want to express my views, but I can't
express my views--1 don't feel t hat I can volunteer information, sir.
Mr: ILrmy. Then we will just have to give you a whole flock of
questions, Admiral. I appreciate your situation.
Admiral Sm Eminim. Yes, sir.
Mr: IlLANDForm. Do you think the senior oilicers?lets put the
ill [est ton this way: Do you feel the junior officers look to the increases
provided here for the senior officers, and that this enters into their
consideration as to whether they are going to make a career of the
Navy ?
Admiral Sur:Denim. I personally feel very definitely that is the case,
particularly with the best young officers, the smartest ones, the ones
we want most to keep.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Obviously the Navy did not recommend the
elimination of sea pay?
Admiral S:11EDISERG. We did not, sir.
Mr. Itivnits. Did you protest it.?
Admiral SMEDBERG. We did, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 IRINk-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. HARDY. If that was in writing, Mr. Chairman, I ask we have
a copy of that, also.
I think we need this in order to understand this better.
Mr. RIVERS. If we can get that?Mr. Blandford, see if you can get
that.
Mr. Bates, do you have a question?
Mr. BATES. Fiscal 1961, why such a large increase in the turnover?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It is not a great deal larger, sir. It is only
about 10,000 or 12,000 more, 290,000 to 300,000.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is in and out, both, sir.
Admiral SiVIEDBERG. It is an in-and-out total.
Mr. BATES. It is in and out, oh, all right.
Admiral SI'vIEDBERG. It is a total of 10,000 in and out, or about 5,000
each way.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do you think, Admiral, the chairman's suggestion
which has not been thoroughly discussed, but contained in his state-
ment concerning a family separation allowance for all personnel who
are truly separated from their families, and the illustration you have
given here of a man going to sea, and being actually at sea 3 out of 4
years, do you think this family separation allowance the chairman has
suggested would help to alleviate the situation?
Admiral SmnneEno. Yes, sir, it is one of the finest things I have
heard in a long time.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You would endorse the family separation in the
concept Mr. Rivers has proposed?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Heartily, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I wish we had time to read the letter here that was
handed to me by somebody. If the committee will give me a second,
I would like to read a little bit of it.
Mr. IIAney. Second.
Mr. RIVERS. Read starting right here [indicating].
Read starting at No. 1, and read on through there.
You spoke of that electronics young man on Long Beach.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir, who is here now.
Mr. RIVERS. HOW he compared with a man on the SS Savannah,
NSS
Admiral S1VIEDBERG. No, it is the SS, Steamship Savannah.
i
Mr. RIVERS. This letter s from a captain, comparing himself with a
civil service employee.
Admiral SAIEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I want you to hear that. Read that.
Mr. BLANDFORD reading:
"In view of the recent pay increases for professional civil service personnel,
the small amount of information that has leaked out with respect to the potential
military pay increases has been most disquieting, in fact, almost insulting.
At the comparable service position level, civil service personnel will receive
approximately a 20-percent pay increase by January 1, 1964. The only infor-
mation I have been able to gather with respect to our military pay situation
ostensibly because Secretary McNamara has maintained a veil of secrecy over
this matter is that captain will be recommended for a pay increase of about
$45 per month. If this is true, then I find the entire pay situation insulting
with respect to the military-civilian relationships in our activities.
I am not against the pay increases for our civilian engineers. Their increases
have made their pay somewhat equitable with their commercial counterparts
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/213 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
* GS -11 and above civilian personnel making up to approximately $4,O00
more per year than I will be earning including allowances as of January 1, 1964.
consider this to be a most unhealthy command and management situation. I
feel that I ctintribute just as much technically and considerably more in ad-
ministration and deeisionmaking on technical matters as any civilian engineer
in a certain laboratory. I am sure that this situation provaik in other labora-
tories and activities of the Navy, and in ships, perhaps to even a greater degree.
My pride has been wounded sorely and the pride is about all we have left in
our profession. I would take such retirement action most reluctantly since I
have loved the Navy and it has been fair and just with me in the past.
Gf course, l as an individual don't really count for much in the Navy but I
feel there must be hundreds more who are going to have the same thoughts and
conclusions and the Navy and Government cannot afford to lose our collective
services.
I request this matter be brought to the attention of those in uniform who are
working with the pay study groups and/or the Secretary If the Navy.
Mr. IttvEits. This is a thing that is on my mind. If we look at
these things as a slide rule proposition. anti crudirw it solely to rgures,
they talk about quality control, we don't have any. We are dealing
wit it human beings, and there is no suffi thing as slide ride thiaking.
The slide rule thinking is bad for morale. We have so frequently
used uniform services up and down the breadth and length of this
country. I lived in the shadow of a naval shipyard all Inv life. I
used to work in a naval shipyard. We don't like to seecleavwe
"s,
latween civilian personnel and (Aver personnel.
To let these things get so far out of line is disturbing me. It is
destructive in my opinion, of something that you can't buy with money.
If one dedicates one's self, and realizes someone is overlooking this,
IL is solnet hing you can't put your hand on, but it is a tra!dc thing. It
is a tragic thing.. You can't evaluate these people.
If they are losing interest and wanting to get mit all over lie lot,
front the lowest to the highest. It must bring you the sante heartache
that I feel. You must, see a "j ill ion- cases. I have got ten so many.
Mr. Blandford is my repository. I don't know how many you get.
Admiral SA! tamEtio. You have expressed my personal thoughts far
better than I could, Mr. Chairman. In my own Bureau, and in all of
our bo menus, we are having I his same sit nation. Our division dii eetors
!low have many people working for them who are drawing more money
than they who have the full responsibility and the ant horny for all
the decisions and judgments that are made in t he division.
Mr. 1:ivEtts. '[los is what is dist urbim, ine. When I vompilod nv
statement ,1 put it in.
NIr. I I Atinv. 1 was thinking along this line, Mr. Chairman. It is an
ext remelv serious sit tuition, and I am wondering what we can do from
it practical standpoint in view of the pay raises that have been ap-
proved, I believe another one goes into effect soon----in view or I mi
tem, I think most of us who are realists believe there is no prospect. of
getting a military pav bill that would twerconw t his inversion sit _union
hat you have I wen talking about.
Now, you are bound to have a rather rough morale sit nation. where
you have military personnel and ci% ilian personnel working in the same
area. perhaps the military personnel even supervising the civilian
personnel, and the civilian personnel getting considerably more n pay
titan the military.
I don't know what the answer to it is. I think it perhaps obviously
would not be a provision for prohibit ?irg the employment of a civilian
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:47A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
at a higher pay rate than the military supervisor, but there must be
some way that we can approach this. Do you have any suggestion?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I can only say, sir, it is my personal conviction
that if this is not corrected, it is going to be very bad for the military
services.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, I think we should bear in mind that
we have a serious imbalance, or have had in the past a serious imbalance
in the armed services personnelwise.
One of the great problems that we always face in a pay bill is that
we separate the concept of pay from the concept of career management.
Perhaps the ideal system would be one day to write a pay bill and a
promotion bill simultaneously. Then you would have your attrition
rates established by law. About the time you get an attrition rate
established by law, you come across a situation such as Korea or the
Berlin crisis. Then your attrition system falls by the wayside.
One of the problems that we face, which was brought to my attention
the other day, that there was a recommendation at one time in 1958
that if the 1958 Day increase were to be put into effect, then they would
reduce the numoer of colonels and captains serving on active duty.
This has not been possible, because of a variety of things that have
come up since that time. Then we had to pass a hump bill to get rid
of captains, in order to provide promotion opportunitiesi for com-
manders then we had to force out commanders, n order to get pro-
motion opportunities for lieutenant commanders.
On the one hand we talk about an officer who retires because his
civil service counterpart is earning more money, and on the other
hand, we talk about forcing out a commander who wants to stay be-
cause there isn't any place in the promotion system for him. What I
am saying is that when you combine pay and personnel management
together, and try to consider these as isolated parts of the whole, you
just don't come up with a really intelligent approach to this matter.
I believe when the Bolte proposal is considered and thoroughly
analyzed and we get together, that is, the services come closer to-
(Yether, on uniform promotion procedures, that thereafter, someone
is going to have to sit down and write a pay bill commensurate with
promotion opportunities.
It is going to have to be tied hand-in-glove.
Mr. RivEas. Of course, Mr. Bates makes the observation that the
rate by which obsolenscence has overtaken the fleet, this deficiency in
your personnel will be all right, because you are not going to have any
fleet to put them on anyway.
We ought to wake somebody up and get this fleet going. I just
don't know what is going to happen, frankly. I am just as indecisive
as the rest of you. The only thing I know, is that our fleet is getting
obsolete much faster than we modernize. We can add up 2 and 2.
Your personnel is in the same situation.
I have been in Congress 23 years, and I never have heard anybody
discuss, in the annual pay increases for the Post Office employees?
I never hear anybody worry about the budget. They pick out the
thing, and away we go.
Mr. BATES. I wonder why that is, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. RivEas. You know why that is. I never heard anybody worry
about the budget in that bill. They just give a raise, and that is it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/042g CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
But here we are with people who arc charged with the responsibility
for the security of this country proseribed by a budget figure, and it
is disturbing. That is why this letter was real I, that is why I wanted
this letter read here.
Mr. Multifold., what will they make: these civilian employees ?
Mr. IinAxDrom). Actually, the figure of about $:.1.,100, a GS--14 will
make betweeen $3,000 and $3.500 room than 0-6. Now you can sub-
tract from that the retirement feature, because of the fact that the
civil service individual must. contribute toward his own retirement.
don't want. to get into that aspect of it, because you would ae here
forever when you start discussing who contributes most or who has
the better system. But. you can subtract, about 61I percent. from that
figure of his total pay and you will find that the G5-1-1.-- -and there
used to be relatively few of them, and I have the lig,aires. we have
many inure. GS-14, n, and it;, now?there is about a $2,50H-a-year
difference, if you consider many factors, and you can argue that figure
one way or the other.
We try to make this apply to 15,00to 0-- Ws, for example. It s obvi-
ous there aren't 15,000 0- 6's who have 6 or S 14's working
for them. We probably have some 0-6's, who probably have a GS-3
working for them .
.am not being critical of this at all, Admiral. What I mean is, in
imlitary pay system, as in a Government. pay system, the good man,
the average num, and the fairly borderline case, and the outstanding
man, all draw the. same pay. That. is why it is impossible in my
opinion to ever try to compare military pay wit 11 industry.
In industry you promote the man and make him president of the
Ford Motor ( 'o., t heii inake him Secretary of I )efeitse, if he is a really
eapable individual.
We have below-the-zone selections. Tkre do have selection 11.1) to the
grade of captain, and then we have selection on to admiral. We, try
to do this on a. best, fitted system. We try to work in a system that
will produce the best men for the jobs. but we also know we have to
use promotion in order to get people pay increases. The difficulty
here. is that you have got lieutenant colonels who are doing fatalistic
jolts.
In industry they would probably be making $:;5,00() a year. On the
other hand, you undoubtedly have 0-5's who are ruining small post
exchanges some place, who would do well if they got $6.000 a ear in
a comparable position in industry.
This just happens to be the. luck of the draw, as to where a man
is serving at the. time. his next assignment might. put him in an im-
portant position. This is all part of the military system. This is
why the comparisons are so_ unfortunate, because the man that sees
this, the man who has the GS-1.-I working for him, is the man who at
that moment is unhappy, and he is the one who applies for retin2ment.
Mr. RIVERS. We don't want to get too much into philosophy here.
Mr. Stratton.
Mr. STRATrox. I would like to get the Admiral's point. 0' view
here. It is my understanding that you like to answer questions,
rather than express your point of view.
Admiral, do I take it that you favor this bill or you are against- I I.
personally?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21144A-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Admiral SMEDBERG. I support a pay bill, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, now, is your recommendation for a higher
increase?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. What was the difference between your recommenda-
tion and the bill?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Well, I would say roughly, where this bill is ap-
proximately 13 percent, or the bill is 11 percent, we honestly can't
find where that 14 percent is I would say that the minimum neces-
sary to bring the military man back into a comparable level today in
the economy of the United States would be something on the order
of 23 percent, which is just what the civil service has had in the last
41/2 years. We need comparability in government. I am not worried,
myself, about the comparability in industry. I agree that we can't
have that.
Mr. STRATTON. I don't want the philosophy of it, Admiral, I think
we all agree on that, and I think we also recognize this is probably an
impossible goal. I want to know what the Navy recommended. Did
you recommend a 23-percent increase?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir; we did not make a specific percentage
or dollar increase.
Mr. STRATTON. That would be what you would recommend?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir. This is my own personal opinion.
Mr. STRATTON. Is this a straight across the board, or do you disagree
with the way in which this thing is allocated between the various
ranks?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It would not be in my opinion straight across
the board, sir. I think that the attention that has been given to the
middle-grade officers is excellent. I think that that is going to correct
some of our problems in the salary area. The lieutenant (junior
grade), the lieutenant, and lieutenant commander. I think the ensign
is woefully short, in comparison with all his fellows. His increase
is barely that of the cost-of-living increase since he had his last raise
10 years ago.
I feel that the enlisted middle grades are getting about one-half
of what they need to have to live decently. Where they are given $20
to $35 a month, it should be $40, $50, or $60 a month, in my opinion, to
enable them to live decently like Americans.
Mr. STRATroN. What about the higher ranks?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I honestly -feel the smartest young man will
not be very much attracted by the salaries of the higher grades. The
percent increase of the higher grades, as I read it, is equal to or just
less than the cost-of-living increase during the east 41/2 years.
Mr. STRATTON. You don't recommend?you still don't recommend
a flat increase in each particular grade?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir. I think this committee is far better
equipped to do that than I.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, I am sure the other members are, but I am
just one member. I don't know how we can do it without getting rec-
ommendations from those who deal with this kind of thing. It would
seem to me any pay bill would be an almost impossible job.
I would like to get your recommendation, Admiral, with respect to
the Navy. How much should ?we give the admiral, how much the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/27Q CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
captains, how much should we give the aiyrent ice seaman, 011(1 so on ?
It seems to inc this would be helpful, Mr. (. itairman.
Mr. IIIvEns. I don't think the Admit al made any such proposal.
Admiral SmEnnEno. No, sir.
Mr. STRArrox. I am 1 rying ill girt. hint an opportunity to uresent
ii io us. Perhaps he could !rive it for the record.
Mr. RivEns. 1)0 you have an v such st tidies !
Adndrid SAIKIMERii, I lave NV(' IldieS!
Mr. Ili vEas. l lave you any such list of stig!rest ions he asked for
A dllitral SAY EmtEuc. I have not made up ;1.. del ailed par bill no, sir.
We. have very definite ideas, some of which I just s!ated in response
to quest ions.
r. STiLkyruti. 11.(.1 llw tmv to pursue some or these oilier ihiiiis then.
A(111111111, to F ry to .0-et .vour thinking. This is for "ltidance for me. It
is all very well fO o i ilk ahout how inadequate t he bill is and it
is all very well, of course, to talk about how t here is no dollar rum re,
but we are talking about I ax cuts and t rying to reduce the expendit ores
to !Meet it. and it does Seen] to Me we Int ye to be as responsible on this
committee Os any other commit tee is.
What about this reenlistment bonu-z? Do I understand Hilt von
aro in favor of the present system, and you don't reeuninnoid any
chanpv in ii?
Admiral SmEnttruG. No, sir that isnot correct.
STaArrux. What elnuvre would von recommend
A Sum I personally feel that the present proposil uvill
not increase t ret ent ion rate of the men we need to kt,li with us.
Mr. STa.vrrox. Would you oppose any increase in the reenlistment
bonus f(o. the first reenlistment as a method of I rvi 1.e. to attr.,.et the
men that von want /.
Admiral SNIT:Dm:1m. I personally feel, sir, that the present reenlist-
ment system has been very effect he in ratings, other than the (Tit ical
ratings. For the crit ical rat iffo-s, it is obvious to its we have to offer
0 lot more than ha VP been ()Grit-1p% or we wouldn't be :12,000 petty
racers sl tort in those critical ratings.
'We frankly feel that a bonus such as the Dept it mniemr of De feme pro-
poses superimposed on the present bonuses might do the trick.
Mr. STRAryrox. Superimposed on it, rather than substi t ut Ni for!
Admiral SmEnnEao. Yes. sir. For instance, we mn't honestly see
that 'there is much at t rani ion for a radarman-second to know that he
can ,01,( sc,4titt Wlivn today lie knows he ran get $.2.000.
Now it is I Inc he can't get it all at once, hot I am not cell ;ii ii that
?-ett ing it all at Onee is the alt riot ivy thing that it is porported to be.
We think that t he reason we have a 90-percent or bet ter reenlisment
late a ft er the first reenlistment. and we do not have that in our critical
rat imrs, the men who do reenlist, and they are splendid people, reenlist
about 80 percent for a career.
Mr. RivEas. Al that point. Mr. Stratton. may I interject here ?
If we were to implement he P-3 that would give him SI 50 a
month. That is $1,800 a year.
A dm iral SMEDRERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. That $2.400 is a lump payment, as Mr. hardy says, he
may wake up tomorrow morning and say, I spent all my money, I
bought that broken-down Ford. or what ver it is. now 1 :Lin hooked
for 4 more years. Whatever it is, tomorrow it is all .?.one.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2114K-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Under this P-3, he woul.d get $150 a month, and something to go
along with. I suspect that is why I made my statement. We ought
to give that a fairer try.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Were you telling me or asking me, Mr. Chair-
man? I am not quite certain.
Mr. RIVERS. If I started telling you, I would be speaking to the
wrong man. Did you hear what I said?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I did hear what you said, sir. I am in a bit
of quandary, because I have supported, for some years, a greatly in-
creased "pro" pay for the Navy.
And that was after coming from command of the 1st Fleet 2d
Fleet, 4 years ago, when I was against it. In the fleet. T was against
because there was great bitterness, and there still is today, among the
enlisted men. For example, two petty officers, the boatswains mate-
second, who comes off the forecastle after 18 hours in freezing weather,
comes down and sees the electronics technician-second, working in the
warm compartment and drawing more than he does every pay day..
It is a constant, every other week, irritation to that man to see this
other fellow whom he thinks isn't working as hard as he is, getting
more pay.
There are two sides to this question, Mr. Chairman. I personally
feel that the bonus at the point, of reenlistment is preferable because
that is a one-shot deal, it is not known to everybody else, really. It is
between the Government, and it isn't brought to light in the ship every
2 weeks at the pay table. That is my philosophy.
Mr. RIVERS. As against the full implementation of the P-3? or
P-2, or P-i ?
Admiral SMEDIVERG. Yes, sir. I feel the "pro" pay is a very valuable
tool if properly used, and have stated so during the past over 3 years.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Isn't that the answer, Admiral?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It is hard to say what the answer is, sir.
Mr. S'17RAVION. I would like to return to my line of questioning.
Admiral, do I understand you to say, then, that the implementation
of the Department's recommendation with regard to eliminating the
bonus on the second and subsequent reenlistments would, in your
opinion, jeopardize the reenlistment rate for the Navy?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Personally, I think it would harm it, sir. And
I think it fails to recognize something that I think is tremendously
important. And that is, that all men of high mental caliber are not
necessarily in the critical skills, nor does loyalty, dedication to duty,
and effectiveness, necessarily go hand in hand with skills and mental
capacity. We have perfectly wonderful men in this Navy in other than
the critical ratings, and we need them?all of them.
We can't lose them by taking away from them what they have today.
Mr. STRATTON. How do we take care of the gentleman that you
brought with you here, other than just a general pay increase?
Admiral SMEDBERG. The reason I brought him, sir, was in the
thought that perhaps at some time in this hearing you might like to
ask him a question. He was picked from the cruiser _Long' Beach.
I asked that a man with a wife and several children who was a nuclear
reactor operator be sent down here. :1 asked him when he came into
my office, how much more money per month would he feel be would
need to make the Navy a career. He hasn't made up his mind yet.
He is in has 7th year. He is drawing top "pro" pay. He said he felt
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/V2: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
that $100 a month might make the difference to him. lie is right here,
you could ask him, if you have time later. I will keep him as long
as this committee would like to have me keep him available.
Mr. STRATTON. May I ask just one more question, Admiral, and
that is, with respect to the recommendations on retired personnel, Do
you favor that part of the bill?
Admiral &MOBERG. After a long struggle, sir, I have come to the
reluctant conclusion that that, is the best solution in the long-range
interests of the country. I'm going to be one of the people who will
someday perhaps be inclined to say, in my old-age retirement, well,
these fellows are getting all this extra money, but I don't think now
that I will honestly think I am entitled to it.
Mr. STRATTON. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. thvnits. Mr. Long?
Mr. Lox?. Admiral, will this bill, inadequate as it is, in your opin-
ion, improve morale_ and increase enlistment ?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir, it is bound to improve morale. I
don't honestly feel it will increase retention, and I say retention,
sir, because frankly we get enough enlistments. Our failure is not
iii
Mr. LONG. I meant reenlistment.
Admiral &MOBERG. Yes, sir, reenlistment.
It will not encourage, in my opinion, rcenlistments beyond?in the
critical ratings.
The differential is too great, sir.
Mr. LONG. On chart 1, on the Secretary of Defense's report, ()L. page
4, there are a whole bunch of reenlistment rates here for first-term reg-
ulars, these puzzle. Inc a little bit. I wondered if you could clear
Up that puzzle possibly, Admiral.
I hink the last pay increase went into effect in 1958 ?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Do you have that table there, sir?
Admiral &MOBERG. No, sir, I don't. Does somebody have the
table?
1 have it now, sir.
Mr, LoxG. It shows as you mi!rht expect in 1959 there was an
increase in reenlistment rates for first-term regulars, that is what
you might expect as a result of the increased pay. But the thing:
that puzzles me is that in 1960, the year following that, reenlistment
rates went way down, and as a matter of fact, the average of 19")9
and l900 then is substantially lower, 25.6 percent, than it was in
(958. That puzzles me. Just why that sharp decline in reenlist-
ment, rates from 1959 to 1960 occurred. after that rather encourigin7
rise. And die!' I am further puzzled by the fact that, from flail on.
in 1961-62, there is an increase in the reenlistment rate in pract ieallv
every category, occupational category, plthough I gather that there
has been no substantial improvement in pay, or incentives. These
rates baffle me a little bit. 1 have a feeling we perhaps ought to
know what the reason for them is, to understand possibly what effect
the proposed pay bill might have.
Admiral SmEnenact. I can only say, Mr. Long, these, of courso, are
all I he services.
LoNc. That is right.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : pegRDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Admiral SMEDBERG. And I have compared these figures with my
own in the Navy. They are somewhat alike. Just for your own
information, my own Navy figures in 1959?or take 1958?were 22.6,
first-term reenlistment. Then 1959 was 23.4, a slight drop in 1960,
to 21.3, then at 27.8 in .1961, a 28.3 in 1962.
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Admiral SMEDBERG. We are very proud of those increases in the
face of the situation.
Mr. LONG. I wonder how you can explain them in view of the fact
that the pay hasn't really?how could you explain that drop in 1960,
which for all three services is very severe' and extends to every single
occupational category, and then second, how would you explain the
improvement since then?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I find it impossible to explain it, sir. I have
asked my people that question. We are trying to find the answer.
We don't know it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think I might be able to suggest to you, Dr. Long,
some of the possibilities. You will find that your reenlistment rates
will have something to do with your enlistment rates and in the years
when they occur; for example, following the pay increases in 1952,
1955, 1958. Now you will notice that 1962 figure, the civilians got a
pay increase, and the theory is when the civilians are getting a pay
increase the military cannot be too far behind. In this case they are,
but in 1962, people started talking about a pay increase, and that is
when this pay study started. So therefore, you have a slight increase
in reenlistment rates in 1962. Now, you will find that your 1960 rates
probably reflect the 1956 enlistment, you see. By that time the effects
of the 1955 pay increase had worn off, so that you didn't have quite
as many people enlisting for the 4-year period.
Mr. LONG. Kind of an echo affair.
Mr. BLANDFORD. These are echos, plus the fact you get the Berlin
crisis in here in 1961. That enters into it. You have the Lebanon
crisis in 1958. All of these things are factors in enlistment rates, and
therefore they are a factor also in reenlistment rates.
Mr. LONG. Do you find your reenlistment rates are very well cor-
related with the unemployment rate?
Mr. RIVERS. That is what I was going to say, the economic picture
affects it some in some areas?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It is hard for me to say, sir, as far as I can see
the employment in this country for the people we want is very good.
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Admiral SMEDBERG. And they are siphoning our people from us.
Mr. RIVERS. Has this been true for a long time?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It has been true for several years, sir, and it is
getting more and more true as the offers from industry to our people
increase in size.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the most significant figure, Mr. Chairman,
and Dr. Long, is to look at the 1959 improvement over 1958. This is
an indication of what happens when you come up with an "honest to
God" pay increase.
Mr. LONG. That is right, I pointed that out.
Mr. BLANDFORD. 1958 was a very good pay increase.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/1044j1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
),II'. 'Atm:. That was very encouraging, tts I say, hut the dropott in
111(t) occurred. I wonder if we will look for something similarly dis-
couraging alter t his pay increase.
llivEns. Thank you very much, Admiral.
We will start oil witii General Stone tomorrow morning, and ask you
to come then. We will also hear frni, General Diamond, General
'Ferry.
Mr. BLANDFono. Dr. Diamond is represent ing General Terry.
Mr. ItivEns. .ktliniral, have the young man stay around here a few
da vs.
We will meet again tomorrow ttt In o'clock.
( Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the committee. recessed to reconvene at 10
a.m., Wednesday, February 27, 19(13.)
HULSE ( REPRE:sENTATI VES,
COMMITTEE ON A IIMED SERV :CES,
St-ecommrri FA-. No, 1,
Wt./ !on. O.C.. 1' t:how-1.y 27.,
The subcommittee met, purstumt to adjournment, at 1 0:12 a.m., in
romn 1:I-A, Old House Office Building, lion. L. Mendel Riveis (chair-
man of the stilicommittN.` ) presiding.
Mr. llivrns. Let the committee come to order.
I want to announce that we will he unable to meet this aftermon.
We, have business on the floor. The chatrn tan wants us to be on the
floor at that t inn'. So those we cannot hear this morning, and who
are scheduled, if you will he here tomorrow morning promptly at Ill
o'clock Ave will take up exact ly where we left off.
1st here anything else f
BLANtwonn. NO.
would like to 1nsert in the record at this point a letter front the
deart etnerit its front 11w College of Engineering.. I liivei511v of Texas,
concern n1p. salary levels of professional engineers.
(The letter is as follows : )
Congressman lloNiElt
ii (MSC Offire
Waxhinyton,
.lEAR CONGREss M I N THo(INliEltItti : Ii ter has been engaged in profeisional
en4ineering for more than rit) years- -sometimes for industry, sometimes t'or the
Government and again fur university-level engineering education. This hits
int hided personnel selection for the Intcritational Harvester Co., the Tetinessce
Valley Authority- at Knoxville, the U.S. Embassy at Lundifit under civil .--erviee,
the United Nations at Ankara. Turkey, and the faculties at the University of
Tennessee and the I Tniversity of Texas.
I ne principle those of us involved in such engineering and scientific sa lection
needs to be emphasized. In closely related assignments in engineering at each
level, a high degree of uniformity must he maintained. This is especially true
in Federal offerings otherwise the harmony and efficiency as between services
disintegrate out of all proportion to the saving made by the lower paid units
of such services.
Currently, there is it hill proposing a much larger pay increase for tile civil
service personnel of the United States than for the military personnel ie?isigned.
to (I() mostly civilian duty especially in the fields of medicine, sanitary engi-
neering. public health engineering and indus7rial hygiene. For strategic reasons
these men must he prepared to go anywhere or any place under U.S. orders
but during peacetime are assigned to civil duties In sewerage, health water
suPPly and inedival services in States, cities. hospitals and g,)vernment research
laboratories.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21149A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The inconsistency of different levels of compensation for the same or similar
professional engineering assignments is most noticeable when the recruiting
agents of the several U.S. services visit our engineering and scientific colleges
and universities. It is not possible for an engineering faculty adviser to give
the interviewed graduates at the bachelors, masters, or doctorate grades a
justified reason for one U.S. service to have one pay scale and other divisions
to have a higher or lower scale.
I would recommend that H.R. 3006 be amended to place the salary levels of
men of professional engineering and scientific level on a comparative and equi-
table basis whether employed by the Civil Service, the Tennessee Valley Author-
ity or the civil activities divisions of the Armed Forces.
Sincerely yours,
W. R. WOOLEICII,
Dean Emeritus and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of
Engineering, the University of Texas.
Mr. RIVERS. Just before we call the first witness, I want to enter-
tain Mr. Hardy's request that you obtain from the DOD the position
of each Department on this proposal transmitted to Congress.
Mr. ILkuoy Mr. Chairman, I would, if you don't mind, prefer that
we defer putting that request in the record until after we had had
General Stone's testimony, because there are certain aspects of it I
think may clear up some of the data we need.
Mr. RIVERS. We will defer that. We will begin this morning by
hearing Lt. Gen. William S. Stone, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air
Force for Personnel.
General Stone, we will be pleased to hear from you at this time.
You may proceed, General Stone.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. WILLIAM S. STONE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE
General STONE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is
a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the matter of mili-
tary pay and allowances. This is my ...first opportunity to testify be-
fore your committee since my recent return to the Pentagon.
It is reassuring to see several familiar faces and to recall the many
pieces of legislation beneatinir military personnel which this commit-
tee has developed and sponsored. It is particularly gratifying to
renew my acquaintance with several members of this committee and
to acknowledge the collective experience, ability, and judgment of
all the members.
President Kennedy, in his message accompanying the Federal Serv-
ice pay reform bill, made quite clear his hope that Federal employees
would be paid at a rate comparable to industry. I-lis desire was
carried out by Congress insofar as civil service pay is concerned. I
suggest that the military pay should also be comparable to industry,
and certainly not less so than civil service pay. Please notice, I do
not say equal, but comparable.
In the balance of my statement I will make frequent use of the
civil service pay rates only as a means of making meaningful com-
parisons with other civil pay rates. i
The Air Force joins n prior testimony advocating the need for a
military pay raise. From a philosophical standpoint, I believe that
military people should always be compensated at a level which im-
plicitly recognizes the military profession as a dignified, respected,
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/176: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
and honorable one. As the users of some of the most expensive and
complicated military systems and hardware, it is also vitally im-
portant that, we attract and retain the highest possible caliber of peo-
ple. We cannot ask our people to continue to live under conditions
substantially inferior to those enjoyed by personnel of like ability and
experience in the civilian segment of our economy.
The Air Force agrees that the goals of the pay proposal before your
committee will help to achieve both of these ends. In attempt ing to
achieve those goals, however, we must face up to the fact that a period
of 1 i years between pay adjustments has been too long. The gap
but \\*Veil military and other types of oay has become too wide to be
overcome easily. Still, it must be overcome, or at least significantly
reduced.
I have appended a series of charts to this statement and I would
like to refer now to the first one.
The source of the first chart is the Endicott Survey published in the
Management Record of the National Industrial Conference Board.
It covers 352 college campuses, surveyed by 218 companies. You see
that the average college engineering graduate is made a more attrac-
t ik-e offer than we can make and that the take-home pay differences
exist throughout the years.
might add parenthetically, that these 218 companies hired about
15,000 college graduates in 1962, which is about the annual income,
input, of new officers into the Air Force each year.
The proposed pay rate for a second lieutenant may not attract the
high quality young man we must have in the Air Force to operate
and maintain the complex systems we employ.
The sharp young man we need sees that the starting military iialary
is lower than what he could get in civilian life-- he knows that law will
set forth his promotion opportunities and his pay. He looks at the
future. lie knows that in the military he will be required to make
frequent moves. that he will often be separated from his family; that
he may be required to serve in isolated and unpleasant places. On
balance, it isn't a very attractive career picture when eompared 70 the
relative stability and higher pay of civilan pursuits. Recent letters
requesting retirement from officers clearly pointed out their devotion
to the military life, their wholehearted willingness to serve and the
satisfactions they obtain from serving their country in uniform. The
tenor of these letters ran be easily summarized simply io the statement :
they can't afford to stay with us.
Of course, the young man we want, faces a milim ary obligation.
However, he may join the National Guard and not have to leave home,
or, he can be inducted and be out in 2 years. If, however, he elects to
become an officer in the Air Force, he is obligated for 4 or 5 years.
Many are taking a chance on the draft. If our pay rates do not be-
come more comparable, we must expect to attract even fewer good
people than at present.
Charts 2 and 3 are illustrative of imbalances that have taken place
since 1949. These charts do not intend to infer that the civilian and
military grades are equal?rather, they tend to illustrate how the pay
rates have grown further apart as the years have passed. This is
true of all civil service pay rates--and because the civil service pay
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214nIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
rates are now comparable to industry; these charts illustrate clearly
the lack of comparability of military pay?even with the proposed in-
crease you are now considering.
The upshot of this situation is that we have retention problems.
For example, in fiscal year 1962 we needed 13,000 reenlistments in
technical skilled fields to meet our requirements. We actually ob-
tained about VT percent of our desired input; for fiscal year 1963 we
need 17,000 reenlistrnents in critical skills. At this time it looks as
if we will obtain approximately 60 percent of our desired input and
this even in light of the normal rise in reenlistment rates just prior
to a pay bill. Anything less than 100 percent of our objective is of
course unsatisfactory. Lack of continuity and pyramiding training
costs are but two of the reasons.
In the officer area, we are retaining approximately 41 percent of our
young officers beyond their minimum obligated tour of duty. Within
this overall rate, rated officer retention is 56 percent, nonrated officer
retention is 21 percent, scientific and engineering officer retention rate
is 20 percent, with some skills in the scientific and engineering areas
as low as 7 percent.
It is anticipated that retention in the future will be even more diffi-
cult because about 90 percent of the officers we are now procuring have
college degrees. This will increase their chances of obtaining jobs
outside the military with far more attractive pay scales than those we
can offer. It is not unusual for an officer to leave the service as a
lieutenant with pay of approximately S6,000-1958 rate?per year and
within 12 months command a salary of $10,000 in either industry or
civil service. In a recent service publication, a former staff sergeant
wrote?
Because civil service offered higher pay and faster promotions I, a 30-year-old
staff, picked up my Air Force discharge along with my newly won bachelor of
science degree and accepted a position as a GS-7 in the procurement field at
Fort Hood, Tex.
In addition, he stated?
Now, two and a half years later, I am a GS-9 (compared to a first lieutenant).
I have a civilian secretary, a second lieutenant, and three sergeants working for
me, and I am eligible to join the Officers' club if I so desire.
When we consider comparability, which is so sorely needed, we
should include all grades and ranks. I need not go into detail on the
senior officers' responsibilities for vast amounts of the Nation's re-
sources and the demands on them for the highest degree of manage-
ment skill. The influence of adequate compensation at the top as a
factor in attraction and retention at the lower levels should not be
overlooked. The capable, ambitious young man who aspires to suc-
ceed will look further than immediate salary in selecting his lifetime
career. His goal is the top, and he naturally will examine the remu-
neration at this level when making his carrer decision. I note that
the proposed pay increase for the Chief of Staff is $95 as compared
with a $120 increase for a chief master sergeant.
This committee will hear detailed testimony on all the features of
this bill. I will not take any more of your time at this point. I will
conclude my remarks by saying that the record of this committee
reveals an intense interest in the welfare of the military man. I have
850(36-68?No.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04141g CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
the utmost confidence in the. collective experience, ability, and judg-
ment of the committee to recommend an equitable bill which will suit
the needs of the service.
I would like to thank the entire committee for its nterest., ai d com-
men(l your counsel, Mr. Mandford, for his assistance and sympathetic
underst amling of our problem.
(The charts above referred to -Nos. 1, 2, and 3-- -are as follows:)
CHART 1
COWPARISON OF ANNUAL INCOME OF COLLEGE GRADUATE (ENGINEERING)
IN AIR FORCE (NONFLYING) AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY
(MIL INCOME: BASIC, HAS, BAQ) (Proposed Basic Pay)
(IN HUNDREDS)
? $110
99
$10872
El Air Force
Industry
$8868 $8976
88
77
$7056
$7235
^
66
? 55
$4896
? 44
(+$2160)
(41633)
(+$1896)
? 33
? 22
- 11
0
ONE YEAR SERVICE
FIVE YEARS SERVICE TEN YEARS SERVICE
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1iWRDP661300403R000400280006-0
CHART2
SALARY COMPARISON
0-5 with GS-14
1949 to 1964
DOLLARS
(1000)
18
17
_
_
17250
16245
16
_
15
_
142901
14
_
GS-141
13275 13260
13
?
I t
OSD
120401
1 Proposal
12
_
117661
r-
11520
0-5
11
10600
10272
10
98001
9516
9
8952
91%
90%
85% 87% 81% 72% 77%
8
tii
tiI i it
__I I
49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65
NOTES:
1. Computed at maximum pay points.
2. Civilian salary includes Base Pay only.
3. Military salary includes Base Pay, BAQ and BAS.
4. OSD pay proposal for 1963 includes $29.22 in increased
subsistence.
91% 7.$17,250 $15,697
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0601 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
DOLLARS
(100)
45 _
40 ?
35-
CHART 3
SALARY COMPARISON
E-3 with GS-3
1949 to 1964
4135 4195
4075 (
GS-3
3430 31780
3190
30 ?
2890
25 ?2238 2424
77%
20 ?
15 ?
10 ?
5?
2586
' E-3
76% 75% 71% 66% 72%
2682
3018
2730r_ir OSD
Proposal
0
IlliIIIIIiI
49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65
NOTES:
1. Computed for E-3 with over 4 years and GS-3 in
step 4.
2. Civilian salary includes Base Pay only.
3. Military salary includes Base Pays BAQ (1 Depend),
BAS, Reenl Bonus, and Clothing Allowance.
4. Computed on an annual basis.
77% X $4195 $3230
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1R-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much, General Stone.
I want Mr. Blandford to ask a question for me concerning these
men assigned to isolated posts, for the record at this point..
Mr. BLANDFORD. General Stone, the Air Force in particular has a
problem with people who are assigned to remote. duty stations. I am
speaking of the radar technician and the electronics personnel who are
operating radar stations, and that type of an assignment. They have
in many cases the misfortune of being in a skill which actually sends
them from one remote area to the next. They may come back to
civilization for a year, but they can almost rest assured their next
assignment will be on the top of a mountain someplace, or up around
Point Barrow, Alaska.
There is a suggested provision in this bill which may or may not be
sufficient to include them, but what would you think of the concept of
paying these individuals a family separation allowance equivalent
of not less than $30 a month, or one-third of the quarters allowance to
which they would be entitled if they were without dependents, as
some compensation for this onerous type of duty to which they are
constantly exposed?
General STONE. Mr. Blandford, Mr. Chairman, the situation is not
limited to these radar operators. We have many different skills where
the requirements are principally overseas, and principally in areas
where the locality of the service is remote, isolated, away from a com-
munity.
In one particular case, for example, we have most of the airmen and
officers in this career field serving in isolated places overseas. This
is in the security business. We train these people at great expense.
They go to a remote station where there are few facilities. They are
separated in general from the normal aspects of civilization, as we
know it, and after one enlistment or one obligated tour of duty as an
officer, they say, "that is all for me," and leave, and we have to train
another one; and some of these skills require extremely long training
periods.
. For example, training in the Chinese language. It takes a very long
time, and it is a very expensive proposition. We get the use of the
man for. a year or so, then he goes out in civilian life. I think that
the !provision you speak of would be an assistance in this area.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You would endorse this family separation al-
lowance concept proposed in the committee print the chairman has
prepared?
General STONE. I would.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do you think that the proposed bill sent over by
the Department of Defense will accomplish this objective?
General STONE. In the overall context?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, Sir.
General STONE. I noticed in Mr. Paul's statement yesterday, Mr.
McNamara's statement read by Mr. Paul, that he said that the purpose
of the military compensation system was to attract and retain per-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/044g1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
-,onnel in the services. II that is the object .; ye, I don't think thu this
proposal ?i 11 IIWVI it.
Mr. II.yanv. What_ other object ive could there be. General, if that
is not the objective? What would you think the objective is?
General SToxr.. Those are the proper objectives, I ut I (kiln thildi
the bill will meet them.
Mr. lit.ixtwoun. You heard the chairman's statement yesterday.
Would you endorse in general what he said ; that is, (Jr would You
consider that his subcommittee print is an improvement over the
DOD bill ?
General STONE. I think there are some very excellent. features of
the committee print. There are some deletions with which we_ concur.
On the whole, I think that the committee print is a manageable ap-
proach to the problem.
I would like to see a higher rate of it included, however.
AFr. InvEits. In what area ?
Mr. iit.ANDFotin. That is just- what I was going to ask.
General STONE. Well, there are several areas, but it_ is a d!flicult
thing to summarize in a few words the entire pay scale.
Mr. lIATEs. I )id yon have any chance to prepare any tables, General
Stone?
Gellel'a I STONE. Yt'S, Sir iii ant icipat WO Might be asked for a
recommendation, we constituted a group of officers from all the major
commands Of the Air Force in the United States, and they studied
this problem for several weeks and canie up with a proposed pay scale
that they would think would be adequate_ to do the job of restoring the
historical relationship bet ween military and civil service pay.
Ac1 tinily. they in general are pretty close to the. committee's print
0I1 the first increment. They have followed (lie civil service pLy bill
format in that they broh.e it into t wo increments realizing the gap
bet ween mil it arv and civil service pay is too great now to be elh? mated
in one change. The first one is generally the same as the com:nil tee
print.. as amended by the Chairman's remarks yesterday.
For example
Mr. IIATEs. Do you have copies of this, General?
General STUN I 11:1VV only one copy here.
Mr. TIATEs. Would you have some ir tide for the committee ?
General STaxE. Yes, sir.
Mr. lit,ANnFortn. Also, insert that copy in the bearing at this point.
Mr. RIVERS. Put that in ihe record at this point, General Stone.
General SToxr. All niurht
t The cl tart s re f erred to above by General Si OlIP rot low
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
AIR FORCE PAY PANEL PROPOSED RATES
Officers - First Increment
GPACI,
CLUTUaIVE
YEARS
Ciuri Over
OF SLUICE
Over
_
07er
26
Over
18
Over
20
Over Over
22 26
Over
30
Urder
Over
Over
Crver
Over
Over
C/S
217
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
2170
,170 170
11850 1965 11965
1.70
0-10
138
1440
1440
1440
1440
1500
1500
1615
1615
1735
1735
1850
?0-9
1220
1265
1290
1290
1290
1325
1325
1380
1380
1500
1500
1615
,615735
735
0-8
1105
1105
1175
1175
1175
1265
1265
1325
1325
1380
1440
1500
1560
1570 L560
0-7
9151985
985
985
1030
1030
1090
1090
1150
1265
1355
1355
1355
1355 p.355
0-6
665
705
760
7601
760
760
760
760
775
905
950
975
1035
1120 120
0-5
535
570
615
615
615
615
635
670
720
775
825
855
890
890 890
0-4
460
490
525
525
535
560
600.
635
665
695
725
725
725
725 725
0-3
385
410
440
490
515
540
570
600
630
630
630
630
630
630 630
0-2
305
345
420
435
450
465
490
510
530
530
530
530
530
530 530
0-1
265
280
355
365
380
395
410
430
450
450
450
450
450
450 450
er .pay tables: Pay rates are based on the asstmption that subsistence
rates will be increased to $7Y.10, If this increase is not provided then the basic pay
rates must be increased by $29.22.
AIR FORCE PAY PANEL PROPOSED RATES
Officers - Second Increment
1
?ROE
Over
Over
Over
OWIJIATIVE
ovr1
Over
YEARS
Over
OF SERVICE
Over
Over
Over
Over
Over
Over
Ilnier
Over
Over
C/S
12225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
2225
225
225 225
0-10
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
.12
015 p2015
0-9
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780
1780 11780
----1
0-8
1605
1605
1605 1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605
1605 1605
0-7
13911395
1395 1395
1395
1395
1395
1395
1395
1395
1395
1295
1395
1395
1395
0-6
1010
1010
1010 1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1060
1100
1145
1245
1245
0-5
725
725
725 725
725
765
800
840
875
910
965
1000
1045
1045
1045
0-4
545
580
620 620
650
680
710
750
785
820
860
860
860
860
860
0-3
415
450
490 530
555
585
615
645
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
0-2
340
380
450 470
485
510
530
550
570
570
570
570
570
570
570
0-1
285
320
405 415
435
450
465
490
515
515
515
515
515
515
515
Footnote for officer pay tables! Pay rates are based on the assumption that subsistence
7.-a-Tes will 1547-ITITRE-55?$77710. If this increase is not promided then the basic pay
rates must be increased by $29.22.
O-9000szoop000ticovooe99dau-vi3 : Iletbigooz aseeieu JOd 130A0iddV
AIR FORCE PAY PANEL PROPOSED RATES
Airmen - First Increment
GRADE
OUNLLATIVE MRS OF SL,RVICE
Unier
2
Over
2
Over
3
Over 1 over
4 6
Over
8
Over
10
Over
12
over
1.4
Over
16
Over
18
490
Over
20
Over
22
0,mr
26 1
Over
30
E-9
435
445
455
475
510
540
570
570
E-8
255
275
285
295
365
375
385
395
405
415
425
450
500
500
E-7
305
315
335
345
355
365
375
385
410
450
450
E-6
220
240
250
260
1
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
330
330
330
330
E-5
190
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
E-4
160
180
190
200
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
E-3
115
145
155
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
E-2
100
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
E-1
90
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
-----1
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
14S6
to
tossu
to
0
to
to
N
o0
0
N
N
r-4
0
4.
11
to
In
to
0
TI
to
In
In
N
0
0
N
0
C',4
.-
0
,I
.
,
1
,
VI
a)
VI
0
?r
to
to
to
N
0
o
N
0
N
.-I
0
4,
.-I
l
to
c
to
o
o
o
to
.....
to
o
N
,4
to
C3)
N
N
..4
4.
to
o
to
o
o
o
co
sr
to
o
N
4
to
CO
N
N
41
4
to
0
to
0
0
0
N
CI
.1.
to
to
N
0
N
N
.4
.4
.--i
L1TIVE nA.115 OF SI
Ova r I Ove TOvc
10 12 14
.495 1 5051 520
01
0
in
0
0
0
CO
to
sr
to
to
N
o
01
N
...I
r-4
.-1
to
In
to
0
0
0
IC)
to
N
to
to
ea
0
ea
N
.-.
,.4
.-.
o
0
0
C.
0
0
sr
,-.
in
0
N
,...
VI
OS
N
N
.-i
?-?
o
to
to
0
0
CI
in
o
N
0
0
N
o
N
.4
o
.4
0
0
to
0
0
0
ea
CO
0
N
to
N
o
N
Cl
.-4
.-.
.
,
Cb
to
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
t-
N
sr
N
0
N
N
-4
.4
e-I
,n
In
to
In
0
o
0
N
10 N
N 01
40
ea
.-4
.1)
0 et)
440
0
0
CO
Ul
sr
N
.4
CU
04 N4
.4
.-4
0
0
-0 00
0
,-,
0
0
o
0
N
Oi
.4
.4
---.---
._
CO t-
to
st,
sr
VI
N
.4
1 i
,... 0 to
1 3 to
i
42
1
41
I
03
i
to
to
I
C4
i
C4
General. rt Ni. I WOffid MU, to suggest that this is a t wo-ine;..ement
iIIIIT11:4V. 011V rifillti In effect lye at this time, and the other one in the
followiti7 fiscal ycan
BLANDrup.D. In hisr words. do I gat her i hat ?vlutt you. 0.1e sav-
ing is that we might find under this bill that we would be in the posi-
I 1011 Wht'll' letirod 1)P1'S01111e1 1611 he guaranteed 0 ,:ost-of-living
increase. while act ire dut v personnel do not have the :it'll& guarantee?
General SToNr. That is right.
Mr. lir,ANDriam. Arc you saying that there shoidd be language,
t least an indication. \Odell is what the Secretary indicated in his
statement. that there should be :in annual review of military ply ?
ieneral ST,INE. I think that would be most. advisable, at least every
2 rears? but lint :1110W a - or .`i-year span to take place hot Wppn renews.
Mr. I IAIZDY. This int'r(911011 al arrangement you aro talking about,
Clem-nil. is 'that patterned after the civil service pay iiirrease of last
.vear
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214851A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
General STONE. Yes, sir; it is. It is patterned after that.
In that regard, it is in two parts. If you will refer to that chart
that I had in my prepared statement, the objective of this pay scale is
to show what it would take to bring military pay into the same area
of comparability with civil service pay that it used to have prior to
1949, and before. That is about a 10-percent differential.
Mr. HARDY. As soon as we finish discussing the content of this, Mr.
Chairman, I woud like to get into a little of the background of it.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandford, you have developed that, haven't you?
Mr. BLANDFORD. As I understand what General Stone is saying,
there is a wide discrepancy today between military pay and civil
service pay and, of course, there has been a very substantial increase
in the higher civil service classifications. I found every place I went,
as a matter of fact, in a recent trip to some of the military bases, that
a lot of people are leaving the military service to take civilian posi-
tions and practically do the same job at substantially more pay.
I might add parenthetically, that the charts?may I ask if the
charts reflect the contributory retirement system?
General STONE. No. I would like to refer to these charts, comparing
an officer pay scale with civil service, and another one compares an en-
listed pay scale with civil service.
Mr. RivERs. I think we ought to acknowledge, too, at the outset,
while we, of course, agree with the objectives of the statement of Mr.
McNamara's presented to us by Mr. Paul, that we agree with the
objectives; so do you. But there is a fact of life we must acknowledge,
and that is the fact we have working side by side with our uniformed
man, enlisted and officer, a civil service employee, and the fact there
is a discrepancy and a growing difference between the comparable
salaries, at least that is what the military feel, is causing a lot of
trouble. We have got to recognize that, and while I think we must
abandon the idea of trying to compete with industry?we can do
something about competing with our own creatures; to wit, the
civilian employee, and the Congress shoud not, in my opinion, put the
civilian in one area, the military in another, and permit this cleavage
to continue,. This is a. fact of life we must acknowledge, Mr. Bland-
ford, and that is where you come in, what you found on your trip, and
everywhere I go--you take that letter that I read by some captain in
the Navy, everywhere I go we hear these military people referring to
the various degrees of civil service salaries, the discrepancy and wide
difference in comparable salaries paid these two groups of Government
employees.
General STONE. Mr. Chairman, the study group that we organized
that I have just spoken of went back into the history of the relation-
ship between civil service pay and military pay, and they found that
prior to?in 1949, and prior thereto?that there was something on the
order of a 1.0- to 20-percent differential historically between the two.
This I suppose is to compensate for the fringe benefits the military
en j oys.
Mr. RIVERS. That is why Mr. hardy wants to get this philosophy.
General STONE. The retirement system of on.e service versus the
other. That was historically a differential that seemed to be a reason-
able one. Now, this differential has gotten larger, and it is up around
the 25- to 35-percent point now.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/4)3 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
lir. 1 kiwi-. Yon say it is bet \Awn 25 and 30 percent now. General ?
General S'roxf:. About 25 and :15 percent , yes.
Mr. I Nun-. P,ei ween 25 and 35.
lir. lit vEas. Alter the last increment ?
General Salon:. Includim, the proposal before volt today: It A? DOD
proposal.
Mr. I ham-. Ifow long has 1 he study group you have been talking
about been working on his comparision ?
General S-roN E.. s I recall, sir, there were about 20 officers involved
for a period of about a month.
Mr. Ilt,.?xnroun. I onvened January 7, 1961, to be exact.
Nit% IIAnnY. That is I he st tidy :rroup you are referring to?
General SToN-r.. Yes, sir.
Mr. I kliny. General, in order to got this thin!, in proper I erspee-
tivP? I would like to ask you a question I asked both, General Viii nip
and Admiral Smedberg.
What was the Air Foree called upon to do, and what did it con-
Film( a in the formulation of this bill we have before us?
General S'N-roxt:. As von know, sir, t'!ie Department of Defense orga-
llized a. pay study .n-rottp muhsr the sponsorship of Mr. Gorham who
was here yesterday. We were asked to provide some personnel for
that study .0Toup, and, as I recall, we put four people on it. Then we
were asked to contribute stat ist ics and data as asked for by the study
group.
We. WPM lint a part of the study .0-roup, except flail we had some
people On it.
Mr. TTAlloy. You were not invited to volunteer?
General STONE. We were asked for no recommendations. no.
Then when the pay study was completed they submitted to us their
proposals as I recall, on the 15th of October, and we were allowed
about 2 weeks in which to make comment. We did submit comments
on the proposals of the pay study group. We were not asked, how-
ever, to comment on the bill that was submitted to the Congress except
as to its legal and technical sufficiency.
ITAnny. I was going to ask you that question next. If you had
been requested to comment cm this bill, now, you said you were not
requested to comment on the bill. Can you tell the committee whether
here were sip-nificant changes made from the first proposal and the
final draft, as it, was submitted for introduction into Congress?
General STONE. Yes, sir: the proposals of the pay study group, as
recall,liad 28 different suggest ions. Some of those were dropped en-
irely. Some were put into the bill using the philosophy that was
concurred in by our service and not concurred in by others, and vice
versa.
Mr. IT.kany. So there were. some sig,nifirant changes?
General STONE. Yes.
Mr. Timmy. And there was no opportunity for the services to com-
ment after those changes were made? There was no request for you
to comment on it?
General STONE. There was no official request for oomment. I did
have. a conversation with Mr. Paul ancl his staff one day rd at ive to the
overall provisions that they contemplated putting- in II a' bill. How-
ever. T didn't, as I recall it, see the bill, itself.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214891A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. HARDY. Now, this study group that you have mentioned made
a comparison?see if I have this correct?of military pay with civilian
pay. Is that overall civilian, or just the civil service?
General STONE. We made the comparison with civil service.
Mr. HARD-3c. Do you know whether a. similar study or comparative
study was made by the Gorham group or any of. its subgroups?
General STONE. I think they made several different approaches to
the problem. One of them was a comparison with civilian pay.
Mr. HARny. Are you familiar with a subcommittee of that group
headed by Admiral Settle that was supposed to have made a study on
this bill?
General STONE. No, sir.
Mr. }TARDY. You don't know whether there was a comprehensive
study made by any subgroup of the Gorham group?
General STONE. I know that Mr. Gorham at the outset made several
different approaches to the problem, and whether those could be con-
sidered official positions of the study group, or not, I am not qualified
to say.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interrupt this testimony
just long enough to see if we can find out from the DOD represen-
tative about this. I have information that such a study was made,
and, if it was, I would like to request that it be provided along with
the communications submitted by the several services in connection
with the original proposal.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandford, can you find anybody you can contact
on this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Colonel Meyers is here, Mr. Chairman, from DOD.
There was a panel, there was a study group. I think General Pepper,
Admiral Settle, and others?there are two different boards, some of
them served on the same board, as a matter of fact, but actually the
President appointed Mr. Clarence Randall as the overall panel study
chairman to conduct a study of military pay and civilian pay as far as
that is concerned.
This morning's paper indicates apparently there has been another
recommendation for even further increases in 'civilian pay, which is
certainly going to boost the morale of the armed services considerably.
Then these recommendations, as I understand, were studied, and Mr.
Gorham had a study group working with this panel, and they in turn
submitted their recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. But
believe that what actually happened here is that the White House
had a study made up of civilian and military personnel, I think mostly
civilians from the Randall Committee viewpoint.
Then they in turn farmed out the problem of military pay to the
Gorham group, who in turn submitted their recommendations back to
the Secretary of Defense who transmitted them to the President, and
the Randall Committee and this is what came out in the bill that we
have before us.
Now, I am sure that somewhere between the original study that was
prepared and what came out in this bill, there is probably a very sub-
stantial difference. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
But I assume, also, that the President, after consulting with the
Secretary of Defense, had to consider this as a part of the national
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/042)il CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
defense butlg-et as to just how far he could go in recommending in-
creases in 'MTh ;try pay at tins 111111'.
Arr. I 1.hinv, It. Is my informat ion that there wits a subgroup, or
subcommit lee, or whalexer you call it. of the overall commit tee headed
by Admiral S(t( le, wilt) did ,r?ro into an extensive comparativi. study
of civil service and military pay. Now, i r that I, tile (list' I think it
would he helpful to this commit tee to ha 1.-e before it the information
which the Gorham g-roup and whi('li 1)01) had before it, that enabled
it to arrive at the recommendat ions wit ii as much chtrit y as they have
got. I honk it tnig-ht he helpful also to relate that or compare it with
1 he st udv Nyhich the st tidy group General Stone ha, mem jotted made
for he A ir Furry.
t !hid: also, Mr. Chairman. it wou:d be helpful i Mr. Paul would
tell us a lilt le bit more about t he rt.asons that he was completely sat is-
to submit, tins hill without :lny opportunity for the services to
continent On it after lie put it in final form.
Mr. lityrits. Ile will be Intel; tothorrow.
Mr. Nonatn. I would like to ri ad. Mr. Cliairnlan, a letter ad-
dressed to l'resident hued 1 /ecenther 20, 1962.
irAtr. Ain. PRE:imp:NT. tin hcitatt of my ,?iillem.rues th.? panel on Federal
l'a,v Systems. I tDinsmit herewith our report on the inajor military compensa-
tion proposals which wiil be presented to the Congress in its tii?xt session. Our
report is unanimously supported in principle by the members of Ito' panel Who
are I;en. lunar Bradley. Mr. John .1. C,rsine. Mr. Marion B Folsom. 'rheo-
dor, ttowser, Mr. Itobert A. Lovett. Mr. tli,rge Meitity, 3,1r lion K. l'ricti, Mr.
Sidney Stein, .Ti'.. NIr. Clarence II. Itandall. Mr. Meany has wo spveific liscients
,tst forth in the attached letter from him.
It is our understanding the Secretary of Ifpfense wishes to make the proliosal.
Ii it invi.ts with your approval, release of our report by the While House and the
Department of I ielense simultaneously with the statement of the Seen-Lary of
I )(dense might be helpful.
The panel has liven grateful for Ibis ovportunity to participate in a most
important undertaking. and Nye trust our 'Ivor( IA ill la, of assistance to you and
I ile I )eparnitellt of Defense.
CI,11:ENCI. it. ii.?);11.1f.1..
(?if riirmu it, .1(1 rixory l'u,tri,
l't.ift.1-01 Pap 5ll8tci?.
My. 1;11-Eus. INies have a schedule Ate.re?
ULAN-tit-mut. I don't have the roport suggested by that panel.
liut my impression would lie that die panel study would be ver.,- close
o what is contained in I he I )01 ) hill now-.
Mr. IllvtA:s. Well. let me. ask von a quest ion. 1)10'S 11011 COM(' Under
hp hem lin!, of Exeent ivecommunicat ions ?
r. Ph..kxotlazo. Yes, sir.
Mr. I klinv. It is all under the heading of Executive communica-
t ions, Mr. Chairman., but I tell you, if we start inquiring in that amt
we will not be through forever. We have to have access to this infor-
mat ion. if it is going, to enable us to do a job on this thing.
Mr. Ittx-Eus. Mr. Blandford, is there any way we can get a copy of
that schedule?
Mr. I Emmy. AVe can ask for it
Mr. TitAxoroun. We can certainly ask for it, Mr. C'hairman,
Mr. ItivEns. You ask whoever is the person to ask. We will start
oil with that bridge anti see how far we o-et in that area.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/MiCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. IIARny. We are talking now, Mr. Chairman, of all of these
documents, communications from the three services, that were sent
following
Mr. BLANDFORD. Four services.
Mr. Timmy. From the four, that is right?that were set follow-
ing
Mr. RIVERS. When you speak of that, always refer to four services.
Mr. BATES. Three establishments.
Mr. RIVERS. Three establishments and -four services.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I just can't believe there will be any
questions on the part of the Secretary of Defense to provide us with
this information.
Mr. RIVERS. I don't, either.
Mr. Ilmmy. If they don't give us that information, we have to con-
duct a study. It certainly will be helpful.
Mr. Rivims. See what you can do on Mr. Hardy's request, Mr.
Blandford.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to ask, if I may, whether the Depart-
ment of the Air Force has ever recommended further implementation
of the proficiency pay system?
General STONE. Yes, sir; I think that the record is pretty clear that
we have been consistent all along in our recommendations relative to
the proficiency pay provision that was incorporated in the law, and for
the first 3 fiscal years of its use, that is, 1959, 1960, and 1961, we
were provided with the proficiency pay that we asked for.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Dollarwise?
General STONE. Both in terms of the numbers of people who could
get it, and the dollars that went with it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. To your knowledge, has the Air Force ever asked
for authority to implement the law for the P-3, at $150 a month?
General STONE. Yes,, sir; we asked for it in the 1964 budget, but it
was denied.
We asked for -full implementation of the proficiency pay at the
highest, rates.
Mr. RIVERS. That is $150?
General STONE. That is $50, $100, and $150, for P-1, P-2, and
P-3, and we were given the $30 and $60 limits on both P-1 and. P-2,
and nothing for P-3.
Mr. RIVERS. Now, right at that point, to follow up that line of
thought, as a conclusion. Had you gotten what you asked for?
when was that?
General STONE. This was in fiscal 1964 we asked for that. Previous
years we had asked for only P-1 and P-2, but we were limited in pre-
vious fiscal years to the $30 and $60.
Mr. RIVERS. If this thing were fully implemented, how far in your
opinion would it go to relieving you of some of the conditions that
have been brought to the attention of the committee?
General STONE. I think that if we were allowed to implement pro-
ficiency pay to the limits expressed in the law, that we could do a great
deal to eliminate the rapid turnover of our enlisted force, increase
our retention, and thereby reduce training effort.
Mr. BATES. Why do you recommend the -full implementation?
General STONE. We were testing this thing, frankly. We did ask
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/14.62CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
for a higher rate on the, lower P- I and P-2 grades, but we didn't
want to go whole. hog all at once until we felt our way along.
Mr. BATES. You were satisfied from your experience that in fiscal
1964, you should go the whole distance?
General STONE. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Did you do this after having tried carefully to evalu-
ate and equate its effect throughout the Air Force, or did you decide
on this after you didn't see any other avenue to investigate, you just
thought you would take this and 3ee what you could do. Which
is the reason for it?
General SNE. I think actually the reason we asked for it was our
experience in the past with the rower levels of proficiency pay had
shown us that this was an effective means of remunerating tbe young
men who take the expensive, types of training.
We relate the use of proficiency pay to the retention rates in a par-
ticular skill, the cost of training in that skill
Mr. RIVERS. That was the reason for it?
General STONE. Yes, sir; and the attraction for that skill in civilian
life.
Consequently, we found that this did have a tendency to keep people
in the services if we could pay it to the highly skilled personnel t hat
it was intended for.
Mr. RIVERS. Does that cover it?
Mr. BIANDEORD. There is another important subject to be men-
tioned.
\Tr. I? ivEns Go ahead, Mr. Bennett.
ATV. BENNETI'. I understand you that you are going to put in the
record and furnish to this committee an analysis of proposals that
your group in the Air Force has worked up, which would bring
about. an approach to comparability between civil service and military
pay; is that correct?
General STONE. Well. I had been asked to put these pay scales in.
Mr. BENNETT. Does it do what I said, or does it do something less
or more ?
General SToxE. It does what you said; yes, sir.
Air. BExxErr. This this proposal been discussed with people in the
a no ied?other armed services?
General STONE. No, sir; except for one short informal briefing with
riny and Navy representatives, this is strictly an Air Force study.
We. were not asked to submit it to anybody.
Air. BEN xETT. Has any estimate been made as to the comparative
costs between the Department of Defense bill and the bill which you
would suggest?
General SToNE. The first increment of this hill, insofar as the
A ir Force alone is concerned, would add about $15 million to the pro-
posals submitted to you by the Oilice of the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. BATEs. Fifteen?
General STONE. Fifteen.
Mr. BENNEa-r. That is very negligible, I might say?
General STONE. That is for the Air Form alone. The second incre-
ment, would be a very sizable one, almost the same size as the whole
package this year.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :14?P661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. 13EmvErr. As I have approached this problem, with this discus-
sion since we started, and also as I approached it before, I have the
feeling I am in a well-produced automobile, setting out on a 5,000-
mile journey with a governor that restricts me to 10 miles an hour. I
feel frustrated about this. I feel the armed services are entitled to
much better pay than the Department of Defense bill, and I hope
some mechanism can be established by this committee to make a
practical approach to this matter.
It seems to me that you approached it practically when you sug-
gested doing it on an increment basis, doing it not only for 1 year, but
doing it for 2. It does eliminate some of the disadvantages of the
long delays that we have had in the past; that is, it looks forward to
the fact that maybe there would be another delay, and maybe we
won't act on this field of activity next year. Of course, really, it should
be looked at every year, in my opinion, to get a good approach to it.
I hope you will present the proposals you have to the other branches
of the service, and I hope we can have some comment from them
in this hearing with regard to this, because I think we, and the Armed
Services Committee, have the responsibility to bring forth a bill we
think is best for the country. We all voted on the civil service hill.
Most of us voted affirmatively on that bill. Certainly members of tins
committee who know the sacrifices made in the military, and know the
responsibility, the necessity for them, are not inclined to do less by
the military than we do by the other.
Of course there is the other aspect of this which you are going to
meet on this coming Friday. The people are actually drafted to serve
in the military service. To me it is an offensive thing that we would
have to draft people and then not pay them adequately for their
services. I hope that something can be done, I certainly hope you
will present your proposal to the other branches of the service, and
I would like to ask you specifically, now, have you ever done that?
Have you ever presented your proposal to the other branches of the
services in a formal or informal manner?
General STONE. To my knowledge, it has not gone to the Depart-
ment of Defense or the other services officially. It may have gone to
them informally.
Mr. BENNETT. Well, could you do that today? Could you give it to
them today?
General STONE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. I would like later on during this hearing, if we can,
to have their comment on it. Maybe there would be some adjust-
ments.they would like to make. I would like to approach this from
a realistic standpoint to see whether we can't increase the amount of
this bill, so you won't have to have another immediate pay raise in
the immediate future. I think they need a raise, that is all I have
to say.
Mr. BLANDEORD.. General, for the Air Force, in particular, if the
mail we are receiving is any indication?this elimination of per diem
has really very adversely affected morale, particularly in the Air
Force, and I am sure in the other services. This is a very minor part
of the cost of maintaining our armed services, but it certainly has a
very deleterious effect upon the individual.
85066-63?No. 6 7
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1494
I was in GoIdboro, N.C., mut learned from a sergeant that. when
one of their units returned from the Cuban crisis, and they had been
entitled to a commuted ration of $1.03 a day, that, when they returned.
because they were being fed by the Army, or the Air Force, at McDill.
I presume, that each of them was presented with a? bill for $1.80, as a
result; of their having been gone for 2 months.
It turned out, of course, they were drawing commuted rations, and
I think they were getting 81 a day per diem, so the difference between
the $1 and the 81.03, meant they owed the Government 3 cents a day
for every day they were on temporary duty.
I hive you received a great amount, of correspondence on this per
(hem ?
General SroNE. Yes, sir. As I understand, the loss of the 3 cents a
day--there wasn't any bill presented, they just lost the :1 cents a day
for this period of time.
Mr. IitAxuroun. I understand it amounted to $1.80, as a result of GO
day of temporary duty.
General SToNE. This is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Tilt, interesting thing about this per diem is the
effect has been devastating and the cost to the Government is in the
neigliborhood of 814 million.
General SToxn. It is a very small figure.
Mr. IltAxm:min. We. have a provislon in the subcommittee print
which is certainly extremely modest, but at least it 1...ruitrantees a per
diem of $1 a day for the man who has gone on temporary duty for
more. than 30 days.
That may be insufficient, but at least it. may be an ndication on the
part of Congress if accepted that the committee re,?ognizes and the
Congress recognizes that these per diem payments are something to
which the individual is entitled when he is away on temporary duty.
Would you endorse that portion of the committee print which guar-
antees at least $1 a day per diem for these people? These are unit
movements. I understand they have also reduced to some. extent the
per diem payments to individuals on temporary dui y orders; is that
correct?
(;eneral STONE. There are some limitations placed upon it that you
must eat in a Government mess if one 13 available.
Mr, Iii.ANnyollo. You lose. 40 percent of your per diem, I 'oelieve,
if you occupy Government quarters, and you lose .52 percent if you
eat in a Government mess, and the other 8 pet-cent is for you, you can
have all that is left, 8 percent of the per diem, which is to cover the
cost, of your laundry and incidentals, and everything else that goes
with it when a man goes on temporary duty.
This is the sort. of thing the chairman referred to when he said at
times we are penny wise and pound foolish. I won't. ask you whether
you agree it. is penny wise and pound foolish, but you certainly agree
it has had an adverse effect?
General STONE. I certainly do.
Mr. llivErts. I am glad I coined thir. expression.
ILaughterd
General S.siNE. I would agree with that.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1495
Mr. BLANDFORD. General, yesterday Admiral Srnedberg said reluc-
tantly he agreed because of the situation and the cost of retirement
and the fact as Mr. Gorham pointed out, that in 1970 there will be 25
people on the retired list for every 100 people on active duty?he re-
luctantly went along, with the DOD retirement proposal, and
acknowledged that it probably was the only solution to the problem
of retirement.
Do you agree with the DOD proposal insofar as retirement section
is concerned?
General STONE. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You do agree with that?
General STONE. Yes, sir.
I see no other feasible way of approaching the problem.
Mr. Itnany. General, you are expressing disagreement even if you
have a modification in the pay, as you propose?
General STONE. I don't quite follow your question.
Mr. HARDY. The pay scales that are set up in this bill are relatively
small, at least in the higher grades. Actually the cost-of-living in-
crease with respect to retired personnel would be perhaps just as much
percentagewise as the pay increase. So that you wouldn't have much
difference if you permitted a continuation of the old system of adjust-
ing retired pay to reflect increases in base pay. But now under your
proposal, as I understand what you testified to, a year from now you
would propose a considerable increase in base pay.
General STONE. Yes.
Mr. HARDY. You are still willing to go along with the 5-percent
adjustment or the cost-of-living adjustment in retired pay?
General STONE. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. lInany. You know there will be a rather different picture of
relationship if you have a substantial increase?
General STONE. I think this will always pertain any time you have
a future pay raise, that there is going to be an argument about the
point.
Mr. HARDY. I think that is correct. But if we accept that premise
now, I have a little difficulty understanding the rationale which goes
back to June 1958. I mean, if it is proper to do that, make your ad-
justment based on the pay increases which were granted at that time,
I have a hard time understanding where you say now you shouldn't
do it in the future.
General. STorTE. I think the essential point in 1958 was this was done
with no notice, so to speak.
Mr. HARDY. You have a point on that.
General STONE. Yes.
Mr. HARDY. Do you think an amendment of this bill making it
mandatory on the Secretary of Defense to reevaluate the military pay
every time the civil service receives a pay raise would be a pretty good
way to begin it?
General STONE. I would recommend that there be a periodic review.
I don't know that it is necessary to tie it to civil service pay raises.
Mr. BLANDFORD. As I understand the law now requires there be an
annual review of civil service pay.
Of course, this can be done administratively.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/011/M : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. RtvEus. I am talking about requiring the Secretary of Defense,
or whomever is responsible, to make a comparison of the report, to
reevaluate or recommend, or somethina along the lines, making them
take official cognizance of what civil service. pay is, the discrepancy or
disparity at each
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Rivers, it is lull into this biE. It is perfectly
obvious if the cost of living goes up for retired personnel, it goes up
for the active-duty personnel. Therefore, if they conic up with a
0-percent increase in cost of living for the retired, it is true for the
active list.
Mr. MYEns. Tlw reason I say that. I read by the public press last
night that t he GAO recognizes now by an art of i he Cong ress passed in
1961 that the Government unions can have a. checkoff made against
I he members of the union.
Now, we do, down where I come froi a, a lot of things now we. dub i't
used to do. I find from my knowledge of the union people we have in
South Carolina that they don't work for nothing. When they get this
chec-koff from all these Government employees, they are going to de-
mand results. They aren't going to be satisfied with a pay increase
yesterday. Lots of times they come to me and say, we are for you, but
you haven't done anything for me since last week.
Now, whenever they get a pay i ncruse?year a f ter year?somebody
has got to look out. for the military, unless you favor a checkoff, too.
>o you want a. checkoff on VOUr salary !
tieneralSToNE. We don'1 want any unions.
Mr. RtvEns. These fellows who are going to get these cost-of-living
raises. Somebody has got to look out for the military, and it might be
well, Mr. Blandford, that we may put something in this bill to bring
this to the attention of those who mem ,y the ivory chairs. and so forth.
Mr. BLANDFOR.D. May I respectfully disagree to this extent. I
think
Mr. Rivras. You can di Sagree all you want.
Mr. BI-\ NTWORD. Yes. II Jaugh ter. 1
Mr. RIVERS. That won't get you anything.
Mr. Br-km-wont). I don't_ know how far I will get.
I would like to point this out, and this is a personal opinion. and
therefore it is worth nothing. But if we put a cost-of-living provision
increase- in this pay bill for active duty forces. that is all the active
duty force will ever get in the future.
Mr. PtIVERS. That isn't what I said.
I said we can require a report to Congress--I am thinking out !mid--
pointing out to Congress. the discrepancy between, as Mr. Bentptt has
brought forth, the military and the eivlians. We don't havet hat now.
Mr. BLANDroan. That would be a &Greta proposition. But if we
go into the proposition of attempting to adjust military pay scales
on the cost of living, then we would be on very dangerous grounds.
Mr. RIVERS. I agree with you. I think there should be a respcnsibil-
ity on-somebody in the hierarchy of the military to take cognizance of
the things you brought to Our attention, and make an official report
to the Congress.
Mr. WiLso-N-. On this problem of retirement pay, based on cost of
living, you are going to build in the problems in the fin lire that are
going to be just as bad as these inequities created in the 1.158 act, unless
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : AIR-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
the active duty pay has some reasonable cost-of-living type approach
in the future, because if you start monkeying with the pay scale, as we
do in nearly every one of these pay bills, to try to adjust in certain
areas, the people who are retired subsequent to that, and get the retired
pay based on that different proportionate increase, are going to create
the same problem that is being created now.
Mr. RIVERS. I wanted to say this, we face the facts of life here
Mr. WILSON. You are facing a future fact of life which is almost
going to be impossible to live with, too.
Mr. RIVERS. No, that isn't exactly right. In 1958 we broke faith
with tradition. Now, we are telling them that we do face this fact
of life, at least, Mr. Blandford, they will know what we are going to
do when we make this decision. We certainly don't want to jeopard-
ize the system.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, would you straighten me out, though?
If you change the tradition, change the policy, we would still, as Mr.
Wilson points out, have the practical matter of different retirees draw-
ing different retired pay, isn't that right? There would be discrimi-
nation?
Mr. BATES. That is right, it has got to be, after the next pay
increase.
Mr. RIVERS. After the next pay increase, yes, when this goes into
effect.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You have always adjusted pay?the only time we
didn't was in 1952, that was a straight 4-percent increase in basic pay.
The House bill was 10 percent of basic pay and 10 percent of allow-
ances, and it came out of conference at 4 percent of basic pay, 14-
percent allowances.
Now, this is the problem that the Congress faces on this retirement
question. I believe this is what Admiral Smedberg said yesterday,
and why I believe you have taken the position that you have taken.
There comes a time when somebody has to make a decision as to
what they are going to do with the cost factor that is going to become
so staggering when it hits $3 billion a year, then the meat ax principle
goes into effect, and the whole retirement system may be jeopardized.
We may well have to go back to the original Hook recommenda-
tion that no one, including enlisted personnel, be allowed to retire
until he attains the age of 50, for example, with 20 years of service.
One of the great attractions today for all of the services, particularly
for the enlisted personnel, is that a man Can serve 20 years, a high
school graduate, for example, if he enters the service at the age of
18 or 19, can transfer to the Fleet Reserve, or retire, and draw retire-
ment pay at the age of 38 or 39, and start a new career with a guaran-
teed income.
These are the things that could well be jeopardized in the years
ahead. I am confident this is what was in Mr. McNamara's mind?
I won't say in Mr. McNamara's mind, I don't know what is in Mr.
McNamara's mind?but it certainly was in the minds of many people
when they studied this retirement problem.
We have a serious problem on retirement. There will be discrim-
ination in the future. We would be naive to think we will not make
adjustments at various basic pay scales as the conditions warrant.
We may find that we have to do more to attract people at the captain-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/94/3231 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
major level. We may find we are going to have to increase the pay of
the Chiefs of Stall's of the services to something commensurate with
the responsibility they would have if they were head of a bottling
plant, which is what they certainly don't get today.
But these are the factors we have to face in this matter, Mr. Chair-
man, and there will be discrimination in the future, it can't be avoided.
Mr. Wresox. But, Mr. Blandford, if you are basing the reason for
change in the retirement system on the cost in the future, then at some
time we are going to have to do violence to the whole concept of
retired pay, there is no question of that.
Mr. TinaNoroae. You did, violence to it in 1949 to start with when
you changed the whole disability retirement system. Actually, this
kernel was planted in 1040. It was indicated in 1952. It finally
came to fruition in 1958. This is not new, as far as the retirement
problem is concerned. It has been coming for a long time.
Now, what we are doing in this bill, what the chairman's position
on this matter is, is this: You are guaranteeing a cost-of-living in-
crease-so you are therefore guarant eeing. the purchasing power of the
man who retires.
Mr. RivEns. When it attains a cumulative 3 percent.
Mr. BLANDFORD. When it goes to 3 percent_ or more, you adjust his
retired pay that way.
Tho point is, the man who decides to retire and live on his retired
income will be guaranteed the same standard of living he had the
day he retired. It is just that simple.
Mr. Wnistrs. The problem is not going to be now, the problem is in
the future. You are going to have 0111' prO1 iINI1 Or the other.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That. is true.
Mr. WILSON. I think eventually we have to make. a complete study
and complete overhaul of the entire retirement system.
Mr. BIANDFORD. This is what is coming, and if we are not careful
we are going to force on the services, in my opinion, a very severe
restriction on the retirement privilege-. Any way you cut fhe cake,
in spite of the "black box" operations we have today. the armed services
is still a young man's game, by and large. This is the reason we en-
courage men to retire at 20 years' serviee, in many eases. This is the
reason that we have compulsory retirement for warrant officers at the
end of 30 years' service.
Perhaps the law is going to have to be modified for general officers
at a later date. Perhaps the mistake we made in these pay scales is
that we don't put. the largest increment in for general officers at. the
35-year point, for example, to discourage people from retiring at 30,
but I would like to repeat for this subcommittee something that people
don't. seem to quite fully understand. There is no legal right to retire
on 20 years of service. There is no legal right to retire on 30 years of
service. This comes as a shock to a lot of people.
General Stone has come over his desk requests for retirement upon
the completion of 30 years of service. The only right the individual
has is the right to submit the request for retirement. The only statu-
tory right to retire is upon the completion of 40 years of service, or
at mandatory age points.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA9RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATES. It has always been that way.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It has always been that way. If you want to con-
trol this administratively, the President could simply say, I am not
going to have a general officer retire until he is 62 years old, or com-
pleted 35 years' service, or until he has completed 40 years of service.
These things are coming.
But we have got to face, in my opinion, the facts of life today that
the retirement costs are going to be over $3 billion a year in the near
future.
Mr. RivErts. That is why I say that in 1958 we abruptly and with-
out notice broke tradition. We are trying somewhat to repair it now,
and in the future give a cumulative concept. And I think as a fact of
life, we have got to recognize that. We certainly don't want to
jeopardize the whole thing, somebody coming in and taking it out on
people who can't talk about it.
It always happens.
Mr. WILsox. Let me give you one case, on the retirement provision
as suggested. If someone is retired and has been retired previous to
the enactment date of this bill, and is retiring at a given rate, some-
one in that same category retires a year from now, does his pay reflect
the increase in the rates, the pay we have adopted in this bill?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the answer to Mr. Wilson's question is
"No."
Let us put it this way: If anybody retires in 1963, under the com-
mittee print, they will be able to compute their retirement pay under
whatever the pay scales are that go into effect this year.
Now,
what you are going to have, you are going to have?and some-
thing that I might remind you of is that when you retire effective
January 1, 1963, the pay that you got on December 31, 1962, is what
controls. You don't get the pay that was in effect January 1, since
you don't draw basic pay that day, therefore you were not in receipt
of basic pay on the first day, therefore you go back to the pay scales
in effect on the 31st. You were retired at midnight.
Now, it is true that even in this pay proposal here, we are increas-
ing some places, say, the pay of a colonel 8 or 9 percent, so that the
colonel who retires this year, even though we bring those retired prior
to June 1, 1958 up to the 1958 pay scales, will be drawing more re-
tirement pay than a colonel who retired in 1957. But this is true
of Members of Congress.
Mr. WILSON. The enactment date will be another day of infamy.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We are trying to help that as much as possible.
Whenever you put a proposed effective data in, way off yonder in
the future, then you have everybody staying up nights trying to
figure out a way how to beat it. That is what they are doing right
now.
General STONE. How to stay in.
Mr. BLANDFORD. They are going to stay in. The Army and the
Air Force Reserve officer has a built-in system. You don't apply for
retirement in the officer grade you enlist. You are going to have more
majors walking around as EA's, than you can shake a stick at.
Mr. Rivrats. Mr. Gubser.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 200504421 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Gu'ism'. General, earlier in your statement you spoke chow; the
present differential between military and civil service pay in compar-
able areas of responsibility somewhere between 25 and 31-) percent.
You indicated that tins had grown wider, and that it had been tra-
ditionally around a certain percentage. What was that
General STONE. Referring to these chirts again, trailitionalv it has
been somewhere on the order of 10 to 20 percent, depending or. the
grades involved.
Mr. GUI:SER. That, 10 to 20 percent has always been accepted, be-
cause the military has fringe benefits which tile. civil service employee
does not have.
Maybe it is not possible, but I would like t ) allocate that 10 ro
percent, if we could.
Now, 7 percent of it would obviously be retirement, because you do
not, have a contributcwy system. and Ile civil SVI'Vice does. I.. think
the civil service cunt rihnt i()11 is 7 pPrceiri, isn't it e
Mr. IkAxiwonn. Yes.
Mr. Gunsm. That takes care of part of it. Miele does the rest
come from?
General SToNE. There are certain Mconie tax deductiims that. are
allowed miltary that are not allowed civilians. For example, you do
1101 pay Mecutie tax on allowances. We hut ye certain commis-gsarios, post
exchanges, theaters, officers' clubs, rereational facilities, that are
available that aren't available in all eases to a civilian.
The Department, of Dc fense. actually made quite a study of these
fringe benefits.
Mr. litAxororin. Ilospilahizal ion being the biggest one.
Mr. GunsErt. What about the privilege of hospitalization and the
privilege of hospitalization for your dependents or your wife? Would
you say that has been considered rather significant in fringe benefit?
General SrroNE. For those people who needed it, it certainly is.
You have to get sick to enjoy that fringe benefit, though.
Mr. Guusr.a. it has been my experience. and I would like you to
check me and see whether or not my experience. is typical, but in my
contact with active duty military people, and also retired people. I
have found that the privilege- in the past it has been almost a prac-
tical guarantee- - of hospitalization after retirement, has been one. of.
the greatest incentives to maintain a milli ary career, and to :Lecept-
I-ubstandard pay during your working life.
Would you agree with that ?
General SToxu. T would think this is a very important thing, par-
ticularly to a retired person.
Mr. OUBSER. Let. us for a moment think of the active duty people.
Perhaps the young second lie.uten ant doesn't think much about hos-
pitalization after he retires, but I would suspect lieutenant colonels,
on up, begin to think more of it as t ieir career progresses. Is that
correct?
General STONE. I think I could summarize by saying, hospitaliza-
tion that is afforded military personnel and their dependents, both on
active duty and after retirement, is a very significant, point in all of.
their minds.
Mr. GuBsr.a. Would you_ go so far as to say. General, that in your
personal opinion this mbrht be very close in importance to the retired
pay, or second in importance?not. close, second?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CJAIRDP661300403R000400280006-0
General STONE. Well, at the moment, as the chairman said, the
medical care of dependents of retired personnel is on a purely space-
available basis, and it is getting tighter all the time.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Gubser, may I just say that this subcommittee
itself several years ago anticipated this problem. It has been accen-
tuated, as you know, with the construction of new hospitals which
are not allowed to take into consideration the retired load, and this
subcommittee had a provision in the medicare bill which would have
permitted the Secretary of Defense to establish a medicare program
for retired personnel and their dependents.
The Senate in its wisdom deleted that section. I think the action
of this subcommittee indicates its foresight at the time when we put
that provision in the bill which unfortunately did not become law.
But the ultimate answer to this problem' as you have indicated, :is
either going to be to provide more space for retired personnel?and
we are heading toward a very substantial number, 50,000 or more a
year, going on the retired list?we are either going to have to provide
more space or a medicare program, one of the two.
I think Mr. Bennett has introduced a bill on that.
MT. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. GUBSER. Is it your understanding, General, that the present
policy is that the medical care for retirees and their dependents is
gradually going to be faded out of the national policy?
General STONE. The present policy, as I understand it, is, in the
construction of new hospitals, this will not be taken into consideration
as a criterion for the size of the hospital.
Mr. GUBSER. And as a practical matter, General, as the number of
retirees increase, and the present hospitals are phased out and replaced
with newer ones, that do not include such beds, the national policy
is going to be that there will be no medical care -for retirees and their
dependents, isn't that right, as a practical matter?
General STONE. As a practical matter it certainly appears it will
be sizably reduced, and maybe eliminated.
Mr. GUBSER. In light of what you have said, and I am positive
every man and woman in this room will concur in what you said, this
is a very important fringe benefit, that it rates way high, insofar as
its influence not only upon the morale of the retired personnel, but
active duty personnel.
Don't you think this is a rather serious thing, serious national policy
we have embarked upon, and don't you think it is having an adverse
effect upon the morale of the active duty officers today?
General STONE. Well, it is a hard one to evaluate, unless we make
some survey.
I would estimate that the senior officers who are in the?more or
less?the eligibility zone for retirement, start to contemplate this, yes.
If they see civilian jobs available to them, they would probably tend
to go to those.
31r. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say here, I think
we have pretty clearly established this morning insofar as this tradi-
tional 10-20 percent differential is concerned, we have always gotten
by with lower military pay because we did offer the privilege of medical
care upon retirement.
Mr. RIVERS. That is one of the factors.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 200510401 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. GUBSER. That is one of the factors. I think we established it-
has been a rather considerable factor. Certainly we don't have facts
and figures to back it up, but commonsense and logic show it has
been a considerable factor.
for one, think it is an absolute crime for us to consider a pay
bill and to allow this differential to continue and at the same time ::Cloix
a national policy to stand without question that we are going to take
this privilege away from retired personnel.
If we are going to take it away, if that national pol is goin,, to
stand, then I think we ought to up the pay scale in this bill enough
to take care of it so they can provide for it through private means
and their own investment.
Mr. RIVERS. Of course, we can't take care of it in the pay bill.
Mr. GuesEn. We can, too, Mr. Chairman. We can put enough
extra in it so they can go out and buy an old-age medicare plan.
Mr. InvEas. This wouldn't be the place to do it. We will address
it along (lie lines Mr. Mandford said.
Mr. GunsEa. Yes, here we are, where we are bleeding our hearts
about everybody over 62, and here we have people that have given
their careers and lives to their country, they have been underpaid the
whole time, and we are not going to give them medicare. It is
ridiculous.
Mr. WH.sox. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GUBSER. I am through.
Mr. ItivEas. Would you answer his question?
Who is next ?
Mr. WiLsoN. I just have one question.
The general mentioned among fringe benefits that were important,
the subject of commissaries. I realize commissaries are taboo. I
wonder if any survey has been made recently that would indicate. just
what commissaries meant to military personnel.
Mr. RIVERS. We cut them down so much it doesn't mean much any
more.
Mr. BANDFORD. The answer is "Yes."
Mr. WILSON. I would like to know the monetary value of it, if pos-
sible, to the average family, of a commissary.
General STONE. I think annually a review is made of this whole
commissary problem.
Mr. Wit.soN. I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, if -,ve could lava
it on the record.
I would also like to know if your survey showed what members
were living in an area where they were entitled to commissary, and
what members didn't. It seems to Inc there is an area there where a lot
of them are going to be precluded from taking advantage as they
do in other areas, of these fringe benefits, unless they live in a speifie
area.
General STONE. In general, the Office of Secretary of Defense is
required to make this review every year at the direct ion of the Secre-
tary, I presume.
One of the items involved is whether or not there are commercial
facilities in the area that are of equal accessibility and where the
prices are reasonable. And if that is true, then a commissary is not
cut horized in that particular vicinity.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 aMA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
You will find in large metropolitan areas commissaries are not
usually authorized.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much.
Have you finished?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Mr. Riviats. Thank you very much, General Stone.
The next witness is Maj. Gen. Alfred Bowser, G-1, Marine Corps.
General BowsErt, we would like to hear from this other branch of
the service.
General BOWSER, you may proceed. We will be very pleased to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. A. L. BOWSER, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General BOWSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is vitally important at
this time that an equitable compensation rate be established for mem-
bers of the Armed Forces. This is so, not only for essential assistance
in accession and retention of personnel and to compensate for increases
in the cost of living, but to establish an adequate base level on which
future increases for active and retired personnel can be computed
equitably.
Fair and adequate compensation for members of the Armed Forces
is essential if the necessary quantity and quality of personnel to man,
motivate, move, and fight our modern war machines are to be recruited
and retained in the service. Compensation rates must be comparable
to those paid elsewhere in our society for similar talents, skills, cap-
abilities, and responsibilities. Otherwise, we cannot compete success-
fully for the caliber of personnel required to properly staff and man
our organizations that are being faced with equipments and situations
of ever-increasing complexities.
It is not intended to leave the impression that money is the panacea
to the military problem of accession and retention of personnel.
Proper compensation is merely one part, but a vitally important part,
of those factors which make a career attractive to the individual. The
growing demands for highly skilled, motivated military personnel, in
an environment where the rewards of civilian society are plentiful
cause us to reflect on the current and future status of our personnel
and what will best contribute to our ultimate objective. This objective
is a complete and attractive career pattern in which the military man
enjoys professional prestige, an earned sense of accomplishment, and
a living standard equal to his civilian counterparts based on
demonstrated ability and exercised responsibility. Our pursuit of
this objective will be materially assisted by improved economic status
of the serviceman since this status is recognized as a prestige symbol
in our society.
The rates of monthly basic pay proposed fall short of raising mil-
itary compensation to a level comparable to that in other segments
of our economy and the Federal Government. Accordingly, the pro-
posed pay schedule is disappointing. It is hoped that further in-
creases will be made by the Congress.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/Q4,121 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
It appears that an inequity exists in the subsistence allowance when
rations in kind are not available. This allowance should be de-
termined and regulated administratively on the basis of average daily
cost to the member of subsisting himsalt on a civilian basis and should
be the asme for all personnel. officers and enlisted. At the present. tune
there is no such allowance for officers. The proposed basic allowance
for subsistence for officers in this legislation would correct this situa-
tion as the proposed rate is based on the present allowance for enlisted
members -when rations in kind are not available. However, it. Is ex-
pected that adjustments in this rate will be made in the future and
accordingly provision should be, made to apply the rate to all
personnel.
The loss of sea and foreign duty pay will a (Teel over one-fourth
of-the marines on active duty. It is believed that an emolmnent for
certain sea and foreign duty should be included in the pay legislation
for the benefit of those marines spending tours at sea or on foreign
stations such as Okinawa, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. The assuirrjition
that remote and isolated pay will apply to only about 60,000 persons
would indicate that few deserving sailors and marines aboard ship
or on foreign duty can be included in that, number.
In the consideration of special pays. the interrelationship of the
present reenlistment bonus, proficiency pay, and the, proposed ineen-
two payment are such that I would like, to discuss them together.
The Illarme Corps accepted the proficiency pay but has never fully
agreed with this concept. It was accepted because it was unfair to
exclude our troops from the. system applied throughout the services.
Wo have no proof that it has aided relent ion, and most, marines dislike
proficiency pay because they feel it is discriminatory. Most marines
would rather see the money allocated to proficiency pay redistributed
into a more adequate basic pay scale.
It is my firm belief that proficiency pay should not, be cont inued.
but be replaced by the career incentive payment plan. However, as
the latter plan is designed to favor technicians almost exclusively, it
fails to provide an adequate personnel management tool to afford the
selectivity desired in the retention of those troops which are the back-
bone of the corps. Loyalty, leadership, dedication to duty, and ef-
ficiency are. essential qualit ins in the so-called noncritical as well as
the critical skills. Career attractiveness should be such that reenlist-
ment selectivity can be applied to all career fields. The training lead-
time needed to develop the required leadership and ability in the
platoon sergeants of our rifle platoons is greater than that necessary
to attain technical excellence in various specialties. Accordingly, it
is felt that, the present reenlistment bonus should be modified to con-
centrate payments at the first and second reenlistment points, and that
an incentive payment for technician retention should be superimposed
thereon.
The Marine Corps has consist Nit ly opposed comlmi pay on the basis
that men in uniform are paid to defend their country regardless of
exi , i
st in conditions. and combat pay is difficult, if not mpossible, to
administ er equitably. Tt is not believed that combat pay should be
included in in il it ary compensation.
Personnel who are qualified and actively participate in more than one
hazardous occupational specialty should be authorized to draw the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:5RA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
incentive pay for those hazards. Specifically, Marine Corps reconnaissance units require some members to be qualified and participate in
scuba diving as well as parachute jumping. In the interest of equity,
we are pleased to see th.at the exposure to Zuble hazards will authorize
payment of double incentive pay in the current proposed legislation.
There has been much discussion and evaluation of the fringe benefits
of the services, but seldom has there been discussion and evaluation of
the adverse conditions under which many members of the Armed
Forces serve. The international political situation extant since World.
War II has imposed unprecedented requirements upon our military
personnel. Constant alerts, frequent maneuvers and deployments, and
extend field and afloat duty, demanded as a matter of routine, have
generated a high degree of social instability and severely disrupted
family unity. For example, a member who is required, either by
service needs or overriding personal considerations, beyond the control
of the member himself, to serve overseas without dependents, is incur-
ring financial hardship. Even if we assume that Government quarters
and subsistence are provided, or adequate compensation in lieu thereof,
there still remains the very real expense resulting from absence of the
service member from his family and their residence. There is a need
for compensation that will provide the serviceman's family with the
means to purchase those services which are normally provided by the
man of the house in the way of "do it yourself" repair and labor.
Promotions of enlisted men and officers within the Marine Corps
have come to a virtual standstill. This has been caused, we feel, by
anticipated increase in rates of retired pay upon passage of the current
pay bill. It would be of great assistance in manpower management if
an earlier effective date could be realized for this pay bill. Such
action in equity should entitle those force outs of June 30 to retired
pay under the new bill.
ir, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions the chairman or members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. RIVERS. As usual, General Bowser, the Marines let you know
where they stand, and are not asking for any special favors.
You pretty nearly agreed with us. My lawyer respectfully disa-
greed with me, like he respectfully disagrees with you on proficiency
pay.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think, Mr. Chairman, in that connection,
perhaps
Mr. WILSON. We will hear from Major Blandford now.
Mr. BATES. Captain. [Laguhter.]
Mr. BLANDFORD. I was a pfc at one time, so I will start off as pfc.
Maybe I can work my way up.
Do I understand, aeneral, the reason the Marine Corps is opposed to
proficiency pay is the method of implementation? Would I be correct
in assuming that if you could provide more proficiency pay, and if you
did not have to base it on a skill concept, that you would probably then
be in favor of proficiency pay?
In other words, the assignment of profi.cien.cy pay to a billet, rather
than to the individual, because he possesses a skill?
General BOWSER. I would say in response to that, that it would be
more palatable to us, yes. But there still is the point mentioned yes-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/049A : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
terday by Admiral Smedberg in his testimony that this is a difierence
seen at, the pay table on each payday.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Let us analyze that, General, having once been a
platoon leader, I had the pleasure of recommending a sergeant for
promotion to platoon sergeant. I didn't make friends of the other
men when I recommended one man to be a platoon sergeant..
Mc."-IrvEtts. We have that problem when we nominate postmasters.
Mr. BarEs. We don't have that any more. [Laughter.]
Mr. lia.aNDrolle. The platoon sergeant goes up to the pay tab;.e, and
he draws additional pay. Now. I presume every staff sergeant who
didn't make platoon sergeant is unhappy.
The same thing is true in proficiency pay. Why, for examp::.e, in a
Marine platoon would you have unhappiness under those junior to be
platoon sergeant if every one of those sergeants knew, if he could ob-
tain the grade of platoon sergeant, then by assuming that. billet he
would qualify for proficiency pay.
What is the difference between that and giving a man proficiency
pay because he is a combat leader?
General Bow-star. You still have the differential between the people
of that same rank, who are not in that billet and who are not striving
for that billet.
Mr. BLANnroun. That is true, the man striving for platoon sergeant,
then he goes from that duty, say, to headquarters. Marine Corps, where
they may say that he isn't entitled to proficiency pay. I ;in this is not
a new concept, this is true of oversea pay, the man is oversea, draws
oversea pay, and when he comes back from overseas, he no longer
draws oversea pay.
The idea is that you are attaching proficiency pay to the billet.
_I am only suggesting that one of the problems with proficiency pay
has been a reluctance to administer it in the was the Congress int ended
it to be administered. The law is the shortest provision, I believe, in
the Pay Act, and yet it could involve an expenditure of millions and
millions of dollars, and in our opinion, if it were properly imple-
mented, and given to individuals on a billet basis, it could produce the
results that you seek.
