STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, U.S. NAVY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON MILITARY RETIREMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 11, 2013
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 2, 1985
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNTIL RELEASED BY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
STATEMENT BY
ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS, U.S. NAVY
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION
OF THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
ON
MILITARY RETIREMENT
2 APRIL 1985
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNTIL RELEASED BY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
ADMIRAL JAMES D. WATKINS
UNITED STATES NAVY
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
James David Watkins was born in California on March 7, 1927. A 1949
graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. he served in destroyers, then subma-
rines. He received a masters degree in mechanical engineering from the Naval
Postgraduate School in 1958 after completing the reactor engineering course
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
From 1960-62, he served as executive officer of the nuclear-powered at-
tack submarine USS Snook (SSN 592). Later. from 1964-66. he command-
ed the same submarine, participating in the first visit of a nuclear-powered ship
to Yokosuka. Japan, during that tour. Between these two tours of duty. he
was assigned to duty in the office of manager naval reactors, Atomic Energy
Commission. By 1967, he had left submarines and served as executive officer
of the nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser USS Long Beach (CGN 9) dur-
ing two Gulf of Tonkin deployments in which Long Beach participated in shoot-
?
ing down five North Vietnamese enemy aircraft, two by long-range missiles.
it
He was then ordered to duty in the Bureau of Naval Personnel and became director of the nuclear-trained
personnel branch. After selection to rear admiral in 1971. he was again assigned to duty in the Bureau of Naval
Personnel as director of enlisted personnel. the first flag officer to be so assigned.
In September 1973. he was ordered to,duty as Commander. Cruiser-Destroyer Group One, subsequently
commanding Cruiser-Destroyer Force,' U.S: Seventh Fleet, as well as a surface task group which deployed to the
Indian Ocean in 1974. In December 1974. he was nominated for promotion to vice admiral and. in April 1975.
was appointed Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower and Chief of Naval Personnel.
In September 1978, he was ordered to duty as Commander, Sixth Fleet, also assuming NATO duties as Com-
mander, Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe. In April 1979, the President nominated him for
appointment to the grade of admiral and as Vice Chief of Naval Operations. He served as Commander in Chief.
U.S. Pacific Fleet from July 31, 1981 to May 28, 1982. Admiral Watkins was nominated in March 1982 by Presi-
dent Reagan to succeed Admiral Thomas B. Hayward on June 30, 1982, as the twenty-second Chief of Naval
Operations.
Admiral Watkins married Sheila McKinney of San Diego, Calif., in 1950. They have six children: Katherine.
Laura Jo, Susan, Charles, James Jr., and Edward. His brother, retired Captain George C. Watkins. USN. was
a graduate of the Naval Academy, class of 1944. His son Charles is a 1977 graduate of the Naval Academy. His
son Edward is in the NROTC program at the University of California, Berkeley campus, class of 1985.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
MR. CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE MY PERSPECTIVE ON
OUR MILITARY RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE POTENTIAL, OR LACK OF IT,
FOR USEFUL CHANGE. I LIKE TO THINK I BRING A LITTLE SOMETHING
EXTRA IN THE WAY OF EXPERIENCE TO THIS DISCUSSION. I'VE HAD
SEVERAL TOURS IN OUR BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, THE LAST AS ITS
CHIEF. IN ADDITION, AS THE SENIOR UNIFORMED OFFICIAL IN OUR
SERVICE, CHARGED WITH THE WELL BEING OF OUR PEOPLE AS WELL AS
MAINTENANCE OF COMBAT READY FORCES, I'M VITALLY CONCERNED. THERE
SHOULD BE NO DOUBT, THE WAY NAVY MEN AND WOMEN PERCEIVE THIS KEY
BENEFIT AND THE COMBAT READINESS OF OUR NAVY ARE INEXORABLY
RELATED. BOTH ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE, THEN, SHOULD BE OF VITAL
CONCERN TO ALL WHO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN NO LACK OF DISCUSSION, STUDY
OR HEARINGS OVER THE YEARS; MANY OF THESE RESULTED IN INCREASED
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SUBJECT, INCLUDING BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF RETIREMENT TO MANY OTHER PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
TOOLS. EVEN SO, I AM STRUCK BY THE UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF MIS?