Certainly, it is not right to say to a man who is 50 miles behind
the lines, that because he is fixing a radar set that lie is entitled to more
pay than the platoon leader or the platoon sergeant who is in combat.
This is the difficulty with proficiency pay, but the law is broad enough
to cover this subject. It is not confined to critical skills.
Mr. WiLsox. You are getting away from proficiency pay, at least
the concept of proficiency pay, to put it on the billet basis?
Mr. BLAxnFortn. Not necessarily, because you wouldn't, assign the
man to the billet if he. didn't have the proficiency.
Mr. ItavEns. I don't think Mr. Blandford is going to persuade the
Marines.
Can you write it so you can accept it?
General BOWSER. I would like to ainplify to this extent, Mr. Chair-
man. We are on record to the Subcommittee on AppropriationF of the
House that we have never been able to truly measure profictei.py pay
for two reasons : (1) The width of its applied t ion: (2) the amount.
We are in agreement with the statements which have been made by the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1507
other services, as well, that we really felt we couldn't get a measure
of it until we had more, both in amount and in application. And I
will modify my statement here to that extent.
Mr. Jimmy. Be careful you don't differ too much from what you
told them.
General BOWSER. I am not, because we told them this annually.
Mr. HARoy. I am not in the least concerned with what you told
them, I am trying to get the facts here.
Mr. BLANDFORD. As I understand, General, given leeway you think
proficiency pay could become a useful tool even in the Marine Corps?
General BowsErt. I believe it could, but we still would like to see a
superimposition of an incentive plan.
Mr. BLANDFORD. What you are really saying is the present reenlist-
ment bonus law should be modified, and you should only have the
bonus paid at the first and second reenlistment, and then on top of that,
in order to keep the critical skill people happy, then there ought to be
an additional incentive payment for those with critical skills. What
you are saying is that the corporal has to be encouraged to reenlist,
also, and the sergeant, even though he may not be able to take a radar
set apart and put it back together again. Nevertheless, he does know
how to operate a BAR, and to tell men where to go and how to get there.
General BowstaL That is right.
Mr, BLAND-FORD. So he is doing as much or perhaps more in many
ways for his country than the man on the radar set. Then you face the
problem, of course, all things being equal, that it is a little easier in
the economy, theoretically, to obtain a man who can fire a BAR
properly than it is to find a man who can repair a radar set. This gets
back to the supply and demand situation. What you are saying is
you need a combination of systems, a reenlistment bonus, and then per-
haps an implementation, a full implementation of the proficiency pay
system to see how it works; is that correct?
General BOWSER. That could be done.
Mr. "WiLsoN. Or a specialist incentive is what you are talking about.
You are specific in picking out exactly the skills where you have trouble
in reenlisting.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.
Mr. Wilsow. Give them a bonus, and then an additional bonus.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The specialist concept is not new, the Army had
it for years.
General BOWSER. We did too.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It was possible for an E-2 to walk into the post
exchange, and take out his pay check, which would be in excess of that
which an E-4 would receive, for example, because he was a specialist.
It was just that he didn't have the grade. He couldn't go in the NCO
Club, but he had more money than the NCO. This system was finally
eliminated because of the concept of pay for responsibility which is
supposed to be the concept of the entire pay system. This is an indica-
tion,. Mr. Chairman, of why writing the pay bill to apply to seven
services, all. of whom have different problems, is one of the most diffi-
cult tasks in the world. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize,
and the hardest thing in the world to produce something that is ac-
ceptable to everyone.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/724;: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. ErvEns. You are absolutely right. Writing the pay bill here
is hard, for any service.
Mr. WILsox. What we need is deunificat ion.
Mr. (linsna. Mr. liairman, may I ask a question on proficiency
pay ?
Arr. RIVERS. Yes.
Mr. Clunsiat. The proficiency pay award is in accordanee with the
law written in Hr.'s. ls it to be awarded only in recognition of a
special or hard-to-get skill, or is it ever awarded on a basis of outstand-
ing performance in an ordinary skill?
Mr. lir,Am-wonn. Let me read the law on profieieney pay. An en-
listed member of a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay and
designated as being specially proficient in it military skill of the
uniformed services concerned may (1) be advanced to an enlisted pay
grade that is higher than his basic pay grade at the time of his desig-
nation and lie-entitled to the basic pay and special or incentive pay of
I hat higher grade or (2), in addition to other pay allowances to which
he is entitled receive the rate prescribed in the following table for
the proficiency rating to which he is assigned.
Now, to go back to the language as being specially proliciew: in a
military skill," every aspect of lice combat antis involves a skill. It
is a mistake to consider proficiency pay as beim, a ern ical skill. It is
not what Congress intended. This was intended as a means of !riving
special pay to those people NVII0 (10 an above-average job but who are
frozen for a variet v of reasons from promotion. We even allowed you
to advance people in a pay grade. I don't know of broader provision
of law that could involve more money than that one provision.
I know of no lam that leis been talket1 about more and about Nvhich
less has been done.
Mr. Ginsuu. Well, wouldn't it be possible under that languago for,
taking a hypothetical case, for a cook, it mess sergeant, who had done
ab outstanding job, reduce the cost. per man of rations, and wouldn't it
lie possible for him to get proficiency rating?
Mr. Iii.ANDpain. Absolutely. _Anybody in this room who has been
in combat knows that if lie liad to ,'hoose bet. ween a_good 13A1 man
and it good cook, it. would be a hard choice.
Mr. IIminr. It is a lack of implementation of the DOD.
Mr. BLANDForin. We go back to this every time, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. ( ensEtz. I was on the subeominittee, at least ore member. the
thin!, I had in mind more was performance, rather than necessarily
tic sotther.
Mr. liLv.-Noroan. It is ridiculous, actually, to say it is only for cri rival
skills. I don't know anybody in the armed services other titan a kid
in boot_ camp, who doesn't have a skill, and he is developing a skill.
General flowstm. We do .give awards for outstanding effect iveness.
BLAN-nrotio. I don't care what kind of terminology You Ii e-
actually you could if you wanted to, if the 1)01) would let you do it,
and they wouldn't?you could give this to every enlisted man in the
Marine Corps; there is no limit to this. You could take a platoon and
say every man in a platoon is entitled to proficiency pay.
Mr. I Emmy. We would fuss with them, too.
Mr. 13LA.Noroan. Somebody would fuss with them.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :14A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. RIVERS. There has never been any conscious effort to carry out
the philosophy of that provision of law. It hasn't been done. It has
never been tried to be made to work. Mr. Blandford has characterized
it. There has been a lot of talk about it, very little done about it.
General BowsER. May I say one thing, though Mr. Chairman, in
that respect, that each service will have a slightly varying problem
in the implementation in this no matter how the wordage is made.
Mr. TARDY. They suggest there shouldn't be something different
than civil service.
General BOWSER. That is quite true, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I read in that connection, Mr. Chairman:
The Secretary concerned shall determine whether enlisted members of a
uniform service under his jurisdiction are to be paid proficiency pay under either
subsection (a) (1) or (a) (2) of this section.
Mr. RIVERS. Where are you reading?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am just indicating this is up to the Secretary
of each department.
Mr. HARDy. Yes, subject to the direction, authority, and control of
the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. ItivERs. We agree with you that the effectiveness of this should
be reappraised. We are glad you agree.
Mr. BLANDFORD. YOU prefer the committee proposal to the DOD
proposal?
General BOWSER. Yes, we do.
Mr. WILSON. The purpose of the proficiency pay is to maintain
status. Have you made any study of your troops to see whether having
proficiency pay available to them is any great factor in their wanting
to make a career of the Marine Corps?
General BOWSER. We made no statistical studies, Mr. Wilson. We
have done a lot of questioning through the Inspector General, Com-
mandant's visits and visits to the staff members.
Our general feeling we get from this is that the average marine feels
that this is discriminatory; that is, he doesn't like the idea even among
those who draw this pay will tell you that they don't like to draw it
as opposed to some man that they feel is doing just as good a job
in his own field.
Mr. WILSON. In other words, you set them aside in a special cast?
Mr. RIVERS. I think Mr. Blandford put his finger on it, the law says
military skills, the DOD says critical skills. I think that is the area
where you interpreted what came out of DOD, rather than what came
out of Congress.
General BowsErt. One thing we might as well face up to here, too,
Mr. Chairman; there is always the limtation that dollars are involved
in a thing like this. As I indicated before in my testimony the last
couple years to the subcommittee on appropriations, that the applica-
tion of this with a dollar limitation will always be difficult, and to
apply it widely enough to make it effective, I don't know whether we
have these kinds of dollars.
Mr. WILSON. If you had your choice, would you have it apply to all
services?
General BOWSER. Speaking for the Commandant and myself, I
would eliminate it.
85066-63?No. 6--8
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0,4411 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Iii us. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Sra.vrroN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Stratton.
Mr. STRATTON. General, your statement states you would make
changes in reenlistment-bonus arrangement by emphasizing the pay-
ment for the first and second reenlistments. Does that mean that you
basically agree that when you get beyond a certain point the built-in
factors, the built-in investment in terms of retirement is a more
im-
vornIt. motivating factor than the bonus, itself?
General Bowsru. Yes, sir; I believe that is correct, Mr. Stratton.
We are talking about roughly 12 years, if you take a reenlistment,
the first reenlistment of 4 years, the second reenlistment. of 4 years,
piled on the original enlistment, we are talking about roughly the
12-year point.
Mr. STRATTON. Basically, you agree with the Secretary of Defense
on this broad principle, but you would extend the ticentive to the
second reenlistment as yell as (lie first 1.
General llowsra. I would, indeed, sir. I think the second one is
a very important one. Ei,dit years on an 18-year-old average enlistee,
he is only 0. Ile is not too old to .0-o to something else. But if you
add 4 more years to that, and make him 30 years old, and 12 years'
service. then he has got a real decision facing him.
Mr. STRATrox. ;mural. you also men:ion?perhaps th is was touched
on when I was out of the rootn?an incentive payment for technician
retention. This would be an incentive --another kind of reenlistment
bonus, is that what you had in mind, for technicians?
General Bowsra. Yes, sir; for technicians.
Mr. STa.vrrox. When you refer to technicians in the Marine Corps,
what are you thinking about primarily?
General Bowstm. Well, we have curtain missile repairmen, missile
electronic repairmen, aviation ordnance mechanics, aviation mechan-
ics?both jet and prop. I am speaking of those, generally, in that
category, the category we are paying 100-percent proficiency' pay.
Mr. STaArrox. These people you feel would perhaps be retained
more effectively by this device than by the proficiency pay?
General Bowsm. Yes, sir; we do.
Mr. STRA1TON. Thank you very much.
Mr. PAvElls. Thank you, General.
General Bowstai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Itivnts. The next witness is Dr. Diamond, of the Public. Health
Service.
Dr. Diamond, we are. glad to have you here. We will be pleased
to hear from you, Dr. Diamond.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. MURRAY A. DIAMOND, ASSISTANT SURGEON
GENERAL
Dr. DIA:nom). Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on H.R.
3000, a bill to amend title 37, 'United States Code, to increase the
rates of basic pay for members of the uniformed services, ard for
other purposes.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : Qt4IRDP661300403R000400280006-0
Members of the uniformed services, including commissioned officers
of the Public Health Service, have not had an increase. in basic pay
for almost 5 years, and we join with the other services in urging the
'Congress. to enact pay increase legislation during the current session.
H.R. 3006 represents a forward step in the resolution of the com-
plex pay problems affecting the uniformed services. However, as
stated by both the Department of Defense and the President's Advi-
sory Panel on Federal Pay Systems, a continuing study of these com-
plex problems should be undertaken so that the compensation system
of the uniformed services can be kept abreast of changes in the
national economy.
The commisioned corps of the Public Health Service is composed
of approximately 4,500 commisioned officers who are in professional
and scientific specialties related to the health fields. Of this number
over 50 percent are medical and dental officers. As officers in many of
the professional and scientific categories that compose the commis-
sioned corps are in short supply, the Service has its problems in
recruiting and retaining qualified personnel in these categories. I
.ain sure that the other uniformed services, as you have heard, are
faced with the same problems in the same professional and scientific
fields.
One of our major problems during recent years has been the high
.attrition rate among our younger officers. Despite the fact that many
of these officers are serving their obligated service under the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, and would undoubtedly leave
upon completion of such service regardless of compensation levels, I
believe that the pay increases for pay grades 0-2 and 0-3 will gen-
erally assist the service in retaining more of these younger officers
for longer periods of service and perhaps for career service. More-
over, it is my opinion that the increases proposed under H.R. 3006
for pay grades 0-1 through 0-1 are most encouraging and will decid-
edly assist the Public Health Service in recruiting and retaining the
younger officer.
One of the provisions of the bill which we believe will be of further
.assistance is that relating to constructive credit for basic pay purposes
for persons holding postgraduate degrees in those areas specified by
the Secretary concerned. This provision will benefit officers in the
scientist and sanitary engineering categories which, next to medical and
?dental, are two of the most critical manpower shortage categories.
The basic pay increases that will be authorized on original appoint-
ment because of this provision will, I am sure, be a definite recruit-
ment aid.
There are two other provisions of the bill on which I would like
to. comment briefly. These provisions would authorize for our com-
missioned officers certain active duty benefits on the same basis that
they are authorized for members of the other uniformed services.
The first of these involves the uniform allowance. Under section
.20,(b) of the bill the present uniform allowance authority for com-
missioned officers of the Public Health Service would be amended to
permit the payment of a uniform allowance to any officer, regular or
reserve, regardless of grade, who is required by directive of the Surgeon
'General to wear that uniform.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005c011/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
The second provision. which relates to the Public Ifealth Service,
is contained in section 18(d) of the bill. This provision would ainend
the Public Health Service Act to permit commissioned officers of the
Public Health Service to ship a privately owned automobile at Gov-
ernment expense on an oversea assignment . At the present time our
rommissioned officers are the only group of Federal personnel who
do not have this entitlement.
U wish to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify on H.R. 3006. If there are any questions, I will be glad to
answer theni.
Mr. It ivnus. 'chunk you very much. Dr. I riamond.
Any questions from any member of the committee ?
Mr. BENNOrr.
Mr. BLANDr(un. I was under the impression. Dr. Diamond, that,
officers of the Public Health Service, up to the grade of 04, do get a
uniform allowance.
)r. DtAmoNn. That, is correct.
Mr. RivEas. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Now. Mr. Blandford, what about the other two wit 110tiSCS ?
Mr. BLANDruan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the record
at this time a statement from the American Veterinary Medical Asso-
ciation supporting the principles of the provisions of I I.1L 3006, and
a statement from the American Legion and a letter from the VFW.
Mr. litvEns. That may be done.
(The letter and statements front the American Legi,m, the VFW,
and the American Veterinary Medical Association are :is follows :)
ANItatICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Wusilington, ,r) C.
Re nit. 30911, Mill Congress, to Subcomniittee No. l, Committee lin Aimed
Services, House of Representatives of the United :79 lutes
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am I IF...... J ... . Wash-
ington representative of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and sheak
for the association regarding H.R. 3006.
in lieu of a formally prepared statement it i requested that the record show
the American Veterinary Medical Association supports in principle the yovi-
sions of H.R. WOG, the Uniformed Services Pay Act if 19113.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. DOYLE. CHArRMAN, NATIONAL SECCRITY COMMISSION,
TIFF: AMERICAN LEGION. IN SUPPORT OF 11.11. :tunci
:qr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, last Octobt-r in Las Vegas,
Nev., the -14th Annual National Convention of the American Legion, upon re!oni-
mendation of its convention committee on nidlonal security, unanimously
adopted Resolution 397 supporting a pay increase for members of our Aimed
Fort's.
The American Legimi recognizes that the perral sluice World War II is unique
in the annals of our history as a nation. Never before has it been necestutry,
short of all-out war, to nmintain such high levels of manpowor in our active
military forces. Never before have we been faced with the demands for
technically trained personnel to 11M 11 the weapons systems guarding the security
of the Nation. These same technicians needed by our Armed Forces are in
great demand by civilian industries. Herein lies the problem. The solution
obviously is to tailor II,R. 3009 to meet these needs.
A. thorough study of the provisions of H.R. 30tHi lends our organization to
the conclusion that while the bill will gc it long way in meeting the problem
and fulfilling the objectives sought hy the American Legion's Resolution 397,
there are certain areas which we believe should be strengthened. For the record,
the text of Resolution 500 is presented below fl its entirety :
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:MA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Whereas, the security of the United States depends on poised and ready
military power in-being; and
Whereas, our military strength can be measured by the courage, dedication,
?and training of Americans in uniform at the time of meeting enemy attack,
and it is therefore necessary that our military forces be composed of the highest
type of citizens; and
Whereas, it is necessary to offer some benefits to offset the many hardships
imposed by a military career in order to attract to and hold in the military
services our best citizens; and
Whereas, the American Legion has always strongly endorsed and supported
the principal of adequate benefits for Armed Forces personnel: Now, therefore,
,be it
Resolved, by the American Legion in national convention assembled in Las
Vegas, Nev., October 9-11, 1962, That we reaffirm our position supporting an
increase in pay for our comrades in service, to the extent that compensation
received will be more nearly equal to that which could be gained in civilian life
in their various specialties and professions; and our support for increased bene-
fits for our Armed Forces in housing, professional services, and in commissary
and PX privileges, as an expression of the appreciation of the American people
for the dedication of service personnel to the defense of our Nation.
Let me say at the outset that an increase in service benefits is long overdue.
No one seriously questions the disparity between certain segments of the mili-
tary forces compared with civil service or private industry. However, industry
does not hold out a 20-year retirement to its skilled workers or its manage-
ment team.
Industry has long recognized that a trained and skilled worker must be re-
tained if the company is to succeed. While it is not within the immediate pur-
view of this subcommittee, serious study should be given to the matter of
retaining both enlisted and officer personnel beyond 20 years. Increased finan-
?cial incentitives will partially bridge the problem, but constantly dangling the
20-year retirement before men about to enter the Armed Forces has a profound
effect on service beyond 20 years; a time when the officer and the enlisted man
are valuable members of the defense team. Adequate machinery now exists to
weed out the incompetents. Is it not equally important to retain the "cream
of the crop" in service at least for 30 years by some means other than finan-
cial incentive which, of course, must be included in the package.
Earlier in this statement, I spoke of the unprecedented demands for highly
trained technicians in the armed services, who are also in demand by industry.
These, with few exceptions, are in the enlisted grades, and in my opinion, the
increases in benefits make up a package that is woefully inadequate to com-
pete against industry.
I have personally talked to jet mechanics and electronic specialists, skills for
which industry is bidding high, and these young men with very few exceptions
are leaving the service for industry. To raise their benefits package to com-
petitive levels, we will have to go far beyond the 'provisions of H.R. 3006. Soft
skills are no problem in the Armed Forces, but why continue blanket increases
when the crux of the matter lies in keeping skilled manpower in the Armed
Forces? Selective pay for the needed skills must be the answer. The savings in
the cost of training new men to replace highly trained technicians who leave
the service would offset a major portion of realistic pay increases.
Sea pay and hazardous duty pay must be retained. By dropping sea pay as
proposed by the Defense Department, a second-class petty officer?even with
the increase provided by that proposal?would receive a mere $9 more a
month. That's just about $2 a week, hardly enough to make staying in service
attractive as far as financial considerations are concerned. For chief petty
,officers with 18 years who would lose sea pay the situation is even more ludi-
crous. Under the Defense Department's proposed pay bill, without sea pay, the
'chief petty officer would receive the trilling increase of $2.50 a month, which
figures out to about 60 cents a week.
While we wholeheartedly subscribe to bringing pre-1958 retirees up to the
levels of the 19,58 Pay Act, we view the proposal to again provide a different
method of computing their retirement pay as a serious breach of faith. Sec-
ondly, the "cost-of-living" feature further complicates an already complicated
pay system. With one notable exception, retired pay has always been directly
related to active duty pay. The American Legion saw no need to depart from
-this formula in 1958 and it sees less justification for it today. I therefore
:urge your committee to peg retirement pay to active duty pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0M: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Another matter on which Our national commander has publicly expretsed his
opinion concerns eliminating from the proposed pay increases members of the
Reserves serving obligated periods in the Reserve. In his statement National
Commander Powers observed, and I quote:
"The American Legion, by action of its national conventions has long advo-
eated a fair and equitable pay system for cur men and women in military uni-
form, whether they are on active duty or whether they scrve the country in
f he Reserve Forces.
"The American Legion is quite haj py. of course, that lire Departluent of
Defense is proposing to the new Congress a pay raise for our military. It is
long overdue.
"However. the American Legion feels it is grossly unjust that the Defense
Department wants to use t wo separate criteria for paying reservists. The
leadership at the Defense Department seems to have forgotten that the re-
servist with a compulsory obligation contributes as muutt to the military
readiness of the country as does the volurteer reservist.. We cannot eoutpre-
hend how they can rationalize paying a volunteer reservist 0 higher settle dur-
ing weekly drills and paying compulsory reservists a lower scale. The proposal
is not at all equitable and it is unfair to nor reservists with obligatory ierviee.
Such an action can have only the worst kind of demoralizing effect on these
men."
We agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that paying all of the reenlistment bonus
at the end of the first tour would have a most serious effect on future reen-
listments. We also agree with your opinion that an individual should be per-
mitted to draw two incentive pays. In this connection, we are of the distinct
opinion that the dangers of hazardous duty are the same for members of our
Armed Forces whether they be officers or enlisted men. Why then should
officers receive more hazardous duty pay than enlisted men? Differerices in
quarters allowanres between enlisted and personnel appear to deserve
special study. For It Is not true that an enlisted man with three children has
the same obligations to adequately feed and clothe his family, and provide for
the creature comforts, as does the commissioned officer?
In conclusion, the American Legion supports H.R. 3006 and offers for consid-
eration changes which we believe will more adequately meet the vexing prob-
lems which plague our Armed Forces.
VETE:liAxs OF FOREIGN WARS OF TIIE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 1963.
lion. L. MENDEL RIVERS,
Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Mouse Armect Services Commatee, U.S. House of
Representatiees, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your kind invitation for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States to apprise the subcommittee of
its views with respect to the proposed Armed Forces pay legislation (H.R. 3006),
which is now under consideration by your subeounnittee.
The Views expressed in this letter are based upon resolutions adopted by tire
delegates to the V.F.W. 1902 National Convention, and reflect the longstanding
interest of the V.F.W. in matters pertaining, to Armed Force.; personnel. Addi-
tionally I would like to point out that, I his statement is submitted on behalf of
Mr. Byron B. Gentry, commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States, and with his approval.
The V.F.W. comprising a membership of 1,300,000 oversen combat veterans,
has throughout its existence, vigorously supported adequate and fair pay scales
for military personnel. Because of the !woad military experience reflected
within its membership, the believes its views in matters pertaining, to
pay, as well as other conditions of military service. are based upon a background
of mature, knowledgeable. and varied military experience.
The following are observations of a general nature as to proposed legislation :
A. pay increase is long overdue for military personnel. `Ms is demonstrated,
the V.F.W. believes, through any authoritative comparison with the trend a pay
scales in business and the civilian element of Government. The V.F.W. strongly
supports an increase in Armed Forces pay.
There is a basic observation which the V.F.W. consIderA pertinent to the
overall subject of military pay : It is our firm conviction that on inueh emphasis
can be placed upon detailed comparisons between military and civilian?busIness
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21ARIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
or government?pay scales. Such comparisons must of necessity be arbitrary and
artificial and hence can be very misleading. There is, the V.F.W. firmly be-
lieves, no sound and accurate measure of comparison between military and civil-
ian scales of remuneration. The reason is simple: There is no business or
civilian pursuit similar to that of the Armed Forces. Accordingly, there is no
measure by which a man can be fully paid in money for assuming the respon-
sibilities and trust upon risks inherent in military service. One cannot devise
a pay scale for prolonged separation from family; nor, does the nature of mili-
tary service admit an 8-hour, 5-day week. The business of national security
goes on around the clock. There is no civilian pay scale applicable to crews
on the long underwater voyages of a Polaris submarine; for flying the China
Coast surveillance patrols; for flying high and low level photographic missions
over the Russian military forces in Cuba, or for night flying from the darkened
decks of carriers in a pitching sea. Even the risks of peacetime maneuvers and
training exercises, routine to the military man, have no counterpart in civilian
life. Also, the responsibilities entrusted to noncommissioned and commissioned
officers, both in terms of the value of materiel, as well as responsibility for
command in combat are not paralleled elsewhere.
As a general observation regarding the pay scales proposed by H.R. 3006, the
V.F.W. believes that, while the raises are a step in the right direction, they are
not adequate. The V.F.W. is deeply concerned over the maner in which military
pay has dropped in relation to corresponding pay for civilian government em-
ployees. This situation is unfair to military personnel and it is dangerous to our
national security. Never before has the need been greater for attracting and
retaining the highest type of military personnel. The military profession should
not be so demonstrably downgraded in relation to other lines of endeavor.
Following are specific comments:
Retired pay.?The V.F.W. believes in the continuation of the longstanding
principle of basing retired pay upon current active duty pay scales. This is
fair and equitable, and it is the system which those in the service have come to
expect will be applied to them when retired. However, from the practicable
standpoint it must be recognized that the problem involves sharply increasing
costs and it would be less than realistic to contend that Congress is not genuinely
concerned about this matter. While supporting and urging the continuation of
basing retired pay on active duty pay, the V.F.W. additionally recommends that
if there is a departure from this system, then a fully fair and adequate alterna-
tive be provided.
Pay scales.?The principle of proper pay for responsibility is not adequately
reflected in the proposed scales. This becomes increasingly serious in the higher
ranks. Remuneration should be secured those in positions of trust and respon-
sibility. This is not only possible from a standpoint of those now in service, but
it is necessary ?to attract able personnel to those positions in the future. It is
recommended that the pending bill be rectified in this respect and that the matter
of adequate pay for positions of high trust and responsibility be thoroughly
considered by the President's Committee on Executive Pay.
Sea pay and oversea pay.?Both sea pay and oversea pay should be continued,
should be adequate, and should not be arbitrarily restricted as to rank or re-
cipient. One of the inescapable expenses, from the standpoint of the serviceman,
is his added expenses necessitated by separation from his family. As anyone
who has served at sea or overseas well knows, there are additional expenses
incurred as a direct result of such separate duty. It should be emphasized that
these extra expenses are experienced by all military personnel with families, and
for that reason such allowances should go to all ranks.
The termination or inadequacy of sea pay allowances would, in the practical
effect, mean that the serviceman serving at sea would be paying a financial
penalty for performing such vital and indispensable services to our Nation. The
same theory applies to oversea pay for those separated from their families.
Pay for reservists.--There should be no discrimination in pay scales between
obligated and unobligated reservists. To differentiate between the two in mat-
ters of pay would be to violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. Any
pay discrimination between obligated and unobligated reservists would result in
a lowered morale and other serious personnel difficulties.
Effective date of increase.?There is no sound reason why the pending pay
increases should lag substantially behind pay increases for civilian governmental
employees. A lag in according a pay increase to military personnel leads to the
conclusion that civilian pay increases are, in part, being paid by the servicemen
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0412k: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
through continued lower pay scales for the military. Such a situation is unjusti-
fiable from the morale standpoint. The pending pay bill, in the opinion of the
V.F.W., should be made retroactive to the effective date of the recent pay increase
for civilian employees of the Government.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity to express the V.F.W.'s admiration and
appreciation for the long and arduous work which you, your subcommittee, the
full committee, and the extremely able staff have so long devoted to matters
pertaining to the interests of the personnel of our Armed Forces. The V.F.W.
firmly believes that. the House Armed Services Committee under the leadership
of its chairman, the Honorable Carl Vinson, has been directly respon3ib1e for
much of the key legislation benefiting our service personnel for many years.
Thanking you again for the opportunity to submit this statement, containing
some of the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in the
matter now before you, I remain
Very respectfully,
J. D. Ifirrfn.
Mr. II !VERS. Whitt is next ?
Mr. lir,ANDronn. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what your time
schedule is.
The Coast Guard and Coast and Geodetic Survey are. represented,
but have no prepared statements:: is that correct, Capt am n Hicks?
Captain McKs. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Come up and kiss the book, if you will, Captain.
Mr. InvEns. .Capt a in I ricks, have a seat..
Captain Hui Ks. Mr. Chairman, as I said I don't have a stiu.ement,
but I would like to express an appreciation for the opportunity to ap-
pear here. to add our concurrence to the statement of the other wit-
nesses that these pay increases are necessary if we are to recruit and
attract the personnel we need to accomplish our mission.
Mr. lityms. In other words, you subscribe to the general pi inciple
that an increase is needed ?
Captain McRs. Yes, Fir.
Mr. 10.vEns. You haven't studied the bill ?
Captain theKs. Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. lilVERS. have you studied our proposal?
Mr. I ficlis. No, sir; I have not seen that one. Most, of the -a large
part of the bill, most of the controversial items do not pertain to us,
because we do not have an enlisted service. We have only
commissioned officers.
Mr. lir.Axnrono. It ow many oflicers do you have?
'aptain 111 cics. 200 is I lie a ut hurized strength now.
Mr. I Imam-. You are affected by the retirement provision?
Captain llicKs. Yes, sir.
Air. 11.kuoy. Do you in general subscribe to that approach to the
retirement problem?
Captain IlicKs. Like Admiral Smedberg, reluctantly, I think the
conditions are such we have to.
Mr. ltimis. Certainly yon agree with its, it ought to be brought
up just a little bit. You wouldn't object to that ?
Ca pt;tin Hicks. I thin k t hat is one of the biggest, questions about
the liming, why it is so far in the future.
Mr. fivator. Are there any specific provisions of it \yith which you
disagree?
Captain ThcKs. Not specifically: no, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2116-gA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. HARDY. If you have an opportunity?did you have an oppor-
tunity to comment on it before the DOD sent it over here?
Captain Hicks. Yes, sir; we did. We made comments, and some
of the comments are included in the bill.
Mr. HARDY. Will you furnish the committee with a copy of those
comments?
Captain Hicks, Yes, sir; I will furnish them.
One more thing, those comments were furnished by telephone.
Mr. Timmy. You got a memorandum of what you told them,
haven't you?
Captain HICKS. I will have to write one on it.
Mr. HARDY. You mean you don't have any record of what you told
them? I could mess you up in good shape, and you couldn't prove
I did you wrong.
Captain Hicks. I had it in rough draft. The changes, particularly
important to us, there were two items in the bill.
Mr. STRATTON. Why should the Secretary of Defense be able to sat-
isfy the nonmilitary services more effectively than he does the others?
You don't have to answer that.
Mr. RIVERS. Ile just goes along for the ride.
Thank you very much, Captain Hicks.
Captain HICKS. All right, sir. Thank you.
BLANDFORD. Who was the representative of the Coast Guard?
Mr. RivEas. Have you got a written statement, Admiral?
Admiral KNUDSEN. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. HARDY. Come on up here and give us one right quick.
Mr. RIVERS. Who do you agree with, us, or the DOD?
Admiral KNUDSEN. Partly with you, sir, and partly with the De-
partment of Defense.
Mr. RIVERS. Give the reporter your name?Rear Admiral Knudsen,
chief officer
Admiral KNUDSEN. Personnel, U.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. HARDY. You are not proscribed by the Secretary of Defense.
He must have given you carte blanche to tell us how you felt.
Admiral KNUDSEN. I think we have to say we support the bill.
However, I could answer some questions on it here.
Mr. HARDY. You don't want to volunteer anything?
Admiral KNUDSEN. Well, first, I would like to have something
added here, if it please the committee.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Admiral KNUDSEN. This is in section 2, on page 2, and footnote 2.
That reads?
While serving as a permanent professor at the U.S. Military Academy, the
'U.S. Air Force Academy, basic pay for this grade is $1,165 if the officer has over
31 years of service computed under section 205 of this title, and $1,245 if the
officer has over 36 years of that service.
We would like to add, to strike out the "or," after "U.S. Military
Academy," and say "U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Air Force Aca
emy, and while serving as a member of the permanent commission
teaching staff at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy."
Mr. RIVERS. Put that down, Mr. Blandford.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The reporter has it, I hope.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/g,1p CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. IIAnny. I think it might be a good idea if you could (rive us
It memorandum.
Mr. RIVERS. Give us a memorandum on that, would you?
Admiral KN-unsEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. lii,ANnroan. I might add at this point, Mr. Chairman, this
subject, of course, was passed by tie House, more than a year ago.
'There is no indication on the part of the Coast Guard they were in-
terested at that time, and there apparently was no indication of in-
terest on the part of tlw Coast Guard this time until today, or
yesterday, actually, and, in addition to that, the Senate would not
consider the bill we passed last Congress, which would provide the
special increment for the permanent professors at West Point.
I think before. any action is taken--
Mr. Ilimas. We are not taking any action.
Mr. xtwono. No. What I :on suggesting, Mr. Chairman, before
this is discussed as a legislative proposal. that it ought to be made quite
clear as to whether the professors at. West Point and the pr)fessors
at the Coast Guard Academy are in exactly the same situation. I don't
know enough about the Coast Guard law to know.
Now, as I understand the professors at West Point, they are selected
for these positions, and they thereafter give up all other opportuni-
ties for advancement except as they may be promoted up to lie maxi-
minn grade professor, then they can stay on until age 65, I believe, it
is, but they never return to the life. Is this the same situation?
Admiral Kxunsr,N. This is the same, except for t he age 62.
ME. BI.ANDFORD. The problems that come up. Admiral, are that there
are differences in the system in the Army and the system in the Coast
Guard. This is a kind of leap-frogging operation, if you put the
Coast Guard in, then somebody else comes along who has a Oifferent
system and they say we want him, also, but we have a different retire-
ment age. I am merely suggesting if we are going to do this for all
the services, the Air Force--the academies?if we are going to have
this situation, the law should be the. same for all of them as far as
permanent appointments are concerned at the academies?
Admiral EiNunsEN. We do have permanent appointments. They
are appointing a permanent commissioned teaching staff at the
Academy. In other words, we may pull some of our men from civilian
life, give them a commission. Ile is advanced in the various gmdes to
captain.
Mr. Br..x-xuroan. How do you give him constructive credit?
Admiral K-xcnsEN. We do not give him constructive credit, except
in smile cases where he has a subject or has knowledge of a subject
which would especially warrant it. If-you mean our authority for
Mr. MANDFORD. What I am getting at is this, Admiral: As I
understand in the. Army, the man has to actually accumulate service.
In other words, he is not qualified for this over 31. until he has had
31 years of actual service. Now, if we come in with the Coast Guard,
we may discover that you can appoint a man to, say, the, grade of
commander, and then he has construct ire credit, and he may only serve
10 years as a professor. but he would be drawing the same pay as a
professor at. the Military Academy.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2115gA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
These are the only things I am raising. I don't know the answers
to them.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. BI andford, this is going to involve, going to all
of these things, a lot of time. I would suggest the Admiral see you
and discuss these things in your office.
MT. BLANDFORD. All right, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Maybe we can work out something along the lines of
his proposal.
MT. BLANDFORD. I am not trying to throw cold water On it, Mr.
Chairman. I am indicating if we do this, we ought to be sure of what
we are doing, that West Point should be under the exact same condi-
tions as everybody else.
Mr. RIVERS. You can talk with Mr. Blandford to see if you can
work out something to submit to the committee.
Admiral KNUDSEN. All right, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you have any other observations?
Maybe you would have done well if you had written a statement for
us.
Admiral KNUDSEN. I could appear tomorrow.
Mr. RIVERS. What else do you think about the situation? Would
you tell us?
Admiral KNUDSEN. Well, we feel that perhaps the pay scale could
be changed slightly. In fact, we favor more of a comparability with
industry, and also with the civil service.
Mr. RIVERS. You take both of them.
Admiral KNUDSEN. Well, we are losing a number of our technical
people to private industry, so we feel it should be related more to
both civil service and to private industry.
Mr. RIVERS. This is a problem, we recognize that.
Mr. Timmy. Did you make any comment of that kind to the Depart-
ment of Defense?
Admiral KNUDSEN. Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. HARDY. Would you provide us with a copy of that letter?
Admiral KNUDSEN. I haven't it today, but I will, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is an additional in this bill for the Coast
Guard for one individual. For the first time the Commandant of
the Coast Guard will draw the same pay and allowances as the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Staff of the Army, and
so forth. This constitutes a $4,000 personal money allowance, and
this has been approved by OSD and approved by the Secretary of
the Treasury.
Admiral KNUDSEN. Yes, Sin
Mr. BLANDFORD. This question wasn't raised by the Coast and
Geodetic Survey, and I suppose it would be probably a little difficult
to justify this for the Chief of the Coast and Geodetic Survey with
only 200 officers.
What is the size of the Coast Guard, Admiral?total strength, and
number of commissioned officers?
Admiral KNUDSEN. We have about 3,010 commissioned officers,
about 1,000 warrant officers, and about 27,100 enlisted men.
Mr. BLANDFORD. About 32,000?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0412.10: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Admiral KNUDSEN. Ii0Ofildy ; yes., sir.
STa.verox. Mr. (7hairman.
Admiral, do your personnel got sea pay while they are at sea!
Admiral livt-usEN. Yes, sir we do.
Mr. STa.virrox. Are you in favor of el iminatimr that ?
Admiral Kxt-osEN. No, I t hink we would like to retain the, pay.
I would like to say, I he bill, on the remote and isolated duty, also in-
cludes sett pay. but doesn't spell out very \veil just what sea pay is
InValit. If his could be elaborated on in the bill. maybe we would be
willing to give up I he sea pay. and adopt the proposal Imre in H.R.
3006. But in the absence of that, we prefer to stick to sea. pay.
Mr. Rivras. You better underst and it pretty good. You don't want
to !rive up anythinrr.
Mr. STR.vrrox. What. about reenlistment, do you liave this problem,
too?
Admiral KNI7DsEN. We have the same problem as he Navy and all
the other armed services, as far as that is concerned.
Mr. STa.vrrox. Are you in favor of the proposal the Department
has offered on that, or would you stick to the original
Admiral KNUDSEN. The Department seems to have had tho reten-
tion of crii ical rates in mind when this was dra Ned. We also face
the same problem.
(hi the other hand, we have a number of men in of her rat e.;, boat-
swains and mates, for example, who are in charge of numerous small
boats, and stations that we have, and are very loyal and dedicated men.
We feel that they should also get an increase in some way.
Now, under this proposal they would only get $50('. A critical man
would get $2,40u. After all. as Mr. Bland ford has pointed out, we do
need people who know how to change t he t ubes, and push the buttons,
but we. also need oilier people to run 'lite service.
Mr. STuArrox. Is it. t rile, as far as tlw Coast livard is concerned,
if a, young man comes into the C'oast Guard, he is not going in pri-
marily to satisfy a military requirement, he is going in because pre-
sumably he is interested in the. possibility of making it. a career, so
that to that. extent, you have less of a reenlistment problem. Is that
true, or doesn't it. work out that way?
Admiral KNI-nsr.x. No: I heard Admiral :'?;inedber,r's testimony.
Our reenlistment rates are approximately the satin' as the Navy, for the
first reenlistment, and also for subsequent reenlistments.
Mr. STRATTON. Thank you.
Mr. litAxoronn. Do we have any representative --not representa-
tive?may I ask. Admiral?I am ahead of myself. Are you going to
process legislation to eliminate I he meritorious 10-percent addition in
retirement pay for enlisted personnel? I think as long as we are in
this subject we ought to indicate that we have jurisdiction ovt r your
pay scales, but we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over your ret irement
provisions, other than disability retirement.
Frankly, I did not know lint il I read the Comptroller General's
decision practically all of your enlisted personnel retired at a substan-
tially hip-her retirement pay than the counterparts in the oilier SC1T-
ices. Is the legislation being processed to eliminate this.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21;RIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Admiral KNUDSEN. Legislation has already been written, Mr.
131 andford, has been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget, and will
:shortly be introduced to the Congress.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Thank you.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Admiral.
ADMIRAL KNUDSEN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. RIVERS. We will begin tomorrow at 10 o'clock, and will not have
an afternoon's session today. I think we will start off with Congress-
man Baldwin, and then Admiral Denfeld?do you wish to have
Admiral Denfeld second?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. We will start off with Congressman Baldwin, and we
will take you after him, Admiral Denfield. I think we will get to the
rest of the witnesses, also.
We will see you gentlemen at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SCIENCES,
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1,
Washington, D .0 ebruary 28,1963.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 :10 a.m., in
room 313-A, Old House Office Building, Hon. L. Mendel Rivers
(chairman of the subcommittee) , presiding.
Mr. RIVERS. Let the committee come to order.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to insert in the record at this point, Mr.
'Chairman, if I may, a letter from a career serviceman unsigned, a
letter that covers many of the points we are discussing here and
:covers them very well.
I would also like to insert in the record a statement by the Vet-
erans of , Foreign Wars and Maj. Gen. William II. Harrison, Jr.,
president of the National Guard Association of the United States, on
H.R. 3006, and a statement from the National Society of Professional
Engineers.
I would also like to insert in the record at this time two statements
I requested the Public Health Service to furnish the committee con-
cerning the situation in the Public Health Service, particularly with
reSpect to comparability of the pay of the commissioned officers of
the Public Health Service and the pay of their civil service counter-
parts who are doing practically the same work at rather substantially
higher incomes.
(The documents referred to are as follows :)
DEAR CONGRESSMAN RIVERS:
Sir, we in the armed services thank you sincerely for speaking out in such
it fine manner on the military pay proposal, as quoted on page A-6 of the Wash-
ington Post for Wednesday, February 27, 1903.
I am especially pleased to know that a fellow southerner will not be dictated
to by the administration, while in performance of his duty of representing the
people of our Nation.
I am sure you and your colleagues will consider carefully such things as:
1. Raising the pay rates to provide a really living wage?not just a pittance.
.2. Making the raise effective as soon as possible. Even though the Secretary
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/01/21): CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
of Defense staled that a pay raise for the armed services is -urgently needed,"
he contradicts himself by setting an effective date of October 1. Believe me, we
need the raise now.
3. Finally, a matter IA hich effects many servicemen, all of the services have
been "pushing" higher education. So. for the past d years I have been -.going to
night school wherever I was stationed, After much work, last June 1 received
a master's degree.
After giving up hundreds of nights with toy family. studying weekends, and
spending precious money. I find my efforts were almost in vain.
Even though I have a master's degree I receive the same pay as men without
even a high school diploma. My promotions come at the same time and rate
as theirs. Now, is that an incentive to work toward a higher education?
My two neighbors received their M.A. degrees at the same time as I. One,
who worked for a large business firm, received a promotion anti a large salary
increase. The other one, working for the Department of Comm( ice, was moved
into a position two grades higher, which brought a big raise also.
Me. in the Armed Forces. I am still in the '41 1111. grin lo noticing the sant salary
had 4 years ago. I do have a new piece of paper on my wall, but that's all.
Now the Secretary of Defense proposes to credit servicemen who had an
advanced degree before tht?y entered the service. That is tine: a good incentive to
attract better educated personnel. But, what about those who sacrifice i great
deal during their service?
Please, sir, make provisions for these folks who have and are struggling to
better educate themselves in order to clo a better jolt for their country.
In closing, we servicemen and our families will he watching the newspapers
amt waiting for more won Is from you and your fine eonnnittl'e. Please, sir, do
not let us down.
Most respectfully,
A ItEEIL SERVICE /if AN.
STATEMENT RV m.k.J. 'WILLI A NI II. IBM:ISDN . JR. PRESIDF:N T,
-NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ant pleased to have this op-
portunity to appear before you in behalf of the National Guard Assort:1:ton of
the United States in support of the proposal to increase the rates of basic pay for
members of the uniformed services as set forth in H.R. 3006.
Over 4 years have passed since the last adjustment in the rates of basic at
pay and in our judgment the upward revision of existing rates Is not only eco-
nomic Justice but economic necessity.
What constitutes an equitable increase over the prevailing rates is a natter
upon which yon gentlemen have received intuit expert testimony and we shall
subscribe to whatever is determined as your best judgment. Suffice It to say,
that the stead3.? advance in the cost of living since the last military pa 3 raise
has caused a steady erosion of that pay.
There are three specifk proposals in tlw bill to which I should like to invite
your attention. They are (1) the proposal to pay the obligated reservist at a
lower rate than his counterpart \vim serves without an obligation ; (II) the
proposal relating to uniform allowances: and t 3) the proposal pertain.ng to
retired pay.
The Defense Department plan to provide for a double standard of pay between
the obligated and the unobligated reservist has been termed in some quarters as
"grossly unjust." I can think of no more apt description. In it society which takes
pride in justice and equality for all anti at a time when our national efforts are
being directed at the highest levels to providing equity of trealmeat for all or
our citizens we can only characterize this Pentagon proposal as a retrcgrade
step.
We in the National Guard, living part civilian and part military lives, st.etul a
large degree of our thin. talking the young men of this country into voluntary
military service. The attractiveness of military life, even part-time military
service is a moot question. Guardsmen, of course, have already decided that
service in the National Guard in behalf of Slate and Nation is loyal and worthy,
and the response of hundreds of thousands cif such men in times of emergency
or war has adequately demonstrated this fact. Members of the National Guard
don't sit around and wait for a national emergency or war before signing up ti'i
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21j29A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
serve their country. They volunteer at an early age and perform the drudgery of
peacetime training often at great personal sacrifice and hardship, and often un-
der great difficulties in the lack of appropriate arms and equipment, seeking to.
prepare themselves to defend their country when the need arises.
Over the past number of years, hundreds of thousands of young men of draft
age have escaped a single day of military service so that the burden of such
service falls upon the relative few who volunteer. The Pentagon would now
have us tell these young men who volunteer that they are second-class citizens
because the law provides that a volunteer in the National Guard incurs a military
obligation. Likewise, the volunteer who enlists in the Active Forces and serves
for 2 or more years and those inducted through selective service incur a military
obligation. Upon their release from active service, their training and military
skills are of great benefit to the National Guard and other Reserve components
but, under the Pentagon proposal there would be little or no inducement for
them to enlist in the National Guard or participate in an active drilling unit of
the Reserves if they were to receive a lesser compensation for their services and
be characterized as second-class reservists.
We strongly urge that this inequitable proposal be striken from H.R. 3001.
Secondly, that part of the bill which provides for revision of uniform allow-
ances fails to correct a glaring injustice which has existed for a number of years
and the correction of which the Department of Defense has concurred in most
recently in its report to this committee on H.R. 4788 during the life of the 87th
Congress. This bill has been reintroduced by the Honorable F. Edward Hebert
of Louisiana, as H.R. 2506.
H.R. 3006 proposes certain changes to the matter of uniform allowances with
which we do not take issue. The injustice which it fails to correct is as follows:
Section 305(b) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, as amended, now
codified into section 416(a) of title 37, United States Code, authorizes a Reserve
officer a $50 uniform maintenance allowance upon completion of 4 years of service
in a Reserve component, if he otherwise meets the requirements of that section.
The Comptroller General of the United States has ruled the phrase "in a
Reserve component" means that the 4 years of service must be performed in the
same component (32 Comp. Gen. 502, 512, and 514). As a result of this ruling, a
Reserve officer is not qualified for the $50 allowance if his 4 years of service are a
combination of service in more than one component of an Armed Force, such as,
3 years in the Army National Guard of the United States and 1 year in the Army
Reserve. This ruling applies with equal force to Reserve officers of the Air Force
who may serve in both the Air National Guard of the United States and the Air
Force Reserve on a consecutive basis.
Title 10, United States Code, sections 3351, 3352, 8351, and 8352, recognizes
the desirability of providing ease of movement of Reserve officers between the
Army Reserve and the Army National Guard of the United States and between
the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard of the United States. Such
provisions are desirable because of occasions in which changes in civilian occupa-
tion require Reserve officers to move to new locations where conditions may not
permit continued assignment to an Army National Guard unit in the case of an
Army National Guard of the United States officer, or to an Army Reserve unit
in the case of an Army Reserve officer. However, upon arrival at the new ben-
tion, many Army Reserve officers have secured appointments in the Army Na-
tional Guard, and continued their Reserve service in the Army National Guard of
the United States, and conversely, many Army National Guard of the United
States officers, upon discharge from the Army National Guard, have become
members of actively participating Army Reserve units. In spite of the fact that
the uniform of both components is identical and in both cases the members are
Reserve officers of the Army, they may not combine their service because of the
gni:Mentioned ruling by the Comptroller General of the United Stntes.
Accordingly, we recommend that Subsection (a) of section 410 of titic) 37,
United States Code, be amended by striking out the words, "in a ileSerVe com-
ponent" where they appear in that subsection and substituting in lieu thereof
the words "in one or more Reserve components."
? However, Mr. Chairman, if it is determined by this committee that the subject
of uniform allowances is more properly a part of a separate legislative proposal
we would certainly acquiesce in such determination and defer our foregoing re-
quested amendment to the time when such proposals may come before the Armed
Service Committee.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04941: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Finally, we turn to the eon( roversinl matter of retired pay.
Much has been said and written subesquent to the enactment of the Military
Pay Act of 1958, regarding the pros and cons of the retention of the time-nonored
custom or recomputing retired pay on the basis of periodic increases in active
duty pay rates.
The National Guard Association of the United States has consisteutly es-
poused the prinviplv Of recomputat ion HMI continues to do so. In our judgment,
any other proposal destroys a principal, and one of the few remaining, benefits
available t 0 those who are willing to don a military uniform on a long-term
career basis. Ever since World War II, there has been continual attack on what
have been termed fringe benefits enjoyed by the military. It is a known fact
itha compensation for the services performed anti the hazards ineurred by mem-
bers of the uniformed forces cannot be equated equitably with those available
In (nosiness or industry, nor even with those granted to civilians employed by
tlw U.S. Government. Admitted failure in this attempt at equitable adjustment
makes it even more mandatory that the secondary reward of recomputattion be
retainell as an added incentive to Oar milieary men and women.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, we are cognizant of the signficance of the re-
marks made in your opening statement relating to this subject, and we are of
the opinion that If the Congress determines once and for all to sever this link
between active duty pay and retired pay. military personnel should be fore-
Wart1C11 of this definite policy. The major pay increases made in the 1(458
military pay bill actinic(' to those in the higher pay grades, whereas the present
bill favors those in the lower grades. Those retired prior to (95S would now
receive retired pay based on the pay scales of the 1958 act plus a cost of living
increase. It would appear for more fair and equitable to us to provide that those
retired prior to the effective date of this new pay net base their retired pay on
the pay scales of the new act and thereafter, these individuals would receive
only cost-of-living increases. This would poi all those presently retired on an
equal basis in that each individual retired would then be aware that he would
I hereafter receive only the cost of living inereases,
We have appreciated the opportunity extended to us to present 0117 views
on 11.11. 3000. Thank you.
NATIONAL SOCIPI I" OF PlIOFFSSIoNAT ENGINEERS,
Washington, D.C., February 23, 1963.
Hon. L. MENDEL RIVERS.
Chairman, House Armuti 'rrl'irr,s Subcommittee No. 1, U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives, Washington 25, D.C..
DEMI Mn. Ilivsats: As an organization representing many engineering officers
in the uniformed services, Ilw National Society of Professional Engineers would
like to present for your consideration certain comments relative to the military
compensation proposals currently before your subcommittee. It is respect-
fully requested that these views be made a part of the record of the current hear-
ings.
'Phe national society is a nonprofit membership organization composed of
registered professional engineers in virtually every speciaiized branch of en-
gineering practice and type of employment, including the military services.
All of the society's approximately 00.000 members are licensed under applicable
State engineering registration laws, and are affiliated through 53 State and ter-
ritorial societies and about 450 local community chapters. Through a sneeica
task force of our professional engineers in government section, the society has
for a number of years devoted attention to the problems anti factors involving
recruitment, retention. and utilizotion of engineers in the uniformed services.
This task force has worked closely with key leaders in the commissioned en-
gineering components of all services with the objective of achieving high quality
engineering for Government projects. These activities Imre covered a wide
range of suldects, including the need for improvement in piatressional develoP-
meta, environment, and via opensatIon.
Studies and observations made by our Insk force have clearly demonstrated
that present military compensation is not compentitive with other opportunities
tr>
"vvz Au bit" c.fig'illeelW. flat? tha t dila la tie& eafitribuh,....kwhwanthim. to tho
serious loss rate of engineering manpower in the military '
t avs. servoies, Tiwr
em Is particularly acute among the younger engineering officers. The high loss
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
rate among engineering officers completing their obligated service, in many cases
exceeding 85 percent, is costly, inefficient, and destructive of the manpower base
needed for the future development of vital professional and executive leader-
ship.
In testimony before your subcommittee, the Department of Defense has
graphically portrayed the problems faced by the services as a result of the low
retention rate among all categories of officers completing their obligated service.
It has also indicated that this low retention rate may be largely attributed to
the difference between military and civilian compensation available to this
group. This retention problem is even greater among engineering officers be-
cause of the proportionately higher salaries paid by industry for qualified
graduates in this field. As an example, starting salaries reported by the college
placement council for recent nontechnical graduates averaged $493 per month,
while those for graduates in engineering, physical science, and mathematics
averaged $592 per month, a difference of almost $100 per month. This approxi-
mate dollar difference continues to exist for from 5 to 10 years following gradua-
tion. Thus, in the case of engineering and scientific personnel, the military serv-
ice is at its greatest competitive disadvantage during that period when its
younger officers do not have enough time invested to consider themselves com-
mitted to a military career.
It is evident to the national society that upward adjustments in basic mili-
tary pay allowances for all commissioned officers, as presently being considered
by your subcommittee, are easily justifiable in view of increased salary scales
generally and higher costs of living. It is our belief, however, that the greatly
increased need of the uniformed services for highly qualified professional and
scientific officer manpower, together with the steadily rising salaries which this
group may command in the civilian economy, point to the need for additional
compensation factors specifically attuned to the recruitment andl retention of
trained, specialized personnel. In presenting this view, we wish to note that
similar expressions have emanated from other groups concerned with this matter
?the Scientific Manpower Commission, the Folsom committee, which studied the
personnel problems of the Public Health Service, and the Advisory Panel on
Federal Pay Systems, which presented recommendation to the excutive branch
relative to the legislative proposal currently before your subcommittee.
We would like, therefore, to present two specific proposals for the consideration
of your subcommittee which we feel would greatly increase the ability of the
uniformed services to recruit and retain adequate numbers of trained profes-
sional personnel.
J. Constructive credit for purposes of appointment, promotion, and basic pay
Recommendation.?The principle established by section 4 of H.R. 3006, to
authorize up to 3 years of constructive credit to officers holding postgraduate de-
grees in designated fields, should be retained.
Eoplanation.?As the technological programs and activities of the uniformed
services become more complex and sophisticated, the need for engineering and
scientific manpower becomes more important in terms of quality, as well as
quantity. Except in the fields of medicine, dentistry, law, the ministry, and
veterinary medicine, there is no provision in current law to recognize the
shortage and need for individuals possessing postgraduate degrees in vital scien-
tific and engineering specialties. We note, in contrast, that provisions covering
Federal civilian salaries do recognize this problem, and that the Civil Service
Commission has acted to provide higher starting salaries for engineers holding
postgraduate degrees. We believe that the provision proposed in H.R. 3006
would put the uniformed services in a better position to attract and retain the
more highly trained and qualified personnel that they require. In addition, if
broadened to cover officers now on active duty, it would act as a stimulus to
promote further professional development among those already committed to a
career in the uniformed services.
2. Incentive pay for engineers and scientists
Recommendation.?Officers in engineering, scientific, and other scarce cate-
gories of personnel. The expanding requirements for engineers and other scien-
mined on the following scale: $100 per month during the first 2 years of service,
$150 per month after 2 years, $200 per month after 6 years, and $250 per month
after 10 years.
85066 63 No. 6 9
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/U96CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Explanation.?This recommendation is directed at the problem of attra,ting
scarce categories of trained personnel, Experience In the military services has
demonstrated that the extra compensation provided for doctors and dentists
has resulted in the retention of substantially higher proportions of these cate-
gories of personnel, The expanding requirements for engineers and other scien-
tific personnel in the services clearly Justify the extension of the incentive pay
principle to these and other scarce disciplines. Coniparions of uniform service
compensation scales with industrial scales indicates that such Incentives would
go far toward making military salaries reasonably competitive.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to your committee on be-
half of the professional engineers in the uniformed services, and hope that
these views will receive your serious consideration.
Very tuly yours,
ROBBINS,
ETCCUtive Director.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, December 11, 1962.
MM. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA.
Secretary of Defense,
Washington., DX'.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY : I IhOUP.III I should bring LO your attention my serious
concern over the recommemlations of the Department of Defense relative to the
compensation of members; of the uniformed services, one of which is the Com-
missioned Corps of the Public Health Serviee.
I have written to the Chairman of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal
Pay Systems about this matter, and enclosed a copy for your Information.
The needs of the Public Health Service. as well as the other uniformed serv-
ices, for scientific, medical, and professional personnel will be difficuli; to meet
under the schedules currently recommended. We believe that a pay structure
which takes greater account of the comparability prineiplo, recently recognized
In the Federal Salary Reform Act for civil service personnel, is both feasible and
necessary to correct the inadequacies of the present proposals, particularly for
the pay grades 0 5 and above.
For this reason, my enclosed letter to Mr. Itnntlall urges that the comparability
principle be given serious consideration by his Panel in its review of the current
Pay proposals, with a view to developing a salary structure more in line with this
principle.
Sincerely,
NIIIONY CEI EBREZZE, Secretary.
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFA
Washington, November 31. 1962.
HOD. CLARENCE RANDALL,
Chairman, President's Adr sory Panel on Federal Pay Systems, Washinkton,
I Wm{ Mn. RANDALL, im November 33, P162, the Secretarti of Defense sent you
the recommendations of the Department of Defense concern rig the compensation
of members of the uniformed services, one of which is the Commissioned Corps
of the Public Health Service,
The Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service is composed of approxi-
mately 4,500 officers in pay grades 0-1 through 0-8, most of whom are in profes-
sional and scientific categories which are in short supply. The recruitment and
retention of these officers has become increasingly difficult in the past few years
due largely to the inadequacy of the existing pay structure.
The structure proposed by the Department of Defense is inadequate. particu-
larly for the pay grades 0 3 and above. te recruit and hohl health related Per-
sonnel needed to fulfill effectively the mission of the Public Health Service. The
principal reason for this defleiency is the apparent abandtument in tl,e higher
levels of the principle of comparability with industry.
As the President stated in his niesige of February 20, 1062, to the Congress.
when transmitting the Federal Salary Reform Art :
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 ifil9k-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
"Yet these are the very levels (upper levels) in the career service in which
our need for quality is most acute?in which keen judgment, experience, and
competence are at a premium. It is here that we face our most difficult per-
sonnel problems. It is at these grades that we employ our top scientists,
doctors, engineers, experts and managers. * * * As a practical matter, the fuU
principle of comparability cannot be applied to the higher salary levels of
Government; but I consider adequate adjustment in our top executive and pro-
fessional positions to be the most vital single element of correction in this entire
proposal."
In a letter of October 30 to Assistant Secretary of Defense Norman S. Paul,
commenting on the pay tables then being considered, the Surgeon General of
the Public Health Service noted the inconsistency between the rates proposed
for grades 0-5 and up this principle of comparability, and urged that those
rates be increased substantially. Unfortunately, only one minor change was
made, and the proposals now before you reflect the same disregard of the com-
parability principle.
I strongly support the position previously expressed by the Surgeon General.
I am unaware of any reason for determining that this principle, recently incor-
porated as an underlying tenet of the Federal Salary Reform Act, is inapplicable
to the compensation schedules for members of the uniformed services. I urge
that the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Pay Systems give serious con-
sideration to a salary structure more in line with the comparability principle.
Only if this is done will the uniformed services be able to meet adequately their
needs for scarce manpower in the health and related fields.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., October 30, 1962.
Hon. NORMAN S. PAUL,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower),
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. PAUL: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
the proposed basic pay tables and other proposals transmitted by your letter
of October 16, 1962, and Mr. Gorham's letter of October 25, 1962.
In sending to the Congress a salary increase bill on February 20, 1962, the
President stated (H. Doc. No. 134) :
"Accordingly, the salaries for services they (Federal officers and employees)
perform should be fixed under well-understood and objective standards, high
enough to attract and retain competent personnel, sufficiently flexible to motivate
initiative and industry, and comparable with the salaries received by their
counterparts in private life. To pay more than this is to be unfair to the tax-
payer?to pay less is to degrade the public service and endanger our national
security.
"Yet these are the very levels (upper levels) in the career service in which
our need for quality is most acute?in which keen judgment, experience, and
competence are at a premium. It is here that we face our most difficult person-
nel problems. It is at these grades that we employ our top scientists, doctors,
engineers, experts and managers. * * * As a practical matter, the full principle
of comparability cannot be applied to the higher salary levels of Government;
but I consider adequate adjustment in our top executive and professional posi-
tions to be the most vital single element of correction in this entire proposal."
I have quoted from the President's message at length because I believe that
he has forcefully and succinctly expressed the position of the Public Health
Service with respect to the proposed pay increases in pay grades 0-5 and above.
Certainly, we are entirely in accord with the pay increases proposed for the
lower grades and believe that such increases will greatly assist the service in
retaining younger officers for career service, but we fail to understand the reason
for proposing inadequate increases in the higher grades. The rates proposed
for these grades are, in our opinion, absolutely inconsistent with the position of
the President.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/q : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
II has been suggested that the proposed small increases in toay graces 0-5
and 0-6 may have a relationship to tiw value of fringe benefits. 1 have dismissed
this suggestion for the following reasons
1. The fringe benefits system of the uniformed services is geared to I lit 1111era-
1 tonal needs of such services and should not constitute a primary consideration
in establishing pay levels.
2. As the value of such benefits was obviously nut considured in establishing
I he lower grade pay levels, we feel it should not have been used in estal?lishing
upper grade pay levels.
The man who is selected for promotion to lay grades 5 and 0 0 is either
reselling or has reached that period in his life where both his family ci.t lenses
and his job responsibilities are reaching a maximum. Both such aspects should
be recognized by adequate compensation (I) to reward the man for his long years
of career service and his advanefs1 administrative and/or command restroisibil-
Hies and HD to permit the man to meet reasonable family obligations without
undue sacrifices on his part. The proposed increases in these grades will not
therm to either sit nation.
(hi page 12 of the material transmitted by your letter of Itctober 10, it is stated :
"However, all the services report a uniform laek of success in retaining
engineers, research and development specialists, medical officers and other
specialists most highly sought by the civilian economy."
I am sure that the Pay Study Group must have obtained current information
on the incomes of professional and selentHW personnel outside lite Government.
I need only say bore that the proposed upper grade pay levels fall short of such
incomes. Such pay levels are not even competitive with the pay levels provided
II r similar grades under the recently enacted Federal Salary Reform Aet. Al-
though we are fully aware of the fact that in certain scar(a? categories of per-
sonnel, Federal salary levels ran never hope to equal income levels from non-
governmental sources, it is difficult to believe that the uniformed seryi??s will
permit themselves to be outclassed by other Federal pay systems.
We strongly urge that the Pay Study (Ii up and the Department of Defense
substantially increase the protaised basic pay levels of pay grades ()-5 and
ttbove.
We nave objeutions to In voinments to present on Hie other proposal: trans-
mitted by you and Mr. Gorham, except those which we presented to Mr. Gorham
by letter of October 11,1962.
Sincerely yours,
LUTHER I,. TERRY, Surgeon Got oral.:
COMPARABILITY OF COMMISSIONED OFFICER l'AY GRADES -5 and 0-0 it lift.
:RBBi TO .APPROPRIATE CIVIL SERVICE PAY GRAF/P:8
The last year in which both civil service and commissimied pay rafts were
adjusted was 195s. Therefore, I am using Iii relationsbill that existed between
the civil service and commissioned pay rates in 1958 as a basis for evaluating the
commissioned officer pay rates proposed under H.R. 30110. In Audying these rola-
tionships, it was found that a major problow ?vurthy of immediate consideration
was the deterioration of pay comparability of grades () 5 and 0 0 to civil service
grades GS 12. GS-13, GS-14. and Gs-in. In this discussion, I am turning my
at [coition to tlwse particular comparisons.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1621k-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Charts have been prepared to demonstrate the relevant relationships between
civil service and commissioned officer pay rates at appropriate grades. The
range of pay used for each grade is the minimum and maximum pay of that
grade. The commissioned officer pay rates include basic pay, basic allowance
for quarters and basic allowance for subsistence. The charts also show for
the commissioned pay grades the pay which would be received by an officer en-
tering each grade under the most favorable circumstances. As service for pur-
poses of within-grade increases is cumulative over an officer's entire career, an
officer normally enters all grades but pay grades 0-1 and 0-2 at some step
above the minimum pay of the grade.
In these charts 61/2 percent has been deducted from civil service pay in order
to take into account the fact that this is a retirement deduction which is made
for civil service employees, but not for commissioned personnel. Since com-
MiSSiMied personnel do not pay Federal and State taxes on subsistence and
quarters allowances, lids tax saving has been added to the commissioned pay
rates. The pay rates have thus been adjusted for the major cash differentials
which affect civil service and commissioned pay.
In charts 1 and 2, the upper halves show the relationship existing in 1958
between the commissioned pay at the 0-5 (chart 1) and 0-6 (chart 2) grades
and the civil service pay at the GS-12 through GS-14 grades (chart 1) and at
the G8-13 through GS-15 grades (chart 2). The relationships of the commis-
sioned 0-5 and 0-6 pay under H.R. 3006 to the civil service GS-12 through (1S-715
pay effective January 1, 1964, are shown on the lower halves of charts 1 and 2.
In addition, the commissioned pay rates necessary to maintain the same relation-
ship of the commissioned 0-5 and 0--6 pay proposed in H.R. 3006 to the civil
service pay effective January I, 1964, are depicted in the lower halves of charts
I. and 2.
A comparison of the 0-5 and 0-6 pay as proposed in H.R. 3006 with the pay
necessary to maintain the same relative comparability as was present in the
1958 civil service and commissioned pay schedules yields the amounts shown in
table. I. Included in the table are minimum and maximum pay, and the pay of
an officer entering the grade under the most favorable circumstance.
TABLE 1
Minimum
Most favor-
able entry
Maximum
0-5 pay:
H.R. 3006
19, 795
$11,387
$14, 033
Necessary for comparability
10,042
11,612
15,630
0-6 pay:
H.R. 3006
11,452
14, 913
16, 869
Necessary for comparability
11,646
11,815
19,251
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
CHART 1
CIVIL SERVICE PAY RATES FOR 05-12
THRU 68-I4 EFFECTIVE JAN.12,1956
UNDER PL 85-462'
PAY RATES FOR COMMISSIONED I 1,714 1
PAY iiRCIE 05 EFFECTIVE JUNE 1,1956 I 401
UNDER PLE15-422*
Le,san .
CIVIL SERVICE PAY RATES FOR GS-I2?THRU GS-14
EFFECTIVE JAN.5,1964 UNDER PL. E1-793"
PAY RATES FOR C0tAMISSIONED PAY GRADE
05 UNDER IliL 30,00
PAY RATES FOR COMMISSIONED GRADE 05
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME
COMFA RAWL:TY WITH CIVIL SERVICE PAY
HATES AS EXISTED IN 1956
Adjusted for tax saying
'Adjusted for retlremen1
13
11,387
OS
t110331
?1 1
I :rietn
i
I ! I
I i
I
IP:,0401_ ___ ejsu
a_
7,000 10,000 13,000 11,000
AMOUNT IN DOLLARS
Dolled line shows the minimum compentatIon
which would be received by on officer
entering the grade under the most
favorable circumstances
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2115?tIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
CHART 2
CIVIL SERVICE PAY RATES FOR GS-I3 THRU G$-16
EFFECTIVE JAN.I2, 1958 UWER P.L. 85-462'
PAY RATES FOR COMMISSIONED PAY
GRADE 06 EFFECTIVE JUNE 1,1958
UNDER P.L. 85-422*
63-54
10 617 12,413
I -
06
19627
CIVIL SERVICE PAY RATES FOR GS-I3 THRU GS-I5
EFFECTIVE JAN. 5, 1964 UNDER?P.L. 87-793'
PAY RATES FOR COMMISSICNED PAY
SHADE 06 UNDER H.R. 3606*
PAY RATES FOR COMMISSIONED GRADE 06
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME
'COMPARABILITY WITH CIVIL SERVICE PAY
RATES AS EXISTED IN 1958
7,600 *90 13,000 16,000 19,000
AMOUNT IN ?DOLLARS
166
12,885 ,
1
1
14,6791
93-it
14,647 18,017
OS-14
12,730 16,096
IS-13 I
10,963 134143
06
14,913 1
111,452 16,8691
15,816
19 2501
*Adjusted for los saving
'Adjusted for retirement
Dotted line shows the minimum
compensation which would be
received by an officer entering
the grade under the most
fumble circumstances
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2430CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. Invnts. !hies that take I he place of Dr. I I:tgan
NI
I. Iii.ANDruno. No, sir; they testfv at a later lime.
Mr. RivEtts. Ion don't have General I farrison's ?ante on lien., do
Volt!
Arr. Ilt.Axiwono. No, sir; because his statement is now in the record.
Mr. NivEns. Thv commitIvr MO1111110' \VIII he pleased to hear
from our dist inguished colleague, ( 'ungres)-man john 1illiii of
(iii fun! ift.
I. Baldwin. we will be happy to hear from you at this t.ine.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BALDWIN, CONGRESSMAN FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
r. PoLnwn\-. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to devote
niv testimony this morning to that section of IBIZ. ,1006 deals
with I he ref red pay and retainer pay of members or former members
of t he uniformed services. T'he sect ion covering This nattier is sect ion
of the bill, which begins on page 11 and ends on page 1(').
sig.] ion as 11 is now worded pro\ ides that menthe!, of the armed
seryives W11.0, before June 1, I95s1, Nvpre entitled to retired pay or re-
tainer pay under the rates ()I 1,:tie pay that were in effect in the
Career Compensat nal Act of 19-11.4, art tun it led to hare t recullt-
011 ed under t he rates of basic pay that \Veil' ill (4(41 oil i lie day before
the effect ive date of the bill which you now hove under consi(kration.
As I understand this provision, this would adopt the principle of
equal izat ion of retired pay up to the present t ime. However, I he hill
bars the use of this principle insofar as the active ditt, pay increases
granted hy this hill are concerned.
Those now rot iced would not receive I heir' 111)Ward adjust-
ments computed as a percentage of the new active duty pay rates.
The bill simply contains a provision (sec. 5(e)) which states that
fat ore adjustments in retired pay or retainer pay will be determined
by changes in the cost of living.
rl'his, therefore, means that the principle of equalization of retired
pay of military personnel will be dropped effective with the dare upon
which this bill is passed. I do not t kink this change in basic principle
should he adopted but rather I would like to revommend tLat this
committee revise section 5 of Hit 01; to state clearly that the
principle of equalization of retired pay of military persom.el will
apply not (Oily with the pay increases in the present bill but will con-
tinue as the principle to be applied in the future when subsequent laws
are enacted to increase the pay of military personnel on act ive duty.
It seems to me that a fundamental principle is at issue in conuect itm
with this whole moiler. The traditional basis upon ?vhich ref ited pay
of retired military personnel has been computed has hero out ii e basis
dun it should he a percentage of active duty pay of military pe-sonnel
current ly serving ill t he A tined Forces.
Military personnel now retired or those voittemplatinu? ret irenwhi
ithder-:.tood this principle would continue in effect in the future as it
has been in the past. For Congress to change (Ids basic pi inciple
would he to cause not only the present retired personnel hui personnel
Ito'' on it ivy duty and oilwrs (.0'1'1(9111d:1i ing gtOt II.tr on it i Ye hutv t
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1533
feel we have not given any consideration to maintaining the historic
relationship between retired pay and active-duty pay. I feel that such
a basic change will adversely affect future reenl istments and the future
desirability of service in the Armed Forces of our country.
President Kennedy in 1960, took a clear-cut position upon this issue
and stated he intended to support, when elected President, the equaliza-
tion of retired pay on the basis of the historic percentage relationship
to active-duty pay. This committee unanimously recognized this
principle in 1960, when this committee approved unanimously II.R.
11318, a bill authored by Congressman Kilday of Texas, to restore
this equalization principle.
The bill then. passed th.e House of Representatives M that year
imanimously and went to the Senate. however, it was not acted upon
by that body.
I have introduced a bill, H.R. 1022, which contains the exact lan-
guage of the bill which was enacted by the louse and by this com-
mittee in 1960. I should like to recommend that you revise section 5
of the attached bill along the lines of my bill, H.R. 1022, to restore the
basic principle of equalization of retired pay in accordance with the
rates of active-duty pay. This is the only way that justice can be given
to those now retired from the military service and to those who will be
retiring in the future.
might say that the principles contained in my bill, H.R. 1022, were
supported by the Defense Department both in 1960 and 1961, as the
Defense Department in both years submitted favorable reports on this
The Defense Department has now changed its position but I think
its original position was the proper position and the only fair and
equitable position to take.
I hope very much, therefore, that this committee will revise section
5 of hl,R. 3006 to give recognition to the principle of equalization of
retired pay as a percentage of active-duty pay for both all personnel
presently retired and for personnel who may retire in the future.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Bates, do you have any questions?
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has made
an excellent statement as he always does. I would like to ask one
question.
What would you suggest for the situation we had a year ago, where
we increased the allowances but not the basic pay?
Mr. BALDWIN. I would handle it in the same way it has historically
been handled in the past.
My understanding of the past relationship was there was a percent-
age relationship between pay and retired pay, and I think that
principally is the one that should be followed.
Mr. BATES. But if we increase merely the allowances, and not the
base pay, upon which it is predicated, under those circumstances that
would mean people on the retired list at that particular time would re-
ceive no increase at all?
Mr. BALawix. That is correct, but they haven't done so in the past,
those that were retired. So that would not change the historic
relationship.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2IcIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATEs. They wouldn't get the increase?
Mr. BALDWIN. 'that is true.
Mr. BATES. I don't know why the Defense Department has changed
its position. I remember we had tint situation, if you will recall. of
equalization of pay bet ween Boston ind Port smouth. which t le Presi-
dent, supported when he represented Massachtsetts. Ile doesn't
advocate I hat now?
Mr. BALDwIx. that is my underst
Mr. !ham% The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Bates, has
been recommotalim that a long time.
Mr. BATEs. That is ri!dit.
Arr. InvEns. Mr. I hardy.
Mi. HARDY. I am sorry I missed the opening of our colleague's
presentation.
Mr. Ift-DDLEsTox. NO questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. InvEas. Mr. Bland ford
Mr. Iii..sxDroan. No, sir. no questioAs.
Mr. InvLits. Thank you very much, Mr. P,aldwin.
I might say as usual the genet Intim from California takes :1 strong
stand on behalf of those on active ditty and those -who rot ire. I want
to congratulate you on a very concise and, as usual, strong and un-
equivocal statement for t hose whom you seek to help on any subject
matter w-ltere it involves the taking of a stand.
He is always vigorous. Ile i.salwmuvs unequivocal, and this has been
an excellent statement. I want tot hank you very much.
Mr. BALrywix. Thank you, Mr.
Mr. InvEns. The next witness now is A dmi ral Denfeld.
I lave a seat, Admiral.
Admiral DENFELD. Thank you. M T. ( 'hai in tan.
STATEMENT OF ADM. LOUIS E, DENYELD, U.S. NAVY, RETIRED,
RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Rts-Eas. Admiral Denfeld represents Retired Officers Associa-
tion.
I might say, members of the committee, that we have the distinct.
pleasure of hearing from an old friend of this committee, a former
Chief of Naval Operations, who has been such a stalwart defender of
the rights of both active and retired officers and enlisted men, in the
Navy Department.
don't think the admiral has been before our committee since the
B-36 hearings.
Admiral Th.:NI-ETA). 1949.
Mr. RIVERS. The 13-36 incident.
I think things are a little different now, Admiral.
Admiral DENFELD. That is right.
Mr. Mynas. We are very happy to have you, and
so well. Now, you may testify any way you want to.
Mr. BAITS. You know, Mr. Chairman, he made
presentation at that time, that in the book which
o see you looking
such a wonderful
is given out now
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1535
portraying the Capital and different scenes in Washington, the Ad-
miral is testifying before the Armed Services Committee in one of
those pictures there. Have you ever seen it ?
Mr. RIVERS. I might say, Admiral, you did so much good for the
Navy when you were Chief, it will take a long time for anybody to
change it.
Admiral DENFELD. Thank you.
appreciate being here, and I appreciate seeing so many of my old
friends, especially the chairman of this committee, and the senior
Republican, and the next senior Democrat, who are all friends of mine.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Adm. Louis E.
Denfeld, U.S. Navy,, retired, president of the Retired Officers Associa-
tion, with headquarters in this city. Our association consists of over
54,000 members, representing retired officers of all of the seven uni-
formed services, including both Regulars and Reserves.
The association appreciates the opportunity to appear today before
this distinguished committee in connection with its consideration of
the proposed Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963.
The sectional analysis of this bill which was transmitted to the
committee explains, in detail, the purpose of its various provisions.
Accordingly, the Retired Officers Association proposes to confine its
remarks to those provisions specifically applicable to retired personnel.
In view of the fact that the pending bill proposes, drastically, to
modify the military pay and retirement system so as to pattern it after
the laws relating to civil service annuitants, insofar as the computation
of retired pay is concerned, it would seem appropriate to observe that
an analysis of a previous study of the military retirement system re-
veals that it cannot, in any meaningful way, be compared with civilian
retirement systems. This point was forcefully presented in the Cord-
iner committee report which, in general, formed the basis for the Mili-
tary Pay Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-422) . The report in question
stated, with respect to this matter, in part, as follows:
Military retirement is in itself a unique form of retirement possessing char-
acteristics not found in any form of civil retirement. Its importance stems from
the fact that retirement income is counted upon to provide an economic base for
the eventual transition from military to quasi-civil status. Even a full military
career is a relatively brief one and service personnel, often at the heights of their
productivity, family obligations and financial commitments, are forced to alter
their standard of living to the reduced economic level imposed by retirement.
All but a few must continue at least part-time active employment to augment
their inadequate retired compensation. While the retired civilian is a free agent,
the military member, because of existing dual office and dual compensation laws,
cannot avail himself of certain types of employment for which he often is best
suited. This is in contrast to the "free agent" status of the retired civilian.
* * * No other Federal or private retirement system is beset by so many quali-
fications, restrictions, and forfeiture clauses. Unlike most civilian retirement
programs, the individual is unable to withdraw his equity nor is it conveyable.
On the contrary, it is a personal credit which attaches to the military principal
only, and cannot be bequeathed to survivors * * *.
The Cordiner committee report also contains these significant
remarks:
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2316: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Military retirement is the final and continuing. phase of ...ta lionorabl. active
duty career. Retired officers and enlisted personnel remain subject to the Uni-
form Cotle of Military Justice. or partirillar signiikanee is the fact that all
at leer. in a legal sense. continues to -hold 1,1fice" and retired personnel_ are sitb-
ject to involuntary recall whenever the Secretary determines there is a need for
their serviees with the avtiVt. duty force.'
On this matter of possible recall to active duty. l'ornaer President
Woodrow Wilson made some pert inent comments. The following is
quoted -from the opinimi of the 17.S. Court of Miltary Appeals in
.the case of the 1. ailed Nialcx V. Ihio rel. it. .S.C.M.A. ( l Ii IS) dated
Octobe.r 13, 1958, when the count had before it tin question of the
amenability of a retired officer to trial by general court-martial:
* * Not without significance is the language of President Wilson in his veto
of a measure which would have terminated amenability or retired perstlinel to
by court-martial. This is what he sold, in part :
"* * * IL thus appears that; both the legislative and judicial branches have
drawn a sharp distinction in status between retired officers, who are rigard,NI
and governed at all times as an eln.ctire reserve of skilled and exiiefienclut
officers and a pOtt'lltini sOnn't, or military strength I on the one hand) and mere
pensioners ton the other hand)."
The court cunt noted :
I fficers on the retired list are not mere pensioners ill any silts!' of
the word. They form a vital segment of our national defense. for their experi-
ence and 11101 tire judgment are relied on heavily in times at' emergency. The
s;daries that they reel ye are ma solely recompense for past seuvires, but a means
devised by Congress to assure their Fivailabilily and prop- redness in future
conrhigencies.
:rho :11)0'a' (1110tali011 iS POEISIStent With h he S110E9110111 made- to the
I louse A mined Services Commit tee on April S. 1900, hv t lieSecret a ry
of 1)e-fense Mr. Gates-- when he said:
* * A retired 1110/1111Pr of the Armed Porces is still a part- -and an importatit
part?of our defense team.
lie also said that this was "an invaluable concept
.-
The question has been raised as to the justification for the military
tvt trement system being the only one t hat. gears retired pay to active
duty pay. The fact is that this is not the case. Any justice or udge
of the United States who resigns after having attained the age of 70,
and after having served at least 10 years, continues to receive the
salary he was receiving when he resigned.
On the other hand, any justice or judge, who retires, under the same
conditions, continues to receive any increases provided by Congress
for active duty judges. This is for a very good reason, namely, the
retired Federal judge?like the retired military ofliver--remains avail-
able for the. performance of the duties of his office following
retirement.
.1i feature of ret iremtmi which is peculiar to the military?and not
generally known?is that, when the pay of active duty personnel
.
ts reduced, that of retired personnel is similarly decreased. In other
words, the t ime-honored principle of ?Taring retired pay to active
duty pay is not confined to pay increases. This is shown by the ac-
tion of Congress on four separate occaslons. Th i
Tile reductions n lues-
11011 applied equally to both act ive and retired personnel and ranged
from sl to r; percent.
Inv..luntary royal] I it-Owe fluty I. restrlarad 11, periods of war ..r gut Outlet niarzeney
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1081-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Another characteristic, nonexistent in other retirement systems, is
that the Congress, in setting the active duty pay rates, takes into con-
sideration the retirement equity officers are accruing. In other words,
they receive less pay than they actually earn based upon this consid-
eration. To state it another way, retired pay is earned pay for which,
in effect, a contribution is made.
A statement by Mr. Charles R. Hook, who was chairman of an ad-
visory committee on service pay, would appear to be pertinent to this
matter. The statement in question was made in 1955 when Congress
was considering the bill which became the Career Incentive Act of
that year. The statement read as follows:
Total compensation should be recogniy.ed as including all elements, basic pay
and allowances " and deferred compensation such as severance, retire-
ment, and survivor beneAts. Each is an essential of a balanced and interrelated
program and should be judged in relation to the whole.
AS to the question of retired pay being earned pay, the Honorable
Robert L. F. Sikes, Representative from the -First District of
Florida, expressed himself forcefully on this recently when he indi-
cated his opposition to proposed legislation which would have denied
certain retired officers the right to receive their full retired pay when
holding a Federal. civilian position.
He stated, on this occasion, that?
It demolishs the time-honored concept that military retired pay is earned for
services rendered.
During the course of a debate on the floor of the House of Repre-
sentatives on April 7, 1960, the Honorable F. Edward Hebert of
Louisiana in explaining the reason he had abandoned the bill which
he formerly sponsored, stated as follows:
I abandoned the original bill because the gentleman from Texas?Mr. Kilday?
convinced me that retired---military?pay is something that was earned and
should not be taken away. (Congressional Record of Apr. 7, 1960, p. 6974.)
The Honorable Paul J. Kilday, at the time the ranking majority
member of the House Armed Services Committee, and then generally
recognized as the foremost authority in the House of Representatives
in the field of military pay and retirement, appeared as a witness
before the House Subcommittee on Special Investigations on July 84
1959, when that committee was considering the matter of conflict of
interests, pursuant to House Resolution 19, 86th Congress. The
Congressman, on that occasion, made a statement very pertinent to
the point now under discussion when he sa,id :
I didn't want the record to stand that there is no contribution made because I
think that our committee is pretty well convinced that we have adjusted?down-
ward?the pay scales in view of the fact that there was no contribution made.
( See p. 39 of hearings.)
He then went on to say, in effect, that if contributions had been re-
quired, the pay of active duty officers would have been increased
sufficiently .to. cover the cost of the contribution involved.
Finally, it is desired to point out still another characteristic which
is peculiar to the military retirement system. This is the fact that
retired pay is not computed on the full active duty compensation of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/1354g1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
the individual involved. His active duty compensation consists of (a)
basic pay, and (b) allowances for quarters and subsistence. The mil-
itary retirement pay is computed on the basic pay part only.
As an Illustration, a colonel with 60 years of service who was retired
prior to Juno 1, 1958, would receive $136 additional retired pay per
month if his pay was computed?like other retirement systems pro-
vide-- - -on his full active duty compensation.
Since the inception of the military pay and retirement system, it
has been practically the undeviating policy of our Government that
the pay of a retired officer is to be geared, directly, to the active duty
pay of an officer of the same rank and length of service.
Thus, when the law under which these two officers were paid was
amended to change the pay of an active duty officer, that of the retired
officer was, automatically, adjusted correspondingly.
During approximately 100 years since the military retirement
system was instituted, there have beer, two laws enacted that pro-
hibited all retired officers from recomputing their pay on the Etales
established in such laws for those on active duty.
The first occurred in the enactment of the Joint Service Pay Act of
1922, which denied the officers retired prior to its effective date, the
right to compute their pay on the scales provided therein for active
duty officers. This was recognized as an inequity and the Senate, 2
rears later, passed a bill to restore the tradit tonal right, but. there was
no House action thereon.
Both I louses of Congress passed a bill to restore the recomputition
principle in 1920. This was when it enacted Public Law 204, 69th.
Congress. This bill was passed by a vote of HO to 16 in the House, and
by a voice vote in the Senate.
The Senate report on this bill (S. 361, 09th Cong.) stated that the
result of the action of Congress in 1922 was that?
* * * while granting the benefits of the new pay legislation to an officers who
retire after July I, 11)22, deprives all officers retired prior to that date of said
benefits, thereby violating the basic law under which these officers gained their
retirement rights.
There is no justice in two pay schedules for equal merit and equal service.
The. House report on the corrective legislation enacted in 1926 (IL
Rept. No. 857, 09th Cong.), dated April 12, 1926, pointed out Unit?
The pay of retired officers is not a fixed sum nor is it a specified sum hut it is
75 percent of the pay of the rank upon they are retired; that is three-
fourths of the pay of officers of similar rank still on the active list and not three-
fourths of the pay at the time of retirement,
When the bill was being discussed on the floor of the House of
Representatives on May 5, 1926, the majority leader made the fol-
lowing significant statements:
(1) It is not a question of what Congress can do but of what Congress in all
fairness ought to do.
(2) I say that we cannot afford to take any other position regardless of what
it may cost, than to equalize the pay between these old ()laws and the more
recently retired officers.
I )urinp- the debate on the floor of t lie Douse the following state-
ments were made by Congressman Speaks.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1539
Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, this is a very simple proposition in-
volving a matter of justice and equity only. Regardless of the fact that argu-
ments will be presented which are in some way related to the subject, and
which may have a tendency to confuse members, the question of honorable pro-
cedure is the sole principle to be considered.
The language of the statute (retired pay statute) was regarded as a definite
promise and moral contract, and throughout their years of service with the
colors, officers felt that they were being compensated in some degree for lost op-
portunities in civil life by the assurance that when their days of active duty
were completed the Government would stand by the terms of the law under
which they had been serving and grant them the retired pay and emoluments
agreed upon. * * *.
The association submits that the above reasoning is just as sound
today as it was in 1926.
The other departure from the basic principle of relating retired pay
to the aCtive duty rates occurred when the Congress enacted the Mili-
tary Pay Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-422). This, like the Joint
Service Pay Act of 1922, prohibited personnel retired prior to its
effective date (June 1, 1958) from computing their pay on the rates
established therein for active duty personnel, while allowing such
computation for those retired on or after that date.
A bill to restore this traditional principle?H.R. 11318, 86th Con-
gress----was passed by the House of Representatives on May 12, 1960,
without an opposition vote, after having been approved by the Armed
Services'Committee in a similar manner. The bill was, in due course,
referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and later to a sub-
committee, for its consideration, but no hearings were held on it.
An identical bill was, also, made a part of the Department of De-
fense's legislative program in 1961 and 1962. Contingent requests
to cover the cost of the bill were included in the budget for the fiscal
years 1962 and 1963. Again, however, the Senate did not take any
action on the bill. Neither did the House because of its reluctance to
act on it in the absence of any assurance that the Senate would do so.
This, as you will recall, was not forthcoming.
The Department of Defense's pay bill proposal, H.R. 3006, if
enacted in its present form, would repeal the existing authority for
automatic adjustment of retired pay to reflect the changes in active
duty pay. It would substitute, in lieu thereof, a formula based upon
the changes in the cost of living.
During a press conference held in the Pentagon on January 3, the
Department of Defense spokesman was asked, in effect, how he could
reconcile sponsoring recomputation to correct the inequity resulting
from the 1958 law, and, at the same time, advocate the creation of a
similar inequity in the forthcoming bill which H.R. 3006 would do,
if enacted in its present form.
He attempted to rationalize his position by stating, in substance,
that prior to the passage of the Military Pay Act of 1958, there was
a presumption that retired pay would be adjusted to reflect the
latest active duty rates. However, he contended that the action of
the Congress in 1958 when it prohibited recomputation destroyed the
validity of such presumtpion for the future. The Department of
Defense's letter transmitting the pending bill to the Congress was
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21649A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
consistent with the presumption theory \viten it indicatud that it
was the position of rhe I kdeltSe I kpartnivnt that the effect of the 1958
Act was to serve notice that the system of computing retired
pay would be chamred.
We submit that the pertinent legislative history in connection with
t LIP point does not support such a co1 chtsion.
hi the first place, if the Congress had intended to abandon the re-
comput at ion principle as a part. of the military pay and retirement
system \Olen it enacted the pay law of 1958 (Public Law 85-122), it
would have repealed the basic slat mory am horizations for such re-
comput at ion. ii. did. not do so. I merely prevented their applica-
tion to the provisions of that particular law. As a result, they are as
much a part of the law today. as they were enacted.
In the second place, the house of Representatives, less than 2 years
after enactment of llw 1958 pay law, showed by its clear-cut action
that it did not, agree will' the conclusion of the Department of Defense
spokesman. This was when the House, without an opposiCon vote,
passed a bill which removed the prohibition against recomputation
of pay that was contained in the 1958 law. However, the House in
passing this bill, did not repeal the continuing statutory authority for
recomputation of retired pay.
In the third place, the debate on the floor of the Senate on April 29,
1938?when it passed the bill dint became the pay law of that year?
showed the Senate did not mean to abandon the recomputation prin-
ciple. During the debate various Senators?including four present
members of the Armed Services Committee, namely, Senators Jack-
son, Symington, Ervin, and Goldwater?expressed their misgivings
regarding the omission of the normal recomputation authority front
the pending bill, and their hope for early reconsideration of the
matter by I be Congresc.
hiring the course of t he debate Senator Symington stated his regret
at, the treatment accorded ret ired officers but that, n order to assure
:lassage of t lie bill, it appeared necessary to do so. Senator ( ;0- dwater
:indicated that it was loi the .-::1111(' FeVei011 that he refrained front offer-
ing an amendment to correct Elie situation. Both of these Senators
subsequently sponsored hills to ren rove die 1938 Hey' ty.
It is thus apparent that a realistic appraisal of tilts Senate debate
is not consistent, with the conclusion that it was the congressional
intent to serve not tee of an impending- change in the method of com-
puting ret ired pay in the future. (hi the contrary, it demonstrates
that. the Senate, reluctantly, agreed-- --as a temporary expedient--to
omit the usual recomputation authority in order not to jeopardize
passage of the-overall bill.
Let, us assume, for the purpose of disetts,sion, that the action of the
Congress, in 1958, when it prohibited recomputation of retired pay
did, m fact, have the effect of serving "notice" that, the system of re-
computing retired pay would Ian changed_ This assumption, natural-
ly, suggests the quest ion of where this leaves those who had completed
their careers and retired prior to reeeiving the so-ea Iled notice.
This included more than 5o,000 officers. and in excess of 57,090 en-
listed men. nanv officers in this category had served ou active duty
in both World Wars, and a consnkrable ninulicr iii both Werld Wars
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1gfk-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
and the Korean conflict. The careers of some embraced a period of
40 years or more. Throughout their service with the colors there were
on the statute books laws providing that their retired pay would be
adjusted to conform to the changes in active duty pay. After comple-
tion of the military careers to which they had committed them-
selves?upon entry to the service?they find that one of the benefits
they had rightfully relied upon during their careers will be denied
them, if the bill H.R. 3006, is enacted in its present form.
It would seem fair to say that, for a notice under the conditions out-
lined in the case to be of any significance there must have been some
reasonable course of action open to the recipients of such a notice.
With respect to the group involved?the pro4958 retirees?there was
no action they could take. This proposed change would be tanta-
mount to a repudiation of a right established by the Congress. As the
committee knows, laws involving changes in the pay and retirement
provisions of existing laws have, customarily, contained savings
clauses. It is submitted that, if the Congress in its wisdom should
decide to change the existing standards and requirements for retired
pay computation, such changes should apply only to those who enter
upon careers in the uniformed services on or after the effective date
of the changed policy.
Our suggestion, if adopted, would mean that those. who commit
themselves to a military career after enactment of this bill would do
so with a full awareness of what they can expect with respect to retire-
ment -pay. At the same time, it would keep faith with. those who had
already carried out their obligation by completing a full honorable
career.
The basic objective of Public Law 85-422, and of the Cordine,r Com-
mittee report on which the legislation was, in general, based as you
will recall, was to provide a military pay system designed to attract
and retain qualified personnel for active career service.
By permanently divorcing the computation of retired pay from the
current level of active duty pay as the proposed legislation would do,
one of the most compelling incentives contributing to the, attractive-
ness of military service on a career basis would be sacrificed. This
action was contrary to the philosophy and recommendations of the
Cordiner Committee, as is shown in its report wherein it is stated:
The Committee has therefore concluded that the incentive value of the existing
military retirement program depends to a major degree upon its integral rela-
tionship with active duty compensation and the confidence which has been built
up in the military body that no breach of faith or breach of retirement contract
has ever been permitted by the Congress and the American people. It is this
unique characteristic which serves to counterbalance many of the limited aspects
of military retirement pay and has made it one of the most influential selling
points in the recruitment efforts of the services.
The uniformity of compensation thus achieved is considered appropriate and
the inclusion of retired personnel within the new compensation system is consid-
ered by the Committee to be a mandatory and essential feature fully in conso-
nance with the long-established principle that retired compensation must always
remain closely related to current active duty pay. To depart from this principle
would not only break faith with the individual currently retired, but would have
a most serious and adverse effect upon the retention rates of personnel currently
on active duty.
The feeling seems to be rather prevalent that the authority for
gearing retired pay to active duty pay is rather nebulous, and that
85066-63--No. C ?10
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/011V : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
it is based on a practice rather than on actual statutes. It would
appear desirable to state the facts that dispel any such idea.
This particular point arose during hearings conducted by the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee on June 7, 1962, when the Secretary
of Defense, Mr. McNamara, was a witness. On this occasion, Secre-
tary McNamara made the following statement as to his understanding
of the matter :
delft recall that the law stated that retired pay would remain a constant, or
would continue to have a constant relationship to active duty pay as active duly
pay changed subsequent to retirement. I understood that was a practice rather
than an action required by law * ?
The Secretary was requested to check this point, and have the appro-
priate data ill connection therewith inserted in the record of the hear-
ings, which he did.
The information subsequently submit ted to t he Senate Armed Serv-
ices Committee by Secretary McNamara demonstrated, beyond any
doubt, that the. authority for reeomputation of imy by retired officers
was definitely based on clear provisions of law rather than on a mere
practice. This statement, submitted by Secretary McNamara dis-
closes that the Comptroller General has also consistently held that
this was so. his position has been that. the matter was so thoroughly
established in longstandin7daws on the subject that it was unneces-
sary for a particular pay bill to provide, specifically, therefor.
The submission by Secretary MeNamara on this point traced the
provisions of law which authorized such recomputation.
Typical of the laws quoted was that relative to the Navy. and
Marine Corps which is found in section 6149, United States Code,
title 10, and reads as follows:
* * * the retired pay of each retired officer of the Navy or the Marine Corps
should be computed on the basis of rates of pay provided by law, at the time
of his retirement, for officers on the active list. If after the retirement of any
such officer the rates of pay for officers on the active list are changed, the retired
pay to which the officer is entitled shall be recomputed on the basis of the new
rates.
In view of the above, the Retired Officers Associat:on respect fully
submits that the justification for the proposed change so as to pattern
the military retirement system after the system devised for civil serv-
ice annuitants is not apparent.
There is a_group of officers to which it is desired to invite the com-
mittee's particular attention. They constitute the group retired for
physical disability prior to October 1, 1949?who, under the Career
Compensation Act of that year (sec. 411) were permitted to elect
to receive the Pay provided in that law, if they could qualify therefor
?or to continue to be paid under the laws in effect prior to enactment
of the Career Compensation Act. Many chose the. latter course. As a
result of certain developments which could not be foreseen, this has
been to their disadvantage in many eases. 1"nder the terms of the Ca-
reer Compensation Act, however, the election once made was final.
This law, however, provided that another group of officers retired for
nondisability reasons, automatically receive their pay based on the
scales contained in the old laws, or the Career Compensation Act,
whichever is greater. In other words, the physically disabled are in
a disadvantageous posit ion vis-a-vis the group ref iced for reasons other
than physical disability.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1543
The association believes that this group deserves an opportunity,
again, to elect to receive their pay under the Career Compensation
Act as was originally authorized in that law.
The Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara, recently stated that the
enactment of a military pay bill was long overdue. We heartily
concur with the Secretary's statement. Lcordingly, it is recom-
mended that the committee approve an effective date as hereinafter
indicated, rather than October 1, 1963, as proposed in II.R. 3006.
It is considered pertinent to invite attention to the steady erosion
of military retirement benefits, an erosion taking place when retire-
ment benefits across the Nation, generally, are expanding. Physical
retirement benefits were greatly restricted by the Career Compensation
Act of 1919. The right of medical and hospital treatment on a facil-
ity-availability basis is fast becoming of minimal value and in many
cases nonexistent.
The expanding activities of Government and, the increasing parti-
cipation of business and industry in Government contracts have nar-
rowed opportunities for employment because of the Dual Compensa-
tion and Conflict of Interest statutes. The proposed reduction of re-
tired pay benefits would be a further signi [leant element of erosion.
We urge that the committee do not approve this additional step
in the direction of rendering the military service less attractive as a
career.
To summarize, the Retired Officers Association recommends that the
bill, H.R. 3006, be amended to provide that:
(a) Personnel retired prior to the effective date of this bill who are
in receipt of pay under the Career Compensation Act of 1919, as
amended, be authorized to recompute their pay upon the basis of the
active duty pay scales established in the pending bill.
(b) The following be excepted from the new proposed system of
adjustment of retired pay that is contained in this bill:
(1) Retired personnel who, on the day before the enactment
of this bill are in receipt of pay under the Career Compensation
Act of 1949, as amended, and
(2) Personnel who are on active duty on the day before enact-
ment of this bill.
(c) Personnel retired for physical disability prior to October 1,
1919, and who did not elect to receive pay under the Career Compen-
sation Act of that year be authorized, for a period of 5 years subse-
quent to enactment of this bill, to reelect to be paid under that law, as
originally provided therein.
(d) The effective date of the bill be July 1, 1963, or the first day
of the first month following its enactment, whichever is earlier.
The association is prepared to submit, for the committee's considera-
tion, language which it is believed appropriate to carry out the
proposed amendments.
In conclusion I would like to say that this committee has a long
and distinguished record of leadership in the processing of legisla-
tion beneficial to the members of the uniformed. services. We are confi-
dent, therefore, that the action the committee takes on the pending
bill?and proposed amendments?will be consistent with the enviable
position the committee has justly established in this field.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/41,p1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and menthers of the oin-
ii (Y.. toi HIP privilege of a ppearn tg- before you I oday.
Arr. lh VERS. Thank volt, A clinical Den feld.
Admiral Denfeld do you have a In w degree?
Admiral DEN FET,!). NO, I do not.
r. itviais. I don't, think I Iii vv ever seen a st longer legal document.
Admiral 1.4:xrrin. I have a lep-islative assistant who is a lawyer.
Mr. Itivnts. We know Admiral I louse]. is a dist inguished member or
the bar, hut this is one of the strongest statements it has been my
pleasure to list mi to.
You take a strong and unequivocal stand. I would just like to ask
you one question about those 1,949 retirees who went out on disability.
They had the right of election ?
Admiral DEN-I-Ern, That is right..
Mr. litytats. And then when they found out they made the wrong
elect ion, they want, to come back and say, we want something else?
Admiral IYENeEr.u. That is right.
Mr. Hiveas. You know they didn't it ally income tax on that ?
Admiral DENFELD. I know that.
Mr. lirvEas. So I don't_ feel as strongly about them as I do about.
some of the others. Nevertheless, You made a very tine statement,
and as usual you represent not one segment but all of them.
Admiral DExF.Er.n. That is right.
Mr. litykats. I a m glad to see you take such a position.
I have no further questions. But I do want to congratulate you
on a very fine statement. Let me say this, also. This is an important
question, and I think it is um, of the most important parts of this I kill.
This is one of the, most important questions this committee m going
to have to sell. We are going to have to conic, to a decision.
Arr. 1 Luny. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, it is mighty good
to see Admiral Den held back before the committee. I ant delighted
he is back. And I compliment. him on having such it compre'lensive
statement on this very difficult stihjoct. It is going to be hard to
wrest le with it. How we wind up with it, 1 wouldn't want to fore-
cast at this point.
Art-. Ilivras. Mr. lilandford.
Mr. Iii,ANorono. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that of all the
arguments presented on the pros and cons on this question of recom-
puting retirement pay, this is beyond a. doubt the most, comprehensive
and the most factual that has ever liven submitted on this entire
quest ion.
This certainly makes the issue as clear as possible. I don't oelieve
that, if you had 15 attorneys, you could have found I additional argu-
ment in your behalf. I think the statement covers every single possi-
ble argument in support of your position, and it is certainly? there
for I I le committee to make a decision.
Mr. Rivrits. That is exactly what I tried to say. 'Laughter.]
I. don't know of any that has been more comprehensive.
Mr. 11.-kany. Mr. 'Chairman, I think while we arc complimenting
him. we ought to give a little credit to our friend Admiral Houser.
Mr. It IVEEK. We don't want _AA mica] I rouser to be out of it job.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214:5CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
We don't want you to rest on your own, we want you to .prepare
some other legal arguments for the future. This is a splendid state-
ment.
Admiral HousEn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GAVIN. I want to congratulate Admiral Denfeld, too, on a
very tine, clear statement, understandable, and we appreciate it very,
very much.
Admiral DENFELD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. GAVIN. We appreciate your being here with us today. You
have earned and deserve the respect and admiration not only of the
committee, but of the American people, for your very distinguished
record over a long period of years, and this statement merely supple-
ments the fine work that you have always carried out.
Admiral DENTELD. Thank you, Mr. Gavin.
Mr. RivErts. Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BENNETT. I also want to congratulate the admiral on his fine
statement, and I was impressed by the thoroughness with which he
went into it, and I also was impressed by the authorities he cited.
But, you know, there isn't any Member of Congress that really
wants to end the privileges which you seek to continue, and the prob-
lem is, as was stated earlier in this hearing, as to whether or not a
continuation of this policy would jeopardize the continuation of any
retirement benefits or any substantial retirement benefits that are
now enjoyed. The legal situation, from a strictly legal standpoint, I
believe, is that Congress could legally abolish all benefits for retirees,
because you have never made a technically legal type of contribution
to the program. I am talking about law, now, and decisions of courts,
which would decide this.
I went into this sort of thing long before I came to Congress. This
came up in my practice, and I think as a matter of law, I am not
trying to lay down any law, but it was at least 30 or 20 years ago,
that if you hadn't actually contributed anything in dollars, specifi-
cally along the line, you had no contract status in court to sue to en-
force the things in the retirement system.
So this leads me up to this point: I, myself, have not yet been
convinced that the picture is as dire as people say it is if we do con-
tinue this program. But if the committee should find that it is this.
dire, and this serious, that it might jeopardize the entire retirement
program in the future, what would you think about the possibility
for these that come on later of having a required statutory contribu-
tion .mvolved to a retirement system? Then they would be able to sue.
Then they would be able to go to court and say, "Well, here is a pro-
vision in my retirement system, this is what I paid in under, and I
have a right to be acknowledged in court."
.What would you think about that as a procedure, keeping faith
with people, and also preventing this collapse of the retirement
system?
Admiral DENPr.t,n. Well, I rather agree with you that I can see
no reason for the collapse of the retirement system. I think while
we are spending a lot of money for retirement pay, that is what we
have to pay for having won two World Wars, and two very major
ones, because, as I remember it, in the First World War we had about
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/44391A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
4 million people under arms, and in the Second World War we had
over 11 million people under arms. And if we hadn't won them, we
wouldn't be worrying about the retired pay, we wouldn't be here,
there wouldn't be any.
1 am sure the Germans and .1aps haven't got any retired f,ay. But
I think in everything that has been done, and everything that the
military personnel has considered, while they haven't made any con-
tribution as far as money is concerned, they certainly have made con-
tributions in other ways which is just as good as the business of
contributions of so much money.
Mr. BENxErr. But it is not, of course, from a legal standpoint,
a contribution which would allow you to come into court and enforce
the pension rates, as far as 1 understand. And you could if you con-
tributed dollars every month.
I would like to repeat the question, though, maybe I was too
loquacious is how I stated it, the question would be in my mind
whet her you would prefer going to a system of having some contribu-
tion made by those on active duty as a. thing to be preferred over
ending these benefits which, as you stated, have been earned in the
pat..
In other words, we come to a situation where we have to end this
program, would it be better to try to save the program by requiring
some contribution in the future if we have to do that, if those are
the only two alternatives?
Admiral DEN FELD. I think, Mr. Bennett, if that was to be con-
sidered, that- they ought to have high-pressure, or a high-powered
board to laiss on that sort of thing, then the Congress ought to take
real serious?make serious considerations of the whole questions be-
fore any action was taken.
1 don't know enough about that sort of legal contribution to make
an opinion at the present time. But I think we certainly do need to
look into it, if it is going to be necessary.
Mr. BENNErr. Thank you very much, Admiral, for your very
thoughtful help and contributions.
Mr. RivEns. Mr. Bates.
Mr. BATEs. Admiral. do I understand that title 10 still includes
that section to which von referred on page 15?
Admiral Housrat. Mr. Bates, it does. We took it from the state-
ment submitted by Secretary MeNiunara to the Senate Armed Serv-
ices Commit tee, here.
Mr. BATES. That sort of conflicts with the 195S a-ct, doem't it?
Admiral nu:sae. Well, Mr. Bates, no. sir. This is a continuing
authorit ThU 9.iS act merely precluded application of those laws
to the provision of that specific act..
Mr. REVERS. Suspends the operation?
Admiral Hot:slut. Yes, sir. Otherwise, Mr. Bates, there wouldn't
be in this bill here a proposal to repeal all of those laws.
Mr. BATEs. In other words, that is really an exception to the
standing report?
Admiral HousErt. That is right.
Mr. ITAnny. As I recall it, there was a provision written into the
1958 act which specifically?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1547
Mr. RIVERS. Would apply to that.
Mr. HARDY. Yes. It eliminated the application.
Admiral HousEn. That particular law.
Mr. HArtny. That one act.
Admiral Housnu. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. RIVERS. That is my understanding.
Admiral HOI7SER. That is right.
Mr. BATES. Is that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
or was it a specific reference?
Admiral HOUSER. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
that was the language.
Mr. BATES. That would be merely because of the controversy that
has surrounded this point, but not necessarily because it was in fact
a matter of law; isn't that correct?
Admiral HousER. Well, Mr. Bates, the continuing statutory au-
thority for recomputation pay has been on the statute books for years.
and is still on the statute books today. On two occasions the Con-
gress in enacting a pay bill, one in 1922, said words to the effect, not-
withstanding other provisions of the law, no one on the retired list
before the effective date of this act would be allowed to COIDDIAP, on
the scales provided therein.
That was roughly the same language in 1922 and again in 195g.
Mr. HARDY. There wasn't any question about the legislative intent,
because that was fully discussed.
Admiral, you were around before all of us here, and you are fully
aware of it.
Admiral ROUSER. Yes, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Huddleston.
Mr. HIIDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, the statement Admiral Denfeld
has given to the committee will be extremely valuable to us in arriving
at the equitable and fair decision on the matter of recomputation
of retired pay. The research and thought that has gone into it in
certainly something that the committee is deeply appreciative of. I
wasn't a member of this committee at the time of the B-36 controversy,
Admiral, but if your statement was as strong and forceful and logical
at that time as it has been this morning, I am amazed that you didn't
prevail in your arguments in that controversy.
Mr. HARDY. He did all right with the committee, but somebody
down on the other end of the Avenue is the one he didn't do too well
with.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. In 1960 I was coauthor of legislation to equate
the retired pay. I served as a member of Paul Kilday's subcommittee
when we handled this legislation. We worked through this full Com-
mittee of the Armed Services, and then on the floor. Along with Mr.
Kilday and other members of this committee we were all disappointed.
Actually, the final action taken was not to correct this inequity.
I am sure everything you said is so logical and forceful the commit-
tee will give full consideration to your statement. -
Thank you for coming before us, Admiral.
Admiral DENEELD. Thank you very much.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Stratton.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/042, : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Air. STRATTON. AdMind. I 11Olik We have a real problem hero vi Ii
respect to these wo considerations Air. Bennett has referred to, one,
the operation of the ..1etive Forces, and the other the oblip-at ion that
WV have to our rot ired personnel.
I. :lilt wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we might be able to get from
the committee counsel. and I don't see him here at the moment, some
nd ivat ion of the ext ent of the problem of the Secretarv of I )efense, as
out lined to us. II ow many people do we have receivin!, retirei pay
in comparison with the number of people on active did v, for example,
and are the bulk ofthem offieers, or the bulk of them enlisted person
-
lad What is the difference in the cost comput at ion bet %%Ten the recoil t-
mendat ions of thin Secretary and I he proposal that we return to the
original system !
Mr. lixtrs. About. 93 billion, Ii h ink.
Arr. invrtts. we will have I hat in the record.
Sra.vrroN. Maybe that is contained in the statement, but I don't
recall it. It seems to me this is the crucial issue as Mr. Benne,t has
indicated. We are being told, as I understand it. I here are t Vo prob-
lems involved. One is if we tel Hill to the original proposal, we could
get into such an overwhelming financial problem that, as Mr. Ben-
net t says, it Nyould jeopardize the ent ire ref wed pay system. We don't
want to do that.
Secondly, if I remember nw Secretary's statement, this also ms a
Ii miting factor?provides a limiting factor on our matiagemeit of
he Art i ye Forces. I think the Secretary's statement said that if we
feel that we need some part icular invent ive to get a number of officer.;
in a particular grade, we can't proceed with that without taking into
account the effect this is going to have in financial terms on our retired
I ay.
The Secretary, at least, indicated to us that this was becomim, a
burden or could become a burden in the future. Now, I in not con-
vinced that he has made his case to us, and that is why I ant asking
for Iiiis information.
My question is this, .kdiniral : You held a position of great respon-
sibility in the Navy. Do you feel that it is a. reasonable point of view
to say that in dealing with personnel problems relating to the A.:?tive
Forces that the effect 1 liat these act ions are going lo have on the retired
personnel should he a. limiting factor, or doesn't it make sense to say
that provided we deal with our retired personnel fairly, that, we
ought to be able to handle the current personnel problems without hav-
ing to be tied to this other question of what. the total cost is going to
Ire in terms of retired pay?
Admiral DExrr:Ln. Mr. Stratton. as you know, I had during my
active duty a lot of personnel experience.
Mr. STRATrox. I know that.
Admiral DENFELD. And my opinion is that the administration and
the Government can find the money to treat the people fairly, both
active and retired.
Mr. STa.vrrox. Well, it seems to me that, Admiral, if T may sa.c so.
that is a pretty sweeping statement. TIere we are confronted now
Willi1 military budget that is :4:,54 billion. the fourth highest. m the
history of the Nation. We have had some proposals made in tins tom-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 aPA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
mittee which I didn't go along with that would increase it still fur-
ther, and there are people who feel very strongly we ought to have even
more weapons.
Now, we are being confronted with a pay proposal that is going
to cost a lot of money. And there are other recommendations that
are being made that are going to up the cost even further. Obviously,
if we are going to try to reduce our expenses to meet the reduction
in taxes that we are in favor of, there has got to be a line drawn
somewhere. It does seem to me that there isn't an absolute failure of
a limit in terms of costs. I am wondering whether you wouldn't
agree?maybe this is asking too much, but you know the personnel
problems?whether you wouldn't agree that the problem of handling.
personnel for the active service ought not to be entirely dependent on
the question of what these changes are going to do in terms of retired
pay for those who retire later on?
Admiral DENFELD. Well, I think that we should furnish the money
necessary for the active duty, but I see no reason, in this day of free
spending, why we should jeopardize the retired list and the influence
on the entire military personnel by picking out the retired personnel
to pinch pennies with.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, this I think is the question before the com-
mittee, and I must say that the distinguished chairman's comment at
the time of his statement seemed very persuasive to me, that the pro-
posal of the Department of Defense is not in any sense an unfair pro-
posal, and if we are faced with this problem it seems to me that perhaps
our primary responsibility has got to be to the operation of the Active
Forces.
Before I make up my own mind, I would like this information that
have requested.
Mr. RIVERS. It is in the record; Mr. Blandford will furnish it.
Mr. STRATTON. It seems to MC we have to weigh these two
alternatives.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Kilgore.
Mr. KILGORE. I have no questions.
I want to thank Admiral Denfeld for his fine statement to the
committee.
Mr. GAvia.r. I suggest we might do a little cutting on foreign aid,
and give it to these men who have served their country faithfully and
devotedly and loyally, and cut in some other spot, rather than try to
effect any cuts in the retirement of our Army personnel?Domestic
-Peace Corps, and do other things?various programs that have been
submitted.
Perhaps we can investigate some places where cuts can be made
so we can readjust the retirement on a fair and equitable basis -for
all of those people who have served.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Gavin.
Mr. Kilgore, had you finished?
Mr. KILGORE. I did.
Mr. RifvER.s. Dr. Long,
Mr. LONG. .A dmiral?thank you, Mr. airman?A.dmital, I want
to tell you how pleased I am to see you here today and read this very
effective statement.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/011120 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I served briefly under you. You were Chief of the Bureau of Naval
Personnel, but you were so high up and I was so low down I never did
get to see you.
It is a pleasure to see you here today.
I was persuaded to sonic extent by what Mr. Stratton had to say.
1 think the factor of cost will probably be important in very subtle
ways, because there is so much money. 'Wrongly or rightly, there is
just so much money- you can get the country to spend on national
defense. The possibility that these things are going to affect the
retired might at some time have something to do with. what we 'would
be willing to spend currently on our current armed :,ervices.
I was reminded, as I listened to you, that professors would alo like
an arrangement whereby their retired pay would be geared to the
active duty pay of those who are succeeding them, because many of
them have suffered badly. I think retired people in all walks of
life would like this, but, of course, it is very hard as a practical Hatter
to get it. I think there is one argument you made that perhaps is
somewhat more persuasive to the uniformed services than it would be
in other walks of life, say professors, and that is that, as you point
out, a large percentage of retired officers are in fact called back into
service. There is a readiness to serve factor here in the case of your
uniformed services that you may not have in other walks of life.
I wondered if you could tell us for the record just how large a per-
centage of retired officers are in fact called back into service from tune
to time? Is this an important, practical factor here ?
Admiral DENFIELD. Well, of course, in times of emergency, a
national emergency, we recall practically all that we need. And that
is a large percentage. Those \rho are physically able.
In the_ First World War we didn't recall so manv, bat in the Second
World War we recalled practically everybody because we were so
much in need of sending all the able active boys to the fronts, JUI the
Pacific and Atlantic, that we_ used a great many of them on shore
duty, and a great many of them on shore jobs overseas. It is a group
we really need in times of emergency, there is no question about that.
Mr. LONG. I think it would benefit your argument if you could
get sonic actual statistics in the record as to how many people were
called back in die Korean War and World War II, because in many
ways that is your most persuasive argument. -You are paying people
for readiness to serve here?
Admiral DEN FELD. That is right.
Mr. LONG. And you don't have this in ninny other walks of life.
Admiral DENFELD. That is right.
Mr. LONG. That is all I have.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Gubser.
Mr. GUBSER. Admiral, I would like to compliment you on your
splendid statement, that was not only well written and well con-
structed, but I thought delivered with a conviction that can only come
from a deep-rooted believer. I know you believed every word you
stated.
You heard our counsel mention. I believe yesterday, or the day be-
fore--incidentally, I might preface my remark by saying I am com-
pletely with you on the principle of recomputation.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2g55c1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
You heard our counsel state the other day that we were fast ap-
proaching the situation where the impact upon the Federal budget
of military retired pay would be about $3 billion. Of course, that is a
matter we must be concerned with.
I am wondering if your association, which of course is dedicated to
the national interest, as well as the welfare of retired officers, has
given any thought as to how we can meet that impact, and whether or
not the recomputation would still be justified in spite of that impact
on the Federal budget?
Do you have anything to say on that subject?
Admiral DENFELD. We have given it a lot of consideration, and at
the present time we feel that the retired personnel should be treated
the way they have been heretofore in this recomputation.
If the time comes when we can't get the kind of pay we think we
are entitled to, then I think all branches of Government better tighten
their belts, and see what we can do for the overall picture.
Mr. GUBSER. You will forgive me if I attempt to rephrase what I
think you mean, and give you the opportunity to say "no."
You feel that the scope of the Federal Government is constantly
expanding. We are constantly taking on new services and new con-
cepts of Federal responsibility, one you mentioned, the domestic Peace
Corps, as an example. Do you retired officers feel perhaps we better
continue to make good on previous moral commitments that we have
had, rather than taking on something new at this time?
Admiral DENFELD. I think you have put it very well.
Mr. GUBSER. If the economy can absorb all of these new fancy, f an-
dangled programs that are coming down to us, and Presidential mes-
sages every other day, perhaps it can absorb its traditional responsi-
bility of the retired military personnel. Would you go so far as to
accept that?
Admiral DENFELD. Well, I think this country is taking on a great
many things, because they are really the leading country in the world
today, and we have to be in the forefront of some of these things,
like the space?money spent on space, and the like. But I don't think
it is necessary to spend all the money we do for the things like foreign
aid, that sort of thing, because I don't think the results have indicated
that they have been that successful.
Mr. GUBSER. Admiral, would you think it would be a fair statement
to say that the retired personnel, military personnel, look upon this as
a whitting away of a fringe benefit, to military services?
Admiral DENFELD. Well, I think we have been subject to the fringe
benefits being taken away for a good many years. This is just another
way of cutting down on the retired personnel.
Mr. GuusER. After a lifetime of military service, wouldn't you
say that the fringe benefits were one of the incentives that were of-
fered to you and others to maintain yourself in military careers?
Admiral DENFELD. I am sure that is the way we felt when I entered
the Navy in 1908, but times have changed since then.
Mr. GUBSER. Well, now, yesterday we talked about another fringe
benefit, and taking it away is an announced policy of the Federal
Government, because we are not going to build any new hospitals
with beds to take care of military retired personnel and their depend-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2352C1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
erns. With the tremendous increase of retired military personnel,
which we know is coming, with the gradual obsolescence of existing
hospitals, with the program of not lmilding new hospitals to accom-
modate beds for retired personnel, isn't it obvious this is another
fringe benefit dint is going by the board?
Admiral DENFEI.D. I have personal experience with that. Lecause a
great many of my friends are now getting to that age when they need
hospitalization. They are having an awful hard time gating it
because, of sonic of them living in parts of the country wlare there
is no hospitalization available, and even in places where t lere are
hospitals, as you say, there are very few beds available for the retired
persomwl.
Mr. GI-est:EL So if we abolished I he traditional concept of recom-
put at ion we are abolishing it at a time when we are taking away
still another fringe benefit that has been traditional to military per-
solute% isn't that right ?
Admiral DENyrr.?. That isright.
Mr. Grestat. If we have to do this thing, abolishing the principle
of reeomputat ion, by the recognition of some of the fiscal realitiei of
lite, would von believe perhaps the blow might be softened a bit if we
would--if the Congress would reassert the policy that we are going
furnish medical service and hospital'zation for yet ired persoynel and
their dependents! If we could restore that, would that soften the
blow somewhat !
Admiral DENyELD. -Well, I think most retired people at t he present
ime feel that they have been entitled to it, and it is slowly belt g taken
away from them.
M. Gt BSE1Z. Well, I think they look upon it, not as an entiKlement,
but more or less as an unquestioned privilege. I think that might be
better way or wording it.
But have you found, as I have found, that actually that abolition
of rights to medical treatment and hospitalization, and this privilege
of medical treatment and hospitalization. is a matter of deep concert
to retired personnel?
Admiral DENYnnn. Yes, I am sure it is.
Mr. &EMBER. To me I think it is an even greater concern to them
than the question of retired pay. That is what we are diseussiqg here.
Admiral DENrEno. It is of equal concern. I think.
Mr. ( it:DKr:it. That is all.
Mr. R G
ivrits. Thank you, Mr. ubser.
Thank you: Mr. Blandford. do you have any queitions?
Mr. BLAND-voun. No, sir; I have no questions.
Ma'. lit vEus. Thank you, Admiral Denfeld.
DENFELD. Thank von. sir.
NCr. RAN-rats. The next witness is Sgi . William M. Beni.
Mr. IZEIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Riveus. We will hear von at this time.
Mr. ( ;AVI N. Are you a civilian now. Sergeant
Mr. NE1N. As of November. last year: yes. sir.
M-r. I: I VERS. iiave a seat. Sergeant .
I not im on my list here I have all the officers' associations ahead of
von, but since Mr. Gavin is the most dist inguished sergeant on I hi.
tttiIiili iii 01' - -
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1553
Mr. GAVIN. Along with Mr. Rivers, too.
Mr. RIVERS. We figured we ought to hear from you, too, at this time
Mr. REIN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. It will be a pleasure to hear from you at this time.
Sergeant Rein.
STATEMENT OP M. SGT. WILLIAM M. REIN, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED
Mr. REIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am
M. Sgt. William M. Rein, U.S. Army (retired), national executive
secretary of the Association of Regular Army Sergeants. Our asso-
ciation is a worldwide organization of career sergeants devoted to en-
hancing the moral leadership, prestige, and usefulness of the non-
commissioned officer corps. In furtherance of this objective, our
association has in the past presented to this committee the feelings of
its members on legislation affecting the benefits of military personnel.
T am appearing today to express our association's strong support for
a pay raise for all the members of the Armed Forces and to acquaint
the subcommittee with the changes we feel are needed to make H.R.
3006 the fair and adequate pay legislation so vitally needed and re-
quired by all military people.
We would like to express our appreciation to this subcommittee for
giving the pay raise bill priority attention and scheduling these early
hearings in the midst of a very heavy and burdensome load of legisla-
tive work for all members of the Armed Services Committee.
We are sure we do not have to expand at length to this subcommittee
on the need for a pay raise for military personnel. Adequate testimony
on the need for such a raise has already been given during these
hearings. Military men have not had a raise since 1958. Civil serv-
ice personnel have had two raises in that time and a third will go into
effect January 1, 1964. Congress, of course, would not have voted
these raises if it did not feel that they were justified. Cost of living
has climbed significantly for the military man just as it has for the
civil servant since 1958. While we feel the average increase provided
in the pay bill submitted by the Department of Defense-14 per-
cent?is fair, we hope the subcommittee will keep in mind that this is
merely the overall average and that in some cases the raise is sig-
nificantly less than 14 percent.
We recommend that the subcommittee, in adjusting the pay tables,
assure that the minimum increase be at least 10 percent. We par-
ticularly ask this assurance in instances where compensation systems
are changed, such as in section 9 of the bill which would eliminate
foreign duty pay. Under the bill as now drawn some long-service
career noncommissioned officers who would get a basic pay raise but
lose foreign duty pay would get a net increase of only $9 a month. We
would. remind you that from the standpoint of the Government's
objective .in passing this bill?which, as stated by the Secretary of
Defense, is to encourage trained technical personnel to make military
service a career?a raise of only $9 a month would have precisely the
opposite effect than that intended.
We urge that the minimum raise provided for all those with more
than 2 years' service be at least 10 percent.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/41ACIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The association appreciates the statement of February 21, 1963,
made by the chairman of this subcommittee, in which he pledged his
efforts for an earlier starting (late of the pay raise than the October 1,
1963, date originally contemplated in the Defense proposal. We urge
that, the subcommittee make the bill retroactive to March I. of this
year. As the association's executive committee stated in its state-
ment on the pay bill in January, delaying the raise to October 1, 1963,
would be a tragic blow to morale.
The association also appreciates Chairman Rivers' opinion, as ex-
pressed in his February _21 statement, that, officer subsistence should
not be raised without any change in the subsistence allowance for
enlisted men. The onlisited commuted ration, now set at $1.03 a day,
has not been increased on a current basis and has actually been ad-
justed downward. We hope that the subcommittee will raise the
commuted ration and ask that this be stated in law to assure that it
will be provided. We IWO:1111)1PM' a ration of $1.25 per day.
In reference to the recommended basic pay scales, we must record
our honest convict ion that the recommended increases for senior
general officers are too low. If increase on a percentage basis are fair
for all others these senior officers, with the enormous responsibility
they shoulder in today's cold war, should also have percentage in-
creases averaging 14 percent and not less than 10 pereerit. We
particularly point this out bearing in mind the reports that the pro-
posed subsistence increase for officers are not justified and that only
basic pay can be included in computing retired pay.
The Association of Regular Army Sergeants applauds the announce-
ment by Secretary of Defense McNamara that military pay will be
reviewed annually in the Defense Department and raises recommended
in line with raises for civil service personnel and increases in the
private sector of the economy. The executive council of Association
of Regular Army Sergeants recommended such a review in its state-
ment on pay issued in early January of this year.
On other changes in the military compensation system proposed in
the pay bill draft, the Association of Regular Army Sergeants recom-
mends the following :
Proficiency pay: Addition of a statutory requirement in the pay
bill for higher rates of proficiency pay. The Defense Department has
never used the proficiency pay authority voted it by this subcommittee
in 1958. In order to give the subcommittee's original proposal a fair
chance to work, an amendment should be added to the it bill, re-
quiring the use of the P-3 step with a minimmn pay for P-3 of at
least $90 a month. This is still $60 a month below the $150 figure
originally authorized by this subcommittee. It, is impossible to say
how effective the proficiency pay authority might be in holding highly
trained technical personnel in service until that authority is fully
used. There is clear evidence the authority Nvon't be used unless the
Congress requires it.
Lortirevity steps: We wholeheartedly support. the addit ional fogies,
(longevity steps) for enlisted grades proposed in the pay bill. We feel
the cutback of fogies in 1958 in the enlisted corps was a mistake and
encouraged the early retirement of many men who might have :3erved
useful 30-year careers. We oppose the cutback in the 8-year fozv for
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211AA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
the E-4 as proposed in the bill. That fogy comes for many just be-
fore the reenlistment point. We also suggest that the subcommittee
consider the feasibility of an additional fogy after 28 years for senior
enlisted men (E-7, E-8, and E-9). We feel it would encourage many
of these men to delay their retirement from the 26-year point (date of
the last fogy in the proposed bill) to the 30-year point, retaining ex-
perienced men in service for another 4 years and delaying their
eventual addition to the retired rolls.
Sea pay:_ We have already expressed our feeling that any change in
foreign duty pay that means a cut for those now receiving it should be
accompanied by corresponding raises in basic pay. lite must say,
however, in behalf of our fellow noncommissioned officers in the Navy,
that cutting out of sea pay is unwise. Duty at sea always entails
separation from one's family. It entails special burdens and strains
for which the man should always be compensated. We would suggest
to this subcommittee that separation from one's family for an extended
period?a month or more?is a just criteria for awarding special pay,
call it sea pay, remote or isolated duty pay, foreign duty pay, or what
you will. We hope that any change in compensation systems for men
overseas will always provide for the extra pay historically provided if
they are separated from their families.
Retirement computation: We recommend an amendment to this
bill to provide that enlisted men, in computing their retired pay, may
use their reserve service the same as officers can in making such compu-
tations. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, no item
that has been brought to our attention by our members has caused
such a morale problem with members of the enlisted corps as this one
discrimination. The cost of the change would be minimal. A
separate bill to accomplish this needed equity has been introduced by
Representative Wilson, a member of this subcommittee and by
Senator Inouye, a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommit-
tee This subcommittee could solve the problem quickly with an
ameetired pay: ndment on this bill.
The Association of Regular Army Sergeants supports
R
the principle of recomputation of retired pay on the latest pay scales
for all retired personnel. This historic principle has been in effect
m-qt retired pay law passed in 1861 and is a right that military
men have been led to expect during their entire careers. We are
aware of the deep concern of this subcommittee -for the long-range
cost of military retired pay. We would ask you, however' to carefully
consider two points: The comparative cost?the actual cost to the Gov-
ernment of the civil service retirement system, even though it is a
contributory system and the impact on military career planning on
the determination to make military service a career by those most
needed by the Armed Forces of our Nation in these troubled times.
Retirement study: Finally, we urge this committee to undertake a
study or to commission a study of the comparative merit, to the serv-
iceman and to the Government, of a contributory retirement system
for military personnel. We do not feel this problem has had defini-
tive study and now, with the sweeping changes recommended in the
retirement system, is the time for such a study. We are mainly con-
cerned with the military man's equity in his retirement, we are con-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04= : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
cerned that his retirement should lie considered a right and not a privi-
lege, and we are concerned that lie is not able to leave any equity in
his retirement system to his survivors. We hope the subcommittee
ask itself this question: If the civil service retirement system
was not a contributory system, would not a move have. been made long
ago to change it because of costs, as is now to be done. with military
retirement ? And we ask the subcommittee to consider the ease of a
30-year military man who dies in an accident shortly after his retire-
ment. II e can 'leave none of his retirement to his survivors, though a
civil servant, in a similar situation, can leave his survivors an equity
I hat is wort It ninny times what he has contributed to the retirement
fond. The career, lengt It of service, military ret ime is the forgotten
man in determining retirement equity. We hope that regardless of
the system finally adopted, military retirement will be recognized as
earned retirement and the career soldier will be giver a just equity iii
his retirement.
would like to express my thanks to this subconun'ttee for hearing
the. views of the Association of Regular Army Sergeants. Our as-
sociation is aware that this subcommittee is one of the great bulwarks
of military personnel morale and that your members serve on u. non-
partisan basis for the good of the Armed Forces. It has been a privi-
legn to testify before you. Our association stands ready to heln the
subcommittee further in any way that it can.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Timms. Thank you, Sergeant Rein. I want to congratulate
you on a very fine statenasnt. Thank you for the time and etfmt you
have put into the actual contents of the position of your association.
Mr. Gavin, do you have any questions?
Mr. GAVIN. I think it is a very excellent statement and very practi-
cal and realistic and sound. I heart ily concur in the rucommendationq
that. he makes. We will give it further study.
Mr. REIN. Thank you, sir.
.Mr. GAvix. I am glad to see a serYeant make such an excellent state-
ment. It gives the general officers the opportunity to hear a sergeani
in act ion, which they solid t imes don't have.
Mr. RivEns. We have the most eloquent one On the COMMItf cc.
Mr. ILkuer. Did Mr. Gavin ever hold a rank in your organizat 'on?
It seems to II1P he at least ought to be an honorary nieinlier.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Rein.
Any question by members ofthe comm t tee?
Mr. GUBSER. I have a question.
Mr. IlivEus. Gubser.
Jr. Chasm May I ask a question, Sergeant, tnai 1 wouli nke you
to answer as an m(hil-(hual, and not as a represent at h-e of .'.-our
:issociation. I )o you want to dot hat 1.
I )0 von look upon I lie possibility you will receive hospitalization,
for yourself, and your dependents, on retirement, as an ininortwet
incentive for a continuation in a military career !
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guesral. Do you think it is a very import ant one?
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir. I may need it one of these days.
Mr. Ginsra. Thank you.
Mr. Ilivrais. Mr. Blandford.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1557
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to ask the Sergeant whether the $1.25
commuted ration for the enlisted personnel was something you
agreed upon before you heard Mr. Rivers' statement or after Mr.
Rivers' statement?
Mr. REIN. Definitely, sir, our statement was in before Mr. Rivers'
statement.
Mr. BLANDFORD. How did you arrive at $1.25 ? You can be very
helpful to this committee.
Mr. REIN. Mr. Blandford, we sent a study out to the field. We
took an average of the answers that came in.
Mr. HARDY. That is about the basis Mr. Rivers had for his figure
I believe,
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Rivers was foresighted.
The point I am making is that you did base this on a sample?
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And the average was that $1.25 would more nearly
approach the actual cost of the food of the individual who was eating
home, for one individual ?
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir; one individual.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You feel $1.25 would be a very fair amount?
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir ; I do.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do you think the $2.57 should also be increased
by 26 percent which was the increase in cost of eating out since 1052?
Mr. REIN. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much, Sergeant.
The next witness is a distinguished representative of the Reserve
Officers Association, Col. John Carlton.
Colonel Carlton, you may proceed.
Mr: GAVIN. I note our very good friend, Colonel Boyer, is here this
morning. He is usually active and turns in a very fine performance
for the Reserve Officers. We have had the colonel before the com-
mittee for many, many years.
Colonel Boni. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead, Colonel.
STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
Colonel CARLTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
we appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in connection
with 3006, a bill to increase the rates of basic pay for members
of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
The matter of the compensation and other benefits for the military
personnel of our armed services has always been of primary concern
to this association. This is not only because it affects officers of the
reserve forces who constitute the majority of our membership, but
because it is of vital concern to people, who?we contend?are still
the most vital instrument of any armed force, notwithstanding the
rapid advances of technology in the art of warfare. This, then, is
close to the heart of our objectives; ROA was charted by Congress
o work for a sound military policy that will provide for adequate
national security.
85066-63?No. 6-11
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04{2 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
'rho bill before you, which was only made public a few short weeks
ago when it was introduced by your distinguished chairman, is com-
plicated and lengthy and contains many proposals in addition to an
upward adjustment of basic pay rates.
The bill is complicated in some respects and contains a number of
unrelated items which tend to make this something of an omnibus
bill. We would like, with your permission, to address ourselves to
what. we see as the major features of the bill.
These are; first, of course, the pay scales; second, the relation of
active duty pay to retired pay; third, the relation of active duty pay
to Reserve training pay; and, fourth, the timing or effective date of
the pay provisions of the bill.
We have been told?and the public has been told?that the Depart-
ment of Defense proposal is the product of long and exhaustive study
by experts in the field of military pay and compensation. It is well
known that a study group did labor long and hard, in comparative
isolation. ( o develop a comprehelisive pay proposal.
Wo also know that this study group hind as advisers a nuriber of
senior, mature, and experienced officers, all retired and of the general
or flag rank. We know that the advice of these senior officers was
submitted to the Secretary of Defense. We. also know that this pro-
posed pay legislation was referred to the Secretaries of the three serv-
ices rind to the military chiefs of the various armed services, all who
dissented in varying degrees to ninny aspects of the bill.
Vet after all of this. we are convinced that the pay scales pioposed
by the Department of Defense have no relation to those considered
adequate by any of these agencies. All these studies, all these expert
advices. then, appear not to be reflected in the propHed bill.
Wu in the Reserve Officers Association have confidence in tho judg-
ment of the senior members of the pay study group and the Secre-
taries and military Chiefs of the services. We do think, therefore,
that increases ought to be more on the order of those originally pro-
posed by the pay study group.
It is obvious that the pay scales proposed by the Department of
Defense do not represent increases in the magnitude that haie been
afforded employees of the civil servce since the last military pay
raise in 1058.
If the civil service pay rates were justified on the basis of com-
parability with private industry. it appears that military personnel
shall suffer even more in comparability with them.
Mr. Chairman. we are aware of t he very grave responsibil it ies placed
on your committee indeed. on the whole Congress. in re!rard to the
liscal stability or the Government. We know of t cosi
of supporting our Military Establishment. But if we are to depend
on this Establishnwnt to secure our freedom and that of much of the
rest of the world, we cannot do it wirli second-rate personnel. And
we cannot keep and retain lirst-rate personnel s.vit hout adequate
compensatimi.
Not only would it be foolhardy to do so, btu we catuatc in all justice
expect them to take the risks of a military eareer nor expect I mclii to
subject their families to t he- insecurity. separat ions, and lliks of
a military life without adequate compensation. We cannot expect
them to live by patriotism alone.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Thus, we urge you, in your experience and judgment, to assure
yourselves that the legislation you develop here does provide adequate
and fair compensation to these outstanding professional citizens who
sacrifice SO much and upon whom we depend SO much.
To go to another aspect of the bill, we would like to comment briefly
on the proposal that "obligors" shall receive no increase in drill .pay.
It is stated that this "is based on a concept that a reasonable differ-
ential should exist between the rates of drill pay for members serving
an 'obligated' period of service and those who voluntarily assumed
service obligations."
We think this statement falls of its own weight, begs the issue, and
is totally unrealistic.
Most persons who have "obligated" service have that obligation as
the result of a voluntary action. of their own. Even if this were not so,
we categorically oppose any action that would put those who fulfill
this "obligation" (or privilege as we would prefer to call it) to their
country in a second-rate status, -financially or otherwise. No such
invidious discrimination is made against obligated personnel on active
duty. Certainly the application of this descrimination during a
reservist's period of obligation will destroy his incentive to continue
to be active in the Reserves after his obligatory period is completed.
A proposal roughly parallel to this was submitted to your committee
during hearings on the 1958 pay bill, and was wisely and promptly
discarded. We trust that it. will be discarded again.
We feel most strongly that purely budgetary considerations
influenced the Defense Department in its proposal. regarding the
computation of retirement pay. We agree that the problem of the
rising cost of retired pay is one of serious concern. We understand
the caution with which the administration and the Congress approach
this subject. These appear to be fixed costs that will represent a great
burden on the taxpayer. However, we think that the problem has
been inflated beyond reasonable proportions. We agree with the
Randall Committee that perhaps some of the problem can be solved
in other ways by the Department of Defense.
Over the years, there developed in the historic pay structure for the
Armed Forces the absolute requirement of an equitable retirement
system for people who are exposed to far different problems than any
other group in the country. We do not need to remind this committee
of the unsettled life of the military and of the -financial burdens it
places on them. It has long been recognized that "you never get
rich" in the service.
It was because of this inability to accrue an estate while in the
military, and in recognition of uniformed services as a way of life for
both the serviceman and his family, that the historic retirement policy
was adopted. A part of that policy has been that a retired person's
pay .shall continue to be proportionate depending on his length of
service and grade at retirement?to his active duty counterpart.
This has been part and parcel of the deal a man accepts when he
undertakes a military career. I am sure if any member of the com-
mittee were to ask this of any military man beyond his first hitch, the
answer would always be the same?it is and should always be part of
the system.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/MUCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
surply the costs-- -resulting from 1,Vorld War IL Korea, :Itid the
cold war?are .hip-h. But a more objective organization, perhaps,
than ours. the University of Michigan Study Group, to whom this
problem was referred by the Senate Armed Services Committee,
st :tied t hat t 'use costs sl mid d be accepted by die Nat ion as an inevitable.
deferred cost of hese military act ions to preserve our count IV. We are
I nclined to believe that a majority of our citizens would agree with
them.
And realist Hilly. the costs are not high, compared to some other
governmental programs of perhaps less direct effect on our national
de fete-...
This particular problem sutlers also, we think, because of 1 he im-
pres:-?ion I hat t lie only defenders of I his system aro rel ired personnel.
That is not so. rilley ittay be the most vocal, but alp by no means the
most numerous. As we have said before, every military Man on act iVe
duty looks to the traditional retired pay formula :Is sacrosanct. I
our military- -and military leaders --could say so, they \Vold(' lin:nil-
tflonsiV a.rrree that this is one of the prime incent iVi s toward career
Iii the service. To destroy this principle will have a (Trust ic elfect on
t he procurement and relent ion of otir most effect itea-id dedicated mil i-
t ary personnel. The retention of this principle would not ''ins a dead
hand on adm Mist rat ion of act ive personnel." Instead its el iiii hnition
would lay a dead hand on the conscience of our public attitude toward
I he milit :try service.
We feel sure 'that this committee and the House of Represer tatives
agree with us, else you would not have passed T [R. 1 1:;1 8, 80th Con-
gresS, \Odell would have restored the relationship of retired pay to
act INT (hay oa
Last ly, and briefly, we see no justifiable reason for deferring I he
effecti ye date of any pay increase finally incorporated in this measure.
M tlit an' people are iong overdue a rake in pay. To delay it is only to
ask t hose who sacrifice most to sacrifice again.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we recommend--
( 1) That the pay scales provided the member:4 of tire Armed Forces,
Regular and Reserve, be determined on the basis of :tdequate compen-
sation for selected, devoted, professional personnel. who, by nataire of
I heir din ins and responsibilities and because of the risk.-: and hazants
t always face, make personal and family sacrifices beyond that of
any segment of our American society, and that these pay scales not be
reduced or inhibited by any arbii rary budgetary dp-erminatiol
(2) That the discriminatory feature relating to Recive training
pay he eliminated
(3) 'flint the retired pay of military personnel shall now and hence-
forth. lie computed on the pay rates authorized for tel ive dut y per=on-
nel and shall be adjusted accordingly in any future adjustment of
act I ye dlny pay rates: and
( 1) The pay increases provided in your bill become effective on the
first day of the month following the month in which it is enacted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one other request. I would like to make. Ti is
mornimr the committee of tel ired leaders in ROA had a meet lint, a
breakftn t meeting. There were some 70 or SO officers there, retired
officers They unanimously adopted a very brief telegram, a very
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1561
compelling telegram, we think, and dispatched it to us as chairman of
this committee and to Mr. Vinson as chairman of the full committee,
and we would like to ask you if you would place that telegram in the
record. I think Mr. Blandford probably has it.
Mr. RIVERS. It will be placed in the record.
(The telegram is as follows:)
non. CARL VINSON,
Member of Congress,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
The retired committee and the National Council representing the entire mem-
bership of the Reserve Officers Association, meeting in Washington, D.C.' this
date, voice concern over administration proposals contained in H.R. 3006 now
under consideration by your Subcommittee No. 1. The abandonment of the
historic relationshiup between retired pay and active duty pay breaks faith with
all military personnel not only those retired, but all who have chosen a career in
the armed services. If such a proposal is adopted this action, coupled with
corrosions of other time-honored emoluments and perquisites, will eventually
destroy military service as a way of life for many thousands of devoted citizens.
We urge that the provisions relating retired pay to active duty pay be restored
in law as a permanent part of the military pay system for the Armed Forces.
NORMAN M. LYON,
Captain, U.S. Naval Reserve, Retired, Chairman, Committee ROA,
JOHN J. FOSTER,
Major General, A FRES, President, ROA
Colonel CARLTON. There is a very moving article from Readers
Digest by Francis Vivian Drake, the military editor of the Readers
Digest, who makes a very moving plea for emphasis on men over equip-
ment, and pointing out that: the most valuable part of our Military
Establishment is personnel.
The committee can :file this or place it in the record, whichever you
wish, but I wish the committee had time to read it. I know the time
is up, and we are not going to take up your time. But we feel strongly
on this. 1 want to thank you for the privilege of being here, Mr.
Chairman, and for the courtesy of the committee.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection, you may put. it in the record.
(The article is as follows :)
WE'VE GOT THE PLANES?WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?
Given the present state of the world, we need the Tactical Air
Command to protect this country. As a result of a shortsighted
economy ruling, our national security is in jeopardy
(By Francis Vivian Drake, military editor of the Reader's Digest)
Late last fall, a group of young men standing watch at a domestic Air Force
base sprang into action when phone bells shrilled suddenly and commands rasped
from an overhead squawk box. There followed a mass dash for the locker room,
a hustle into garish survival suits, the clamping on of chalk-white Martian
helmets.
Before the hands of the base clock had jerked ahead an hour, only jet con-
trails, streaking like ghostly arrows for the West, suggested the whereabouts
of the young men. Nineteen flying hours later there they were, transplanted,
as if by magic, 10,000 miles to the far side of the earth, braking to a stop on the
wind-flogged runways of Okinawa, the free world's island fortress in the East
China Sea.
The flight was a practice mission, made no headlines, yet was astonishing on
three counts: the planes weren't long-range bombers, they were single-engine
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/41A2CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
fighters; each crew consisted of but one man, trained to discharge, singlehanded,
the functions of a six-man team ; each plane, in addition to heavy tionament,
was lilted to carry missiles and nuclear weapons sufficient to obliterate the
toughest military target in the world.
.1.7,ven more remarkable, this performance, which only a few years back would
have been scoffed 81 as iniPosslide, today is routine (approximately 1,000 flights
a year for the officers and enlisted personnel of the Tnctical Air Command,
whose top-level training directive reads: "Every plane and air crew is to be
ready to deploy on 1.1 moment's notice, day or night, in all_ types of weather, to
any area in the world."
So swift lots been the transition of the IS. fighter froiii a secondary plane into
a deadly long-range striking weapon that the public is largely unaware of the
priceless advantage that TAC's super planes have added to our national-defense
pa-tore. Its space-annihilating Century lighters --the 1-100 Super Sabre, RE-101
Voodoo, F-101 Starlighler, 1-105 Thunderehlef?represent the most versatile
airplanes ever devised by man. Although each weighs 15 tons or more, it can
outmaneuver anything that flies. The Si arlighter holds the world's altitude
retard of 103,305 feet for operational aircraft, and the Thunderchief has stretched
its range to 1,500 miles. (It was a TAC 111"-101 that lirst procured low-levet
photographic proof of Cuba's missile bases; during that crisis 1,0(10 TAC lighters
stood ready to take off on a moment's notice.)
While the big nuclear bombers of the Strategic Air Command stand as a major
deterrent to all-out war, 'PAC's globe-trolling troubleshot-Let's are prepared to
deal with limited or "brush-fire" outbreaks. As an answer to continuing cold-
war pressures, a large part r TAC has been integrated into the newly created
Strike Command. Ifeadquartered at MiteDill Air Force Base in Tampa,
STRIKE includes not only the lighter-bombers but entire airborne d visions--
paratroopers, ski troops, commandos, sirticinlists la guerrilla lighting, 150,000
men in all. Each complement is a self-supporting team, trained to operate any-
where in the ?vorld, engage the enemy tonight, lighting on anybody's tunas, con-
ventional or nuclear.
The Lebanon crisis in 1058 provided a graphic illustration of the effectiveness
of these troubleshooters. The Conununists, using Iraq as a tool, threatened to
take over the whole Middle East and capture the greatest oil reserves in the
world. The Lebanon Republic. facing imminent invasion, appealed for help.
Within 12 hours and 30 minutes TAC flew 0,7(X) utiles nonstop to the NAT( I base
at Encirlik, Turkey. between Soviet Russia and 1.elottion. Before Lily Com-
munist invasion could get underway, TAC was interlocked withr
-r.gat.es
the Army and Marines, and the forces of the U.S. Sixth Flea. The enemy threat
collapsed in 4 days.
How can TAC's spearhead have such decisive deterrence l'he answer lies in
its awesome power. The automatic cannon of an F- I04 or F-105 fire more bullets
in 30 seconds than a 400-man rifle company can deliver in 20 minutes. Against
enemy attack-planes, they carry heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles, which pursue
a jet and fly up the exhaust pipe. Against tanks and troops they are armed with
Bullpup air-to-ground missiles, TNT or nuclear, guided by radio from the cock-
pit. If the big whistle blows. 'PAC's bomb racks are already fitted to let fly
clusters of nuclear bombs of such power that each lighter can cause more destruc-
tion than thousands of World War II flying filaresses.
TAC
it consists of 55,000 men, expertly commanded by Gen. Walter C.
Sweeney, Jr., front his headquarters at Langley Air Force Itase, a. Most
of the men are stationed in 12 other bases between Florida and California. To
keep itself honed to a sharp edge, TAU normally rotates squadrons every
months to bases in Italy. Spain, France, Turkey, and Okinawa, sending them
off with the same spares and ammunition they would need in case of War. This
iS an exceptionally difficult jilt) fin- the young men who fly :hese ii tug brain- and
body-torturing missions.
Ash it' from being in superb physical condition, a Cent ury-class-liglacr Pilot
is regaired to be jack of a dozen specialties, and absolute to of oil?
gunner, bombardier, engineer, navigator, meteorologist, radar. and electronics
expert. His cockpit ls a nightmare agglomeration of dials, gages, controls, levers,
gunsights, grips, valves. On either side of him are shelves packed with long
lines of switches and buttiins, which he has been trained to It blintififfiled.
Even his control stick is stnikled with grim surprises: assorted triggers that
operate the plane's weapons. Ills seat is a rock-hard buatpack. his pillow a para-
chute, its oxygen bottle digging into his spine. l'oulticed Lao his survival suit,
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :g[fg-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
he must remain nerveless at all times, for the forces at his command are more
deadly than the entire armament of a battleship. So exhausting are the long-
range missions that often at journey's end a pilot has to be lifted like a baby
from his sonic monster.
Most nightmarish en route job is the refueling operation, which often takes
place at night high above a churning ocean. Until 1964 TAC will not have a fleet
of KC-135 jet tankers, which can fly fast and high above the weather; it has
been obliged to refuel its world-record speedsters from propeller-driven KB-
50's, thereby adding risk to an already hazardous procedure. Glutted with fuel,
the KB-50's cannot climb above 20,000 feet, an altitude at which dense thunder-
heads and furious turbulence frequently gang up to challenge man's right-of-way
reducing speed virtually to stall point in order to latch onto a trailing fuel line
at the tanker's maximum effort-400 m.p.h.
In spite of the these and other hazardous procedures, TAC's accident rate is
an amazingly low 1 percent per 7,000 flying hours. This speaks volumes both
for the caliber of the men who fly the planes and for those who keep their finicky
mechanisms in tip-top running order, for without supermen even superplanes are
just so much impotent metal.
And now comes the unhappy fact: TAC's manpower outlook is so gravely
critical as to give cause for national alarm. Why? The answer is that, despite
superlative skills and the intense pride the men take in their work, circumstances
are forcing them to quite the service in droves. Shockingly, in the first 8
months of last year, 71.3 percent of the first-term skilled airmen (who maintain
today's fighters and should logically become the career men of tomorrow) walked
out when their time was up. During the same period more than one-third of
TAC's master pilots indicated their intention to resign.
They are quitting for two reasons: the cumulative strain of ever-increasing
family separations; and the Defense Department's recent and shortsighted
cancellation of per diem allowances for temporary duty, making it virtually im-
possible for even the most dedicated men to afford to carry on in the service of
their country. The drain on family exchequers is eclipsing the patriotic challenge.
On temporary duty (TDY), officers and men are required to make oversea
trips lasting for months at a time. Even when they are in the United States the
necessity for keeping abreast of the latest techniques frequently takes them away
from home for further training. In 1960, F-100 pilots, backbone of TAC, were
ordered to spend an average of 168 days away from home; in 1961 the figure rose
to 176, in 1962 to 197; the estimate for this year runs to 215 days.
About 98 percent of TAC's combat pilots are married men on whom these
absences inflict a double-edged hardship. First, they are seldom around to share
in family interests, problems, emergencies. Second, TDY now imposes the ad-
ditional expense of having, in effect, to maintain two establishments simultane-
ously. Formerly the costs thus incurred were offset by a special allowance?$6
per diem for officers, $1.50 for airmen?which just enabled personnel to scrape by
financially. Last July, abruptly and incomprehensibly, the Department of De-
fense canceled these allowances. The effect has been catastrophic, and from a
study of the following outline it is not hard to understand why.
When an officer is ordered on TDY, family expenses go on as before?for, as
any houeswife knows, savings from having one less mouth to feed are negligible.
Rent, utilities, upkeep of home and car remain unaffected by the husband's
absence; the necessity for hiring sitters, to release wives for marketing, becomes
an extra factor. Official surveys show that TDY today is costing officers $292
extra per month; in terms of 1963's TDY commitments, that is over $2,000 per
year. So little is left from income (base pay for a captain is $440 per month, plus
$180 flight pay) that it is no longer possible to make ends meet.
Since the men of TAC are shouldering the overwhelming responsibility of pro-
tecting world peace, it is not to be wondered that this shabby treatment has left
them with a deep-down hurt. Here are some of the comments taken verbatim
during an official survey:
From an F-100 pilot with a B.S. degree in engineering: "If the allowance is
not restored, I must, with deep regret, resign my commission. A service career
has been my goal for 20 years, but I cannot continue to pay the Air Force for the
privilege of living away from my family."
From a major with 12 years' service: "A few years ago it was a privilege to be
a fighter pilot. Now I am on TDY approximately 9 months a year, and it is im-
possible 'for me to save enough money when I'm at home to take care of added
expenses when I'm away."
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014/1211 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Prom a staff sergeant (11 years' service) with three children "1 eat as
cheaply as I can on TDY, just One meal a day at snackbars, hut even so I can
save little to send home. Were just about broke."
.From a mechanic years' service) : Each time I've been on Till' it has cost
me money, but now the allowance is gone I can no longer afford to stay in.
l've been offered a civilian job that pays twice the money for identical work,
live days a week, and double on Sundays."
When it canceled the TI/ 1". allowances the Department of Defense proclaimed
that the cuts would effect a saving of $3 million a year in TAC alone. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Since the measure was pass(d last summer. the
actual loss of taxpayers' investment is heading toward -10 tin es that figtrT --the
forfeiture of more than $120 million of skilled manpower.
Few taxpayers realize the sky-high costs they must pay to train topnotch
lighter pilots and mechanics. No less than $2.42.000 Is required to lout it lieutenant
through 2 years of Air Training Command. Aftor that he graduates ti TAC,
and by the time he has racked up an average 7 years of service- -1,700 lvairs of
lighter time, qualifying him to fly any mission anywhere tile figure stands at
more than half a million dollars.
The loss in war readiness when top-trained men walk out, and the con iequent
loss to our national security. are incalculable. In these times of everlastiug Com-
munist-inspired llareups, TAC dares not relax its readiness tor a minute.
The time has come for responsible citizens to make themselves heard. They
should seek out their Congressmen before it is too late find insist that this un-
American "economy" maneuver be revoked and that a squarer deal be .granted
the men to whom we all owe so much.
Mr. ItivEtts. The ROA, as usual, makes a strong and helfpul state-
ment. 1 want to thank you for your con t ribut ion.
Colonel CARLTox. That tic. you. 1 r. Chairman.
RivEas. Is Dr. McCrary here ?
Dr. MuCa.kar. Yes, sir.
Mr. RivEus. Dr. McCrary, we will be pleased to hear you at this
time.
STATEMENT OF V. EUGENE McCRARY, 0.D., AMERICAN
OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION
Dr. MrClimtv. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first
of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity of appearing be-
fore you I his morning in presentinz this test unony.
My name is V. Eugene. McCrary. I am an optometrist practicing in
College Park, Md. I commenced practicing with in father in Green-
ville. S.C., in ltrio. Subsequently I moved to Maryland. I served as
president of the Maryland Optomet ric Association. a member of the
hoard of examiners ill optometry for the State of Maryland. and as
optometric consultant to the industrial vision program of the U.S.
Naval Laboratory.
My appearance I 10 re is (IS trttstee consult alit to Ole Department of
National Affairs of the American Optometric Association. In World
War II, I- enlisted in the Navy at the age of 17 in the. combat iir crew
program. Following my discharge I obtained my professional t ram-
ing as an optometrist and served again during. I he Korean conflict :2
years as an optometry officer in the Mi'diefti Corps of the Navy Reserve.
At the present t ime 1 bold a Reserve commission as a full lieutenant.
As we understand it, the purpose of this bill is twofold : _first, to
adjust the compensation of all members of the Armed Forces to bring
it up to the increases which have taken place in the cost of' living.
and. second, to provide an inventive for specially qualified personnel
to make the military a career.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1565
There are on active duty M. the armed services approximately 400
optometrists holding commissions with ranks ranging from second
lieutenant to colonel in the Army and Air Force and ensign to captain
in th.e Navy.
In 1942 when Admiral McIntyre was the Surgeon General, the
Navy was the first of the armed services to commission optometrists
as Reserve officers in their Hospital Specialists Corps.
By V?J Day there were approximately 135 optometrists on active
duty in the Navy with commissions ranging from ensign to lieutenant
commander.
The Army, which at that time included the Air Corps, now the
Air Force, refused to commission optometrists and permit them to
practice their profession. The result was that over half of the optome-
trists who served in the Army during World War II held commis-
sions in various branches of the Army but were not allowed to prac-
tice optometry, although their professional services were badly needed.
In order to pretend to provide corrective eyewear for the Army per-
sonnel, which included the Air Force, the Army took an assortment of
their enlisted personnel, including undertakers, blacksmiths, farmers,
and laborers, whom they attempted to train as refractionists in a period
of 90 days. They were known as the 90-day wonders.
The situation was so intolerable that, in spite of the strong opposi-
tion of the War Department and the American Medical Association,
the House passed an Optometry Corps bill without a single dissenting
vote and the Senate did likewise. However, the bill did not reach
President Truman until after V?E Day, with the result that he vetoed
the bill, but only after he had the assurance from the War Department
that in the postwar reorganization they would provide commissions
for optometrists in the Army as was being done in the Navy.
The result was that, in 1.947, Medical Service Corps laws were en-
acted. These provided for commissioning of optometrists both in
the Regular Army and the Regular Navy. Subsequently, the Air
Force became a, separate Department, and they, too, have commissioned
optometrists in their Medical Service Corps.
The fact that optometrists were commissioned during World War
1.1 in the Navy is responsible for the fact that many more optometrists
continued in active duty in the Navy after V?J Day and the optometric
"hump" in that service is in the grades from lieutenant commander
to captain rather than in lower grades.
The Army and Air Force, on the other hand, have, had difficulty in
persuading their optometrists to embark on military careers. It is
not in the best interests of the visual welfare of the Army and Air
Force that the overwhelming majority of their optometry officers
revert to civilian status at the earliest possible moment.
In this day and age of manned aircraft which exceed the speed of
sound and are capable of flying into space and returning, not to men-
tion our missile program, there can be no question but that vision
is an important factor in the production and operation of our modern
weapons and their systems.
Our association has a committee on visual problems in aeronautics
and space, the chairman of which is an associate professor of the
School of Optometry at Ohio State University.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I .-1,16
.1 member of the committee is Lt. Col. Floyd M. Morris, r SAF,
MSC, School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force. Base.
May I quote from the remarks of Major General Kneiss, Surgeon
General of the Air FOree :
The optometric profession is twrforming an Increasingly important role in the
aerospace age. While the research of Air Force optometrists is nemssarily de-
voted to problems related to military requirements, the results of our research
may have far-reaching henetits in man's efforts to conquer !..pace.
I. would also like to call your :Went fion to some rentarks by a former
Secretary of ( 7.ont
I am informed that. research by optometric and medical experts in many highly
specialized industries has proved conclusively that there is a close correlation be-
tween good visual performance and successful working performance on specific
jobs. Indeed, a worker with an undetected visual defect can be not July a lia-
bility to production, but also a liability to himself and his coworkers. Statistical
evidence has conic to my attention which reveals that two out of three adults have
inefficient vision, which can handiCap their work and personal job ad%-ancentent
opportunities.
.Nlillionm of dollars have been saved annually by American industry through
increased efficiency, eye protection, and qualitative as well as quantitative
production,
Beginning July 1 of this year, doctors of medicine and dentistry
will be commissioned, originally, with the rank of captain, and, to-
gether with the veterinarians, will be drawing $100 a month special
pay.
This special pay was provided by the draft doctors law which
authorized the payment of St 00 a month bonus to physicians, den-
tists, and veterinarians who volunteered for service rather than wait-
ing to be drafted. No doubt some. of you gentlemen are thinking that
it takes a minimum of i; years for a physician to qualify for an M.D.,
or a dent ist.
l'erImps you are not aware of the fact that it takes 5 or i; years, at
the college level, for a man or woman to qualify for a pro.fessional
degree in optometry which is necessary in order to secure an MSC
eommission. Many of our optometrists have successfully completed
more than years at I ite college level, and yet they are commissioned
only as second lieutenants or ensigns. This also results in their being
assigned many lionprofessional duties, although I hair ba6:log of
patients is very heavy.
There is another fallacy which prevails ill the Defense Depart-
ment?namely, that they have an adequate supply Of optometrists.
It is true that while optometrists have never been drafted under the
draft doctors law, to my knowledge, neither have physicians or
demists. Last. year it was necessary for our association to assist the
AMIN- in their campaign to secure their needed opt owl tic manpower.
The armed services could well use half again as many optometrists
as are now on active duty. The reason they are not doing SO is because
ofthe difficulty in securing billets, spaces, or slots for them.
The officer strength of the Medical Service Corps is determii.ed, not
by the need for optometrists but by the overall need for medical ad-
ntinist rat ors, pharmacists, sanitary engineers, biochemists. physicists,
optometrists, and other specialists 111111 are included in the Inaizeup of
the Medical Service Corps.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04i/27: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
The need for optometrists in civilian practice as well as in the
Armed Forces is so great that the States of Florida and South Caro-
lina are offering scholarship grants to high school students who will
enter one of our schools of optometry. The House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign. Commerce, in the 87th Congress, amended
H.R. 4999 to provide Federal matching funds for new schools of
optometry of the enlargement of the facilities of the present institu-
tions. The bill with this provision in it was reintroduced in this
Congress as H.R. 12, and hearings have already been held on it. but, so
far, no action has been taken by the committee.
Counsel informs me the committee is meeting in executive session.
this morning.
Let me give you a brief sketch of the educational background of the
optometrists who have been commissioned in the armed services during
the present fiscal year. Each one has been graduated from one of the
accredited schools and colleges of optometry.
They are Massachusetts School of Optometry, Boston Mass.; Penn-
sylvania State College of Optometry, Philadelphia, Pa.; Ohio State
University College of Optometry, Columbus,. Ohio; Indiana Univer-
sity Division of Optometry, Bloomington, Ind.; Southern College of
Optometry, Memphis Tenn.; University of Houston College of Op-
tometry, Houston ; ilex.; Los Angeles College of Optometry, Los
Angeles, Calif.; University of California School of Optometry,
Berkeley, Calif.; Pacific University College of Optometry, Forest
Grove, Oreg.
might pause. here. to mention the fact that the retiring dean of that
school is a West Point graduate, class of 1920, who served in both
World War I and World War TI and is a former president of the
American Optometric Association.
And, finally, Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, Ill. I am
pleased to state that I am an alumnus of this school.
Each has had at least 5 years' training at the college level and the
great majority of them have had 0 to 7 years' training. Our schools
and colleges of optometry . have a very thorough and scientific com.-
prehensive curriculum, and I would be very happy to file a copy of
the curriculum for the committee's reference if you so desire.
While this presentation has dealt. primarily with optometry and
those of our profession who are in the armed services, we are not, ask-
ing for any special treatment in this legislation. We believe that the
members of all professions whose special training and knowledge has
been gained through 5 or more years of college training should be
eligible for constructive service credit purposes of appointment, pro-
motion, and basic pay provided his education is in a field "designated
by the Secretary."
The amendments which T. suggest are broad enough to cover all of
the various categories in the Medical Service Corps of the three serv-
ices 'and other arms of the service as well. They are as follows:
Insert after the words "postgraduate degree" where they appear
on page 4, line 14, the words 'or a baccalaureate or professional degree
awarded by an accredited institution, the curriculum of which con-
sisted of not less than 5 years."
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:INIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The same amendment would be made on page 4, line 21; page 5, line
7; page G, line 2; pag,e G, line 15; page 7, line ?; and page 7, line 12.
ie.fore concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state I was unable
to attend the hearings Tuesday, but following the. preparation of the
statement which I have just made, my attention was called to the
remarks of the chairman Tuesday morning, in which, ifItit i correctly
informed, he said with reference to what degree should be recognized,
and I quote, "I do not believe we should delegate this authority. I
believe Congress should make the determination as to what postgrad-
uate degrees will be recognized.-
Far be it from me to attempt to argue that point with the chairman
and members of the committee. But. I would like to add it the views
of the chairman on this point. prevail, I hope that optometry will be
one of the degrees specified in the bill.
Mr. II tvEas. Thank you very much, Dr. McCrary.
caul understand why yon are about to give up Grecnvilk for
Maryland.
Dr. Mt:CRARY. I have to admit when I hear ''C.trolina Moon," I am
overcome with nostalgia.
Mr. Itivtats. We art! very glad to have von. 1)1.. Ab?Crary. and your
distinguished attorney. inv friend Bill Mac6.acken. told me he was
cumin!, up. We are glad to see you. We are very happy to flt.iie your
statement. Your suggestions will be taken under serious considera-
i ion.
I h.. AicntARY. Thank von very much, Mr. Chairman. We feel this
item of granting constructive: credits will certainly help serve as an
inducement to get smile of our bright young men to choose military
optometry as a career, and it will also help in the retention of our
men who are now on duty. We would like very much to inaintain
higher level of retention with regard to our optometrists in service,
and we feel the granting of constructive service for their professional
I raining would certainly help enhance this retention situation.
Mr. Ilivrits. 'lltank volt very much.
Mr. Blandford,
Mr. BLANnroan. I would just like to make one continent, Mr. Chair-
man, that the doctor was very kind in his statement that he did not
ment ion the fact that at one time the optometrists were lying drafted
as privates and were being used as optometrists. With Mr. Mac-
Crarken's able assistance we eventually solved that problem.
Mr. InvEas, I wanted to say that. I am glad you did mention
that. lb, did an excellent job. Your persuasimi brouo-ht the inequity
referred to by our counsel to our at tention.
Dr. McCamtv. I think it is generally agreed by all three services
it was in the best interest of the visual welfare of the services. I think
it is also in their visual welfare that this encouragement he given
to the men to make military optometry a career. If they can get some
must run t lye credit as a result of the amendment of this bill, it will
go a long way, first to getting the men out of college to volunteer for
the service, and secondly, to get those once they are in to stay iii. There
is a. big difference in the pay, and not only in the pay but the extra
duties assi.oned, and one thing and another, between a captain and a
second lieutenant.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/01%1): CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
When they see they are all -working in the health field, in the medical
service, and when they see their fellows who just had maybe 1 year
or at most 2 years more than they did, drawing captain's pay, and
being relieved of a lot of duties that they have to take on as second
lieutenants and ensigns, it has a tendency to discourage them from
making the military a career.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much.
Any questions by any members of the subcommittee?
Thank you very much gentlemen.
The committee will meet at 2 o'clock. We have four more wit-
nesses. I hope we will be able to complete the hearing with the re-
maining witnesses here this afternoon. We will not meet on Friday.
The full committee will meet on the extension of the draft bill. We
will meet again at 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee recessed until 2 p.m.
the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. RIVERS. The committee will come to order, please.
The next witness we have, Mr. Blandford, is Mr. Lovci.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. RIVERS. IS Mr. Lovci here?
Mr. Lovci. Present.
Mr. RIVERS. Come in, sir, have a seat at the table, sir. How do you
pronounce that?
Mr. Love'. That is Lovci, it is pronounced phonetically the same as
it is spelled.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, may I put in the record at this
point the statement by Mr. Patten, executive director of the Naval
Enlisted Reserve Association?
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection.
(The statement is as follows:)
STATEMENT OF TOM PATTEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAL ENLISTED RESERVE
ASSOCIATION, ON H.R. 3006
Members of the subcommittee, we in the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
wish to thank you for the privilege of making this statement concerning H.R.
3006, and we do further believe that this presentation echoes the sincere senti-
ments of all enlisted members in all Reserve components.
Without the use of extensive verbiage, and quite pointedly, we (as enlisted
reservists) seek parity in all instances, in this matter, with our active duty coun-
terpart, and also duly express our revulsion at any suggestion, however slight,
that there be any differences in the proposed pay scales whether a person be obli-
gated or nonobligated, on active or inactive duty.
Yet we differ with the concepts which caused the proposal's evolvement, and
its underlying philosophy?it is quite doubtful that, even with implementation,
this bill will (as is presented) enhance the enlisted retention factor. We do
offer that the proposal should be projected on a purely humane approach?in
other words whether an enlisted person is career bound or not, let this great
Nation support him in a reasonable, just manner consistent with the much-
heralded prosperity levels in this freedom-loving productive land of ours.
However we measure the serviceman's compensation, however great it be, it
will never be great enough ; life itself cannot be graduated in terms of "dollars
and cents." While we obligate this serviceman through our system of laws for
our protection, then in like fashion we must pay for his service and protection?
while he remains a part of the services of the United States.
In conclusion we, as enlisted reservists, have faith and pride in this committee's
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211i9A-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
vast efforts on behalf of our servicemen. We are conlideni that tie same will
continue In the future, and that enlisted reservists will be assured equitable
treatment in all respects in H.R. 3006.
Thank you.
AIr. H trims. Have :t seat, Mi.. Lovci.
Mr. Lovci. Thank you, :gr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. LOVCI, DISABLED OFFICERS
.ASSOCIATION
Mr. liivEus. Would you give the reporter your statemet
Mr. BLANorono. Ile has it.
Mr. Invicas. You may proceed, Alt. Lovei.
Alt. Lovci. I ant Joseph M. Lovci. national adjutant of the Dis-
abled Offivers .1ssociat ion. Alembors of our grim') have been retired
because. of line of dui v disability. On Irelialf of t he din ill member-
ship,I appreciate the opportunity to express our conviction; concern-
ing the. bill H.R. :lout;, It. proposed amendment to lit he 37 of t he United
States ( 'ode.
In some respects, t he aforement ioned bill is considered forthright-
:Hid equitable. First. I will make 1.ietit ion of t hese certain provisions
Wit lam( reference t o t heir placement; in the bill.
Uat es of basic pay are to lie adjusted?this is ot e segment that war-
rants our complete support, and 1 might add, one that is somewhat.
overd tte in light (lit he general economic situation.
Our stand is also affirmat ive with respect to I he catchphrase title of
lines 7 and 5, page 4, of t he bill, which provides for -Constructive
Service Credit Purposes of Appointment, Promot ion and Ik.sic Pay."
Likewise, we support certain provisions, other than I hose. enumerated
below: imperfections or omissions that are evident in the proper
are mentioned liereaf ter.
1 urge the. inclusion of legislation to return to the realistic till).-
honored poliev that members of t he Armed Forces who Lave been
retired for reason of disability ineurred ill milk art- service be paid on.
Hie basis of 75 percent of the base pay and longevity they would re-
ceive, were they on active duty at that. time. UR. 3006 does not satis-
fy this requirement.
The Career Compensation Act of 19.19, Public Law 35 tilst Con-
gress. as amended, Mit mliv was heralded as the statute to provide solu-
tion for the matter. And it. did reasonably well. But it did not, and
could not , as written, authorize bestowal of 75 per..!ent of current base
pay to manv disabled officers who as a matter or material ?eressity
were obligea to request compensation from the Ve'. ('rails A buinistra-
ion in lieu of retirement pay, which tun il recently has been accepted
as a deferred ineome provision attachimr to he renumerat ion of (lie
Armed Forces.
It is now readily ascertainable that this concept of 75 liercent of cur-
rent I tasie pay for disabled officers has lost mull favor in cert tin quar-
ters but not with our association whi,711 is comprised solely of t he Aker
war crippled.
If II.B. 3006 is to be a I ruly equitable. revision of pay, including
ot her important in issues, it is suggested I hat you seriously con-
sider placimr all disability ret irees on the basis of I. pircent. of current
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:5NA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
1958 pay. Disparities occurred in the 1955 Pay Act, some company
grade officers were not permitted the small percentage pay increases
granted that year solely by reason that they were considered "short
service" personnel, i.e., had less than 3 years of active service.
Gentlemen, the service of these officers cannot be reduced to a system
of measurement in most cases. Company grade officers, it is gen-
erally allowed, are numbered most heavily among the casualties by
virtue of the duties which they perform and the hazards which this
entails. Should this engender retirement pay discrimination ?I
earnestly request your exploration and consideration of this situation
which I have outlined.
The recomputation pay reform included in H.R. 3006 has been
requisite for some time, but yet for some who could benefit from such.
legislation, nothing is afforded them. Upon enactment .of the Career
Compensation Act, a proviso was made for those who chose to, that
they might elect to receive retirement pay pursuant to the higher
scale. Since that time, their choice has in many cases resulted in the
receipt of a lessor amount of pay than that to which they would be
entitled were they given the chance to again reelect under the 1958
base pay rates.
Is this economic penalty imposed on such individuals a just one?
should they be held to a statute which in itself deprives them of re-
election rights to which they are presently denied? I believe not. The
right of reelection here again is advocated and provides substance for
the circumstances Which we commended to your attention that it be
included in the proposed legislation presently under consideration.
It is interesting to note that the Current average Consumer Price
Index, which takes for its base the years 1957-59, was reported at 105.4
for the year 1962. But prior to the adoption of this new base' on or
about February 1962, the previous base encompassed the 1947-49 peri-
od and an average index of 129.8 was recorded for the calendar year
1962.
In other words, a shift to a higher base period was made, thereby
tending to show a relatively smaller paper increase in the cost of liv-
ing. How does this affect our members whose amount of retirement
pay is geared to the 1942 Pay Act, as amended, and who have received
only the intercurrent percentage pay increases of 4 percent in 1952,
6 percent in 1955, and 6 percent in 1958? In reality these compounded
pay increases total 16.85 percent, whereas the Consumer Price Index
(1947-49 base) has risen 29.8 percent.
The difference, therefore, constitutes a slide of approximately 13 per-
cent in the purchasing capacity attributable to this form of retire-
ment pay.
H.R. 3006 would authorize a 5 percent increase that by the farthest
stretch of imagination, or even through the most adroit manipulation
of figures, could not restore to equitable balance this pay situation
which has deteriorated so deplorably.
Specifically these excerpts are supplied from the report of the Dis-
abled Officers Association and Policy Committee, in convention as-
sembled, and unanimously adopted at the San Francisco convention
on June 29, 1962.
(a) Retirement pay for disability from the Armed Forces shall be
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014/ii : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
based on the pay and longevity as if the individual was on present
active duty. We urge the enactment of legislation to return 7. o the
traditional policy that members of the Armed Forces who have been
retired for reason of physical disability incurred in the military
service, shall be paid on the basis of 75 percent of tl e base pay they
would receive if they were on active duty.
II)) We favor and recommend favorable action on recomputation
(equalization) and further, we urge Congress to grant the right or re-
election to all personnel retired for hisahi1it y prior to the Career
Compensation Act of 1949, as amended.
c ) All pay increases promulgated and granted by Congress to the
Armed Forces in the future shall be granted retired personnel
proportionately.
In summation, I particularly invite the attention of this subcom-
mittee to the following items which we believe would indeed provide
an acceptable complement. toward the perfection of H.R. 3006.
1. Permit the right of reelection to members of the Armed Forces
retired prior to enactment of the Career Compensation Act of 1949,
and as an alternative, we have (a) but preferably allow recomputation
for all members retired under statutes in effect preceding the 1949 act.
2. Alternative to this, it is advocated that a realistic 12 to 15 percent
raise be authorized for retirees paid pursuant to other than 1949 act,
as amended.
3. Permit the adjustment of retirement pay for certain disability
retirees credited with less than 3 years' service who were not accorded
the normal pay increase provided by the 1955 Pay Act.
1 desire to express my gratitude for this opportunity to appear
before the House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1, Mr. Rivers as
chairman.
invite any questions that might be of interest.
Mr. RivEtts. Thank you very much, Mr. Lovci.
Are they any questions the members of the committee would like
o ask?
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, in response to one of his alternative
plans here, for those who assume the 1958 rate, plus the 5 percert ad-
ditional as has been suggested?how does that, come. out, on a pet cent-
age basis?
Mr. Low". Are you addressing me. sit?
Mr. BATES. Do you know the answer?
Mr. BLANnvoitn. I happen to have the statistics. It would lie in-
teresting?and this is very much in line with what Mr. Lovci is say-
rig?itis interest iwr to note that nil he I 9.-iti pay inftrease, assuming re-
computation is permitted, 50,781 officers will receive an increase in
I heir retirement pay as a result of reccimputation, but in the case of
I 1,:";:;8 retired officers, I Lw 6-percent increase that they got in was
larger than lilt' pay ilIC11`;t:-0 I hat they would have liven provided under
the 1955 pay scale.
Mi. vc . Yes, that is true.
Mr. lit,Aticovoito. Now, this of colir:?4' i the figure you want, and it
happens to be exactly what Mr. Lovei is talking about, that the riateat
bulk of these people. of 11w 11.111.7,773 are caw alas. 1.s:17 are tirsi
lieutenants, and 1,285 are second lieutenants, hut you will be hippy
to learn there is one major general in that group.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:56U-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now, the point of this problem I think has probably been called
to your attention by the Disabled Officers Association here today,
and previously, and also by a First Lieutenant McCloud, whom I
presume is a member of your organization ?
Mr. Lovci. He is a member.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And I might say a very able member from the
viewpoint of being able to present the facts and do tremendous statis-
tical studies on this matter.
Mr. Lovci. A very able member who was seriously disabled in
World War I.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think he feels in his own mind quite justified in
taking a strong position that the law does not recognize the man who
assumes responsibility and then because he has few years of service
is retired for disability in combat.
This, of course, is a part of the pay system. Exactly what Mr. Lovci
is talking about here, that a man, particularly in wartime, may go up
fast to the grade of captain with 2 or 3 years of maximum service, then
when he is retired for disability?and let's forget whether he recom-
putes at 75 percent or whether he computes on the basis of the degree
of disability, because in the cases that you are talking about these
people for the most part would still be entitled to 75 percent; that is,
maximum retirement.
Mr. Low'. True, but his case is an exception to this, and we have
others like it, or similar.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am saying, most of your members are members
that are quite severely disabled, and would probably run 60 to 75 per-
cent even under current ratings of disability?
Mr. Lova" Well, I would expect.
Mr. BLANDFORD. In the past the pay increases have been so small,
because we have not increased the pay of the obligated man, if you
remember, the man with under 2 years service, and with only small
increases at the early stages, that as a result the cost-of-living increases
have always exceeded the increases in basic pay.
Now? their case is valid from their viewpoint, because in many cases
these people must go to the Veterans' Administration, where actually
the amount of compensation they can draw from the VA is higher than
their retirement. pay. There isn't any question about it. I don't know
what the statistics are, but I am sure there are many of these officers
who are drawing compensation from the VA. This would be par-
ti.culary true of an officer who needs an attendant, or the special pro-
visions for those who are blind, or the paraplegic cases.
Mr. Lover.. Statutory
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, the statutory extra compensation allowances
that are provided.
However, this has been a problem I believe since the first retirement
laws went into effect in 1862, that the short-term officer who is paid the
lowest?at the lowest rate because pay increases by longevity, then
goes out on a lower pay if he is unfortunate enough to be retired for
disability very early in his career, because the 75 percent multiplier
is always applied to a basic pay scale that is considerably smaller than
if then he had stayed on even in the same grade, and continued to serve
for 30 years.
85066--63?No. G---12
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/010241 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Lovci. And if f might interject in this particular ease, he is
deemed SO percent disabled, of course, which emit led Ilim to 75 wrcent
of retirement pay.
lit?Axroan. Yes.
Mr. Low'. Iint under the 1955 Pay Act, as you know, theie was
only a raise of percent for first or second 'lieutenants and first
lieutenants with under 3 years of service.
BLANnam. Yes, I renientber it very well.
Again, Mr. Lovci gets into the sante problem we face with every
single pay bill. The (tidy time that you have complete equal fly in a
pay bill is when yon agree upon a flat percentage LT everybody re-
gardless of their status----so long as you apply a flat percentage either
10 their retired pay or basic pay scales. this is the only way you ever
get complete equality at least to keep them where they were.
Nil% IA wci. True.
Mr. BLAsnroun. We did this in 1952, and your people were not
adversely affected in 1952. because everybody got a 4 percent increase.
ii didn't make any difference what law you retired under, you got a
straight 4 percent. In 1955. and hero we are faced with the same
oroblem again. it was a question of retention. A IwoJs looking ahead
to the future, of the problem of retaininp? people. S'o we made spot
increases in the basic pay scales. I lere we are doing it again. It is
recommended again, because they have got to develop a inethot that
will improve the quality of the people who stay in the armed services.
What your judgment indicates is the same thing that Mr. McCloud
who has been writing to tile Committee on Armed Services about for?
since 1949, to the best of my knowledge, perhaps not. quite that early,
and I might say, very intelligent letters. He has been complaining
hat the disabled man. disabled early in his career, must for pratical
purposes go to the V...k tini be treatea as an enlisted man, even though
lie assumed the responsibility of an officer.
On the other hand, you can take the position that if he is correct
mu this assumption, then we should also apply the same principle .to
I he master sergeant, the man who rose quickly .from an E-1 to a mas-
ter sergeant. in. 2 years, and yet longevity increases there :L..e Si)
insignificant that. he too lias to go to the VA.
Mr. Lovcr. That was not an exclusion by oversight. But, of course,
we tit) represent the disabled officers.
Mr. lit.AxDroun. Yes. What I am saying is this problem is just a
built-in part of the problem of the whole retirement system.
Mr. Mynas. Let's confine ourselves. Let's not get too far off of the
hings we are talking about.
Mr. BLAxorono. Well, this is a very ;lliportant part of it. W-nit I
am indicating here, is the reason for the inequality they are telling us
about here today, for the disabled officers. There isn any real solu-
tion to it unless you decide to set up separate retirement systems for
people retired with short. years of service.
rlso answer Mr. Bates question, the percentage was 11,000 as opposed
to 50,000: 50,000 officers would receivc increases under reemnputa-
'lion, 11,000 will not receive increases. This is where the cost-Of-living
increase will be higher than the adjustment in the pay scales.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1575
Mr. BATES. What would be the maximum I Some of those are
senior officers, and that would be rather significant.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The maximum for example, the difference for ad-
justing to present pay scales in the case of the chief of staff, for ex-
ample, an 0-10, the monthly retirement would go from $1,014 a month
to S1,275 a month plus the 5-percent increase in the bill.
Mr. BAITS. That is rather significant for somebody in the senior
grades.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The increase will range
Mr. BATES. Say from 0-5, up to there, what would that be?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I haven't got that .figure.
Mr. BAT-Es. Is it also in the lower ranks that you have that
diversion?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. Basically you will have 108,000 enlisted men
who would receive minor increases ranging from $130 for the E-7, to
the lowest which would be $13 for an E-1, a year. 108,000 enlisted
personnel who would do better under recomputation than the 6-per-
cent increase in the cost of living, 37,390 enlisted personnel who do
better under the 6 percent cost of living than they would have done if
they had recomputed under the 1958 pay scale.
Mr. HARDY. That is the increase in the 1958 pay scale for that
particular group was rather small?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is exactly right.
Mr. Lova. Then, of course you have the factor of the 5-percent
increase which is advocated, Which, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics indicates that if you are going to take the compounded in-
crease and compare that to the schedules that they had, that increase
hasn't been very great.
Now this is for those individuals who are being paid under laws in
effect prior to the enactment of the 1949 Career Compensation Act. In
other words, the 1940 or 1942 law was amended in 1946.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The only difficulty in that, Mr. Lovei, which I call
to your attention, is if you figure it that way you better take into con.-
sideration the 10-percent increase in 1946,. which was substantially
more than the cost-of-living increase. So to be actually accurate in
your comparison, if you go back to 1942, it levels off at a -much more
significant increase than would appear if you used the date of retire-
ment as the example, that is all I am saying.
Mr. Lovm. But then we are getting into the recomputation.
- Mr. Timmy. We are getting into a detail here now.
Are there any further questions?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Blandford, who is our next witness, Mr. Scanlan?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Scanlan.
Mr. HAEnv. Mr. Scanlan, will you come up, please.
Mr. Lam. It has been a pleasure, gentlemen.
Mr. ILNitny. Mr. Scanlan, the committee is glad to have you. Have
a seat.
You can present the views of the Fleet Reserve Association; we
will be glad to receive it.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04ffl : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
STATEMENT OF FRED J. SCANLAN, NATIONAL SECRETARY, FLEET
RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. -SCANLAN. Thank you, sir.
Mit'. Chaim:in and dist inguished memhers of this committee, I ant
Fred .1. Scanlan, F.S. Navy, retired, national secretary of the Fleet
Ileserve Association, represent ing- our more than 52,000 members, both
active and Mart ive, who are vitally coir:erned with the provisious of
the bill before your committee. 1 ant confident that our association
represents the views of a large segment of the personnel of the Navy
and [a rine Corps.
I have prepared a statement which I Ivould like to present to he
committee.
The Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963, introduced as MIL :;006,
88t11 Congress, appears to be an excellent pay bill which, with some
modifications, will he of benefit to all menthers of the Armed Forces,
hot ii active and retired.
Certain provisions of this bill will provide incentive which will
help solve some of our service-manning problems, provide for reenlist-
meats in critical skills and thereby reduce the costly training programs.
We must obtain our recruits from what is referred to in industrial
circles as a "seller's market ." We must he prepared to pay the price
and offer additional inducements which will enhance 1 lw possibility
of these vault!, tnen making the service a career.
The Fleet Reserve. Association believes that there should he an
immediate adjust Ment in military pay scales to bring them into closer
balance with Government civilian pay scales, and those prevailing
lit private industry.
The so-called fringe benefits for military personnel on active duty,
and for those on the retired list, have been seriously curtailed during
the past 20 years. The huge chain supermarkets, the chain drugstores
and the discount houses equal or surpass our military stores in many
items on the market. Hospital benefits, once considered a long-
cherished and earned right for those who have served from 20 to 40
years on active duty, are in serious jeopardy because of .rite permissive
character of such services which have crept into the law since 1913.
M-any of the larger industrial organizations have better retirement
and hospital plans for their personnel t hail those in effect for the
military. Our civil service counterparts enjoy better hospital plats,
survivors' benefit plans, and take-home retirement pay than do our
service personnel. One example of this is a comparison between the
civil service survivors plan and the servi('emares family protection
plan: The par of a Navy commander (-0-5) in the medium retired
group would he :;:50-1- per month. l'inler the serviceman's family pi o-
tection plan he would have withheld from his retired pay S54 per
month: his widow would revive $'22F, per month, which would ic
increased to S329 per month at pa7e 62, when she qualified for social
security benefits. The civil service retiree, possibly in time grade 1_2
roup, would ret ire in a slightly older a7e group (55 as compared will)
I lie. -IS years of a age for the Navy commander). The civil ervi,e
annuitant would receive S:590 per month. [[is survivors' benefit ph..n
vvould cost. him S37 per month, and his widow would receive $325 per
month, 1-e7ardless of her age at that I i me.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1577
The Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, in forwarding the
military pay bill, commented on the retired pay situation. He cites
the example of a colonel retired on May 1, 1958, after 30 years of serv-
ice; and a colonel retired on June 1, 1958, the difference in pay between
the two officers who have identical services is. approximately $1,000
per year. Are we going to perpetuate this inequity?
We believe the Department of Defense's approach in computing
retired/retainer pay is most unrealistic. Every man on the retired
rolls and on active duty has been told by the recruiting officials that
his retired pay would be based upon the active duty pay scales. I
well recall while serving on recruiting duty explaining that fringe
benefits, consisting of hospitalization rights, commissary, PX ( shi p' s-
store in the Navy) and retired pay based on active-duty pay was par-
tial compensation for the low pay and long and arduous hours of
work demanded of the military man. There are thousands of enlisted
personnel now retired who earned only $21 or $36 per month for many
years during the 1920's, the 1930's and early 1940's. It is dishearten-
ing to the service man to be told he is expecting too much after he has
faithfully completed his part of the contract. By other action the
Department of Defense is taking steps to curtail hospitalization privi-
leges for retired personnel and their dependents. The commissary
privileges for the military are under constant attack and costs have
increased to the point where savings realized in many areas are mean-
ingless. If the faith is not kept with these men then I must predict
the present active duty man will think twice before he decides to make
a career of the military life.
Gentlemen, we may spend billions of dollars for the best military
hardware in the world, but if we do not have the trained and dedicated
career personnel to man this equipment, it will not reach its full
utilization when it is most urgently needed.
The male citizen who performs no military service has an unfair
economic advantage over those who are inducted or enlisted in the
military services. Some of these men serve for 2, 3, or more years.
Others make the military service their career in the service of their
country. The man who stays at home has many advantages in life.
He can remain with his family. He can buy a home as he is not on
the. move every 2 or 3 years. He gets a head start in competing for
civilian employment. The career service man can seldom hope to
overcome this .handicap when he returns to civilian life.
I am quoting herewith from a national magazine, "Newsweek,"
issue. of February 4, 1963. This magazine has a circulation of ap-
proximately 2 million, with perhaps a reader coverage of twice that
amount:
Around the world, while other Americans clucked over the prospects of a
record budget's spending, military servicemen?some 2.7 million strong?griped
that so little of it would boost their pay.
Last week Lloyd Norman, Newsweek's Pentagon correspon dent,
reported:
The Armed Forces are downright unhappy with Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara's new pay bill proposing an average of 14.4 percent increase?
at a cost of $900 million more in fiscal 1064 added to the $12 billion annual
military payroll. The cost of the pay boost beginning October 1 would rise to
more than 1.2 billions in later years.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
(578
They keep nibbling away at our pay and privileges until we are second-class
cif
'/A'flS---
grill ed a Navy petty officer in Norfolk.
Talk about segregation. What do you think they are doing to us?
What worried many professional military men is that the servicemen's status
is declining not only below the professional, technical, and mauagenunt per-
sonnel in industry, but below civil service.
A reflection of the erosion in the prestige of military service was disChised
in a recent Department of Defense opinion ?ilirvey. Teenagers ranked military
officers with college professors in fourth place on a list of ID occupativns, but
equated enlisted personnel In 14tlit place with bookkeepers and 111161111011. Adults
rated officers in seventh place between grade-school teachers and farnwrs, put
enlisted men near the bottom with garage mechanics and barbers.
Newsweek, in addition to the above, has commented upon the fact
that many service families are living in substandard housing areas
and because of limitation of income, would qualify- for re-lie. pay-
ments. Such startling facts as are brought out ill this article present
a very poor image of the career military man. It cannot help but
have a deleterious effect on our recruitment and manning pr&?lems.
Recommendat ions: I -mkt. section 206(a ) of title 37, United States
Code, commencing in line 1, page 3, of this bill, the Fleet Reserve As-
sociation believes that all military personnel ordered to active duty
should receive the same basic rate of pay, based on grade and service.
On retired and retainer pay, commencing on line 1G, page 11, of this
bill, we recommend that retainer and retired pay of the members of
the uniformed services be geared to active duty basic pay, the time-
honored custom for more than 100 years; that the rates be as pre-
scribed in section 2(a), section 203 of title 37, United States Code,
commencing on line 5, page I, of this bill. That basic pay in future
years be not changed; that future increases in basic pay be based on
a study of the consumer price index, as set forth in paragraph 1401a,
chapter 71, title 10, United States Code, commencing on line 15.
page 13, of this bill; and that future percentage increases obtained
in this manner be applied to those personnel entitled to retaine and
retired pay.
The pay increases recommended in several grades do not compensate
for the increase in the cost of livin!, during the past 10 years. Civil
Service employees have had several increases in pay since 1952 em-
ployees in civil industry have had several increases during this period
cif time. Tlw. union officials are constantly seeking to improve the
pay scales and fringe benefits. Iii furthering this concept of paying
an adequate wage for career military personnel, the Fleet Reserve As-
sociation recommends an increase of approximately 5 percent for flu.
officers and enlisted personnel indicated on attached enclosure (A).
The Fleet Reserve Association rejects the concept- of special pay for
dutv involving unusual hardship as being unreal ist ii mid very difficult
to administer. This type of pay is described on page 18, line 5, of this
bill. Instead, we recommend the retention of special pay for sea_ and
foreign duty, page 17, line G, of this bF1 tind covered in section 3o5,
title 37, United States Code. At present these monthly payments
range from $8 to $22.50 per month. We further recommend that all
warrant. officers and commissioned officers in pay grades 0-1 and 0 -2
be ent i fled to such imy.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2179
? CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
i5
Under proficiency pay, as contained in paragraph 240, title 37,
United States Code, we recommend that such pay be abolished as
it has not accomplished the job it was designed to do?retraining
critical skills in the military service. We have received several thou-
sand letters in the past 5 years, including more than 50 percent from
those now in receipt of proficiency pay, who are unhappy because of
the inversions occurring and the constant fear that their next duty
assignment may not carry such an increase and they would be required
to revise their scale of living downward. Instead, it is recommended
that all personnel, including critical skills, who are in all respects
qualified for advancement in grade, be paid an amount equal to one-
half the basic pay and allowances which would be due them in their
next higher grade. On line 1, page 18 of this bill, we recommend
retention Of authority for responsibility pay. While the Department
of Defense has not used this authority since the passage of the 1958
Pay Act, it may be useful in insuring the retention of officers below
flag rank who are contemplating voluntary retirement with less than
30 years' service.
Career incentive payment (reenlistment allowance) as described
on page 19, line 3, of this bill: We believe that an increase in the re-
enlistment allowance or bonus is long overdue. We recommend that
the allowance for critical skills be increased from $2,400 to $4,000
and be spread over a period of 16 years; further, that the allowance for
noncritical skills be increased from $500 to $3,000 and be spread over
a like period of time. To differentiate so greatly between the two
types of career enlisted personnel will certainly result in a decrease
in reenlistments of those in noncritical skills.
The Fleet Reserve Association is of the opinion that the subsistence
allowance for enlisted personnel should be at the rate of $2.57 per day.
The subsistence allowance currently in effect in some instances is
figured at $1.95 per day.
In paragraph 311 (f ), section 12(a), chapter 5, title 37, United
States Code, commencing on line 17, page 21, of this bill, we recom-
mend that the wording 'Secretary of Defense" be deleted and the
wording "Secretary of the uniformed services concerned" be inserted.
Effective date: This item is contained on page 39, line 6, of this bill.
The Fleet Reserve Association, realizing that an increase in pay for the
Armed Forces is long overdue, recommends that the effective date of
this bill be January 1, 1963, or the first day of the month following
the passage of this bill.
I have appreciated the opportunity of appearing before the com-
mittee and expressing the views of the Fleet Reserve Association. I
shall be happy to answer any questions relating to any items contained
in this statement. I do not have any figures on the cost of some of my
recommendations. I believe that the retention of sea and foreign duty
pay will not differ greatly from pay proposed for special pay for
duty involving unusual hardships.
I am of the opinion that incentive advancement in grade would ap-
proximate the present cost of proficiency pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I
Exhibit A above referred to is as follows :)
EXIITIIIT A
PropoRed pay rates
E-1
(7ra4.1t4 I ()vox 12 I OVVF i .1 '
1 320 i 25.)
5O I 241
Over 16 1 Over 8
ON or a)
Over 22
Over 26
E 4i
315 ;
325
336
346 !
K-7
352 !
352
373
383 1
391
430
472
\V-1
409 "
425k
441
457 !
472 !
W.,
4441 ::
452
478 .