INFORMATION ON MILITARY RETIREMENT. ANYONE WHO READS ANY OF THE
MANY PAPERS CONTAINING ARTICLES ON THIS ISSUE, WELL MEANING ARTICLES
I AM SURE, COMES AWAY BELIEVING THAT A NAVYMAN CAN RETIRE AFTER
TWENTY YEARS WITH HALF PAY. WELL, THOSE PEOPLE ARE WRONG! READING
IT TIME AFTER TIME DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT. TOGETHER WE, THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE MILITARY AND YOU, THE CONGRESS, HAVE ESTABLISHED
A SYSTEM OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES THAT IS SO COMPLEX IT IS NOT WELL
UNDERSTOOD, EVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE PAID UNDER THE SYSTEM. BECAUSE
OF THE MANY FACETS OF HIS PAY WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
RETIREMENT COMPUTATION, A CHIEF PETTY OFFICER ON A SUBMARINE WITH
TWENTY YEARS OF SERVICE WOULD RETIRE AT SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 27% OF
HIS PAY. AN ISOLATED CASE? NO. A CHIEF ON A DESTROYER WOULD
RECEIVE 31% AND MOST OTHER EXAMPLES ARE SIMILAR. I DON'T EXPECT
NEWSPAPERS TO. GO INTO ENOUGH DETAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT TURNS
OUT THIS WAY BUT WE, AS THE LEADERS OF THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED,
ARE OBLIGATED TO DO JUST THAT.
THE RECENT GRACE COMMISSION DID A GREAT DEAL OF GOOD WORK.
I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT THEIR MILITARY RETIREMENT EFFORT DOES NOT
FIT IN THAT CATEGORY. GRACE'S ASSERTIONS THAT THE SYSTEM IS SIX
TIMES MORE COSTLY THAN PRIVATE SECTOR PLANS IS SIMPLY INCORRECT.
ANALYZED IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF PAY THE MILITARY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM PROVIDES ABOUT 1.2 TO 1.5 TIMES MORE THAN THE AVERAGE
PRIVATE SECTOR PLAN. NOTE THAT IT IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE PLAN.)
I WOULD HOPE SO. OUR PEOPLE PROVIDE A GOOD DEAL MORE THAN AVERAGE
SERVICE IN RETURN FOR THIS BENEFIT AND FOR THE MOST PART RECEIVE
A GOOD BIT LESS THAN AVERAGE COMPENSATION WHILE THEY SERVE.
IT IS WORTHWHILE TO EXAMINE, IN SUMMARY FASHION, THE HISTORY
AND RATIONALE BEHIND OUR PRESENT SYSTEM. THE OTHER SERVICE CHIEFS
ARE HERE TODAY, SO I'LL RELATE MY REMARKS DIRECTLY TO NAVY BUT, I
AM SURE, MOST APPLY TO THE OTHERS AS WELL. PRIOR TO THE START OF
WORLD WAR II MILITARY CAREERS OF 30 TO 40 YEARS WERE THE NORM.
VIGOR AND INITIATIVE WERE STIFLED BECAUSE OF PROMOTION STAGNATION.
AS GENERAL MACARTHUR SAID, "WE HAVE SPENT THE FIRST 5 TO 6 MONTHS
OF EVERY WAR REORGANIZING AND GETTING SET?UP SO. THAT WE COULD
START TO ENLIST AND TRAIN FORCES WHO COULD FIGHT THE WAR."
GENERAL EISENHOWER ARGUED IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY DURING 1946
2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
AND 1947 THAT WE MUST TAKE STEPS TO MAINTAIN A YOUTHFUL AND VIGOROUS
_
FORCE AND NOT REGRESS TO THE EXTENDED CAREER POLICIES OF THE PAST.
AS A RESULT OF THESE AND OTHER EXPERIENCES, CONGRESS SET UP A
SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE NATION WELL. IT IS AN INCENTIVE TO YOUNG
MEN AND WOMEN TO GIVE THE MIDDLE 20 OR MORE YEARS OF THEIR LIVES IN
SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY KNOWING THAT THEY WILL HAVE A BASE INCOME ON
WHICH TO BUILD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THEIR LIVES. IT USES A PRINCIPLE
WELL KNOWN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY -- DEFERRED COMPENSATION. DOLLARS
SPENT FOR RETIREMENT ARE NOT SPENT IN ISOLATION FROM OTHER COMPEN-
SATION DOLLARS. LET ME BE MORE SPECIFIC.
NAVY IS THE LARGEST USER OF SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUSES.
WE ALSO PAY SEA PAY TO THOSE WHO ARE SERVING IN DEPLOYABLE UNITS.
THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS NONE OF WHICH
INCREASE BY ONE PENNY THE RETIREMENT FOR WHICH A SAILOR BECOMES
ELIGIBLE. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARRANGEMENT? IT IS A WAY TO
ENCOURAGE OUR PEOPLE TO.D0 THE JOBS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. IN THAT
REGARD IT IS NOT TOO DIFFERENT FROM DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR SHIFT WORK
THAT IS COMMON IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THOUGH, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, WE
PAY NOTHING EXTRA TO OUR MANY PEOPLE WHO ROUTINELY WORK SIX AND
SEVEN DAY WEEKS AND SPEND MONTHS AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES. WHEN
ENOUGH PEOPLE IN A PARTICULAR CAREER FIELD DECIDE TO STAY IN THE
NAVY, WE BEGIN TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE BONUS FOR THAT SPECIALTY.