493 i
509
530
()-3
499 ;
630 1
514
5 5.1
5311 ;
546 1
567
588
604
(1 -1.
557 1
698
730 1
761 ;
0-5
69:4 '
740
7118 1
1445 ;
877 'i
913
0-6
771
71N
924 ;
971 !
99'2 !
1.050
1,139
i ?
I
_
Thar finishes my statement, sir.
Mr. MyEns. Thank you very much, Mr. Scanlan.
Are there any questions from any of the members of the committee?
Mr. Timmy. Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, I notice the
revonimendat ions for the reenlist ment allowance, for critical skills, to
be increased from $2,400 to $4,000. What is the basis for selecting the
figure. of $4,000?
Mr. SCAN1?1N. Well, it hits been $2,o01) for several years, now, for all
ratings. On a. scale of 20 years, you could get $2,000. It is about the
only time that enlisted men get a sufficient bonus to put a downpay-
Inca on a home, or buy a new ear. He doesn't, have that opportunity
as a serviceman, where he would have that in industry where they do
pay bonuses occasionally.
think by phasing him out for 16 years we would keep the people
who are borderline eases, who think :hey may want to quit after 12
years, when they are 30 years of age.
Mr. Munn% If you phase that. over 10 years, I don't know what
your maximum payment would be at any one reenlistment. have you
figured that out?
Mr. S(71NLAN. No: I believe that would be an administrativo prob-
lem.
Mr. IlAenv. I am thinking in terms of how much it would mean
Fl) the individual reenlisted man as he reenlisted. ILow much would
he get in order to make the downpayment on the house?
Mr. ScANI.A.N. I believe the first bonus should be $1,000 after com-
plet ing the first cruise.
Mr. HARDY. It depends on using a figure multiplied by.a number
(if years for service, and related to the number of years in his reenlist-
ment ?
Mr. ScAxt-vx. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIAM/Y. But 1 was just trying to understand whether you had
any basis lor this particular figure, or whether this just scented to you
to be a reasonable figure to promote reenlistment ?
Mr. SCANLAN. That is right.; yes.
Mr. Thumr. Thank you.
Mr. IiivEas. Mr. Bates.
Mr. BATEs. No questions.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:56A-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Scanlan, you say that in letters you have re-
ceived from the members of Fleet Reserve about proficiency pay,
most of them have complained about it, or are opposed to the payment.
We have heard that before.
Would you say most of the complaints are because of the fact the
law has not (a) been adequately implemented, or (b) they have to
take an examination every year, or (c) they are never sure they are
going to continue to ,o-et it, or is it the entire concept of proficiency pay
they are opposed to?
Mr. SCANLAN. I believe it is the entire concept. Where you have
a low-rated man, where there is a limitation in the amount of money
available, and you have a lower rated man in a division, one or two,
the only two that can get it, drawing the proficiency pay, and some
senior-rated men, chief petty officers, or first class, who may be drawing
less pay than the second-class petty officers.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, aren't you recommending practically the
same thing, however, when you say it should be half the basic pay in
the next grade ?
Mr. SCANLAN. If he is qualified.
Mr. BLANDFORD. What is the difference between half?what is the
difference to the man who draws the pay, whether he gets it based
on half the pay of the next higher grade or as proficiency pay, it is
still a greater amount of money? how does your solution solve the
problem of the objections you receive to the concept of proficiency
pay? I don't quite follow you.
Mr. SCANLAN. Incentive promotion would be available to all of
them.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is available to everybody now.
Mr. SCANLAN. -Well, I am talking about their block by quotas, now.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, the law also permits them to pay proficiency
pay by giving the pay of the next higher grade, that is already in the
law.
Mr. SCANLAN. I don't see it implemented.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, it is in the law. This is probably one of the
biggest blank checks Congress ever gave the Department of Defense,
and it is one they haven't filled out yet, on proficiency pay.
Mr. RIVERS. T. might say, Mr. Hardy wasn't the only one on the com-
mittee who belonged to the Fleet Reserve.
Had you finished?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I was going to ask about the $1.95, when messing
facilities are not available, the law says not to exceed I think $2.e.
Are you advising this committee that there are people who are in
areas where there are absolutely DO messing -facilities available what-
soever,_and are only drawing $1.95? S
Mr. CANLAN. No.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Isn't this the case where the man may have break-
fast in the messhall and then be assigned to a duty where he gets a
pro rata of the $2.57, and that knocks it down to $1.95?
Mr. SCANLAN. I wrote to the Department of Defense about it. It
is a figure they are using to pay the man terminal leave pay now.
They do not pay him based on the $2.57, they pay him based on the
$1.95, and in figuring his terminal pay. That :figure has been in
effect, to the best of my knowledge, for over 30 years, $1.95 a day.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04122 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. litAxDroan. Well, that is a subject that I niust confess my
ignorance about. If he is get ting $1.95, as a terminal leave allowance,
per day, isn't this for quarters and subsistence?
Mr. Sc. NLAN. Yes.
Arr. BLANDFORD. That isnot justsubsistence?
Arr. SCANLAN. Quarters and subsistence.
Mr. Bi.. NDFORD. I el)11.1(111?t figure out where the S1_95 came in to
subsistence.
I have no further questions on that.
Mr. It lyrics. Thank you very much, Mr. Scanlan. We appreciate
very much your statement.
The next one is Dr. Hagan.
Dr. Hagan, we will be pleased to hear from you on behalf of the
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service.
You may have a seat arid proceed, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS L. HAGAN, COMMISSIONED GELICERS
ASSOCIATION OF THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
)r. HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cincinnati and members of I his subcommittee. I tun Dr. Thomas
L. lIagan, retired dental director of the U.S. Public Health Service.
.1 am indeed grateful for ticis opportunity to appear before (lie com-
mit tee to present the views of flue Commissioned Officers Association
or the U.S. Public I TPalth Service on 11.11. :MN, a bill "to increase the
rates of the basic pay for members; of the uniformed services, and for
(it her purposes."
The Connnissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public -Health
Service represents approximately 3.100 members. w Inch number in-
cludes over 70 percent of the career active duty personnel of that
service. These members are physans, dentists. scientists,. engi-
neers, nurses, and (it her categories of professional personnel in the
Cc?nmissioned Corps of the Public Health Service.
At the outset, the Commissioned 0111,ers Association urges Congress
to enact pay increase legislation. The association gcneraly supports
I F.I. 3006 but feels Eliot in certain areas this proposal not meet
the current needs of the Public Trealth Service.
The association agrees with that port ion of the Randall Committee
report which was presented to the President , ?vhich states that in order
to achieve further feasible reforms, the Department of Defense and
of her interested agencies will undertake. further st tidies
looking toward achievement of a pay system which will make it possible (a)
do compare total military compensation with total compensation In other pay
systems. and I hi to attain comparabiliy between military compensation arid other
compensation in the broad sense of equality of treatment throughout careers.
Tito Randall Commit tee fun her stated that ?
carefully documented annual reviews of the adequacy of military compensa-
tion levels can he combined with further substantive studies to accelerate
remedial action. Such annual reviews also are needed to give assurance that
timely adjustments will be proposed in military compensation which are com-
mensurate with those recommended for Federal civilian compensation.
The proposed increase in the lower grades nutty help to some extent
to solve the recruitment problem at 111"iis level. I fowevt r, the Public
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :
RDP66600403R000400280006-0
health Service is faced with an acute problem in the recruitment and
retention of experienced scientific and professional personnel to pro-
vide leadership for major research and national health programs.
This is particularly true at the senior and director grade levels, 0-5
and 0-6. The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is unique
in that its entire personnel is derived exclusively from professions in
which they are trained outside the service and qualified prior to com-
missioning. Its programs involving extensive research and national
health leadership not only require medical and dental competence but
engineering, scientific, and related professional staff which are in
short supply. In order to maintain the continued high standard of
programs vital to the health of our Nation, pay insuring proper re-
cruitment and retention should be provided to these officers. We urge
that the committee and the Congress provide higher proportionate
increases in the base pay for the 0-5 and 0-6 grades.
The Public Health Service faces a serious morale problem in re-
taining its high caliber commissioned officers due to the lack of com-
parability between the civil service pay system and that of the com-
missioned corps as has been stated publicly by the Surgeon General
and the Director of the National Institutes of Health. The year 1958
was the last in which both the civil service and commissioned pay rates
were adjusted. However, as a result of the last of three civil service
pay raises since 1958, the final step of which goes into effect in 1964,
previous levels of comparability between the two systems have sub-
stantially deteriorated. This lack of comparability jeopardizes the
essential career system of the Public Health Service when officers who
supervise civil service personnel receive $150 to $200 a month less
pay.
It is further hoped that this committee and the Congress will con-
sider additional pay for scientific, engineering, and other highly
trained professional categories in short supply. This will greatly as-
sist the Public Health Service in recruiting and retaining better
qualified scientific personnel for longer periods of service. It is sug-
gested that the committee may construct some provisions authorizing
the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
on recommendation of the Surgeon General, to establish additional
pay up to $250 a month, similar in principle to provisions already
established in other Federal personnel systems, to provide for these
groups. This provision would allow for elimination of discrepancies
in pay among officers of allied professions operating at the same
echelon.
The relatively higher salaries offered by universities, research cen-
ters, and major State and local health departments, for highly quali-
fied biomedical, scientific, and professional personnel, constitutes still
another difficulty to the Public Health Service in the recruitment and
retention of its commissioned officers. This situation was graphically
pointed out by the Advisory Committee on Public Health Service
Personnel Systems which was chaired by Marion B. Folsom and
contained in the committee report of March 20, 1962.
Tho Randall Committee report took cognizance of the importance
of the Public Health Service situation and listed as one of the
further problems deserving consideration "the need for special pro-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/9441 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
visions in the military pay system applicable to the compensation of
professional personnel in the conunissioned corps of the U.S. Public
fealth Service."
Mr, Chairman, I would like to enter in the record a short addi-
t ional statement of sonic importance.
o committee questioning of certain witnesses yesturday, an obser-
vation was made that the nonmilitary groups are the only ones in
favor of tins bill. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the Commis-
sioned Officers Association of the Public Health Service. I would like
to emphasize that the officers of the Public Health Service are rot in
favor of all aspects of this bill, nor is the management personnel of
the. Public I health Service; although Public Health Service direct
test imony indicated that ILE. 300G was a forward step in the resolu-
ion of complex pay problems, serious concern exists, Mr. Chairman,
with respect to the disparity between the pay of the 0 .5 and 0 6 pay
grades, and pay for comparable responsibility level of the civil service
grades.
This feature of the bill will provide very little help in recruitment
and retention of highly qualified officers who are so sorely needed.
In summary, the Commissioned( fficers Association of the V.S.
Public Health Service recommends :
1. Increased pay in the 0-5 and 0- 6 pay grades.
2. Provisions for additional pay at the discretion of the Secr.lary
of Health, Education, and Welfare for certain shortage and highly
trained categories.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity tit present
testimony on behalf of the Commissioned Officers .kssociat ion of (lie
U.S. Public I [call It Service.
Mr. RivEas. Thank you very much.
Mr. HARDY. Let me ask him one question, Mr. Chairman.
Doctor, you referred to testimony, I suppose, from Dr. Diamond?
Dr. HAGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HArtirr. I just. wonder if Dr. Diamond's testimony with respect
to the general acceptance of this bill was a reflection?do you have
any knowledge whether this \vas a reflection of any instruct ions from
upstairs?
In other words. I ant wondering whether you have the same iiroh-
lem in IIFW that the military services have in i lie Department of
Defense?
Dr. HAGAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hardy. I think if there had been
time for direct questions of Dr. Diamond you would have received
tlie same kind of comments.
Mr. TIARDY. We just didn't ask him the right questions?
Dr. HAGAN. I don't want to be critical, sir.
Mr. IIAnny. I am not. crit ical, and I don't want you to be critical,
but I want to find out. what the situation is.
Dr. HAoAN. I think that is it, essentially, sir.
Mr. HAtenv. The aspects of Diamond's testimony showed unquali-
fied support of this legislation as a step in the right direction.
You think that may have been a reflection of top-lex el policy rather
than his own personal views?
Dr. HAGAN. Well, of course, it was An administ rat ion bill Ito was
talking to.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21ggIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. HARDY. Of course, of course, a reflection of the chain of com-
mand, I take it?
DT. HAGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. Thank you.
Mr. BENNETT. Doctor, were you here during most of the hearings?
Dr. HA.GAN. Yesterday's hearing Sir.
Mr. BENNETT. Were you here when the Air Force testified?
Dr. HAGAN. I got in the last part of it. I hope I can remember it.
Mr. BENNETT. Do you remember the improved kind of bill he had
in mind?
Dr. HAGAN. No, sir; I couldn't bear him very well from where I
was sitting. I got in late.
Mr. BENNETT. He had a sanctioning through the Air Force of a
number of people, with a bill that came up in two increments. They
had a bill something like the bill before us here and another incre-
ment attached to it which was going to go into effect next year, which
would lead this committee to have another hearing next year.
It seems to me if you feel this bill needs improvement you might
get in touch with the Air Force, because they have been instructed
to get thi.s idea over to other branches of the services and let us have
the views of other branches of the services.
I would suggest if you really want to improve this bill from the
standpoint of improving the amounts, you might find that a possible
vehicle by contacting the Air Force and getting their proposed sub-
stitute, and then let us have your views on that, as a matter of put-
ting it in the record later on. It seemed to me to be a pretty good idea.
Dr. HAGAN. Thank you, sir. I don't know if the Air Force will give
us the bill, but the Public Health Service may be able to obtain it.
Mr. BATES. What is your problem with 0-5 and 0-6?
Dr. HAGAN. I think Mr. Blandford this morning received from the
Public Health Service a statistical chart, if it is the one I think it is,
that makes a very definite comparison between the pay grades and
the inequity between the pay.
Mr. RIVERS. I have a chart here somebody handed me, Mr. Bates,
yesterday.
Dr. HAGAN. That isn't mine, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Comparing the 0-6 with the GS-14.
Dr. HAGAN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. RIVERS. It starts off. in 1949, and how they were close then, and
how the 14 had pulled off to the extent of, oh, I think some $1,500.
Dr. HAGAN. I think that is what this chart will show, sir.
Mr. BATES. Isn't that the Air Force statement?
Mr. RivERs. It probably was, yes.
I am going to show this to the committee. Originally it was his
idea legislation would keep these two areas very close. Now, the
G5-14 has left them.
Dr. HAGAN. That is right, sir.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BATES. Was this in General Stone's statement?
Mr. HARDY. I have a chart here that is supposed to be?it hasn't
any signature on it?but it is supposed to be the Gorham comparabil-
ity study.
Mr. RIVERS. Restricted to civil service people.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04fgAti CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. I LARDY. Yes. It shows a comparison. It is not broken down,
where you can get the actual dollars, but it_ indicates that a (S-14
currently is just slightly above an 0-5, considerably below an 0-6.
An executive GS-14 would lw a lilt le more. above the- 0-5, but still
wouldn't beat the 0- -G.
I )r. HAGAN. I don't have those data, Mr. I lardy, I am sorry.
Mr. Itivims. I said 14, ii was (1S-15.
They started back hem in 1949. they vere pretty close.
Mr. I landford, do you have any quest ions?
Mr. litAxDroan. Only t his point, Mr. Chairman, that the Randall
Commission indicated there was a problem for the Public I lea Ith
Service. and I think the problem probably can be summetl up by saying
t hat in the Public I [malt h Service more t ban anyplaee else you have
civil service physicians, dentists, and scientific personnel?
Dr. HAGAN. Principally scientific personnel.
lit,Axnronn ( rout liming). Working side by side with the com-
missioned officers of 11w Public I kali I, Service living in the szn?e city,
doing exactly ilw same work, and receiving $3,0{10 a year more salary.
It that about it ?
)r. II MIA N. About it. I think you are ?SSC!) iahlv correct, sir.
Mr. Iii.AxDroun. This, of course, is true of t he other services, except
you don't have such a poignant reminder of it lit the Navy. for example.
because yon don't have a Navy civil service doctor in the same
dispensary.
Dr. I [AGA N. 'lint is t rue.
NI F. BLA NIM110). So I he prObleIll is 1 lie sanie ill I he other services.
Any doctor today in t he armed services can go to the Veteran's 1(1-
iii ion. fill out a him 57. and be assured of at least $2,000 a year
more t Ilan he is making now.
Dr. IIAGAx. Vint is right.
'Mr. BLAxnroan. No matt yr %vim( grade he is now in.
Dr. II-AuLtx. Yes, sir.
Mr. ItivEtts. Is there anything else, Mr. lilandford
Mr. Ih.ANDronn. No. sir.
Mr. HI VEUS. 'thank von very much, Dr. Hagan.
I )r. 1 LGA N. Thank you very much.
liivras. Our next wit ness is 1 he concluding witness. Mr. John
hel her.
Is Mr. Keller here?
Mr. Ilizocrwortn. Yes. M but we have a representa-
tive from the ("oast Guard.
Mr. Rivtats. Cmne up and give the reporter your name.
Mr. WI 'TWEE?. i f Warrant 011icer Whit weir, '.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. ItivERs. I lave a seat, sir. You :UV going to speak On behalf of
Mr. Keller.
STATEMENT OF CWO JOHN A. KELLER, U.S. COAST GUARD
All'. WW1' \VER. Mr. Chairman, it. is a privilege to appear on behalf
of Mr. Keller and the Warrant Officers Associat ion.
I would like to enter on behalf of Mr. Keller and die associat 'tin, an
addendum for our statement. I have Iwo copies here, one for Mr.
HIa:dford and one for the clerk, or to whomever it should go.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21891A-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Mr. RicvEns. All right, go ahead.
(The addendum is as follows:)
This statement is in response to the statement of Hon. L. Mendel Rivers, chair-
man, Subcommittee No. 1, House Committee on Armed Services, and is in addition
to the statement that was previously submitted to this committee..
Our association would like to go on record as heartily approving the following
recommendations:
(1) That the H.R. 3006 will be made effective on the first day of the first month
following the month in which it is enacted.
(2) That any individual who retires during calendar year 1963 will be able
to compute his retirement pay under the new pay scales when they go in effect.
For reasons given in Chairman Rivers' statement both these provisions are
most necessary and equitable.
We applaud the increases in the basic pay scales of $15 for W?l's and W-2's
and $10 for W-3's and W-4's. However, we still firmly believe that the four
warrant officer pay scales should be identical to the first four commissioned
officer scales.
John A. Keller, chief warrant officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. WnrrwEn. I would like to have noted, Mr. Chairman, my service
career runs very closely parallel with Mr. Keller from the standpoint
of rank, time in service, and general chronology, the fact that we pro-
gress generally through the same pattern throughout our past 22 and
23 years.
The statement of C.W.O. John A. Keller, U.S. Coast Guard, indi-
vidually and on behalf of the Chief Warrant Officers Association, U.S.
Coast Guard.
My appearance here, and this statement, is with the knowledge of
Admiral Roland, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, I might add at
this point.
Mr. BATES. Where is Mr. Keller today?
Mr. WIIITWER. Due to illness in the family, he is unable to attend,
sir. (Reading:)
My name is John A. Keller, and I am a chief warrant officer on active duty
with the U.S. Coast Guard. I appear before this subcommittee of the House of
Representatives Armed Services Committee both individually and as an author-
ized representative of the Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association of
the U.S. Coast Guard, of which I am the vice president and chairman of the
legislative committee. I have served as an active member of the U.S. Coast
Guard for 22' years.
I enlisted in the service at the age of 18, at the rank of apprentice seaman,
upon my graduation from high school in Lynch, Nebr. It was my intention, as
it still is, to make my career in the Coast Guard and to serve my country as an
active member of this service. After 181/2 years as an enlisted man, I was
appointed to the rank of warrant officer. During that time, I served in various
parts of the United States and the Pacific area.
The Warrant Officer Corps makes up approximately one-fourth of the officer
corps of the U.S. Coast Guard. It takes an average of 15 years for an individual
to attain the rank of warrant officer in the U.S. Coast Guard. Many serve as
long as 18 or 19 years before attaining that rank.
By this time, each individual is proficient in at least one specialty with many
years of practical experience.
These specialized experiences are both vital and necessary to the Coast
Guard in order to carry out its functions in the realm of national defense and
domestic protection.
The Coast Guard warrant officer carries responsibility with his rank equiva-
lent to that of higher officers in the armed services. Warrant officers in the
Coast Guard serve as commanding officers of certain types of buoy tenders,
lightships, and harbor tugs. They also serve as commanding officers of supply
depots, radio stations, group commands, and lifeboat stations.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04% : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Yet for all this responsibility under the present pay status they are compen-
sated at substantially lesser rates than those of individuals serving in the
armed services holding comparable commissioned grades.
Although commissioned officer grades and the corresponding warrant, officer
grades have identical entitlement to quarters allowance and weight allowances
for shipment of household goods, the warrant officer is discriminated against
in the pay scales. For although the individual assignments and responsibilities
generally are the same as higher ranked officers both in the Coast Gnarl itself
and the other serviees, his rate of pay is signifirantly less.
On behalf of the Chief Warrant Officers Association, it .s our feeling that
here is a definite need for a revision in the basic pay scales of the Armed Forces.
Specifivally, the Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association believ,2s that
it would be fitting and proper that the basic pay scales of the warrant officer
grades be made equivalent to those of the first four officer grades, i.e., W4
equivalent to 0-1; W-2 equivalent to 0-2: W-3 equivalent to 0-3; and W-4
equivalent to 0-4.
In order to correct this apparent inequality, we submit that there should be
a revision in the basic pay scales to reflect compensation for the warrant officer
in the Coast Guard equivalent to his line of responsibility and his tenure as a
member of that organization.
The warrant officer, in general, has been neglected in the Acid of equality of
pay. Some services, such as the Navy, have seen fit to phase out the warrant
officer and to substitute his duties with that of a limited duty officer. However,
b is my understanding that the policy of the U.S. Coast Guard is to keep its
Warrant Officer Corps as an equivalent part representing approximately 25
percent of its commissioned officer corps. Under the present situation, men
serving in the grades of E-8 and E-9 can and do draw salaries higher than those
of Coast Guard warrant officers under whom they serve in the various respon-
sibilities of the Coast Guard.
In order to attract the best caliber of men to serve in the Warrant Officer
(7orps of the Coast Guard, and to serve as warrant officers in all of the other
services, it is necessary that their basic pay rates be more equivalent to what
they could earn as civilians.
We further believe that retired pay should be directly related to activ2 duty
scales. To omit a provision of this kind would be to discriminate against
retired members who have devoted their lives and energies to the service of their
country both in times of peace and war in harrying occupations.
I would like at this point to read from the addendum. However, it has been
provided for the record.
In conclusion. may I express my humble appreciation and gratitude to this
esteemed committee and its honored members for listening with such patience
to my statement. I sincerely hope that my single voice will not be drowned in
the sea and the multitude of the other witnesses appearing before this
7ommission.
Respectfully submitted.
.Tony A. KELLER.
Chief Warrant Officer, 17..N. Cease Guard, Vice President, Chief Warrant and
Warrant Offieurs Association, U.S, Coast Guard, Chairman, Legirlatire
committee, Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers ,Issociation, U.s. Coast
Guard.
Mr. RIVERS Thank you. Mr. Whit w-er. It looks like we have gotten
a lot done that you wanted done.
Mr. Wit rrwEa. Yes, sir, you have.
r. RtvEns. We have got down to :3 and .1.
:11r. AVitrtwEa. Yes, sir.
E UVEllS. how much did our revised bill allow ?
Mr. BLANnroan. I think actually it was more---it was merely an
oversight on the part of Mr. Keller. He did not include the endorse-
ment- I am sure of moving the :;Z(tSt:',., of the AV I. back to the oyer-i).6
point . I assume you are not opposed to that.
Mr. WorrwEa. No. sir: Mr. Blandford.
Mr. RIVERS. You don't object to that ?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2115
A-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Wurrwmi. No, sir; I think Mr. Chairman, our endorsement here
is far short. We heartily agree in many other instances. Mr. Keller
was attempting to keep this brief and touch on the major points.
Mr. &vim-is. I was impressed with a letter sent to me by one of your
organizations from Baltimore. It brought ou the problem of E-9's,
Mr. Blandford. I wish you would explore that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This will not be new to the Coast Guard Warrant
Officers Association. I might say in preface to my remarks, that
strangely enough this little organization consisting I think of
about 1,900 members out of a total of about 2,100 warrant officers in.
the Coast Guard, almost singlehandedly convinced the Department of
Defense and this committee that we should have a Warrant Officer
Act which this subcommittee wrote in 1954.
All other warrant officers have benefited as a result,, because the
warrant officers never had a statutory promotion system, they had
no guarantees, no guaranteed consideration for prOrtlet1011.7.110W they
have.
However, the Warrant. Officer Act- is the basis. .fpr the iiNged.dis7
crimination in the pay scales now. Remember, we wrote the Warrant
Officer Act in 1951.- We created the E-9- mid E-8 grades in 19iS-
Mr. PayEas. 'That is right, we wrote that. -
Mr, BLANDFORO.. The E-8 and E-9 grades Were to relievea trettlell-
dons compression in the enlisted grades where there was AO tilaee for
the enlisted man to go, and the average man was obtaining a . grade- of
EJT at about the 12-year point.
Therefore, he was losing interest. Tie couldn't .go. beyond 'that.. So
we created E-8 and E-9 grades.
Prior to that, in 1954 for the first time in thehistory of -warrant
officers, and parenthetically I might add warrant officers are even
older than commissioned officers in history?that the warrant officers
had no guaranteed statutory promotion system. So we provided in.
the law t'that for permanent promotion they would serve not more
than 3 years as W-1, not more than 6 as W-2, not more than 6 as W-3,
and 6 as W-4, and then we also said that upon the completion of a
total of 30 years of service-60 days after completing a total of 30
years of service, warrant officers must retire. That is the reason that
we suggested that the increment be moved back to the over-26 point.
Now,
we wrote the Warrant Officer Act in 1951. At that time it was
our intent, and I. must say that this has never been implemented by
anyone except the Marine Corps to any extent at all, but it was our
intent that the warrant officer program would be available to an en-
listed man who had about 6 or l'years of service. He could then
elect to choose whether he wanted to go into a career as a warrant
officer. He might want to go in to OCS. lie might want to gO into
the Navy LDO program if in the Navy or Marine Corps, or he could
continue on in the enlisted program and get the highest enlisted
grade. But the warrant grade was supposed to start with W-1, with
about 6 or 7 years of prior enlisted service. This was fine, and
every-
body thought it was a great idea, except that no one paid any attention
to it, because they are still commissioning people as W-1's with 17, 18,
and 19 years of service.
they Now to the best of my knowledge, there. is no reason why tly can't
commission a man as a W-2, of W-3, if necessary, in order to make
85066-63?No. 6-13
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/21:: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
his law intelligently adinini Acre, I. But t he discrepancy bet Nyco' the
E?s and E-9, and the W-1 awl W-2, is because they are making
them warrant officers, when they !lave many years of eillisted service,
and they are not implementing the law which contemplated that these
warrant officers would be made al about the 6- or 7-year point, when
they would be E--1's, not E-7's. S's, or 9's.
Today a man who wants to buconte a career serviceman, should
make up his mind whether he wants to become a career enlisted man,
and he can go up to the E-9 grade, with a maximum pay of $560,
or he can decide he will become a warrant officer. It is harder to
get, but he can go there because maximum pay under the proposal
is $685, or he can try to go to OCS, where he takes his chances as a
commissioned officer, but the pay scales that were written in the
law are geared to the implementation of the program, and frankly
I submit that it would he impossible to equitably write a pay scale
to fit a situation that has been created by poor management.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, I will tell you, the Navy is getting ready to do
away with the warrants.
Mr. BIANDFORD. And the Marine Corps is expanding.
Mr. RIVERS. The Marine Corps is expanding; yes, that is correct.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. RIVERS. I was more impressed that the need was in the Coast
Guard.
The Coast Guard has these little stations all over the United States,
on the mainland, in Alaska, Hawaii, and everywhere. Sonic of them
are in charge. This was brought out, and it is indispensable to the
Coast Guard. It impressed me very nmeh, what you said.
Mr. WurnvEn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RivErts. No branch of the service has really got the service out
of the "warrant" rank as has the Coast Guard. T listed to see it phased
out in the Navy. If you can't use them, they must have a reason for
it.
It brings me to this. In the development of the philosophy of your
retirement, pay and everything, you don't have anybody really plug-
ging for you, when these things are written. Like, for instance, you
come here, about this business of the pay.
Mr. WurrwErt. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I feel very strongly about what you have said.
Mr. IIAnwv. I think Mr. Blandford put his finger on the prchlem;
it is more a problem of administration.
Mr. RIVERS. There is poor mind nist rat ion all over the lot. You take
the $1.03, for enlisted men, that is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
Mr. WIIITWER. Mr. Chairman, we felt that we did have an area in
which you, the committee, might be interested in knowing where there
were some problems, and we presented it sincerely, and, I hope. effec-
tively. We do not hope for a final resolve of a problem of this kind
on a minute's notice, but we would like to get it in the record.
Mr. BLANDroan. Mr. Chairman, I would= like to suggest that if the
Coast Guard or the Army or anyone else wants to solve the warrant
officer problem, and put the. warrant. officers on an equitable basis, that
they merely have to accelerate the promotion points. This is not new.
Temporary promotion has been with us for many, many years, now.
If they want to bring the warrants up faster, so that they can adueve
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1? CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
591
the higher pay to put them on a parity with the officer scales where
they really belong, that all they have to do is make them eligible for
promotion that much sooner, and they have solved it. You don't have
to write a new pay scale to do it. This a question of administration.
Mr. WrinwER. Mr. Bland-ford, our promotion schedule now is in line
with what you recommend now, 2, 4, and 4, as against the maximum
3, 6, and 6. I presume you know this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, I do.
Mr. WiurwEn. They gave us the benefit of the doubt on that point;
at least td this point.
Mr. BLANDFORD. They are trying to solve the problem. So actually
you will 'eventually, when you move into the $685 maximum for a
W-1, be very close to the 0-4 grade?
Mr. WIIITWER. Yes' sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I still think I don't like that E-8 and E-9 being the
highest rate of pay.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, that wouldn't make any difference. If
the E-8 and the E-9 are supposed to be comparable with a higher
level of the warrant officer than the W-1 and W-2, that is where the
problem is.?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not only that, but you see every second
lieutenant
Mr. Rivnas. A warrant officer is not an enlisted man. An enlisted
man gets more than an officer. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe you can persuade me at some other time.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If you will look at your pay scales, you will See
there are many, many enlisted men who draw twice as much as the
second lieutenant.
Mr. RIVERS. They are worth more than the second lieutenant fresh
out of college. You can't compare them with a warrant officer or a
boatswain's mate, to save your life. You know god and well you
couldn't compare an ensign with a boatswain's mate.
Mr. Hminv. You let the man get more than a commissioned officer.
Mr. Rivigis. He is entitled to more in that case.
Mr. W I ITWER. Our sole defense in anything we have ever tried to
do has been the fact that we feel that, we have something to offer to
our organization, and constantly try to offer it to our best.
At some point in a man's career, presently in the Coast Guard, at
about 12 to 15 years, he must make a decision whether to become a
warrant officer or an E-8 or E-9. Now, if he continues in the E-8
and E-9, he continues to develop his technical skills, be does not take
on any additional command. He takes on no command responsibil-
ity?none of the responsibilities of an officer, even though he be a
junior type officer.
Mr. RIVERS. I think Mr. Bates agrees with me. The Coast Guard
is giving us extremely valuable service.
Mr. WTIIITWER. Thank you, sir, for the kind words.
Mr. RivERs. I think I would fike some time for somebody to tell
me how many Coast Guard stations we have got in this country;
everywhere you look they have a station. They have these boats
running over every harbor in America. I get this thing from the
Merchant Marine Committee, where I am a very unimportant mem-
ber. I know a little something about what you people do.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/Q412J : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I. think the Coast Guard, Mr. Bland ford, as you have observed,
does a wonderful job.
Gunsrn. I wonder if, in a short period of f ime, you could
explain the difference between the Coast Guard retirement. system
and the Army, Navy, Air Force, anal Marine Corps retirement system.
Mr. Wurrwiai. The retirement system
Mr. Gunsrai. Yes.
Mr. Wittrwrii. .ks applied to re Officer Corps'.
Mr. Gummi. Yes.
Mr. Wurrwrai. As far as I know, the laws and regulations governing
re .t lie sante. There may be some (title !fence in the other service as far
as implementation of this is concerned. I eouldn't testify to that.
Mr. Iii.ANnroito. There is one difference to which I think Mr. Gob-
ser is referring, that is one the GAO brought out not long ago, :hat a
commissioned warrant officer, temporary commissioned warra at of-
ficer, for example, who holds a permanent enlisted status, or (veil a
temporary officer in the Coast Guard, which I never knew until I
read about it the other day, a temporary commander, Coast Guard, or
'oast Guard Reserve, who had held a permanent enlisted status, and
had a 4-0 record for this whole career, draws 10 percent more. re-
tirement pay because of his having held this enlisted status, than the
commander who graduated from the Coast Guard Academy.
Mr. GUISSER. While you are on active duty you, of course, are en-
titled to use the facilities of the U.S. Public Health Service.
Mr. WiirrwEn. Yes, sir; and under medicare, other military medi-
cal facilities.
Mr. GuBSElt. What medical benefits do you have as a retiree, ii' any
Mr. WIIITWER. In the present progression of things, T will be en-
titled to less as time goes on, with the present programing for new
hospitals awl that sort of thing. I our about, I figure, 61,f2 years away
front retirement., but I feel our medical benefits. will be far less if the
present trend continues, when I retire, they will be less than thy are
now. I will he allowed hospitalization and medical care for myself
and my wife at this point.
Mr. Gunismt. You have a Public Service Hospital; is that cight ?
Mr. Winfrwra. Yes, sir. I believe I would still he able to go to the
nearest medical facility, Government medical facility, on this basis.
Mr. Gunsr.a. In other words, a person who is now retired from the
Coast Guard, has the right, to go to the nearest Government. medical
facility, is that right?
Mr. WITTTWER. I know he has the. right to go to the nearest Public
Health Service facility, and T believe this active duty privilege ex-
tends into his retirement.
Mr. lif.ANDFORD. It is now true, Mr. Gubser. We. wrote the Medi-
care Act here, if you remember, and there was some confusion everuil
years ago when Coast Guard personnel had to go to Baltimore to go
to the Public Health Service with the main Navy dispensary sitting
down on Constitution Avenue. We finally got that squared away.
Now, all members of the uniformed services may use medical fa
under the jurisdiction of the uniformed services.
Mr. WITITWER. Even into retirement,
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/215.91A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, on a space available basis. How much space
will be available, is something else.
MT. WHITWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. WILITWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandforcl, this is the last and concluding
witness?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. We will have a full committee meeting tomorrow. I
don't think we .can conclude the draft tomorrow., do you?
Mr. BLANDFORD. NO, we won't complete it probably until Tuesday.
Mr. GUBSER. I would be interested in knowing whether the full
committee is going to meet Saturday.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, we have requested
certain documentation which I trust will be forthcoming before very
long. I have received a copy of a communication from Admiral Set-
tle, expressing his dissent from certain recommendations, which I
would like to turn over to Mr. Blandford.
I also have before me a document which purports to be the section
on comparability from the study. I turn that over to Mr. Blandford
for his perusal. It has charts, Mr. Chairman, of comparability, which
don't seem to me to jibe with the ones that you had here a moment
ago. I believe they are in the data either presented or requested,
which was information with respect to the projected cot of the re-
tirement system under this proposal in 300G. I believe there is also
some information concerning what the projected cost would be if
the recomputation on the basic rates were provided all the way down
the line, instead of miffing off with the ones before the 1958 act.
There has been a question in my mind, and I am not sure whether
this has been requested, but there has been a question in my mind
as to the current cost to the Government, projected cost, of the civil
service retirement. ITas there been any request for that, Mr.
Bl dford ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not to my knowledge. The only thing, as I under-
stand the situation?I may be incorrect, but I have read portions of
the report?the contribution for civil service retirement comes no-
where near establishing the fund that will be necessary to pay civil
service annuitants, because there are conStant additions made or bene-
fits granted under this program, such as guaranteed minimums, when
there are increases, that were never covered by the annuities.
Mr. HARDY. That, is what I understand. That lathe reason I raised
this question, because if we are going ?to talk about the projected
cost of military retirement, usinc, a recomputation on the changes in
basic pay, then I think we ought to have before us at least so that
we will have all of the factors to consider?we ought to have before
us a similar projection of the cost to the Federal Government of civil
service.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, for a million people, I think that is about how
many there are, the cost is about?here it says 1.38 billions in 1958.
Estimated annual cost of the military increase is practically 1.2. It
covers 2.68, is that right?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/M.',CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
I. I inAxDFoito. Well. .Ws. would he the act ire ulutv forre? What
you have are approximately 3.-iti.000 people now in the retirel list at
a cost of 8L620 million.
Mr. RivEas. This t hat 1 ha ve, in order for I he military pay increases
to be comparable wit III hose already enaeted for the civil service, their
annual cost should be approximately 2.68 times 1.38. or 3.7 billion.
HARDY. Thal is an annual cost.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Mr. I [maw. I don't know what the solliTe 01 Hon IS.
Mi. RIVER. I wollId like for you to see this.
Mr. [Emmy. Since we are not going to meet for a while. I think if
we conld have as lintel' of this data assembled as we can it Nt ould be
helpful.
Mr. linANDronn. I will try to get the information for you, Mr.
Hardy. The problem, of course, is, you are comparing
.\ Ir. IlAitoy. Apples and peaches.
Mr. I ii..xxormin. Thal is right. Ii possible to ret ire in the civil
service with only 5 years of service, Then we hal e different. retire-
ment ages.
Mr. Rtynas. The Post Office has about Li.
Mr. fin:cum.-inn). Yes. The difficulty is, for example, xyLen you
project. a cost for a chief petty officor who retires at the age of 38,
and t ransfers the Fleet Reserve, then the cost of !hat man over his
life expectancy is going- to be considerably inure titan one wlic retires
at a litter age.
Mr. II I think we need to recognize these. facts.
MT. BLANDFORIL I Wi II try certainly to get as much as I can.
Arr. izivElls you can find out what the civil service annual cost is.
Mr. Iinallonono. I think von will find--1 ani not sure von will find?
you will find out what t he i1overnment pays out, but whet lien you find
out how 11111(711 I Ile (4n-eminent has to contribute. in order to come
out even for just the payment that year is something else.
:qr. I 1 Alan% Somebod v noisa have made an actuarial projeetion.
Mr. RIVERS. I think so, too.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I Would assume SO.
ME. RIVERS. See if you can find out.
Mr. lilandford, thinking out loud, we may Inure to have another
meeting with Mr. Paul.
Mr. BLANDroan. We haven't covered the proposed family separa-
tion allowance. We have not even discussed the readjustment pay for
regular enlisted personnel who are separated or who are not reealisted.
And we actually did not. discuss with Mr. Paul retirement. costs, and I
think that perhaps between now and Tuesday, with this much notice,
that they may be able to get some fig-tires on retirement, such, as Mr.
Hardy and you have suggested, Mr. Chairman, so that we could have
as much information on this question of projected retirement and
civil service retirement as we can possibly get together to make some
sense out of it.
Mr. RivEns. You do the best you can.
Mr. fir.,xxErr. Try to Hind out about that comparability study, see
how much this will cost, for the Air Force.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I was told. I don't know how correct this serv-
ice, whieh is the first increment would cost about $4,1 million, but the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/215.1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
second increment would go over a billion dollars. I don't know if this
is correct or not. It is a rather staggering sum.
Mr. BEN-NETT. Let us make it comparable. We voted very glibly
for the civil service people.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You get into the same problem Mr. Hardy indi-
cated, comparing apples with peaches. This is where I always get
lost on a comparision study. I know there are GS-15's working for
colonels, and I know the GS-15's make more money than the colonels.
Maybe the reason why the GS-15's are working for the colonels,
is there is a general in charge who wants a colonel running
the shop, and he doesn't want a GS-15 running the shop, which is
understandable in a military organization. But in my own mind, I
find it difficult to try to correlate even the civil service rating.
I '' 4Trant you it is easier to compare civil service ratings than it is
withindustry, but I don't know whether a GS-3 is comparable to
an E-1, E-2, E-3, or E-4. I don't know what to compare it with.
Mr. BENNETT. There is one thing pretty clear, after these hearings,
and that is we have rather generously, and I don't think there is any
doubt about it, treated the civil service employees, and here we are
taking a rather niggardly approach to the military. Frankly, I can't
quite understand it.
Mr. RIVERS. What we do?it is clear to me, as it is clear to Mr.
Blandford, where he first went over this thing. The first crack out of
the boy Mr. Blandford increased this bill $289 million, even to get it
where we could look at it.
Mr. BENNETT. I still think it is too little.
Mr. RIVERS. This bill was written with one eye on the budget.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think, Mr. Chairman, there CRII be no question
about. that. We face this now, as we did in 1949. We always face
the question of how far can you go beyond the amount of money that
is presumably contained in the next year's budget. It constantly
faces us.
Now, Mr. Bennett's point, and I think the point where you can
make a comparison, is that you can look at the pay of, say, an 0-5,
with a GS-14, as it was, say, in 1949.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Then you develop the spread
Mr. RIVERS. That is what I have in my hand.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The difficulty with that is, I suppose, the Federal
employees' representatives could come in here and say, "Well, has it
ever occurred to you that the civil service was grossly underpaid for
all these years?"
Mr. krviats. I had a magazine come to my office this morning,
and I open my mail early, before anybody out here ever gets up,
and I saw on the front of it, as long as there is inequity in the pay
of the postal employees, there is a need for a union to represent them.
Mr. BENNETT. You also have to remember, tomorrow we are going
to be considering the draft.
Mr. RIVERS. That was quite interesting. And the postal employees,
I don't think they have had an increase in 3 or 4 months. [Laughter.]
What is it you started to say?
Mr. BLANDFORD. The situation is going to be a very lot worse in
1964, believe me.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/4G CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. UtvEits. 'Ile only people I know who are not entitled to an
increase are tlie Milliners of tlw Congress.
Mr. BATES. That is right.
I. 1 NDFORD. t heir stairs?
Mr. liivnts. And their stair.
Mr. blivElls. The commint.t. will 11. in recess nut il the cal of the
( 'hair.
Mr. Bland ford, do ?vhat you can.
I. lin.k xim am. I will (10 vhat I can.
Whereupon. at p.m_ the sultcommittee adjourned ii itil the
of ('hair.)
1 hit. ur REPIZI.sEN.FATIVES,
.(111,11 r ?VIZAIF.1)
S rliCUM M ['MIA', Nu. 1.
[1-a-vh. lioton. 1).(".. 1. u(.vd(f .11,lielt /96.3.
'I'lw subcommittee incl. pursuant to adjournment, at 1(1:41)
in room 313 A. Cannon Oilice Building, lion. L. Mendel Rivers
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. III vEtts. Let t he committee come to order.
_Members of I lw committee. we arc cont Muni!, 1110 hearings on the
:1006, the miiit ary pay bill. Last week we completed our testi-
mony of both the Department and the other witnesses, and tint-. morn-
ing we want to begin the reading of the bill in ...xecutive session.
This morning we are pleased to have the distinguished Seretary
for Manpower, _Mr. Paul, to sit with us wink. we begin the reading
of the bill in the. hopes that we can, this nmrnin..r, complete our 1111-
tierstanding on some areas I hat are quite vital to the bill.
Now, Mr. Blandford----
Mr. linAsoFinto. Ves sir. Do you ?valit Ni Use 1hr connnitt PO print
or use the bill as introduced?
Mr. Rivnus. Why don't- we take the committee print ?
Mr. lir,AxInfoun. All right, sir.
Mr. litvEus. Now. Mr. 1Ilandford, pm take up right there.
r. 14,ANDroun. In the interest oft ine, Mr. ( 'hairman, and ill order
to make some policy decisions that have to be made here, of course, the
fins( correct ion that has been proposed in the pay scale deals with the
pay for professors at West Point. This is a simple correction.
The amount recommend 1
et. at the end of 30 years of service or over
3t; years of service. is $1,2-15. which would be $10 a month mole than
a brigadier general makes, and because the man is st ill a colonel it
is sm,gested that that amount be reduced to *11,..2:1:t. which wr.uld be
lite maximum amount_ of pay of a bri!radier general.
Mr. RivErts. That is in our print.
Mr. 131.ANDFonn. it's, sir.
r. OsmEltS. Mr. Chairman, an inquiry. Wliat 1)1112:0'1
Mr. N..% ximant. Page .2.
M r. Ivirs. -What_ is that change
Mr. lit,Axtwoan. There isn't ally lbw On it. So under the small
print, 1111der " Ienrs of service- under the in I, down half way on the
page when ii says "While serving as a permanent professor at U.S.
Military Academy or the U.S. Air Force _kcitdenly, basic pay for
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1597
this grade is $1,165, if the officer has over 31 years of service computed
under section 205 of this title, etc."
Mr. RIVERS. Has everyone got a copy of the committee print?
Where is that on page 2?
Mr. BLANDFORD. There isn't any line.
Mr. Osmigas. Above "Warrant officers."
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, thank you.
Now, you will recall that the Coast Guard asked for identical au-
thority. Unfortunately, I do not have a comparison of Coast Guard
laws with the Military Academy, and as a result I think personally
it would be an error to attempt to extend to the Coast Guard a benefit
that is intended for West Point when we don't know what the Coast
Guard retirement laws are.
This is another one of the problems that we always run into.
Mr. RIVERS. Have we ever attempted to legislate in the Coast
Guard area?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Only on basic pay Scales and on disability retire-
ment. We do not have jurisdiction over the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy.
Mr. RIVERS. I know that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it is a mistake for us to attempt to write
something into the law, even though it would of course be a benefit
to them, without understanding what their basic law is.
I suspect, as was indicated here by Admiral Knudson, that there
is a difference in retirement age. I understood Admiral Knudson
to say that professors at the Coast Guard Academy continue on to
age 62. I don't know how many other variations there are in the law.
The information has not been furnished to me. I think it would be
a mistake for us to go into an area in which we have no jurisdiction.
Mr. RIVERS. We won't consider the Coast Guard.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The next suggested change, Mr. Chairman, is that
the W-4 at over 26 years of service, as opposed to over 30, you will
recall the testimony that the Coast Guard warrant officers, all war-
rant officers, are required to retire when they have .completed 30
years of service, 60 days after completion of 30 years.
Mr. RIVERS. For pay purposes we are going to let that take effect
at over 26.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rivras. Does everybody understand that? Mr. Blandford has
reasoned that it is senseless to raise them and then retire them. If you
are going to raise them, let them take benefit of the pay.
Isn't that right?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. OsivrERs. I am assuming by process of deduction that in the serv-
ices other than the Coast Guard, armed services, we permit warrant
officers to remain beyond 30 years.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, Sir. If I said "Coast Guard," I should correct
myself. We wrote a Warrant Officer Act in 1954. to apply to all war-
rant officers, and all of them must retire at that point.
Mr. GAvrist. Automatically.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1598
Mr. BrANDroion, The Secretary keep them on, but for all prac-
tical purposes the law requires them to retire 60 (lays after completion
of 30 years of service.
Mr. OsmEus. This is all warrant officers?
Mr. BLANDForm. All warrant officers.
Mr. Rivsats. Can we come to agreement on that?
Without objection, we accept that proposed change.
Mr. litAxnronn. All right.
The next, is on page 3. There seems to be almost universal agree-
ment t hat we should not distinguish between an obligated reservist
and an unobligated reservist on inactive duty training. I don't know
how much discussion you want to have on this subject. There is $38
million involved here, but, as the chairman indicated in his statement
we have today 58 percent of people who have attained the age of 26,
ha ye had some form of military service.
Now. those who do SerVe certainly should nor lw discr minified
against by putting them on a different pay scale than those who
volunteer beyond their obligated period. That is what this proposal
would have done.
Mr. liavEas. 1 might say Mr. lilandford had considerable corre-
spondence on this.
Mr. lii,ANDroun. Yes, sir. This is an irritant to practicaLy every
organization, the ROA and others have testified against this.
1.t dotes add. $38 million to the cost of the bill, but on the other
hand there is grave question in the minds of many as to whether there
should ever have been any attempt to take it away. If we can agree
out tile del et.i011-
Mr. Osestnas. Mr. Chairman, again only for the purpose of clarity.
ii we delete (It), we then give to all reservists, obligated and nn-
obligated, the same pay scale?
Mr. 13 IANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. OSMERS. And in doing this wc increase the total cost of the
bill bv 8;18 million?
Mr. BLAsnroan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rivtais. Let's hear front Mr. Paul m that.
Mr. Paul, we have invited you here because we would like to hear
what vou have to say about this.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think first of all on a technical
point of the amount of increased costs, in fairness to the conanittee
think I should inform you that our estimate is that--and this is a
new one we have developed?that the increased cost will not be $38
million, it will he in the 20's rather than the 30*s. if that assists the
committee in its determination,
Mr. RivEas. Ti does assist. You have heard the discussion. Do you
feel it will kill the Defense Department if we put them MI nit equal
basis?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/215.9FIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Secretary. PAUL. 1 don't feel it would kill us, n.o, sir, in answer to the
chairman's question.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection, let's come to agreement on that.
MT. BLANDFORD. We will delete that section.
Mr. RIVERS. This will remove an irritant from a great section of
these people. Mr. lluddleston talked to me about it. What is the
next?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Seeti011 3 is contract surgeons.
Mr. BATES. We are all through with that section.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. B.Aws. Mr. Chairman we have had interruptions in OUT hear-
ings and a lot of us have read matters that have hot been read into the
hearings, so that I am not quite certain at this time just what is in the
hearings and what has not been put in.
Now what have we got actually in the hearings on the computations
of pay and, why we _gave_ certain rates to certain individuals?
MT. BLANDFORD. The testimony reveals that in the study made by
the Pay Panel, that one of the big -factors was to increase the pay
of first lieutenants, second lieutenants and captains, and also in the
more senior NCO grades, and what they attempted to do was to get at
the retention points and come up with a figure which they felt would
be sufficient to increase the retention of personnel. And that has
already been testified to.
Mr. BATES. Right. Now how about the senior officers?
Mr. fiLANDroitn. There is a straight cost-of-living increase. I
think that all of the services, and I now have their comments here;
it is rather thick. The. sum and substance of the comments of the
services on the basic pay scales .are that the pay scales are inadequate.
Well, this is not surprising that the departments would consider
these to be inadequate, and I think that Mr. Paul submitted a memo-
randum to me for insertion in the record and which I shall read into
it at this point:
In connection with the proposed rates of basic pay the personal views of the
service Secretaries, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs of
Staff of the Army and Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Com-
mandant of the Marine Corps were requested by the Secretary of Defense in a
separate communication. In general, the views expressed were that higher rates
of basic pay for some enlisted and officer grades than those being considered by
the Department of Defense were justified, particularly for second lieutenants
and officers in the ranks of lieutenant colonel or colonel and higher.
I don't think there is any secret that the Departments are unhappy
with the increases provided for the senior officers.
Mr. WILSON. In the past, or this bill?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No; in this bill.
think we must face a reality here with regard to the basic pay
scales for senior officers, that until we settle this retirement question
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2i) CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
once and for all. I doubt very much whether we are going to be able
to decide upon basic tnty scales Th1 11w more set dor olliceri. You
couldn't very \veil put in a substantial increase for senior officers and
then reenact a 1058 cutoff date as we did in 1058, without recreatim,
discrimination against those retired prior to the effective daft- of this
act.
Now, whether this was behind their reasoning or rot, I do not know.
I know that. the Randall Committee is still studying executive pay,
and I am informed that this study also includes the pay of more
senior officers in the armed service.
I personally feel that tint it this subcommittee makes up its mind
as to what they are. going to do on the retirement sect ion, that you can't
settle anything else that is in the bill, because the retirement sect ion is
vital to any further consideral ion of basic pay scales.
Mr. HATEs. Ihive we read into the hearings the percent increase by
9
rates
Mr. 13.L.kNo1'onn. Not into the hearinas, but this will be put into
the report . It is an average increase of 1.1.4 percent .
Mr. BATES. That doesn't mean much.
Mr. 13LANDFOIM. Ii doesn't mean a thing.
Mr. 13.m....s. Do we have the specific increase by rate?
Mr. 131,A:comity). I have I he increases here.
Mr. BATES. I ask that eh her be put in the hearing or in the report.
or 1)0th. Mr. (liairman.
Mr. RIVERS. you got t Ind e
Mr. BLAxnroan. 1 have a breakdown here, Mr. tliairman, which
was prepared, which indicates every grade, what the percent age of
increase will be in every grade and using typical years of service.
R \IAN. -Whose proposal an you reading Irma ?
Mi.. BLANDFmai. This is prop,spd iii ILE. :1006, mot the subcommit-
tee print.
Mr. InvErts. This is the department
1\Ir.13"..kxnFouo. I )(part inent proposal.
Mr. RivEns. Let's insert that at t his point.
(The Department proposal is as folli.ws:)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Examples of present pay and allowances with those proposed in Hi?. 3006
OFFICERS
Pay
grade
Title
Number
in grade,
fiscal year
1964
Typical
years of
service
Present
Alternative or additional
Monthl2
amount
Proposed in E. R.
3006
Percent
increase
Type
Monthly
amount
Monthly
amount
Dollar
increase
.
,
0-10_
Chief of Staff, Chief
4
30
Basic pay
$1. 871.00
1$1,970.00
$91.00
5
of Naval Opera-
Personal allowance
2 333.33
2 33333
0
0
' tions, Colman-
dant, U.S. Marine
Quarters allowance with dependents
2 201.00
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 $160. 20
2 201. 00
0
0
Corps, Chairman,
Subsistence allowance
2 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
165. 00
2 77. 10
29.22
61
Joint Chiefs of
Total, monthly
2, 457. 21
2.181. 43
124. 22
5
Staff.
Total, annual
29, 486. 52
30, 977. 16
1,490. 64
6
0-10_,
General, admiral__
31
80
Basic pay
1, 700. 00
11, 785. 00
85. 00
5
Personal allowance
2 183.33
2 183.33
0
0
Quarters allowance with dependents_ _
2 201. 00
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 160.20
2 201. 00
0
0
Subsistence allowance
2 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
165. 00
2 77. 10
20.22
61
Total, monthly
2, 132. 21
2, 246. 43
114.22
6
Total, annual
25, 586. 52
26, 957. 16
1,370. 64
1
0-9._
Lieutenant general,
105
30
Basic pay
1, 100.60
11, 575. 00
78.00
6
vice admiral.
Personal allowance
2 41. 67
2 41. 67
0
C
Quarters allowance with dependents__
2 201.00
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 100.20
2 201.00
0
C
Subsistence allowance
2 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
165.00
2 77. 10
29.22
61
Total, monthly
1, 7C0. 55
1, 894. 77
104.22
C
Total, annual
21 486. 60
22, 737. 24
1, 250. 64
f
0-8_
Major general, rear
484
30
Basic pay
1, 350. 00
11, 420. 00
70.00
1
admiral (upper
half).
Quarters allowance with dependents.. _
2 201. 00
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 160. 20
2 201.00
0
C
Subsistence allowance
2 47.88
Flight pay (if eligible)
165.00
2 77. 10
29.22
61
Total, monthly..
1, 598. 88
1, 698. 10
99.22
C.
Total, annual
19, 186. 56
20, 377. 20
1, 190. 64
1
0-7._
Brigadier general,
668
28
Baste pay
1, 175. CO
11. 235. 00
60.00
6
rear admiral
(lower half).
Quarters allowance with dependents__
2 201.00
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 160.20
2 201. 00
0
(
Subsistence allowance
2 47.88.Flight
pay (if eligible)
160. 50
2 77. 10
29. 22
61
Total, monthly
1.423. 88
1, 513. 10
89.22
1
Total, annual
17, 086. 56
18, 157. 20
?, 070.64
f
0-6___
Colonel, captain
15, 183
24
Basic pay
910. CO
1,000. 00
90.00
1(
Quarters allowance with dependents_ _
2 170. 10
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
2 140. 10
2 170. 10
0
1.
Subsistence allowance
2 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
245. 00
2 77. 10
29. 22
61
....
_
Total, monthly
1, 127. 98
1. 247. 20
119.22
11
ee tootnotes at enO ot table.
0-90008Z0017000t1?01700899dati-481. 1?Z/170/900Z aseeleu JOd 130A0iddV
Examples of present pay and allowances with those proposed in II.R. d006-COntinued
OFFICERS
Pay
grade
Title
Number
In grade,
fiscal year
1964
Typical
years of
service
Present
Alternative or additional
, I
Monthly
amount ,
.
Proposed in I I .11.
3006
Percent
Increase
Type
Monthly
amount
Monthly
amount
Dollar
increase
Total, annual
$13,535. 76
$14,986. 40
$1,430.64
11
0-5-
Lieutenant colonel,
37, 1s7
21
Basic pay
74.5.00
835.00
90.00
12
counuander.
Quarters allowance with dependents_ _
2 157.50
Quarters allowance without depend.
ants.
'$130.20
1 157. 50
0
0
Subsistence allowance
1 47.88
Flight pay (if eligible)
245.00
'77.10
29.22
61
Total, monthly
950.38
1,1109. 00
119. Z/
13
Total, annual
11,404. 56
12,835.20
I, 430. 64
13
0-4
Major, lieutenant
50.572
19
Basic pay
630.00
725.00
o5. 00
15
commander.
Quarters allowances with dependents
3 145. 05
Quarters allowance without depend-
eats.
1 120. 00
I 145.05
0
Subsistence allowance
I 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
240.00
'77.10
29.22
01
Total, monthly
Eaz. 93
047,15
124.2:
15
Total, annual
9,137& le
11, 365. Sill
I, 490.64
it
0-3
Captain, lieutenant.
105,071
8
Basic pay
460.00
540.00
80. 00 17
Quarters allowance with dependents
'130.05
Quarters allowance without depend-
eats.
1105.00
1130.05
0 n
Subsistence, allowance
I 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible)
185.00
1 77. 10
20. 22 Cl
Total, monthly
637.93
747. 15
109. 22 17
Total, annual
7,655. I ti
8,965. )41
1,31(1.61 17
0-2
1st lieutenant,
53,913
4
Basic pay
311).t8)
435. lgi
65.1*) 18
lieutenant (junior
grade),
Quarters allowance with dependents..
tiulatisUume allowance
1 120.00
3 47. 88
Quarters allowance without depend- 293 10
cots.
Flight pay (if eligible) 150.1141
1 120. (X)
3 77.10
o 0
29.22 61
Total, monthly
537.88
632.10
94.22 18
Total, annual . .
0, 4.54. 36
7, 58.5. 20
1,130.114 lb
0-1
2(1 lieutenant,
50, 400
0
Basic pay
=2. 3(12511.
00
27. 70 12
ensign.,
Quarters alloA efillt* WW1 dependents_ -
2 :VI 10
Quarters allowance witl at dr pen - I 141.20 , 710. 10
ants.
0 0
Subsistence allowance
2 47. 88
Flight pay (if eligible) MO. OU 3 77. 10
29.22 61
'l'otal, monthly
380. 28
437.20
56.92 II
.
Total cumual _
4, 563. 36
5,246. 40
683.04 II
W-4
Chief warrant,
2,1447
24
Basic pay
543.00
1135.00
92. 00 17
commissioned
warrant.
Quarters allowance with dependents..
1 145. 05
Quarters allowance without depend- 2 120. 00
eats.
1 145. 05
0 0
Suitsistelim allowance = 47. 8S
Flight pay (if aligibirj 165. fi6 : 77.1C 2. 22 Gi
Total, monthly 755.1)3
857. 15 1'21. 22 it
Total. annual 8. 831. le 10. 285. 80 I. 454. 04 16
W-3
W-2
W-1
Chief warrant,
commissioned
warrant.
Chief warrant,
commissioned
warrant.
Warrant officer.....
5,621
5,906
2,452
21
18
14
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents_ _
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents..
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly.
Total, annual
470.00
2 130. 05
2 47. 88
647. 93
7, 775. 16
400.00
2 120. 00
2 47.88
573.88
6,886. 56
354.00
2 110. 10
2 47.88
511.98
6, 143. 76
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
2 105. 00
130.00
2 95. 10
135.00
285.20
130.00
540.00
2 13n 05
2 77. 10
747.15
8,005. 80
470.00
2 120. 00
2 77. 10
667. 10
8, 005. 20
405.00
2 110. 10
2 77. 10
592.30
7, 106. 10
70. 00
0
29.22
99.22
1, 190. 64
64.00
29.22
93.22
1, 118. 64
51.00
29.22
80.22
002.64
15
0
61
15
15
16
61
16
16
14
16
16
?
LI
0
a.
0
ms
M
th8
)1>
CO
ENLISTED
E-9
E-8
E-7
E-6
E-5
Sergeant major,
master chief petty
officer.
Master sergeant,
senior chief petty
officer.
Sergeant 1st class,
chief petty officer.
Staff sergeant, ptty
officer 1st class.
Sergeant, petty offi-
cer 20 class.
13, 589
35,978
111,100
227,866
396,826
20
19
18
14
10
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents_ _
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
Basic pay
Quarters allowance with dependents
Subsistence allowance
Total, monthly
Total, annual
$450. 00
2 120. 00
231)90
580.90
6, 970. 80
360.00
120.00
23090 .
510.90
6, 130. 80
340.00
2 114.90
2 30. 90
485.80
5, 829. 60
275.98
2 110. 10
2 311 90
416.00
4, 992. 00
240.00
2 105.00
2 30. 90
375.90
4, 510. 80
Sea and foreign duty pay
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Proficiency pay, P- 1
Proficiency pay, P-2
Sea and foreign duty pay
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Proficiency pay, P-1
Proficiency pay, P-2
Sea and foreign duty pay
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Proficiency pay, P-1
Proficiency pay, P-2
Sea and foreign duty pay
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Proficiency pay, P-1
Proficiency pay, P-2
Sea and foreign duty pay
Quarters allowance without depend-
ents.
Flight pay (if eligible)
Proficiency pay, P-1
Proficiency pay, P-2
$22.30
2 85. 20
105.00
30.98
60.98
22.50
2 85.20
105.00
30.00
60.00
22.50
2 75. 00
105.00
30.00
60.00
20.00
2 70.20
100. 00
30.00
60.00
16.00
2 70. 20
90.00
30.00
60.00
$485.00
2 120. 00
2 3n 90
635.90
7, 630. 80
415.00
2 120. 00
2 30.90
565.90
6, 790. 80
365.00
a 114. 90
2 30.90
510.08
6, 129. 60
310.00
2 U.O. 10
2 30.90
451.00
5, 412. 00
260.98
2 105.00
2 30. 90
395.90
4, 750. 80
$55.00
0
0
55.00
660.00
55.00
0
0
55.00
060.00
25.00
0
0
25.00
300.00
35.00
0
0
35.00
420.00
20.00
o
0
20.00
240.00
13
0
0
9
9
15
0
0
11
11
7
0
0
5
5
13
o
0
8
8
8
0
0
5
5
See footnotes at end of table.
1:a.antiiliN pall and 1(11olca)w29 th r,.,!e
.EN.LasT1.:10
_ .
, 1 'resent
Number Typie..I
in grade, years of ____ . ...?_. _
? pruip...).,:cd in 11.1....;!!!?; 4'onlinuet1
_
Title
3006
..1:',..rnative or liddition.d
grade
.___
fiscal year SerViee
amount
11184 T.: Pe 'Monthly
:i.Iont Id.) I ilIlIr
;manna
amoinit lic?rease
E:-
Corporal, his y
451,344
5 Basic pay.
$170.011
21e,i fiireign duly pq
$13. ot 1200.00 3,30,00
!leer 341 class.
glliteterti fillOn 111111.1H depend -
2 105. 00
QUarter, 11110Wanee Si 1jliIil ill
2 70. ?21.1 00 ti
CMS.
:41.11)SiSrenee allowance.
30.90
Flight Iti13? Of eligible:.
tio 31). 90
0
Total, monthly
341.5.90
Proficiency 'toy, P-I
30.4! :135 1)11
30.00
Ill
Thtal, 0.11111oti
3. 6711, SO Proficiency pay, P 2.
60.191 1,41144 811
360.(1)
111
E-3
Private lot class,
5451115111.
t3.10, 727
I Basic pay ,,,,, - . ...........
99. 37 Sea and foreign duty pay 9.10 115 Pi
IF,, 63
10
Quarters tillutA HIM. 51 ilhoul tieftentl-
eta., or 1 dependent.
rz.m Quarters allowance :with 2 di pciolents. 57.20
0
Subsistence allowance
2 30. 90 Quarters allowance with 3 or more 2 105.00 2 3(1.1.41
dependenIs.
0
Total, nand lily
lbS. 47 Flight pay If eligible I Sr,. (4) 201.10 15 63
Total, annual
", 2'25 64 Proficiency pay:
.44) 1144
(it). (K) 12. 413. Al , 107.56
E-2
Prii. ale, seaman
326. 541
1 Basic pay
7=451 Bild foreign duty pay 8. (K) 95.1i0 9.20
11
appointive.
(Anglers allowance w itho)tl or 1 de-
pendent.
20 ()waters allowance with 2 11.1.0[Hk:111s 1 tkft. It) 2 55 20
:4ultsistenoii allowance
30.90
Quarters allowance with 3 or more 2 105.00 f 30.110 0
dependents.
Total.
Total, 011110.11
171.100
2,062.03
Flight pay ilf eligible i 541.0(1 101.011 9.'20
l'rolicieney pay:
P
30 01.1
P-2 60.00 I 2.173 20 : 1111 411
E-1 Private, seaman 179,911 0 Itasic pay
recruit. Quarters alloN1 alne 111111,411 or I de-
714,44)
7,5.74)
Sea and foreign duly pay 8.00 Kr:? 00 7.00
I
Quarters allowance w 011 2 dependents 2 03 10 5.5 211
it
II
' pendent.
Sulisisteme allowant?e 231) Quarters allowance will: :3 or inure 1142,44) 34).90 II
dependents.
0
'rola!, imin11113 ..... 164.10 Flight pay ilf 74.1 1.111 171 lo 7 00
Total. :mined 1,919020 Proficiency y ?
I'-1 ... 30 00
P-2 . ... . 434(44) :7)451:4.24) 44410
4
of livinc ineroc.e.
ItTini11111111 :01001111 of retired 1,3V: For 1,Tieth of ,erejee reimt of
7 '1'0, free. basic pay at 20 years. For permanent ilifial4lity,3n percent of basic pay hul not ban
2.1 ioler 4 months.
'2'S Toe:T..11f tinies 3 ears of service. For lellifiOntry pemoil of busk, pay 1111
IMS thall 2I5 percent times years of service. M11X01111711 M11011111 of retired pay, 75
'advent if basic pay. tifax111111111 15tyable illhe member Isis 30 years of service or
at least an 40 percent disability rating.
O-9000szoop000ticovooe99dau-vi3 teitio/gooz aseeieu JOd 130A0iddV
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 II9*-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BENNETT, Could I insert a -few things at this point
Mr. RIVERS. If they are on this point.
MT. BENNETT. One of them is a comparison . of military pay and
benefits of U.S. employees
Mr. BATES. That is my next point.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you want that in?
Mr. BATES. Yes.
- Mr. BENNETT (continuing). Which is prepared by John Ford, who
is the Army Tines Publishing Co.
Mr. RIVERS. Navy-Air Force Times.
Mr. BENNETT. Correct.
The other one is a letter which I received today from the Assistant
Secretary, Mr. William Gorham, who is here, who responded to things
that I asked him with regard to this same general question.
- I would like to have thorn both inserted in the record.
Mr. RIVERS. Wi tilOat objection.
(The letter above referred to is as -follows:)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
-Washington, D.C., March 5, 1963.
DOH. CITARLES 11 BENNETT,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. BENNETT: This letter is in answer to your questions regarding (i) the
comparative compensation of military personnel under H.R. 3006 and the com-
pensation of civilian employees under the recently-enacted civil service pay scale,
and (ii) recent trends of military and civil service pay scales. To answer these
questions, three-tables are attached with the following comments:
1. Comparative compensation of civil service and military per$onnel
Table 1 shows typical salaries for civil service grades GS-3 to GS-18 computed
for the pay scales which become effective January 1, 1964. Table 2 shows military
compensation for career enlisted grades E-4 to E-9 and officer grades 0-1 to
Chief of Staff. Included in military compensation are basic pay, basic allowance
for subsistence, basic allowance for quarters and an amount representing the tax
saving arising from the tax-free status of the allowances. The sum of these four
elements comprises the closest approximation to civilian salary. Personnel re-
ceiving their quarters or subsistence in kind are excluded from the comparison.
The figures shown in these tables represent the median compensation that will
be received by persons in the respective grades. These are computed in such a
way that approximately half of the persons in each grade receive less than the
specified amount and half more. As such, I feel that they are more representative
of the comparative levels of civil service and military pay scales than are mini-
mum or maximum figures for each grade.
2. Trends in military versus civil service pay
To show these trends, one civil service grade ( GS-14 ) and two military grades
(0-5 and 0-6) have been selected. This does not imply any direct linkage be-
tween these grades; they are merely used for illustrative purposes. They were
chosen to include the senior military and civilian grades, in which you expressed
particular interest. Table 3 shows dollar amounts of compensation from 1946 to
1964, and the military pay for 0-5 and 0-6 as a percentage of that received by
the GS-14.
It can be seen from these two tables that military and civilian salary changes
roughly paralleled each Other.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM GORHAM,
Deputy Assistant -Secretary (Special Studies and Requirements).
85066-63?No. 6-14
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/O441 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
TABGE 1.?Typical salary of civil service employees by grades as of Jan. 1, 1.96
tirade 1
Median
Grade
Median
? - -
t 14-3
$4250 " 05-11
$9,200
(18-1
4, 700 ' 05-12
10,600
(1S-5
5,300 " 05-13
j
12,500
GS -6
5.500 ,: 05-14
14,634)
(114-7
6.400 ?' 05-15
16,800
(15-8
7.100 - 05-16
16.800
i IS -9
7.600 05-17
18,500
(15-10
8,4801 08-18
20,000
:
?
UTE.?Median for each grads.
TABLE 2.?Typical regular compensation of military personnel under H.11. 3006
(officers and career enlisted grades)
Grade Median !- Grade Mcdlan
E-1
F1-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
t)-2
(1-3
$4, 400I, 0 -4 $12,000
5,200 'I 0-5 13, 700
5,900 0-6 13,100
6,300 '0-7 19. 500
7,200 .1 0-8 21,500
8,1300 ; 0-9 23,800
5, 650 ' 0-10 26, GOO
8.200 1 Civil service 29,200
9,600 .
NOTES
I. Regular compensation for median years of service for ear.th grade (except 2c1 lieutenant, entry grade).
Basle pay, BAQ, GAS, and tax advantage.
2. Tax advantage computed on basis of 0-I, E-1, E-2, E-3, 1 dependent; 0-2, E-4, E-5, 2 dependents;
0-3 through civil service, E-6, E-7, F1-8, E-9, 3 dependents.
TABLE 3,?Typical compensation of officers (0-5 and 0-6), civil service ern-
ployeca (GS-14) and their relative poaltiona, 19411-64
Year
0-3 I
0-6
011-11
1514-47
$7,872 I
$8,368
$8, 778
PJ48
7.872
8,308
9,103
1945-50
9,066 1
10,524
0.200
1051
9,096
10.524
10,000
1952.-54
,.
9.708
11,124
10,000
1955-57
10, 500 I
12,324
10, 750
1958-59
12, 223
14, 8543
I 1, 850
1960-62
12.228
14, MO
12, 745
1963
12,504
15.360
13,700
1961
i
14, 196
17, 124
I-i. 529
1946-47
14113
1949 50
1951
1952-54
1955-57
195.4-59
196(11(2
1963
1961
(1-555
percent of
(15-11
81i. 7
8r... 4
91.. 9
91. 0
97. 1
97.7
103. 2
91. 9
4(1.3
97. 7
0-9 as
percent of
(90-14
100.3
06.7
114-1
106.2
111.2
114.6
125. 4
116. 6
112. 1
117.9
NOTES
1. Military compensation includes base pay, BAQ, BAS, and tax advantage. Median. Tax adt antage
computed on basis of I dependent.
2. It will be recognized that changes in pay do not always occur at end of year. Figures shown above
-Ire for years during which they were In effect for more than Vali of the year.
3. RR military figures based on 1101) proposal (IL IL 53.06',
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :123N-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
(The reprint from the February 1963 issues of Army Times, Air
Force Times, Navy Times, is as follows:)
[Reprinted from Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Timesi]
A TIMES SPECIAL REPORT?STUDY COMPARES MILITARY-CIVIL SERVICE BENEFITS
This study was prepared by members of the Times staff under the
direction of Associate Editor John J. Ford. Mr. Ford, congressional
editor of the Times, directed the research and the statistical com-
putations and wrote the final draft of the study.
A detailed analysis of the pay and benefits the Government provides its military
and civilian forces reveals some startling facts. Some benefits long hailed as
marvelous advantages are not what they were cracked up to be. Some cherished
"extras" of military life make surprisingly little difference in the total compensa-
tion picture.
This two-part study will show that:
Military take-home pay is less than that of civilian Government workers of
comparable rank. It was less even before the last civil service raise. Total
take-home compensation is less over a lifetime career.
An officer in a responsible job often winds up with less pay than his civilian
subordinates.
Civilian longevity increases provide greater long-range benefits than military
fogies.
The average civilian winds up better off in matters of retired pay and survivor
protection than do military men, even though they contribute to their retirement.
Today, the outstanding man moves up faster in a civilian than in a military
career.
INTRODUCTION
In earlier years it was the custom to raise military pay whenever civil service
pay was raised. Invariably, the actions would take place in the same Congress
with the military hike usually coming after the civilian raise. In the 1950's, as
the civil service force began to express itself more effectively politically, the
historic process was altered. Since 1958 the civil service has gotten two pay
raises; the military, none. The military did get the first quarters allowance
increase in more than 10 years. But la,st year's Congress made part of the
civilian raise effective immediately while postponing the quarters' increase 6
months. The administration now wants to postpone the forthcoming military
increase to next October 1.
Now, the President has asked still further additions to the second half of the
civilian pay raise which becomes effective on January 1, 1964. This article is
not based on these proposed additions but will base its comparisons on what is
already law.
What follows is an analysis of the comparative advantages of a military
versus a civil service career over the whole range of pay and benefits. It is
clear that in some cases this involves relative value judgments and that many
factors affecting the value of a benefit cannot be stated in dollars and cents.
But it can be clearly shown in every category that the benefits are superior for
one group or the other. And our analysis shows?on balance?that the benefits
provided to the civil service employee are superior to those provided the military
man.
There have been recent reports that a comparison of civilian and military pay
was considered undesirable?that either Secretary McNamara or the Budget
Bureau had vetoed the idea that military pay be based on such a comparison.
There are reliable reports that the Military Pay Study Group made such a com-
parison but their findings have not been released.
There might be budgetary or other reasons for vetoing any official comparison
and not knowing the facts in possession of these people we cannot judge the
soundness of their reasons. But surely, no one will deny the Government has a
moral obligation to provide for its military personnel equally as well as for its
civilian staff.
And if those setting pay recommendations shunted aside a comparison of mili-
tary-civilian rates they forgot the President's orders.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2oo5m321 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
In his budget message to Cengress in Tutelary P102, in which lie firs - an-
nounced the orders for a study of military compensation, the President sa:d:
The adjustments now being considered in civilian compensation require
study of the possible need fir further changes in military compensation. I ant
directing that a thorough review be made a iii cli will permit an upatodate
appraisal of the main elements of military compensation and their relationship
to the new proposed levels of civilian compensation."
Recently the American Federation of Government Employees Cituncil if De-
fense Lodges asked fir an independent. study of the whole problem of in
relationship in the Defense Department. The group was not ta king
so much about pay as about working relationships. A spokesman for the coun-
cil said the idea of such a study was to reduce tension between the two gleams
but. the manner of issuing the statement seems calculated to increase tension.
A. E. Casgrain, president of the Defense Council of AFGE lodges. said mili-
tary men "often have a strong authoritarian approach" to management and have
'little knowledge or understanding of the human relations approach to leader-
ship.' The result is the civil servant is often a "resentful, sullen, off-the-record
critic of the military and of the work environment." And he accused the mili-
tary leaders of frequently trying to save face ky "bulling" er "nulling through."
We have 110 wish at all, of course, to encourage a dialog of this nature. We
think?we know?that both groups are math' up of loyal, dedicated people. But
to it true comparisen could lead to a better understanding on both eides
and improve working relationships. Civil service unions have encouraged Aheir
members to believe military men have all the advantages in terms of benefits as
well as all the authority. By the nature of their positions. union leaders are
not likely to take an objective look. but a true picture of comparative benefits
might soften the vociferousness of their attacks against military care-erists.
The average civil service employee undoubtedly honestly believes that the tax-
free housing and subsistence allowances, the noncontributory retirement and
other fringe benefits of the military man give him an advantage over the civilian
in total compensation.
But, as you will see from this study the take-home pay of a military man
compared to a civil servant of relatively equal rank and responsibility?insofar
as such comparisons can be made?is less than the civilian's. In the tables
accompanying this article and in all comparisons made in it, the compensation
of military men always includes the housing and subsistence allowances. And
allowance is made for the retired pay deduction of civilian employees.
Also, as we show in our discussion of comparative retirement benefits. the
civilian winds up better off in retired pay than military officers of higher posi-
tions even when his contribution is taken Rao account.
ln his message on Federal employees' pay on February 20. 1902, President
Kennedy told Congress that over the years the printary emphasis in pay legisla-
tion has been on bringing the lower salaried employees abreast of changes in
the cost of living. The one-time 8.5-I ration between highest led lowest 0Aas-
silication Act salaries had shrunk to ti -1 and lower, making it impussible to offer
pay increases consistent with the additional responsibilities et graelp-to-grade
prianeetion or to utter an apprepriate range of incentives within a partieadar
grade.
And the President uomplained. "A Federal employee beginning a profess :final
or administrative career can look forward to it maximum salary increase of no
inure than 41/4 times his entrance salary, whereas his counterpart in private in-
dustry can look forward to an increase of hi le 7 times his beginning salari."
Thee lltriS Pay Art for military people emphasized putting the big increase
at Ihe higher salary levels. But still the career officer in Wei with :10 years'
service can look forward to a maximum salary of just about 41/4 times his
entrance salary as an 0-1.
And as for the "appropriate range of incentives within a particular grade
we shall show that the longevity increases for civil service provide greater
long-range benefits than those of the military and can he given more fre-
quently.
.1 note on intangibles
lit any discussion of career advantages, it must be remembered that !here
are certain intangibles?intangibles such as the pleasure of serving your country
in uniform or of serving it in the civilian eerps, the public acceptance and re Teta
accorded one's chosen profession and, quite simply. whiet a man wants to du in
life.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 3,0A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
So benefits, in themselves, do not make one career more rewarding than another.
If you like roughing it in the boondocks, the feel of weapons, the smell of the
sea, the freedom of flight; if you like a life of travel and change, and the
accoutrements and paraphernalia of military living, then the service is going to
have strong attachment for you. If you have a natural bent for life in the field,
no amount of benefits is going to make you happy at a desk. Correspondingly,
if you put great emphasis on a stable family life with roots in a single community
and dislike the regimentation, the completeness of military life, you would not
be happy in it regardless of benefits.
Having said this, however, we think it should be kept in mind that intangible
considerations should not be used as an excuse for not providing proper benefits.
This is true both for a simple moral reasons and from the standpoint of
personnel management, since the intangible advantages will not be overriding
in career choice. Also, intangible considerations working against a military
career are very real, even though you cannot put a cost computation on them.
A man's taste for military life does not erase the disadvantages and often
leads to intangible disadvantages that are a minus factor in career planning.
A man's love of the sea, for instance, brings with it an enforced separation
from his family. That man continues his Navy career despite, not because of,
this separation. It is a minus factor that should be taken into consideration
in figuring compensation and benefits.
The point is that the intangible factors are often a two-way street. They
sometimes cancel each other out. Intangible disadvantages of a service career
may often tip the scale against staying in the service.
There are many more intangibles in a military career than in civil service,
since a civilian Government career is more like any civilian job, and does not
mean so complete a change in the way of life from private industry as a military
career does.
The big four: Benefit or illusion?
There are four things about the military systems which are most cited as giving
military personnel a tremendous advantage and which are often used as reasons
for not making the military man's basic pay comparable with civilian pay :
These are the military retirement system, which is noncontributory; the system
of tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, which allegedly results in higher
take-home pay; medical care for the man and family at little or no cost; and
exchange and commissary privileges.
We have paid particular attention to these four in making our analysis to
arrive at a true comparison between the military and civilian take-home pay.
We also looked particularly at the comparative job security, advancement
prospects and at the allegation that the civil service must pay more to retain
competent personnel at the higher grade levels, that it is losing good people in
wholesale lots to private industry.
ANALYSIS REVEALS STARTLING CHANGE IN PAY EQUATION
In comparing military and civil service pay, there is the difficulty of making
comparisons by grade, since the civilian and armed services grades are not, and
are not designed to be, precisely comparable.
Take-home pay
Historically, the 0-6 (colonel or Navy captain) has been compared, with the
GS-15. An 0-5 is compared with a GS-14, and so on down the line. Those
comparisons are basically fair to the civil servant. A GS-15 is likely to work
for an 0-0; an 0-6 rarely works for a GS-15. A GS-14 often works for an 0-5;
an 0-5 rarely, if ever, works for a GS-14.
In this matching of job alinement, the civil service employee in grade GS-7
is matched with the 0-1, since GS-7 is the start of the professional ladder in
civil service today. Up to grade GS-11, the civil servant normally goes two
grades at a time. Grades 05-6, GS-8, and 05-40 are used much less frequently
than grades GS-7, GS-9, and GS-11. The difference in responsibility is not as
great ? between any two GS grades as between any two officer grades. Thus in
the matching generally followed, an 0-2 is roughly comparable to a GS-9, an
0-3 to a GS-11, and an 0-4 to a GS-13.
We will have more to say about the promotion process in the civil service
classified grades.
This rough alinement of position is tacitly recognized by the Department of
Defense. In its Table of Military-Civilian Relationships for Prisoner of War
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0f1(1,21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Identifivation Purfoses (Defense Directive 100441, dated December 14, lt)l.
modified .111114. 2Ii, 19701i, 0_7's and ';.; are equated with the supergrades
through GS-1R: 0- 4 through 0-41 are equated with G5-12 Orough GS-15; 0 -1
through 0-3 are (nut-lied with GS-7 through OS-11.
The Defense Defiartment normally uses this directive for husiness and social
relationships. A (IS'-15, staying overnight at a military has4, for example, will
given the ins' of quarters an 0 1; would get.
In terms of responsibility, the comparison is more than fair TO the civil s,,rvant.
Generally, the responsibility of military officers?particularly in the 0-4 Ltrough
0-1; grades exceeds that of the civilians with whom they have been equated
here. An -I's responsibility, we would STIY, is certainly more nearly (kit of a
(IS-13 than a GS-12, nIthongh historWally his salary has liven closer to hat of
a GS-12 than a 05-13.
lint using these rough equations, a quick comparison if the maximum pay for
military and civilians shows that the recent civil service raise has effectively
moved the civil service up two grades in the equation?or, to put it another
way, the military have fallen two grades henind.
Thus, pay inversions have been ereated hetWVVII HIP military officers and the
civilians they supervise?the sort of inversiohs that cause Si) mull, concern Mien
they occur Ill'INV(P11 a clviii nit SlipPrVisttr amd his civilian subordinate.
Here is a comparison of selected military grades with civil service grades
7 co UHL PMPI DI RFS PAY V FRP i
MILMAPT P'Y mows Pay)
M111tapy fay; 1
Le IA
4
Of-10
0-8.
0 8,435 ow 6f-11
10,6E8
0-4
91076
rose-12
ow Jr
ow GS-13
Ow
14,f4:4
0-8
21,764 Je---p-opoo$
17,53S
14
.ow .0w
0-8
14,43,"
If
owl 4.06-18
--AW
,
,:474
0-7
_?,,
17,387 w. 00.- 43-)0
lf,0(.4
Owow
0-6
16,167 die so-17
fif . ct.4
411??????????-
showing the maximum pay available to the military compared to the maximum
the civil service grades can get.
The figures for officers are not just basic pay. They include the increased
quarters allowance that went into effect Januar,y 1, 1963, and they include sub-
sistence allowances. The figures for civilians include the January 1, 19ti4,
increases because they are law and because It helps show whitt military officers
must get in their pay raise to get them hack in their former position.
The straight arrows Show the comparability in pay ht?foue the latest civil
service pay raise started (October 1, 19112). The dotted arrows show the com-
parability, including the civilians' January 1. 1()(4, raise.
We haven't used the new pay scales being proposed by Defense because, firm
details on them were not available while this study was being made. It is also
too early to tell what Congress will do with the Defeiltit? reconimendations. We
hope that a proper understanding of the value of civil service comp-eniation
when compared with military conmensation may lead to an equitable military
isly hill.
The date Defense is now mentioning for tlee new pay bill, it should is noted.
is Octoher 1. 1963. just 3 months ahead of tlw second step of the vivilinn raise.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21161A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Also, the President is recommending higher increases in those civilian scales,
averaging more than 5 percent, and reports are that the President is going to
push the proposal strongly. The percentage increase would be about 10.2 per-
cent at the GS-15 entrance level. Raises would go as high as 26 percent for the
supergrades, since they did not share fully in the raise bill voted last year. We
have not used any of these further increases in the pay computations of this
article.
But it is interesting to note that the beginning pay of a GS-7, under the pay
scale that goes into effect January 1, 1964, is $488 a month ($5,795 a year). Even
under the increases recommended by the Defense Study Group on Military Com-
pensation, as available at the time this article went to press, the beginning
compensation for an 0-1?including housing and subsistence allowances?would
be only $412 a month. It is now $355 a month.
But in comparing military and civilian salary, the charge is still made that
the military officer is better off, even if his total compensation is less, because
he gets to keep more--lis tax-free allowances means a higher net pay. And
the compensation figures above do not include the civil servant's retirement
deduction.
But detailed analysis shows that even with these factors considered, and even
before the recent pay raise, the civil servant came out better in the matter of
actual take-home pay.
Let's take the 0-5 and the G8-14. Comparing their income and take-home pay
before October 1, 1962?this is, before the civil service pay raise started, or before
the housing allowance increase for the military?we see the following:
The 0-5 has a gross pay of $10,740. This includes the base pay, housing
allowance, and subsistence allowance. The base pay is the average for an 0-5
who makes his grade at normal promotion point (16 years) and spends 6 years
in grade. The housing allowance was $136.80, and subsistence was - $47.88 a
month.
We will assume he has two children for tax purposes. And we will assume a
standard 10-percent deduction for tax purposes.
His income tax?paid just on base pay?is $1,070. His 1962 social security
tax was $150. Remaining take-home pay: $9,526.
For the G8-14 we also assume two children and the standard 10-percent dedu2-
don for tax purposes. His gross pay is $13,000 a year. This again is an
average for the grade, coming out to the equivalent of the fourth step. (There
were nine steps altogether under the old scale, including the so-called longevity
steps. Longevity increases in civil service are based on time in grade and are
unrelated to total service.)
His retirement deduction (61/2 percent) comes to $846. His income tax is
$2,008. Remaining take-home pay is $10,146.
Even cranking in a value of several hundred dollars for free medical care and
exchange and commissary privileges?the other two members of the alleged Big
Four of military compensation?as calculated later in this article, the take-home
benefits of the GS-14 are still a bit above the 0-5.
Now let's look at the GS-14 when he gets to the pay scale in effect on January
1, 1964. His yearly pay now comes to $14,890. This is a little less than the
fourth step of a GS-14. (There are nine steps for the (1844 under the new
pay scale.) His G1/2-percent retirement deduction comes to $967. Income tax
takes $2,460. Remaining take-home pay is $11,463.
It can also be shown that over a full career a civil servant winds up with more
take-home money than a military officer.
If the reader will refer to tables 1, 2, and 3 he will find an analysis of take-
home pay projected over a sample 30-year career.
Tables 1 and 2 compare the take-home pay of a military officer and a classified
civil servant before the quarters increase that started January 1, 1963, and
before the civil service raise that started October 1, 1902..
The table for an officer shows his years in each grade, his gross pay (base pay
plus subsistence and quarters allowances), his social security deduction, esti-
mated number of children for tax purposes, income tax, and remaining take-home
pay per year and for the total years in that grade. From this his total take-
home pay over a- 30-year career is computed. Ills average yearly take-home pay
is also shown.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/042112: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
TABLE 01
TAKE-4026 PAY or MILITARY OFFICE' BEYORE JAN, 1, 1463
Grade
Yrs.
Oros.
Pay
84
Tax
Child-
rem
Income
Tax
Take-Mome
Pay
Total Pay
In Orade
0-1
2
4,260
$83
1
$120
24,057
$ 8,114
0-2
3
6,500
157
A
464
3,410
16,267
0-3
3
7,210
150
$
372
4,486
33,440
0-4
8
4,620
150
8
606
7,664
47,184
0-8
4
10,740
150
2
1,070
4,420
67,120
0-6
8
13,540
150
0
3,451
_10,4311
87,464
30 Yearly Average $8,310
$249,670
TABLE #2
TAKE-NDME PAT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE MORE OCT, 1, 1962
Grads
Tra.
Grose
Pay
Retire-
markt
Child
rem
/moons
TAI,
Take-Eomie
Pay
Total Pay
Im Grads
08-7
2
$6,400
$361
1
2512
94,431
8,474
02-9
2
6,600
420
1
708
8,463
10,026
03-11
5
7,950
816
3
835
4,590
12,6*2
08-13
4
9,200
398
3
1,032
7,670
30,280
08-13
6
11,000
718
3
1,436
6,147
44,238
08-14
6
12,600
819
2
1,024
0,657
69,142
08-15
6
14,220
925
0
2,625 ,
10,670
64,020
30
Yearly Average 26,349 2250,472
TABLK 03
TAKE-RDME PAY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AFTER JAN, I, 1034
Grade
Yrs.
Gross-
Pay
Retire-
ment
Child-'Income
ren
Tax
Take-Home
Pay
Total Pay
In Grade
02-7
2
$6,650
1432
1
1822
61,496
$0,992
09-9
2
' 7,350
477
2
871
6,002
12,004
---------
08-11
5
8,052
589
3
- - -I
27,055
1,052
7,411
- -------
--
-:----
---- -
-- ----
0-12
--- ----
8,611
4
10,722
696
9
1,303
34,564
GS-13
5
12,728
824
6
1,798
_
10,104
50,520
06-14
8
14,890
667
2
2,460
11,463
68,778
06-15
6
17,725
1,152
0
3.573
12,997
77,982
30
Yearly
Average
$9,783
6291,895
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21160A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The years in grade are what would be logged by an officer following a roughly
normal career pattern. The base pay figure used is what he would average out to
cover his years in grade with his longevity. For example, if the officer, spends 6
years as an 0-4 and has 10 years longevity when he enters the grade, we show 2
years at the base pay of an 0-4 with 10 years service, 2 years as an 0-4 with 12
years and 2 years as an 0-4 with 14 years. These will be added together and
divided by 6 to get the base pay figure for the 0-4 level in the table. To this
is added the quarters allowance ($119.70 a month for an 0-4 with dependents)
and subsistence allowance ($47.88 a month for all officers) to get his gross pay
figure.
Income tax, of course, is only computed on base pay.
The end column shows the total salary he earned in that grade.
The table for the civil servant shows the number of years in each grade, the
average annual pay, the deductions for retirement, the number of children for
tax purposes (same as for the officer at all points), income tax, remaining an-
nual take-home pay, and the total earned in each grade.
The table assumes a promotion pattern for a career civil service classified
employee ending in grade GS-15 with 30 years' service. For this we have as-
sumed a promotion pattern of 2 years in grade 08-7, 2 in GS-9, 5 in GS-11,
4 in GS-12, 5 in GS-13, 6 in GS-14, and 6 in GS-15. The salary figure, as for
the military, is the average of what is earned over the number of years in grade
taking into account step increases.
We haven't figured these steps as high as some recent studies but the salary
does not necessarily start at the beginning step for each grade. The law calls
for a minimum increase on promotion to a higher grade at least equivalent to a
two-step increase within the employee's old grade.
Table 3 projects the take-home pay of a civil servant over a full career based
on the pay scales to go into effect January 1, 1964. It doesn't include any addi-
tions recommended by the President this year. Even so, it shows the recent
pay act has moved the civil servant astonishingly far ahead of the military man.
Notice should be taken that the social security tax for military officers rose
to $174 a year in 1963.
CIVILIANS GET MORE PROMOTIONS, LONGEVITY PAY
It is necessary now to justify the career progress of the civil service classified
employee as projected in these tables.
It will be said that the civil servant does not progress along any regular pat-
tern as the military officer does, that many never get above the middle grades.
This is true. It is also true that those who are not promoted are not forced
out.
And it is proper to compare those who go up in the civil service with those
who stay in the military system. For though 12 years ago it was true thai.
the great majority of professional employees never got above the middle grades,
it is not true today.
And, while many career employees never got above the middle level grades,
most frequently the are employees who started down in the clerical grades
(below 08-7). Professional employees with higher schooling move up if they
have ability. These are the ones we properly compare with officers.
Promotion, longevity
The employes can come into the civil service anywhere along the scale, de-
pending on their experience and training. There are no statutory provisions
requiring extended time in grade for the civil service. The minimum time in
grade required for promotion is 1 year?for all grades. The military officer
averages over 4 years in a grade and he never spends less than 3 years in a
senior grade before moving up.
There are also no limitations on the numbers in grade in the civil service
until one gets above 08-15. In the supergrades, GS-16 through GS-18, there is
a numerical limit, but Congress recently excluded scientist and engineer jobs
from the limitation, so that restriction is somewhat meaningless.
On June 30, 1962, there were 1,058,485 classified employees. There were 505,-
886 in grades 08-7 and above. And there were 23,622 GS-14's and 11,412 GS-
15's.
In 1950 there were 2,306 GS-15's for a total force of 701,824 and a force in
GS-7 and above of 237,349.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0441i: CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The supergrades didn't start in the Clasiitied Act service until 1919. As of
last June 30 there were 1,370 GS -16's, 552 GS-17's, and 26-1 GS -1S's: a total
of 13,614 in grades GS-15 and above.
In 1950 there were 220 GS-16's 52 GS-17's, and 23 (4- 1's. Total in grades
GS-15 and above in 1950: 2,601.
This adds up to about a one-fourth increase in the total number of eu-ployees
since 1950 and about live tittles the number of higher grade employees.
The number of supergrades has undoubtedly gone up since last June 30 with
the removal of tin' limitations by Congress.
Another interesting fact is the swelling in the size of the professional force
t GS-7 and above) from one-third the total classified force in 1950 (235,349) to
one-half the classified force in 1962 f 505.SW).
To look at the question another way. let's examine sonic c-anparable numbers
for 0 -6 and OS -15.
The Federal service last June 30 had 11,412 OS-15's for n force of 1,058,485.
About 1.14 percent.
The Army as of last November 30 had 5,000 0-6's for an Army of 956,842--
about 0.52 percent.
The Navy had 4,110 0 6's (captains) for a Navy of 659,371?about 0.62
percent.
To take one quirk Ci 5 example: The Army had 12.255 (1 5's?alto?it 1.25
percent.
The classified service had 23.622 GS-14's?about 2.24 percent.
We do not wish to overstate the case. Admittedly, the Army would have
more bodies at tlw lower levels, having divisions full of foot soldiers. Ad-
mittedly, the civil service classified employees sometimes supervise employees
ell other systems--such as wage board employees. And admittedly, the civil
service professional groups were underpaid In 1950 and deserved higher pay
and, perhaps, more top positions.
Ina still, the figures do show they have moved ahead of the military services
;aid confirm that our sample of a civil service career progression is basically
fair. We feel it is a fair assumption the bright man can ge up faster in civil
service than in military servh.e.
The civil servant's promotion is based on merit job availability, and increased
responsibility. lie normally competes with a very limited number for promo-
tion- -just his own agency and often just his immediate office.
In addition to the legal Ihntations, a military officer coirpetes with all the
officers of like service and grade throughout the service. He meets a stiffer
merit test (through the selection systems). He must pass piri,,,sical and some-
times written exams and there is a more marked increase in responsibility when
he is promoted.
Most officers are "selected out" before being able to complete 30 years.
We do not want to get into the relative merit of efficiency and fitness reports.
In practice a man needs top markings in both system to keep going up. It
might be noted, however, that the civil service reporting system is not aim ays as
strict. An employee is marked on three characteristics, he sees his reports and
he may institute grievances against those considered unfair.
A military officer is rated on many characteristics. lie dues not have much
leeway to question his reports. An "average" officer is l'dead" as far ns pro-
mo! km is concerned.
Another factor that has led to a great swelling in the upper levels of civil
service ranks and one never mentioned by the civil service unions is the practice of
upgrading without changing jobs. An employee's job description is rewritten :
he does the same job but is promoted a grade or two higher. This method has
been used to increase pay when raises weren't pruning. as fast as they
Joseph Young. Government columnist for the Washington Star. on December
IT. 1962. reported the followitr.r :
'The Civil Service C,ornmissinn has told Government departments anti it atm
to quit inflating job grades now that Federal pay has been put on a basis
comparable with industry.
"AL a 114PIII meeting with the executive cfficers of the Vari011,4 departments
and agencies, the CSC said there WaS no further justification for givim g em-
ployees higher (my grades than they are entitled to.
"Warren In?ns, CSC executive director, pointed out that the average grade
in the Government classified service is now grade 7 (starting salary 85.540 a
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :160-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
year). Only 4 years ago the average grade in Government was 6.4. And it
wasn't more than 10 or 12 years ago that the average grade was grade 5.
"What happened was that agencies, in order to retain and attract the best
employees, gave them higher grades than their jobs and ditties actually called
for. This was because Federal pay trailed industry so badly that inflated job
grades was the only way to attempt to compete with industry in paying higher
sal aries.
"While the CSC didn't actually encourage agencies to inflate job grades, it
didn't do anything drastic to discourage them.
"Now, however, the CSC has served notice that it will not tolerate inflated
job grades. From now on, employees grades will be set and determined strictly
by their job duties and responsibilities, CSC officials said. Incidentally, Con-
gress has been critical in recent years of the practice of inflating job grades.
"To show how prevalent has been this practice of raising grades above what
they normally should be, these figures are cited:
"Federal employment rose by 96,000 during the past 4 years. During the same
period there has been a 78,000 increase in the number of grades 11 through 15.
"Of course, not all this resulted from grade inflation. As the Government
intensified its activities in the fields of science and technology, there was need
for more scientists, engineers, and so forth with the result that there were more
higher-grade jobs available.
"Still, the large increases in upper grade jobs resulted in part from inflating
the worth of a job by raising its grade.
"For example, the Army Department's record in this regard has caused con-
siderable eyebrow raising.
"Despite the fact that Army's total civilian employment during the past 4
years decreased by 14,000 there was an 8,000 increase in the number of grades
11 to 15. CSC officials suspect that there has been considerable job grade in-
flation going on in Army."
The figures for the Army are startling but one finds similar experiences in
other areas. To take just one more example, the Bureau of Naval Weapons,
in its semi-annual statistical report for the period ending June 30, 1962, lists a
total of 3,437 full-time civilian personnel?including ungraded employees.
A breakdown in the report shows there were 89 promotions from grade GS-1.3
to GS-14 and 29 promotions from GS-14 to GS-15 in the 6-month period. On an
annual basis that works out to a 32-percent promotion of GS-13s to GS-14s
and a 1.61/2-percent promotion of GS-14s to GS-15s.
By contrast, in the Navy about 10 percent of 0-4s are promoted to 0-5 yearly
and about 6 percent of 0-5s are promoted to 0-6.
The Bureau had 356 GS-14s and 159 GS-15s on June 30. If the 6-months'
promotion experience for GS-14s was the same for the first half of the fiscal
year that would be 178 new GS-14s (2 times 89).
That's a 50-percent increase in GS-14 grades in 1 year.
As a result of such upgrading, the Budget Bureau, as another well-known
civil service columnist Jerry Klutz of the Washington Post, reported recently,
is taking steps to stop the practice.
According to Kluttz, the upgrading of jobs has added $1.2 billion to the civil.
service payroll budget since 1957. In other words, a sort of hidden pay raise
over the last 6 years.
It is interesting to note that the total upgrading cost, $1.2 billion, is roughly
the same as the price tag put on the pay raise proposed for the military services.
A further point which we feel should get more careful study than it has
received is the oft-repeated cry that Federal employees are being lost to private
industry and that higher salaries are required for them if the Government is
to compete with industry for talent,
The turnover statistics usually published don't take into account the intra-
Government movement.
The Bureau of Naval Weapons report listed above includes a breakdown of
separations during the period January 1, 1962, to June 30, 1962. Note that this
was before the first phase of the recent pay raise went into effect.
The report shows 354 separations during the 0-month period?on the surface
a fairly big turnover. But the breakdown of the reasons for leaving show that
only 36 went to private industry compared to 59 who went to the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, 60 who transferred to other Government
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/M1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
agencies, and CO who transferred within the Navy. So a total of is. over 30
percent of separations, transferred to other Go :eminent jobs.
The other separations included -II women employees who !eft for stwit rea-
sons as "maternity," "marriage," "follow husband." and "family responsibility."
And the balance was attrition due to livable:, retirements, jobs abolislai I and
employees returning to sultool. home, me.
The employees are leaving for bet ter jobs but the better jol.s are inostp. else-
where in Government.
The yearly loss rate to industry for this group was 2.3 pen ent. Ratite.: low.
especially since it includes all grade levels. The military loss rate is much
higher.
1,0nycrity
We would like to turn now :0 the quesliou of longevity inereitses and examine
how nromotions and longevity affect the growth of pay over it v,hole eartiiir for
a military Man and a eiVil servant folloWilig the proinotittli patterns we used
a hove.
Increases in compensation in the Government come from three sources pay
and benefits increases voted by Congress, pay increases that comt? with pronto-
ion, and increases given for longevity tin-step increases in civil service,.
Just what pay bills will be passed over a career cannot, of coarse, be ana_yzed.
lint based at present longevity and promotion patterns we can make Slane
colliparisons of how promotions and bi1 ige,. it y provide inonetary reward in
eivilian and military- careers.
The pay raises due to promotion?that is the amount montIllY Pay is in-
I 'reased?in a 30-year carper aillount to $378 0 month for an officer who allows
the normal career pattern?ending up it colonel. A civil servant following the
promotion pattern mentioned in our earlier table to reach crane GS-15 gels pay
increases due to promotion of $404 a month.
Even with tlw changes prmiosed by the Pent ug (11 pay study -group the atilt-
tory monthly pay increase would he only 8013. So the pay bill as proposed
would merely bring the officer up level with civil service in this category. This
takes no account of the fact that an officer f.ioing to colonel on normal promo-
hilt points has had a lot more responsibility over the length of his career and
hi his top grade than a civil servant who rises to GS 13.
The figures used here include the rental and subsistence allowance of on ers?
t hose factors usually mentioned as giving the military a big advantage.
Increases in pay dm, to longevity !IOW Conte to f-5430 over an officer's career.
Again, this is the monthly increase projected over the full 30-year career.
Civil service pay increases due to longevity come to $.380 a month over a
comparable 30-year career.
Even with the recommendations of the pay study group, the total monthly
increase in 30 years for a military officer ?? mild only be $479.
It is also interesting to note the manner of longevity increases. Civil service
longevity rates average out to 2.21: pereent It year.
Even noting tlw pay study group's tables available at the time this was writ-
ten the increase for military officers due to longevity would be 11.9 percent for
the first :3 years and only 1.7 percent a year thereafter. For tile last 8 years of
an officer's career?again assuming normal promotion pattern and retirement on
:41 years as an 0 (he Increase is less thau 1 ief-cent a year.
The recent pay tier accentuates the advantage in longevity inereases for a
civil servant over a military- Mall.
Let's compare our U 3 and our GS-14 again:
The 0 5 has three longevity hikes if ho follows the normal pattern?;l ls.
20. and 22 years. After that he goes up or out. His longevity raises are 8380
and come every 2 years. Total range or longevity filereaSeS: *1,740. can
only get three.
The GS-14 step increases are $450. He can get nine. Ono a year for the first
3 years; one every_ 2 years for the next 41 years, and one every 3 years for tile
next 9 years. Total range of longevity increases :
The President has signed an Executive order telling the Federal agencies In
put into effect the provision or last year's pay law that allows quicker pay
jumps for high quality performance. That means an employee can be given an
("(Ira step increase for doing outstanding work. Such extra increases can lie
given to one employee no more than once every 12 months. The President
has also told Federal agencies to use the authority to hire employees at higher
I han starting levels of a grade in order to nowt private lndustry competition.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : Mi-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The military have nothing comparable to the provision for extra pay for high
quality performance. There is authority in law for responsibility pay but it has
never been used. A small percentage of enlisted men can get proficiency pay of
$30 or $60 a month.
Civil Service now has authority also to withhold regular step increases from
employees whose work does not meet an "acceptable level of competence." Civil
Service unions are trying to get this provision of law repealed.
As we said, the increase in responsibility with each promotion is greater for
a military officer than for a Classification Act civil servant. The increased re-
sponsibility that comes with seniority within rank is also much more marked.
A civil servant's work responsibility may not change for years in a grade?in
fact, his longevity steps were designed originally as cost-of-living increases for
those who do not get promoted but who give long service in a job.
For the serviceman the pattern is far different. With the change in assignment
every 2 years or so, there generally comes more responsibility each time, a
steady increase as he gains experience and time in grade. IIe has to be capable
of taking on ever more responsibility or in time he will be forced out.
Earlier studies
As we said at the start, precise comparisons between the Civil Service and
the military ranks are difficult. Anyone attempting a study such as this is
bound to be accused of comparing apples and oranges.
But we do believe all of the facts presented here in balance, bear out the con-
clusion that the civil servant has many advantages in pay and promotion over
military officers, that the sample career progression used in our analysis is
basically fair, and that civil service classified employees have moved signifi-
cantly ahead of military men in take-home pay.
The civil service advantage will still hold in the total picture when one con-
siders retirement, survivor protection and other fringe benefits, though the
military does have a marked advantage in some areas.
In December of 1961 this newspaper broke the story of a study done at that
time in the Pentagon on military and civilian take-home pay. It was designed to
show that while military people made less they take home more.
That study was used by those who decided against a military raise last year.
'FREE' SYSTEM OBSCURES RETIRED PAY RELATIONSHIP
A comparison of our analysis with that one shows the figures are very close.
For the 0-5 their gross pay figure is $400 higher than ours and their take-
home pay $300 higher. We assumed a somewhat different level of longevity for
pay purposes.
The Defense study did not try to balance out the total benefits over a whole
career, as we have here. It simply picked up comparisons at several points in
the scale.
For civilians, the Defense study tables took the average earnings by grade for
all Government agencies as of June 30, 1961. The closeness of our gross pay
figures to theirs would indicate we were correct in estimating average salary in
grade for our projection of a civilian career. For a GS-15, for example, the
Defense study estimated total salary of $14,455 compared to $14,450 in our study.
Since theirs was made a year earlier, ours would appears to be conservative.
On take-home pay they estimated $10,787 while ours came out $10,971?a dif-
ference of slightly under $200. The difference is that the Defense study in-
cluded the deductions for medical care, and for life insurance, which we have
compared separately. We put the average cost of medical care coverage for
the civil servant at $151. Yearly insurance deductions run about $60.
The Defense study merely compared take-home pay after standard deductions.
It did not go into the comparative value of what those deductions buy, as we will
here, or into a discussion of comparative fringe benefits as is done in this study.
Also, the Defense analysis did not go into the long-range effect of longevity and
promotion policy on pay and on total earnings over a career. Nor did it examine
whether the military man might be just as well off?or better?if he contributed
to his retirement like the civil servant does. We'll examine this question in the
next section.
But basically the statistical comparisons were close. And it is intereSting to
note that even using the older Defense table the take-home pay of a GS-15 was
increased $2,000 a year by the raise that goes into effect next January 1.
Will the combination of the new military raise and the new quarters allowance
increase add that much to the 0-6's take-home pay?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1618
Retirement restrictions
The civil servant is under a 2-year ban on selling to the Gm ernment. 'this is
an ancient criminal statute, seldom invoked, that applies to all officers of the
Government, civilian and military.
The military officer, in addition to this, is under a 3-year ban against selling
to any agency of the Defense Department, including a rather ill-defined re-
striction on "indirect selling" which includes any kind of contract work with
the Government or leading to Government contracts.
At the recent conference on problems of military retirees sponsored by the
Air Force Association and the Department of Labor, a representative of ha.ustry
said that the restriction was so uncertain that many firms were refusing to hire
retired military officers to avoid trouble with the Government.
There has been a lot of talk and discussion and headlines and congressional
investigation of the dangers of undue influence by retired military officers.
One never hears the same charges about former civilian employees cf the
Government, and a preliminary congressional investigation into the influences
of scientists and engineers who work as consultants for both the Government
and private firms was quietly called off.
The retired military officer Is also restricted by the Dual Employment Act
which prevents Regular officers from bottling most Federal jobs and by the
dual compensation laws which limit the total income of most who do work
for the Government to $10,000 a year.
Federal employees do not normally work for the Government after retirement.
They are not forced into a 2-career life such as the up-or-out theory that
governs the military.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the up-or-out pattern is the most
desirable way to handle armed service officer personnel, the fact is the military
officer is subjected to it. He must be able to move up at regular points, or he
Is forced out.
Except for the very small percentage who make general or flag officer (less
than 1 percent of the entire officer corps), even those who complete a successful
career according to the normal pattern, reaching an 0-0 rank, are forced
out at 30 years' service, whether they want to leave or not. I: is true that this
means a longer period of drawing retired pay than Is generally true for
civilians?in Government or out?but it Is done for exigencies of the service
;aid not with the benefit of the individual in mind. In fact, a study of military
retirement laws will show that they have always been used primarily as a tool
(if personnel administration, vitalization of the Active Force being considered
first rather than the benefit of the individual.
This basic situation never seems to be taken into account in considering the
restrictions on retired military officers working for the Government.
Retired civil servants can work for the Government as consultants, and a ?ecent
Court of Claims decision upheld their right to work as consultants and continue
to draw full retired pay.
Regular military officers can work as consultants to the Governmenr.?but
their income is subject to the dual compensation limitation. A retiree. civil
servant whose retired pay is above $10,000 can work for the Governmen; as a
consultant with no limit on his consultant pay. A retired military officer with
the same retired pay could not receive any consultant fees from the Government
regardless of their comparative years of service.
There are other restrictions on the military. They are subject to recall invol-
untarily. For some time there has heen confusion as to just. how much they are
subject to military laws and as to when, and If, their retired pay can be cut off.
Advantage: The civil servant all the way.
.11 edieal care
The Government provides complete medical and hospital care for the military
man and the benefit continues after he retires on a space available basis.
Hospital space is no longer being programed for refired personnel and. with
the steady. heavy increase in the number on the retired rolls, the time is not
far off when space just won't be available. Other methods of providing retired
care are being looked into, such as a possible group insurance plan modeled after
that available to civil servants.
Medical care is also provided to military dependents with only a smad cost
when hospitalized. No dental care Is provided for dependents in the lThited
States. It is occasionally available overseas.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 jElek-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Civil servants generally get no free medical care or medical and hospital
service in Government facilities.
Certain Federal employees get care in Government facilities in certain cases.
Civil servants get group health coverage for which they pay about two-thirds
the premium cost and the Government pays the remainder.
The medical insurance cost varies according to how much insurance the
employee wants to buy and how many people he wants to cover. There are more
than 30 separate plans available and, naturally, single people pay less than
married employees providing coverage for families. The high option includes
all the coverage you can get under a given plan. The low option under the Blue
Cross-Blue Shield plan is $3.44 every 2 weeks and the high option is $5.82. This
is the plan most employees have. (For single employees, by comparison, the costs
run $2.11 and $1.30.) For a female employee with a nondependent husband
the cost usually runs about $1.30 higher than for regular family coverage.
Taking the standard family coverage, which would include the great majority
of Federal employees, and taking the high option in all cases, to get service
most nearly comparable to what military families get, the Blue Cross-Blue Shield
figure is a good average.
Thus the cost of medical care runs $151.32 a year.
The cost for military dependents for hospitalization runs $1.75 per day in
military facilities. In civilian hospitals, $1.75 a day or $25, whichever is greater.
A number of items are not paid for by the Government. For example, patients
pay extra for private rooms. There are also dollar maximums the Government
will pay for certain services and limits to the number of days' hospitalization for
some disorders. There are also charges for some nonhospital care.
Civil servants who get group hospitalization will probably have some costs in
addition to what their policy covers, depending upon their income. And, of
course, in many cases they will have medical care costs not covered by their
group plan, such as routine doctor visits. So it is fair to assume the civil servant
will have medical care costs over and above their insurance premiums equal to
what dependents' have to pay.
Thus, the dollar value?about $151 a year?of the medical care provided mili-
tary personnel and their dependents is about the same as the civil servant pays
in health plan fees. Because the civil servant will pay extras beyond his fees if
actually sick, the gap between the two groups widens.
This is for the most widely-used civil service plan. Even if one took the plan
that provides the maximum care?which is not widely used?the premium would
be $11.51 every 2 weeks, or $299.26 a year. And this is tax deductible.
Advantage: All on the side of the military.
PX'8?commiasaries
Civil service employees have no exchanges or commissaries except when sta-
tioned overseas or at some remote stateside activities.
Almost all military personnel have exchange privileges and the great majority
have commissary privileges. It allows them to buy groceries and a great variety
of other items at somewhat reduced prices.
At one time the privilege was a substantial one for the military man. It has
been whittled down since World War II due in part to political pressure from
local and national retail groups. But it is still a benefit which is of value to a
military family.
How much of an asset is it in monetary terms? The Defense Military Pay
Study Group put a price tag on the benefit in terms of the cost of the Govern-
ment of providing it.
They found that commissary privileges are worth $46.20 a year per officer
and exchanges are worth $27.18 per officer. For enlisted men the figure averaged
out to $24.75 and $17.83. This would make the total value of the two worth
$73.38 to the average officer, $42.58 to the man.
The Pay Study Group arrived at its figures by taking the actual cost to the
Government of providing the benefit and dividing it by the total number of men
Involved. This figuring from the Government cost angle is, of course, an accept-
able way to compute the value of a benefit.
But we think the figure is too low, particularly for commissaries. When it is
considered that many do not have commissary privileges it is clearly seen that
the value is increased for those who do. And since some of those who do not
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/144JBol : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
are fed by the Government we think it is fair to consider the increased value of
commissary privileges to those who have it.
A precise figure on the number who use commissaries is not available and
therefore an exact computation of the benefit of the privilege cannot be made.
lint we think the annual cost savings to a man shopping in commissaries would
likely be about double the figure arrived at by the study group that is, $92.40
for an officer.
The exchange cost estimates made by the study group would appear to be more
nearly correct, since almost everyone has exchange privileges and since what is
bought there is not as often basic-need items. Also, exchange prices on most
items are closer to the normal commercial costs than commissary prices.
But again to be conservative, let's increase the estimated value to the indivi-
dual by 50 percent over that estimated by the pay study group. That wettld put
I he annual value at $40.77 for the average officer.
So --using our liberal calculations?the total annual value of commissary and
exchange privileges to the typical officer is about 8133.
That's about $2.05 a week.
Advantage: A military benefit, but obviously not nearly as important as a lot
or people consider it to be.
Nide that the total of the much heralded (stnireissary, exeliallge, and medical
care privileges would be about $12S0 a year?about $3 a week. fIardly the equiva-
lent of a modest pay raise.
The Military Pay Study Group's calculation of medic-al Care benefit, again by
taking the total annual cost and dividing by the total personnel, came out some-
what: higher than ours. They computed the value at $119.30 for the officer and
$173.:19 for his dependents. t For enlisted men, $11!}.1g for themselves and $90.60
for dependents.) We rejected this approach because we felt the total medical
budget includes a lot of expenditures that are not reflected in service to patients.
Ilut it is interesting to note that if one took the study group's projections in
medical care and commissary and exchange privileges the total value of the bene-
fits would be still only $306.27 ($119.50 $173.39 $46.20 4- $27.18), oily $66
more than our estimate. And that's the equivalent of about $7 a week.
1Voreiceck
The civil service worker norma11v works an ti-hour day. a ?In-hour week. Craft
and skilled workers --the so-tulled blue collar free-- unmanly get tithe and a
half for overtime and "golden Hine" for Sun ay or for a seventh day in a work-
week.
The general schedule or white-collar civil service employees are paid thin and a
half for the first $6115 of their salaries. This is figured on in hourly basis even
though, strictly speaking, the classified employee is salaried and not paid by the
hour. For employees whose annual salary exceeds 86435 the overtime hour rate
of compensation Is an amount equal to one and one-half times :he hourly rate for
$6,435. The result is that employees earning more than $6,433 receive the same
hourly rate for overtime.
li:tuployees yl ruing $15,030 or more do not get any overtime pay.
As a praetival matter this means employees up to about GS-8 receive th le and
a half for overtime.
law provides that the Federal empleyee can be given overtime pay or
youtpensatory time off. Frequently. compensatory time is given for extra work.
In fairness to the civil servants it should be pointed out Eltit when a Federal
employee takes any time off during the day for a personal errand he charges it
in most cases to his leave?unlike military men and most private industry em-
ployees. It should also be pointed out that sonic higher grade Federal employees
take work home or put in overtime without charging the Government for it.
Twit points stand out, however. As a normal rule the civil employee is com-
mitted to his job for only 40 hours a week with very infrequent demands for
long, burdensome hours. And, when he does work overtime, except at the very
fop administrative levels, he gets paid for it or gets time tiff later. Most classified
ympleyees get more than regular time pay.
The military man gets no overtime pay of any kind. He is available fur duty as
ordered by his eontmanding officer and he gets a set pay per month, independent
of how many hours a day or days a week he works.
f Enlisted men skilled in their jobs get pro pay?less than 13 pereent of the
tot 01 enlisted force receive it--but this is fur special skill and is totally unneated
I. hours or pressen, of work. The enlisted craftsman g.:tting pro :my It
leolutnie, a technician?gets less money than a civilian blue-collar worker earns
ii :t regular 40-hour week.)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1621
The military man gets no additional compensation and rarely gets time off for
overtime work; that is, work over 40 hours a week that the average civilian con-
siders overtime. What's more the military man works more than 40 hours as a
matter of course.
A sampling of 00,000 servicemen recently made by the Defense Department's
Military Pay Study Group shows that the average workweek for officers and en-
listed men is over 50 hours. a week, and workweeks as long as 65 hours are not un-
common.
Something in the neighborhood of 20 percent of servicemen work 65 hours or
more. Pilots in the Army and Air Force average 58 hours a week. Ground Coin-
bat soldiers?Army and Marine?average 55-60 h:ours a week. Army and Air
Force officers as a whole averaged 53 hours a week, combat pilots in the Air Force
in lieutenant grade average over 70 hours a week, Navy and Army enlisted men
average 50 and 55 hours a week.
In addition, there is the irregularity of military hours?night watches and
such?and the fact that a man sometimes is unable to leave his station for long
periods?aboard ship, in the field, on long flights, for example.
This is not to suggest that compensation systems be changed. By the nature
of military life it would be well nigh impossible to start paying time and a half
for overtime. And certainly we are not suggesting that civil service overtime
be abolished. But it is clear that the military man makes a much larger commit-
ment of his time and energies toward his job than the civil servant does and this
factor should be taken into account in determining his total compensation.
Advantage: Emphatically on the side of civil service.
Animal leave
Military men get 30 days' leave a year. Civil Service employees get up to
26 days a year. On the surface it looks as if the military man has the advan-
tage. But let's look a little closer.
The civil servant with less than 3 years' service earns 13 days' leave a year.
Those with more than 3 but less than 15 years' service get 20 days a year.
Employees with 15 or more years' service get 26 days a year. Employees can
count prior military service in determining years of service for leave purposes.
Employees can carry up to 30 days' leave from one year into the next. Military
men can get accrued leave pay?basic pay and allowances?for up to 60 days'
accrued leave only when separated from service.
Generally, Federal employees can take leave at their own discretion. Military
leave is granted by the commanding officer and normally only 10 percent of an
activity is permitted to be on leave at one time. Regularly, civil servants and
military officers lose leave, although it appears military men lose leave more
often than civilians do.
Civilian employees, as noted in the discussion of the workweek, take leave for
personal errands, which military people generally do not.
But a big difference is that civilian leave is measured in working days. Mili-
tary leave is counted in calendar days. A military man with 30 days' leave
gets 4 weeks and 2 days off. He needs 36 days of his type leave to equal the
civilian employee, whose 26 days means 5 calendar weeks and 1 day vacation.
Over a 30-year career the civilian employee gets 675 working days of leave
(13 times 3 plus 11 times 20 plus 16 times 26). The serviceman gets 640 work-
ing days of leave (five-sevenths of 30 times 30).
Advantage: On the side of the civilian employee.
Retirement
No benefit given military personnel has received as much ballyhoo as the al-
legedly glorious military retirement system. Let us hasten to add that neither
the military nor the civil service retirement systems are anything to be sneezed
at. Both are exceptionally fine systems compared with the millrun of benefits
in private industry.
But the military is usually considered to have the big advantage over the civil
servant in retirement. This impression arises from the simple fact that military
retirement is free and the civil servant contributes money toward his. Over
the lifetime career projected in table No. 3 in last week's issue, using the January
1, 1964, pay scale, a civil servant will contribute $22,680 toward his retirement.
The military man's retirement, starting at 50 percent on 20 years' service, goes
to a maximum of 75 percent for 30 or more years' service. It is computed on
base pay only. He also gets social security at age 62 to 65, to which he con-
tributes up to $174 a year.
85066-63?No. 6 15
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041.24 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Civil servants contribute 61,:. percent of their salary toward retirement. While
the military man retires on years of service in relation to his grade the civil
servant retires on age. The minimum age is 55.
He can draw retired pay earlier for disability and for involuntary relPertient
such as through force cutbacks.
The civil service system was designed to have the employees contribute 50
percent. Actually, the contributions of all civil service retirees pay fcr only
about 17 percent of what they can expect to get back. The system is repeatedly
liberalized, so that percentage is going down.
The civil servant will get in his first 3 years of retirement more than the total
of what he has contributed over his career.
RETIRED PAY VALI7E OFTEN MISSTATED
Alilitary men know how Congress is continually raising eyebrows over the
present cost of military retirement (now over $1 billion a year) and future cost
trends.
Equal eyebrow raising is in order over the bill for civilian retirement. Each
year Government agencies pay several hundred million?tht fiseal 1963 figure
was $800 million?to supplement the employees' WA percent contributions.
But this does not nearly represent the cost to taxpayers or civilian employee
retirement. The civil service retirement fund is /I trust fund. Uncle Sam has
future obligations to make good deficits in that fund. Actuaries have computed
just what benefits already earned will cost that fund.
How much? Over and above the present assets of the fund as made up of
annual Government appropriations and the workers' contributions the fund
today is $30 billion in debt.
Thirty billion is equal to the whole Federal budget for a year, excluding De-
fense, space, and debt interest.
The military man's retirement advantage is that he is able to start drawing
retirement as early as after 20 years. But few officers retire voluntarily as early
as 20 years?retirement that early is generally because they are forced out and
is thus mainly for the convenience of the Government,
And unlike the civil service pay system, the military scales offer little incen-
tive for a top-grade enlisted man to stay more than 20 years and very little for
a offiver unless he is selected for promotion.
And .the military man who serves a full 30 years and beyond finds he is not
doing as well the civil servant. This is because the civil servant continues to
get longevity and can increase his "high ,'*-111s average years on which his
retirement is based--after 30 years. Ile can also go up to 80 percent. The top
military officers bit their maximum base pay at 26 years, juniors, even earlier.
Curiously, it is the highest ranking military officers, the ones who presumably
are the cream of the crop, the peak of the pyramid, who do least well by com-
parison with civilians on retired pay. Thu get no benefit of service beyond 30
years in computing retired pay.
Also, since retired pity is computed Just rm base pay it has a lesser relation
to total compensation than civilian retired pay. If a military officer and a civil
servant have the same gross pay, the civil servant's retirement can be 80 per-
cent of his best 5 years' average gross pay. But the military juan does not get
75 percent of his grms pay. It Is 75 percent of his basic pay?a figure $2,50f.
below gross pay in the case of an O-ti.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : R&RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Graphs Nos. 1 and 2 adjoining give a clear picture of the long-range relation
of civil service service and military retired pay. The charts compare an 0-5
with a GS-14 and an 0,6 and 0-8 with a GS-15. They show clearly the civil
servant is drawing more retired pay than military men of equal rank and equal
years of service. After 21/2-3 years, as stated, the civilian has gotten back all
of his contribution.
It might be well to tell briefly how civil service retirement is computed.
The amount depends primarily upon length of service and the "high 5"
average salary. The "high 5" average salary is determined by multiplying the
annual basic salary by the actual number of years and fractions the employee
served at each pay rate in the highest 5-year period and dividing the total amount
by 5.
The basic annuity in any case may not exceed 80 percent of the employee's
"high 5" average salary.
There are three steps to the general formula for computing the basic 'annuity:
1. Take 11/2, percent of the "high 5" average salary and 'multiply 'the result
by 5 years of service;
2. Add 1% percent of the "high 5" average salary multiplied by years of serv-
ice between 5 and 10;
3. Add 2 percent of the "high 5" average salary multiplied by all service over
10 years.
Instead of using the 11/0, 1%, and 2 percent, there may be substituted 1 percent
of the "high 5" average salary plus $25 for any or all of these percentages if such
a substitution will produce a higher basic annuity.
Regardless of length of service the following rules apply in computing basic
annuities under the general formula:
(1) If the "high 5" average salary is $5,000 or more, the highest basic 'annuity
will be obtained by using steps 1 through 3.
(2) if the "high 5" average salary is between $3,334 and $4,999, the highest
annuity will be obtained by substituting the 1 percent plus $25 in step 1, and then
using steps 2 and 3.
Examples:
A. "High 5" average salary $6,000; 30 years' service:
11/2 percent X $6,000 X 5 years of service
$450
1% percent X $6,000 X next 5 years of service
525
2 percent X $6,000 X remaining 20 years of service
2400
Highest basic annuity
3375
B. "High 5" average salary $4,000; 20 years service:
1 percent X $4,000+$25 X'5 years of service
325
14 percent X $4,000X next 5 years of service
350
2 percent X$4,000X remaining 10 years of service
800
Highest basic annuity
1475
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Civilian Retirement Advantage Graphically Displayed
14,000
11.000
t^ 12,000
? 11,000
12
Z' 10,000
Z LOW
COW
4,000
6,000
4,000
4,000
Graphs by Bette Amick
A .:omparlson eLtile
astirement Pay at la
al and a 6-14
Ale
I
02
? o'''?.
n?rriod
21-14 II
h *solid
soc.irlt
.....-
Alit
ds ....0
... 0.
Pea
11,1
..
....
0. .4.,
431-14.
without
',slat
ocurIty
0
.4."."
0
14.0.0
narrIod
04.11ftsr
ass 62
0
I
I
0
I
0'0*
0.
.J."
0
0
.....0.-
e 12
Or'
......
_.0.
II
0-5
asIans s0
at
4
If
10
If
...r.....
.... 17
.
nal
security
I beers
be
teals'
lei
24 22 L'S -2 20 7 5! 52 33 04 55 5.0 57
tsar, St 21141112.
0-90008Z0017000t1?01700899dCIU-VI3 :
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1625
Graph I above plots the comparative retired pays of GS-14's and 0-5's. The
civilians' rates are based on the scales effective January 1, 1064; the officers'
on present pay.
All are assumed to have begun Government service at age 22 and all are
assumed to start drawing social security at 62 when possible. (Starting age
is not material in determining military retired pay but is material in determin-
ing when social security starts.)
The bottom straight lines show the military retired pay of an officer who
retires as an 0-5 after the number of years' active service shown. Thus one
who retires after 22 years gets $5,110 retired pay; one who retires after 30 or
more gets the maximum $6,980.
The upper straight lines represent the total of retired pay and social security
the same officer will get at 62 if he starts social security at that point. The
figures 18 through 10 are the number of years remaining between date of retire-
ment and date social security starts. An officer who started at 22 and retires
after 22 years at age 44 in 18 years, at age 62, will be combined pay and social
security of about $6,900. That officer who started at 22 and retired after 30, is
52, gets $7,000 military retired pay. In 10 years, he will get about $8,800 in
combined military and social security.
The social security figures includes wife's social security?half the husband's.
Now for the GS-14's. The lower broken lines show their retired pay for the
number of years' service shown. Retirement below 26 years' service is disability
retirement. From the 25-year service point it is straight civil service retired
pay. Most retirement below age 55 is involuntary.
The active pay on which the annuities are figured for each year of service is
based on the in-grade step the GS-14 of that service reasonably would have
reached. GS-14 active pay runs from $13,615 to $17,215. The 33-year man
would have reached the top but the 22-year one would not.
The top broken line shows what a married GS-14 of each length of service
would receive if he drew social security as well as civil service annuity. As
with the 0-5's the numbers show the number of years each must wait after
retirement. The social security which the 31-year retiree would get is cal-
culated on his starting to get it at age 63, not 62. That which the 32-year man
would get is calculated on his taking at age 64. And that which the 33-year
man would get is figured on the maximum social security, started at age 65.
Reason: there isn't time enough for such long-service men to qualify for social
security any earlier.
Graph I proves that the GS-14 gets far more retirement pay for any length of
service than the 0-5 to whom he is supposed to correspond. And even after
the serviceman picks up social security (which most will qualify for) the civilian
retirees (most of whom will not get social security) are still generally far better
pensioned.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/R4f31 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I.?
?
t
I
1
?
1
'?
I
1
1.
X
IG5-15 e'tboOt
Social Securi ty
Career ?tert? at
Age 22 I
\
\
I
I
1
-4.
1. I
L I
? I
1.
0-6? before a5? 62--
!-1-.-----
..? I
: I
O I
.
O
65-15 eita
ecurIty
tarts at
\ il
X I
I.
? I
X.
X
.-
..;
,
.
1
.5.....''
Z, ;5
-?
"..
\
\.1,10
\
n: T.
,.....?
..
......
V1
'?'?
\
1
11
g g 3
8
?
usilei 3 spurinsu el &Ipemsy ienuky
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1M-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Graph II illustrates the comparative retirement pays of 0-G's, 0-8's, and GS-
15's. This graph is set up like graph I and based on the same assumptions. The
following notes differences only.
The straight lines show an 0-6's retired pay, without social security (lower
line) and with social security (upper line).
The dash line for 0-8 begins at 35 years' service. We assume he will serve
that long before retirement. At 40 years?when he reaches age 62?his income
goes up with the addition of social security.
The chart shows clearly that ?the GS-15?dot-dash line?even without social
security, not only surpasses the 0-6 in retired pay but gets more than the 0-8--
even an 0-8 with social security.
A wavy line is added showing the comparative retired pay of a GS-15 who
starts his career at age 30. It shows clearly that even if the civil servant starts
his career much later than the military careerist he comes out ahead of both the
0-6 and the 0-Sin retired pay.
Several things should be particularly noted. It is generally assumed the civil
servant might eventually end up with higher retired pay because he serves
longer?that he'll be better off at age 62 because he has served 40 years while the
0-6 can retire on 30. But the chart shows that the GS-15 is better off anywhere
along the line after 30 years' service than an 0-6, even if both have equal years
of service. If both have served 31 years, for example, the GS-15 at age 53 is
drawing over $500 more a year in retired pay than the 0-6. GS-15 pay con-
tinues to go up yearly while the 0-6 stays at the same level until social security
age. At the point where he normally retires, an 0-8 is drawing just about the
same as a GS-15 with 35 years 'service.
Though an 0-8's responsibilities are much greater than a GS-15's, if both
serve 40 years, the GS-15 is almost $1,000 a year ahead in retired pay even
though the GS-15 has been unable to get social security and the 0-8 gets it auto-
matically. In the years between his 35th year of service and the time he reaches
age 62, the 0-8 can be as much as $2,500 below a GS-15 retiring with between
35 and 40 years' service.
The upper dot-dash line for GS--15 shows the total income with social security
added to civil service retirement.
The wavy line for a GS-15 starting at age 30 is not carried out beyond the
35-year point because at that point he would be 65 and presumably would retire.
CIVILIAN HAS MARKED SURVIVOR PROTECTION ADVANTAGE
It may be argued that the retired pay of a civil servant and a corresponding
military officer are not too far apart when one prorates the civil servant's contri-
bution over an extended period. It will be said, for example, that the total
retired pay a 08-15 draws over a 10-year period after retirement is not more
than what the 0-6 draws in that time phis the GS-15's contribution.
But the disparity really becomes marked when one compares the survivor
protection each can provide out of his retired pay.
The military man provides for his survivors through the Retired Serviceman's
Family Protection Act (formerly Contingency Option Act) which is roughly
comparable to an insurance policy bought late in life, but a policy without any
savings or cash surrender features. The military man pays high for this.
The civil servant can provide more survivor protection much less expensively.
Let's first look briefly at active duty survivor benefits. The military man has
an advantage here. Of course, this survivor benefits program was devised
because of the nature of his work.
A young service widow with children gets $112 a month plus 12 percent of
her husband's base pay (dependency indemnity) plus social security payments
for children of up to $254 for two or more children ($10.60 a month maximum for
one child).
An 0-5's widow can get up to $2,460 a year from dependency indemnity plus
$1,144 social security when age 62. The widow also can get social security pay-
ments for her children. Combined maximum of indemnity and social security
is $5,508. The military man has contributed for social security.
Survivors of civil servants get 55 percent of the annuity earned by the wage
earner. The maximum allowed for a 05-14 widow is $7,590, but the maximum
is increased for children under 21 and in school. The employee has contributed
61/2 percent of his salary.
Civil servants can get low-cost group life insurance. It is completely optional.
It costs about $60 a year. The military gets a death gratuity furnished by the
Government. It is 6 months' pay with a minimum of $800 and a maximum of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/601 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
$3,000. This benefit stops with retiremcnt. The civilian's insurance continues
after retirement, at a reduced amount, at no cast to hint.
After retirement. the military man loses the dependents indemnity payments.
Ills wife gets none of his retirement pay unless he provide:, one through the
Retired Serviceman's Family Proteetion Art by taking a reduced annuity.
Maximum he can leave is half the retired pay left after paying for annuity.
The retired civil servant can leave up ta 7i5 percent of bis annuity to his
wife when he dies?"wife" being his spouse the day his retired annuity
The reduction in the retiree's annuity will be 21/2 percent of any amount up
to $3.000 he specifies as a base for the survivor benefit plus 10 percent of tiny
:MP mut aver $3.000 so speriffi.d. The survivor's annuity will be 55 percent of
all or whatever portion of the retiree's annuity specifies as a base.
A retiree entitled to SE(8) life annuity, for example. designates his wife to
receive survivor annuity based on his entire annuity. Ills $4,000 will be
reduced by 21/2 percent of the first $3,000 ($90) and by 10 percent of the remain-
ing $9)0 ($40), making a total reduction of $130. The retiree receives a $3,870
tumuity, his widow $2,200.
Should the retiree elect to have the survivor annuity based ,-aa only $3.000, his
annuity will be reduced by 21/2 percent of $3,900 (or $75), and he will receive an
annuity of $3.925. Ills widow would receive $1,100 annuity.
Employees without a wife?bachelors, widows, widowers, divorcees?cal leave
an annuity to anyone who has an insurable interest in the retiree's life The
employee must he in good health when lie retires.
As chart No. 3 dramatically shows, a civil servant providing an annuity for
his survivors equal to the maximum a military officer can provide has a much
greater retired pay remaining.
Chart No. 3 is on the next page. Following is a table showing the amounts
which can be left to the widow and their cost In reduced retirement pay.
Over and above these deductions, the military man has been paying social
security taxes, the civilian his retirement contributian.
On balance, the civil servant has a marked advantage in retironent and sur-
vivor protection and can achieve combined benefits equal to that of military
officers of considerably higher rank.
comparinon of ret ircd. military and civil service surrivor'n benefitn
PRESENT MILITARY SURVIVORS' PROGRAM
Rank
At age
1
Retired Contingen-
Pay cy option
I
Reduced Widow's
pay Income
Widow's
if kr 62
0-3
42
$1Si3 $Z1
$210 $120
$224
0-4
42
315 27
Din 144
248
0-5
48
501 54
450 225
329
0-6
52
739 90
ni9 325
429
0-7
62
1*11 143
738 360
473
NOTE.?Based on leaving half of reduced retired pay to widow. After 62 inconmc includes soda security.
CIVIL SERVANT SURVIVORS' PLAN AS OE JANUARY 1964
Oracle
high 5
Retired
Pay
Annuity I Reduced
Cost rniy
I
Widow's
dICORIC
$12,1581
$590
$37 $.553
$325
08-13 14.000 690 47 (1-13 379
O5-14 17,000 840 62 774
462
936
(15-15 19,000 71 885
.515.
OS-15 19,200 1,2243 100 1,120
471
service grades start age 22; retire age 55. Bottom One shows I IS 15 retiring age 62.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/%9CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
t V`A
I ;vs
I 'OA
II.
,
VI, ...
, ? .
?
i
i
1
,
1 71
T. 73
I. 0
0 tf3
II I
.0
0 0
t. 0
' .
A
\
ft,
I
,
'0
...
V3
0
0
0
:
\
a
: 4
aJA
d
,!?-?c'o
? 'Po\
\
SIA
A Comparison of the Rtducad Retired
Py of en 0-8, an 0-0 and an 0-10
Providing Maximum Survivor Annuity
with the Reduced Retired Pay of a 1
6S-15 Providing the Stme Annuity)
\CO
?SJ
\
\
A if
?A
...IA
g
A?
\
\
?
?-J.I.
L
g
anion ja spuesttou -al Ita4 pailiaa Naftali
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/261 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Chart III compares the retired pay of 0 8's, 0-9's, and 0-10's, win. are pro-
viding the maxinnun Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Act (contingency
option) coverage with the retired pay of GS -1.5's providing an equal amount
of annuity for their survivors. It should be kept in mind that this is by no
means the most that GS-15's can provide. They can leave a lot more for
survivors under the civil Nervi' survivor annuity plan than the military offi-
cers can leave under the ItSPPA. But the chart shows the retired pay re-
nmining to the GS--15's after leaving an amount equal to the maximum a top
ndlitary officer can leave.
It shows clearly that 08 -15's providing the same annuity for thcir wives
still draw more retired pay than 0 Ks and (1-9's and almost as much as 0-10's!
The comparative cost of providing this tantuity is discussed elsewhere in this
article. ohvionsly,.the retired pay of a civil service supergrade?GS-10,
and OS -1M---then is even higher than that of the top grades of military officers.
For the purposes of this chart it is assumed that all careers start u.F. age 22.
We have begun the straight 0 8 line and the dotted, curved GS-15 line with
retirement on 33 years service. They would rarely retire before that. The
upper straight line for the 0-8's shows what total income will be raised to
after the officers start drawing social smirity. Year figures in between the
lower and upper line show how long they wait before having social security
added. For example, an 0 8 retiring on 33 years has to wait sewn years
before getting social security payments; retiring on 34 years service he has
to wait 6 years, and so on. Note that the 0 -8 retiring on 36 years, to take
one example, has to wait 4 years before his income is equal to the reduced
retired pay of a GS-15 retiring on the same years of service.
Also note that the reduced pay of 0-8's actually goes down after 33 years'
service. This is because the retired pay deduction is increased as the officer
gets older.
It can be seen that an 0-S retiring on 40 years service and starting social
security at once, who wants to provide the maximum annuity for his survivors,
must take retired pay of $2,000 a year less than a GS-15 providing the same
annuity. This fact says a great deal about the value of the RSFPA and about
the comparative benefita or civilian and military careers.
The lines showing the reduced retired pay of 0-9's and 0-10's are only shown
front the 40 years of service point on since it is assumed they would not nor-
mally retire earlier.
At the 40- to 42-year points in the curve for a GS-15 there are three dotted
lines.
The top one (A), shows his annuity reduced to provide the maximum sur-
vivor benefit that an 0--S can provide. Compare that with lower straight line
A. The middle line (11) shows what the GS -15 would get after providing
as much for his survivor as an 0-9 could (lower II). (About $1,500 more,
yet the (IS-15 is more nearly equal in Job status to tm 0- 6 than to a three-
star officer.) Only the full admiral or general can get a little more after
providing for his survivors than the GS-15 (compare the two C lines)?and
even here if each has served 42 years before retiring, tile retired pay each keeps
is nearly the same.
MILITARY CAREERS HAVE MANY LIMITS, tscoxvgsrEsrEs
Both Civil Service officials and military officers lake a heating on per diem_
If you have to stay at a hotel and buy your own meals while on Govemment
business, you will find the $10 a day doesn't go too far. Roth military and
civilian employees now get per diem pay of $16 a day.
Per diem
The law provides that under unusual circumstances up to $30 a day can he
allowed. The difference is that civil service is paying the $30 allowed and
the Defense Department is not. Regulations to approve such exceptional
payments have not been issued, although the law allowing them was passed
last June.
There are other differences. Civil service per diem is reduced only when
Government quarters are used. The Government pays for all transportation
expenses. Federal employee per diem overseas depends on the cost and living
standards in the country concerned. In some eases it exceeds $10 a day.
Military per diem is reduced when quarters are available, when the man
is under instruction, or when traveling.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21162111-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The latter sometimes means less per diem for the military man. For example,
if an officer and a civilian einployee in his shop travel across. the country
together, spend 3 days attending to business and then travel back, spending
most of a day traveling each way, the civilian gets per diem of $16 a day for
the full 5 days. The military man gets only the $16 payment for 3 days. His
per diem is reduced for the 2 days he was in a travel status.
Military per diem overseas also varies, often reduced and sometimes increased.
When traveling in his own automobile, the civil servant gets a mileage
allowance of 10 cents a mile. The military man gets 6 cents a mile. Actually,
the law allows paying servicemen up to 10 cents but Defense has never authorized
the higher payments.
Military men on PCS orders get 6 cents a mile for themselves and for each
dependent up to a maximum of 24 cents a mile. Civilians being transferred
permanently get a maximum of 12 cents a mile for themselves and dependents
or same rate as commercial transportation, whichever is lower. But they also
get per diem on transfer. The military man does not.
Advantage: On the side of the civil servant.
Related to travel is the fact that civilians have a more liberal trailer-moving
allowance. Related to nothing so far covered?but still another civilian bene-
fit?is the program of cash awards for suggestions and for sustained superior
performance.
Career inconveniences
As we said earlier, the job of a civil servant is pretty much like a similar
job in private industry in terms of work environment and personal restrictions.
A military career is a wholly different kind of life and is subject to a variety
of restrictions and inconveniences.
The most notable inconveniences of military careers lie in the area of family
separations. Civil servants rarely are separated from their families. When
they are they almost always draw additional pay. Family separations are
numerous in the military service and usually not compensated for. (Enlisted
men get a modest foreign or sea duty pay.) Navy men in particular are
separated for long periods from their families repeatedly throughout their
careers. Men in all services experience separations from their families at some
time in their careers. In addition to the hardships and inconvenience, this
usually results in additional expenses for the family and strained family
relationships.
A concomitant of this is frequent moves. The civil servant seldom if
ever has to move during his career unless he wants to. Occasionally an agency
is moved causing some dislocation for employees but they don't have to go
and the whole thing is usually accompanied by efforts to find new jobs for
employees who don't want to move.
The military man moves frequently, every 2 or 3 years or more often, and
may go to any part of the country or of the world. The officer or enlisted
man usually has little influence on where he will go or on the timing of the
move. When a military man is ordered to move, he moves?with or without
family.
The military man is restricted in the termination of his military career.
A civil servant can quit his job any time before retirement?or move back
and forth between civil service and private industry over the course of his
career. He can also leave his contributions in the civil service retirement
fund and draw retirement at age 62. The average length of service for civil
service retirees?that is, those drawing retired pay?in 1962 was around
10 years.
As a practical matter the military officer is not generally prevented from
resigning before retirement. But legally the Regular officer serves at the
pleasure of the President, and he can be held in the service when his superior
thinks it is necessary. Over the past 2; years, in the case of the Berlin and
Cuba emergencies, we have seen cases where officers were prohibited from
quitting or retiring for certain periods. This authority can be used again in
emergencies from time to time and at least temporarily stop an officer's plans
to change careers.
In addition, when an officer leaves the service he's out. This is true whether
be quits or retires. He can't decide later that he wants to change his mind and
go back to a military career without suffering a big loss of place on the promo-
tion lists?even if he is taken back.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0/04 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
The civil servant can come back to the Government again at least at the grade
he went out and usually gets credit for the additional experience gained on the
outside.
Enlisted men must serve to the end of the period they enlisted for and can be
held beyond that [mint itt emergencies through special authority.
Such authority was used during the 1901-62 crises.
Another area where the civil servant has n tremendous advantage over the
military limn is in the matter of political self-expression.
There are many unions for Government civilian employees. Recently they
have been given bargaining rights?in some cases exclusive bargaining rights.
Military men are not, given the right to join unions. With the exception of
some military associations of limited membership there Is nobody to plead the
military man's cause for hint. The military man Is protected in his freedom
to write to his Congressmen hut such individual letters cannot hope to accom-
plish what is done by organized groups with professional lobbyists.
(When this study was in its final stage the President signed an Executive
order giving UniMIS a voice in annual reviews of civilian pay.)
There is another way in which civil service employees have political influence.
Living permanently In one area, the Federal employee becomes identified with
that area and in places where there is a concentration of Federal employees
their influence with the local Congressman is generally considerable.
The military man, moving regularly, establishes no such local identity and
his individual or group problems do not generally get the attention front local
Congressmen or local political leaders that civilian employee problems do.
When a Congressman lights to keep a military base in his district it is generally
in terms of the income it provides locally anti the jobs it creates for his area.
The welfare of the military man is secondary.
Advantage: On the side of civil service.
A note on housing: Discussion of housing is not included here because the
military man's tax-free housing allowance was included in our analysis of his
compensation. It should be noted that, when available, Government housing is
normally cheaper for the military officer. That is, he is sure he has no lent to
pay if he gets Government quarters. But a military man witliout quartets who
draws a housing allowance finds his rent and utilities normally exceed his
housing money.
Only a handful of civil servants get housing in the Unied States. They
usually have the same housing privileges as military men overseas and oc-
casionally are furnished free quarters in foreign countries.
The civilian overseas gets rental allowances, educational allowances, and
.cost-of-living differentials in many cases.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandford, could this be condensed or
Mr. BENNETT. D011't condense the letter.
Mr. IlivEns. I am talking about the report. That is rather-compre-
hCIISI We.
Mr. BLANnFotio. I don't see how it Call be condensed.
Mr. RIVERS. It is a very line. report.
BLANDFORD. I think the first page is going to have to be elim-
inated unless we are going into the advertising business.
Mr. BENNF.TR. Use your own judgment. I would like to have the
letter in in full.
Mr. ItivErts. Put. in the whole letter, and Mr. Bates and Mr. Bennett
want what the statement has to say put_ iii.
Mr. BATES. Then I would like to get the figures on the cost-of-living
increase and have that as a part of the report.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bates also wants as a part of the report the cost of
living since the effective date of the last pay increase.
Mr. BIANDFORD. The increased cost of living is approximately 5 per-
cent ,as I understand it, since 1958.
Secretary PAUL. That is right.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
163
Mr. BLANDFORD. Here we are in an area of great dispute because cost
of living is one thing and rising living standards is something else.
You heard testimony from the witnesses that professional pay, for
example, has gone up considerably more than the cost of living. We
know that the civil service increases have gone up considerably more
than the cost of living.
Now, you run into the problem of comparability. Somewhere,
someplace along the line you have to decide what you are comparing
your pay scales with, and if you take the civil service rate, then your
comparability indicates that where there was a relatively small spread.
between, say, an E-3 and a GS-3, and a GS-14 and a lieutenant colonel,
this spread has now increased considerably beyond that.
This then also brings you into the so-called fringe benefit area.
And fringe benefits are, again, something that are almost impossible
to properly identify. They include, -for example, appropriations to
the Department of Labor -for unemployment insurance involving $110
million for servicemen who are discharged. Now this is construed as
a fringe benefit for the military services.
Frankly, I have nothing but sympathy for people who attempt to
write a pay scale and then attempt to compare it, for the military, and
attempt to compare it with civil service or industry.
What we are faced with here is a question of a pay bill that will do
something to increase the retention rate of our enlisted personnel and
increase the retention rate of our officer personnel. .VVhetlier or not
this bill will accomplish its purpose' we will only know after it has
been in effect for a number of years. We do know that with every pay
increase we have ever provided there has been an increase in retention
rates among officers and enlisted personnel immediately following the
pay increase, but it slides off very rapidly and one of the reasons prob-
ably that it slides off is that the economy overcomes the pay increase
so rapidly, including not only industry but civil service, that the
military man almost within a short period of a few months considers
himself again underpaid.
I don't know, frankly, how you compare a private serving in South
Vietnam or any place else with industry. I don't know how you com-
pare a platoon leader or a pilot of a 104 with an airline pilot, for
example. They are two different problems, they have different risks,
and of course the pay is fantastically different.
Mr. BATES. That is right. But on the other hand if you know what
they got in 1958 you can see what the change is. In that sense I think
it is a good thing. I would like to have it put in the record.
Mr. RIVERS. if we get into comparability we will be here until
kingdom come.
Mr. BATES. Is there any rule or regulation in the services with
respect to moonlighting, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Bates, there are rules and regulations. I am
not personally as familiar with them as I should be. I can get them
for you.
Mr. BATES. I would appreciate it if you would put those in the
record.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
(The matter referred to follows:)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0404: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
XIV. OUTSIDE EMPLOY MEM OF'
A. No DOD civilian personnel and no military personnel on active duty shall
engage in private outside employment, with or without compensation, which:
1. interferes with the performance of their Government duties, or
2. may reasonably be expected to bring discredit upon the Government or
the agency concerned.
B. No enlisted member of the Armed Forces on active duty may be ordered
or permitted to leave his post to engage in a civilian pursuit or business, or a
performance in civil life, for emolument, hire, or otherwise, if the pursuit, busi-
ness, or performance interferes with the customary or regalar employment of
local civilians in their art, trade or profession.
Mr. HARDY. I think, Mr. Chairman, on the question of moonlighting,
I think it is one that we haven't touched on before, and I believe it is
an important one, and it may give some indication of the degree to
which present pay scales are inadequate, at least in some categories.
Mr. ItivEns. Give the committee the up-to-date definition of "moon-
lighting."
Mr. BLANDFORD. Having a job in the daytime working for the Gov-
ernment and then having another job in the evening working for a
non-Government organization.
The dual employment statutes prohibit individuals from working
for the Government for all practical purposes. There were a series
of complaints about moonlighting about a year and a half ago and the
Department of Defense did conduct a study, I think Mr. Steve Jack-
son conducted a study on moonlighting, and the extent to which it
was permitted in Washington.
I daresay that if you drive into any gasoline station in the Wash-
ington area, the odds are that the man who will be serving you gaso-
line after 6 o'clock in the evening will be an enlisted man -Nlio is
moonlighting.
Mr. 11,TinsoN. Or a civil service worker.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. IlAnny. The thing I was going to suggest?
Mr. Rum's. I think it is more around the military base.
Mr. IlAnoy. Not only that we get the information on the amount
of the regulations but also on the extent to which it is a factor in
some of these different areas, if you have that information.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I haven't any idea of the extent of it and it would
vary all over.
Mr. Haney. The Department of Defense if it has developed regu-
lations to control it, and you have, you must have secured some in-
formation on the extent of the practice.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir; we can furnish some ;information.
Mr. 13nAignroan. I think it is permitted where it does not affect
the man's ability to do his job. In sum and substance.
Secretary l'Aun. That is right.
Mr. IIAany. You have a series of regulations on it. I have run
into them from time to time.
Mr. ErvEns. What have you got that we can concisely put in the
record at this point?
Secretary PAUL. We can certainly put the regulations in and we
can also give whatever statistics along the lines Mr. Hardy hits asked
for that we can develop.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21101A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. HITDDLESTON. Moonlighting is certainly better than being on
welfare.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Osmers ?
Mr. OSIVIERS. Mr. Chairman, because of the rather complex and
difficult area of moonlighting, and particularly because of the diffi-
culty in identifying it, and I refer, for example, to what Mr. Bland-
ford has said about work at a filling station; often men working in
a capacity like that, Mr. Chairman, are not placed on the payroll
of the business organization.
They receive out-of-pocket cash and from the standpoint of the
Department of Defense records they are not moonlighting. Or they
are cutting lawns or doing work of this kind for which they do not?
their social security numbers are not required and withholding tax
forms are not used.
So that I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, unless you took a little bit
more careful look than shoving some figures in the record here you
may be doing the subject something of an injustice.
I am not trying to prove anything here at all, except that this is a
pretty complicated area. If you wanted to get into it, all right.
Mr. BENNETT. I don't know why they would not be under social
security in a gas station. There is nothing prohibiting them from
doing it. They would get another retirement benefit.
Mr. Osivrials. That is very true, but as a practical matter, from the
standpoint of the serviceman he probably takes $2 or $3 in cash from
the proprietor or the manager and gets?
Mr. BENNETT. He gets social security.
Mr. BLANDFORD. He is already covered by social security under
the law since 1956, all service personnel are paying toward social
security.
Mr. BENNETT. Can't a man if he moonlights get social security
in addition to his benefits?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, but he already gets social security on top of
his military pay.
Mr. BENNETT. That is why I said how in the world
Mr. BLANDEORD. Mr. Osmers is saying that the station manager
'hires him with the understanding that he won't report it, it is good
for the man because it doesn't reflect in his income taxes and good
for the operator because it does not reflect in his withholding tax.
Mr. BENNETT. I can't believe it is very general. I presume these
men running the filling stations know that they can have a suit brought
against them and be required to pay this back social security. They
are not protected because they don't pay it.
Mr. Os-Ai-Ells. I think about all we have demonstrated here this
morning is that moonlighting is a very complicated subject upon
which we have very, very little information.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Paul said he would give us what he has.
Mr. Timmy. That is all we can do and I think we ought to recog-
nize that.
Mr. RIVERS. We are not going to let that seriously affect the bill.
Mr. OSMERS. No.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/044016: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Claiirma.n, I honestly believe that we should proceed with the
consideration. If we want to look at moonlip:hting at some future
time, all right.
Mr. Hum'.EsTo.N. May I ask a quest ion?
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. IhIddieSt011
Mr. III-Din.,EsToN. Mr. Paul, is the cost of this bill as it. came over
from the Defense Department, included in the President's budget for
fiscal year 1961
Secretary P.,tut,. The projection in the budget for fiscal 1961 is a
$t)00 million additional cost. That was based on the assumption
of an October 1 effective date..
If the effective date moves up the cost would be increased. We
did estimate an additional annual cost of our proposals at. roughly
$1.2 billion for a 12-month period.
Mr. I furim.EsTox. Depending on what the commit tee does with it,
the. cost. of this bill was reflected iii the budget?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir; yes.
Mr. RivEns. You had a budget figure based on October 1?
Secretary PAUL. Of $900 million, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RivEas. That answers your question
Mr. I funnurs-roN. Yes.
Mr. RivEns. Now Mr. Blandford, you said something- to the effect
that we would be unable. to proceed if we did not decide on that
question.
Mr. BLAxnvortn. It is not a question of being unable to proceM. I
believe there are two basic issues involved in this pay bill and only
two basic issues. I think the rest- is relatively unimportant.
Mr. IlivEas. Let me say this before you start out on those.
hold that.. This is the way this bill lias struck me and memlers of
the committee.
A lot of things in this bill, Mr. Paul, Mr. Blandford called it to my
attention and the chairman's attention to start with, could be treated in
di ffereiut legisl at ion.
At best, with even the minimum contained in this bill, it is difficult
to explain to the layman on the floor who is un familiar with the tech-
nicalities of retirement, longevity, and retirement for pay disability.
So this is the reason, (-Aiming to your point now, that, we think that
some. of the subjects in this bill cold d be treated in separate legislation.
Now, Mr. 13 landlord?
Mr. ;AVIN. Max' I ask a quest ion at that, point ?
What is the total overall cost of the pay bill ?
Mr. BLANopono. $1,242.503,000
Mr. GAvix. What is the total annual pay ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. About. $6.7 billion today and it will be increased by
approximately $1)1=15 million under ILR. 3006.
Arr. CiAvix. This bill
Mr. BLANDFOIT.D. Yes.
Mr. GAViN.(live u the first figure again.
Mr. BiAxoroan. The total is approximately $6.7 billion today for
today for military pay and for the armed services. Under thii pro-
posal it would lie increased. pay and allowances lvould be increased
by approxinnttelv $1.2 billion.
15066-- 63?No. 6? 16
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : C1RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. GAVIN. What is the total overall again?
MT. BLAND-FORD. $6.7 billion.
Secretary PAUL. That is basic pay alone?
Mr. BATES. It has to be.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.
Mr. GUBSER. You are including retired pay as military pay, aren't
you?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, retirement pay is separate.
Retirement pay is an additional $96,641,000.
MT. GUBSER. It would be about $1,340 million
Mr. BLANDFORD. No. This is where we are going to get confused
on figures. The total cost of the bill as sent over by the Department
is $1,212 million, covering uniform allowances, retirement provisions,
you name it, whatever is in the bill. If you pass the bill in one solid
package, in one fiscal year, assuming we have a force of 2,710,000, it
will cost $1,242 million. Now you have to break that down.
Mr. GAVIN. All right. Previously then the annual pay would be
$6,700 million and this would be an increase of $1,242 million.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir. You have to remember, when you talk
military pay you have to talk about basic pay, allowances, retirement,
you have to talk about uniform allowances you have to talk about
clothing allowances, separation pay, terminal leave pay.
Mr. firvERs. And subsistence.
MT. BLANDFORD. That is included in allowances, but you have a
whole variety of appropriations that are involved here.
The total cost of this bill
Mr. GAVIN. The total cost as it is now without this bill, what is
that figure?$6 bill ion?
Mr. BLAND-FORD. No. The total cost of all pay and allowances to-
day, for everything, today, for fiscal year 1964 is $9,952,100,000.
Mr. GAVIN. All right. And this bill here will increase that by
$1,242 million.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.
Mr. GAVIN. $1,242 million.
Now, what were you just about to say when we interrupted you?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Frankly, I have forgotten what I was about to say.
Mr. BATES. At which interruption?
Mr. BENNETT. Something about the two most important things.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes' what I was about to say to the committee is
this: It seems that we have here roughly four major items of grave
concern to the morale of the armed services and to the retention
rate.
After all, we are trying to pass a bill that will increase retention.
We are having no problem getting bodies, but we are having problems
keeping the right kind of bodies. So we have got to separate the
question of getting people as opposed to the question of keeping
people.
Mr. RIVERS. The people you want?
MT. BLANDFORD. The people we want. The four major points in
this bill, as far as I am concerned, and the Department has some
differing views, is basically pay, retirement, subsistence and this pro-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/84381 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
posal that the chairman has set forth, linown as the separation allow-
ance.
Now, these four proposals are the guts of the committee print.
These. four proposals, I might add, if we take certain action in this
committee, could increase the cost of this bill by about $271 milion
a year.
Mr. GAvix. What are they again, basic P. retirement
Mr. BLAxopoan. Retirement, subsistence allowances.
Mr. GAVIN. Subsistence?
Mr. BLANDFORD. And separation allowance.
Now those are. what I consider to be the four major issues involved
in this situation that we face here today.
If we retain sea and oversea pay, i you arrive at this decision you
immediately add $133 million to the cost of the bill.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's arrive at a decision on that. right now.
Mr. BATES. No; less than 30.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir. I will get to that.
This is where I get into the problem of adding and subtracting.
Mr. RivEas. Let's get things behind us as fast as we can.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Let's agree on the pay for contract surgeons.
There are 67 of them. It has been in the law since the year one.
All they are trying to do is give them the pay of captains instead
of pay of first lieutenants.
The Navy has no authority to use it, the Army has 67 of them.
These peopsle are hired in areas where they cannot find uniformed
doctors, they draw the pay of a first lieutenant, now they want to
let them draw the pay of a captain with over 4 years service. I sug-
gest we adopt it. We have done it ever since 1912.
Mr. 0S3FERS. I so move.
Mr. GAVIN. What is the cost of that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Contract surgeons would cost. $59,000.
Mr. RIVERS. $59,000? Without objection, we approve that pcovi-
sion.
What is the next?
Mr. BLANDFORD. The next section is the one the chairman recom-
mends we delete from the bill.
Mr. RIVERS. On what page is that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 4. If you delete this you delete practically
all of page 4, all of page 5, all of pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 down to
line 18. This is constructive credit.
Mr. RivEuts. This is the constructive credit.
Mr. BLAND-I-ono. Now this, as the chairman states, has no place in a
pay bill. The.re is going to be a recommendation come over here known
as the Bolte proposal, which will go into that question.
Mr. RIVERS. For months, and Mr. Blandford has been keeping
abreast of it, they have had a committee start off under our old friend
John Dahlquist, who had a stroke or ,;orne unfortunate paralyzing
permanent injury, and they gave the job to Geo. Charlie. Bale and he
has done a very tine job on it, as I understand it. I have never seen it..
Of course it would come here, as a legislative proposal, isn't that
right ?
Mr. lh,xiworuu. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1C3A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. Bums. We understand that as a result of the Bolte investiga-
tion that sometime, Mr. Paul, we are going to get a proposal as a re-
sult of this study.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Now I imagine it is coming, is that right?
Secretary PAUL. It is coming, I hope within a week.
Mr. RIVERS. We think that when this comes, things of this character
?ought not to be contained in this pay bill because this is the overall
selection, promotion, strictly the personnel area.
So Mr. Blandford has brought that to the attention of Mr. Vinson
and myself and other members of the committee.
Now,
Mr. Blandford?
Mr. BATES. Is there anything else in this bill that is under the
study of the Bolte committee?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir; there is no other provision in this bill
that I can think of that goes into Bolte.
Mr. RWERS. You mean in the Bolte report?
MT. BATES. Yes.
Mr. I-alloy. And will the question of constructive credits be dis-
cussed there?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Very definitely.
Mr. HARDY. If it is we have no business discussing that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not only that, but the Bolte recommendation elim-
inates constructive credit and this extends constructive credit to a
larger number.
Now we have to make up our mind one way or the other.
Mr. RIVERS. We will have enough trouble on this.
Mr. GAITIN. After the pay increase in 1958, Mr. Chairman, was it
effective in retaining the personnel in the services?
If so, to what extent?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, we have the charts that indicate that after
1958 the first year, 1959, Dr. Long brought this out the other day, that
you showed a rather substantial increase in 1959; then, as Dr. Long
pointed out, there was a sudden drop in 1960.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And no one can really account for these drops, but
we did have a retention increase in 1959 as a result of the pay increase
of 1958.
But then what happens is you come along with a civil service pay
increase, unions go on strike, the whole cost of living goes up, every-
body gets bigger wages than the military and all the effect of your
pay increase is lost.
So when you say to yourself that any pay increase that you pass
here is going to solve the retention problem, I think in a sense it is
just wishful thinking.
You are going to help it for a year or two.
Mr. RIVERS. This is the way the chart shows it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. I think you brought that out very well, Dr. Long. I
think that is all we can do, show what the effect of the past has been.
Mr. BEA NDPORD. That is right.
Mr. RIVERS. Delete the constructive credit section.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/q41 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Arr. Kmoorty. Does the eliminat ion of this section have any bearino-
on the total cost ?
Mr. BLAN prom>. Yes: it has a savinc, of about $1.1,, million.
Mr. RivEas. It is very small.
Now, Mr. Paul, what do you think of our observation there?
If this may be treated as well in other legislation, certainly the
Department has no object ion to this, has it ?
Mr. PAUL. No, sir.
?Jr. RivLas. Let's follow our counsel's advice and go to page what-
1 1 ?
Mr. BLANDroan. Page II. "Retired and retainer pay."
Mr. RuyEas. Now if we can conic to a conclusion on t his today?
Mr. BLANDFORD. This will be a major accomplishment.
Mr. RIVERS. This will be it major accomplishment.
Now, let's go to the next point.
Mr. linANDroun. Now, the retirement, section, I believe. is probably
the most. controversial.
Mr. litvEus. Gentlemen, here is what, we have to keep in mind.
,
The chairman has cautioned me. on this, and he is a wise man.
Our counsel has cautioned us that we. must--and Mr. Hardy has ob-
served it two or three times and Mr. Bates, we must not jeopardize a
retirement system.
Everybody is not as persuaded as are we on the great value that
these people whom we try to help have been to the .7onntry. They
are not as strong for it as we are. ..1.nd taking into consideration
differences of opinion and philosophies, we must not jeopardize, some-
thing that, is working. We have to be. reasonable men and responsible
people.
Now, Mr. Blandford, if you will ever finish looking thromdi :hose
papers.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am ready to start. discussing it. but. I had a pro-
jected cost study on military retirement pay and I have a, few other
papers here and I cannot put my hands on it.
Mr. Rnmits. Let's discuss the whole thing.
Mr. Paul?
Secretary PAti,. Will this help?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That might help.
Mr. RIVERS. If we can arrive, now at what. our philosophy will be
for the future, what our position is going to be on that magnificent
I reatise that Admiral Denfield gave. us?I have, never seen a finer legal
document anywhere., than that, prepareAl by Admiral Denfield and
presented by him, and taking this into consideration we have to mako
these decisions this morning.
Mr. Gavin?
Mr. GAVIN. I merely wanted to ask whether or not. thisgoes back to
1958 and those personnel that were denied the increase ?
'Arr. IILVEHS. It takes up- 1958.
Mr. GunsEn. It does I he same thing to everybody in the future that
they did in 1958.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mil); I VX.1)1 /till what this sect ion does and if I am
in error in any way, please correct me. because this is vii ah to the GAO.
.1s I understand the purpose of this section, and its it is written.
xyliat it does is this: t hose persons rot i rod prior to .1 one 1. 195s, who
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2116311A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
draw their retirement pay under the Carrier Compensation Act will
be permitted to recompute their retirement pay under the pay scales
that are in effect today.
Mr. GunsEn. Retroactively?
MT. BLANDFORD. No Sin
Now, this means that those people retired prior to June /, 1958,
recompute, or the retirement section will permit them to recompute
their pay under existing pay scales.
In addition to recomputing, they will receive a 5-percent cost-of-
living increase because that is the amount that the cost of living has
increased since June 1, 1958.
Mr. KILGORE. Five percent above the 1958.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Five percent in addition to the recomputation and
the 5 percent will be applied to the recomputed retired pay. So this
is not a small amount of money we are talking about.
Mr. GAVIN. Now you are talking about those that did. not receive
this increase prior to 1958?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir ? that is right.
Now, let's understand, that there is another section in this bill that
:says, and this is extremely complicated: The so-called 511 people
under the Carrier Compensation Act.
Mr. RIVERS. This is the 1919 disability?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I have to go back to 1949 because it is nondisability
:that I am talking about at the moment.
:MF. RIVERS. Get those two squared away.
171r. BLANDFORD. In 1949 we established a new system of disability
-retirement. We also established a new method of recomputing retire-
ment for those previously retired who had retired with service that
was other than actual service performed, constructive credit, for
example.
We had a provision in the law that if an individual retired with a
so-called tombstone promotion he was entitled to the maximum pay
,of his grade when he retired.
We took this out in 1947 in the Officer Personnel Act, but we still
had many people who retired -prior to that.
We had a provision going back to 1939, some of you are extremely
familiar with it, known as paragraph 4 of section 15 of the Pay
Readjustment Act under which a person who retired who had served
in any capacity in World War I who retired as an officer, and that
has been construed to mean only a regular officer, woulel draw 75
percent retirement pay because of his World War I service.
This meant that a man would draw 75 percent of his pay even
though he may have served only 12 or 14 years of service. There
is a long history as to why that was enacted and who it was intended
to benefit.
Mr. BATES. That was like the short 16.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, except this was a lot more costly and we have
been plagued with that ever since. That is beside the point. What
I am building up to is in 1949 we changed two things, the disability
retirement system and method of computing retirement pay for those
who had jawbone credit, if you want to put it on that basis.
Now the 411 group, which is the disability retirement section, said
to all of those retired prior to October 1, 1949: "You may recompute
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0N4 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
your retirement pay under one- of two methods. You can keep what
you have,"
Now what did they have?
They had 75 percent of the pay of the grade in which retired
regardless of their degree of disability.
A paraplegic got 75 percent, and somebody with two broken lingers
and a cracked knuckle got 75 percent.
Secretary PAru.. Tax free.
Mr. BLANDroun. Yes. Now why did we do this?
Because we had a study in 1948 as some of you will rein4mber
that revealed there were tremendous abuses of the disability 7etire-
ment system during World War IL
"You retire me and _I will retire you tomorrow" sort of thing.
Mr. BATES. Did the committee recommend this?
Mr. BLANnFottn. Yes, they recommended this, this was one of our
recommendations and also the recommendation of the Hook commit-
tee. So we said to these. people., "If you are truly disabled come, in and
recompute and we. will assess a degree of disability at the time you
were retired, and apply existing Veterans' Administration standards."
Now many people did this and these people are paid under the
Career Compensation Act. But there are about 35,000 officers, if I
ant not mistaken. who did not. elect, to be paid under the Career Com-
pensation Act because their degree of disability or their length of
service did not give them as much retirement pay under the Oareer
Compensation Act. as they got under the 75 percent. of the 19,12 Pay
Readjustment Act as amended.
They laid a 5-year period in which to make this election?and they
elect ea to keep what the.y had.
Mr. RivEas. Because they got. more at that time?
Mr. BLAxDrono. Because they gut more at that time and of course
it was tax free, every penny of it.
MT. RIVERS. That was a- big item.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Now as to this 411 group you are hearing from now, because there
is no provision in this bill except a 5-percent cost-of-living increase..
What they say is let us recompute under the new pay scales or at least
recompute under existing pay scales, even though we apply our length
of service or our degree of disability because we made a bad guess
when we made our final election.
Mr. ITUDDLFATON. We heard from them_ in 1958, too.
Mr. BLAIN:MORD. Yes., sir.
Now we do nothing other than give these people a 5-peroent cot-of-
living increase. The theory behind this is that these people have had
un election, a tax-free benefit over a period of time, and they elected
to keep what they had and they have been given cost-of-living in-
creases ever since.
Next there is the 511 people, who are permitted to recompute be-
cause the (7omptroller Gtneral ruled that the language in 51- did
not give t bent an elect ion, and it said, they were to. receive whichever
pa v was greater, au it was no elect ion in the sect ion. The Coinp-
troller General said obviously there was no elect ion and the language,
"whichever is greater," was intended to he a cow inning applicktion..
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : Al4537RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now in 1958 the Senate amended our pay bill and said that no one
could recompute, including the 511 people.
Am I correct so far on this, Colonel Bona de ?
Colonel BENADE. Yes.
Mr. 131,Am:worm Now this one group is taken care of in the retire-
ment section because the Comptroller General said that they could
continue to recompute except when the Congress said they could not.
Now, we allow this group to recompute on the theory that the Con-
gress, if the Comptroller General can speak for us, intended that this
be a continuing application.
So this group, the 511 group, can recompute up to the present pay
scales.
But the 411 group cannot. Now bear in mind that in the 111 group
you have this problem: These people had a 5-year period in which to
make this election.
They are now saying all we want to do is come in and apply our
years of service or our degree of disability against the existing pay
scales, because we elected at the time only because it gave us more
money. You are giving the 511 people who had no election the right
to continue to apply their retirement pay against whatever the exist-
ing pay scales are today, so why not us?
Now there is some merit in their position I have no idea perhaps
the Department does, of what the cost would be if we allowed the 411
people to recompute under existing pay scales.
Colonel, do you have any estimate?
Colonel BENADE. I am sorry
Secretary Rum. If we allowed the 411 people to recompute how
much would it add to the cost of the bill, the pre-1949 people?
Colonel BENADE. I don't have a figure.
Mr. GAVIN. Would you explain to us the 411 group and the 511
group?
Mr. 13LANDPORD. The 411 is disability and 511 is length of service.
Mr. RrvEns. One made the election, the other did not.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The 411 was given an election, the 511 was not.
Mr. RivErts. Call it the election group and the nonelection group.
Mr. BLANDrouo. I would like for the testimony at this
pointy?
Mr. RIVERS. Disability for one, and nondisability for the other.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. I would like Mr. Paul and Colonel Be-
nade and Mr. Gorham to explain why the bill as sent over by the
Department permits the 511 group to recompute but does not permit
the 411 to recompute.
Mr. RIVERS. I wish you would because that question will come up,.
Secretary PAUL. May I ask Colonel Benade to deal with that
question?
Mr. RivEus. Colonel, would you do that?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. RrvEns. If you don't have accurate figures, give us what you
can in the record.
Colonel BENADE. First I would like to clarify the reason why, the
bill is the way it is.
The Defense Department had in mind continuing the provisions of
existing law. Mr. Blandford has indicated, people retired prior to,
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 20054%4/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
October 1, 1959, were divided into two categories. The first category
is that of pet-sons who were retired for physic-al disability.
In 1949 Congress said to that group, in cheat, "You may keep your
present rate of retired pay or you may elect to come under the new
system, but if you come under the new system you must also accept
the limitations that go with it."
To give a specific example, if a member had been retired for phy-iical
disability prior to 1949 and the degree of his disability was 30 percent,
he would get 30 percent of the new rate of pay and not 75 percent,
such as he was drawing- under the old rate.
Generally an individual with less than a GO percent, disability, was
better off remaining under the old laws.
Congress, however, provided differently for those. me-mbers retired
for length of ...vice.
Mr. tIVER8. But in the same act.
Colonel BEN-ADE. Yes, sir. The act has also be-en interpreted by the
Court of Claims.
Mr. GAVIN. By the what?
Colonel BENADE. By the Court of Claims.
The legislative history of section 511 of the 1949 act, which dealt
with members retired or reasons other than physical disability, in
other words, length of service, bears out clearly that there was no in-
tention on the part of the Congress to distinguish between members
retired for length of service prior to October 1 and those retired for
length of service after October 1.
There was no reason to. Recomputation was an integral part of the
retirement system and the member who had served 30 years, we will
say, before October 1, 1949, was to be accorded the same treatment as
a man who retired with 30 years of service after October 1.
That has been the law right along, and it was (he law in 1958.
In 1958 the pay bill said, in effect, there will not be recomputa lion
:for anyone, and everyone will get a cost-of-living increase. This, of
course, affected the sect on 511 p-roup as ii did everyone else.
What the defense bill does is restore the situation as it existed
before June 1958.
It would authorize the section 511 group to recompute, just_ as they
would have been allowed to recompute if it had not been for the ft eeze
in 1958.
And that is all it does. It keeps the sit uation just as it was prior to
1958.
Mr. (1.kvix. Is there anything in here about being retroactive?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
Mr. GAVIN. Is there any thought 'being given to it ?
"olonel BENADE. To making it rel roact i VC ?
Mr. GAVIN. Yes.
'olonel BExADE. We considered it. but the decision was against it.
'III the first place, the Con.rress has been against retro.tetive features
of (his kind in this sort of provision.
Mr. GAVIN. Then if this bill passes, they will all be comouted OD the,
same basis, same standard?
Colonel BENADF,. Yes, sir.
Mr. GAvix. Now (his 5 percent you talk about.
Colonel BENAnr.. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1q1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. GAVIN. Is that for those before 1958?
Colonel BENADE. The group retired prior to 1949 for physical dis-
ability, that is the first category, would receive a 5-percent increase.
Mr. GAviN. Just the disability?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, Sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Everybody gets that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Everybody gets this up to the effective date of this
act.
Colonel BENADE. Members retired for physical disability prior to
1949, the section 411 group, would receive a 5-percent increase in their
retired pay.
Mr. OKI/nuts. Under this bill?
Colonel BENADE. Under this bill; yes, sir.
May I also say one thing more:
In 1955, the Department of Defense in the 1955 pay bill submitted
to this committee a recommendation which would have reopened the
option for the physical disability retired group, the section 411 group.
It was rejected by this committee. And it was explained very
carefully on the floor of the House by Mr. Kilday at that time as
to why the committee rejected it.
We had that very much in mind in preparing this bill.
Mr. IImtny. That was in 1949?
Colonel BENADE. In 1955.
Mr. HARDY. 1955.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. So what you have done is to continue the policy as
you understood the congressional policy, understood it previously?
Colonel BENADE. That is correct, sir.
Mr. HARDY. All right; now in arriving at that decision did you
give any consideration to the equities which might be involved with
respect to the 411's?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. HARDY. Then you did not consider that continuing it in this
way did any violence to equity as far as they are concerned?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
There are approximately 33,000 members who are presently drawinc,
retired pay under laws in effect prior to October 1; that includes both
officers and enlisted personnel.
Having very much in mind the problem that we are now dismissing,
we conducted a records survey last summer of this group. We found
that there are perhaps 6,000 who could benefit by coming under the
Career Compensation Act.
In other words, more than 27,000 are still, receiving more than they
could receive under the present bill.
Mr. HARDY. Let's talk about the equity of this with respect to these
6,000.
Colonel BENADE. All right, sir.
Mr. HARDY. Now, if I can satisfy myself on the question of equity
that is the only thing I am concerned with in this particular item.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. Now insofar as these 6,000 are concerned, if you under-
took to provide equity with the other retirees, would you not have
to consider the advantage which they have had during the past?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. 11 ATIDY. Did you do that and what is your answer with respect
to the 6,000 ?
Colonel BENADE. That is one of the reasons why we have not pro-
posed disturbing existing law. It is true that this 6,000 might. bene-
fit; I wish to make clear. Mr. Hardy, we are not certain that thev
would. The only way to be certain of I hat is to make an individual
record search and analysis.
We aro going purely on the percentage of disability reflected n the
records. But in each case you would have to caletCate the tax ad-
vantage, know I lie inan's personal sit Etat ion and so on.
Mr. Ri vials. Tax ad vant age is it very important. one.
Colonel BENADE. The point is a very proper one. They have been
receiving more. in retired pay than members retired after October 1,
1949, with the same degree of disability.
Mr. lItyrus. That is exactly right.
Colonel BENADE. We had that very match in mind. This is always
a troublesome area. We went into it. very carefully. Having in mind
that this committee had previously rejected a proposal to reopen the
option we felt
Mr. GAVIN. You are talking about 1949. How about these after
1958?
Mr. Br.ANDFORD. This is a. di fferent proposition.
11r. ( ; A vi x. How about the 0,000 after lfriS ?
Mr. G rasuit. May I ask a question ?
Mr. lliyErts. Just it second. Don't let's get off the track.
Mr. GAvIN. I asked a question.
Mr. BLANDronD. They are all right.
Mr. limats. Mr. Hardy has the floor.
Mr. HARDY. If I could button up my thinking on this : Then your
determination is that there would only be 6,000 people that could
possibly benefit under recomputation; that is. in the 411 group?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. liAnDy. And front the standpoint, of equity, that they at e not
entitled to recomputa t ion or to any advantage. now?
( 'olonel BENADr. I think that is a fair statement.
Mr. I TAVD1". That being the case, I am satisfied. I have no further
qualms about the matter.
Mr. BATES. Then the ones retired after 19-19 got less than this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. For years.
Colonel BENADE. That has been the case for years.
Mr. Gurisr.a. Isn't it true that the life expectancy of this 6,000 would
probably be considerably less than the period of time in which they
have had this additional benefit that the others did not have?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFoito. That would probably be true.
Mr. RIVERS. This would be continued on an individual survey.
Mr. Os:writs. I wanted to ask?and possibly be is going to cover
t?t he effect on the 511's of this bill.
Colonel BENADr.. The section 511 group would be treated under this
bill exactly as they have. been previously treated in the law.
Mr. RIVERS. We just bring them up to 1958?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214pIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Colonel BENA.nt. That is right.
Mr. RIVERS. Where are we now?
Mr. BLANDFORD. At this point I would like to explain to you who
would benefit and who would not under this percentage increase and
recomputing their pay under existing pay scales. Mr. Bates brought
up the question the other day and I would like to put this in the record
.and indicate to you what we are faced with here.
For some reason or other there are many people who think that
recomputation means that everybody will get more pay. This is not
,correct.
In 1958 we gave a 6-percent cost-of-living increase. It so happens;
and you heard Mr. Lovei of the disabled officers talking about this,
that there are many people who received more of an increase in re-
t:irement pay because of the cost-of-living increase than they would
get if they recomputed. As a matter of fact, if you made them recom-
pute they would take a pay cut.
Mr. RrvERs. That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, the figures reveal 50,781 officers will benefit
by recomputation at an average of about $482 per officer, but 11,558--
now these figures have varied somewhat but these are the figures that
were submitted to the Senate last year?will not benefit by recom-
putation, because the 6-percent increase that they received was greater
than the amount they would have received if they recomputed and
the answer .is simple: We didn't increase the obligated serviceman at
all in 1958 and you have an awful lot of short service people who are
affected by this provision.
Among enlisted personnel, 108,000 will benefit by recomputation and
:37,390 will not.
Now, I think you ought to also know that on recomputation. the
Taverage enlisted man gets an increase of approximately $110 a year
.as opposed to $482 for the officers. Now, an 0-10, under a recomputa-
tion; that is, a Chief of Staff, would receive $4,586 more; a general,
$2,957; a lieutenant general, $2,359; a major general, $1,928; a brigs-
(her general, $1,445; a colonel; $1,070; a lieutenant colonel, $561;
-a major, $187; a captain, $133; and a first lieutenant, $49. These
:are averages.
The maximum amount that an enlisted man would receive under
-recomputation is $130 and the E-6, $31. These are per year, not per
'month.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, at that point the general and the lieutenant
,general would get more because in 1958 we paid them in their rank,
whereas before that you didn't go any higher.
Mr. BLANDFoun. That is right. I think it is a mistake to use the
$4,000 figure.
Mr. RIVERS. A four-star general got the same salary as a two-star
1.ceneral.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You are exactly right, Mr. Chairman. We ought
to talk about the major general, for example, who would get $2,359,
and then, on top of that,5 percent of his total retired pay under this
bill. Now, these people, to be honest, the people who are going to
be allowed to recompute, are going to pick up a tremendous increase,
the senior officers will pick up a very substantial amount of increase
in their present retirement pay, and I think you should also know
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/01M: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
that recomput at ion for this group Nv 11 add $30 million to the cost
of the bill. And then the 5-percent increase will add $56 million
more to he cost nil he bill.
Mr. lhany. That is annually.
r. BLANDFORD. ThiS ii the 5 percent applied t o everybody.
Colonel 13EN-Anr.. As recommended by tile I hrfense I Pepart men( .
Ain BrA N-Dr um. Annually yes, sir. annually.
Mr. II t-DDLE?ru.N. IAt ti see if I get this straight. Everybody except
the 411's who were ret ired for any reason up to the effective date of
this act, under whatever law t her ref ired, would be ent it led to have
their pay recomputed if they want to under the pay :ivales of the
1958 act and, in addition, will obtain percent ?
Mr.I3LAN-oroan. 'Flint is right.
Mr. lt ivims. That is a good St a lenient .
Mr. lit.A.Niworin. Yes, sir, t hat is correct.
Mr. ()SMUTS. Mr. Chairman, because of the, apparent, disparity be-
t, ween the annual inereast. for some as compared to others, I 1% onder
if you would relate the increase. for some of the officers there to per-
centages of what they now receive. For example, if a major general
receiyies a $2,200 annual increase, what is his present total retirmnent.
on an average basis?
Mr. BLAxorono. A major general, according to the fierures I have
here, on recommit ation, will get a 20-percent increase in his retire-
ment pay, and then, of course, on top of that there will be another 5
percent, because of the cost-of-living increase since 195S.
Mr. OsArEns. In other words, he would get 31 pereent more than he
now receives. I [my would that apply to an enlisted man,
pereentagew i so ?
Mr. RivEits. Why not take. the highest ?
Mr. Iit,A-Norottn. Nine percent for the platoon sergeant, that h
1 percent for the si air sergeant.
There is no sense in trying to kid ourselves about this. The mail
that you get. from the master sergeant, he is a rare bird, but. the mail
you get from a colonel and a brigadier general von can undertand.
'fliers aro real dollars involved here for a colonel and a general on re-
computation. On the other hand, put yourselves in their poition.
They find that if they had retired on July 1. 1958, they would be draw-
ing $2,500 a, year more than if they retired on May 1, 195S. And
their argument is that we -fought in the same wars. They say, I hap-
pened to come in the service ahead of Johnny Smith, or something of
that nature, and I am retired 1 month ahead of a new pay bil and
for the rest of my life I am penalized it), the tune. of $2...5oo a Year. It
is a strong argument. They become downright emot ional about it.
Mr. EMIRS. They do.
Mr. Oslap.us. 'Would you say, if T niay? would you say that thi:. pro-
posal. across the board, is fair?
Mr. litANnrono. Mr. ?sitters, I think this is as fair a way as possible
in solve tins anti still reinain solvent. b-eause I am ,iroi.mr to give yon
he projected cost of ret ireinent. Now. I m look When we do iis we
ought fo hen r in mind f hat we are. in a si'wq.. depart tug from trail (ion.
We axe, in a sense, changim, the. rules. but Congress is not bout d by
these rides, because you ean argue that I hese people have never con-
ributed toward their retirement. Mr. Kilday used the argument, as
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211001A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
this subcommittee will well remember, that this is not correct, that
these people have contributed toward their retirement because they
have received less pay than they would if they were contributing
toward their retirement. But bear in mind that retirement is a tontine,
benefit in this respect; that you have hundreds of people who serve
for short periods of time on active duty and if they draw less pay,
then what you could consider to be their contribution toward retire-
ment, they don't benefit from. They are drawing less pay so that we
can, thereafter, pay those who stay on for 20 years or more, retirement
pay. This is one of the nebulous arguments that you get into on
retirement.
In my opinion, this section, the way it is written, which guarantees
the purchasing power of the retirement dollar is the safest way of
handling this and is the fairest way of handling this, even though you
have to recognize that you are changing a system and, as Admiral
Settle said, in the paper that Mr. Hardy gave me, one thing you are
not doing here, while you are guaranteeing the purchasing power of
the retired dollar, you are not guaranteeing to the retired man that
his living standard will increase as the national living standard in-
creases, whereas the man on active duty, while he is serving on active
duty will, if future pay increases are provided, be able to improve his
standard of living. But we have a very serious problem before us
here and the problem is cost. Now, Mr. Gorham said, in 1970 there
will be 25 people on the retired list for every 100 people on active
duty. Now, let's look at the projected cost, because Mr. Stratton
asked this question. In 1970, under existing law, the costs of retire-
ment would be $1,868,000 a year. Under the bill, H.R. 3006, and this
is without any further pay increases, retirement costs will be $2,063
million a year in 1970. Now, this just tells a part of the story. If you
project retirement costs out to 1984, and this is not unreasonable to
project them 20 years, without any further pay increases except that
which is contained in the Department proposal, retirement costs for
the military will be $3,500 million a year.
Now, the question came up as to how does this compare with civil
- service retirement?
I have a projection here in front of me which indicates that in 1972
the total cost of military retirement will be $2,123 million, the total cost
of Civil Service and Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is
their disability retirement system,
will be $2,562 million. There is no
-sense in our trying to conceal the fact that the costs of retirement for
the civil service people, the civil service annuitants are going up and
they are going to go up considerably.
Mr. HARny. That surprises me that they are so close together on
that projection. I come to the conclusion that there must be something
.left out of that figure.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't have as yet the number of people who are
involved in this and I find every time I get into this question of trying
to compare civil service with military retirement that I get into so
.many intangibles that I don't know really where I am.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman I wonder if Colonel Blandford bap-
-pens to have the total cost in ?1984 of the civil service.
Mr. BLANDFORD. NO, Sir, I do not.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04A2Jt CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. OsmEas. It is nor an important figure, I didn't want it- because
of anything before us.
Mr. Timmy. These figures reflect the projected outlay in that par-
ticular year, was that 1970?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I presume. these are projected outlays, projected
disbursements.
Mr. Main% That is what I am talking about.
Mr. lirANDroan. That is my understanding.
Mr. Many-. It doesn't reflect the actuarial commitment at all.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the Ford study indicated, if you are talking
in terms of what your cost ret irement is right now, if you had to have
a fund established like an insurance company to pay all your annui-
tants that the fund is some. $30 billion behind at this moment.
Mr. Ihany. Could we understand what these figures mean with
respect t o civil service? Does that. mean the actual out-of-pocket
Government expenditures on civil service retirement?
Mr. SaatArrax. For that particular year.
Mr. HARDY. For that year? And that is in addition to expenditures
from the fund created by the employees themselves?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, now--- -
Colonel liENADE. May I clarify that ?
Mr. BLANDF"ORD. Yes, because I can't answer t hat.
Colonel BE,N.
iiDE. In terms of numbers involved-- -
Mr. II writs. Speak up. please.
Colonel liENAnn. There are more people on the civil service retired
rolls than there are on the military retired rolls.
Mr. I Irimr.x.swx. You mean in 1.972?
Colonel liExAnn. There are right now. There might very well be
in 1972, also, because. the annual_ civil service retirements are sonic-
where between tW,000 and 60,000. That is also about the present rate
of retirements in the mint ary service and the numbers expected to be
retiring annually between now and 1972.
TI. costs more in terms of disbursements today for civil service
retirees than for military. and it probably will up through 1972. The
third point raised by Mr. Third y is what does this represent: This
amount includes the contribution made by the civil service employee.
which is presently 61/, percent of salary. But. I would point out, that
when a. civil service employee makes a cunt ribut ion of 61,.!, percent, and
if he did that, throughout. his career, and if there were no inter,rening
pay increases, the amount contributed would be about 47 percent of
the annuity he would receive.
Rut in practice, it may not work that way. The employee may
not contribute that. much. Although he may have contributed
percent from the. time he came in. the effect of intervening pay in-
creases is such that tilt imately the total of his contribution to his retire-
ment. pay is substantially less than 47 percent.
Mr. Timmy. les, but unless von can tie down these disbursements
to a point where you can separate the contributions made by the
employees from the total, you haven't got a comparison, because
with respect to the military it is a total governmental cost.
Colonel BENADE. That. is correct, Mr. Hardy. Spec king with regard
to the present population and having in mind that the system was
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 iAliet-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
initiated in the 1920's and was initiated at a much lower rate of con-
tribution, I would estimate that of the annual amount now being
disbursed to them, contributions represent about 15 to 17 percent.
The balance represents appropriations, money over and above the
contribution made by the individual.
Mr. HARDY. So that the hope for 50-50 costs doesn't really mean
anything?
Colonel BENADE. Not always, sir. I would also point out that the
employee contributes 61/2 percent and the employing agency matches
that with 61/2 percent. But this falls short of the amount actually
required, with the result that there is an annual deficiency each year
of some 0.83 percent, so that the Government's contribution is, in
fact, around 8.33 percent.
Mr. RIVERS. Eight to
Colonel BENADE. I am sorry, 7.33 percent.
Mr. RIVERS. Seven and a third.
Colonel BENADE. To about 61/2 percent., that is correct, sir, that
is the present ratio of contribution on the part, of the member and.
the Government.
Mr. HARDY. Just to finish my points in this thing right quickly,
then the annual input of retirees is about the same in the military as
in civil service?
Colonel BENADE. The way it is running right now, yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. The annual rate?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir, that is right.
Mr. HARDY. And the cost to the Federal Government is what per-
cent? I don't know how you do it, though, if you haven't separated
out the contributions.
Colonel BENADE. You cannot generalize.
Mr. HARDY. They are very close together, as I remember the figures
that were given.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Just at that point in time.
Colonel BENADE. I agree with you completely. There is no easy
answer to it.
In other words, in theory, the employees' contribution should come
out to about half of the annuity. But in practice it does not work
that way.
Mr. HARDY. The only thing I was trying to see if we can do and
maybe we can, is to see whether on an individual basis the Federal
Government is paying substantially more for military retirement than
for civil service retirement.
Colonel BENADE. It all depends, Mr. Hardy. There are so many
considerations involved.
Under the military system an individual gets nothing unless he
stays for at least 20 years, or unless he is retired for physical dis-
ability.
In the civil service?and it is a rather common practice outside of
Government?the individual after 5 years has a vested right to retire-
ment. He can let his money stay in the civil service system and draw
retirement benefits at age 62, or he can withdraw his money with
interest.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014121 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. Munn% The only thin!, I was t rying to do, Colonel--I under-
stand these differences, but the only thing I was Irving to do was to
see whether or not we could develop a comparison that would be help-
ful to us on the floor. Maybe we can't.
M GUISSER. Would you yield. ?
Mr. 11.Annv. It is going to conic up sure. I was hoping we. would
have some sort of an answer.
Mr. RivEns. We will have sonic kind--
Mr. lit.Aximuto. We will t ry to come up wit Ii a general answer.
Mr. (.1 unsEit. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question right, on that
point ?
Mr. R ivEas. Yes.
Mr. GLAISER. Is there an average amount that ,VUU could arri ve at,
where you have an average. for civil service, retirement. recipients
and military ret irenient recipients ?
( 'olonel Iirx.?nE. Are you referring to rate of retired pay ?
Mr. GunsEa. An average amount received on a monthly bass.
don't think it is necessarily a meaningful figure.
Mr. &Asuman). Yes. All you have to do would be to take the
amount of disbursements and divide by the number of annuitants.
Mr. Cr LAINE11. I las anyone ever done that.?
Mr. Iii,ANDrouo. It doesn't mean anything.
('olonel liENADE. WV con Id do it.
V. 'Lunn-. It, would be misleading, actually, because you have a
_number of people with service of 5 years or more.
Mr. RmAts. Mr. Blandford, you and the colonel get together and
see if we can't get, a satisfactory example.
BLANDroan. I. ani I rving right now to come up with some?
what I am doing, among other things, I have been down to the Civil
Service Committee this morning trying to see how far they exceeded?
how much the Post. Office and Civil Service employees received in pay
increases last year, how much that exceeded the administration hill
I hat was-sent. over.
Now I just. say this with malice aforethought, that. the Congress
didn't hesitate to spend $300 or $400 million in 1 year and $300 or $400
million the following year more than what the administration has
proposed for the Post Office and Civil Service employees and now all
of a sudden everybody gets excited about the fact that. we might. spend
a couple of hundred million dollars more than has been subm4ted
here.
Mr. RIVERS. I want to say that. the Congress last year paid very
little heed to what, the administration sent over on the postal increases.
Isn't that true?
Secretary PAL-u. Yes, sir, they raised it by a considerable. amount.
Mr. Munn% There is one thing one comparison that I think might
be meaningful, if you have it, or if it wouldn't be too hard to get., and
that would be a comparison between the average retirement on an
individual basis for military people with civil service annuitants who
have had 20 years or more of service.
Colonel BENADE. Yes.
Arr. BLANnrotr). We will try to get I hat. That might be a mean-
ingful figure.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1653
Mr. GUBSER. That is really what I should have been ,fishing for in
my question.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bennett, you have a qtesti
R on?
Mr. BENNETT. I think I have another line that might be meaning-
ful at this point. That is, if we did accept this thing of going back
to recompute?I am going to ask Mr. Gorham this questioni if I may?
if we go back to recompute some of these people n the 1958 status,
how do ? we justify not doing that for the people in the future?
In other words, I want to have the arguments here that make a
difference between those people in the 1958 status and those who may
be coming in the future with regard to computing their pay on the
Yank of the person under whom they serve.
Mr. GORHAM. I believe there are two prime reasons.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's hear this, and then we are going to adjourn.
Mr. GORHAM. There are two primary reasons for distinguishing the
pre-1958 group and the new pre-1958 group, if you will, the one who
will be retiring prior to the effective date of this bill.
The first is that prior to 1958 there wasn't even a hint that this system
? which had been in existence for over a hundred years was going to be
changed. There was essentially a no-warning situation in 1958. There
was no reason for any man to defer his date of retirement for he had
every reason to expect that after the bill came into effect his retired
pay would be recomputed on the new pay scales.
This is not true of those in the active duty force subsequent to June
1958. They have had 5 years under a system which was not recompu-
tation.
The second difference is that in 1958 we had a major restructuring,
a decompression, of the pay system. We increased the pay rates of
senior officers much more than those of junior officers.
The reason for this change wasn't that the. junior- and middle-grade
officers were being paid too much money. The reason was rather
recognition that we were not providing our senior officers with suffi-
cient compensation. In effect, then, we were telling those who retired
prior to 1958 that this overdue recognition of insufficient pay, was go-
ing to be perpetuated by not permitting the people retired prior to
1958 to recompute based on the new rates of pay.
Mr. WiLsoN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RivErts. I want to say this. We are headed to a solution of this
and I believe tomorrow morning, Mr. Blandford, we can come to a
conclusion.
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes.
May I remind everybody we meet in 304 tomorrow.
Mr. WILSON. I have some doubts on this. What we are doing on this
retirement thing
Mr. BATES. Raise them tomorrow.
Mr. WILSON. Can I make them tomorrow ?
MT. RIVERS. Yes.
Mr. GUBSER. You may not finish tomorrow, though.
Mr. BATES. No hurry.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have committed myself to appear
before Mr. Hebert's subcommittee tomorrow morning on the junior
85066 63 No: 6 17
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1654
ROTC. If it can be worked out within the committee, I would be glad
to go anywhere you want me to.
Mr. RIVERS. This is Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Gorham will be here also.
Mr. RIVERS. Wait. This is one of the vital areas in this bill.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Because it has a lot to do with what we are trying to
do. I believe we ought to find a way to resolve this important ques-
tio_n Mr. Blandford. I am hopeful that we might be able to.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Of course, what we hoped to do, Mr. Rivers, was
to meet this afternoon, finish with Mr. Paul, and then let Mr. Paul
be available to Mr. HObert tomorrow morning. Unfortunately you
cannot meet this afternoon.
Mr. RIVERS. We have two or three other meetings this afternoon,
I found out.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I didn't know this. I set it up for this afternoon
with the idea of finishing with Mr. Paul this afternoon.
Perhaps we could do this at this point, if we could stay another
5 or 10 minutes ? so that Mr. Wilson could explore with Mr. Paul his
views on retirement, and then we could have Mr. Gorham and Colonel
Benade. Then when Secretary Paul finishes with ROTC he might
come over for half an hour.
Mr. STRATTON. I have some questions I would like to ask, too, before
we adjourn.
Mr. RIVERS. We will let everybody ask them.
Mr. WinsoN. My explanation is going to be more with Blandford
anyway. So I would say ?
Mr. RIVERS. If you can win an argument with, Mr. Blandford, I
will give you all the time you want and I will turn him over to you
from now on.
Now, Mr. Stratton.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman
Mr. RIVERS. Who would your questions be directed to?
Mr. STRATTON. I want to direct them either to Mr. Blandford or to
the Secretary.
Would it be fair to say, Mr. Secretary, that the reason why we are
concerned about this retirement problem in the military is that, by
and large, our retirement policies have reached the point where people
retire a lot earlier in the military service than they do in the civil
service, and that therefore the length of time that they are receiving
retired pay is much greater, therefore the total expenditure to the
Government is greater?
Secretary Pur. That is certainly a large part of the problem and
a large reason for the enormous cost of it, Mr. Stratton.
Of course, in the officer ranks retirement is usually after a longer
period of time. I believe the average is closer to 30 yours than 20.
In the enlisted area it is more nearly 20.
That certainly is a major factor. I don't think any of us should
feel that we have found the all-time solution to the retirement problem.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, I am just trying to solve in my own mind
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :16M-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
this basic question of what the justification is for going back, as the
charm) has been made, on our original commitment to those in the
military service.
It would seem to me what you are proposing Imre, if I understand
this correctly, is?I don't think anybody said it in exactly these words,
but I think we ought to get it out?that we cannot hope to pay the
active duty personnel the kind of income that they ought to get, make
them comparable to people on the outside, if we also have to worry
about the impact of these salary scales on the growing numbers of
people in the retired pool.
Now is that correct?
Secretary PAUL. I think that is a correct statement. Our No. 1
task must be to manage the active duty force. For the reasons you
have stated, this places an inhibition on that.
Mr. STRATTON. Now I would like to try to explore the degree of this
inhibition. In the first place your proposal, you are not suggesting
that people be retired at a different rate of pay from what they receive
on active duty? That is, you are not suggesting it be recomputed on
the pay scales in 1948. This retirement pay is going to be computed
on the pay scale that exists at the time that they retire; that is correct,
is it not?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. Therefore the only reason it seems to me for de-
parting from the kind of thing that Admiral Denfeld was talking
about here the other day, is that you believe that the person in the
military service who gets retired pay is going to be living so long that
there will be a substantial differential between the changes in pay that
would take place during that period of time for the active personnel,
in an effort to try to keep their salaries comparable with civilian
pursuits, and the wage scale that he retired on originally, plus the
5-percent differential.
Now isn't that correct?
Secretary PAUL. I think that is substantially correct.
I would just like to add this: The degree to which we might wish
to change the active duty scales differs quite substantially from year
to year. Take, for example, the difference between the 1958 adjust-
ments and the ones we are proposing now. We are now proposing
greater pay raises in certain grades, significantly different from the
pay raises that were passed by the Congress in 1958.
What we are trying to do with the retired person is to stabilize
and maintain his purchasing power. There are certain situations
under
Mr. STRATTON. But that relatively is a small consideration, isn't it?
I mean the difference between whether you are trying to attract more
lieutenants and captains now than the majors and colonels and so on.
Isn't that in financial terms relatively small?
Mr. GoRnAm. I would call it substantial, not small. For exam-
ple, compare the pay raises you proposed for captains compared with
the pay raise proposed for brigadier generals. I believe captains are
getting an 18-percent increase. Is that right? That means that per-
sons retired in the grade- of captain under recomputation would get an
18-percent increase. Persons retired in the brigadier general grade
would get a 5-percent increase.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 200544421 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
.1 think that is a substantial difference in changes in retirement pay.
Mr. SlitArrox. That may well be. I ant trying to get in my own
mind the amount of money that this really represents., because it seems
in toe that this is basically the ar!runient. we have got to save .qmie
money in here or else we won't be able to adjust our pay 'a ie in the.
future. I ant trying to find out exactly how much this is likely to
represent.
Mr. 111,A:c1)1'-mut $87 million f Or I year.
Secret a ry PAUL. :?;TS million.
BLANoyoun. I have T. I tun tok that if we apply he Ilt.N1
scales to those now retired tind up to the effective daft. including the
pre-195s, it would eost million.
Mr. STuArrox. Well, it is not so much the saving per in this par-
ticular year t hat you are concerned with. s it
I mean that would seem to be a relatively small savitg, but it is
over I I wc yea rs.
Mr. BtAxorom). Vi ell. you have to project your cost. and that is
what you are talking about, Mr. Stratton. and this is one of the big
problems on military retirement. That even this $30 million, it is
going to cost. us for recomputat ion, can be converted to e-..ent ual cost
liii he Government of approximately S-Iftu million.
In other Ivords, if you kid to establish a fund to gmfrautee just the
recomputat ion ofI he pre-105S group. you would need a rout al $100 mil-
lion or more to guarantee them the inciTaSCd rl'i irelllt-111 pay just on
recomputat ion up to the vow, dal t. of his act.
Secretary We estimate bet weer 400 and Gm) mill:on as living
the. lifetime cost of tlw $30 million increase we are prof osing. this year
for t hose people.
Mr. lit,ANoman. Now if you take $7s or S..",s0 mitihhiout, w hateve- the
digerence is., as opposed to the 30. that is 50 itml that is going to take
you tip close if) a billion dollars just on this recomputat on alone if
Volt project it into the future.
It is utterly fantastic. What is going to happen, the Randall
Committee is. and as sure as I ant sitting here, there are proposals
going to come over here which are going to definitely affect retirement.
Retirement is about I lie last vestige of a privilege that military
people have that has really no counterpart other than in the FBI, any
place. else in the country.
In other words. this privilege of going out on 20 years.
Mr. Rr),-Eas. The military and FBI are the only two groups that I
know.
Mr. Sra.v-rrox. I don't want to say I :tin sacred, I just read a book,
called "Seven Days in May." in which they had a military revolt,
because the military did not think they were getting paid enough.
I think we have to worry about this, A.1-!'. Chairman.
Mr. Rivr.as. We are worrying about this,
Mr. STRATrox. That is off the record.
Mr. RivEns. I think the Secretary tines have flon't we. have
another little proposal that the Department has agreed to. raising the
basic, pay in this bill?
Mr. -11LANDFora). We have not gotten to that point yet, Mr. Chair-
man. That is another point for discussion tomorrow.
Mr. RTVERS. YeS.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1e-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. Which is going to take its back into the basic pay
scales, but again until you decide what to do with retirement you
cannot do much with basic pay scales, because everything you do with
retirement affects future costs.
Mr. Rivims. I think this is all we can if we can work out a way
whereby we can?if we do need the Secretary, maybe get him tomorrow
without disrupting Mr. Wbert's committee.,
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLANDronn. Ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Secretary, what we are going to do, we are going
to have to work together on. this. We are going to keep you well in-
formed as to how we are going and work with you on it as we have
been doing, because I think we are getting along very well and I cer-
tainly want to compliment you on your demeanor and your
cooperation.
Your cooperation has been excellent. We appreciate it very Bauch.
Secretary PAUL. Thank you very much.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you very much. Let us recess until 10 o'clock
tomorrow and we will meet tomorrow down here in room 301.
( Whereupon, at 12 :1.5 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 6, 1963.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1,
W asking ton, D .0Wednesday, March 6,1963.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room
304, Cannon Office Building, Washington, D.C., lion. L. Mendel
Rivers (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. RIVERS. Let the subcommittee come to order. We will continue
our executive session on H.R. 3006 for the purpose of considering the
bill section by section.
Now, Mr. Blandford.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise some technical
points on the retirement section for the guidance of the GAO in the
future. I would like to question Colonel lona&
Mr. MATERs. We will continue our consideration of retired and re-
tamer pay.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir; it starts on page 11.
Mr. RIVERS. Where is Colonel Benade
Mr. BLANDFORD. There is no doubt in your mind, Colonel, that the
pay recomputation provided here as well as the 5-percent increase, as
well as future cost-of-living increases, will be applicable to those re-
tired under title 3 of Public taw 810?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir; there is not.
Mr. BLANDFORD. On the cumulative increase in the cost of living,
when it goes to 3 percent or more, is it the intent of the Department of
Defense, and is it the intent of this bill if it is enacted into law, that
if the cost of living goes up 2.9 percent one year and drops:back five-
tenths of 1 percent in the next year, and the following year goes up,
say, 1 percent, that when the cumulative effect of the increase and the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I 658
decrease and the increase goes up to 3 percent or niece, it would bring
about an increase in retirement pay?
Colonel BENADE. That is correct.
Mr. BIANDrortn. There is no doubt then that this is cumulative in its
application ?
Colonel 1.3ExAnE. That is correct.
Mr. El VERS. Now this takes care of what, a calendar year?
Mr. BLANniolio. it will be considered on the first of ea,!It January,
as to the effect during the previous calendar year.
Colonel IIEN.kor.. II is the average for the calendar year.
Mr. BLAxDroRD. Now we have sonic minor problems liere in con-
nection with some individual cases. Fo]. example, we have a situation
where an officer was formerly the chief of his service. Then he re-
verted back, he didn't revert back in grade, as such, because he retained
four stars. say, but took another job which was not the ,21ilef of his
service.
Wo also have the case of an officer who was the chief of his service.
who was then ordered back to act ive duty in his highest grade but
not in his highest pay grade. Because lie served at a previous time as
the chief of his service is it the intent ion of this bill that these individ-
uals will receive, on recomput at on, the pay of the highest grade and
I lie highest office they occupied while serving in that grin Ic?
Colonel BEN.knE. it is so intended, Mr. Blandford. If necessary.
we would like to try to clarify, working with the committee later, to
insure that. result.
But certainly, it is the intent of this nroposed legislation that for-
mer hie Is of Service, assuming enactment of t his proposal by the
Congress, would recompute on the special rate of pay provided for
Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Opera( ions, and Commandant o the
Marine Corps.
Mr. BLANDFORD. To translate this into an actual situation, then
what von are saving is that. it is your intent, and the bill w as intended
to be drafted so that these .former .Chiefs of Service wolld be able,
who were. ret ired prior to ,Tune I.195S, would be able to compute their
retirement pay under the SIS75 per month basic pay figure?
Colonel BENADE. That is correct.
BLANDFORD. No doubt of that in your mind?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, how about other promotions that people
obtained, spot promotions because of ability, and promotions other
than that of Chief of Staff?
Mr. RI-VERS. Chief of bureau and so fort ii?
Mr. BATEs. Yes. how about them ? What is the dillerence bet ween
individuals who ini&it have been Chiefs or Staff and others who night
have held permanent positions but, ret ired in lower rank
Mr. BEANTwortn. I don't believe, we have a problem in hat an'a It
my knowledge. The only problent we 'lave is that there is an 0-10
grade and then there is a special par for the Chief of Staff. They
don't go above the ()- 10 grade. 0 -10 is the highest grade we _have
in the pay scales. But there is a special pay for the ClUef of Staff
This is what. creates the problem. We do not have a compa?able
problem in any other grade.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1659
Mr. BATES. I am talking moneywise.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am talking about. money, also. In other words,
the present pay of an 0-10, and this is the point that I make, is
$1,700 a month. Now on a straight
Mr. BATES. That is everything?
MT. BLANDFORD. Basic pay, $1,700 a month.
Now on a straight recomputation, without being clear as to our
intent, I am of the opinion that this bill, as written might bring about
a result whereby these former Chiefs would only be able to recompute
their retirement pay under the $1,700 basic pay scale rather than the
$1,875 per month basic pay scale.
Now since these people did serve as chiefs of their service, and since
we are permitting recomputation in the highest grade satisfactorily
served, I questioned the Defense witness with the intention of bring-
ing out the point as to whether they intended this to apply to the
highest pay grade that they received, or the highest pay of the office
that they occupied, even though at a later date they continued to
serve in their grade, but not in the highest pay attached to that grade
while they were the chief of the service.
Mr. RIVERS. So you are sure then, in response to Mr. Bates' inquiry,
the only place where there would be any doubt, before having obtained
assurance from the Department, was the chiefs of the service?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would say that the only other possible situation,
and I can only visualize this; as an example, would be the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy. I believe the law says that while serv-
ing as a Judge Advocate in the Navy he will draw the maximum
pay of the upper half.
Colonel BENADE. That is correct.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is a statutory provision but it has not been
construed as an entitlement to retirement with maximum pay.
In other words, I don't believe that the law over contemplated that
a former Judge Advocate General could draw 75 percent retired pay
based upon 20 years of service merely because he drew the maximum
pay of the Judge Advocate General while serving in that office. No
one ever contemplated that to my knowledge.
Is that correct?
Colonel BENADE. That is correct.
Mr. RBTERs. President Eisenhower made his personal physician the
Surgeon General of the Army with three stars and all the rest of
them have two. I don't know whether he had reverted.
Colonel I3ENADE. General Heaton is still on active duty. When Gen-
eral Heaton retires his retired pay would be computed on the basic
pay of the 0-0 pay grade; that is, of a 1 ietitenant general. There
is no problem in this respect.
Mr. RIVERS. I see.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, there is another problem which we
must settle. These are little things but these are the things that cause
difficulties unless they are spelled out and we understand our intent.
Mr. RIVERS. And when you want a decision, you get the intent of
the Congress.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The intent of the committee and the intent of Con-
gress to show that this matter was considered.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1660
Now there is another problem. You know that. in past Congresses.
we have passed laws which provided that certain generals who served
iLI positions of extreme importance during World War II are entitled
Iii full pay and allowances even though they are retired in one sense
of lie word in that they are no longer active in the Armed Forces, bu!
considered to be on act iv('. duly. There are Admiral Nimitz, General
Bradley, General NlacArt low, General Arnold, Admirals Halsey.
King, and Leahy, General Eisenhowe General VantleroTift, Admiral
Sprum ice. There NVE'll` cell Sill laws flint gave Illese people full pay and
allowances.
Mr. Ms-Ells. They never yet ired.
Mr. BLAxorouti. Well. they could. They had the privilege of retir-
ing-hut still continue to draW full pay and allowances.
Now, the 195S pay law stated that these people would eon! inue to
draw the pay and allowances they were then receiving itnd would not
In' Nit Ii led 10 any increase.
mioht add that that has been construed so that. Admiral Nimitz,
lltie all PX:11111u1V, did not receive an increa.,e ill his quarters allowance
last. year when we increased Illy quarters allowances because we froze
these people who performed such dist inguished service to the Nation
daring World War 11. we froze I hose people at t heir pay and allow-
ances I luoti they xvere get Ii hg on 3,1a V 31. I tr,S.
Now, frankly. I do not know what this hill does to them, because I
do not know what sections ti and 7 of the 1958 Pay Act does. I do
not know, and I confess iny ignorance, but I think there are others
who are as equally ignorant on this subject, 1 do not know whether
Sections t; and 7 of the 195S Pay Art would continue to apply to these
people, which froze them. Or whether they would qualify for the full
pay and allowances provided in this bill. I just don't know. I would
like some enlightenment.
Mr. GAVIN.. How are you going to find it mu!
Mr. BLANnrotto. I have a witness I am about to ask right now.
Mr. CAVINS. I think it is quite an injustice that they are not paid
at the 1958 rale. There is quite a manlier of those.
Mr. Iii.axorono. About six of them I believe, live or six. We are
I alking about a different category. We are talking about special peo-
ple. We are talking about .Admiral Nimitz, we are talking about
;-eneral MacArthur, ahont tieneral Bradley, we are talking about
Mr. litylats. Eisenhower.
Mr. lir.ANnroan. General Eisenhower made his election.
Ittvras. Ile retired.
Mr. linAxoroan. No: we rest ored his gratit., hut I believe he is draw-
ing the $25,000 as a former President.
.11r. ltivEas. Colonel, what can von tell us about that.?
Colonel BENADE. We are speaking ahout six admirals and general
officers and they are divided into I wo rat egori es. The first category
is General of the Army MacArthur, General of the Army Omar N.
Bradley and Fleet Admiral Nimitz.
rnder special laws which Congress passed in 1916 with respect to
MacArthur, Bradley, and Nimitz, it. WitS provided that, they would
receive I hereafter the pay and allowances of a major general phis a
S5,000 money allowance per annum. The pay of those three officers
today is :+;1,711.95 a mon t
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
11.
_06
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : GIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
The other three officers are Admiral Spruance, General Vandergrift?
and General Spaatz. They are receiving the pay and allowances of
a four-star general based on the 1955 pay scale, and their monthly re-
tired pay is $1,678.61 a month.
On an annual basis there is only a $400 difference between the retired
pay of Admiral Spruance, General Vandergrift, and General Spaatz
compared to General MacArthur, General Bradley, and Fleet Ad-
miral Nimitz.
The question that Mr. Blandford raises is a very real one. I be-
lieve that if it is the desire of the Congress to increase the present rates
of pay of these officers, a specific provision to that effect should be
put into the bill.
Mr. RIVERS. Otherwise they will not be included.
Colonel BENADE. I would think that they might not be, Mr. Rivers,
Even if they are, if language is put into the bill, it would do no harm
and would certainly make clear the desire of the Congress.
If, on the other hand, it is intended that these flag and general
officers continue to receive the same rate of pay they are now receiving,
then I also believe that some specific reference should be made in
the legislation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Colonel, aren't we making a mistake calling this
retired pay?
Colonel BENADE. In the case of the five-star people, Generals Mac-
Arthur and Bradley and Fleet Admiral Nimitz, it would be, because
they are not retired, they are considered to be on duty at all times,
Mr. WILSON. How about General Eisenhower, is he included in
that?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir. General Eisenhower, as I recall
Mr. BLANDFORD. lie is on active duty and he has had his rank re-
stored to him, lie receives the $25,000 that we give to former Presi-
dents.
Mr. RIVERS. But he has the emoluments.
Mr. BLANDFORD. He has aides.
Mr. RIVERS. He is entitled to commissaries and hospitalization.
Mr. GUBSER. If there is a bed available.
Mr. WILSON. I would think he would be included in this group and
have a choice as he has had in the past.
ME. BLANDFORD. This is an extremely complex problem, and I be-
lieve, if I am not mistaken, I may be wrong but I believe the Senate
put sections 6 and 7 in this bill.
Mr. HARDY. Let's see what we are talking about, because actually
it seem.s to me it would be rather important for us to know whether
the language now in the bill affects those two sections or not.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Section 7, and this is the one we are really talking
about at this point, says "Notwithstanding any other provision of
law"?this is the 1958 Pay Act? "Notwithstanding any provision of
law, each officer entitled to pay and allowances under any of the
following provisions of law shall continue to receive the pay and
allowances to which he was entitled on the day before the effective
date of this Act." The Act of March 23, 1946, which was referred
to, "the Act of June 26, 1948," which I think was Admiral Spruance
and General Vanderurift, and "the Act of September 18, 1950; which
was a private law for GeneralBradley.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0119i4 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Now, in other words, we froze these people who are affected by
these. three laws to the pay and allowances they were receiving on
May 31, 1958. They did not receive an increase in 1958 because they
were drawing full pay and allowances, not retired pay but full ply
and allowances.
Now, of course, if we provide them with full pay and allowances
in this bill, the increase will be quite substantial per individual, be-
cause they will go from the old pay of, I think it was $1,500 a month
up to $1,975 it month. They also will be entitled
Colonel BEXADE. $1,875.
Mr. Bi,Axoroan. Yes, excuse mile,
Then they will also be entitled to $201 tis a quarters allowance. as
opposed to the $171 they are now receiving.
Mr. lilyElls. The Congress has already recognized these men as
something extra special, so we needn't worry about this. Theee men
are extraordinarily regarded by the Congress already. So if we
decide to do it, it. won't be-
Mr. HARDY. I think we. need to know what we are doing.
Mr. Mynas. Right.
Mr. TIMMY. Also. I think one of the things we had Letter keep in
mind, if General Eisenhower is drawing--has elected to draw his
Presidential retirement rather than his military pay, however it was
set up, whether it was retirement or active duty pay, and if we get
this thing out of kilter, then we are going to have to give him a
reelection.
Mr. BExxorr. It :-.,eeitus to me this whole thing is being made a lot
more out of than we ought. to, because I think everybody here would
like to give them the 5 percent.. Why don't, we draw up a provision
including General Eisenhower giving them 5 percent ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is a lot more I han 5 percent.
Mr. BENNE1T. It is a lot more than 5 percent we are giving retirees.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BExxErr. I am not talking about the 1-1 percent, I am talking
about the 5 percent.
Mr. BLANDFOIW. What we are talking about is if we let the people
draw full pay and allowances you could see that they would draw
approximately $29,000 a year.
Isn't that correct?
Colonel BEN-ADE. Yes, sir.
BLANDFORD. They are now drawing, I would guess, around
$.9.,2,000. I am not sure of my exact figures because of the. personal
money allowance.
Colonel BExADE. The pay and allowances presently being received
by MacArthur, Bradley, and Nimitz, is $20,543.30 a year.
Mr. liENNETf. They are all getting a certain amount of money at
the present time. We are planning on giving retirees a certain per-
centage cost. of living. Why not, just apply that cost-of-living rise to
what. they are now getting? That is as simple as pie.
Mr. BATEs. If that is what you want.
Mr. BLANDrotat. If that. is what I lie SUbC0111111hilee prOpOSeS.
Mr. Ricrns. I have always construed these people. to be on active
duty, not ret i red. They are separate mid distinct
Mr. BExxErr. This does not put them in the category of retired.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : aMRDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATES. It puts them in the category of those people. They are
not retired, they are separate and distinct.
Mr. BLANDFORD. To narrow the issue down, what Mr. Bennett pro-
poses is a 5-percent increase in their active duty pay. What Mr. Bates
proposes is that they be given the full pay and allowances of officers
of their grade under the pay scales that went into effect in 1958.
The difference is a thousand dollars a year, roughly, as opposed to
$10,000 a year. You are dealing with about $9,000 difference for these
people.
Mr. BATES. Before the last act, what has been the historical situa-
tion? I always thought they always got the active duty pay.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We passed special laws for these people and my
opinion is that some would then immediately be able to recompute?if
we don't put anything in the bill, you could construe this to mean that
they will draw the pay and allowances that we put into effect now.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. In other words, they could even go up to $31,000.
Mr. BATES. I thought that always was the case.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It was. Then along came section 7, and this is
where I asked for guidance.
Colonel I3ENADE. I am not quite sure that that would follow. In
the case of the five-star officers, Congress provided specifically that
their pay and allowances would be that of a major general, and a
money allowance of 85,000 a year.
I am not sure that in the absence of any language in the bill they
would automatically be recomputed on the rate provided for a former
Chief of Staff.
I think what would happen is that their basic pay would be com-
puted on the basic pay of a major general on the rates provided in
the 1958 Pay Act.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is quite possible. That would then give them,
a major general, they would go from $19,186.56 to $20,377.20 a year,
plus -$4,000 special money allowance, if I am not mistaken. They do
get a special money allowance of $4,000.
Colonel. BENADE. $5,000.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Then they would go from what Colonel Benade
has told you is approximately $20,500 to $25,500 under Colonel Be-
nade's interpretation.
Mr. HARDY. I should think that would be a pretty substantial raise.
Mr. IIUDDLESTON. I don't see how we can possibly pay anybody
more than we pay the former Presidents.
Mr. BENNETT. Has there been any kick about the way they have
been paid in the past?
Mr. BLANDFORD. There was some objection in the Senate in 1958.
Mr. BENNETT. I am. talking about from the men. They haven't
raised a point about it?
Mr. RIVERS. They were very picayunish, I think, in not giving
Admiral Nimitz the increase in quarters allowance.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? I have
raised the question because there are two categories of officers involved.
Mr. RIVERS. Before you raise it, let me ask this question : Did we
not (rive these people a special tax consideration also?
BLANDFORD. Only on the personal money allowance.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04a1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I would like to suggest as a rompromise bet weett the posit ion stated
by Me. Bt?nnett and the position stated by Mr. Bates, that the posi-
tion suggested by Mr. Hardy or perhaps it was Mr. I luddleston, might
be the answer to this. that what we do is give these people the -full
pity and allowances that are now Ut effect for a major general on
aetive duty, plus continue the personal money allowance that was
given to them by the special acts of Congress.
In effect, we are splitting the difference. Instead of going ap to
$30,000 or st ayinp. at S?20.000, they Vill go to $25,(FOD a ytar, approxi-
ntately.
Mr. Rivinis. Let them recompute under the two-st at genera.
Mr. 111,ANDFoitn. Not recompute. We would have TO 11111- a. special
provision in here to let them apply their pay, and we enti work this
out
Mr. Iliaints. It would be computed on the two-star rank.
Mr. BI?kNoriato. Yes, under existing pay scales.
Mr. HARDY. So that we don't create an a wkward sort of situation,
let us understand : Under present law. as it now stands, there isn't
anybody else who would retire, reach ret irement age and continue tech-
nically on active duty because there is no special legislation provided?
Mr. MA NI-WORD. Not unless we pass it.
Mr. HAany. So if a Chief of Staff retired now, what would his
retirement he? He would retire on a retirement rat e
Mr. BLANDroito. 75 percent of $1,75 a month.
Mr. RIVERS. Tie gets a four-star rate now.
Mr. Hata?-. But he has a higher active duty pay, but his retirement
would still put him below, considerably below the retirement--
Mr. Ilt?vsoroun. Yes.
Mr. Timmy (continuing). That these special people are receiving.
We want to leave them in a special category.
Mr. Il'avEas. That is exactly right.
Mr. HARDY. But I don't think we ought to go head over heels.
Mr. Rims. If you leave it as it has been historically, what would
the figures be ?
Mr. MANDFORD. I think Colonel Benade summarized this. His-
torically ii would take it to $25,000.
:qr. I Imam% On the basis of a major general?
Mr. MANDFORD. Yes. You see, a major general does not get a
money allowanee
Mr. II:linty. That is only because. he is considered to be on active
duty.
Mr. BLANDFoan. Yes. but he is considered to be on active duty as a
live-star, drawing the pay of he two-star with the personal money
a !Iowa nce of live-star.
Mr. RIVERS. Because in those days you had DO four-star pay or
three-star.
Mr. 13r,:\ NnFoRn. That is exactly right.
Mr. GAVIN. Outside of this group here, he next group of g(-neral
officers, are they going to he upped to the 1058 rates?
MI. I IL,ANrwouin. -Yes.
Mr. GAVIN. That have been frozen before and are not pnrticipating
Mr. BLANDFORD. YPS, sir, everybody who is paid retiremen: pay
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21d61IA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
under the 'Career Compensation Act will recompute under existing
pay scales.
Mr. RIVERS. For the length of service and not disability ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, eyed.] the disability people will recompute-, be-
cause they were retired under the Career Compensation Act. The
only people who will not recompute are the 411 people who have..
already gotten a break for many years.
Mr. WILSON. Are we going to get into the discussion of the pro-
posed change from the traditional concept of computing retired pay?
Mr. RIVERS. The whole business. You can be in on any part you
want.
Mr. WiLsoN. I don't mean in the debate, I mean right now.
Mr. RIVERS. We have got to get these details first.
Colonel BENADE. Mr. Chairman, may I raise one more point that I
think might not be too clear?
I think we have to be careful to remember that we have been talk-
ing about Generals of the Army MacArthur, Bradley, and Fleet Ad-
miral Nimitz. I think it would be helpful to clarify the intent on
Admiral Spruance, General Vandergrift, and General Spaatz, because
their pay is based on the pay and allowances of a four-star general
on the 1955 scale.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Give us the totals and perhaps we can come up with
an answer.
Colonel BENADE. The monthly retired pay of the last three officers,
Spruance, Vandergrift, and Spaatz, today is $1,678 a month. On an
annual basis, that is $20,143.36. There is precisely a $400 a year dif-
ference at present in the retired pay of the last three officers I have
named compared to General MacArthur, General Bradley, and
Admiral Nimitz.
Mr. HARDY. This includes all their money allowance, too?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. This is for the chiefs of the services?
Colonel BENADE. Each of these officers, sir?Spruance, Vander-
grift, and Spaatz?were provided for under special acts of Con-
gress. The rate of retired pay that they are receiving does not relate
to the pay of a chief of service. It is fixed by the special act of
Congress.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do they draw retired pay and a personal money
allowance; is that the idea?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, Mr. Blandford. They draw the pay and
allowances of the 0-10 on the 1955 scale. The only thing that puts
General MacArthur, General Bradley, and Fleet Admiral Nimitz
slightly above Spruance, Vandergrift, and Spaatz is the larger money
allowance provided.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Supposing we let these people recompute their
retirement pay, not active duty pay, their retirement pay, under the
1958 pay scales of a four-star, not the chief of service but a four-star,
and then kept their allowances as they are now, where would that
put them?
Colonel BENADE. Well, that would mean that their basic pay would
increase from $1,276.40 a month to the basic scale of the four-star,
$1,700 a month.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/R: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. WILSON. Tins is the basic scale ?
Colonel BENADE. That would be approximately $1?24 a month more,
or in terms or annual, it would increase their retired p 1 by !,lightlY
in excess of $5,000.
Mr. 13tANnFortn. We would be in a strange sit naticn if we gave
these people a bigger increase than we gave to the oth?rs.
Mr. WILSON-. On the other hand, you would be in a strange situa-
tion if you didn't allow them to recompute; if you allowed others
to recom put e.
Mr. BLAND-roan. Yes.
The $1,067 was based upon what ? What was that 5 percent of ?
Colonel BENADE. It is not 75 percent of anything, Mr. Blandford.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You said it was retired pay.
Colonel BENADE. The special law said that they watld receive the
pay and allowances of a four-star general.
Mr. I-TARDY. The.y are not getting retired pay, then?
Colonel BlixADE. The 1 pa.y scale for the 0 lo was $1.,270
month. They receive drat full amount. They do not receive thrce-
quarters of $1.27t; ; they receive the full basic pay. 'I bey revive a
subsistence allowance of $17.ss. a quarters allowanee of $171. and vi
nionev allowance of :;::2,..2Oo a year, vitirli in terms of per month. is
$183.13. These items added t Duet her give a monthly pa.: of $1.67.,.
Mr. TZ iyEas. And only $1.200 is t axable ?
Colonel BENAnE. The basic pay is taxable,
Mr. ThrEns. What about what is left of tire $2,200?
Colonel BEx.?DE. That is not taxable. The $2.200 is a personal
money allowance.
Mr. WILSON. Are they drawn-17 existing active dur?.- pay ?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir. On the 1955 pay scale.
Mr. Winsoy. T see.
Colonel BEN-AnE. In 1955 the basic pay of a four-si or officer was
$1,276.40 a month. Today the basic pay of a four-sr ir t hiker h $1,700
a month.
Mr. Wri,so-N. In the four-star category, what if we brougit them
Ill) into the retired status of existing pay scales and then added those
allowances, would this change it dear out of the ball pail; ?
Colonel BEN-Anr.. Tt would !Jive them more. The in :hat pertained
to Generals MacArthur, Bradley, and Admiral Nintitz said that they
would receive the pay of a two-star general plus the $5,000 money
allowance. But the law pertaining to Spruance, Vaadergrft and
Spitatz gave them the basic pay of a four-st am.
Mr. Wn.sox. Maybe it is just time to eliminate the money allow-
ance, because if they got the other prerogatives in addition to he full
retirement of a four-star based on existing pay, it would set them
above any other existing retirement pay and would no reduco them.
if T have computed properly in my mind, give them a dight increase
and vet would eliminate the special category of just Ha money allow-
ance.
Mr. Bo:I.:Rs. They wouldn't want that because tire is a taI situa-
tion. What would a two-star now--if we gave t hem the. t wo-star
under the IIMS and then give them all these emoluments, how much
would that be?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/216:6FIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
MT. BLANDFORD. There would be $2,800 difference.
Mr. WILSON. Compute it, compute what they would get in addi-
tion to what the four-star admirals or officers that you mentioned
would get. Now they are going to get 75 percent of the
Colonel BENADE. No, sir, it is not 75 percent.
Mr. RIVERS. What is the full pay of a two-star now?
Colonel BENADE. The rate of a two-star officer right now, sir, is
MT. BLANDFORD. $1,350.
Colonel BENADE. That is right, $1,350.
Mr. WILSON. This is what four-star retirees are getting?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir, none of them are getting that particular
amount. . .
Mr. WILSON. What are they getting.? How is it based?
MT. I3LANDFORD. They are gating the 1955 pay scale.
That was an interesting situation, because we did not create a three-
star grade in 1955, if you. will remember. We gave them $100 a month
extra if they were lieutenant generals, and $200 a month -extra, if they
wore four-stars, and tins got us into real problems when it came to
computing this on retirement pay. So in 1958 when we said that you
couldn't recompute we did permit those people previously retired to
count their $100 and their $200 in computing their retirement pay.,
Mr. WILSON. But in order to remove the complications and .this
is an opportunity for us to do so---let's bring them up to date as. you
would any other officer of this rank, which will give them a substantial
increase, and then in addition let's give the 'Tfive-star officers other
emoluments that will again put them ahead of the four-star former
chiefs, and this would give each one an increase, and you eliminate
all this monkey business about $100 or $200.
Mr. GAVIN. 'Why don't Mr. Blandford and the colonel get together
and reach some decision and make a recommendation to the com-
mittee? We all have different ideas. Coordinate the ideas and bring
in something that we can understand.
Mr. HARDY. Let me throw this one out, Mr. Chairman.
If we are agreed with respect to the five-stars that we should con-
tinue them as their special laws provide on the active duty pay of a
major general, and if I understan.d correctly, at present the only dif-
ference between their pay and the pay of these other three officers is
$400, which is due to a money allowance, and the basic pay essen-
tially at the present time?they must be awfully close together.
Colonel BENADE. There is quite a difference in the rate of basic
pay but it is compensated for by the larger money allowance.
Mr. HARDY. Why wouldn't we be well advised to put them all on
this major general basis, which is the basis on which the special law
was passed for the five-stars, and make some difference in the money
allowance for these three as compared to the others?
Mr. RIVERS. Now we are on the right track. They will still have
these generals of the army preferential to the others.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You will have $2,800 a year between the four-
stars and five-stars if we do what Mr. Hardy suggests, if that is
satisfactory.
Mr. BATES. How much of an increase are they getting now?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1668
Mr. BLANDroan. This will be an inerease to them, if we work it, out
this way, the five-stars would get. roughly $24,000 and t le other four-
stars would get about $21,000.
Colonel 11E,NADE. I think that is very close.
Mr. WILsox. Before we vote on it, rather than saying "about," I
think Mr. ; a vin is right.
Mr. II.kany. I buy that, I think we ought to settle on the principle.
Mr. WinsoN. Let's see the. figures before we settle.
Mr. liniNnFoao. The figures are $25,000, because the cnly difference
is the personal money allowance, the difference betwem $5,000 and
$2,200, t hat is the difference, $2,800.
Mr. RE% Elts. All right. Tomorrow morning you in .d the. colonel
bring in the specific and accurate figures and we will pass on them
then.
Mr. Wirsox. I would appreciate his projecting Ha suggestion I
made about bringing them all up to the 1955 act. and
bringing them up to a modern computation, and bearing in mind that
the, five-stars would be entitled to more than the four -stars and the
four-stars that we spoke. of, and I he. three, would be entitled to more
than a regular retired four-star.
Mr. IIAaoy. I think we would be in an awfully awkar I position
Mr. WILSON. Maybe we would.
Mr. 'TARDY. Wait a minute.
If we start adjusting five-star generals retired, who are in effect
retired, to an active duty pay oft he five-star rate.
Mr. GuesEn. Can't we relate this all to three-star? What would
happen to this expense allowance difference that applies between these
two groups of admirals and generals that you mentioned?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $2,200 DS opposed to $5,000.
Mr. Gunsmi. You would still have a differential.
Mr. RIVERS. About $2,800,
Mr. Gummi. What is this expense? This is recognition of their
active duty status?
Mr. BLANDroun. No, the personal money allowance is provided to
the five stars on the theory that they have to entertain a great deal.
Mr. GUBSER. It is a recognition of their active duty status?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. GunsEa. Also in retired pay?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, they have the privilege of retiring if they wish
to retire.
Mr. Rivras. What is the next question?
Mr. BLANDFORD. AS far LIS I RIB concerned we. have settled what we
mean on the question of computing retirement, on the cost-of-living
increases, on the question of whether it. is cumulative and how it will
be applied.
Mr. Wir,soic. May I ask a question on that? I am sorry, I missed
part of the session yesterday. Maybe you did cover it to your satis-
faction.
But I would like to ask a question based on the chairman's eirplana-
tion of how these proposed changes in the Depart ment':_ bill would be,
what would happen to, let's take, a colonel with over 3C years of serv-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :93.-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
ice who retired prior to 1958 under existing law. He would be brought
up to the now existing pay scale--
Mr. RIVERS. Of 1958, and give him 5 percent.
Mr. WILSON. And give him 5 percent?
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. WILSON. Then what happens
Mr. RVERS. To him in the future?
Mr. WILSON. Walt a In.-mute.
What happens to a colonel with 30 years of service who retires next
spring?
Mr. BLANDFORD. IIe. will draw 75 percent of $1,085 a month as op-
posed to $985, so the difference is $75 a month.
Mr. WILSON. So the colonel automatically?we are setting two
classes of colonels?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Certainly.
Mr. WILSON. I just want it clearly understood.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No question.
Mr. WILSON. Because this is the problem area that we have been
living with.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No question about it.
Mr. RIVERS. Let me say this to you: The only difference is now we
give them notice in 1958 we didn't.
Mr. WitsoN. "*"e have given them plenty of notice, and this is going
to make the problem even worse, I think. Let's project into the next
pay scale and we give again the colonels 9-percent pay increase, you
are giving them almost a 10-percent pay increase.
You give them again a 9-percent pay increase and a colonel retires
the next year, under that increase, within that 4-year period you are
going to have three colonels with over 30 years of service who are re-
tired' with three three different money amounts, and really a sub-
stantial difference between them of $35, $40 a month.
MT. BLANDFORD. Same thing you have in General Motors, Congress,
civil service retirement, and every system in the country.
Mr. WILSON-. I just wonder if the military is ready yet to accept
this new system. I think we are taking half a bite instead of all the
bite
Mr. BLANDFORD. There is no question that you are departing from
a concept. You are departing from a concept for many reasons, but
the basic reason is that unless we do take action here, we are going
to jeopardize the retirement system in the future and in my opinion,
and perhaps no one else shares this opinion, so long as we have this
retirement question in front of us, without solving it, we are going
to keep the basic pay scales down.
I think the committee has got to make up its mind whether it is
going to worry about the active duty forces of the future or whether
we are going to be concerned about the retired forces of the past. It
is as simple as that. Granted, this is a, morale problem. I don't think
there is any question about it, that you are creating a morale problem.
Mr. RivEus. I don't agree we are making a precedent now. We
made the precedent back in 1958, that is where we abruptly broke off.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.
85066-53?No. 6-18
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/W1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Er. Wn.sos. We couldn't live with it, because we are clinging
Mr. NAN-Imam. Elforts are being made to correct t hat si nation
Mr. WiLsoN. The efforts are g.oing to compound the sit nation.
Mi. BLAN-oroan. But you have somet hing different tha has never
been attempted before, this is the compelling part- ;thou:. it, to me.
Vor the first time in our lives we say to these retired people We
guarantee you a cost -of-living increase.- We guarantee t le pun lets-
hug power or the dotiar.
Now it (.01thi be, you could have this strange anomaly you could
run into a situation, if Congress becomes very, very budget. conscious,
it would be quite possible that a man who retired last vcar, and be-
cause the cost of living goes up, would get an increase it Ilk retire-
ment pay and a man who retires next year would draw less ret ired
pay than the man who retied last year becao.:e he gets a coil -of-living
increase, and there is no guarantee in Ins bill that the Congress 2
years front now will increase the pay of the man who ret res years
from now.
II. Ii ting.Es-mx. Or if future pay raises are. geared to the com tif
-
riving. then I he ret it-yes would draw the sante.
Iii.xxnronD. 'flat is correct.
But the. point is, and this is zig-ain a policy quest loll the su jcommittee
has to decide_: We can always pass a pay lull that says we .;imply give
you an increase in the cost of living. This is one approm h. TI is is
a "We will keep you where you are concept .
On the other hand, as the testimony has revealed here. rofessional
groups have gone up 21 percent in their rakehome pay. wl ile die cost
of living has gone up only I wive lit.
What has happened is that the standard of living has g( lie up. So
von write pay scales, as we are doing here, not only to met t a cos.:-Of-
living increase, but also because the supply and demand to tuires that
you raise. the take-home pay to meet the rising standard of living.
Now there is a difference het wren the man during his working ears
who attempts to bring home enough money to enjoy the better things
and the man who retires and says "OK, his is what I am guaranteed,
II will live at this standard and I am guaranteed I will be able to n,ain-
Lain the standard of living I had on the day I retired."
This is the difference bet ween applying the retired pay to whatever
the pay scales may be in the future and guaranteeing the purchasing
power of the dollar.
There is no question that the philosophy 'here gets us ]nto a eorn-
pletely different situation than a cost-of-living concept-. What J. tun
saving is, that if you are not careful on this retirement question you
may freeze all fut tire increases in basic pay to simple co cing
increases and then we won't get the quality that we want, because ti
man is not going to stick to an occupation where he is imply guaran-
teed an increase in the cost of living.
Mr. AViLsox. My point. is, I think we have made a co rtract with
people who are ill the service today as to the type of retirement they
could expert in the future. I would not be opposed to saying in the
future that we are going to set this down for anybody whc comes into
flip service, this is going to be the procedure under which retirement
pay is computed.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :1W-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
MT. BLANDFORD. True.
Mr. Wirsox. This is like trying to force integration rather than
allowing a more gradual solution to the problem.
Mr. HARDY. I think you should talk to the Chief Justice about that.
Mr. WILSON. I don't want Russ to be known as the "Warren of the
Armed Services Committee." This is the whole thing
Mr. BLANDFORD. I didn't get that?"Warren of the Armed Serv-
ices"?
Mr. WiLsoN. That is all right. You are too young a man.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Too young to die.
Mr. WILSON. I think there must be, and I am trying to figure out
how we might
Mr. RIVERS. Are you at the point where you want to make a motion?
Mr. WILSON. No, but I would like to get to the point where I could
make a motion. I would like to know first of all?in order for us to
know clearly, with our eyes irmen, what we are getting into in this
matter?has any computation -3een made of what the cost would be,
say at a period 5 years hence, or 10 years hence, over the proposed re-
tirement cost? I mean specific figures where you projected them out.
I know you have
Mr. BLANDFORD. You mean how much is Congress going to increase
pay? If you can tell me that I can project it.
Mr. WiLsoN. You have to project it. How much less would it cost
the Government in the long run.
Mr. STRATTON. You had the figure yesterday, didn't you?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, on the present pay scales.
Mr. STRATTON. IS that for 1 year?
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Wilson has the floor.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I can take it up, Mr. Wilson, to 1972.
Mr. WILSON. All right. What is the difference between the cost-
of-living concept and the--
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't know how much the cost of living is going
to go up.
Mr. WILSON. Then how can you say it is going to save us a lot of
money?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I know this, if we apply, and this is easy enough
arithmetic; if we apply the proposed pay scales to those now retired
that we would have to add $80 million to this bill.
I know also that the $30 million recomputation that we have in this
bill projected out into the lifetime of the people now retired will cost
between $450 and $600 million. I know that if I double the $30 million
to $60 million that that projects out to $900 million.
So I would say, I am guessing, but I could say that the projected
cost of what you are talking about for the group now retired would
be over a billion dollars.
Mr. WILSON. But the projected cost of just retirement pay plus a
cost of living will be
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't know what the cost of living will be. I am
projecting these pay scales.
Mr. GORIIAIVI. Mr. Chairman, may I see if I can add some light to
this? We did do some calculations, comparing the cost-of-living ap-
proach with recomputation.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/RA121 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
As Mr. Blandford said, you have to make assumption: about how
active duty pay scales move, and each one of these computations, of
course, were based on an aumpt ion about active (Jut, pay scale
changes.
Mr. WILSON. That is right, it is conjecture, but what is :Int" conjec-
ture?
Mr. Goairuir. I haven't got the ninnbers at hand. The cost differ-
ence, between a cost-of-living concept and recomput at to I was com-
puted in the course of our st udies.
Mr. Rivrats. What exactly do you want e I think Mr. Wilson wants
to know?see if 1 understand what you want. I think _lc wants to
know what it would cost us if we put everybody, give everybody this
election and bring them tilt- (hose who have retired?and bring them
up to this pay scale, this pay scale.
Is this right?
Mr. Wihsox. No, no. I want to know the difference )etween the
proposed change in philosophy of paying retired penile over the
existing method of comput ing it on active duty pay for thi future.
Mr. ItivEas. That is right, one is 1958 and one is this.
Mr. Gokimm. I think I understand Mr. Wilson's quests n. We do
I ave such a computation.
Mr. Wihsox. Because the point I want to make--
Mr. IlivEas. I think we can .Lret that, one is 1958 anC one is the
present.
Mr. GAVIN. Will the gentleman yield ?
Mr. Wihsox. No, just a moment first. I think Russ made a good
point that retired costs are going to be way high and they are going
to jeopardize the military and so forth, but they are gain.; to be way
high anyway unless we just make a completely drastic el_ tinge in the
method of comput tug retirement pay.
Now if we are ready to face up to making a completely drastic
change, then I think we ought to know it, because otherwise the dif-
ference between the two systems isn't going to be as substantial as
you have indicated.
lii other words, it is going to be in the billion category but it is
going to be in the billion category anyway just because of the numbers
that. are (ming into the retired area.
Mr. BlAxnroan. May I answer that? I can give you a very con-
crete figure, a figure supplied to me. That is if we. applyt'le, proposed
pay scales to those now retired, the ones we are allowing tc recompute,
it will cost us $88 million more.
Is that correct'?
Mr. GoanAm. That is correct.
Mr. STuAvro.N. That is for 1 year?
Mr. 13h:11c1n'-ono. For fiscal 1961.
Mr. GORHAM. Sixty-four.
Mr. WILSON. Why then did General Eisenhower indicate in his
budget in order to bring them back up to the pay, 3 years ago. add
$lo million to the budget?
Mr. GoanAm. I think it was an error.
Mr. Bh.vxoroan. Tie must have meant 110 million.
Mr. Wnsox. There have been that ninny more people ret red?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 :101A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. You see, you are adding 50,000 a year to
the retired list. The figure was 30 million?
Mr. WILSON. If it was 30 million before, why is it
Mr. BLANDFORD. As a matter of fact, it was 32 million
Mr. WILSON. Why is it 60 million now?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is not 60.
Mr. GORHAM. It 15 not 60.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Let me try to go through this again. I quite agree
with you that this is the heart of the bill, and perhaps I haven't made
myself clear.
Now if we allow people to recompute, this cost 30 million. Now on
top of this 30 million we give everybody and his brother a 5-percent
increase. This is 55 million more.
Mr. WILSON. But that doesn't. have anything to do with bringing
those
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is an indication of your cost of living.
Yes, it does, because actually the benefit that these people are gettin,
they are winning a battle, they are getting a recomputation which is
worth to a retired admiral a couple of thousand dollars, and on top of
that 5 percent.
Mr. WILSON. They would get the 5 percent anyway?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. Let's assume we have a 5-percent increase
in the cost of living every year from here on out. You can see that
the--
Mr. BATES. We would all quit.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is going to cost you $55 million on the present
retired list. So if you add 50,000 each year to the retired list, this is
'one-seventh, if it costs you $55 million for the 300,000 people now
retired, and if you add a 5-percent cost of living every year for the
next umpteen years and you increase it by 50,000 on the retired list
every year for umpteen years as we are doing, you can see what happens
to your 55 million on a straight 5 percent, it is 55 million and then 61,
68, compounding, this is additions to your retirement costs, and in a
period of 10 years, if my calculations are anywhere reasonably correct,
you are well over $700 million in a 10-year period.
Is that roughly correct?
Mr. WILSON. Don't. forget this, when we passed the 1958 act we
gave those who retired prior to 1958 a 5-percent increase.
Mr. BLANDFORD. 11,000 people on recomputation under this bill,
won't recompute because the 6 percent we gave them is more than
the recomputation.
Mr. GAVIN. Under this bill, they will recompute?
Mr. BLANDFonn. They would be crazy if they do, because they will
get less retired pay.
Mr. WILSON., Despite that and the relatively few people as you
mentioned, the Eisenhower administration and Kennedy administra-
tion both recognized they couldn't live with it, they came in and said
don't do this, put these people aside, bring them up to the regular.
What we are doing in this act. I want it clearly understood, what
we are, doing is we are. setting up the pigeons again so that as soon as
someone starts retiring in the, next pay bracket, that has gotten a
10-percent pay increase under this thing, we are creating this disparity
that is going to result. in all sorts of name-calling and so forth.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041241 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I would like- to throw this out. as a suggestion, the, only possible
r,Irlution that we might see to this thing would be, and i:, is a drastic
solution and it would be just as unpopular as what we aro doing right
now, but at least it would solve the thin!,,, would he to it 11 everybody
that as of. l963 weave setting a basic retirement rate, at .d then for a
colonel with over 30 years of service. he can see v. hat it is n the
figure, and then Congress-, in the future, will raise al re iremert pay
on a percent agewise eost of living and that everybody vkho retires in
the future vill go back to the 1l63 rate phis the cost-of-Ii Mg increases
uretirrilig over tie years. If it is fair for the retired people now it will
he fair for the retired people :ro years from now.
Alr. Bk.\ Ninlarn. Let's apply it to industry and civil sorvice. Let's
say we are running- into a period ahead of u.s. where the cost-of-Living
index has guile up :ind up. and ruzi top of that we haut professional
increases of -21 percent. various iii creases -- Congress ma: increase its
own pay--- witat .vmi are in effect saying is we should fret ze the -Amid-
ard of living of all people on act k e duty as of the date they enter on
active duty. "When you enter as second lieutenant, remember, your
date was 30 yeal'S ago when you oame on active duly."
Mr. Wu.sox. Plus.
Aft% BEANDEono. Plus any cost of living.
Mr. WiEsoN. If the cost-of-living things are fnr., t ten he can't
complain.
Mr. BoANDriaro No. In the meantime you sav to th s man, -The
very fact hat we tried to raise the living standards doein't apply to
.%-ori. because you are in a different cat( gory. yoil are a captive citizen,
as a result we apply the pay scales of .10 years when you came oil
active duty.'
Now If you i'an !rut anybody to come on fletive (lat.\ where they
dont get an increase in the standard of 11.611(r, you mi.zht get them
I doubt it.
Colonel PrExAnr.. Alav I add soniethimr. if I may
Mr. EivEas. Let me ask you: Did you hear Mr. Blamlford in n-
sponse to Ali% Wilson ?
( t il oimel BENADE. Yes.
Air. 1 vEas. Is that a reasonable response
( 'oloneHirNADE. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. -WiEsox. I want it understood that I am not in rodueing an
amendment, I am just
Mr. llivEas. We are all thinking out loud.
Colonel BEN-ADE. Yon are pointing out it is an al:ernative.
wanted to (Indium that the alternative has occurred to natty people.
aunt ?ve studied it exhaustively.
I would point out in addition to the points Mr. Blanc ford niade- '-
and I certainly concur in their validity?that there a also other
I roblems with that.
The standard of living to which Mr. Blandford refer red has been
increasing at about 3 percent a year. The cost of living- ha.; been
increasing at it rate of about 1 percent it year.
Now in the future, we would hope by virtue of the nil mini .r?oview
of military compensation that the Secretary of Defense has directed
be done. that. future increases in the active duty ,!on pensat ton of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : COMDP661300403R000400280006-0
service members would be more frequent, and presumably much
smaller in size and fiscal impact.
We would also expect that active duty pay would increase at a
slightly faster rate than retired pay.
If retired members were placed on a separate pay scale, it would
sever the relationship that now exists between the rate of active duty
pay that a man is receiving while he is on active duty and his retired
pay. It would drop him to a scale which denies him the gains he
earned while he was on active duty.
That was one of the main things that made us shy away from this
alternative.
Mr. WILSON. My purpose in suggesting this is to prove at least to
my mind that this concept of adding the cost-of-living increase is not
the solution to the problem, because it means a drastic change in your
retirement provisions.
Colonel BENADE. May I point out that the difference between the
cost-of-living concept in this bill and your possibility is that the rate
of retired pay of an individual continues to be geared to the rate of
active duty pay he was receiving when he retired.
Mr. GUBSER. Colonel, has there been a correlation between the rate
of active duty pay and the increased productivity? Has that been
related?
Colonel BENADE. NO, Sir, 1 must
Mr. GUBSER. Hasn't the active duty pay lagged considerably?
Colonel BENADE. It has lagged considerably.
Mr. GUBSER. Then your point is
Colonel BENADE. We can't correct all the problems of the past. The
Secretary of Defense has made very clear that he feels this has been
one of the great problems in past adjustments of military pay. He
proposes that in the future military compensation can be treated in the
same way as the Civil Service, that is, by an all/Ina review of compen-
sation. After determining that adjustments might be needed, he
would go to the President with recommendations.
MP. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Have you finished?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Mr. RIVERS. Have you finished?
Mr. GUBSER. No, I haven't, I haven't started.
Mr. RIVERS. Let me get over to this side.
Mr. STRATTON. Colonel, if I understand your objective correctly,
the objective of the Department would be to try to increase the active
duty pay in keeping with the increased productivity?
Colonel BENADE. Generally, yes, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. Is this correct that the objective of the Department
is to try to provide an increase in active duty pay that would be
commensurate with the increase in productivity that occurs while the
individual is on active duty?
Colonel BENADE. Generally, yes, sir.
Mr. STRATTON. Then when he is no longer on active duty and there-
fore no longer contributing to the increase in productivity, he no
longer can expect to get an increase based on productivity which other
people are creating?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/641?1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Colonel BExAm. That is correct, sir.
Mr. STa.vrroN. But if he goes Out and works for General Motors
or General Electric! and increases their productivity, It( may get a
factor based on the pay that lie gets from them Hitt will provide
increased product ivity, is that trite!
_Mr. STRATrox. Now may I ask Mr. Blandford : Isn't this, weren't.
you saying here just a moment ago that all private pentdon systems
operate on this basis, that once you have retired you don't get, any
increase in pay ?
Mr. BI.AxDo
ran. If ii is a con tributory system. Som companie-;
have a cost-of-living provision. I think the best analyse is wit Ii the
civil service ret irement fund, and I spent a good deal of time p?ster-
day going into that fund.
But basically what civil service does, and this theory is on the same
theory as civil service, except they operate on a 5-year average and all
that sort of thing, but what they try to do is give people r )St-of-living
increases in the annuities they are now receiving.
One of the reasons is that the civil service fund is well oversub-
scribed ; they have liberalized it, not based upon contributi ins, but that.
is another problem.
Mr. Stra.vrroN. Do you know of any private retirement arrange-
ment that does what we have in the past been doing in the military ?
Mr. BLAND-roam I don't know of any organization in the country
that applies the. existing pay scales of its employees to those retired.
would think that a company, any company that iced it, would be
close to bankruptcy.
Mr. Straverox. Isn't it t rue that most private retirement plans don't
even include the cost-of-living factor?
Mr. BrdixoFoan. I would say most of them do not. Cm Plainly none
of the insurance companies, where there is an insurance zompany in-
volved, and most of these are tied in with insurance annuities, they
obviously don't have any cost-of-living increase.
T believe there are some contracts, I believe in the last General Mo-
tors contract, there was a provision for an increase in the anruities
that people were receiving under the General Motors pension fund,
-but T would say you are correct, even these are rare.
Mr. -Wir.sox. Civil service, retirees depend entirely on Government
action, don't they?
BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wit.sox. For increases?
Mn. BrANDeolin. And this, of course, raises the mate testing point
that they are :i43ri billion in the bole for that very reason.
The theory behind civil service retirement, as Colonel Benade said
.vesterday, the Government agency contributes per( eta, and tile
individual contributes 61.,?, pereent. That conies to 13. Bat actually
the cost_ is about 13.8 percent..
Now the employees so far, since 11w system has ls?on in effect.
have contributed about :;1() billion, the Government ha: contributed
a little better than $S billion. Then the interest on 111.- bonds they
have invested in is about $3 billion.
But, if you look at their present liability. if you laid to pay off
the, present value of I 1w annuities, not future entrants but people
now workin, for the Government, they would neel alma $35
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2116RA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
lion more to pay off this fund. They have got about $21 billion in
the fund now. Each year they pay out so much.
T just got the civil service report in here this morning. however,.
trying to compare this, as we tried to do yesterday, I. find that there
are so many imponderables to compare with it, that it is almost im-
possible to come up with an intelligent comparison.
But the Government. does give an aimuitant?for example, 1 be-
lieve what they normally say is that we vil1 give you a .5-percent
or 3-percent increase in your annuity, or $250 a year, whichever is
greater.
Now in many eases the $250 a year is considerably greater than the
cost of living. Well, even those two factors hit the fund, because
the contribution of the individual was never based upon the increased
cost of living, so the Government makes up the difference. This is
where your deficit keeps occurring, this is the reason why every year
Congress has to appropriate money to the civil service retirement
fund to kee.p liquid so far as the payments of this year are, con-
cerned.
But to me this problem. that we are faced with here is the only rea-
sonable and fair solution to a problem that is going to become. ex-
ceedingly grave in the years ahead.
Mr. STRATTON. Let me ask another question here, if I may, either
to Mr. Blandford or to the colonel.
I would like to pose a hypothetical situation very much as Mr.
Wilson did. There has been a lot of talk about, our going back on
our c.ommitment with regard to basing retired pay on active duty
pay. If we are concerned about, saving money, we could compute
retired pay on a different percentage of active duty pay, could we
not? And is there any commitment that retired pay has got to be
75 percent of active duty pay? Couldn't we reduce it to, say, 65
percent, or 55 percent without any charge of having broken faith
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Stratton, to start with, I think ever since the
gold clause case before the Supreme Court, and this subcommittee,
i.f you remember in the Rue ger case, went, into this question at great
length of when a person has a contract with the Government.
Actually, nobody serving on active duty ha.s a contract with the Gov-
ernment.. You can take about an implied contract, and you can
talk about good faith.
You remember when they issued gold certificates back in the twen-
ties and then the Government said, "We will not pay them off in gold,"
and some man said, "This says you will pay me in gold," and the
Supreme Court said, "You, can't. bind the Government."
Now you do have a Court of Claims. T think in the period between
1.958 and 1963, that if a. retired. individual thought that he had a con-
tract with the Government, that case would have been tried and it
would have gone to the Supreme Court.
Well, it. is interesting to me that nobody has taken a case to the Court
of Claims on. the theory that he had a contract with the. Government.
Mr. Smerrox. What I am asking is has there been in the past his-
tory more flexibility with. regard to the percentage on which you
compute it than there has been with regard to this principle that
Admiral Denfeld elaborated upon here before us the other day.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014/2, : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
IIENAnt:. I think the reason or the 2 1 per-en- rather than
smite possible lower percentage is the fact that first of II, it is Only
applied to basic pay, as you know.
Military retired pay as a perepnt age of !Yross pay. that is as a
percentage of basic pay plus allowance for quarters, plus the allow-
ance for subsist ence is sulist ant ia I v less.
111 fail. Mr. St ration, depending- on I he grade converied? the per-
centage 1)1 11.1 irenwnt pay Nonpareil to gross pay is as w as 3,5 per-
cent for some ...I-al les.
Mr. ST1lATI-1,N. All I tct Say Ill!r IS I hal I f von had wanted to save
money you eould conceivably have come ill with a rediction in the
percent age 111(1 not have opened yourself to t his clutrp-e.
Colonel IIENAnK. No. sir: it would not have been the s
Mr. STRATrox. I am not saying it is the solution, I ant just SaViryr
the big argument raised against this is that \IA' are breaking faith.
I am suggesting if you had wanted to avoid that argument you
could haVe COMP in With it 1/101)0.4411 that, Ill'ObablV W0111(1 not have
been as satisfactory but- which would have eliminated ill,. basic arp-u-
'tient .
Mr. liATEs. .1 ust doing it another way.
MT. IlAtinv. Ion could have done that by increasing the ztllow tutees
and making- adjustments for taxes and you would ha,-e c:itne u with
the same t ;ikehome pay for t he individual.
Mr. litvrtts. That is vhat they are interested in.
Colonel HENAN,- One point I would like to add. 'Flit percent
is also fixed with the t homdit in mind that the military s ret troment
system is flue only one that forces a mat out at an age win it his ['tinily
responsihilit its may still be very high.
For example, the man in his late fort ies or early lift es who mav
have ehildren in college.
If we were to lower the percent of retirement income for the indi-
vidual and at_ the same time force him off active. duty, his reduced
standard of living could affect the retention feature of 11.c retirement
system so that we would be creating a larger problem.
Mr. STRATI-0N. I am not suggesting that we do this, any more than
NIT. Wilson is arguing that you adopt his proposal.
Colonel BF:NM-W. I appreciate that.
I. tun just saving this has been considered and this is the reason why
We fell it was not the thing to do.
MT. El vrus. Mr. Gubser, did you want to be recognized?
Mr. (ltnsr,a. U sure do.
Mr. Ittviats. You are recognized.
Mr. Gt-nsER. Mr. Chairman, I. just_ feel constrained to Eay this, that
I think (hat we are saying in effect lucre, that we are rec3gnizing the
financial impact of the increased numbers who will tethe in the not
too distant future.
We are recogizin a financialg
si
ntuation which, in effect, amount ;
to assuming the cost of paying for past wars and the present, cold
war, because that is why we are going to have so many r eoplo retire.
Now this principle of recoMpiil at loll IS, ill Illy opinion. an implied
agreement. certainly a strong understanding that we have had with
everybody in the service now or has recently been in it. It is a cost
of paying for recent wars and the present cola, war.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:69A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now, the national debt., a great percentage of the national debt is
the cost. of paying for past wars and paying for the cold war.
We are going to raise the debt limit again within, the. next week
or so, simply because this economy has to absorb a $56 billion defense
budget.
Now, a great part of the budget for each year is interest on the
national debt and I think it would be just as immoral to say to bond-
holders of the U.S. Government that you are going to repudiate the
payment of interest on a debt which was contracted to pay for past
wars and the present cold war as it is to go back on the word that we
have given to these people in the military.
Now I feel that anyone who is in the service now and who has
committed himself to a career in .the service has a right to expect
that the traditional. agreement shall continue and if we wish to get a
new policy in effect, the thing to do is to place it in effect for those
who are going to come into the service in the future.
Now I adittit that won't solve our financial problem, but we seem
to be able to absorb the national debt which is a lot more, and the
interest on the national debt which is a lot more and which is paying
for the cost of past wars and we still go into brandnew programs
and extend the scope of activity of the Federal Government.
-Why must we go against a traditional solemn agreement that we
have already entered into ?
Mr. Rums. Do you want an answer? Do you want me to answer
you?
Mr. Grimm.. This is a new thought. Go ahead.
Mr. RIVERS. The only answer I have is that it is the facts of life.
Mr. GUMMI. The national. debt is a fact of life but we are not going
to repudiate it..
Mr. RIVERS. It, is a question of a whole loaf or half a loaf.
Mr. GT:1[18ER. Then you might just as well say it will destroy the
Federal Government, because we have a national debt that we have
to pay. It is the same principle.
Mr. HARoy. What are you going to do with this $108 billion budget
that we have this year?
If you want to do that, on the floor, you are going to have a lot of
trouble cutting the budget in a lot of other areas.
Mr. GunsER. This is another thought that has not coma up yet
and I think I would like to ask th.e colonel this question: To my way
of thinking we have a greater obligation to the man who retires at
the end of 30 years' service than we do to the man who has only
invested 20 years of his life and certainly the problem that is coming
or that we have now and that is going to be accentuated in the
future is caused because of early retirement.
Is there a possibility or could we give some thought to allowing
the 30-year retiree to. continue to recompute as he has in the past
and then applying the provisions of this proposal to the 20-year
retiree or someone less than 30?
What would be the financial impact of that sort of a situation?
Colonel BENADE. I could not say offhand, sir, what the financial
impact would be. Obviously it would represent some lesser cost than
total recomputation and some additional cost over the system that
is being proposed.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/4 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
AVIiile we have not done detailed st tidies on this p: rticular pus-
sibility. the thought that some penalty should be at .ached to an
individual who retires volunt aril); prior to :ID years Las been con-
sidered. It came up in t he 19.'6 pay :rit ill the Stinat
One of I he problems, sir, is t hat technically a voluntary ret irement
is anybody who asks to be released, even 1 day helot e the man, hit my
ret irement.
What_ often happens is that smile members in I he military service
who may have perhaps 14, I:), it; years of service. aiilot afford to
leave at that point. On the other hand, t hey know that they are. not
going to really get anywhere, so to speak.
Many of these will serve the 'zit-Year minimum requirement and
then ask for voluirtary retirement.
So this is one catepor;,- to consider.
Another group is the physical disability group. I assume, sir.
that even though they might serve less than 30 years ti, ?3.- would not
be discriminated trintinst.
.Another problem has to do with those passed over f( r promot
Now, they are required to stay on duty a certain leLgth of t into.
Smite, once they have been passed over the first tittle. hitve a feeling
hey are not going to make it the second I ime either. They may seek
to find other employment.
Technically they are all voluntary ret i cements. It is very difficult
to reach a meeting of the minds as to who should be penalized and
Wilt) shmild not be. That has been the problem so far.
Mr. Guissiot. Let me say one t hing here.
Colonel 13ExADE. 'Yes, sir.
Mr. Graisun. I am sure you did not mean to say atm applying a
cost-of-living increase for retirees in the future would te a_ nalty.
!olonel BEN-ADE. No, sir I did not mean that.
Mr. ( frusr.a. Colonel Benade, you are advocating thi t those with
less than 30 years. regardless of the reason, and will except disability.
go on the cost-of-living increase as proposN1 here?
Colonel liENADE. That is right.
Mr. tf toista. l'ou say that is not a penalt y you say t tat- is a good
system'?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
I .et me clarify what 1 meant by "penalty."
If von ret ire at 30 years of service, 21 percent t imes years of service
gives 75 percent of basic pay.
The proposal is sometimes made that for each month tl at you ret ire
voluntarily prior to 30 years. you would take a pen thy of one-
twelfth of 1 percent. This is equivalent to 1 percent a iear. Or, of
course, you could use any other percentage
'Flint would mean less ret ired pay than on the straigh application
of percent.
That- is what I meant by a "penalty.' sir.
Mr. I3t..kNorouo. May I add one other point to this. Mi. Gub-ior
This committee. in its wisdom years ago pfissed wino is knnwn Is
he "N ars,- hump" legislat ion. In tliat legislat ion we lore id peoi de out
before they finished their 26 or 30 years of service. Tin re is another
int erest tug provision NvIlich this commit! ye put in t he la w and -nat. is,
all people who were involuntarily ref ired -under that 1 tw would be
considered to have retired voluntarily.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1
,411
A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
This would put you in a very strange situation to say to that man:
The law forced you to retire involuntary, but you were retired volun-
tarily, and you cannot draw an increase in retired pay because you were
separated voluntarily under the law."
Mr. GUBSER. One last question.
C0101101 BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gummi. If it is not a major project, I wonder if you can sup-
ply me with the project differences in cost between a system as pro-
posed in this bill for all persons retired and a system wherein only
those with 30 years of service or more were allowed to recompute.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir; I can.
Mr. GUBSER. If that is a major project, I would not
Colonel
BENADE. No, it will not be. We will have to make certain
assumptions.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I make a statement off the record before we go
into a decision on this important subject?
Mr. RIVERS. All right.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is on the record. This is important at this
point.
Right now the pay scales run $985 million if I remember my figure i
- correctly. That s just for the pay, itself.
Mr. BATES. $900 million.
Mr. BLANDFORD. On a full-year basis it is $980 million.
Mr. GAVIN. $980 million.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. Depending On what you do with sub-
sistence allowances, the proposal submitted by the Department
-involved $120 million to give the. officers a. $77-a-month subsistence
allownace, or a $29 increase.
Now, there were other cost factors in here but the biggest saving
was the saving of $133 million on the elimination of sea pay.
Mr. GAVIN. Elimination of what?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Sea and foreign duty pay?that was a big factor.
'Then there is a duty involving unusual hardship. If we agree to
knock that out that is a $30 million saving.
Let me go through this, this way: The basic pay scales as written
would cost $980 million more. The subsistence allowance would cost
.$120 million more. Then there are some other cost factors in here for
'uniform allowances, terminal leave payments, also there is. social
security, because the Government has to contribute a part of that,
reenlistment bonuses, a flock of other cost factors involved here,
because when you change basic pay you change many other types of
benefits.
? This came out to $1,090 million for full year of operation for the
. active duty force.
Now on top of that was the retired cost. The retirement cost came
to $86 million for those already retired and $9 million more for those
who will retire during fiscal year 1964, because they had to give you
the full fiscal year cost.
So your retirement feature alone was $96 million. This came up
to $1.2 billion.
Mr. WiLsoN. That is just the increase in retirement. What is your
basic retirement cost?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $1.08 billion, basic retirement.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0M4 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Colonel BExAnE. In excess of Si billion.
Mr. GANA ti. Actually, that is what we have got to present- to the
Members of the House.
Mr. BLANDFORD. TIIIS is going to depend on what you decide to do
with subsistence for the officers, with sea pay, which we have not dis-
cussed yet, and what you decide to do with respect to this proposed
separation allowance.
Mr. GAVIN'. Assume you take those out..
Mr. BLANDFORI.I. All right.
Assume you knock the officers down from $29 to a $3 increase in
subsistence and assume you keep sea and foreign duty pay, if you
assume we don't give them hardship pay, your bill as I see i, will
come out to I billion?well, it will be about $260 n MOM than
the Department proposal which came to $1.2-12 billion.
So you eould conw up with a bill that would come to *1.5 billion.
Now permit me to say something. that may be overlooked.
This is beyond doubt the largest single pay bill that Las even been
submitted to the (.ongress. Tlw yr capita increase in the bill as sent
over by the I )epart ment is $109 per man.
We spent weeks in I95s on the Cordiner report and hie per mph a
increase in there w1ts,...,;1,?_i2 per 110111.
What I ant saving is I hat we are dealing with a very substantial
amount of money here. We are dealing with $1. 1,-10 billion which is
just about three times I he size a any pay bill that has e,-er been sent
t o the Congress.
Now of course a good portion of this increase in ccst is bocause
we are increasing the obligated service man, the E-- I. I -2, and E--:I
for the first line since I n2. and also the 0--1 and 0- 2.
We did not do that before because I hose people were assumec. to be
serving an obligated period of service and we felt they were drawinp-
enoit!rli as it was.
The pay panel felt t hat we hut kept these people frozen at the I
pay scales long enough, that it was I ime to increase the pay -)1' the
(A di gated service.
M r. GAVIN. I a 0-1'N' wit lit hat.
Mr. IILANDrottn. This ttecounts for a good deal of the money.
Mr. Timmy. Could I raise a question or two?
Mr. ItivEits. Yes.
mr. I hinn-. I don't know, we have done a lot of discussin!, at d this
is iii extremely important thing. It -s unw we are guii g to hive to
make a decision on soon or we are going to In on this bill until next
Christ was.
I have a feeling (lint if we undertook to permit recontputat ion for
I he people xvIto ret ired under time 1!!;;;-; act, that we were oily going half
way and then bring the .") percent cost of living increas thing in on
top of that.
On the other hand, I have reached the posit ion. Mr. (lutirman, uI
beim convinced thia if we don't follow t his proceduro we are not
going to get a bill.
I think that- there is merit to the contention that milit_ry personnel
have had a right to eNpvct an inerease in retirement commensurate
with basic pay. hoit It kink we have gotten to a point Mare_ we are not
!ming to get anything- if we insist on coming, out with that tfpe of
approach.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/ASCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now,
I don't know. don't want to suggest that we ignore any-
body's thoughts or that we disregard any requests for information?
and I have made about as many requests for information as anybody
else, I reckon?but I do think that in the interest of trying to get
through. with this thing that we had better make some adjustments
in our own thinking and I for one am ready to accept this thing, not
because I like it, but because I don't see any other course to pursue.
Because I am not willing to go on the floor and argue for it bill
that is going to be in excess $11/2 bill ion.
Frankly, I think we are going to have a terrible time with that.
Mr. BATES. I have more of a problem. I think we will get a bill.
I don't think there is any question about getting a bill, and if we
have to do some compromising, we can do it later.
We have looked at the aircraft, missiles, and ships bill and I am not
satisfied with that either. That is what disturbs me, when we get
all these other pieces of legislation thrown at us up here.
With the financial condition of this Nation, with the things we
know we should have in. that authorization bill, and not doing it, but
then we come up with every crazy kind of a program that can be
conceived by people downtown, I just don't know where we are going
to wind up the way we are going.
It bothers me and it bothers me also to have to change this from
the historical method. It bothers me when the civilians conic up
here and the Congress bends, but these people don't come up and
they have no pressure groups and we don't accord to them what we
give to others.
I don't like that either.
Mr. GAVIN. Well, I think we should go out and make the best
possible fight that we can. make to get the bill passed.
Mr. Rms. We are in tough shape. I go along with what Porter
says.
Mr. Timmy. You know we have to recognize this, at least we are
doing something for the people who retired under the 1958 act.
We are giving them an element of justice which they had not
expected they were going to get.
Mr. RIVERS. We have this, though; we have the history of what has
happened in the other body. They have failed to take up a bill on
this.
Mr. WILSON. I want to 0-et a bill just as much as anyone in this com-
mittee wants to get a bill''but I am not ready to vote today, as Mr.
Blandford indicates we should or you indicate we should, when we
have asked for some statistics and .figures here to base a reasonable
decision on.
As a matter of fact, I would think this committee should move along.
section after section without making a definite vote on section by sec-
tion as we go, because I believe it is going to have to take an around-
the-table discussion, just between the members of this committee, to re-
solve some of the problems that we have got here.
Mr. HARDY. Let me get into that one because I think this is a funda-
;mental thing.
. Sooner Or later we are going to have to do that, section by section.
"Anything you do now is tentative.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211-!tIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
What we are trying to do now, at least normally what we have done,
is to do t he best we can on this go around, get a draft of a committee
print as we have developed it and then go through the thing again
and take our final action.
I think we have to do that. I hope what we do here will Le as nearly
Iinal as possible. But we are not getting very far now. We are stuck
on this one. thing and we cannot go to anything else until we at least
get a tentative agreement on it.
Mr. WiLsoN. Then just register me as opposed to this provision of
the bill.
Mr. ( I unsr.n. I would like to ask--you are Mr. Paul's assistant?
M r. ionnAm. Yes, sir.
Mr. G uestm (continuing). This question.
I fully understand that the question of medical care and hospitaliza-
tion probably belongs in a different bill and not in a pay bill, I accept
hat. 'Though certainly we have brought the question of fringe bene-
fits into I he pay scale discussion Gil many, ninny occasions, and cer-
t aunty hospitalization is a fringe benefit.
Now I realize. that the Defense Department as of the eat ly part of
t his month has initial ed a st udy by which they are going mu! toroughly
explore the question. of providing medical benefits for retired persons.
Are von at liberty to say whether or not the fact that :his st uclv
mis been instituted is a recognit ion that there is a responsibility to
tel ired persons on the part of the Government ?
Mr. Goan.km. I (loft think there is any quest ion about that, Mr.
Gubser.
Mr. th-nsEa. I am not asking for a prediction, because you don't
know what the study is going to reveal, but would you pre ittly an-
ticipate that there is going to be something provided for retired
personnel in the future, insofar as medical care is concerned?
Mr. GORHAM. Yes.
Mr. GuesEa. In other words, we are not going to be put in the
position of raising their retired pay in this bill and then taking it
away by taking away fringe benefits?
Mr. GORHAM. Absolutely not.
Mr. GuliSEIL AU right..
Mr. EivEas. Wait a. minute now.
We. have. used (he. entire morning in a thinking-out-lottd discussion
which is what. we want and this is the crux of the bill.
Now it has been suggested that the committee, itself, get together
and talk in our own presence.
We can do that tomorrow or we can do that this afternoon.
(Discussion off the record.)
litvEns. I don't know how long we will be on the floo7. If the
committee wants. we can meet afterward.
Mr. IIATEs. Mr. Chairman, if there is a problem on the floor I
would suggest we move to count which is just oft the floor down-
stairs there.
Mr. B tyras. I don't want to run otr. I with to waif until the How-,
is finished.
Mr. (i N. In view of the fact it is questionable about t,-hat
happen ott the floor, why not meet tomorrow morning? In the mean-
little.. the colonel and Mr. Blandford can gel .logctlier and see if they
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : 16s5CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
can coordinate this matter and have something to present for our
consideration in the morning.
Mr. GUBSER. Maybe this information we wanted will be available.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You are asking for some recomputations and I
assume some of these figures are available. I understand what you
want is a projected cost-of-living increase versus a projected applica-
tion of existing pay scales. So we have to assume what the existing
pay scales will be in the future
Mr. GORHAM. If I can interrupt you, I have located the paper which
has the comparison on it.
Mr. HARDY. Maybe we can get them now.
Mr. RIVERS. Is this the thing that Mr. Wilson asked for?
ME. GORHAM. It is not the precise formulation which he cited but
it is a comparison between a cost-of-living increase and a .recomputa-
tion applied to retired pay.
It makes this comparison for the fiscal years 1964 through
1970. It assumes the cost of living would go up 1 percent a
year during this time period and that the active duty pay scales,
basic pay scales, would go up 3 percent a year.
On the basis of this comparison the difference in disbursements
between recomputation and cost-of-living adjustment over this 7-year
period would be $771 million.
Mr. BATES. Through 1970?
Mr. GORHAM. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. May I ask on that very point about this, bearing
in mind that we have?at least it bothers my conscience?people who
are going to be retired in the few years ahead have all their military
career been under the impression, because of tradition, that they were
going to retire and as they retired, their retirement pay would continue
to be hooked to the active duty pay.
Let's consider that we accept that it will cost over the next 6- or
7-year period the amount you say, and then we write into the bill
the understanding that those who retire prior to 1970 will, compute
their pay based on the current active duty pay and those who retire
after 1970 will compute based on their active duty pay at their re-
tirement plus a cost of living based on a formula.
Now this would be a reasonable?in other words, for the next 6
years we would say those who are getting into the retirement area
are going to?their contract is going to be lived up to, but we are
serving notice on those who will retire after 1970 that because of the
retirement problem and so forth, you have got to face the fact that
as you retire. after 1970 your pay is going to be based on your current
pay plus a reasonable cost of living as the cost of living goes up.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you have all that?
Mr. BATES. I don't know how you can tie this down. I know this,
regardless of what we write in this bill, if I find the civilians in
subsequent bills are going to go far beyond what the military are
going to do, I am not going to ''stay with this bill, if I am still around
here, I am going to leave it, because I think what is fair for one is
fair for the other. If the civilian groups are going to go way beyond
the military groups, just because they don't have the same support,
I will Object.
titXXE'rir. What Mr. Wilson suggests sounds good to me. It
85066-63?No. 6 19
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/014:121 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
is not too much.
Mr. BLANDFORD. YOU will have to reduce the basic pay scales in
order to do this by some $70 or $80 million to stay somewhere within
he ball park on the money that is involved here.
Mr. RiyElls. Mr. Wilson, if you want to get some figures based on
(lie proposed amendment, we can get these figures and give Mr. Bland-
ford time to provide. them for you.
Mr. ll'o.soN. I think it ?vould Ix wort hwhile looking at.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I suggest that if we are going to do as you
have indicated, you are not being fair to the man who has 14 or 15
years of service who is planning to stay for 30, because you are going
to make him make a decision in the next 6 years.
Von are really not being fair to the kid in West Point who has
the idea of making a career of the service. So you have to j. roject
this--
Mr. WILSON. We are not being fair to the generations as yet un-
born, but you have to draw a line SOITICW here.
Me. HiA NDEORD. I don't. see any reition why 0 years is any differ-
ent?I hey have been on notice 5 years. Now von want to give them
six.
Mr. Wusox. I disagree with you. They have not I wen on notice
for 5 years.
Mr. litrEas. I I. they are not on notice now after 105S they will
never be on notice.
Mr. WILSON. We have said in effect, by President Eisen lower
putting it in the budget and the House haying: passed it, iv i ryone
has been under the impression that Congress recognized that it was a
mistake, so don't say they have been on notice.
Mr. HARDY. But only the house recognized it.
Mr. (;1:11Stat. They admitted it was i m i4ake by allowing, them to
recomput e.
Mr. RivEns. Mr. Blandford. are ther. any other spit ions of Ibis bill
we can consider witliont arriving iii a decision on this?
Mr. BnAxnroan. Well, if we disregard cost: yes. If cost is not. an
element, here, we can discuss the other features of (lii lin
Mr. BENNETT. Sea pay, for instance.
RivEns. I think we had better do that. Let's just let (kV com-
mittee recess mit il 10 o'clock tomorrow morning because it. is obvious
we are not !rotting anywhere today.
(Whereupon, at, 11 :58 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 10 a.m., Thursday. March 7, 1963.)
'HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COM311 ITEL ON -Ammo SERVICES,
S ?licommrrrr,r, No. 1.
Washhigton? DIY., Thumb, y, March 7. 190.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment., at, 10 a.m., in
room 304, Cannon Office Building, Hon. L. Mendel Rivers I chairman
of the subcommittee.) presiding.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's take up submarine pay first and then back to re-
tainer pay. That will take us to about page 15 or 16, I believe.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 16 in the committee print, Mr. Chairman.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1687
Mr. RIVERS. Turn to that section dealing with nuclear-powered
submarines.
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir, page 16.
Mr. Chairman, this is the section which would provide submarine
pay
Mr. RIVERS. Admiral Smedberg, you can come up closer if you want
to.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Thank you, sir. I found a chair that fitted
my legs.
Mr. RIVERS. Fine. I might say I haven't seen any chair that you
couldn't adequately occupy.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mynas. And that is on the record.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This section is intended to cover submariners who
leave conventional submarines and go to nuclear-powered submarines.
The Navy?and I would like this for the record?the Navy has had.
considerable difficulty in obtaining recruits for the nuclear submarine
program, particularly from those who are qualified in conventional
submarines.
I would like to ask Admiral Smedberg if I am correct in that
statement.
Admiral SMEDBERG. That is correct, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The language that was proposed in the committee
print is too restrictive. I have in front of me suggested language that
might do the job better, because the language in the original bill was
too broad, while the language in the committee print was too restric-
ti ve. I would like to suggest, and I wish the Navy would listen
carefully to this so they will know whether this is the correct lan-
guage, to substitute in lieu of the language now in the committee print
the following:
* * as determined by the Secretary concerned, on a submarine (including,
in the case of nuclear-powered submarines, periods of training and rehabilitation
after assignment thereto) or, in the case of personnel qualified in submarines,
as a prospective crewmember of a submarine being constructed, and during
periods of instructions to prepare for assignment to a submarine of advanced
design or increased responsibility on a submarine.
Mr. Rivrits. That just makes it clearer, doesn't it?
Mr. Timmy. You haven't done very much to the original language
except insert on line 20; on page 16, which I am looking at, inserting
something about persons trained.
Mr. RIVERS. It takes in the period during the construction when he
is assigned to it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is actually the addition of the words "or in the
case of 'personnel qualified in submarines." That is the key 'to it,
Mr. HARDY. That is the only thing that you have added, isn't it, to
the original language?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right, that is the key to it.
Mr. MITERS. Does that sound all right?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Does that sound all right to you, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. You don't need then this italicized addition before
"following transfer from a nonnuclear submarine," because you sub-
stitute "in case of persons qualified"?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1688
Mr. BLANDFoon. That is exactly right.
Mr. Goiiiiitr. Tha t. is right.
,Secretary Mr. Chairman, I said it is all right w .th us.
IA halter the .'..'C.avy feels they have a special problem remaining? I am
really not competent to say. If Adniral Smedberg has any- remarks
on that, ,I would be pleased to defer to him on this.
Mr. IiivEos. Did you say this makes it better for \ ott in your prob-
lems with this nuclear program you have?
Admiral Saminumo. Yes, sir. The only thought I was tn Mg to
put together in my mind was whether this takes care of the man who
goes from a nuclear submarine to a nuclear submarine under con-
struction. Now if it takes care of that, it is perfectly all right..
Our problem today is this: the man who has been in submarhes for
years is in there because he likes submarines. Everybody doesn't like
submarines. We want him to volunteer to go into the nuclear pro-
grant. Ile would like to, but he has to lose pay for I year right now
while he is going through . the process, either attached to a submarine
under construction or under instruct ton.
Mr. Ilminy. -Wouldn't t his language I hat we have just inserted take
care of that !
Admiral SmEnomio. The language you have inserted I believe takes
care of everything except possibly, and I ant not quite certain, t lie
man who goes from a nuclear submarine to a nuclear submarine under
co t ist met ion.
nr. II Aonv. Head that language again.
Mr. BLANDroon (reading) :
or in the case of personnel qualified in submarines, as a prospective
erewmember Of a submarine being constructed, and during periods of instruc-
tions to prepare for assignment to a submarine of advanced design or a losition
of increased responsibility on a submarine.
Mr. Invros. 'flint looks like it will taiie it in.
Mr. BnAmwoon. I think it ought to be made clear that the purpose
of changing the. section as proposed by the Navy is that it could
otherwise be construed to include a recruit out of Bainbridge.
Admiral SmEtairato. We didn't want that.
Mr. linANDr000. So we are trying to eliminate it.
Admiral SmEnnErto. That is right.
Mr. GAVIN. Repeat. t hat again.
Mr. linANnFonn. The only change in t he section is to eliminate any
possibility that a recruit right out of the recruit depot would draw
submarine pay when he was sent to the nuelear submarine 4.11001,
which I think is in Idaho. It didn't make 11111(.11 sense to pav a re-
cruit fresh out of Bainbridge submarine pay before he had ever seen
I ie inside of a submarine.
Admiral SIAFEDBERG. That is right.
Mr. OS:4TER.S. In the very first part of the amendment which Colonel
Bland ford read, it might be possible. for someone who wanted to make
a strained interpretation, that it would not include--I don't !lave a
copy of the language in front of me--it would not include a man in the
category that Admiral Smedberg described, going from one nuclear
submarine into another nuclear submarine.
'lint could be changed I think by adding the words, after the word
"submarine- in the first part of the amendment. "of any type.''
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211MA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Colonel Blandford, I hate to have him read it for the 17th time but
if he would read just once again the first part of that amendment.
SMEDBERG. I think it is all right but I am not sure.
Mr. OSMERS. I think that is what is confusing, Admiral Sm.edberg.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes.
Mr. BEAM-WORD. I Will read the existing law: "For the purpose of
this subsection 'hazardous duty' means duty on board a submarine, in-
cluding in the case of nuclear-powered submarines periods of training
and rehabilitation after assignment thereto, as determined by the See-
retrtry concerned, and including submarines under construction from
the time builder's drills begin."
Now the language would be changed to read: "As determined by the
Secretary concerned, on a submarine, including in the case of nuclear-
powered submarines, periods of training and rehabilitation after as-
signment thereto."
Let me stop and say parenthetically that was to take care of double-
crew situation on Polaris submarines.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Then add the language, "or in the case of person-
nel qualified in submarines as a prospective crewmember of a sub-
marme"?nucleftr, conventional, unconventional, any type?"being
constructed, and during periods of instruction" et cetera, et cetera "on
the submarine."
Admiral SMEDBERG. That is all right.
Mr. RIVERS. I think that will take care of it.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. OSMERS. I think when you present this bill to the House it prob-
ably would be proper for you to put a sentence or two in your state-
ment so it is absolutely clear we refer to men going from one sub-
marine to another but not to a raw recruit going into training.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir, the whole purpose of the change was to
prevent that interpretation.
Mr. RIVERS. I don't think it would be susceptible to two interpreta-
tions.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Do T understand this section is all right as
amended?
Mr. RIVERS. Yes, without objection that section will be accepted as
amended.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now we come to incentive pay for duty inside a
high- or low-pressure chamber, page 17, new section 6. This is a change
in the law in which we eliminate the word "observer" and we add
duty in "low-pressure chamber."
Mr. Itivims. As well as the high-pressure chamber.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, because they are doing a great deal of ex-
perimentation. in both areas.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection that section is approved.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right, sir.
Mr. MITERS. That takes us to page 17. We have passed over the
other for the time being.
Mr. Timmy. Line 7.
Mr. BLAND-porn). Page 17, line 7 of the subcommittee print.
Mr. RIVERS. All right, go ahead.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/VP: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANnrono. This is the multiple payment provision, multiple
so that a man can draw more than one incentive pay, he could draw
two incentive pays.
Mr. RivEns. We explored that.
Mr. BENNETT% 1 favor approving this but I do think it has to have
very careful regulations so it is not abused. It certainly mil be
abused. Is there any protection against this being subject to abuse?
Secretary PAc?. Yes, sir. What we have in mind here involves a
limited number of personnel. I think one of the clearest examples of
this kind of duty would be the Navy se-a-air-land teams, or seal teams,
where a man has to be proficient- in parachute jumping, diving and
underwater demolition. His duty is a combination of all those things.
Ile is undergoing at least two of the hazards for which we presently
specify he is eligible for only one hazard pay.
Mr. BENNETT. This is not proficiency pay, this is not to he pro-
ficient, it is to be danger pay, this is a hazard pay.
Secretary PAt7L, Yes, sir.
Mr. BENNErr. So the fact- that lie is qualified to do it isn't: the en-
orlon, the fact that he is actually performing is I he criterion.
Secretary PAUL. Right, sir.
Mr. BENNETT. The reason 1 have concern about this, I presame in
order to make tins a practical thing you have to determine that a man
does one of these things a certain period of t ime during the month,
if he does that minimum he gets zeroed in for the whole month opera-
tion, I assume. It is not done on an hourly basis, it has to be done,
I assume, on a, monthly basis.
Secretary PAuE. That is correct,. Ile would be subject to the same
regulations as a person who is now drawing the single hnzardous
duty pay. in other words, he would Lave to be performing tlu,t duty
for a period of time.
Mr. BENNETT. Take the illustration you have SO we understani what
you are going to have. Here you have a man that does both these
things you just mentioned. how many actual days in a month would
he have to be doing either one of these two things ? You would have
to do both of them, but \\ilia is the minimum he could do in a month
to draw the pay -for both?
Colonel I iENADE. If I may answer that question. Mr. Bennett. Right
now each of the various incentive hazardous duty pays are controlled
by bot Ii Executive orders and individual regulations of the n
dejiart inent S.
Each of 1 hese regulations requires the performance of a certain mini-
mum animmt a this hazardous duty in a given period of t true. Ili the
case of parachute jumping it requires a specified ?umber of jumps
during that period.
711-r. BENNErr. now many
Colonel BEN'ADE. Generally. it requires a minimum of one or more
jumps (luring any three consecut iye calendar months.
Mr. BEN -Err. thus jump a nionth lie would get the pay ?
Colonel 1 l',NADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BEN NETT. Now what is the minimum for the demolitio? man?
Colonel BEN ADE. They Mils! act tinily engage in demol it ion duty du r-
inur any given month to qualify for incentive pay for that wont h.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21161A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BENNETT. I feel we are being a little on the generous side with
regard to this. I don't think we are generous enough in some other
fields. Because I think when we established the jump. pay, for in-
stance, we had in mind that a man was going to get this pay partly
because he might be jumping a little bit more than that.
I kind of doubt that the people doing both of these things are going
to be exactly in that position. In other words, if they are going to jump
only one time in the month.
Mr. RIVERS. That is the minimum.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, Sir.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; one jump out of 30 days. And you are going to
have demolitions, say, for only 5 hours in a month, this gets a little on
the generous side. You may not have any better way of doing it, but
I would feel happier if there was a degree of conservatism applied to
it. I don't know how you could do it.
Colonel BENADE. I can appreciate your concern. I do want to assure
that in this case the desires of the individual are not a consideration
at all. It is the military mission, and the members that we envision
receiving this not more than two payments are those members who
are assigned to units where the actual performance of the mission of
the unit requires the concurrent performance of these duties. And in
all cases they will not only meet the minimum requirement but I am
sure will exceed it in actual practice.
Mr. BENNETT. In other words, you feel it can be kept in check ?
Colonel BENADE. Very definitely, Mr. Bennett. Very definitely.
Mr. BENNETT. That is all I want to know.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection we will go to the next section.
Mr KILGORE. I want to make the comment on this?hazardous duty
operation that what the additional cost amounts to will probably be
saved in longevity pay.
Mr. RIVERS. I think you might have something there.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman
Mr. BATES. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bates, do you yield ?
Mr. OsiunRs. If the gentleman will yield to me. I was wondering if
the committee might consider offering hazard pay to Members of
Congress in even numbered years.
Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead, Mr. Bates.
Mr. BATES. Just this one situation, let's take a look at this situation:
I think you have got to presume that one of these is more dangerous
than another.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. Now let's take the situation where a man is qualified for
both things, but let's say that he performs the less dangerous one more
frequently and the more dangerous one less frequently. Now let's take
another individual who just performs the most dangerous one all the
time.
Now under your proposal the fellow 'that has the two skills will
get more pay even though the danger to which he is exposed is less
than the fellow who does the more dangerous thing more often. Now,
it gets sort of paradoxical doesn't it ?
Colonel BENADE. Not really, Mr. Bates.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/VP CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATES. Except it is desired to have a limn NVirll two skills.
Colonel BExAnn. That is really the key of it, Mr. Bates. Before you
could have the exposure to the hazard von have to have the incividual
apply, take the training and undertake the hazards of both of the
occupat ions.
So the first key is the fart I hat this payment of not more than two
incentive hazardous duty pays operates as an incentive_ for qualified
people to volunteer for and to be I rtined in more than tlw one in-
cent ive dut y hazard.
Then, second, he can only quail fy for tile double payment i he
f willy performs both of t he hazards.
Mr. li_vrEs. I understand.
Colonel liExrdw.. Now ('Veil InclaV. Mr, BaieS, it t an work too. and
does, that although you have the same rate of incentive liwi;ardoits
duty- pay of $:-)5 a 1110111 11, we will say. for the enlisted member., one man
actually, by virt lie of his dui ie. be exposing himself 1111011 lore in
terms of hours Of exposure, like in demolit ions, in the course f a
day period than someone else whose dut ies only require hint to per-
form a minimum amount of t his hazardous duty. So you real y have
that situation right now.
Mr. BATEs. 1Vell, we don't want to perpet nate- -
Colonel BENADE. Aggravate it ? I agree. That is why I say- I
think the key to this is these individuals who would be voitur eering
for this, really don't know how nitwit of I his double dangly they
can
Mr. BATES. Of course. von call nu ionalize these iii logs any w ay you
want to.
Colonel BENADE. VeS., Sir.
May I say one thing more: If the amounts were larger t hap they
are for hazardous duty pay, I -think your point would be a very good
point. As it is, because the amount is an it month we don't feel that
to gain an extra $55 a month an individual who doesn't have I he
motivation and the real drive would put in for this. The difference
isn't that much, in other words.
Mr. BATES. 1 won't argue the point.
Mr. Silt:kg-lox. I wanted to go back, if I could, to the submarine pay.
I apologize for coming in late. I assume that tlw section as ap-
proved as it appears here ?
Arr. linkmwoun. No, it Ivas not.
Arr. Jimmy. It was amended. It It as amended to conform to he
object ion that _Admiral Smedberg raised the other day. IVe had quite
a discussion on it, T don't know whether you want
Mr. Sri/xi-Fox. 'nu. poilli that I w:ts concerned about was t he dele-
ion of t he prospect ivy crewmember of a submarine being constructed.
Mr. Ihaor. That_ has been provided 'ftr.
Sru.vrrox. That is retained
lit..kxnronn. AVe changed it by saying- "a person quail ied iii
submarines.- That was the key to it. We had le that lii guage
Mr. SraArrox. y(111 1109111 a person qualified in submarines w to is a
pmst wit iVe crewmember then gets the pay
Mr. BIANDrotto. or a 11VW S1111111al'ilt0 1110ltn? CO1141110 i(n). This has
been traditional.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 iRek-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. STRATTON. That is what I was concerned about.
Mr. lbany. That was taken care of by amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. Thank you.
Mr. Hinny. Without objection we will approve the multiple incen-
tive pay.
Go ahead.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The next, Mr. Chairman, is the "Repeal of au-
thority for special pay for sea and foreign duty."
Mr. BATES. What page?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 17.
The subcommittee prints deletes the entire section, and the effect of
deleting it is to retain the system of special pay for paying sea and
foreign duty. This, of course, adds $133 million to the cost of the bill.
Mr. BENNETT. I move we delete the suggestion of the original bill.
Mr. HARDY. Is there objection?
Mr. BATES. Seventeen?
Mr. HARDY. So that we will continue to pay for sea duty as it is
DOW.
Without objection we will strike that section.
Mr. BLANDFORD. "Sea and foreign duty pay," page 17.
Mr. BATES. Does anybody have anything more to say? A total of
$133 million ought to get a little bit more in the record on it.
Mr. IIAany. Of course, we have a good deal on it in the previous
record in the hearings. But if Mr. Paul wants to agree with the
committee in this, I think it would be fine.
Mr. BATES. I think counsel indicated on yesterday when this item
came up we would discuss it further.
Mr. OSMERS. Let's give him a fair chance to agree with the
committee.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate a chance to make
a general observation, which is applicable not only to this but other
items the committee will consider later on.
We have proposed a bill here, after 10 months of rather intensive
work, that we feel is a fair bill. We recognize that the passing of
laws on pay for military forces is the prerogative and the responsi-
bility of the Congress.
We are prepared to make suggestions but, on the other hand, we
have proposed a bill which is by and large the most costly increase
that has ever been made in military pay. It is well deserved, and we
feel that in the combination of the things we have requested, which is
going to involve an annual increased cost of $1.2 billion, we have pro-
posed a fair bill.
Now we did eliminate sea and foreign duty pay. This involves the
difficulty of taking away a certain pay to which enlisted members
have become accustomed. I believe sea pay in more or less its present
form has been in effect since 1942.
If I may just give you our feeling about the various elements in-
volved in sea and foreign duty pay, we would consider that sea pay,
as such, has considerably more justification than foreign duty pay.
Now, as far as I can see, the sea duty pay is the element with which
am especially concerned.
There are, I think most of us would recognize, some types of
oversea duty that from a financial standpoint are better than duty at
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2311: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
home, and if that. lends itself to re?.rulation, I would not be unreceptive
io a provision which would permit regulation of foreign dur-v pay
in accordance with the conditions at particular st at ions.
Mr. RIVERS. I I h ink Mr. Hardy said exactly what I was ,roing to
,av? 'Flint is the way I feel.
Now, Mr. Blandford, you mentioned that you would bc Lble to
work out Sonic k ind of
Mr. I ILAN-pr(Jm). Well, Mr. Chairman, as you indicated?
M r. RIVERS. You recognize we are adamant on sea pay ?
Secretary Yes, sir, it I as been nut& quite dear.
Mr. RIVERS. We aren't changing that,
Now we will try to work out something with you on the foreign
duty pay.
Mi', BATES. There is more justification to get increased pay i 1New
York titan there is many places overseas.
Mr. it mats. Tliat is right.
Mr. From the point of view of the cost of the fzutilies
involved.
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I suggest as a modification, \vhich I think
would make some sense, that no foreign duty pay would be paid
o any person who had his dependents with him.
Now to me this at least is an indication that, when t man voes to
an oversea base and he can take his dependents w it h him, it is a
ittle hard to justify giving him foreign duty pay.
Mr. Bx-rt:s. I low about t lie cost, Do you have to pay him
Mr. BLANDroan. Anybody who qualifies to have his dept. idents
overseas would qualify for a stat ion allowance in those areas.
Secretary PAUL. Station allowance ill some areas, yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. Auld that is predicated upon local costs?
Secretary PA LA,. Yes, sir,
Mr. IlEx.NE're. Wily don't we see if tley can bring back some
regulations like that?
'Arr. nhANDFoRD. This would be an amendment. which would be
simple to propose right here.
Mr. MITERS. Let's hear it,
Mr. IILAxnronn. That is in section (b). I haven't written it. but
I can make it up as I go along.
I am now reading section 305(b) of Public Law 87-649 :
Appropriations of the Department of Defense cony not he paid as foreign
duty pay under subsection (a) of this section to a member of a uniformed service
who is a resident of Alaska. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or a
posses,sion unless that member is serving in an area outside Alaska. Hawaii,
ilw Virgin Islands or a possession of which he is a resident, as the case may be.
I think you could add to that : "and subject- to such regulations
as the Secretary may prescribe., no appropriations of the Department
of Defense may be paid as foreign duty pay to any member of the
uniformed services who is accompanied 'by his dependents."
Mr. RIVERS. Because you get your station allowance.
Mr. BLANDIWID. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. Now wait. Now why do you exclude the individual that
is living at. a. camp?
Mr. BLANDEORD. Well. your overseas--
Mr. BATEs. Ile may not even be married.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 i!fk-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
BLANDFORD. That of course is a problem, but the man who is
authorized to have his dependents with him if he has his dependents
with him, I think should not draw -foreign duty pay, if you want to
modify it. Now what you are really faced with on
Mr. LONG. I think you are sayn4,Y you are not going to pay for
foreign duty.
Mr. BATES. Yes, anybody, at a certain station
Mr. BLANDFORD. An E-1 or E-2 who is in Wiesbaden, a delightful
place, is still nevertheless a youngster overseas, he doesn't get a
chance to go home and leave until he has finished his tour of foreign
duty.
Now we have given these people foreign duty pay. If you wanted
to make an exception, and you could make all foreign duty pay
subject to regulations as far as that is concerned, but I am thinking
of a situation, for example, in Okinawa, where you have all enlisted
personnel drawing oversea pay, and yet you have some enlisted per-
sonnel over there occupying Government housing and they are also
drawing sea pay.
I think there is a difference between a man who is overseas away
from home without his family and a man overseas with his family.
That is the only thing I am proposing.
Mr. BENNETT. That is a modest approach, and I think it is prob-
ably better than just leaving it like it is.
Mr. RIVERS, Mr. Bates, have you finished?
Mr. BATES. I think that creates a lot of problems.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think you could make it subject to such regu-
lations as the Secretary may prescribe and let them worry about the
problem.
Mr. BATES. I think that is right. But if we put in the bill the
fact that it wouldn't apply to married people with their families over
there, I think it is just complications. I think it is either justified
or not.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That takes us right back to the question as to
whether you should pay foreign duty pay. Certainly an enlisted
man in South Vietnam is in a different situation than an enlisted
man in Wiesbaden. On the other hand, not all of the assignments
in Germany are garden spots. This is the problem you get into.
Mr. RivEas. 'Finder such regulations as the Secretary may pre-
scibe," would that cover it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. This is a broad vesting of authority, but
I think if the subcommittee will express for the hearings their indi-
cation of what they have in mind ought to go in these regulations,
then we could say 'except as may be limited by such.regulations as
the Secretary may prescribed."
Now the only thing I say is, I think the Department ought to
receive some guidance from this subcommittee as to who should get
this and who should not get it.
Mr. BENNETT. May I make my little speech? My feeling about
it is I feel like whether they are married or not married, whether
dependents or no dependents are there, that the Department ought
to be allowed to select prestige or advantageous spots like Paris, or
maybe even all of Europe, the Department ought to be able to make
regulations to eliminate oversea pay. That is what I feel.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04a1; : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
11r. 14vtais'Air. Stratton.
Mr. _BATEs. Selected spots.
Mr. s-ru.veri>N. I would like to inakc wit comment. My feet aren't
in concrete On this point, but I am inclitwd to think t hat we g.?.t into
trouble when we try to discriminate part icular at,',.....innents, anti I
think WO are apt to overlook i lie fat that while for Mend yrs of
Congress it may hp a big treat to get to Europe hat for many of these
lads who may even he serving in places like Paris, -Wiesbaden, and
the rest, it is no great treat to them. Tlwy would rather kV. 110[110 Ut
NVW YOrli or Mimsachuset is. It is difficult to convince them that
I hey are having the I inw of their lives. this opport unity to tracel.
I think we have got a basic opposiTion 011 the part of Americans
to spending any time abroad, and I think one of tlw re4lsons why we
have this in law is as an incentive to carry out some of our wor!dwide
obligat ions. I hesitate to eliminate it.
Mr. GAvis. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STu.vrroN. I 3e glad to.
Mr. GAvtx. Leaving it to the discret ion ol' the Secretary, he can
determine what particular assbrinnent or spot this individual is going
to.
In fact. I have had many requests to return bzwk to Germany, I'm'
They have done their tour of duty and they are aux Otis to
go hack.
I think if the Secretary is empowered and authorized at his dis-
cretion, he can determine the particular spot that tlw serviceman is
assigned to as to whether it is of such a nature I hat he is emit .r led to
foreign duty pay.
Mr. Ilivatus. (10 ahead, Mr.S?lt rat (on.
Mr. STRATrox. I have no further comment.
11.(11egeit;litIg.s4 t 1141),ISIntlaf:1 (..tertlimism:1 ft eln wh. i!iiikli?s?tret ihm.az (Tool (es
III) with some suggest ions.
Mr. I lAin?-. I think that might he it good idea.
It ivEas. We are going to meet this a fternon until we lin i -311 this
Mr. HARDY. I agree in the suggestion that Mr. Bland ford in that
yon should keep in mind, that under the regulations now, tours of
duty vary according to whether you have your dependents with you.
Mr. IiivEtts. I will tell you something else. We have to realize
you have to leave some discretion to the Depart nano . We cai 't. lust
prescribe the activities. If you don't leave some discretion to them
how can they rem this thing.
the Army is 1:ere and General Hewitt is here,
perhaps we might get on the rvcm-d the views of the Army, who prob-
ably will be t he main losers in this proposition. with any restrict ions.
Mr. RivEns. Dr. Long, did you want to say something lirst ?
Mr. LoNro. I think not.
Mr. I 3LANDroun. General Hewitt. is r.ght here.
Mr. "RIVERS. What do you think about the sit tuition ?
General IIEwrrr. I think we ought to have this foreign duty pay.
If you are going to have sea duty pay I think there should he foreign
duty pay, because. the man in Korea-, I think has it just as hard as an
individual on sea duty and I don't think you can differentiate between
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1691A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
them. We are thinking about the man over in Korea, who gets that
foreign
Mr. BENNETT. Nobody suggested Korea, we are talking about Paris.
General IIEwirr. There aren't very many in Paris.
Mr. BENNETT. Then the regulations wouldn't apply to them.
Mr. RIVERS. Wait a second. This doesn't stop foreign duty pay.
General HEWITT. No, sir.
Mr. Ramis. It would give authority to the Secretary to prescribe.
He would prescribe the regulations, rather than a blank check.
Is this right, Mr. Paul?
Mr. GAVIN. The Secretary at his discretion could determine the
particular assignment the serviceman has, whether or not he should or
should not be entitled.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandford, is that what we have done?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think General Hewitt has
put his finger on what the problem is going to be. There is going to
be a destroyer sitting out at Pusan and everybody is going to come
ashore drawing sea pay, and meet with enlisted men from the U.S.
Army in Pusan, and there is going to be an awful lot of irritation
because one of them is drawing sea pay and the other is not drawing
the equivalent.
Mr. BENNETT. Has anybody thought that Korea would be involved
in this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. We don't know what the regulations of the Sec-
retary are going to be.
Mr. BENNETT. Say that in the law.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the reason I say, when you say "subject to
such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe," this is a blank
check.
Mr. BENNETT. I would limit him to Europe.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I can also give you indications of assignments in
Europe Mr. BENNETT. They are always in hopping distance of these lovely
places that they have never been able to get to, I have never been able
to.
Mr. STRATTON. This points up the difficulty of trying to distinguish
between separate places. There are bound to be some abuses, but you
have different ships. I mean somebody might be on an old "tin can"
and somebody might be tied up alongside at, the Navy yard the way
Admiral King was during World War
But I don't think that?I think what we lose in trying to discrimi-
nate between various types of assignments is minor.
Mr. BATES. I go back to my original suggestion, that we pass over
it temporarily and let the staff try to work something out.
Mr. RIVERS. Suppose you do that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to work out something, but I
Mr. GAVIN. The general has given us Korea. You wouldn't com.
pare Korea with Wiesbaden or Heidelberg.
General IIEwrrr. No, sir.
Mr. GAVIN. Then what would you do under those circumstances?
If it is left to the discretion of the Secretary to determine where the
man is assigned, he can determine whether he is entitled to foreign
duty pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0412 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
But you bring up Korea, you might bring up Formosa or Guam or
Okinawa or some other place. But when you get to comparing them
with Coblenz and Heidelberg and Wiesbaden and the Berchtesgaden
area down in southern Bavaria, there is a great deal of difference be-
tween those assignments and Korea.
General lInwrrr. Yes, sir; and there are also places in Germany
I hat are a lot different from Wiesbaden.
Mr. GAVIN. There certainly are.
General IIEwrrr. There are it lot of people right up on the lino there
in Germany.
Mr. GaviN. Yes, but that could be determined, too; if they are in
hazardous spots they ought to be entitled to it, if it is left to the dis-
cret ion of the Secretary to determine.
Mr. Mynas. Mr. Blandford, do you think you could get something
for us to consider?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir; I have about eight different positions and
I am not really sure which one the subcommittee proposes here.
Mr. STisyrrox. Let's just leave it in.
Mr. BENNETT. Just leave it like it is tiler'.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think perhaps the best thing to do, if 1 may make
a suggestion, is to leave it the way the conunittee print has it at the
moment and just delete the proposed repeal.
This is something that could be worked out, if necessary. This is
a subject that could be worked out, if we come up on the floor of the
House, that by this time everybody is in agreement on. We could
offer it as an amendment.
I think this is the sort of thing that all the uniformed services ought
to comment on.
Mr. HAimy. Maybe Mr. Paul can come up with something. I think
most of us would agree that in these unusually nice billets foreign
duty pay is probably not justified. I don't know whether you call
distinguish or not-, but maybe Mr. Paul can come up with t a suggestion.
M r. 14,..k-Nnro1i1). I think to expedite. the action we ought, to proceed
with . the understanding that it is (jujte possible that within the next
month or t wo, the uniformed services; may be able to get together
on this, and by that time the bill would be in the Senate or on the floor
of the House.
There is no reason why we couldn't consider it at that point.
Mr. Osmtits. Mr. Chairman, on this very point, as the discussion has
proceeded I have become less and less opt imistic about our ability to
write law or even to have the appropriate Secretaries make these de-
terminations for the simple reason Hist a vast majority of people oil
foreign duty are. not serving in the Parises and Wiesbadens and that
yon will get a great loss of morale throughout your entire sem ices if
you start to make distinct Ions but Ween different. parts of Germany,
and I thitik you are imposing upon the Secretaries concerned, pos-
sibly administrative responsibilities that. .have no practical solution.
Mr. GAVIN. Would the gentleman yield ?
r. Osmisits. Certainly.
Mr. GAvIN. And a Ser vicemnami ina.y be in some part icularly i ice lo-
cation and he suddenly is transferred Into a hazardous spot. amid he
has to go through the chanels to get his records recorded and restored.
We ougl it. to make it either one way or I he other. As far as I am
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 apj4-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
concerned, I think foreign duty pay ought to be granted so that we
won't have these difficulties that will be constantly arising in many,
many cases, I presume.
So I want to be recorded that it would be better to pay them all
foreign duty pay than make exceptions that are going to affect the
morale of the troops wherever they may be.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman
Mr. GAVIN. Or those at sea.
Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman agrees with me. This is the only
solution.
Mr. BENNETT. We have a motion before us which I made.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Gubbser.
Mr. GUBSER. Would this be not too complicated an answer, that we
perhaps cut back a little bit on oversea pay and keep it uniform but
provide for an additional hardship pay at the discretion of the
Secretary?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is coming in the next section.
Mr. RivERs. We have the hardship pay next.
Mr. GUBSER. Up the hardship and leave this as it is.
Mr. BENNETT. Of course, that is what the Department wanted to do.
This is a sort of compromise.
Mr. BLANDFORD. When you get to hardship, that is what the sepa-
ration allowance is for.
I think there is something in what Mr. Gubser says to this effect,
that perhaps instead of reducing overseas and foreign duty pay that
you might want to consider changing it so that overseas and foreign
duty pay might be paid to people in remote areas.
I frankly find it difficult to believe that a man serving on a moun-
taintop in Idaho, 55 miles from town, is in any better position than
a man serving 22 miles out of Wiesbaden.
Mr. GOMM. What would Dutch Harbor, Alaska, be?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't know. Alaska is included for people ex-
cept those who come from Alaska.
Mr. BENNETT. Hawaii?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is foreign duty pay except for Hawaiians.
Mr. BENNETT. I spent a year in Hawaii and I think it is a lovely
assignment.
Mr. OSMERS. I did 6 months there, and I agree with you.
Mr. RIVERS. Dr. Long?
Mr. LONG. 1 wonder if Mr. Paul can give us some idea of how much
money would be involved if we denied foreign duty pay to those per-
sons situated in places like some parts of Germany and so forth, where
it isn't felt there is particular hardship or extra expense?
Secretary PAUL. Dr. Long
Mr. LONG. Is this a considerable saving if we do it?
Secretary PAUL. I have to go at the answer this way. Of the $131
million that would be required for the continuance of it, a little over
$40 million is now in the sea pay category, so that the remainder, in
other words, roughly two-thirds, perhaps a little more, is in foreign
duty pay.
Mr. RIVERS. Between $80 and $90 million.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir, approximately $90 in foreign duty pay.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Now we haven't cost NI it out, because our propu-al had hemi
knock t he whole thing out.
Mr. GAvrx. What?
Secretary P.m,. I bid been to knock the entire thing out.
Mr. GAvix. Why would you want to do that at that point, I 'tight
ask you, knock it all out ?
Secretary P.m,. Mr. Gavin. we had proposed as an alteritat i ye to
mi vhiich (Ile commitee will be oonsidering as we go through the
bill, a hardsh ip, an unusual hardship- -
GAvix. Yes. but we are very generous with all the countries
of the world. I think I noticed the other day in the paper where we
are allocating to countries of the Far East several hundred million
dollars. Sc) even though this may souud rather large- --$133 did you
say, or $134 million?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. ClAvix. 1 don't know but what it is satisfactory to pay our own
boys who are serving their country, in view of the fact that we are
very generous to all the countries of the world.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if T could get an answer to the
question which I asked from Mr. Paul ?
Mr. GAVIN. Yes.
Secretary PAT-1.. As I say, within the $90 million we could proTbably
!rive you only a rough estimate at this time. But we have, for exam-
ple, over 400,000 members in Europe. So I would think that if this
were administered as Mr. Bennett suggested, possibly to elin)inate
Europe, that would save probably half that amount. But I don't have
the exact figure.
Mr. LONG. Twenty or thirty million dollars, something like that.
Mr. IIminv. If Dr. Long will yield, I have a particular concern
with why we continue Hawaii in foreigm pay. That is a State, and
Alaska would fall in the same category except for the remote areas.
think perhaps we should?personally I would say we ought I 0
eliminate both Alaska and Hawaii from foreign duty pay as such,
and perhaps include something that would permit payment of some
sort of a pay in these remote areas.
Secretary PAut.. We have approximately 41Mo in Hawaii now,
Mr. Hardy.
Mr. HAany. I declare, I don't see any justification at all for calling
hat foreign duty now. We went through all of the pangs of child-
birth to get them ill as States, and now that they are States tla y are
st ill foreign duty.
Mr. STRATI-0-s. I would agree with Mr. Hardy on that.
How would we get it out?
Mr. BLANDFOMI. If you deleted Alaska or Hawaii from the statute
then of course you would not draw foreign duty pay while yen are
in Alaska. I think Hawaii obviously stands by itself, but I think as
Mr. Hardy pointed out, at least from the brie visit I made there, it
is a tough duty station, in many of those areas, and I think you would
Ito making a serious mistake tastrike Alaska.
Mr. TfAanv. If you struck Alaska you would have to provide fm.
pay for remote duty slat ions, because goodness knows anybody up in
Point Barrow is cert a inly entitled to foreign duty.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/210:1CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BENNETT. It is obvious we can't make any progress on this. So
I move we approve the deletion of this section.
Mr. RIVERS. You have heard the motion--
Mr. GAVIN. Wait a minute. What is the section? Read the section.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The section, Mr. Gavin, simply deletes foreign
duty and sea pay as it now is in the law. This is the proposal of the
Department of Defense. The committee print deletes this provision
from the bill, and the effect is to keep foreign and sea pay as it is today.
Mr. RIVERS. The sense of this is to have it as Mr. Blandford has it
in the committee print.
Mr. NANDI-um Yes, sir; to continue the foreign duty and sea pay.
Mr. HARDY. I subscribe to that, except I would like language drawn
to eliminate Hawaii.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You can offer the amendment
Mr. 'TARDY. I would just like whatever it takes to eliminate Hawaii.
Mr. LONG. I am wondering whether it would be possible to eliminate
the reference to foreign duty and simply say "remote duty pay to be
determined by the Secretary as an administrative matter, of what is
remote duty," and that would cover the question of whether somebody
was serving in some remote place in the United States.
Secretary PAUL. May I comment on this?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Secretary PA-ta,. I think there is a danger in just referring to it as
remote duty. As Mr. Kilgore or Mr. Bates said, it costs a good deal
to live in some of these metropolitan areas. There can be a, good deal
of hardship involved there as well. For that reason, in the special pay
that we had proposed, we used the words "unusual hardship." I can
think of Ankara, Turkey, where it is pretty tough duty.
Mr. RIVERS. I guarantee that, it is rough.
Secretary PAUL. Yet you can't call it remote.
Mr. LONG. I was thinking of some term such as that, but something
other than "foreign," because I gather it has lost all meaning as to
whether it is expensive or unpleasant duty. You need some words
better than "foreign duty." Why can't we leave that, out and let the
Secretary determine what is remote or hardship duty?
Secretary PAUL. That would raise the
Mr. GAVIN. There would be so many questions on so many different
individuals that they never would get their work completed trying to
determine who is entitled.
Mr. LONG. You mean it would cost more to administrate it.
Mr. BATES. Is there anything that could be worked out on this,
Mr. Paul, if we gave you a little time to do it?
Twenty years ago I was in on some of these decisions on sea pay
and they sure were rough
Mr. GAVIN. There is an amendment
Mr. BATES. Trying to draw the lines you run into terrible problems.
Mr. RIVERS. I think that is the reason Mr. Paul wanted to eliminate
it, because you can't draw regulations to cover every individual case.
I think to bring it to a point?
Mr. BATES. Would you attempt to answer the question, if he may,
Mr. Chairman?
Secretary PAUL. Well, the basis for our proposal for unusual hard-
ship pay was to isolate certain areas, such as some of the ones that
85060-63?No. 6--20
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2109CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
have been mentioned here as unusual hardship posts. We believe
that, with the help also of regulations already established by other
departments of Government, that we could arrive at a list. of places
that could be regarded as involving unusual hardship.
Mr. GAviN. But you would have to almost set up a new department
to go through the several million that are involved in the setup and
never would get your work finished. It. either has to be one or the
other in my estimation.
Mr. Chairman, a motion has been offered and I think we ought to
vote on it.
Mr. RivEas. Mr. Bates has the floor.
Mr. BArEs. You have no other suggestions?
Secretary PAUL. I feel we could develop a differentiation between
degrees of hardship. We have proposed two degrees. Perhaps three
degrees would be more appropriate.
Mr. BATES. I wonder if there is anything practical you can come
up with. I think you can draw the line, but is it a practical and a
wise tiling?
Mr. lily.Ens. I think for a budget of $54 billion if we equivocate on
a little
Mr. G A VTN. I 34.
Mr. IltvEns. The impact on morale has been testified to by the
Chief of Personnel of the Army, who are the greatest beneficiaries
of this, if you want to call it that, I think it would be splittit g hairs
right down the middle, and as far as I am concerned I am ready to
vote on it.
You have heard the motion of the gentleman
Mr. GAVIN. I want to concur in what the chairman has stated.
Mr. Rivras. You have heard the motion of the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Bennett. Those in favor--
Mr. GAVIN. The motion is?
Mr. BLANDroan. To strike it--
Mr. GAVIN. To leave it. just as it is now.
Mr. BLANnroan. To accept the committee, print which deli tea the
.;ect ion wilich repeals sea and foreign duty pay.
Mr. GAVIN. Would what?
Mr. I La N DFf To delete the section in the bill?
Mr. Ell-Las. Just. what you have been talking about.
Mr. BL. NI/FORD ( il!r) . Which would repeal sea and foreign
(tilt y pay.
Mr. II.kanv. I am completely armeeable with that. I would subse-
quently want an amendment which would eliminate II awaii.
Mr. lilt vras. TIIOSC in favor say "Yes." opposed, "NO."
The ayes have it.
The section will remain as it. is in the .2ommittee print.
Now, Mr. Hardy, you are recognized.
Mr. II.kany. I would merely otter an tinendment to eliminate Hawaii
from foreign duty pay.
Afr. iLA NDIAIIII). May I phrase the, language for you'?
Mr. I fAttov. If you would, please.
Mr. lit,Amn.soan. Mr. Hardy proposes that section 305 of Public
Law 87-049, subsections (a) and (hi be amended by deleting the
word -Hawaii."
r. fliviims. Everybody understands that
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2/03CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment
to the amendment. It seems to me if we are going to make this on
the basis of the United States' you can't eliminate _Alaska. We have
remote places in the continental United States, and Hawaii is not all
Honolulu for that matter. I think if we are going to delete Hawaii
we have got to delete Alaska, and therefore I would offer an amend-
ment to amend Mr. Hardy's amendment by adding the word "Alaska."
Mr. HAanv. Let me make this observation in connection with that.
I would be opposed to that unless and until we devise some procedure
to take care of remote situations in Alaska, because Alaska is not
comparable to any other State in the Union. If you have ever been
to Point Barrow, you know what I mean.
MT. STRATTON. My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that this area is
being deleted on the ground that it is now a State.
Mr. HARDY. No, not solely that ground.
Mr. RtvEas. That is not the reason.
Mr. STRATTON. We have lush parts of the United States and other
parts not so lush.
Mr. HAifoy. That would be correct
Mr. RIVERS. The parliamentary situation. The first vote would
be on the amendment to the amendment by the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. GAVIN. Before we vote on it, Mr. Chairman I wonder if Mr.
Paul would express his opinion on whether or not Alaska should be
considered.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you want to express your opinion on Mr. Stratton's
opinion?
MT. BENNETT. You don't have to.
Secretary PAUL. I would prefer not.
Mr. HARDY. The question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Now the question is the amendment of Mr. Stratton
to the effect that we strike Hawaii and Alaska.
Mr. BATES. This is on the Hardy amendment as amended by the
Stratton amendment'?
Mr. HARDY. No; it is on the Stratton amendment.
Mr. GAVIN. This is Alaska.
Mr. STRATTON. Do you want to add Alaska?
Mr. BLANDFORD. May I rephrase the parliamentary situation, Mr.
Rivers?
Mr. RIVERS. Rephrase it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The parliamentary situation is this: Mr. Hardy
has proposed an amendment to section 305 of Public Law 87-619
that subsection (a) and (b) be amended by deleting the words "or
Hawaii".
Mr. Stratton has offered an amendment to the amendment which
would delete the words "or in Alaska or Hawaii".
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Now, the question is on the Stratton amendment. As many as
favor the Stratton amendment will say "Aye."
Opposed, "No."
It appears to the Chair that the noes have it.
Now, the question recurs on the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Hardy.
As many as favor the Hardy amendment, will say "Aye."
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1704
The opposed, "No."
It appears to the Chair that the ayes have it.
Mr. IfiANDronn. Hawaii is out..
Mr. Itivras. Now, let's go back.
Now. Mr, Utiliser, you are recognized for an amendment to section
to the retired am; retainer pay section to be found On page n. AVe
want to get, this question settled before we can proceed to lite ot her
section.
The gentleman from California. Al r. Utiliser, is recognized.
Mr. tit:est.:a. I spoke on this all clay yesterday. I don't see a:ay point
in making a further plea now. The issue is ehsar cut. I i bunk it is
wrong. I want a vote on it, let's vote it. up or down.
Mr. ItivEtts. I want to say to the gentleman that we appreciate his
fairness. I thought that. the Chair yesterda.y gave him as inueli time
as he possibly could to discuss this. As I saki yesterday we realize the
-facts of life, we can't. change all the things wrong with the universe.
Read his amendment, Mr. thandford. You wrote it, didn't you ?
Mr. ELAN-DM:RD. Yes, sir.
Mn. Gubser has two amendments, the first amendment is on. page 11
of the committee print, strike out all of section 4 which is the retire-
ment recomputatton provision. One word of explanation. U this
section is deleted from the bill and no other language: is put in it, then
retired pay would be recomputed on whatever the basic pay scales are
that go into effect. in the future.
Mr. I YVES. Is that all of them?
Mr. likANDroitn. This would let everybody recompute who today,
without the language in the 1958 act, would have been permitted to
recompute. Tlw 411 people could not recompute because they ire not
paid under the Career Compensation Act and the 51 I people under
he. Court, of (maims decision would because the only thing that pre-
vented them front doing it: was the action we took in 195.
Mr. (vi c. In other words, t hey can all recoil tpitt tow ?
Mr. lir.ANDRato. No, sir. Mr. Bates have given the. one exception.
that. is the people. who are not paid under the Career Compensation
.ket would not be able to recompute, regardless of the language you
adopt. Section 4 is applicable only to those people paid und.:9 the
-
Career Compensation Act with the exception of the people who rou-
t inue to recompute under section 511 of the Career Compensation
Mr. nivEns. This will add how much to the bill ?
MI'. 111,A NIWOltn. This will add $80 million to the bill.
Mr. Thymts, As many as favor the motion
Mr. BATES. That is section 4.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It was section 5.
Mr. li.vrEs. Yes. What is the significance of striking out all of line
19 and part of 20?
Mr. firAxopotto. You don't Melia line 10, do you?
Mr. 13.vms. Yes.
Mr. lit.AN-oroan. I beg your pardon.
Mr. lix-rEs. That was provided in section 1402 of title United
St at es Code, what does that refer t
Mr. lir.ANnroao. 'MO is a very interesting provision of law ?vhicli
would require some minor ninth foot ion on our part. If we left. that
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1705
language in there without modifying it, you would have the situation
that after an individual retired, he could be called hack to active duty
for 1 day and because he served on active duty for 1 day could recom-
putate under the new pay scales.
Mr. BATES. Is that the only
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the only change I have made in it.
Mr. RIVERS. I think everybody understands it.
Mr. BATES. I want to niche sure. I think we understand the gen-
eral situation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We haven't even gotten into section 140'2, because
it is a technical provision.
Mr. BATES. I want to make certain what we are doing.
Mr. Riviais. Excuse me, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You are absolutely right, I haven't mentioned it.,
because when you read the section of law it appears patent. You see
in 1958 we put a provision in the law that people would have to come
back and serve on active duty for at least a year and tombstone people
would have to have 2 years in order to qualify for the 1958 pay scales.
Section 1402 standing by itself, and I think Colonel Benade would
agree with me, could be construed so as to permit a person denied the
right to compute under the new pay scales, coulki come back on active
duty for 1 da.y and then qualify for the new pay scale.
Mr. BArEs. Is there anything else in that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is a big section but that is one feature of it
that Colonel Benade and the drafters put in. Then, of course, this
raises the. whole question of?I approached it from the viewpoint that
we. ought to delete it at this stage of the game and then discuss later
if you wanted to, what amount of active duty woul.d be required in.
order to permit a person who is already retired who comes back on
active duty, how much time he would have to serve in order to be
rereti red in order to qualify.
Mr. RIVERS. We had better leave these collateral issues off.
Mr. Ilt?\ istopoRD. Yes, sir, that is why I didn't raise it.
Mr. GAVIN. There is
Mr. BATES. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what
we are doing.
Have you stated your case?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I have tried to explain it.
Mr. B.Ams. Right. Do you have any inferences that you draw from
this, Colonel?
Colonel BENADE. I would like to add one comment, sir. Section
1402 of title 1.0 is permanent law. It is under that provision of law
that members previously retired who later are recalled and serve on
active duty have their retired pay upon their re-retirement computed
on the rates of pay in effect when they are re-retired. In the past, this
has not been a particular problem because up until 1958, since recom-
putation was in effect, it really made little or no practical difference.
But it is an important section. I believe it should be retained but
amended to provide whatever minimum period of time the. committee
thinks proper that a man should serve on active duty in the event he is
recalled after he has retired in order to be able to qualify for recom-
putation. Another reason it is important is tins: You really have
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
tWI) sit hal ions I hat can happen after a man has retired. I I the mem-
ber mites bark on active duty, whether it is voluntary or iii obituary,
I echnically he need only serve: I day and go oft act VI' duty to recom-
pute. That obviously is not desirable.
( hi I he other hand, to delete it completely means that you could Itave
a man comp on act ive duty and serve for as long as 1. 2, or :; rears and
say to him, "You art, still going to be held at your old rate of retired
pay.- That would not be just.
Also, it is possible. althomdi not very probable, some menbers ran
gain a promotion when they are bark on active duty if tltey are on a
loni enough period of (Mil,. It is possible. Anti I effect of this.
again
Mr. li.vrEs. Most of theui d id in World War 11.
Colonel liENADE. Yes. sir: although I realize that. was -20 years ae.o
and we haven't much since then, but. this is also for that jemisihiilitv.
Mr. Rarr,us. Didn't there used to be a regulation of 30 days?
Mr. (ILA NDFORD, NO, sir. I suggest, uiid tin'
reaS011 I aid not raise
it previously is that it is technical and that until a derision was made
as to whether you were going to keep the provision or delete it. what
we would do would he to go back to the 1958 language where we said
you had to serve a year on active drily in order to qualify for the new
retirement pay.
Mr. Iii Ens. All right,
li,vms. All right.
Mr. (v c. A man assigned to submarine duty?this is not ilear to
me, and the submarine is under construction--does he reeei i'e
Mari ile pay ?
Arr. I /LANDFOTIO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GArix. While the submarine n being constructed and In, is in
training, he gets full submariner's pay?
Mr. linANnroan. As long as he is a qualified submariner, u.signed
sulunarine under construction he will draw the pay.
Mr. InvEus. That is our understanding. As many as favor the
amendment by the !-reittleinan from California. Mr. Gubser, will sig-
nify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
It appears to the Chair that the noes have it.
That disposes of it.
Mr. lit.ANnFoun. The, section is deleted.
Mr. GresErt. Just say that completes it.. don't use that word "dis-
pose", it sounds like garbage.
Mr. RivEus. The Chair stands corrected. The itmendment by the
gentleman is not agreed to.
Mr. GAviN. Wait a minute, I don't think you have got what the
Chairman said.
Mr. RivEns. The amendment of the gentleman from Califor tia is
not agreed to.
Mr. GUIISER. YeS.
Mr. Po.A-Ntwount. Now. Mr. Chairman, :qr. Gubsor has tin-Alter
amendment,
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2r17prIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
On page 11 of the committee print, strike out all of section 4 and
insert in lieu thereof the following language:
The changes made by this act in the rates of basic pay of members of the
uniformed services do not increase the retired pay or retainer pay to which a
member or former member of the uniformed services was entitled on the day
before the effective date of this act except that any member of the uniformed
services retired with 30 years or more of active duty or retired for disability shall
compute his retirement pay under the basic pay scales provided in this act unless
entitled to a higer amount under some other provision of this or any other law.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, the retired pay of all persons
entitled to retirement or retainer pay shall be increased by 5 percent on the
effective date of this act.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you want to explain it?
Mr. GUBSER. If I may take just a moment or two. This was dis-
cussed yesterday. It strikes me now that the principle of recomputa-
tion is officially flushed down the drain or disposed of
Mr. RIVERS. They are your words, not mine.
Mr. GUBSER. It strikes me that this is a very intelligent and legiti-
mate compromise, in that the principal objection of the Defense De-
partment to recomputation, namely the cost and the fantastic rise in
cost which is imminent in the near future, this constitutes a compromise
and eliminates much of the cost of recomputation and allows us to
live with the situation. At the same time it recognizes that the 30-
year man is in a slightly different position because he has contributed
more of his life to his country and to the service and it also recognizes
the fact that the disabled person had to retire involuntarily. I think
you are cutting down the cost here but you are at least saving some of
the principle which has been a tradition.
Mr. RivERs. Then those with under 30 years would say, "You dis-
criminate against us because they turned us out, we had DO discre-
tion." Take the hump boys, for instance, they are a good group, we
had to make a very hard decision in the hump group. Mr. Blandford,
am I not correct?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. You are also discriminating against all
reservists retired under the reserve retirement act.
Mr. GAVIN. What was that again?
Mr. BLANDFORD. All reserves retired under the reserve retirement
act will be discriminated against.
Mr. GUBSER. How long has it been possible to retire with the retire-
ment payment for less than 30 years?
MT. RIVERS. About 10 years.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The 20-year reserve retirement provision has been
since 1948.
Mr. GUBSER. This is the point. We are going back to original tradi-
tion, 30 years retirement and we are allowing recomputation for just
those. This is restoring a tradition that we broke in 1958 that you
stayed in the service 30 years to retire.
Mr HARDY. That didn't apply to the services generally in 1948.
Mr. GUBSER. Did it?
MT. 'TARDY. No.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I was trying to answer I think two questions and
I hope that I can clarify it. I stated that under the reserve retire-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2to.CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
ment act you need 20 Years of satisfactory service in order to qualify
for ret irement under the reserve ret icemen( act, This amendment that
Mr. Gubser has written as I understand it, is to he confined exclusively
to those who served :W years on active dut v or were ret tied for dis-
abilit v.
GAyix. Tint t is t he Gubser amendment now.
Mr. Rt..kxnroun. Yes, this is the second amendment. We have no
cost figures on it. Rut obviously what you would create, we might
as well fare it, is a tremendous amount. of complaint from t -lose who
went out with 29 years, the man who failed of selection for the second
tine, or there are many cases that would come up, including the hump
legislation, in which we provided by law that all persons 'would be
out and he considered to have retired voluntarily, so you wouldn't be
ret icing them for disability or anything.
Mr. Guns-ER. Give me 30 seconds more and then I :on read.; to Itave
this put to it vote.
Mr. IiivEns. Mr. Gubser, you will have as much (line as you want.
Mr. GtimAt. I might fail of elect on at the next Congress in which
case my ret irement benefit would be cut down at least 5 percent assum-
ing I serve 2 years in the 89th Congress. This is a risk anybody takes
%vim works for a living. it is unfmlunate that a man failed of se-
IN.1 ion and couldn't complete his 3t) years and had to retire involun-
tarily, so to speak., but this is one of the risks that everybody in busi-
ness or in the business world assumes. Insofar as discriminat hm 15
concerned, admittedly we would create some discriminatiot ? but we
are accept i 11!r t he fact that discrimination lots to be a part of this bill.
We are savim, in effect that from now on people of equal service, of
equal ability and equal merit are going to retire at different :tumulus.
That is discrimination. So we have accepted discrimination and I
think we are just_ lessening it with this bill. We certainly are not
creating any more.
H tymts. Mr. Gubser, have you finished
Air. Gunsfm. Yes, I am through for the day.
Mr. I Luny. The thing that (X7C111'S to me on this, if we went to the
floor with this, one of the first questions I think would be raised would
be. a question as to who would get the benefit of it. Now, I don't know
what the figures are, but I would guess that percentagewise. the per-
ventage of enlisted personnel who retire with 30 years service-would be
very. very
Now, I would guess, also, that the percentage of officers who would
retire in the 30-year group would be very high in the 0-6 and above
and very low below that figure.
Mr. fit,..k NnFoan. Yes, sir, much higher.
Mr. II.kany. Now, t hat being the case we could get to some of the
most beautiful demagoguery that you ever heard.
GAvp\-. You will, too.
Mr. Ilmuty. So I would not part icularly want, to see that occur, lw-
cause the principal beneficiaries under that would be the 0-6 and
above.
Mr. Rivras. I think everybody understands the question.
Mr. GAvr.c. I don't quite understand it. Explain it briefly. will
you Arr. Blandford. what we are vol ing on.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/01.9CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. I dOTIII know if I can do it briefly. What we are
voting on here is the proposition that Mr. Gubser has suggested that
those who retire with 30 years of active duty or more and those who
retire -for disability will be able to recompute from here. on out under
whatever the new pay scales are and everybody else will not.
Mr. GAVIN. Where do the Reserves come in ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Reserves rarely have 30 years of active duty.
Mr. GAVIN. They are not involved in this amendment?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, Mr. Gubser has deliberately left them out an
the theory this is not a career for them.
Mr. RIVERS. As many as favor the amendment of the gentleman
from California, say aye.
Opposed, no.
It appears to the Chair that the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Now, Mr. Bates, your technical question.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I VJOUld like to defer that.
Mr. BATES. He is going to try to work it out.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If you have confidence in me I will, give you the
language?
Mr. BATES. I have confidence in you.
Mr. GAVIN. Yes.
Mr. IIARDY. Reasonable confidence.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Reasonable confidence is all I need.
Mr. GAVIN. You have earned and merit the high commendation of
this committee -for your excellent work.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Thank you.
Now, we come to page 18, line 7 of the. committee print which re-
peals the authority for responsibility pay. This was recommended by
the Department on the grounds that responsibility pay which is only
applicable to officers and then in a limited number, has never been
implemented. This was put in by the Senate and it was agreed to by
the House in conference and it became law in 1958. It has been on the
statute books for 5 years. It has never been implemented. The
Marine Corps and the Army are opposed to it, the Navy and the Air
Force think it could be implemented. The Department of Defense
says let's eliminate it.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection.
All right, go to the next section.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Unusual. hardship. In view of the action you have
taken on foreign duty pay, if you put this in, you will add $30 million
to th.e bill and you will be paying up to 15 or 25 percent of basic pay
to both enlisted men and officers.
Mr. GAVIN. What page is that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 18, line 15, special pay duty involving unusual
hardship. In view of the action taken by the committee and because
of the separation allowance which we have not yet come to, I recom-
mend to the subcommittee that you delete this portion.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be deleted in view
of the action we took.
Mr. .Paynns. I was just about to say that in view -of our action it is
not DOVV needed as much as when your bill was introduced.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21171E1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. PAUL. Certainly to superimpose it on complete restoration of
sea and foreign duty pay would make it difficult to administer this
section.
Mr. GAVIN. How many cases would you have of unusual hardship?
What do you think it would cost?
Mr. PAUL. We had estimated a cost of $30 million. This would
cover roughly 60,000 members of our Armed Forces.
Mr. GAVIN. What would you define as unusual hardship?
Mr. PAUL. We would define two degrees under our _proposal. The
first would allow a man, either an enlisted man or an officer, to draw 15
percent of his monthly base pay. That would cover the majority of
the areas.
Now, an example of 1 hat could be certain duty in south Vietnam,
for example.
Mr. GAVIN. What was that? I didn't get it.
Mr. PAUL. This first category could include certain types of duty in
Korea or south Vietnam. The ext reme hardship or the 2:7i-pereent
differential, would include a very few, realtively few posts. Now, I
would say one of the outstanding examples of extreme hardship would
he duty in the Antarctic region, for example, McMurdo? Sound. This
would apply to people in the Navy or in the other services.
Mr. BATES. What is sea pay, 20 percent?
Mr. BLANDroRn. No, sir; $22.50 maximum and $8 minimum.
Mr. BATES. It was repealed--
Mr. PAUL. Officers are not included. For enlisted members it goes
by grade from$8 up to $22.50 a month.
Mr. GAvrx. I don't know but what I would say that if it was han-
dled with discretion this section ought. to be retained. Is it 25 per-
cent, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. PAUL. That would be the maximum, yes.
Mr. GAviN. I sympathize with that situation. I don't knaw what
the rest of the committee thinks, but a man that is involved in unusual
hardship should be given greater consideration than the man who is
not involved in unusual hardship.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Gavin, may I say that when we corre to the
family separation allowance there is a provision that has l.),Hai sug-
!rested by the chairman which will cover many of these areiri where
a man is away from his family and will cover some of the situations
t hat von have outlined.
Mr. GAVIN. What is your opinion on it. Mr. Secret ary:'
Mr. PAUL. We would not apply this pay. Mr. Gavin. I think
ought to make this clear for the record, in view- of the action of the
committee in restoring sea and foreign duty pay, that if this Iwo-
vision were to go in, we would suggest to the committee that I Inguage
he included which would prevent a man from (11%1W1Wr hOth sea
and foreign duty pay and unusual hardship pay.
Mr. RI vEas. That is not mandatory.
Mr. PAUL. No. sir. In no case would this unusual hardship pay
be as low as S-22.50. It would alwavt.: be more than that, so we would
not think- that a man should draw both that and sea and foreign
duty pay.
Mr. IZivrits. In view of lire actiori of the committee on the of her
section, as many as favor striking this from the bill say
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117111A-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Opposed, "No."
It appears to the Chair the ayes have it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Career incentive payments on page 19, Mr. Chair-
man. This is the career incentive payment which permits the phasing
out of the present reenlistment bonus and permits the payment of a
minimum of $500 and a maximum of $2,400 as a single lump-sum
payment to an individual who reenlists. We had, of course, con-
siderable discussion on this question of whether we want these career
incentive payments to go and who should get them. I would like to
make this suggestion to the subcommittee, if I may, Mr. Chairman:
This is an extremely complicated provision. You heard varying
views from each one of the deputy chiefs of staff for personnel. I
think that this provision is worthy of introduction as a separate bill
and consideration as a separate bill rather than attempt to work
this out in this bill or we could be here for another week or 10 days
just on this provision alone.
Mr. RavEas. Mr. Secretary, we realize that this is an area that needs
attention. We have already introduced one bill as a result of one
of the sections in this.
We want to and so does Mr. Vinson, wants this bill to adhere as
much to a pay bill as possible and a retention bill as possible, and any
of the sections?this is quite an all-embracive bill?and any sections
that we can handle and treat in another subject matter, that is what
Mr. Vinson wants, Mr. Blandford?
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. So it does not make any difference to you really if this
can be treated in another bill.
Mr. STRATFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is the major retention feature,
is it not ?
Secretary PAUL. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the desires of the committee and the desires of Chairman Vinson to
simplify this bill as much as possible. It certainly does have a lot of
varied sections in it. But I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we
do feel very strongly that the concept of a career incentive payment is
most important for the armed services.
Perhaps we have not come up with the ideal formulation here, but
we feel that the fact of the matter is today, that under the present
reenlistment bonus system the services have in some skills retained
many more people than they need to retain, more than they, them-
selves, estimate they would want to retain; whereas in other skills
they are retaining considerably less.
That is the whole purpose of this provision and, Mr. Chairman, we
do feel very strongly that this provision ought to remain.
Mr. BATES. I can see the reason you feel strongly about it. But on
the other hand many of the provisions of previous bills have not been
implemented.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BATES. It would seem to me that bringing this thing into
proper perspective, it all should be considered together and I cer-
tainly would not be adverse, providing the chairman assures us that
we are going to op ahead and take it up at a later date because
frankly I am not satisfied with what we have already done, with
legislation that would include them for this specific purpose.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0412113 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr.GAvix. What do you mean by taking it up at_ a later tate
Mr. Invras. Mr. Blandford?
Arr. BLANnvoim. As a matter of faci., that is exactly what I hope the
committee will do. I think it will take quite a hit of time and I think
from the testimony you heard that the military deparlinents have
varying views on this, and we know (hat they have not implemented
proficiency pay.
We may want. to modify the proficiency pay system, we may want
to knock oil, as Mr. Hardy suggested, a reenlistment bonus after I lw
second reenlistittent.
But I strongly suggest if we are going to get a pay bill out dun hg
this session of Congress that. we pass the pay bill nil(' take this up as
soon as we man with a separate bill because I think it is worth) of full
consideration.
I think there is a great deal of merit in the Department's position.
think, however..t wry has not been enomidi coordination frankly of
the views of the other departments on this provision and I think this
committee is entitled to the views of all of the services and I think also
we ought to have a much better understanding on what they intend
to do with proficiency pay.
Mr. Timmy. I think that is the important thing to tee.
Mr. RivEas. 11 is, very important.
Mr. I fAnny. 'cliere does not seem to be auTeement on it and cer-
tainly the effort to implement it has been negligible?. Maybe t is not
a good thing. I don't know. I notie? there is some opposition to it.
But 1 think it is something that we need a lot more discussion on than
we have had now in order to be able to include this language in
this bill.
Mr. RIVERS. We are not sure that the other body is going to accept
a lot of things we put in here. I personally want to stick as close as I
can to a, pay bill.
Mr. Thany. Mr. Chairman, I move this section be deleted lvith the
view toward its being considered as separate legislation.
Mr. MyEas. Separate legislation?
Mr. GAVIN. Well, I don't know, in my thinking, I think it is an
incentive for a man to get this incentive pay on reenlistment and T
would like to have the opinion of the colonel on this matter.
What do you think, Colonel?
Mr. RIVERS. Would you rather talk when the Secretary is not here?
Mr. GAVIN. Tie has been around a long time and no doubt he will
be here with us for many more years,
Colonel BENADE. I appreciate your kind comment.
Mr. GAVIN. I have been Confident--
Mr. Thyrus. You notice he did not call any other brand-, of the
service
Colonel lir.NAnr.. I appreciat e that.
believe Mr. Gavin. as the Secretary. Mr. Paul. has alread) said, it
is a vvrv impollanI par( Of (lie hill, I ?5"0111d like to emphasize once
more the principal basis upon which this was put into the bill.
II is t rue that the implementation of proficiency pay has not been
in uhie extent of the authority that existing law provides.
Mr. ( \AIN. It has not been used to the extent it should be tied.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21thIA-RDP66B00403R000400280006-0
Colonel BENADE. That is correct, sir. But on the other hand, I
think it is important to remember that these two systems are con-
sidered to be complementary?not one in place of the other.
This particular provision takes into account a fact of life that we all
know, and that is the tendency of the young man to place a greater
value on cash in hand than the possibility of getting monthly pay-
ments spread over a long period of time in the future.
This section is designed to recognize that particular incentive or
pulling power.
Proficiency pay is intended, and I think it was the concept of this
committee, as a long-term retention feature.
My own personal opinion, Mr. Gavin, is that this is an important
provision of the bill which should be retained.
Mr. GAVIN. Thank you, Colonel.
I hope that my very good and able colleague will possibly change
his
Mr. RIVERS. You have heard the motion of the gentleman from Vir-
ginia, Mr. Hardy. As many as favor the motion of Mr. Hardy that
this will be deleted and be taken up in separate legislation so that the
benefit of the views of the other services may be had, will say "Aye";
opposed "No."
The Chair is in doubt.
As many as favor Mr. Hardy's motion will signify by raising his
hand.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Hardy's motion is to delete it. I have been argu-
ing that it is an incentive for reenlistment, and that is what we are
trying to do with this whole structure.
Mr. RIVERS. This does not delete it without having separate legis-
lation.
Mr. GAVIN. It is coming later, but in the meantime the morale of
the troops may be affected.
And that should be considered.
Mr. RIVERS. Everything is considered.
Mr. GAVIN. As you pointed out a minute ago, Mr. Vinson wants
a bill to come out here that is going to receive favorable consideration.
Mr. RIVERS. As many as favor Mr. Hardy's motion will raise his
hand one, two, three, four, five, six.
Opposed also raise his hand?one, two, three, four.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Four?it is out.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Hardy's motion is agreed to.
.Mr. Blandford, you will prepare a bill; Mr. Secretary, the bill
willbe prepared with your cooperation and the Department and
it will come up as soon as it is convenient, so this may not have as
much time lapse as Mr. Gavin is afraid of.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Gavin's point is that it is a career incentive
payment. There is no doubt about it. But the testimony indicates
there are many conflicting points on it
Mr. ItivERs. Well, we will do a better job.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 24.
Mr. GAVIN. When that word gets out to the various branches of
the service I think you
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/Fil4: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. 131ximatn. We have not, taken away the reenlistment bonus;
it is still in effect ; the law is still going on day after day after day.
Irmi have not taken a thing away.
Mr. GAvix. Not a thing.
Mr. 131,ANoroan. Not a thing.
Mr. GAVIN. And now we are going to reconsider the mat ter and
bring it. out in another bill so that everybody has an opportunity to
express t hie.inselves.
Mr. lit,ANDronn. That is exactly right.
Mr. RIVERS. Tie next section is on page 21.
Mr. 1h_ \ Nuroun. Special duty pay?hostile lire.
Mr. HEN NEM'. On this hostile fire t lung, 1 make a motion.
1. move that we approve the Department's language, except I would
like to see subsection (4) at line 17, page 24, deleted because I think
that is against public policy to have combat pay for people that are
captured.
That is my motion. I would like to discuss it if I may.
1 won't discuss it, at length.
Mr. Mums. You have the floor.
Mr. BEN NEM I hate to be, personal about this, and I am not trying
to wave any flag at all, but I was an infantry out sted man and an
infantry officer and I was in combat for a considerable length of
time.
And I feel that combat pay is thoroughly justified.
As a mat ter of fact, I think it puts into insignificance evely other
type of pay in this bill.
These are the people who get only the veterans benefits that come
to people who have 90-day service and never go oversells.
We have a multi-billion-dollar program which is based upon this
frontline soldier. Only a few actuldly have this frontline combat
service. They have this service.
As a result of this we have retirement benefits, which is even ex-
tended to the U.S. Public health Service people.
It extends to people who never leave the confines of the -United
States. We have all these. benefits of veterans pensions and all these
intricate things which are very liberal and very fine and I am not
trying to destroy any of them, but everyone of them is based on a
small number of people who actually fight in the front lines.
And the time is long overdue to pay them something.
Now I am not a man who says that $55 is any magical sum. I don't
think it ought to be less than it was in World War II, which was $10
because I think that is a reasonable token but to delete it as we seem
to boon our way to doing is to me very unconscionable.
Now the argument is made that a man who is in the servici is sup-
posed to light and therefore he is not entitled to any money for
fighting.
Well, of course he is supposed to fight, so are pilots supposed to fly,
so are demolition men supposed to take. care of demolitions or take
care of mines.
All of these people are supposed to be doing those things, but all
the great benefits which come, these 20 year retirement., all these gen-
erous veterans programs, all of them are based on this particular guy
fighting on the front line.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/MCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
To say he is not going to get any recognition at all is just to me
the most unconscionable thing I can think of.
So I have made a simple motion which says that we ought to accept
what the Department has recommended.
1 would like to delete section 4 because I think it is against public
policy to pay combat pay to people when they are captured.
MT. GAVIN. Section 4.
Mr. BENNETT. Line 17, page 24.
I would like to eliminate that particular portion.
I will end my remarks by saying I do seriously hope that you will
allow this to stay in.
I would not fight about the amount of it, but I just think the princi-
ple of it should be maintained and I would just be very, very disap-
pointed in this committee and the Congress if we don't leave this in.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Secretary, is this the reason you put it in?
Secretary PAUL. I think Mr. Bennett has expressed it much more
eloquently than we could have.
Mr. GAVIN. I want to concur with the gentleman that the combat
troops go through the filth, and heat and misery and mud of warfare,
who are really in combat are deserving of our very serious considera-
tions and I agree with what you say.
Mr. I-IARDY. Mr. Secretary, since Mr. Bennett raised the question
of the amount involved, how did you arrive at the figure of $55?
Secretary PATTI,. It is equal to the smallest amount that is presently
paid for hazard duty.
It has no other art than that. We wanted to pick a reasonable
figure but not an excessive figure and we simply took the smallest
amount that is currently paid for hazardous duty.
Mr. BENNETT. The figure is agreeable with me, but I am saying I
would rather compromise it down than throw it out entirely.
Mr. RIVERS. I would be very vain if I even presumed that the com-
mittee would take every suggestion I have made.
I want the committee to write this bill. If you want to restore
what we have suggested be stricken, certainly I will have no com-
plaint about it.
I want that perfectly understood.
Mr. Bates?
Mr. BATES. Mr. Secretary, has there ever been any provision of law
which would reimburse an individual under such circumstances as
included in this amendment?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir. The only previous one I know of?there
may have been others?of course there were special provisions in
World War II. But the most recent one was the Korean combat pay
''Mr. BATES. I am not familiar with that. What was it in World
War II ?
Mr. BENNETT. It WaS j USt $10.
Secretary PAUL. It was an infantry award.
Mr. BATES. This is a very broad thing now.
Colonel BENADE. We did not have in World War II?that is a com-
mon misconception?there was no combat pay equivalent to this in
World War II.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/*1i3CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATES. I never heard of it.
Colonel BENADE. No, sir, there was not. There was an award of
U) for a combat infantryman's badge.
Mr. IATEs. Badge.
C01011e1 BENADE. Yes. sir. Ilia this is an cut irely different thing.
Mr. BEN NETT. 'flat was earned by being in combat and remaining
in combat ? That is how you got it, the combat infantry badge came
lo infant ry sold iris who were in combat under fire and remaincd in that
condi( ion; when they didn't remain in that condition it was taken
away from it ?
Colonel liExAnt:. They received ii?mv impression is that it went
to others not necessarily engaged in combat.
Mr. BEN NET'!. I think you are WO percent wrong on that.
Colonel liENAnr.. I may be wromr.
AEr. I ivEas. Mr. I iennet t, to you have a mot ion ?
Mr. lirxxErr. Yes, sir
Mr. li.vrEs. Mr. ('Itairman, I hay., the floor. If somebody would
like to have it, that is all right.
Mr. If tvErts. I thought you had finished.
Mr. li.vrEs. Only because I try to be kind. I must be more firm.
Colonel BENADE. In Korea, after action had started, the Congress
enacted what was known as the Korean combat pay bill. It is still on
the books today but is inoperative because it is delimited to Korea.
And it was made retroactive to the start of host jut ies in Korea. I
would point out t his provision is not retroact ive, and is only prospec-
t ice in its operation.
Mr. BATEs. Is! his language similar to that in the Korean bill?
Colonel BENADE. Not quite. The Korean combat pay bill spelled
out in detail the condit ions under which it would be !mid. This is
much broader in language, and vests discretionary authority in the
Secretary of I )efense.
Mr. II.vrEs. That is N'ha t I %valued to get to, because I don't under-
stand what it likeillIS here, "subject to hostile lire.-
Colonel IIEN ADE. YeS, Sir.
Mr. BATrs. In Korea, -today, is t loL being subject to hostile fire?
Colonel BENAor. No, sir; t her are not bent.' subjected to hwaile tire.
AIr. BATEs. They might be.
(7olonel liExADE. They in i!rht be. Anil the Secretary of Defense
could then declare this to be an area that would qualify. But no area
would quali fy automatically under this language.
Mr. li.vrEs. 'Fell us exact IV Wider what circumstances peop e would
get this. There lots to be shoot in,r, (Jr only t he possibility of shoot ing.,
or what e
Colonel liENAnE. I would like to use an example, I I luii',iv.
Visualize the situation in southeast Asia and look at how different
that is today .from the sit uat ion in Korea. When you have a clearly
marked line of demarcation bet ween opposing forces and exchange
of fire, vou can spell out in detail. as was done in the Korea combat
pay bill. 'Fodav 111 southeast Asia--and I have in mind service mem-
bers that are assisting the /overnment of South Vietnam--we can
send a patrol into the jungle. They may spend some weeks in the
jungle, but may never actually have u shot fired at them. The impor-
tant thin.- is they don't know that in advance. For all they know
a bullet may come flying out from anywhere.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/217:1CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATES. I understand that.
Colonel BENADE. They are under that kind of tension. That is
why if we specify they had to be under fire we would be limiting it
too much.
Mr. BATES. I didn't say that. Does the language of this bill cover
that possibility you referred to?
Colonel BENADE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. It does. How about people in Berlin, with all the
shooting that is going on around there; say one of our people in Berlin
should get shot, what is the situation there?
Colonel BENADE. Under this, the Secretary of Defense could con-
sider the situation, and if he felt they were being subjected to the
dangers set forth in section 312, he could declare it to be such an area.
He would have to be satisfied that the conditions are such that it
should be made applicable.
Mr. BATES. So you haven't really set this up in your own mind
exactly what this means?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir, I think we have, very much so.
Mr. BATES. Have you already got this spelled out so that you know
what areas will be included now?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
Mr. BATES. Well, then, you haven't done it?
Colonel BENATE. No, sir, because this is intended to be, Mr. Bates, a
continuing type of
Mr. RIVERS. Prospective.
Mr. BATES. I understand. But as of the present. situation you had
certain things in mind when you wrote this bill.
Colonel BENADE. Southeast Asia, I think, is the only place that
could qualify at present.
Mr. GAVIN. What did you say?
Colonel BENADE. I believe that only southeast Asia, the situation in
South Vietnam, would qualify under this.
Secretary PAUL. And only parts of that.
Mr. HtrouLEsToN. Wouldn't this provision apply to domestic situa-
tions too?
Colonel BENADE. NO.
Mr. HUDDEESTON. There is DO intention?
Mr. HARDY. It could.
Mr. RIVERS. What about if some of your soldiers get hurt in Mis-
sissippi?
Mr. HARDY. It could apply if the Secretary of Defense so deter-
mined, an.d I wouldn't be a bit surprised if under some circumstances
if he came under the influence of the Attorney General he might so
rule.
Mr. RwEas. He certainly would.
Secretary PAtm. We did not intend that.
Mr. HARDY. I don't think you did either.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. There is no language that indicates that you
didn't intend it or that would prevent it from being applied domesti-
cally.
Colonel BENADE. I think the expression "hostile fire"?I think any-
time you are being fired on it is hard to say it isn't hostile. But
certainly it is the intention, and if we have failed to express that
85066-63?No. 6 21
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/E711,SCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
clearly, we would want to improve the language to make more clear
what was intended.
It is not intended to cover domest ic disturbances.
Mr. I L?nov. The one thing that bothers me about this, frankly, if
we are going to do this, and t here may have been justification for com-
bat pay, but if we are (*.cling to do this I would like to see mm o definite
idelines to control ta-lie Secretary's regulations rather than let him
make the determinat
Mr. tiunstat. Mr. Paul, what was the reason for putting. ;wet ion 4
in there which Mr. Bennett objects to, and is it true that it is not
public policy to make the determination that being a prisonet is being
in combat ?
Secretary PAUL. I believe the Korean combat legislation which is
still on the books contains this feature in it. We would have no objec-
tion to its deletion. I can't, myself, state what public policy is at the
moment on the tannt raised bv Mr. I tennet t.
Mi. 1 I Who can #.
liKNNETT. Let hoe say this, we can correct this matter this way:
We call make. a matter of I he bearing at this point that it is not the
intention of Congress to include domestic difficulties in there, and that
takes care of it perfectly, there is no problem about that. I think we
should proceed to --
Mr. JIMMY. I would doubt very much that anything that we say
here would rout roi the manner in which ?
Mr. BENNETT. We have dotw it on every other section of the bill,
and I see no reason to make an eNcept ion on this.
Mr. Gummi. I want an answer to my question.
Secretary l'At-E. ill haven't haven't answered it
Mr. llivEns. Mi.. Bat es, you still have the floor.
Mr. li.vrEs. I will yield to Charle.
Mr. GunsEa. What was the reason, Mr. Paul, for putting section 4
in there ?
Secretary PAtl.. Because it. follows the precedent of the previous
combat pay legislat ion.
Mr. GmisEn. And prisoners of war in the Korean conflict were
considered as under combat, right?
Colonel 11
.ENADE. YeS., sir.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir, they were.
Mr. GUBSER. Could Mr. Bennett be correct in considering that they
are not in combat if they are. prisoners of war?
Mr. GAVIN. 'Pliny certainly must have been
Mr. Grimm/. I ask Mr. Bennett.
Mr. G.Avrx. This is a war in which the.y are fighting, flay couldn't
have been captured, they were prisoners of war, under hostile fire,
no doubt ill combat when they were taken over or captured.
Mr. I 11,,ti Nrrr. I am not fighting on section 4. If you want to leave
it. in, it has been in the previous law, and I guess has not been abused.
However, I may say to you that we had more trouble about captures
in the Korean war, where this thing was involved, than we ever had.
before. And I think it is against public policy to give a remunera-
tion for a thing of this type. NOW, I think there are precedents for
this in other matters, and I am not going to quibble about it. It
doesn't make very much difference to me because I presume they could
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2171p1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
weed out those defecting. But I see no reason for having it in. If
you want to fight about this, that is all right. Section 4 is not im-
portant to me. But I want to make one point before I stop
Mr. BATES. I yield for one further statement.
Mr. BENNETT. And that is that this is not a matter which is con-
jectural, subject to lots of fuzzy thought and that sort of thing. It
shouldn't be indicated that it was, because it was handled very well
in World War II; I never heard a word of complaint about it. It
was handled very well in the Korean war, and they have had the
experience of study this in the interim years in the Department, and
you can throw all kind of smokescreens around it you want to, but
this is not nearly as fuzzy as other sections of the bill which we have
had no problem about accepting, including the one about double pay-
ment which we just had today which, in my opinion, is much more
fuzzy than this thing is that we are dealing with today.
Mr. BATES. I am going to yield to Mr. lluddleston and then yield
the floor.
ME. HUDDLESTON. We have had similar types of provisions in World
War II and Korean war, but this is the first time we have been asked
to enact sweeping legislation dealing with combat pay or payments
for being subject to hostile fire. This has no limitation on geographic
location or time or the conditions under which the hostile fire or com-
bat occurs. In the past it has always been a specific limitation.
Korea, World War II, and so on, but this is the first time, is it not,
that we have had this broad type of request?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. BATES. I said I was going to yield the floor, and I am about to
do it, but I wonder whether, before we finish the discussion on this
bill, we can be advised by the counsel as to what particular provi-
sions of the bill are not budgeted, because if there are certain sections
of this bill that are not budgeted I think we ought to know this before
we finish.
Mr. 13LANDFORD. I can give you that answer very quickly, Mr. Bates;
that there is no money in the budget for hostile fire. I don't know
whether that means there won't be any regulations or nobody is going
to get shot at in fiscal 1964 and there is no money in for readjustment
payments for enlisted members who are not reenlisted.
Mr. BATES. That puts US in a strange position, doesn't it?
Mr. GAVIN. Not necessarily. I don't see any reason why in any sup-
plemental appropriation bill it can't be included. I know you haven't
yielded to me, but I am just expressing my opinion.
Mr. BATES. Do you want to comment on Mr. Gavin's remarks? Why
are you asking for this legislation when at the same time, you are not
asking for it in terms of funds?
Secretary PAUL. We have not estimated the number of people who
might to be in this situation in any given year.
Mr. BATES. How are you going to pay them if you don't have the
money What is it coming out of?
Secretary PAUL. I am not a budgetary expert, but I believe we
would find the money or ask the Congress for money if the occasion
warranted. We have always been able to do so in the past.
Mr. BATES. Does anybody else want to comment? Any experts here
on budgeting?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21172lcIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Colonel BENADE. That is how it would be done.
Mr. 13.?ms. Let's take July Lst of this coming fiscal year. A fellow
is in combat in Vietnam; you decide you want to pay him. Are you
going to go ahead and pay him or wait LUAU you get a supplemental
bill before t he Con5Tress?
Secretary PAUL. Subject to corre,t ion. I believe, there are elements
of our appropriations, I can't identify i hem for you right now, that
?vould permit at least. in the interim, going ahead with this pending
the time we can get the inoney from the Congress.
Mr. BATEs. I %yonder if you would show precisely in the record the
places where it. is not budgeted where you get the money to put it into
effect, because oftentimes we have. that issue on that floor.
Is it budgeted No. What are you doing recommending this thing
Iviten they didn't even ask the money for it ? Now, in authorizat tons,
when they don't intend to ask for the money that year, we don't buy it.
When you are serious about it, you put. it in the budget and you ask
for alit liorizat ion, and we give it.
.Mr.i ivi:ii'.. Check t hat as far as you could.
Secretary Yes.
SPECIAL PAY : DUTI SUBJECT to 11 Foo, I SE:. fl, lilt. 006)
As special pay for duty subject to hostile lire would be an item of pay and
allowances, current appropriations covering pay awl allowances would be avail-
able for such special pay, to be followed by a request for a supplemental appro-
priation unless the additional cost can be absorbed by reducing oLlwr pay and
allowance program items.
Mr. S-ra.vrrox. May 1. have the floor?
MI'. IiivEas. Yes.
Mr. BATEs. I am done. I have yielded.
Mr. SritAirrox. I would like to cry to clear up something Which
seems to be in confusion with regard to the merits of this point. Mr.
Bennett refers to the fact that we had this in World War II. The
fact of I he matter is. as the colonel indicated, we didn't have it in
World War II, we didn't have a ply provision to pay people under
enemy tire.
Mr. Ili:NNE-yr. Well, we did.
Mr. STIL?TToN. We had a combat infantryman's badge that ,,vent to
combat. infantry, but there were some of its who were
Mr. BENNET'''. 1.11iS is broader than that, but they did have pay of
this nature.
Mr. STRATrox. But you didn't pay somebody for being shot at.
Mr. liEsNorr. I beg to differ. That was the criterion.
Mr. STuArrox. There were a lot of boys in the Navy that. got shot at.
Mr. GAVIN. Certainly.
BExxErr. Certainly.
BLANDroan. May I add the Marine Corps to that.
Mr. STairrox. The ( 'ontmandant t he Marine Corps test Hied that
he was st ronoly opposed to this, that he didn't think we ought to pay
people for being under hostile lire. Ile said, that is the only purpose
for which we have military forces. Now if I mulerstand this cor-
rectly, and I think this is in the mind of the Department, but it has
gone unsaid here throughout these whole prof.peclings, what we are
really t rvino? to do. it seems to me, is to provide a special payment
for people who arc under ei Willy fire during a time of so-called peace.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04IM: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
We have been in so-called peace in Korea; we are in so-called peace in
Vietnam; we are in so-called peace at the Berlin wall, and yet, as a
practical matter, these people are getting shot at.
And the whole purpose of the combat pay bill in the Korean war,
if I understand it correctly, Mr. Secretary, was to try to provide some-
thing to compensate for combat conditions while we continued, tech-
nically, to remain at peace. The same thing is true today.
If we understand it this way, then it seems to me we ought to put
it in the bill and if we were in an actual war situation, we would then
eliminate it, it seems to me. And, secondly, this begins to make the
paragraph No. 4, to which Mr. Bennett takes exception, make sense.
Sure, we don't pay a fellow combat hostile pay in wartime when he
is captured, but if he is in a peacetime situation and he goes to Vietnam
and he gets captured, he is a lot tougher off, harder off, than the
fellow in Wiesbaden, or somewhere else.
It seems to me this is the real rationale behind this section, but you
haven't brought it in. Now, am I correct, Mr. Secretary
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir. We have taken into account today's con-
ditions which are technically peace conditions, but people are being
fired at. If an open conflict were to break out in any part of the
world, I think we would certainly ask the Congress, and I am sure
they would want to review the whole matter, to determine whether,
in effect, a wartime situation existed at that time.
In other words, we have in mind the fact that there is only a small
fraction of our total armed strength, who at the present time, are
subject to this kind of hazard and risk.
This is not an incentive, because these members go where they are
assigned. It is a recognition pay for the special situation in which
they find themselves.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. If Mr. Stratton will yield, I think the point he
has made is an unusually good one, and T think his thinking combined
with Mr. Bennett's, makes some sense but I believe if you are going
to try to do this, you ought to try to find language.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's take a little recess and maybe we can work that
out this afternoon.
Mr. GA.VIN. Why not finish this particular item and vote on it, so
we won't have to pick it up again.
Mr. RIVERS. I think the language should be improved.
Mr. BIANDFORD. Mr. Chairman, I could suggest this possible lan-
guage, I don't know whether Mr. Bennett would agree with me, I think
you could start off this section, by saying' except in time of war or
national emergency hereafter declared by the Congress or the
President.
Now this, at least, puts you in the position of not having this appli-
cable in war or in a national emergency situation where the President
declares an emergency where you would have large forces committed.
Mr. HARDY. I will buy that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is what I think Mr. Stratton is saying and
what you are saying, Mr. Bennett, that we have a situation which has
been going on and may go on for many years, in which people are
going to get shot at. A very small number, perhaps.
On the other hand, when we turn out a full mobilization, people are
being assigned and practically everybody may be subject to hostile
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117:-,CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
fire; then it becomes something that everybody has to accept it.td there
shouldn't be any special pay attached to it.
Mr. BENNET'''. May I address that? For the put-pose of being
Henry Clay and getting things done, I might agree to this, particularly
since the Department has let me down on an answer to Mr. Stratton's
questions. But it certainly is not my feeling that this is a peacetime
hostile fire bill as far as I am concerned.
I am more interested in it in time of war than I am in peacetime
and I would be more interested in the idea of this exception if you
were going to make exceptions for pilot pay and all this other kind
of weird and bizarre pays, which are very lovely and very fine, but
they are not the foundation upon which all the veterans' ber:efits and
everything else is predicated in our Government.
So I don't want any compromise I might have to indicate I would
favor this, because I certainly don't. I am more enthusiastic about
having it in time of war than so-called peacetime.
Mr. Bnamirone. Max I read the law to you in connection with flight
pay?
In time of war, the President may suspend the payment of incentive pay for
any hazardous duty described in subsection (a) of this section.
Mr. BExxrxr. Then you don't have to have an amendment on this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, this is an additional special pay. What I am
saying is that flight pay can be suspended in time of war.
Mr. BENNETT. it can be, but was it?
MF. 131,ANDFORD. No.
Mr. BE-xi:Err. But von are going to write in the idea that this is
a peacetime pay. For the purpose of getting this passed, I might go
along with that point, but I ant
Mr. Ilaany. What you do is just raise everybody's pay by that.
amount and then you would liave it covered.
Mr. BENxrrr. Not everybody, that. is one of the grave errors that
a lot of people make. They seem to think that. everybody who is an
infantry soldier is involved in this: it is not true at all. They are
only a very small portion of the public involved in this.
Mr. nanny. Charlie--
Mr. IlExxErrr. Just a second. That is one of mc pet pees about
the way in which our veterans legislation and all other legislation
is drafted. "We give tremendous benefits to people t hat may hive been
even better oil' for the ho days they had in the service and then we, take
this small portion of people who imperil their safety and future, and
whole. life in a difficult salmi ion, just a small nullifier of people, and
when they do that, we say, "You are at war: that is what you are sup-
posed to be paid for. You are at war: therefore, you get this mag-
nificent salary von get as a private and a corporal." That is very
noble. If General Shoup wants to take that position, he can take. that
position. That is a very noble position. I am not condemning him.
Ile is a wonderful man. But we are occupying a position different
from that.. We ought to represent the soul of America,. and that
soul of America ought to be interested in the soldiers winning the
wars and endangering their lives in times of war. This is not peace-
time hostile fire, as far as I am concerned. If it takes that to pass
this for this current time, I would be in favor of it. but I am not saying
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/y2:3CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
and I am not implying that this is a peacetime thing as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. HARDY. When they start shooting theses missiles over from
Cuba, everybody is going to be under hostile fire.
Mr. STRATTON. May I make one comment on what Mr. Blandford
said. My recollection is we had a national emergency declared during
the Korean war.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not by the Congress. The President declared it,
but we didn't, no. We never have declared one, except during the
War Between the States.
Mr. BENNETT. Let's vote one way or the other.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bennett moves that section 13
MT. BENNETT. Let me read my amendment first. The amendment
was that section 13 shall be retained with the exception of subsection
4 of section A, which would be deleted.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And all references thereto.
Mr. RIVERS. As many as favor the motion by the gentleman from
Florida
Mr. IIARey. Wait a minute.
Mr. STRATTON. I am going to offer an amendment to the motion by
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. RIVERS. Do you offer an amendment at this point?
Mr. STRATTON. I will have to offer it to get it in.
Mr. RIVERS. All right. You have the floor.
Mr. STRATTON. To amend the section by inserting?I think it would
have to come
Mr. BATES. I move we adjourn.
MT. STRATTON. I think it 'Would have to COMO before ( a) ?
Mr. RIVERS. This thing is all mixed up. Let's recess until 2 o'clock.
We will come back at 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon-
vene at 2 p.m. of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m.)
Mr. RIVERS. Let the committee come to order.
Mr. Stratton, you have an amendment to Mr. Bennett's amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. That is right. My amendment would go in on page
24, line 2, immediately after the amount, in parentheses, and would
insert the wording "except in time of war declared by Congress, un-
,der" and the remainder of it to read as it does in the text.
Mr. RIVERS. Did anybody say something about an emergency?
Mr. STRATTON. That was the counsel's proposal. But I think my
amendment is just to delete it as far as war is concerned. I am afraid
we will get into a situation where we will be declaring emergencies in
this cold war situation that aren't really the same thing as war.
MT. BLANDFORD. What is a state of war? That is the only problem
I would have.
Mr. STRATTON. That is at least provided for by the Constitution. So
if we don't know what that is we are in real trouble.
Mr. BENNETT. What would you think about using the language
that he read about other things, like pilot pay? Why single out com-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/i1,4CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
bat pay and make it the most unattractive? The way you have it
written?give me a fighting chance at least like they have for the pilot
payiand other kinds of pay.
Mr. It I vtats. flow would it roa,l now ?
B!. t)1?!). I don't have Mr. :??=-1 rat toils
Mr. STIZATToN", * V-Xceld III innV of AVar Coti!rress."
I lien read the lest a the sect ion.
mr. utvErs. ri,dit. now read it.
That is on page 24 ?
Sira.vrrox. Page 2-1-, line 2.
un?Eits. ii?Exrep, iiitiro, of war declared 1,y
Mr. litAxiironn. I think you mean then "and except as otherwise
provided in I his sect ion."
Air. Sian-170x. Well. maybe I don't quite get the point here.
BLANoroart. Let nitt see f I understand, Mr. :-'itrat kill, what
this is. "except iii t inns of war declared by Conttress. except. as other-
wise provided in this sect ion.-
-You don't have any other provision in there 10 -except in time of
war." I think what you may mean is except in time Or war ilOclart'd
.011.(rIVSS and except otherwise provided in this sectiot . That
15 1111' only point I ant inakiwz.
Mr. STrArrox. I don't quite Lrei 1 1e purpose of excepting. What
are I he except ions now that you feei should be eliminated ?
11r. Iii.ANotionn. I am not storgestintr anything- be cumin vet].
Alt% .`41i1t.yr-roNi. This is Mr. Bennett *s idea, is t hat right ?
Mr. lit.Axnusortn. As I understand it, what your amendment is on
line 2 of page 2ti of tine commit tee print? -
Mr. I? tvEas. l'ap-e ?
Mr. BAT-Es. or 2-1 ?
Mr. Simt-Fox. I. lints 2.
Mr. BLANnyoun. If I get on the right page that NVid help toe. l
am sorry. I have it now.
Mr. 14:Ntirrr. May I speak briefly in opposit ion
Arr. H JFS. Lets find out -what it is first.
Mr. I it..?Nortivo. It would read--
except. 11 LIMP of war declared by Congress, nmier regwations preserilled by
I he Secretary of Defense. a member ,,f a uniformed service may be pad special
pay at the rate of $55 a month for any mciith in which he was entitled to basic
pay and in which he * * ?
:cow this covers only a war declared by Com.r,ress. of course.
Mr. BExxrxr. I would like to speak briefly in opposit ion. This is
Letter than nothing. of coinise. But the opposit ien I would like to
express to it is. I would like to repeat wit limit sayina the words again
everythimr I said this morning and ii)oint out the fact that there are
other kinds of' pay which are essem ially belligerent pay or danirer
pay, and none of those typos of pay do WO have tInn the thing. is going,
10 end iii t into of war.
We allow the Department of Defense to bring it to an end in t ime
of war. But here he is saying this kind of pay is some pay that got in
by the back door. Instead of lasing primary pay, it is the "last resort
type of pay and the most undistinguished kind of pay you'vi? got to
give, it has to come to on end. In rho others ii just allows it to come
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/217:261A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
to the end at the time of war, and in the others they don't come to an
end at the time of war.
Mr. STRATTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS. In time of war you can be fired on in a helicopter or any
such thing as that.
Mr. BENNETT. I have no objection to tightening up the language, if
anybody wants to?I haven't any objection to making it more compact
if you want to do that, but that is not what he is doing. He is saying
if you have a war declared this benefit comes to an end.
Mr. RIVERS. Then the Congress will take over.
Mr. STRATTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. STRATTON. Aren't you referring to flight pay?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. STRATTON. That is pay not for combat, that is pay for hazard-
ous duty, which has no relation to whether you are under fire or not.
- MT. BENNETT. You mean to say you don't think it is hazardous duty
to be under fire?
Mr. STRATTON. I am not saying that. This is the only provision I
know of where special pay is being given to people for being under
enemy fire.
Mr. BENNETT. Of course, that is what it is.
Mr. STRATTON. All right. The thing you are talking about is
hazardous duty which has nothing to do with whether an enemy is
around.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes; there is a difference, but it is all in favor of the
combat pay for hostile lire. There is a -difference, but the difference
ought to be that this ought to be a select or distinguished type of pay
as distinguished from that other. In other words, it is the type of
thing that ought to touch your heart more and you ought to be more
anxions to give it than this other kind of pay.
MT. STRATTON. I agree with you there, except that in time of war
We are all subject to it, and therefore it would be almost administra-
tively impossible to carry it out.
Mr. BENNETT. Now, I believe that is one of the major errors this
committee is doing in thinking about this bill and this provision, be-
cause it isn't true that we are all subject to this fire. It isn't true at all.
The number of people who are actually in combat in the sense this
thing provides for is a relatively small number; it is a very, very small
percentage.
Just take the percentages in the Korean war and World War II,
this is not a thing you have to guess about. It is very small and it
can be made smaller.
If you want to make it smaller by saying a man has to be shot
at every day, you can do that, but to say that you are going to
eliminate the pay in time of war when you dont, eliminate these
other kind of hazard pays in time of war, I just think doesn't make
any sense at all.
But of course I asked for only a few minutes, I said my piece.
I don't think I can express it any better.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041/k4G: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
At the present time, what happens to a man serving in Aritnarra
I think I know the answer. What is his pay sit itat ion ?
Air. lit,ANDFoan. With the except ion of oversea pay he dr:-.ws the-
same pay as if he were. in San Francisco.
Mr. ()smuts. Right. And if this amendment is adopted he would
receive_ additional pay, is that correct ?
Mr. RIVERS. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Mr. BLAxDrono. lie might.
Mr. BENNEtrr. Ile might,
Mr. RtyEas. Ile might.
1. think we understand it. We certainly have had enough discus-
sion on it. The quest ion now is on the amendment of the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Bennett -
Mr. BENNIA-r. No: the first one is Mr. Stratton's amendment. I
hope we will have a separate vote on it.
Mr. Riviats. The amendment by Hie gentleman from New York,
Mr. Stratton, to the amendment of the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Bennett. which provides that?read it, Mr. Blandford.
Air. 111.Axoroao. Mr.. Stratton amends Mr. Bennett's amendment
by inserting the words "except in time of war declared by Congress.'
Mr. ilivEus. As many in favor of the amendment of the gentleman
from New York to the amendment of the gentleman front
will say
Opposed, "No."
The Chair is in doubt.
Mr. GAvix. You had better read it again so our colleague can
understand what he is voting on.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Tile amendment is Mr. Stratton's amendment to,
limit hostile tire -or to eliminate the payment of hostile lire in time
of war declared by Congress.
The amendment. suggested by Mr. Stratton is to amend Mr. Ben-
nett's proposal by adding the words "except in time of war declared
by Congress."
Mr. RIVERS. As many as favor the amendment of the gentleman-
from New York will raise his hand.
One, two, three, four.
Opposed likewise.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Four to three, Mr. ellairMaIl.
Mr. BENNETT. How about Mr. Long
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Long, we are voting on this amendment. We are.
votimr on this provision to make pay applicable to those subject to
hostile fire, Mr. Bennett's amendment is to restore this provision as
it is written in the bill, and Mr. Stratton's is to add the provision
"except in time of emergency declared by the Congress."
Mr. BLANDFORD. Except in time Of War.
Mr. I?,avErts. In time. of war declared by the Congress.
Mr. HARDY. You left out "national emergency.'
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Stratton left out "national emergency."
Mr. LONG. This would give extra pay to those who were in combat
or near combat during peacetime?
Mr. RivEns. That. is right.
Mr. STRATTON. Right.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21-7.41A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BENNETT. But the amendment?
Mr. GAVIN. In the event of war.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think we ought to review the bidding here?
Mr. RIVERS. I think we ought to review everything.
Mr. BLANDFORD. What you have here is an amendment offered .by
Mr. Stratton to Mr. Bennett's suggestion that the hostile fire section
be restored in the committee print.
Now you will recall that in the Korean conflict there was no declara-
tion of war,, there was no declaration by Congress of an emergency.
The President declared the emergency.
Now Mr. Stratton's exception therefore is in a sense limited only to
the time when Congress itself actually declares war.
Mr. GAVIN That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And the last time Congress declared war was in
1941. So Mr. Stratton offers an amendment to Mr. Bennett's proposal
that hostile fire not be paid whenever the Congress declares war; at
all other times hostile fire could be paid to those who are subjected to
hostile fire.
Mr. RIVERS. Treat the subject separately like always.
Mr. LONG. I am voting on Mr. Stratton's amendment?
Mr. BLANDFORD. First, yes. That no one can get hostile fire when
Congress declares war.
Mr. STRATTON. If I may say so, if I may interpret my own amend-
ment, if we are going to add or restore the hostile fire provisions my
proposal is that we restore it and limit it to an actual peacetime
situation.
Mr. RIVERS. That is it. I think everybody understands.
As many as favor the amendment will raise his hand.
Mr. GUBSER. Voting on the Stratton amendment?
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
One, two, three, four, five.
Opposed, the same thing?
One, two, three.
Passed.
Mr. GAVIN. I don't think it passed.
Mr. RIVERS. All those in favor of Mr. Stratton's amendment raise
their hands.
As many as oppose it raise their hands.
Six to four.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now the question is on Mr. Bennett's amendment
as amended by the amendment by Mr. Stratton.
Mr. RIVERS. Those in favor of the amendment as amended
Mr. HUDDLESTON. IS this the amendment to strike out subsection (4)
Mr. RIVERS. Restore it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is to put into effect hostile fire.
Mr. Jimmy. Except for subsection (4) .
Mr. BATES. Except for?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I was going to get to that. I assume this is with
subsection (4) out, which deals with being captured.
Mr. HARDY. Technically all you need to do its strike subsection (4)
Mr. BENNETT. If you want me to rephrase it that way
Mr. Itunni,EsToN. Let's vote on subsection (4) separately.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/044'1js CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BATEs. 14(do.
Mr. lit,ANnruiin. This is a separate vote. If you want a separat
vote on subsection (4), that which %% mild eliminate the payment of
host ile the when a person was captured by a most ile force or become
missing under circumstances that indicates host ile act ion WaF4 iLvol
do you ask for a separate vote on that ?
ME. BENNETT. I did11.1.
Mr. Iii on1,s:N.1'0N. I (lid.
Mr. llivEas. The quest ion now occurs on the amemiment of t he gen-
t leman from Florida. Mr. Bennett. as amended.
Mr. BATE:. And which I don't under-tam!.
Mr. EivEas. All right.
MT. B.vrEs. What is t he zunendment 1 would like to have it read.
Mr. STaArroN. A parliamentary inquiry.
Since we have adopted the Stratton amendment does Mr. Bennett
still feel that number (4) ought. to be tliminated?
Mr. BENNETT. Why not.?
Mr. ItivEas. I don't know, you %vitt :lave Lu ask him.
Mr. BENNETT. I will be glad to take a little time out and make a
little speech on it. I do think it should be out of there. I -link it
is against the public interest. I think after the war is over it might
be appropriate to pass a law to give benefits to people who have been
captured and released, but to establish in advance of capture of a
soldier that you are going to pay him so much for being Ca l-1 tired I
think is against public interest.
Mr. IIAnov. I think your point is well taken.
Mr. IlivEns. Mr. Bates?
BATEs. Charley, is that all yours is, strike that, out?
Mr. BENNETT. All my motion is--I call rephrase it. in technical
language, but I was trying to make it simple. If you want `-o make
it I eehnical, I 'an make it technical. But what I suggested WaS that
we abide by the recommendations of the adopted bill with the ex-
ion we would strike subsection (-I), but if you want it technically
stated I could technical]'' state it.
Mr. RivEas. Go ahead.
Mr. BEN-NETT. All right.
IT would be that we strike subsection 4, beginnbig at line 17, line
19, page 21-, of the bill as introduced, and that will accomplish the
objective which I have in mind.
HUDDLESTON. Lel me say something about that.
Now this embraces, of course, beim, capt tired by It hostile force. loll
it also embraces being missing under circumstances that indicate hos-
tile action was involved.
In other words. if we st rike this sect ion 4 in to to we will be allowing
men who are known to be killed in action to receive this payment, but
if :1. loan is blown up and thereby is declared missing in 'action, he is
disqualified from receiving this $55 a month.
Mr. BENNETT. This points out the advantage of doing it technically.
This way you can vote my motion down if you want. to and then
will make another motion that the provision as amended
Mr. Hr.-Kits. Mr. Bennett's amendment. was to restore the section
with the section deleted and Mr. Stratton's put it in "except in time of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1729
emergency declared by the Congress," and now the question is on the
amendment by the gent] man from Florida, Mr. Bennett.
All in favor will say Aye, opposed, No.
Did you vote'?
Mr. GAVIN. No.
Mr. Rivnas. It appears to the Chair that the ayes have it, and the
amendment by the gentleman from Florida is accepted.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you very much.
Mr. RIVERS. If you want to have another amendment later on to
strike it out, that is another proposition.
Mr. Timmy. I thought that did.
Mr. RIVERS. It did. I mean to restore it.
Mr. IIAtiny. Everybody knows what we have. We have this section
in here without section (4) plus the Stratton language.
Mr. STRATTON. All right.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, may I offer an amendment to rein-
corporate the language "or become missing under circumstances that
indicate hostile action was involved."
Mr. RIVERS. In other words, you want to strike out "captured by
hostile fire?"
Mr. STRATTON. May I comment on that'? Could I ask a question
on that'?
Mr. RIVERS. Let's just wait and see what we got first. Wait a sec-
ond. You want to restore "or become missing
Mr. BLANDFORD. That would include being captured.
Mr. BATES. It sure would.
Mr. RIVERS. Certainly.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All people captured unless somebody sees them, are
declared missing?
Mr. BENNETT. I am not in favor of Mr. Huddleston's amendment,
for what it is worth.
Mr. Rivrais. We have had enough discussion.
Mr. STRATTON. Could I ask Mr. Bennett a question'?
Your point was that if you set up a premium for capture it en-
courages an individual to be captured.
Mr. BENNETT. Correct.
Mr. STRATTON. In this case it would encourage him to go get lost
somewhere, is that the idea'?
Mr. BENNETT. Correct.
Mr. GAviri. Why not vote on Bennett's amendment with Strat-
ton's
Mr. BLANDFORD. That has been adopted, Mr. Gavin.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I want a vote on my motion. I think there are
many instances where men become missing under circumstances that
indicate hostile action was involved.
Mr. RIVERS. I think we understand. All those in favor of the
amendment of the gentleman from Alabama will say "Aye." As
many as favor the amendment will raise his hand. Four.
Opposed, likewise. Five.
Mr. RIVERS. The next section.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Dependency requirements for parents. This, for
practical purposes, is existing law in which they eliminate the provi-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/214FIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
sion dealing with the dependent act tinily residing in the hou-ehold of
the member and also a new section concerning the determilation of
dependency made by t he Secretary being conclusive.
In view of the. fact. that. this is now contained in the. Dependents'
Assistance Act, and in view of the fact that we are in the process of
extending the Dependent's Assistaitv Act and that this is additional
verbiage in the bill that, has not iii rig to do with par at t his moment., I
would respect fully suggest hat this section be deleted merely to cut
down some of the explanation necessaq in the debate on an eviremely
complicated bill.
Mr. IlivEns. We already have the hill
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir. This is actually taken (are of when we ex-
tend the Dependents' Assistance Act which we will pass on MOIlda V.
Mr. ltirEas. Without objection, we will take that one out.
Mr. 13LANDFoim. The next sevt Mi, is increase in basic a lowance
for subsist ence. This is somewhat more complicated.
Mr. Mynas. What page?
Mr. BLANnvoitu. Bolt out of page 2(3 and top of page 27.
Mr. Ittv vas. Go ahead.
Arr. MD. The commit Ice print says:
Is amended to read as follows :
"SEC. 10. Section 402(d) of title 37, Unded States Code, is amended to read
as follows :
" (d) The basic allowance for subsistence for members of the uniformed
services is as follows:
"Officers : $51 a month.
"Enlisted members with dependents when permission to mess separately is
granted : $1.25 a day.
"Enlisted members when rations In kind are not available: $3.25 a day.
"Enlisted members when assigned to duty under emergency c,mditions
where messing facilities of the United States are nut available :Not more
than $4.31 a day."
Now, if I may explain -for a few moments what this is about.
Mr. Riviats. I wish you would listen to this carefully beca.Tts-e this
is very important. This takes care of raising the enlisted man from
$1.03 to $1.23 a day.
Mr. 131.Axoyoun. Yes, sir. The present subsistence allowance for
officers under existing law is $1.7.$8 per month. The Department
proposed that the subsistence allowance for officers be increased from
$17.88 to $77 a month.
The Department. made no proposal with regard to the subsistence
allowance for enlisted personnel. There is $120 million involved
in tho increase in subsistence allowance for officers. After giving
this matter a lot, of thought, the chairman considered the possibility
of reducing the subsistence increase for officers and attempting to
spread it. more equitably among all people who have to eat in order
to live.
The chairman suggested that since the cost of food has increased
6.6 percent since 1952, which was the last time we increased these
allowances, that Ave put the subsistence for officers at $51 it month.
The suggestion in the committee print also is that since the com-
muted ration is only the value of the food to the Government, and
does not reflect the cost to the housewife who prepares it tor her
husband or does not conic anywhere near reflecting the cost to t he
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/217.3cIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
enlisted man who is drawing a commuted ration when he buys his
food separately, that the least we could do would be to increase $1.03
a day now payable which is subject to whatever the Secretary may
determine is cost of food be set at a fixed amount of $1.25 a day.
Mr. RIVERS. Make it statutory.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. This turns out to be a fairly expensive pro-
position because there are 800,000 enlisted men drawing commuted
rations. This costs $54 million if you increase these commuted rations
by 22 cents a day.
In addition to that there are individual cases, quite confusing cases,
I might add, where enlisted members are entitled to draw a ration
where rations in kind are not available. Today that amounts to $2.57.
The theory behind that $2.57 is that these individuals are in an area
where there are no messing facilities available and therefore they are
eating in resturants and the cost, therefore, is $2.57 as opposed to the
$1.03 commuted rations.
The other provision in the committee print is rarely used. I think
there are 800 enlisted personnel who now draw a ration under emer-
gency conditions which is
Mr. GAVIN. S431.
MT. BLANDFORD. That is the proposal. It is $3.68 I think, or some-
thing in that neighborhood, and this would be increased to $4.31.
Now, what this subcommittee print does and this requires quite an
explanation, the subcommittee print was just a first effort to raise
the question of how fair do we want to be to enlisted men who draw
commuted rations and eat either at home or eat away.
Also, we had to increase?if we were going to be consistent, we had
to increase the amount payable to an enlisted member when rations
in kind are not available. This was increased by 26 percent because
the cost of eating away from home, that is, restaurant costs, have
increased 26 percent since 1052, whereas the cost of food has only gone
up 6.6 percent.
Now, the proposal before you would involve a cost of $13 million
for officers for subsistence, $54 million for increasing the commuted
ration for the enlisted man, raising it from $1.03 to $1.25; and $15
million for increasing the amount when rations in kind are not avail-
able to $3.25 a day and some negligible sum which I haven't even
computed?
Mr. GAVIN. From what?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $2.57 to $3.25.
Mr. GAVIN. $2.57 to $3.25.
MI'. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. All right. That is $82 million.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now we have money left over.
Mr. RIVERS. Go back. To start off with under the Department pro-
posal the figure was 120.
Mr. BLANDFORD. There was $120 million in here for officers alone.
MT. GAVIN. $120?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes sir. Now, at that point after computing this
this far?and the mail reflects the concern of enlisted personnel on
this point?the chairman then suggested that because we wanted to
give the officers something approaching the amount of increase recom-
mended by the Department of Defense, the chairman suggested that
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/H3:2CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
IND increase first and second I ientenants by $15 a mom Ii, and \V-l's and
W--s, and then all others by $10 a month.
Mr. RivEas. What would that be?
Mr. Iii,ANDFoRD. That conic to $47 million.
Mr. Rivens. So our deficit is 38 from 47, $9 million we have raised the
overall picture.
Mr. IlAnny. That is the basic pay scales you are i :liking about now.
Mr. RivEns, Basic pay scales.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. I have to continue with this explanation
aunt I will try to explain that.
What we did then was this: The Department proposed an increase
of $.20 in subsistence allowances for officers.
Mr. GAvex. Wait a minute. What amount ? I few much ?
Mr. lit,ANDrono. $29 a month for officers.
Mr. GAVIN. And what are they get ting now?
Mr. BLANDFOIID. $4.7.S8.
MI'. GAVIN. And this bill calls for it to raise it to $51 ?
Mr. BLANDFOLID. No, sir. The bill as introduced called for $77 :01d
the committee print is $51.
Mr. GAVIN. $77. And how 11111(.11 is dna going to amount to?
Mr. lii.ANnFonn. The $77 would amount to $120 million a year.
Mr. GANTIN. For officers?
Mi', I r, Niwolin. Yes, sir.
MI'. GAVIN. $1.20 million a year alone just for the officers ?
Iii,Axiironn. Alone, just for officers.
MV. GAVIN. All right.
Mr. BLANnronn. Now. the $51 it month, which is a $3.1...2 increase.
amounted to $13 million ?
Mr. GAVIN. Who was that for?
Mu, 14,Axnroun. Officers.
MI'. GAVIN. Well, I guess I can't 11.0.ure this One out. YOU just said
upping it from 51 to 77 would cost us $120 million, is that right ?
Mr. RIVERS. That is not right.
Mr. GAVTN. And then you say now it is costing what?
MI'. BLANDFORD. I didn't say what $47.88 is now costing. I have
that but let me start again.
Today, officers receive a subsistence allowance of $47.S$ a month.
The Department proposed $77 a month.
Mr. GAvux. Who wrote this bill then with $51 a month ?
Mr. I! ivEns. This is our proposal.
Mr. BLANDFOIID. The subcoinnUttee's print. The chairman?I will
,rel
1(11 hat in a moment.
The De lairtment recommended $77 a month. The increase from
;-.17.$$ to $77 for officers involved an additional annual cost of $120
million.
Mr. GAvix, OK,
BLANDFORD. The suggests that we give officers $51 a
month subsistence, which is considerably less than the $77 and spread
some of this among the enlisted personnel by increasing the commuted
ration from $1.03 to $1.25 and when rations in kind were not available
from $'2.57 to $3.25 a day.
Now, in order to make up for the difference, because there would
then be less money in this bill for officers than what the Department
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1ntA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
proposed, the chairman suggested adding 815 to the pay of lieutenants
and W-l's and W-2's and $10 a month for all other officers in the basic
pay scales. This would have cost $47 million.
This came to a grand total of $129 million to take care of officers
and enlisted personnel as opposed to the 8120 million that was recom-
mended for officers alone.
However, you do have this situation which we have to face and I
would like to ask the Secretary what his comments are in this connec-
tion. The Department, after careful study, decided on these basic
pay scales and also that additional. The 829 per month in the subsist-
ence increase would give officers what the Department considers is nec-
essary in order to retain the officers that they wish to retain.
This, in most cases, comes close to rounding out the $100 figure that
Mr. Gorman and Mr. Paul talked about the other day, particularly in
the area of lieutenants.
Now, if the subcommittee wishes, and the chairman has suggested
this to the subcommittee, that if, in the wisdom of the subcommittee,
the subcommittee desires to put the entire amount recommended by
the Department in the basic pay scales which would be approximately
$30 a month per officer, this would then be a total increase of $123
million. Including the cost of the Reserves and terminal leave and
other incidentals the cost is $130 million.
There would then be the difference between the $47 million the sub-
committee print suggested, plus the $10 and $15 increases suggested
in the other grades, as opposed to the $30 which is the alternate
proposal.
One will cost you, of course, more than the other, obviously. But
bear in mind that subsistence allowances are not taxable, whereas
basic pay is taxable.
Therefore, it is not quite correct to say that a $29 increase in sub-
sistence is the same increase as a $29 increase in basic pay. It comes
closer to being approximately $34. So if we increase all officers by
830 a month in their basic pay and by $3.12 a_ month in their sub-
sistence, we will then give the officers about the same amount that the
Department recommended for officers and the cost is not significantly
more.
Mr. Hinny. Mr. Chairman, I think we are approaching this whole
thing just as wrong as we can. This business of trying to juggle
subsistence allowances without any rational reason for it at all is
just as cockeyed as it can be. Now, I think we have come in here with
a pretty reasonable approach to subsistence.
Now, pay. rates ought to be considered entirely separate from this.
The fact that there was $120 million involved in the subsistence cost,
increases, doesn't impress me in the least.
When we start talking about trying to make up in basic pay what
we cut out of this thing, I think it is wrong. I think we ought to go
ahead and approve what we are going to do with subsistence and then
take up the basic pay rates on the basis of their own merit and not
stay within this. figure.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You would have to come back to the basic pay rates.
The only reason I mentioned it, and I know this is always confusing to
talk about. subsistence and basic pay, is that the $30 -
85066-63-- No. 6-----22
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. HARDY. But there isn't anything sacred about the-$30 that the
Department has put in.
Mr. BLANDFoun. The only thing sacred about it is the take-home
pay to the man involved.
Mr. 'TARDY. But you are not going to get it to the same people if
we follow this procedure.
Mr. BLANnFoao. Yes. The ;$30 that we give to every officer would
be the same as if we
Mr. I fAany. That is if you increased it across the board.
Mr. 111,A Noroun. That is what I am talking atiout. a $30 increase
across the hoard. This would then give the officers the same amount
Of take-home. pay that the Department, recommended.
Mr. ITAmyr. 'Phat is making a very cockeyed assumption in my book
in that the amount that. t he Department has figured out is just exactly
what. it ought. to be.
Mr. BLAxoFortn. I can't comment on that. I don't know whether
it is correct or not.
Mr. thyEns. Mr. Blandford wanted to, as far as possible, stay as
close as he could, for the benefit of the subconuMttee, to the. $120
million.
Mr. TIMMY. Now
Mr. RIVERS. Wait now.
Now. if the subcommittee -and that is why we worked it out this
way--i f the subccmunit tee wants to change it, that is entirely up to
the suhvommit tee. I just want to call this to your at tent ion.
Mr. Ilardy has something. T think it may he well if we consider
subsistance; get that behind us and then go to the basic pay.
Mr. BE 1NIWIIRD. Thal is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. If we can
agree on subsistence. I have suggested language written by the Depart -
ment that (law would prefer to see in the hill rather than the language
the way we have it.
Mr. RIVERS. Maybe the Secretary would like to say something at
this point.
Mr. 11-Avix. I would like_ to ask Tiu,.s a question at this point before
we get away from it.
The (Avers are being raised $30 million, figured at $47.82 per month,
arid then $30 added. That would bring the. officers total to a cost of
$123 million: is that right ?
Mr. BLAxiwortn. No. not quite. It is close.
Mr. GAVIN. Say $120 million.
Mr. BrAximain. No. What we are trying to do, and T am afraid I
have confused the isque, the Department suggested that each officer
receive a. $29 a month increase in substence. Ti you will just think
of it in terms of $99 increase in subsistence, this will be helpful.
Mr. IlivEns. This is not basic pay.
Mr. BLANDFoan. NOW. we reduced the $29 increase in subsistence
-allowance to $3.12. which made it. $51. In other words, instead, of
-increasing from $47.$8 to $77, we increased to $51, because_ you can
just i lv ihat increase because the cost of food has increased 6.6 percent
since 1952.
Now, when we did that. we obviously took the difference away from
the ?Myers. They were going to get $29 instead they got $3.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 91A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now, we can give it back to the officers in basic pay increases by
giving the officers an increase in basic pay. But bear in mind that
basic pay is taxable and subsistence allowances are not taxable.
.Mr. GAVIN. Let me ask you this: The officers?how many would you
say there are of the officers that will participate in this $123 million,
the $47.88 and $77; how many officers are there?
Mr. BLANDFORD. 325,000, I believe.
Mr. Galax. 325,000?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. GAVIN. 325,000. Now, on the enlisted members with depend-
eats you got to bringing them up from $1.03 to $1.25 and you are
bringing the enlisted members when rations-in-kind are not available,
frOm $2.57 to $3.25?
Mr. BLANDFORD. There are 800,000 enlisted members now drawing
,commuted rations.
Mr. GAVIN. Then there are enlisted members when assigned to
emergency duty under conditions where messing facilities are not
.available, $4.31,
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't know how many there are in that category.
Mr. GAVIN. The enlisted members is a $54 million increase; is that
right?
Mr. MANI:wow,. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gavm. Enlisted members when rations-in-kind are not avail-
able is $15 million.
'Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. GAVIN. And enlisted members when assigned to duty under
,emergency conditions, $4.31 a day. How much is that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. 800 people.
Mr. GAVIN. 800 people. What would you say?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $24,000 a year.
Mr. GAVIN. Well, we will leave- them out. But there is $69 million
for the enlisted men of which there are how many in these 3 groups
,or 4 groups?
Mr. RIVERS. 800,000.
Mr. BLANDFORD. 860,800 in the three groups.
Mr. GAVIN. And how many did you say, 800,000?how many officers
.did._you. way ?
Mr. BLANDFORD. 325,000.
Mr. GAVIN. 325,000 and there are only 80,000 enlisted men
Mr. BLANDFORD. 800,000 enlisted men drawing that kind of ration.
Mr. GAVIN. 800,000 enlisted men and how many officers?
Mr. BLANDFORD. 325,000.
Mr. GAVIN. So the officers are going to participate up to the extent
of $77.89 million and the rest of the services
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not on subsistence.
Mr. RIVERS. Not on subsistence.
Mr. GAVIN. $54 million, $15 million, $69 million
Mr. BLANDFORD. For the enlisted?
Mr. Gavn.t. For the enlisted. There seems to be a great differential
between what the officers are getting and what the enlisted man is
getting.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/k136CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BraNaeortn. Yes, there is: for tle first time in history the en-
listed man is going to get more of an increase dollarwise than the
officers are.
Mr. HtvEas. Do you object to that ?
Mr. GAVIN. No, I certainly do not object to it, hut it is not quite
clear to me, 1 \yin tell you that.
Mr. filvims. If you let Mr. Blandford explain this. Mr. Blandford,
\ vill you just explain to the. committee just that provision oh top of
page 27 of the committee ppm' is what Mr. Hardy wants you
Ii) do.
Mr. BExxErr. It looks pretty good to me. I move we approve it.
Mr. RivEns. This is based on the 0 percent and 26 percent--
Mr. litAxorottn. Yes, hut I Nv ould like to suggest in lieu of the
language we have here which was merely an attempt to get something
into 1 lie committer print so we could understand I he objective.
I don't say the language is perfect. The Department has proposed
lamruage which would indicate that officers would get $51 a month?
This would be a subsistence allowance.
Mr. RivEas. All right.
Mr. linA.N.nroito. The Department i,rants to be on record that they
are not recommending anything. They did this as it ([Fait service.
Aft% IT.utoy. You mean they just like the $11'.
Mr. lin.v.sioroan. Yes, sir. As a favor to me. they wrote this lan-
.fritage:
sEc. Ill. se(tiim 41)2 of title 37. 'riffled :44:11e5 Code, is amended as follows:
( I I Subsection b I amended by striking ( ut the fourth sente(lce.
12 Subsection RI) is amended to read as follows:
"(d) Even the basic allowance for subsistence for members of the uniformed
services is as follows:
-(It ( linters $51 a month.
2) Enlisted members \lien rations in kind are not available and their duty
assignment requires them to incur subsistence expenses substantially ii excess
oI those itumrred by members covered by clause i 0
Now. tins is a new approach., 11111 this would entitle them to a
month which is$3.25 a day multiplied by 3o.
Then?
" Enlisted members when permission to mess separately is granted. 1i::17.50
a month.-
Which is 30 t imes $1.25 and--
"t 41 Enlisted members. when assigned to duty under emergency cenditions
where no messing facilities of the United Slates are available and they are
required to incur subsistence expenses subsrantiatty in excess of those incurred
by members not covered by clause t2t. not more than $129.00 :t month."
Mr. RwEas. This makes everythinif read per month.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. But it makes one change and I want to be
very clear that there will be a reduction in some areas.
We have a very, almost ridiculous situation on this $2.57 allowance
which is paid today. You can have two people hi ing next door to
eacli other and one can be assigned to One place where there are no
messing facilities and another can be assigned some place where there
tie messing facil ii ins available.
They both live next door to each other and because one man is
assigned to an area where no messing facilities are available and the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1737
other man is assigned to an area where there are messing facilities
available, but neither of them are eating at a mess, they both come
home, but one draws $2.57 and the other draws $1.03.
It just is as crazy as anything and it ought to be subject to
regulation.
Mr. RIVERS. I think this, I think if the Secretary of Defense can
set up the supply thing that Mr. Hardy ran into under General
McNamara he can sure make a provision of law to take care of this.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, don't let him set up a defense messing
agency.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I suggest this language in lieu of the language in
the committee print.
Mr. HuonLEsToN. How many man-hours a year would we save if
we rounded these numbers instead of putting these odd cents?
Mr. BLANDFORD. They are not odd. I hope I am right in saying
everything is divisible by 30.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. I mean the $4.31, how many man-hours would we
save if we rounded it out to $4.30?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't know.
I hope all of this is divisible by 30. All pay scales are divisible by
30. And you are absolutely right, this saves real money.
Mr. BATES. Commuted rations are going to be commuted daily.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If they are allowed to live home, it is $1.25.
Mr. BATES. On the payroll it will be carried per day.
Mr. BENNETT. There is no controversy. I move we accept this.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman.
For officers' mess they will be getting S1.25 for the commuted rations.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Not officers.
Mr. BATES. Yes; they will.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No.
Mr. BATES. What will they be getting?
Mr. BLANDFORD. $51 a month for officers.
Mr. BATES. No. For enlisted men who eat in the officers' mess,
what will they get for that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. They will merely check their rations.
Secretary PAUL. They will get one-thirtieth--
Mr. BATES. Will they get $1.25?let's start right at the beginning.
Everybody is giving me the answer before I finish making my
statement.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BATES. Now let's take an enlisted man eating at an officers' mess,
mess attendant, et cetera; what will the officers' mess get for each man
who actually eats at the officers' mess?
Colonel I3ENADE. I don't know that enlisted members are used in
officers' messes.
Mr. BATES. They are not aboard ship? How long has that been so?
Colonel BENADE. I would be happy to de ler to the Navy.
Mr. BATES. ; they get credit for each of the enlisted men who
actually subsist on the mess.
It has always been that way, they always got the value of the com-
muted rations. In that case it is $1.25.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1738
General BowsEL It is my impression they get. the value of the ration
allowance at t hat. time.
Mr. BATES. Right, but what is the ration allowance?
General Bowsra. It would be $1.03.
Mr. BATEs. That is right, which goes now up to the $1.25.
Mr. RtvEns. Yes; it is the same as providing quarters, which is
checked off.
General Ilowsra. But the $1.25 that Buss met,tioned lie;.e is for
men on a committed ration:. it dues not affect the value of the sub-
sistence allowance, ration.
Mr. BATEs. Wasn't that always t he same as the conmmted ration?
General Bowstia. It wasuittil t his committee print ?
Mr. Iii,ANDroan. That is right.
Mr. RtvEas. Mr. Bates is right, then the $1.25 will just be forfeited,
or whatever you want. to call it.
General Bowsm. No, because the man will not be on commuted
rations, Mr. Chairman.
his ration allowance, whatever it. is set at at the time, right now it is
$1.03, would be $1.03 which would be credited to the officers' mess
because you are feeding the nice.
Mr. IIARDY. The officers would have to absorb any difference.
Mr. BATEs. I am asking under this print, the print that we have,
won't the mess get $1.25 ?
General Bowsyn. No, sir.
Mr. li.vrEs. Then what will they get under the print?
General Bowsna. -Under the print they will get the value of the
ration at the time.
Right now it- is $1.03.
General IIEwrrr. That fluctuates with the cost of food that goes into.
the ration.
Mr. Rivrirts. They get it cheaper aboard ship,
Mr. BrANnman. Mr. Bates has a poi at, Mr, Chairman.
Mr. BATEs. It is all mixed up. It might be so in the Army.
Mr. (VIN. I don't. know about that.
Mr. liAms. We have some admirals and captains here.
Isn't the ration value what you get in the Navy?
Admiral S3rE1tir.1u. There are two different situations, sir.
In a TrieSS ashore, an officers' mess ashore, sometimes the mess gets
the value of the man's rations.
Mr. RivEns. Commuted rations?
Admiral SMEDBEIM. Yes, sir; sometimes. But in the. mess on board
ship they get the value--well, it is the same situation, but here is the
situation that exists in some ships today.
It used to be and I would prefer to have this off the record, may I?
Mr. Ruvrits. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr, BATES. I think maybe we can get somebody to get us the figures.
Mr. GAvi N.. Let's hear from the. Army.
What does the Aenly do ?
Mr. BATES. Put the answer in the record.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1739
DECEMBER 14, 1962
No. 1338.7
AST) (COMP)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE
Subject: Commuted ration for enlisted personnel.
Re DOD Directive 1338.7, subject as above, December 23, 1961 (hereby canceled).
I. .AITTIIORITY AND PURPOSE
A. Pursuant to the provisions of section 402, title 37, United States Code, the
value of the commuted ration for an enlisted member of the uniformed services
(as defined in section 101 of title 37) on authorized leave or when permission to
mess separately is granted, is established at the rate of $1.03 per diem for Conus
and $1.15 per diem for overseas. The term "overseas" includes Alaska and
Hawaii.
B. Enlisted members on authorized leave will be entitled to the $1.03 rate,
except in the case of enlisted members entitled to sea or foreign duty pay who
will be entitled to the $1.15 rate. Enlisted persons who are subject to the pro-
visions of 37 U.S.C. 305(b) shall, for the purpose of this directive, be considered
to be on foreign duty.
C. The portions of the reimbursement rates for meals sold from general messes
which represent food costs (including first destination transportation and supply
system losses, damage, and spoilage) shall be established in amounts equal to the
value of the commuted ration.
U. IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This directive is effective on January 1, 1963. Copies of military department
instructions implementing this directive shall be forwarded, to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) within 30 days of the date hereof.
CANCELLATION
Referenced directive is hereby superseded and canceled.
ROSWELL GILPATRICy
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
General IIEwirr. Normally the enlisted mon are not in an officers'
mess.
Mr. GAVIN. I know that.
General IIEwrrr. In the Army. And in attempting to answer Mr.
Bates' question, the commuted ration is paid to a man who messes
separately.
Mr. BATES. We understand that.
General IlEwrrr. That is right. So that that is now paid to the
$1.25, but that is an arbitrary figure which is in excess of the ration, and
the ration is computed on the cost of the food that makes up the ration
and it varies.
Mr. BATES. I know that is not correct in the Navy.
It might be true in the Army.
General IIEwITT. Yes, sir. I answered Mr. Gavin.
Mr. BATES. In the Army then if an enlisted man does work in the
officers' mess and eats in that mess you merely reimburse the cost of
the ration of the general mess?
General HEWITT. That is correct.
Mr. BATES. All right.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/MDCIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. GAVIN. Ordinarily the unlisted man very rarely gets into the
officers' mess.
General IlEwurr. That is right.
Mr. Itivras. If we are going to sit here and argue the philosophy
of all these things I don't thmk we are going to add anything here
today.
Mr. li.vrEs. That is not philosophy.
RivErts. I don't----
Mr. BLANDFORD. To answer the question, for example, the. $1.0:;
not even stated in the law today, it is subject to fluctuation as the
cost of food goes up and down.
To answer Mr. liates quest ion specideally it. would appear that what
would happen is that when an indisidual is working in an officers'
mess if that is the situat ant. he will either eat in the messhall or i
he eats in the officers' mess through some iirrangement then I assume
that the mess will he credited with the cost of the food which will
be $1.03 a day.
Mr. BENNETT. $1.25.
Mr. lit,ANtwoun. No, sir; it is
Mr. BATES. No; they never went OIL the basis of food in the Navy.
They might have in the Army.
Atr. BEN storm'. That is what it is going to be now.
BLANDFORD. Under this provision.
Mr. ItivEns. I think everybody understands.
As many as favor the provision as rewritten by Mr. Blandford.
say are, opposed no.
Now we get to
Mr. BLANDroun. Page 27, quarters a I lowances payable when hi isi
and wife are members of the uniformed services.
Again in the interest of time I lilt'e tried to briefly expla n this
and then I will suggest that, you delete it.
This is a situat ion where it man and wife are both members of the
uniformed services and under the law- they may not consider either
as a dependent of the other.
Today, if they are in the same. area and there are no qnarters
available to them, each draw a single quarters allowance, P." they
Ian h occupy Government quarters or they are available for one ii iii ni
for the other then only one can draw a_ single quarters allowance
and neit her can draw them based upon deliendents.
This is an extremely complicated sect ion, hard to explain. There
is not liing wrong in the concept_ of what they are proposing lie7:e hut
anybody who tries to explain this on the floor of' the House in con-
nection with this pay bill is going to have a time. I suggest in the
interest of time and in order to expedite it since there are so very
few people involved here that we strike this section from the bill.
Jr was a separate item. not recommended by the pay study panel
as such.
It was added as it went I hrou!di the departments for comment. I
sug-gest We st rike it out and introduce ii as 'i separate bill.
Air. !Nail-. Ion don't see any real obf pet ion ?
NIT% Gunsilt. flow many separate bills are we going to ltave?
Mr. 131,:xxoroito. Three or four.
Mr. InvEas. Three or four.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 iMA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Secretary PAUL. Our objective was to cut down the number of
separate bills. But if the committee would prefer to handle this the
way counsel suggested, we have no objection.
Mr. GUBSER. Haven't we handled?this is allowance for quarters,
is it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No sir; this is a different situation.
This involves a handful of people.
Where a sergeant is married to a lieutenant.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You have not many cases here.
Today if they are living on the base, or if they are living outside
the base, and no quarters are available for each of them, then they
each draw single quarters allowance, so that equals more than one
quarters allowance with dependents.
On the other hand, if they get permission to live off the base, and
quarters are available to one of them, then only one can draw a single
allowance, whereas we try to encourage husbands and wives to live
together.
Mr. HARDY. I move it be deleted.
Mr. RIVERS. All right; without objection.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Thank you.
Mr. RIVERS. Where does that take us?
Mr. BLANDFORD. This takes us to family separation allowance.
Mr. RivERs. What page?
Mr. BLANDrorio. Page 31.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Paul, you are keeping track of the separate pro-
visions we are going to treat by individual legislation.
Secretary PAUL. Yes sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Fine. do ahead.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now Mr. Chairman, on page 31 we come to a situ-
ation in which the Department recognized the fact that there are
members of the armed services who are assigned to areas where they
are not allowed to have their families join them and there are no Gov-
ernment quarters available to them.
Now, in determining the amount of station allowance to which these
individuals may receive when they are overseas the regulations and the
law has been interpreted to mean that they can only draw the difference
between the quarters allowances payable to an individual without de-
pendents and the quarters allowance payable to a person with de-
pendents.
In some cases it could be as little as $30 a month, yet the individual.
may have to pay as much as $100 a month to find a place to live.
So what the ]Department has proposed in this particular case is
that they allow this individual in his station allowance to be consid-
ered as a member without dependents in computing a station allow-
ance because they recognized the fact that he has to occupy a place
for himself and pay out rent while he is still paying rent for his fam-
ily back in the States.
Now as far as the section goes, obviously it is a good section and it
is an important section to those who are affected by it.
However, there is a relatively few number of people and as the De-
partment proposed this to us, the cost involved was $1,979,000?$2 mil-
lion, approximately.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04421 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here are aware of the problems
involved in this business of being separated from the family.. In
addition the. Department of Defense in its wisdom decided to elindnate
per diem allowances for those. people on troop movements, in areas
where messing and house facilities were. available when on TDY.
They gave them no per diem whatsoever and this is what led to the
article in the Reader's Digest.
The chairman decided at the very least we ought. to recommend that.
the per diem allowance for people on TDY be not less than $1, at least
a recognition that when a man is on TDY lie does have extra expmses.
Instead of watching television with his family he might go to the
theater on his own.
If he has a couple of shirts he will send them out, ivstead of having
his wife put t hem through the washing machine.
There are extra expenses to the individual.
The. chairman has suggested that at least we guarantee. these people
.$1 a day.
In many cases it. won't come close to it, but at least it is a indication
on the part of the Congress that there should be some per diem paid
when these people are on TD Y.
This is the first point.
Now we come to the next suggestion. And I might say that from
the service viewpoint, from the service viewpoint, this is probably the
most welcome suggestion contained in this bill as a morale hopster,
and this is the committee's suggestion?it did not come over from the
Department of Defense. I have heard more comment on this sepa-
rat ion allowance than anything else.
This is a recognit ion that when a man is away from his duty station
and separated from his family that his family has expenses at. home
that are not compensated for by the Government.
Now interestingly enough, the way this subsection is written or
this section is written as proposed by the chairman, the cost. is negli-
gible compared, in my opinion, to the benefits to be derived from it
front a moral viewpoint.
It will cost less than $50 million a year and yet it recognizes long
periods of time at sea away from families, long periods away in these
isolated stations up on radar sites, all types of situations where a n tan is
separated from his family either for permanent duty or for tem-
porary duty.
Mr. BEN-rox. Is this on top of sea duty ?
Mr. BLANDFoun. Yes, sir ; this would b on top of this.
And the amount suggested is one-third of the quarters allowance
payable to an individual without dependents and the. maximum for
4)1ficers is $11;0 a month, so one-third of that is $53.33 or $30 a month,
whichever is greater. There will be relatively little spread between
the officer and enlisted man but it will be the first time in history that
the Congress recognizes the cost to the family when they are separated
from the breadwinner.
Mr. GAVIN. Do you think $1 is adequate?
Mr. 131.ANDFORD. No; this is something else.
The $1 is when a man is on temporary duty for more than 30 lays.
This would be in addition, this would be an allowance because he is
separated from his family.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/211:70A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
The $30 is to pay him for the expenses of his wife when she has to
hire a plumber to come in and fix the faucet, cut the grass, whatever
the other factors are that are always involved when a husband is
away from his family for a long period of time.
Mr. GAVIN. Is there a motion?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I suggest that I read the following language be-
fore you adopt it.
Mr. GAVIN. This would bring the situation to a head.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right.
Mr. GUBSER. Before it is read could I ask a question that is pertinent
here?
Mr. RIVERS. Certainly, you can ask a question.
Mr. GUBSER. We are talking about two separate payments.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. One for the TDY.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. And separation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. TDY is $1 a day per diem.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. GUBSER. Separation allowance is one-third of what?
Mr. BLANDFORD. One-third of the quarters allowance payable to an
individual with dependents. The minimum would be $30.
Mr. GUBSER. Thank you.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to ask?
Mr. HARDY. Let me ask a question.
Mr. BATES. Yes; let's ask some questions about this one.
Mr. HARDY. Now, if you are talking in terms of an enlisted man be-
ing assigned TDY aboardship, I can understand the separation al-
lowance but I have little trouble understanding per diem allowance
on top of sea duty.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The man would not draw per diem allowance.
Mr. II/aim-. I thought you answered that question in the affirmative
for Charlie.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If I did, I was incorrect.
I can't visualize a man being assigned?there might be a case or
two, perhaps radarman might be assigned on TDY abroad ship for
more than 30 days?and I suppose, he might qualify for sea pay.
But this would be a most unusual situation.
Mr. Gummi. How about SAC or TAC officers on TDY, would he
get that oversea pay?
Mr. BLANDFORD. One dollar a day for his expenses and if he is gone
for more than 30 days he would get the family separation allowance.
Mr. HARDY. I can understand the separation allowance but again
I run into the same problem with respect to -foreign-duty pay and
per diem.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The foreign-duty pay is something separate from
that. This man has to be separated from his dependents.
Mr. HARDY. I understand.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Bear in mind this applies only to those who are
authorized to have their dependents travel with them.
Mr. BATES. What is this, Russ?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0/4/31 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFoan. In the sect Mn you will note that it says, as it was
prepared here?
Except in time of war or a national tumtrgeney hereafter declared by the
Congress, when a member of the uniformed iervices is entitled
to a bask allow-
ance for quarters as a member with dependents, under section 403, title 37,
17ni1ed States Code, as amended, and is assigned to a permanent duty station
where his dependents are precluded by competent, authority from residing at or
near his permanent duty station, including aboard a ship, or when a member
with dependents entitled to 0 basic allowaLee for quarters as a member with
dependents, under section 403, title 37, United States Code, as amended, is
assigned to a temporary duty station for a period in excesA of 30 days, he is
entitled to a special family separation allowance of one-third of the quarters
allowantv payable to it member without de:maligns for his grade, or 30. per
month. whichever is greater, in addition to any per diem allowance to which the
member may otherwise he entitled.
Mr, HARDy. I don't have any proldtin with that separation allow-
ance in this thin, that we. are talking about now. lint you take your
tvitere lie wottid he drawing. foreign-duty pay; I have a little
trouble underst audiog not less than 1 per day per diem on -op of
foreign-duty pay.
Iii.A.Nnyono. I ant 1114(111)1M that you cannot (haw foreign dm v
pay on temporary duty.
Air. HARDY. Ca111101 ?
Mr. BLAND-FM-M. Cannot.
Ts that a correct statement !
Colonel liENADE. Only for 'temporary duty Of less than
Mr. !kiwi-. All right. That ought to be in ChM'.
Air. lit.ANDroun. I did not know that. I ant glad to know it.
Mr. RivErts. My understandinp? was, in the ease of the Tactical Air
Command and Strategic Air Command. it has had a very erions
impact and that was the reason for it.
Mr. lhany. I am in a!Treement on this 011e, 110,V let 'S
understand the sea duty. ytm ran drlw sea ditty ply On temporary
duty
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would have to ;IA the Navy that question. I
presume On TITY they do not draw Sea duty pay. Can you draw sea
pay and TDY pay simultaneously ? I mean, can you draw sea pay
when you are on temporary duty ?
Admiral S3rEnuErtc. You may ma draw per diem on board ship.
Mr. Iii.ANDroun. 'Ilett is what I thought.
Mr. HARDY. 'Finn would be eliminated. All right. I have no prob-
lem.
Mr. GuB,Eil. '1 lion there is a dist int- ion bet \wen the Navy and the
Air Force here.
Mr. HArtny. No, because they can't draw foreign .1.tity pay. either.
S.0 .von would have a similar situation.
Mr. itt,ANDroun. I would like to ask Mr. AVorkinger, 50(1 1011 12
,overs the situat ion.
Air. ItiyErts. Yes, Mr. Workinger, we want you to make a. little
cont ribut ion here.
Mr. l'uANDFoun. I will read the section that has been prepared in
lieu thereof. Section 1:2. this is a suggested change in the subcommit-
tee print : "Secti(1n 404 d) of title--- this, again, was as a. (hafting
-ervice at my request, so t hat no one wit In, put in the position of rec-
ommending anyt king-.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 1gA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. RIVERS. Where does this go?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Page 31, new family separation allowance. This
is cleaned up language.
Mr. RivEus. I see. Go ahead and read it.
Mr. GAVIN. And this would be as a motion to be made, that this is
your recommendation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. Section 404(d) of title 37 of United States
Code is amended by adding the following sentence flush at the end
thereof:
However, if a member performs temporary duty away from his permanent
station for more than 30 days, he is entitled to a per diem for incidental ex-
penses of at least $1 for each day of that temporary duty, notwithstanding that
a messing facility of the United States is available to him and that quarters of
the United States are available for assignment to him without charge.
nih5 is the first part, this is the per diem.
Then chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
1. The following new section is inserted after section 426, new section 427,
Family Separation Allowance: (a) In addition to any allowance or per diem to
which he otherwise may be entitled under this title, a member of a uniformed
service with dependents who is on permanent duty outside of the United States
or in Hawaii or Alaska is entitled to a monthly allowance equal to the basic
allowance for quarters payable to a member without dependents in the same pay
grade if: (1) the movement of his dependents to his permanent station or a
place near that station is not authorized at the expense of the United States
under section 406 of this title and his dependents do not reside at or near that
station; and (2) quarters of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service are not available for assignment to him;
(b) except in time of war or of national emergency hereafter declared by Con-
gress, and in addition to any allowance or per diem to which he otherwise may
be entitled under this title, including subsection (A) of this section, a member
of a uniformed service with dependents is entitled to a monthly allowance equal
to $30 or one-third of the basic allowance for quarters payable to a member
without dependents in the same pay grade, whichever amount is the greater; if
(1) the movement of his dependents to his permanent station or a place near
that station is not authorized at the expense of the United States under section
406 of this title and his dependents do not reside at or near that station; (2) he is
on duty on board a ship away from the home yard or home port of the ship for
a continuous period of more than 30 days, or (3) he is on temporary duty away
from his permanent station for a continuous period of more than 30 days and
his dependents do not reside at or near his temporary duty station.
The analysis is amended by inserting the following item: 427, Family Separa-
tion Allowance.
Mr. HARDY. I think I understand that.
Mr. GAVIN. Can we take action on it?
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bates?
Mr.B.vms. I don't think I understand it all.
Mr. 13ENNETT. Let's go to a vote on it, then.
Mr. BATES. What is that?
Mr. GAVIN. understand he is going to get $1 a day when he is
away from his family, additional, that he hasn't been getting, outside
of any other benefits that he may receive.
Mr. RIVERS. Admiral Smedberg wants to say something.
Admiral SIVIEDBERG. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
There was just one little defect which I think is fatal in one of the
sentences you read. You said the home port or the home yard. We
order people to the home port. Now, very often what we used to call
the home yard is not in the same locality as the home port. On the
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04At: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
west coast, for instance, most Of our ships, or _a great many, are based
in San Diego. Every ship that is based in San Diego has the home
Port of San Diego. -When t he ship goes to a yard it has to leave Sim
Diego and go either to Long Beach, San Francisco, Mare Island, or
Puget Sound. So we want to be sure that we don't say home port or
home. yard.
Mr. lir,ANnFono. You mean strike out the words "home yard"?
Admiral Smtniemto. Yes, sir; home port does it.
Arr. II L.\ DEt MIL you want to leave that in'?
Admiral Smimmtio. Yes.
Mr. 13m:comm. 'Why was that in there, Mr. Workinger ?
Mr. Rivas. Ire didn't serve in the Navy.
Mr. WORKINGER TIDIt is true.
Mr. GAVIN. What ports did you name there?
Admiral SmEtainao. San Diego. All ships home ported -n San
Diego have to go some other place when they have a shipyard overhaul
because there is no shipyard in San Diego.
Mr. GAVIN. Send a few of them up to the Philadelphia Yard.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think the correction is well taken, because I can
visualize a situation where a ship would be home ported in San Diego
and have to go to Bremerton for repairs, and that would be away
from home and yet under this language the man would be separated
from his family GO, DO, 100 days, and would not be entitled to thfs
separation allowance. I think it is an appropriate correction.
Mr. ItrvEas. All these lengthy words you used when reading the
whole provision of the statute as it is now with the---- -
Mr. BLANDFoan. This would be. a substitute for the committee print.
Mr. BENNE-re. I move it be accepted.
Mr. GAVIN. I move it be accepted.
Mr. GI:asp:a. 1 want to ask a question. I noticed in this 30-day refer-
ence in one point on page 2 there it, says "for a continuous period of
30 days or more." Earlier in the bill when you referred to 30 days,
you just said 30 days.
Mr. Havnis. It has to be continuous and not. cumulative.
Mr. Secretary, did you have something you want to say?
Mr. MA-woman. I think you are, right, but it wouldn't do any harm
to say permanent station for more than a continuous period--
Mr. GLIBBER. In other words, the SAC officer who gets assigned?
who is off 10 days on 'cm- and then goes out. 10 days every other
10 days, he is never going to qualify under this.
Mr. B LA N DE( )IID. You are absolutely right.
Mr. BEN NF.TT. Should he?
Mr. BLANDroan. If the subcommittee wants to modify it?the only
thing we are trying to do is to indicate.- -they can do this adminis-
tratively.
Mr. BATES. What were we paying them before?
Mr. BLANnForm. $0 a day. which may have. been too high. Enlisted
man?$2 a day. The Department of Defense on troop move,ments
eliminated per diem entirely. Now they still pay per diem on
individual movements.
Secretary PAttn. That is right. Individual travelers continue to
receive a per diem. When Government, quarters are available but
there is not a Government. mess available, both officers and enlisted
men, individual travelers, get $8 a day.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21174VIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Now, the only situation that is presently not covered by per diem
is when they are traveling as members of rotational units when Gov-
ernment quarters are available and when a Government mess is avail-
able. In that situation presently individual travelers get?officers
get $3..50, enlisted men get $1. If they are members of rotational
units, and these are the two units the chairman was talking about
before, neither get anything. The affect of this provision, as I under-
stand it, would mean that they would be guaranteed, both officers and
enlisted men, in these rotational units?and these are the only ones
that would be affected by this at this time?they would get a minimum
of $1 a day. Now my only
Mr. RIVERS. What is wrong with that?
Secretary PAUL. I think there is nothing wrong with this except
for this, Mr. Chairman. If the committee wishes to legislate this
item, of course this is entirely up to the committee. We would be
perfectly willing to reinstall per diem at $1 for officers and $1 for en-
lished men, because we would prefer to keep this within the area
of regulations in the whole per diem framework, rather than to legis-
late an individual per diem item for relatively few people.
Mr. HARDY. Surely it is not a new problem. You must have seen
the problem over there before. Somebody must have seen it. Now,
we bring it up. I don't know whether we can?it is liable to crop up
again if we don't put it in law.
Mr. GAVIN. I make a motion that the statement as presented by Mr.
Blandford be accepted as the section and ask for action by the
committee.
Mr. BENNETT. Second it.
Mr. RIVERS. You have heard the motion.
Mr. KILGORE. In connection with that matter, let me ask whether
or not the preservation of the reference to Hawaii and Alaska here
doesn't deserve an examination, in light of the subcommittee's action
earlier today.
Mr HARny If it is in there it ought to be taken out.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is in there. I emphasized the word "Hawaii"
when I read it.
Mr. IIARDy. I move it be eliminated.
Mr: RivEns. The motion is?and I think we are kind of rountable
on this?we can agree to make it consistent with what we did earlier
today, and put the motion duly made and seconded. As many as
favor the motion stated by Mr. Gavin, say aye; opposed, no.
It appears to the Chair the ayes have it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. This is with Hawaii in?
Mr. BENNETT. Make it consistent with what we did today.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Strike Hawaii out.
Mr. Itiviats. That is right.
Mr. BENNETT. That IS right.
Mr. RavEns. What is the other thing? On page 32, Mr. Blandford,
go to page 32.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. I am just looking at what happens if we
take Hawaii out of here.
Mr. RIVERS. Don't uncover anything else. We are getting along
pretty good.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2141A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. 1 11,ANDFORD. All right. NOV the next section is "Advanced
movement of dependents and baggage and household effects." There
is no question that this is a reasonable suggestion on the part of the
Department of Defense. I lowever, it was a separate item included
iii the bill, not a recommendation of the pay panel study, and I recom-
mend that this be int roduced as sepa Tate legisl at ion,
Mr. RivEns. Without objection.
Now, the next section we already have introduced, haven't we ?
Mr. liLANDFORD. The next section has already been introduced on
"'Iravel and transport at ion allowances under ea aceled, revoked, or
modified orders.- The chairman has already int rodueed a sei land e bill
on t his sect ion. This is section ID, on page 35.
r. l tvEas. That t akes US t o page 3s.
Mr. BLaxmaate. -Readjustment payment for members involun-
tarily released from active duty."
This appears at least to me to he a career management. program.
This is the question of paying readjustment pay to men who arc not
reenlisted, and since it is a quality control problem--
Mr. LONG. What page?
I. BLANoroan. Page 38, Doctor.
And since there is a lot of question 111 50111e peOple.S 111111(1 Its to
whether t his might not encourage people to get. out rather than stay
in it ought to he deleted.
Mr. RIVERS. If we leave this section here it will encout age 1: 11E111
10 get out, it looks like to me. Colonel, what do you think of that ?
Colonel BENanr. I don't agree, sir.
Mr. RivEas. Why don't you agree ?
Colonel BENanE. I don't agree because the only way a i nin could
get this payment is to volunteer to stay in. That is the essent ml that
makes hint eliaible.
Mr. RIVERS. It looks to me like the reason you put it ill, you want
to make it consistent with what we did for the Reserves.
Colonel BENanE. :Not only that, sir. It is true, that. it has always
been the concern of this committee to keep things generally equal be-
tween groups. That entered into it. I3itt the major reason is the
belief that if an enlisted man has given at le.ist 5 yeals of ['MI
inuotts and honorable service, and if for reasons beyond his cont rot
he is refused reenlistment and is told, ni effect, "We are sorry, but
we don't need you any more, he should receive a readjustment pay-
ment to help him get settled in civil Ian life.
What it does is hold out to the enlisted man an assurance that -after
Volt have served for 5 con,?:ectit lye years, if for any reason beyond your
control volt are involuntarily released, you have the assurance that
you will !ret a reasonable readjustment payment."
Mm. IZ 1 VERS. That could be the first enlistment.
Colonel litacaer. No, sir: it would normally- hi, longer.thin that.
Mr. BENNErr. I would like to give you an illustration from my
district. which was very touching to me. A young man had been in
the Air Force for 15 years as an enlisted man, and they raised the
IQ requirements, and this man was not allowed to go back into the
service, after 15 years. This, to me, was a very, very sad. thing, and
at least would have !riven him something. So I think this is a very
good_ provision.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117t1-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. RIVERS. We aren't going to argue about it.
Mr. GAvIN. What is the amount suggested?
Secretary PAUL. There is no money in the bill for it. As Colonel
Benade said, this is more a prospective problem at the moment.
Mr. HARDY. It is not the kind of thing that will get us into an argu-
ment on the floor.
Mr. BENNETT. I am alarmed to know there isn't any money for it.
I don't think this man would be very relieved if he doesn't get any
money. What is he going to get, a diploma?
Mr. BATES. What do you mean "there is no money"?
Mr. BLANDFORD. There is no money in the budget for it.
Mr. BENNETT. But it will require payments by the Government.
Colonel BENADE. Only if any members are released who meet the
provisions of this section. We do not anticipate any such release of
military members in 1964.
Mr. GrAvIN. They would have to have a purpose for not accepting
his reenlistment.
Mr. RIVERS. I think this is all right.
Mr. GAVIN. How many similar cases would you say you have had
in the last year or so?
Colonel BENADE. None that I know of, except Mr. Bennett has
pointed up a case. I don't know of tiny,
Mr. GAvir.N. Then I think some money ought to be put in to give
him a chance to rehabilitate himself. If he has no money and can't
find a job under today's circumstances then he is dependent upon his
relatives or on a charity of some kind to keep moving on in life, and
I think some consideration ought to be given to him, in view of the
fact that there are so very few cases of this nature, some stipulated
amount that he is to receive when he is separated from the service,
in view of the fact that they would not accept his reenlistment.
Colonel BENADE. Under this section, it would be 2 months of pay
for each year of service that the individual has completed
Mr. RIVERS. Same as Reserves.
Colonel BENADE. Yes, Sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's go to the next section.
Mr. BATES. What are you doing with that one; leaving it in?
Mr. RIVERS. Leaving it in, without objection.
Mr. BATES. Just record me against it.
Mr. RIVERS. All right, Mr. Bates is against it.
With objection one objection.
Mr. GUBSER. objection,
objections.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Two objections.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bates, if you have any objection we won't pass it.
Mr. BATES. No, let it go, but I think we are going out of the way
trying to find something like that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think there are some factors in here not being
considered.
Mr. RIVERS. The only thing I can see that would cause us a lot of
trouble is if we had a wholesale disarmament.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Plus the fact of the man R:oing up to his command-
ing officer and saying "I will volunteer to en_ist but you decline to per-
mit it tomorrow."
Admiral SMEDBERG. May I throw a little light 011 this?
85066-63?No. 6 23
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/di1A : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
In the Navy we have a tremendous reenlistment rate of our stew-
ards. They are reenlisting at the rate of over 90 percent. Now, in
the event we should feel we have to increase promotion opportunities
to the stewards' rate, we might. say "We have to refuse to reenlist some
of you stewards at 12 years,' If we did that., then this would provide
some money for many. They, do a splendid job, and I think it is a
splendid thing to have in the bill, although right now we don't use it.
Mr. BATES. It is good, but you don't need it.
Mr. Rivnits. I don't think it will tear up the United States. Let's
leave it in.
Mr. GAVIN. I don't think you would have very ninny cases, and I
hink it. is showing sonic consideration to the man.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's give it a chance.
Mr. GUBSER. I hope we are not considering a bill 4 years from now
to correct the abuses coming from this.
Mr. KILGORE. I would like to hear Mr. Blandford.
Mr. Haany. This thing bothers me, raised by Mr. Bates and Mr.
;-ubser. Suppose we lowered the ceiling on personnel in the military
service and drop them down substantially
Mr. RIVERS. That. is the only way I can see.
Mr. Haany. Then we have a whole bunch of people going out at
one time, you are going to have all this separation pay. 'What about
that?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, Sin
Mr. RIVERS. That is a fact of life.
Mr. GAVIN. It is a possibility.
Mr. Itiviats. It hasn't. happened since 1941.
Mr. Jimmy. I don't know. I don't feel too strongly about it one
way or the other, but I am not. at all sure we shouldn't include this
wit ii some of these other things
Mr. Gurnstia. This is no more. important than the --
Mr. GaviN. Let me tell you this. In World War I when we were
separated from the service., if I recall correctly, we got. our railroad
ticket back to our hometown and a $00 separation allowance--$60.
And if you couldn't, when you got back home, find FL job, or you had
no family, you were dependent- upon charity until you got a, ela.nce
to secure. a position and they went out by the thousands with that
ticket back home and $60. So you are talking about a wholesale sepa-
ration from the service. We are trying to appeal to the youth of
America to enlist in the service and therefore I think that this proposal
is in order. I think that this should be encouraged.
Mr. GUBSER. I think this could be separate legislat ion, just. as the
hump bill was. The same principle is involved.
Mr. KILGORE. I would like to ask counsel to comment on it, if there
is no objection to it..
Mr. Gavix. Is that rigid? Are my figures right on World War I?
Mr. RIVERS. Absolutely. Go ahead.
Mr. BiANDroao. Mr. Chairman. I don't like- to be. a dog in the
manger on this section, but it seems to me. that we have spent a. great
deal of time talking about the. retention of those with critical skills
and retraining people. Now if ever I saw a provision in a bill that.
is going to encourage people. not to retrain in critical skills7 thin is it.
Believe me, you are going to encourage people who are in surplus
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : RiRDP661300403R000400280006-0
skills not to retrain in the critical skill area, because you are going to
give them the offer of a separation pay which is going to be very
lucrative. I think personally it is a serious error. That is all I have
to say.
Mr. BENNETT. It is pretty persuasive.
Mr. BATES. It just is diametrically opposed to everything else we
have done.
Mr. HARDY. MOVO it be deleted
Mr. GITBSER. I will move it be deleted, or why don't you do it?
Mr. GAVIN. Somebody is going to read the record anyway, so you
might as well be known as to what your position is on it.
Mr. RIVERS. What is the pleasure of the committee?
Mr. GUBSER. Just to bring it to a test, I move it be deleted.
Mr. BATES. Second the motion.
Mr. RIVERS. As many as favor the motion by Mr. Gubser will sig-
nify by raising his hand. Six.
Opposed?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Six for, two against. Deleted.
Mr. RIVERS. That turns us to the effective date, and rather than
having a lot of people turning to hospitals and doing all things to be
kept on beyond the effective date, Mr. Vinson and I thought it would
be a good idea to let anyone separated during this calendar be covered
by this bill; isn't that right?
Mr. BEANDFORD. Yes, sir; anybody who is retired during this calen-
dar year will be able to draw retirement pay under the new proposed
pay scale, so we don't have a mad effort to beat the effective date or
go beyond the effective date.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I missed the uniform allowance, Mr. Chairman.
Somewhere along the line we have -passed over uniform allowances.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I know we have already acted on the
separation allowance. I wonder if the Secretary would express an
opinion on that to see what you think about it, these men that want to
reenlist, their reenlistment is refused and they are separated from the
service right now, he goes out. What do you think he goes out with
if he hasn't accumulated something in the service? Do you think it
is right when a man wants to reenlist after he has been in 3 or 5 years
and the service will not accept him, that we separate him and move
him out without some emolument or money, bonus to find his place
in life again?
Secretary PAUL. No, sir; in that situation I think he is entitled to
something.
Mr. BATES. How come they didn't put any money in the budget for
It?
Secretary PAUL. Because, Mr. 13ates it is not a problem that the
services said they had any immediate Plans of implementing.
Mr. RIVERS. When you find the problem, send a bill up here.
Mr. BATES. You let people go every day in the week now, don't you?
Secretary PAUL. In this category of those who have served this
5-year minimum period of time and who volunteer for reenlistment
and are at that point separated, I don't know of any.
Mr. BATES. Don't you refuse today to reenlist certain people?
Mr. RIVERS. Certainly, all the time.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/q4/2,1 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Mr. BENNErrr. Yes; you raised your standards and that milites it
impossible.
Mr. BATES. WOUldill those people come under this provision?
Colonel BENADE. No, sir.
Mr. BATES. Why?
Colonel BENADE. This would modify existing law. Existing law
already spells out certain categories of members who are excluded
from the benefit of a readjustment payment. In addition, by at-other
provision in this bill, only those members otherwise eligible for im-
mediate reenlistment xvoud be entitled to a readjustment payment if
they are denied reenlistment through no fault of their own. The
limitation of being eligible for immediate reenlistment means that the
member must be otherwise acceptable except that denial of reenlist-
ment is for reasons beyond the man's control.
Mr. BENNETr. You mean you could raise your standards and get
rid of him anyway, you wouldn't take care of my man, anyway.
Colonel BEN:mu. No, sir; it would. X denial of reenlistment, fm.
the reason you mentioned is one of the situations at which this provi-
sion is aimed.
Mr. RTVIAtti. the committee ?VaS perivaded by Al t% Bhindforl. that
I his would discourage retrainimr, anti that is the sum and substance
Of it. hers get on.
Mr. BLANDroun. I have left out uniform allowances. The erective
date as proposed is the first day of the first month after enactrrent.
Mr. RivEas. That is right ; first day of the first month after enact-
ment.
Mr. B.vrEs. Is there any problem?
Mr. E vEns. I think (lie Secretary expects this.
Mr. I Imu?-. I don't exia,ct you are going to get an agreement from
It tin.
Secretary lit. It isnot a great surprise.
Mr. K imam Some shock, tau no surprise.
Secretary There may be an administrative problem in the
speed with which we can adjust to the new rates it-, this legi!lat jolt
Exactly what the time frame will lie will depend tilt imately on what
Congress does and how substantial or complicated a bill this i when
filial act ion is taken.
Mr. BEANDroRo. On the bottom of page 26, there is provision to
provide uniform allowance for regular officers. Now the theory be-
hind this, as I understand it, is that Reserves get it and Regniars do
not, and R.egulars ought to get it ; :i-250 is suggested for all officers.
There is not a great, deal of money involved, but I am a fraid, if l may
say this off the record
f Discussion oil the record.)
Mr. BEANnFono. If this item is of sufficient importance again, it
ought to be handled in separate legislation and not be a part of this
pay provision here.
Mr. GunsErt. Russ, what. is so contp- icated about the regulat.ons?
Mr. BLANnEortn. It is not complicated; just say a Regular officer
would !Tet it as far as that is concerned. As a matter of fact, I don't
want to differ with the. Secretary on the regulations, but I would dare
say that the regulations -for this pay bill, from what we have done here_
now, could be put into effect in 30 'lays and I don't think we will have
any particular problem with regulations on implementing a pay bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/y5:3CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
But I do think this uniform allowance provision is a provision that
could be troublesome. When we start providing a uniform allowance
for Regular officers, we may have difficulty on the floor of the House.
MT. LONG. Where is this?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Bottom of page 36. This is just a single payment
of $250.
Mr. GLIBBER. For an officer once in his career.
Mr. BLANDFORD. For an officer once in his career.
Mr. GUBSER. Why be chintzy about it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Why have a provision in the bill that is going to
cause difficulty?
Mr. HARDY. How much does it cost?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it is $4 million.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Might I speak to it, sir?
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Admiral SMEDBERG. I have been Superintendent of the Milita,ry
Academy. Our midshipmen always graduate in debt. They can.'t
buy their uniforms with the money permitted them at the Academy.
The ROTC regular who comes in with a commission, these youngsters
can't buy their uniform allowance with anything like the money they
can accumulate.
Mr. GAVIN. While at the Academy?
Admiral SMEDBERG. No sir; and also at any university where they
come in under the regular ROTC program.
Mr. RIVERS. The Holloway plan?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir. These youngsters are not paid enough
really to enable them to get out of debt in the next 4 or 5 years. We
encourage our officers to stay out of debt; yet we don't permit them
to, by requiring them to buy two uniforms.
MT. GAVIN. May I ask you this question?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. GAVIN. The number of uniforms they have to buy and approxi-
mately what would you estimate the cost now?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I would say, sir, it is $700 and $900 initial cost
of the outfit.
Mr. GAVIN. And he has to have his uniform?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir, he has to have his uniform when he
reports.
Mr. GAVIN. So he has to get $700 or $900 from some place to get the
uniform?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. Admiral, what is the retention rate of Annapolis grad-
uates after the first 4-year hitch, approximately?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It is over 80 percent, sir.
Mr. GUBSER. Would you say it could be even higher if some of
these fellows didn't have financial difficulties in the first 4 years of
their service career?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I wouldn't want to say that, sir, really.
Mr. GUBSER. Certainly this uniform allowance or this problem of
going into debt doesn't encourage a man to stay in the Navy.
Admiral SMEDBERG. That is right.
MT. BENNETT. ROTC retention.
Admiral SMEDBERG. I can't say it would make that much difference.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21iIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
It would certainly relieve the man, particularly if he is going to be
married, to know he isn't going to be as much in debt with the uni-
forms we require him to buy. I think it is a most important part of
this bill.
Mr. GAVIN. He must have a complete set of uniforms?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, I am not quite clear in my mind why a. young man coming
out of the Naval Academy should be so heavily in debt quite aside
from the amount of money he would have to spend on uniforms. In
what sense is he in debt any more than anyone else getting out of
college? Ile has gotten a good education, pretty well free or don't. I
understand the situation?
Admiral SMEDBERG. The. young man getting out of college has to
buy everything on his own, except, if he is a Reserve, he does not get a
uniform allowance. What. I mean is that the pay of the midshipmen
at the academy is not sufficient to enable hint to save up from his
required expenses enough to pay for his uniforms when he graduates.
Mr.
LONG. But. I got the impression front you that he was in debt.
quite aside from the uniform aspect.
Admiral SMEDBERG. No. sir. When he buys his uniforms, he will
bo in debt.
Mr. Laxo. But don't you think there is something to be said for
the fact that he has gotten quite a good and quite all expensive
education?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. At Government, expense_ and front that point of view,
is some.what better off than most young men who get. out of college?
Admiral SmEnagao. Yes, sir, I agree, hut_ this would alsc., apply to
the young man who graduates from the xrayrv regular program;
he would also get his help toward his uniform allowance which has
to be the same as the others.
Mr. GAvtx. But you feel quite. certain while he is at the Academy,
that he. is not paid sufficient money to accumulate, to buy his uniforms
when he graduates front the Acaaemy?
Admiral SMEDBERG. That. is corrcct, sir. lie either getts the money
from home. or he goes in debt-.
Mr. Guesea. What. percentage of your new ensigns are reservists?
Admiral SMEDBERG. I can say this, in each year, the output from
he Naval Academy is only i percent of all the officers we get that
year in the Navy, fi percent today.
Mr. Giresea. What?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir; 6 percent of the new input. ..)1 officers
into the Navy in one year, today, are from the Na% al Academy.
Mr. BLAxoruan. Eighty-one permnt of your new ensigns are re-
servists if I am not mistaken?
Mr. Gresme In other words, the majority of new officers are gell-
ing a uniform allowance and the Annapolis graduates are penalized
where they don't?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Well---
Mr. GUBSER. I said majority.
Admiral SMEDBERG. Majority, yes, sir. But the NROTC regular
is also being penalized: he is not a Naval Academy graduate.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/0412F CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Colonel 13Edynon. In the Army the distinguished military graduate
is also penalized by virtue of accepting a regular appointment. He
does not receive a uniform allowance but the reserve officer who comes
on and may stay on for 20 years does receive a uniform allowance.
Mr. RIVERS. Let's finish with the Admiral first.
Admiral SinEmma.. I would like to say one more thing. This bill
would also benefit. the enlisted man who goes to an officer grade who
today does not get any allowance for his uniform. He is a regular,
if he goes to officer, this would also give him the allowance.
Mrs. RIVERS. Now, what is your statement?
General IInwrrr. Mr. Blandford said this was addressed to grad-
uates of the Academies. They are the people who take a regular
commission initially. We have many who are not Academy graduates
and you have a situation where a graduate of a college ROTC, the
man who accepts a regular commission, gets no allowance, the man
who is ordered to active duty presumably for 2 years gets the
allowance.
So you have a different status on graduates where the man who
accepts a regular commission is penalized.
Mr. HARDY. I am glad to go along with this thing, but I Would
like to have an explanation as to why you are changing the ainount.
Mr. RIVERS. From $200 to $250.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Paul?
Secretary PAUL. At the present time, an enlisted man of the Navy,
Marines, or Coast Guard appointed a temporary officer, is entitled to
a $250 allowance. Also, a commissioned officer in the Public Health
Service in pay grades 0-1, 0-2, or 0-3 receives $250.
Mr. RIVERS. You are making it consistent?
Secretary PAUL. Yes; making it consistent.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I was on the Board of Naval Visitors
last year, had an opportunity to look over the figures for many years,
and I think the midshipmen are in worse shape now from the point
of view of clothing, as they have ever been. I understand this is the
same thing at West Point. We have made no allowances whatsoever
in this bill for midshipmen.
Mr. BLANDFORD. They will receive an automatic increase as a result
of increasing the pay of second lieutenants. They get half the pay
of second lieutenants.
Mr. BATES. Didn't we used to have this in the bill?
Mr. BLANDFORD. We Used to; but ROW it is automatic. It is half
the pay of an 0-1.
Mr. BATES. When did we do that?
Mr. BLANDFORD. 19'55 is my recollection.
Mr. GAVIN. May I ask the general what a second lieutenant's salary
is when he goes into the service graduating from the Military Academy.
Mr. Gummi. Under this bill
Mr. GAITIN. Under this bill or at the present time.
Admiral SMEDRERO. It is $268 for the ensign.
General HEwrer. The same, 0-1 entering salary, $268i month.
Mr. HARDY. I MOVe we leave this section in. :
Mr. RivErts. Without objection.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117;5t1A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. STRAWON. Mr. Chairman
Mr. IluDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. lluddleston. I have to go according to ieniority.
Mr. IIUDDLESTON. I would like to know if this sc2t ion as it s written
would cover all regular officers now on active. did v who have never
served in a reserve status.
Mr. PAUL. No, sir; it. would not.
Mr. Ili2DDLESTON. Just. new officers?
Mr. Palm. From now on. It. is not retroactive.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Stratton.
Mr. STaaTrox. I would like to ask the admiral a. question. What
is the retention ratio of those in the N ROTC, regular ?
Admiral SMEDBERG. It. has gone up to the. highest this year in his-
tory, almost 32 percent.
Mr. STRATTON. Is the legal status of a midshipman in tha regular
NROTC program the same as a stalls of the midshipmen at the Naval
Academy?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Exactly the same.
Mr. STriarrrox. Both during his tenure as a student and upon his
assuming a commission.
Admiral SMEDBERG. I can't say that it is during the thii ! he is a
student because. he is not under the strict. I egulations but on
graduation
Mr. StataTroN. Is he a midshipman in the Naval Establishment ?
Admiral SMEDBERG. He- is not a midshipman in the U.S. 'Cavy the
way the man at. the Naval Academy is; no, sir. But after Eh( y gradu-
ate they both get regular commissions, each has to .ierve -1 years before
he may even submit a request for resignation.
Mr. STRATTON. We passed a. bill in the last Congress, did we not.
that required him to initiate speciRc action to get out rather than
to elect to stay in?
Admiral SMEDBERG. Yes, sir, I think that was extremely helpful
in this retention rate.
Mr. Sratzrrox. One. other thing. On this 6 percent, this is an
amazing figure. Do you mean to say that 94 percent of the officers
who come in in any 1 year are the products of
Admiral SMEDBERG. Other than the Naval Academy.
Mr. STRArroN. NROTC and OCS.
Admiral SMEDBERG. No, sir. You have doctors, dentists, limited
duty, you have ROC's, NISEP's, you have all kinds of different
classes of officers. I will send you up a little something on it, it is
very interesting.
Mr. STRATroN. Thank you very much.
Mr. RIVERS. Send that up to Mr. Stratton now.
We have two other things. One of them is to agree on the generals.
Read that.
Mr. BLANDPORD. Yes, sir. I would like to tell you what their
present pay is.
Mr. RIVERS. You read us what we agreed on.
Mr. BLakmroah. We agreed on alternative No. 1 and what I have
to say has to be summarized this way: You have got three five stars
and three four stars, now drawing special pay and allowances under
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21=A-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
special acts of Congress. You have to be very careful how you
word this because the four stars, that is General Spaatz, Admiral
Spruance, and General Vandergrift draw di if erent amounts because
their pay is attached to that of a major general plus the allowances
of 22. Strangely enough the five stars is attached to the pay of
major generals under the act of May 1946.. So you have got to be
careful that you don't end up giving the four stars a substantially
bigger increase.
Mr. RivEns. We figured that all out the other day. Let's not goif
back into that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right. I suggest that we increase Generals
MacArthur, Bradley, and Admiral Nimitz from their present:- pay of
$20,543.36 a year to $24,186.56 a year. In other words, we let
them draw the basic pay and allowances of a major general under
the 1958 pay scales, including the quarters allowance under the in-
crease that we put into effect in 1962, the special allowance of $416
and the subsistence allowance of $47.88 as a monthly pay which would
be $215.55 a month whi.ch would give them a total annual pay of
$2.4,816.56..
Now, for General Spaatz
Mr. I-TARDY. Just give us the total or we will get all bogged down.
Mr. BLANDEORD. OK.
Mr. RIVERS. Just take?MacArthur gets how much?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now gets $20,543.
Mr. RivEns. What about Spaatz?
Mr. BLANDFORD. He would get $21,386.
Mr. RivEns. That is each category represented?
MT. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. So that i.s the question.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the question.
Mr. HARDY. Have you got the language prepared to do it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I don't have it but I will get it.
Mr. RIVERS. We agree that people of Spaatz' vintage won't be ahead
of people of MacArthur's vintage, is that right?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right.
Mr. ITunnpEsToN. Would either group be ahead of General Eisen-
hower?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, because he draws the $25,000 as ex-President.
MT. GUBSER. Former President.
Mr. HuDDLEsToN. The allowance is not in there.
MT. BLANDFORD. NO. AS a matter of fact, it works out very nicely.
General Eisenhower gets $25,000; the maximum anybody gets is
$24,186. So he still is ahead.
Mr. BENNEIV. We allowed them to get all these allowances.
Mr. STRATTON. May I ask Mr. Blandford, President Eisenhower has
elected to take his pension as a retired President rather than as a
General of the Army?
Mr. BLANDFORD. He elected, when I say that?this is off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BLANDFORD. We have one remaining question.
Mr. RIVERS. The basic pay feature.
Admiral SMEDBERG. I didn't want to delay this, sir, but I did want to
85066-63?No. 6-24
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2.1s: CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
point out that Admiral .Nintitz is t he only live-star officer u ho has
stayed on act 11,-e duty?consistently :Awned down all jobs--so there
would never be a quest ion of conflict of interest, has maintained nimself
ready to be a consultant for the Seeretary of the Navy and for that
reason I think lie should be recognized as a man who has not gone out
for himself but lias kept himself available for the service.
Air. Rivras. I might also zuld he has taken many. many special jobs
for 1 he services.
_Admiral SMEDBERG. That is right, ?vith no compensation.
Mr. I? v Ens. Not a nickel. I want that to be on the record.
Mr. We are quite proud of Admiral :Chintz. He turned in
a very magtnticant performance. bola in time of peace and :itie of
War ;111d he has earned and deserves the hearty conunendatior of the
American people and the Navy can well be proud of Admiral Nimitz.
SMEDBERG. We are. sir.
Air. litvEus. Let's go back to the basic pay.
Mr. Iii.ANnroao. Now, to basic pay, Mr. Chairman. We ha ,-e now.
by adopting the subsistence allowance provision for officers, %,-e have
nov.- reduced the amount proposed for officers by the difference be-
t 1.1APII $.1.12 and the 1.-2.(..) that they would have received had we
incorporated the $77 subsistence allowance.
Now. if the Depart mem was correct in its recommended remuner-
ation for officers, if it is correct that some of these officers need in-
creases ranging close to $100 a month in order to retain the quality
or (Avers we want. then I submit to the subcommittee that you
might wish to consider inereasing the basic pay scales of all officers
by $30 a month, all officers told warrant officers. This would then
!rive them a total increase in subsistence and pay, this does not include
the basic pay increases already recommended, but this would give
them a total increase of $33.12 as opposed to the $'29 increase in sub-
sistence. Now, again, just to refresh your memories, the 44t2f. is tax
free. The $33?the increase of $30 would be taxable. You can
figure 20 percent of that is taxes. So if you take 20 percent of s30
you have, I hope - --
Mr. Loxa. $6.
Mr. BLAN-Dronn. 1S6 off that-----$1?-l. You add *3.1.2 to the increase
in subsistence allowance and they are coming out very close to take-
home pay recommended. Now, what we make on the income tax
return we lose on the retirement increase. Now, bear in mind that
not everybody on active duty cont inues on. As a matter of. fa--.1, very
few people, in comparison with those who start out, contume on to
yet icemen!. Now. whether the committee wishes to do this or not,
I do not know. The cost involved------
IZIVERS. I don't like to say what we gain or what we lose. These
people are either entitled to it or not
Mr. ilmary. This is just as wrong as it can be to talk about them in
this li!rht. The subsistence is to pay them for subsistence.
Arr. IlivErts. Basic pay is something based on outstanding merit
and abilit v that goes with it. qualifications of the young man.
Mr. lir.A:coronn. May I ask Mr. Paul a very fundamental question
in that case,.
Mr. RIVERS. Go ahead.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/215.9CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BLANDFORD. AID I correct, MT. Paul, that the reason. the $29
subsistence increase was placed in this bill was to couple that with
the basic pay increase so that the take-home pay of the officers
in-
volved would be the amount that you considered necessary to bring
about the retention of officers you feel is required for our armed serv-
ices?
Mr. PAUL. I would state it slightly differently, but fundamentally_
tb at is correct. We took a look at the total take-home pay of all.
officers in trying to assess the amount of compensation they should
receive. We did this for the enlisted grades as well. As to the
amount of the subsistence increase we recommended, although we felt
it was justified as a subsistence increase, it was simply regarded as
part of the total take-home pay. This is the reason why we proposed
what we did for the officers. We very much included that as a part
of their compensation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we feel more
strongly about restoring the officers' compensation to where it was
than any other aspect of this bill.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment very quickly on
that, that is just like padding your expense account. I think it is just
as phony as I think it is absolutely wrong to try to accomplish an
increase in pay through a fictitiously built-up subsistence allowance.
I think, by jingo, that it is misleading.
Mr. BENNETT. He won't do it again.
Mr. HARDY. It offends my sense of equity and reason.
Mr. PAUL. Well, there is a lot in the whole subsistence payment
system, Mr. Hardy, that makes sense or doesn't make sense, depending
on any number of interpretations one wants to put on it.
Mr. HARDY. Are you suggesting that an officer's subsistence figure
of $51 won't pay his subsistence cost in an officer's mess?
Mr. PAUL. I would say for a large percentage of the officers who
have to eat under those conditions, no, it would not.
Mr. HARDY. If it doesn't pay a subsistence cost in the officer's mess
then it ought to be adjusted to do that, but you ought not to reach
in the pot and just put in a figure in a subsistence allowance in order
to build up a man's basic take-home pay. I think it is wrong. I think
it is ethically wrong.
Mr. GAVIN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARDY. I am through.
Mr. RIVERS. Dr. Long asked for the floor.
Mr. LONG. I was just recalling Mr. Blandford's point the other day,
the difference between the cost of living and the standard of living.
We talk about percentage increases in your subsistence based on
changes in the cost of living living, and this is technically true, but
if you had started out 100 years ago with a certain figure of what it
cost a person to live and if you had just made your changes over that
time OD the basis of what the cost-of-living index had shown, you
would have a mighty low subsistence allowance at the present time.
What we do during that time is to make adjustments also to take
account of the standard of living.
Mr. BLANDFORD. But not in subsistence. In basic pay that is true,
but not in subsistence. The difficulty with this, Mr. Chairman, and
unfortunately this is?Mr. Paul and Mr. Hardy are in my opinion
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117kcIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
both correct in their approach?but the (Dade vn1i this thing is that
there is nothing sacred about the $47.88.
Mr. BATEs. Never has been.
Mr. lit,AxnForin. Let me tell vmt what happened on that. Officers
at one time used to !ref- three allowanms of $21 , $21, awl $21, t !len whcy
1 hey got to colonel they cut them down to t wo because because pre-
sumably the families were grown up and had left. Then wo decided
in I 949 to give one allowance of $12. Let's assume that $42 was cor-
rect. 1 frankly don't know if it is correct. Bur let's assume it. is.
Then in 1952 we passed a bill in this committee. right in this room, to
increase basic. pa' and subsistence by 10 percent. across the board.
When we came out of conference we had increased basic. pay 4 per-
cent and allowances IT percent.
I am saying if you make any assunipt ion as being correct, i 1 every-
body has been rola( ively happy since 1952 with $17.Sti, and the cost
III food has y'011P up Ii percent since 1952, then WI' ought 10 nicrease it
to $51. Rut I would agree with Mr. IT:irdy that the whole I lung is
eorkeyed,
can say in the Navy, we have these figures, there are is ardroom
messes on aircraft. carriers where t he mess bills :ire under $:15 a mon t h.
Is that not correct?
Admiral SnEnnErto. Yes, sir.
Mr. MA-mu-ram. All right. $35 a month. That means t ic officer
pockets the difference. Therefore that $47.8$ is more than the cost
of food. There are nine messes in the A ir Force WilPre they are
checked the full amount. of their allowance, which is $17.S. There
are other officers' messes where t hey have to pay $2 a day.
Admiral SmEnnEurt. $60 a month in some messes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All T know is that this is the most hodgepodge
collection of stuff I have ever seen in my life.
Mr. B.vrEs. Mr. Chairman
Mr. RIVERS. Wait.
think yon also get int o comparability. Then somebody is going to
say civil service don't get this and don't get that, then we get into the
retirement and subsistence and we are Irving to give the in in some-
himr he can take home. If yon Icy to evaluate all these contra-
dictory statutes I don't know where it is going to leave us.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. -RIVERS. I would prefer what Mr. Hardy said, if he could, put
it. down where you can read it that k, the basic salary--and fare the
issue once and for all.
BLANDFORD. T think one of these days it is !ming to have to
be considered as part of basic pa V.
Mr. BATES. T agree with Russ. ,\.s, a mat ter of fact. I was !ming
to cover the same territory Tillss covered.
This is my 1-Rh year in the Congress. When T was in the service I
was getting $63 a month for subsistence. This is 14 years ago. So
when we get a floury of $77 today compared to $63 11 years ago. you
can't say that is too high, you can't say that.
Now we have never equated all of these various things.
Mr. RIVERS. You can't equate them.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman
Mr. Bates. But T don't think the $77 figure is out of balance.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/210CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. BAluiETT. Let's put the $30 in the pay.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman
Mr. RIVERS. Have you finished?
Mr. BATES. I don't know where we should put it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. $30 would go to all the basic pay scales. You
would increase the cost of the bill by $131 million.
Mr. RIVERS. Is this what you suggest?
Secretary PAUL. It would cost more to do it that way but it is cer-
tainly a clear way of identifying their salary.
Mr. RIVERS. I don't think we should encourage getting away from
the tax obligations, because I sure don't have any encouragement in
my small salary.
Mr. GUBSER. It will increase retirement.
Mr. BENNETT. What does the same amount of money cost more in
one section than in. another?
Mr. RIVERS. It is subsistence, not taxable.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, sir, Mr. Bennett has a point.
Mr. RIVERS. Let Mr. Bennett
Mr. BENNETT. He knows the question.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You add $30 across the board, and also increase
subsistence by $3.12 for officers, so there is $13 million.
Now when you count the Reserves who draw basic pay, one-thirtieth
of a day of basic pay, when you increase basic pay the Reserve costs
go up just that. much more. In this case, $1 a day, one-third of that
would be 33 cents for each Reserve duty officer drawing drill pay or
on active duty.
Mr. BENNETT. You ought to reduce the $30 by that $3.12.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No. This is why I started out earlier talking about
them together, because I had to relate the $120 million to this $131
million in the basic pay scales, because you don't pay reservists sub-
sistence allowance when they are in active duty training.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand that. But that thing about subsistence
ought not to be an extra cost in there, it ought to be knocked out of
the $30.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The only reason is to be. fair to the individual.. I
just suggest that this subcommittee did not want to report a bill that
would r'''educe officers below that which the Department had recom-
mended, and you would be doing that.
Mr. BENNETT. I don't want to do that either.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No. $29 of tax-free money is better than $30 of
taxable money.
Mr. BENNETT. You have sold me, I am for the whole amount.
Mr. HARDY. Let me--
Mr. MATER& Mr. Gavin asked for the floor.
Mr. GAVIN. I am not looking at the amount of money concerned
in this. What I am looking at is you got the membership there on the
-floor of the House, they haven't been listening to these discussions and
debates of these various problems. The first thing they are going
to do is to turn to this pay scale and they are going to say "Well, here
is the officer, he is going to get $77 a month, and the boys get $37.50
a month."
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is not $77, it is going to be $51.
Mr. GAVIN. But the proposal brings it up to $77.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21Q2CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
BLANDroan. No, sir.
Mr. tiAxix. Say it is $51.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is.
Mr. tiAvrc. And they are going to start to make comparisons. you
see. They won't vote on their knowledge of the particular subject,
but t hey will vote. their feelings that maybe an injustice is being
(lone the enlisted men, and they ought to bring the cost up higher
for the enlisted men rather than the general officers.
Mr. BLANDFORD. When you tell them that you are spending $69
million for more enlisted subsistence than the Department proposed
t hey may feel better about it.
Mr. (i.kvix. They may and I hope they do feel better, but I. am just
saying what. they will look at, they won't read the bill or the hearings.
Many of them will, but, some of them won't. And they will just start
to make comparisons and then we may find ourselves in some difficulty.
Mr. IILANDFonn. This will depend upon the ability of the subcom-
mittee, ()I' course, to indicate the changes that have been made, wherein
we have improved the bill considerably for enlisted personnel.
Mr. GAVIN. You will have to give us sonic good sound solid areac-
minus on all of these changes being made so we will be able to
Mr. BLAxnroan. 1 expect to devote a good deal of time doing exactly
I hat.
Mr. I ham% I feel sure you will do that.
Mr. GAVIN. Do you think, Mr. Hardy, the thought I had there - -
Mr. lhanv. I think it is a fine, thought and I think Mr. Bandford
will help us get together a lot of support for these points.
Mr. RIVERS. That is why we are going to allocate to members spe-
cialists on this bill because it is (2ompl icated.
Mr. HARDY% I don't want my point earlier to be misunderstood.
I am perfectly agreeable to going along with any subsistence allow-
ance that is necessary or that is equitable, and 1 am perfectly willing
to get on the floor and scrap for it. But 1 think this is unrealistic and
I don't think, if the purpose was to it..thieve the increase in pay. I think
it is wrong and I think we would be in awful bad shape to do it.
Now in approaching the question of i.vhat you are going to do about
the basic pay scale, if it is true that in computing these basic pay
scales there was a deliberate effort to Add int o the take-home pay some
residue front the subsistence, maybe we should take t hat into account.
But I. think we must also, Mr. Secretary. take into account the
fact that we have added sonic things in this bill that you didn't have.
If you were talking about incentive to keep men in the ser,ice, cer-
tainly this separation allowance ought to be right much of an incen-
tive and that ought to go a good ways to offsetting some of [helake-
home pay that you wanted to include here, because a lot of :hem are
!ming to get take-home pay through your 'MI and per diem. It
might not be spread uni comity.
I don't know that it owrlit to be spread uniformly-. I don't know if
it would make good sense to take a sloe itic antount of money to increase
these pay rates. I don't know that we ought to make it a blanket for
every individual officer.
Secretary PAUL. M:ly I make a remark on that
Mi'. R IVRI(5. Yes.
Secretary l'Aur,. As 1 understand the committee's actions today,
Yon have added a number of things to the bill. However, there is notb-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2176CIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
ing sacred about our judgment as to how much total compensation an
officer should get versus an enlisted man. We have made our best
judgment on that. I feel the net result has been to push the enlisted
area up and change the balance between the compensation increases
we had proposed for the officers and enlisted members. We may not
have been right. This was our best judgment.
I do think without, a further basic pay increase for officers, the bal-
ance is changed. Now whether it is changed incorrectly or not is some-
thing the committee must decide. We feel that our recommended dis-
tribution between officers and enlisted members on total compensa-
tion, which did include subsistence allowances for both enlisted mem-
bers and officers, should be maintained.
Secretary PAUL. That is all I have to say.
Mr. TIARoy. I don't know how you could arrive at a ratio between
the two that, you could reasonably think is a sacred thing either be-
cause you are talking now about incentive to stay in the service, aren't
you?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir; retention is the No. 1 problem.
Mr. BENNETT. Certainly we don't feel more conservative than the
Department does on this bill. Let's go ahead and put in the $30. We
are being ridiculous. We are not going to cut
Mr. RIVERS. Would this increase the figure for to $280?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. What, have we put in the bill right to this point.?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Let me recapitulate if T. can, and I wish the De-
partment would follow me on this, because this is going to be compli-
cated, but if you will take a pad I will try to go through the bill.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, out down tin' figures, what we have added.
Mr. IlLANDFouu. Yes, Sir.
Mr. HARDY. I think you must keep in mind when you are doing this,
some of these things may he a little more effective as an incentive to
stay aboard than some of the others.
Mr. BLANDFORD. If you add $30 to the pay scales for all officers and
warrant officers, this increases it by $1.32 million.
Mr. RivEus. That is over what Department sent. up here?
Mr. BLANDFORD. It should be $135, because you have social security,
severance, pay, and terminal leave. So make it $135 million.
Mr. RIVERS. Good.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, when you took out the section dealing with
obligated versus unobligated reservists, the :figure that the Depart-
ment originally gave me was $38 million; they have now modified.
that figure to how much?
Mr. BENNETT. $23,880,000.
Mr: BLANDFORD. That is $25 million more to the bill, because we did
not discriminate between the obligated and un.obligated reservists.
hardly say this is our responsibility. I don't think it should have
been, sent over that way in the first place.
Mr. RIVERS. Add 23 more.
Mr. BLAND-FORD. Yes, constructive credit, you can take a savino. of
$1,718,000.
Mr. GAVIN. Minus.
Mr. RIVERS. 1.8.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/041214 CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I. BLANDnoan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gut:sill. That is a minus,
Mr. BLANDFOI3D. It is a saving for Ili, whatever way you want to look
at this.
Mr. litvrits. You have this written down on the savings, don't, you?
Nrr. BLAxonoan, Now, h?," permitting sea and foreipm duty pay, by
restoring it we add hy taking out Hawaii at -I Mott
people. Mr. Gorham silys it is about $ti tio that is $1?28iiiillion
we have added back in the bill.
.By eliminating the unusual hardship provision, we have savo I:to
million. By putting in the family separation allowance and the per
diem and everything else we have that goes with that, we have ;added
50 million.
Now. I might say at this point that that is the first real iAldit ion
out of Sl.,..200 million-a-this is the first original thought that he sub-
committee has offered. This is the only area where we really have
increased anything.. This is a new idea-a-li4.50 million.
HATI:s. What was the one before that, unusual hardship?
Mr. II:LA:corium. $:10 million. sa
11r. R.VrEs. Right.
r. Noroun. Now. r you increase officers subsist enve from
to a month, that is $1:1 million.
Mr. IItonuEsToN. That figure again?
M
I. BiAxnroun.
But the Department wanted to spend $1.21) million.
Mr. linAxnrotto. les. sir; I will take that saving in a moment.
Mr. Eaviats. Good. We want to get- the saving.
Mr. 14.Axiwolm. 'The amount that would have gone to officers with
the $77 was1.21,951,000,
Utartis. So you add over .74121 million to the other column!
Mr. I ',t.aNni-oan. I )(pending on which_ side of t he ledger you are put -
t ill!r these on.
Now, you increased t iqnannited ...at ion for t he enlisted man \vhich
is the sencond 111,r thinii that we have done in this lull to make it more
all rite( lye to stay in the armed services, this costs $48 million.
Riviais. Good:ilS million.
BLANtwoun. Now, by increasim, he ii t a da:,- as we
proposed it, it would have cost SI5 million. I I hiak that that figure
can he reduced somewhat by language ?ve used which makes it subject
Iii regulations. for practical !imposts.
Mr. flow much is that ?
Mr. BLANDionn. It can be reduced to $10 million.
GionitAm. fly s'dii million.
Mr. litaxonoun. In WIRT WOrdS., to $5 iiiihlwn 1}VrallSe
We now St ra lirhiteil out this situation where next door neighbors draw
different ration allowances. We deoided to put uniform allowances
hack in. That adds $:;,r,91 ,tion to the bill. Then we eliminated Sonic
Oh itrr---
lily:xi:Tr. The S million was already there.
Mr. fil.ANDFoltIL TIW other elements in here come up to maybe, a
conple of million dollars. We eliminated I ravel on canceled, modilied,
or revoked orders; you can take a million saving on that.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/2117ClA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
Mr. RIVERS. What did we save by putting in separate legislation
bills?
Mr. BLANDFORD. We haven't saved it yet, but assuming that we act
on it, it will be an additional cost. That comes to a total of $425
Mr. RIVERS. 425. Now, the savings come to how much?
Secretary PAUL. I don't think you mentioned one item. The in-
crease in the retired pay by permitting this retroactive provision.
Mr. BLANDFORD. By letting anybody who retires tins calendar year
recompute under the new pay scales would be $4,700,000.
Mr. RIVERS. Now, you add up the others.
Mr. HummEsToN. How about the new date? That is a big item.
Mr. BATES. Yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The effective date nobody can guess at. I am
assuming this to be a July 1 effective date.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes.
Secretary PAUL. $300 million in the budget.
Mr. BLANDFoRn. What happens is that we have increased the bill
by $129 million. We have eliminated $153 million. We have added
about $270 million to the bill. The cost of the bill as sent over was
$1,242 million. The new total is approximately $1,500 million.
However, I want to call your attention to the fact that of that
amount of the $1,500 million, $134 million was in sea and foreign
duty pay and we have put that back in the bill.
The 38, which I use as a figure, it is now $23 million, was the obli-
gated versus the unobli(mted reservist. So a (rood deal of the addi-
tional cost of this bill is simply by our refusal to eliminate benefits
now in existence for service people. So I don't think it can be said that
this subcommittee has been excessive in its expenditures over and above
the original cost of this bill as it came over.
Mr. RIVERS. Now, adding the $30 basic across the board, which would
be $135 million, makes it?how much if we added to the bill which we
produced, counting the savings, over what the Department did, $280
million?
Mr. BLANDFORD. The net increase now
Mr. RIVERS. Including the $30.
Mr. BLANDFORD. When you put the uniform allowances in you threw
mo way off. It now comes to a :net; increase, $2,287,000. Now I have
to subtract $3,961,000 and add it on to my
Mr. R,IVERS. Mow much is that?
Secretary PAUL. 7.2 million swing.
Mr. RIVERS. How much have we increased the bill including $30?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Amount $270 million.
Mr. RivEr.s. Including $30 across the board and restoring sea pay?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.
Mr. STRATTON. Don't you have to add this $300 million by moving
up the effective date?
Mr. BLANDFORD. We have been assuming a fiscal year for 1964.
Mr. STRATTON. You mean the overall cost has been assumed on the
basis of a full fiscal year.
Mr. BArEs. No. This is $1,800 million for the next fiscal year.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/W1'0.i CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Arr. BLANDForin. No, sir. $1,A0 million, on a full fiscal Year. If
by some miracle this bill became effective on May I. it would be more
costly.
Mr..B.-yrns. -Wait a minute. Let's et it straifditened out. This $1,-
200 million, is the way it ratoP to us. We have added to it up to
sl .:i00
Mr. BLANDF4 am. Yes, sir, for a full fiscal year.
BATES. I t he 1.2 on a full fiscal year ?
Mr. Bi..uxnrortn. Yes, sir.
liENNFIV. I move we approve the $30 across the board.
Afr. TInnr. Before we do. that, I rase a question--and you are going
lo have to bear m mind that somebody is goim-, to look at this )riginal
hull and make some comparisons.
In view of these other changes and in view of the fact that- actually
instead of reducing the amount by $30, if you do th:_s on the basis of ft
$10 increase, we reduerd the subsistence, proposed subsistence allow-
ance by $06.
There is a quest ion in my mind as to whether if we are still talking
about what it takes -from an incentive standpoint to keep theta in the
service, in the light of the other thim-,s we have added, there is a ques-
tion in my mind as to whether we should go the full $30.
Mr. BENN-Err. Move to amend it :nal strike $4. Just move -o make
my amendment of $4. Subst if me that and make it $26. and we can
go to these issues.
Mr. BLANDFoan. I think in answer to Mr. Hardy's, quest ams we
should note this, that the separation allowance is $:7)0 million.
Mr. ThilDY. I know it isnot taxable.
Mr. rir..\ Nopottn. No. the separation allowance is $50 million. Most
families go with the service member or the breadwinner ?
Mr. Ilmny. You are talkin7 about it in terms of dollars, I am ( alk-
itt.cr in terms of incentive.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Tneentive is somathimr that you have to measure in
erms of dollars.
Mr. Timor. I understand that. But the fellow who is beirg sepa-
rated and not getting anything for it. is the one whose morale is most
it ffeet ed.
Mr. BLANnronn. Yes. and you are frying io compensate him and
provide something for his family to take care of the addit icnal ex-
penses when he is 9Thle. That. is $50 million. Butt I don't think that
should he considered as part of basic pay.
Mr. TTAnoy. 1 don't have any problem with that. I am saying to
you, if you are talking about incentive to stay in. about morale. the
.fellow who is getting the TM" without the per diem, the fellow
who is separated without Ow separation allowance iS the place
at whirl, you have got the bad morale factor. Now-, if you corrected
that. I think you have done a little hit more insofar. as. your total
disposition to still- aboard is concerned than you would if you just
make the across-the-board increase.
Mr. Iirma.s. Let's say this, Mr. Hardy, maybe you hadn't thought
of this: When they sent up the Civil Service and Post Office pay bill
the committee raised it. I think. $500 million withont batting au. eye.
Mr. ITAnny. I thought about t lint Fit fort unately, We werimmi on
I hat committee.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1767
Mr. RIVERS. We went along with that. I am willing to stand or fall
on what we do here today. If we lose, we lose on a principle. If we
win, we ought to win.
Mr. HARDY. I want to do that too. The point is, if you are talking
about dollars, that is one thing. If you are talking about incentive,
that is another factor.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You are talking about two things, morale and
incentive.
Mr. HARDY. All right. You are talking about morale and incentive
as against dollars.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You are talking about morale, and when you are
talking about the man who is separated from his family because he
is doing his duty properly? and you are talking about incentive as
regards a man making the military his career.
Mr. HARDY. But you can't separate that, if you have a morale
problem, on the one hand, it is also going to affect his incentive.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Certainly, if his morale is down low enough, ob-
viously, he is going to get out of the service.
Mr. GAVIN. I feel this bill is a good bill and we want to keep the
morale of the American defense system right up on top. We want
to keep our services right at the top with good morale. So when it
comes to $4.9 billion for foreign aid and it comes to $5 to $6 billion
for subsidies I just don't think that this $1.5 billion is out of order by
any stretch of the imagination.
MT. RIVERS. I don't either.
Mr. BENNETT. I agree, I agree.
Mr. GAVIN. Therefore I don't think that we have to go on the floor
of the House and
Mr. RIVERS. Apologize.
Mr. GAVIN. That is right, and do anything but just lay it on the
line, because there are a number of places that I will call to atten-
tion on the floor where we have made very generous contributions.
It is a funny thing, they will take a $5 billion foreign aid bill and
spend about?well, maybe 4 to 6 hours, I would say; is that right?
Mr. RIVERS. About that.
Mr. GAVIN. About that. But when it comes to doing something
for our own people in our Own backyard, our own home, our DIVII
country, then we start to quibble on this and quibble on that. So I
just feel that we want to build the greatest national defense that this
country has ever had, and maintain it; not just build it, but maintain
it. So if we ever get in difficulties again
Mr. RIVERS. We have got them.
Mr. GAVIN. We won't have our guard down, we will be ready to do
business.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Secretary, in view of the changes the committee
has made, is it your position that to add this increase in the basic pay
would make it more in balance? Was that your statement, as to the
officers?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Bennett, have we adopted this $30 provision?
Mr., RIVERS. No, we haven't yet. What is the pleasure of the
committee?
Mr. BENNETT. I move that we do put it in.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
I .7(i:-;
r. I lAnnv. If 1 he Secretary thinks that is what we are trOl11.0- to
need, I am not going to argue about It
Air. STRATTON. May we have the exact mot ion ?
Mr. RivEas. Mr. Bennett moves that we increase the basic; pay of
officers across 11w board front to( )-10.
Mr. ltt.ANDronn. ..And AV - 1 t ltromdi AV-- -1.
Mr. litvta:s. Yes, a mont h.
F.STuArrox. $:10 in every one of I host, categorie::.
ItivEns. Every one of I hose, including W-1 through W-4.
r. t-esta.t. We Ore tlepressing the pay scale----
M r. I i.A xnroan. No.
M r. rnsyn, t he board. I :tilt not goin(2.- -
Mr. HIVElts. You have heard the mot ion. All in fa VOr ?
( 'hair says the ayes have it.
)id volt vote -no-
( Mr -no-.
Mr. GAvrc. Thank you.
Mr. 1 3 LA tiliFoRti. That settles it,
Arr. RtvEits. I want to thank the committee for your patience.
think everybody has contributed to ( his bill.
Mr. Secretary. I want to thank vou for your help and assistance.
hin't you think we got a pretty good bill ?
'retarv Nur.. I appreciate yom. courtesy. Mr. Chairman, in
allowing its to help.
Mr. I (4.ANnro.un. Shall I lte action of the committee ?
Mr. liENNETr. Let's Vote on it .
Mr. 1:1vEns. The question is on 1110 bill as :intended.
Mr. lii.ANDFoun. i fthal is the quest ion.
Mr. IltvEns. The quest ion is on t he bill as amended. As many as
favor tile commit tee print as :Intended. will raise his hand.
Mr. IiI.Axtironn. I nanimons, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. liExtirrr. 1 wolthl like to out this in tIre record.
1:tvEas. Yes.
(The document referred to is as follows:
COM MISAIONED OFFICERS .?SSOCIATION OF THE
V.S. IIEALTII SERVICE. INC.
Bethesda. d ftreh 5, 1963.
(7tt.ou.r.s E. BEN NETT,
ho u. of Representatires.
Washington, DP.
Itt:Att tlii. BENNEET: The Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public
I [(taint Service appreciates the request and opportunity ill comment on the re-
commendations made by the JrA Force Pay Study Panel as embodied in their
report of January 2-1, 1063.
The associathm has reviewed the report and is particularly impressid with
(he realistic levels of the proposed Air Puree pay rates especially as they relate
to the problems the Public Health Service faces to relation to comparability
%vitt( ctvii service and recruitment and retention of (heir commissioneil ('0)) IS
ittlicers.
The association recognizt?s that budgetary considerations must he talzon into
account. Therefore, perhaps the ntost feasible plan to provide adequate com-
pensation to members of the uniformed services and at the same time restore
the sante historical comparability relationship between the uniformed s,arvices
and the civil service. is to include in the present pay legislation, authorization
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
1769
for incremental pay increases. The incremental pay increases recommended by
the Air Force Pay Study Panel are practical and more realistic and would have.
a salutary effect on all members of the uniformed services.
The problems and objectives of the Air Force are similar to those of the
Public Health Service. The Public Health Service is seriously concerned with
the lack of comparable compensation to that received for like work in private
enterprise or civil service. This was pointed out in the association's testi-
mony before Chairman Rivers' subcommittee. The association stated at that
time: "Lack of comparability jeopardizes the essential career system of the
Public Health Service when officers who supervise civil service personnel receive
$150 to $200 a month less pay." The Public Health Service is equally concerned
with the inadequacy of current retention rates to provide qualified replacements.
The Air Force report cites the decrease in the production of engineers and
the need for the uniformed services to "be placed in a better hiring position if
efforts are to be successful in procuring and retaining necessary quantities of
skilled personnel." This section was particularly noted in that a similar problem
exists in the Public Health Service. The Commissioned Officers Association of
the U.S. Public Health Service wholeheartedly concurs with that part of the
Air Force report which states: "This President stressed the need to provide
Government employees with salaries comparable to those paid by industry to
persons with similar positions or responsibilities. His message also pointed
up the need to reduce compression between grades. The current pay bill does
not meet these objectives in many officer grades."
If, in its wisdom, the Armed Services Committee feels that due to budgetary
considerations it is impractical to substantially raise the proposed rates, the
Commissioned Officers Association urges the committee to at least include
authorization in the present bill for future incremental pay increases similar
to those recommended by the Air Force,
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. LUCCA, Jr., Executive Director.
Mr. BLANDFORD. 1 would like to insert a statement by Congressman
.Matsunaga, of Hawaii, urging enactment of H.R. 3006.
Mr. RavEns. Without objection.
(Statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF 'SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM TUE STATE
OF HAWAII
Mr. Chairman, the greatness of our country today is measured to a degree by
the high standard of living of our people. Through legislation we have helped
to secure for the American worker a living wage for a shorter workweek. We
have, however, sorely neglected a great segment of our population who are in
fact employees of the Government?the members of our armed services. The
sad economic plight of service families is especially noticeable in areas such as
Hawaii where military stations are maintained. From firsthand observation
.1 know that the wives of servicemen are forced to work as waitresses and bar-
maids to make ends meet, thereby creating many domestic and social problems
involving the wife and children.
Like any working American, our men in uniform who labor in the defense of
our Nation deserve a decent living wage. They are not presently getting it. The
passage of H.R. 3000 would help to correct this situation.
We must remember too that the defense of our Nation and of our way of life
must be entrusted to our ablest men. We must attract the best qualified to serve
as officers in our armed services. We cannot do this and are in fact losing many
of our most promising young officers and potential officers because of our tow pay
scale. For the good of our country we must provide incentives for our men in
uniform to remain in uniform for as long as they are needed.
I 'therefore urge your favorable report on H.R. 3006. Thank you.
Mr. RIVERS. So the committee print, as amended, will be favorably
reported to the full committee and, Mr. Blandford, you will also get
the separate bills ready for presentation.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0
Approved For Release 2005/04/aMIA-RDP661300403R000400280006-0
ivERs. don"t give me a 29-page report to make to the full
commit Pe. Make it 27.
Air. I 4..kmwonn. Twenty-seven all right. Now, Mr. Chan nutn, un-
doubt edly the press will want to know the results of today, and this is
gol lig to be. a little hard to put together at one time. May I suggest
tloll t lie quest ion of what I lie :4 tibronimit tee has dole, that t suaom-
in iii ye has agreed to report a hill
to tile full committee, which involves
a cost or approximately $1,5o0 million.
Air. litvEns. Yes, sir.
Air. lit..kxnrotto. And I may be able to fill them in a little later on.
Mr. 1:IvErts. I will refer them to you.
Air. Mum-. I would think that :I. would be rather dangerous to
sI art releasing any information out of this bill until you get a print.
Mr. RIVERS. I do, too.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right, sir.
Mr. llivErts. Let's wait until we make the report to the full com-
mittee.
Air. lit...v....a-wont). No comment then until Tuesday morning when the
hill is reported to the full committee.
(Whereupon, at 4 :38 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66600403R000400280006-0