WE CONTINUE TO ADJUST THE LEVELS UNTIL WE GET THE "RIGHT" AMOUNT OF
RETENTION. THIS IS A RESPONSIBLE WAY TO MANAGE THE PROGRAM AND IT
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30 CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
ENSURES THAT TAXPAYERS DON'T PAY TOO MUCH FOR A PARTICULAR SKILL.
IF THESE VARIABLE COMPENSATION PACKAGES DO NOT AFFECT RETIREES PAY
THEN HOW DO THEY RELATE TO RETIREMENT?
THERE IS NO DO BT TI4kT_-EUTflRERETIREMENT DOLLARS PLAY A LARGE
ROLE IN PEOPLES' DECISIONS TO REMAIN WITH US OR TO RETURN TO CIVILIAN
LIFE. WE USED TO THINK THAT ANYONE WHO STAYED WITH US PAST SEVEN
YEARS WAS A "CAREER" SAILOR. WE FOUND OUT WE WERE WRONG IN THE
LATE 1970's WHEN TOUGH OPERATING SCHEDULES COMBINED WITH LOW PAY
AND HIGH INFLATION CAUSED MANY MID?CAREER PERSONNEL TO LEAVE US.
CONTINUED PRESS REPORTS AND APPREHENSION CONCERNING RETIREMENT
STABILITY ARE PRODUCING DATA THAT CLEARLY SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE BENEFIT TO OUR PEOPLE. DURING FY-84, AMONG THOSE WHO DECIDED
TO LEAVE THE NAVY WITH BETWEEN 9 AND 14 YEARS OF SERVICE, "FEAR OF
LOSING RETIREMENT BENEFITS" WAS THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR SEPARATING.
DOES THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM KEEP PEOPLE IN THE NAVY? IT WON'T DO IT
ALONE BUT, AS THE DATA.SHOWS, IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. REDUCING
RETIREMENT BENEFITS WILL_REDUCE_RETENTION. THAT, IN TURN, WILL
CAUSE US TO RAISE OTHER LEVELS OF PAY. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
WILL IT COST MORE OR LESS TO DO IT WITH DOLLARS IN SOME SCHEME
OTHER THAN OUR PRESENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM? I DON'T HAVE PRECISE
ANSWERS THAT I TRUST. BUT I DO KNOW THAT BREAKING FAITH WITH OUR
PEOPLE WHO JOINED THE NAVY AND SERVE WITH AN EXPECTATION OF THEIR
PRESENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM AT THE END OF THEIR CAREERS WILL CAUSE AN
___________ ?
EXODUS-- AND RIGHTFULLY SO. IT WILL COST US MONEY AND READINESS
TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WHILE WE EXPERIMENT, WE, AND
THE NATION'S DEFENSE WILL SUFFER UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT AGAIN. THAT
DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE APPROACH TO ME.
4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-06066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
A FEW MOMENTS AGO I MENTIONED THE GRACE COMMISSION. MUCH OF
THIS REPORT CENTERED ON COMPARISONS WITH PRIVATE SECTOR PLANS. I'D
LIKE TO DO A LITTLE COMPARING MYSELF, FOR, IF WE ARE TO CONSIDER ONE
PART OF MY PEOPLES' COMPENSATION, I'D LIKE TO DO A SLIGHTLY MORE
COMPREHENSIVE JOB. IF YOU CAN AGREE WITH ME THAT WE MUST LOOK AT AN
ENTIRE COMPENSATION PACKAGE AS A MOTIVATING, OR DEMOTIVATING, FORCE
THEN WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PICTURE BEFORE MAKING REASONED
DECISIONS.
PEOPLE IN THE NAVY ARE NOT OVERPAID. LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLES
BASED ON BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. A NAVY SECOND CLASS PETTY
OFFICER ON SEA DUTY MAKES SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 1/3 AS MUCH AS A MERCHANT
MARINE ELECTRICIAN. HE MAKES LESS THAN 1/2 AS MUCH AS A CIVIL
SERVICE WORKER IN THE SAME OCCUPATION. WHEN A NAVYMAN OR WOMAN IS
TRANSFERRED TO A NEW DUTY STATION MUCH OF THE COST OF THE MOVE IS
PAID BY THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT. THOUGH I DON'T THINK
SO, THAT MIGHT BE ALRIGHT, .IF THAT WERE THE CASE FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES.
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN TO BE THE CASE. A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE (GS-9) WITH
A WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN MOVING FROM SAN DIEGO TO WASHINGTON, D.C.,
WOULD RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY $19,350 IN CASH AND BENEFITS. A CHIEF
PETTY OFFICER, SAME SIZE FAMILY, SAME MOVE, RECEIVES LESS THAN
$2,000. OUR PEOPLE ARE TRANSFERRED MANY TIMES DURING A CAREER.
UNLIKE THEIR CIVILIAN COUNTERPARTS THESE TRANSFERS ARE NOT VOLUNTARY.
THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SERVICE. IT TAKES OUR RETIRING CHIEF PETTY
OFFICER TWO YEARS OF RETIRED PAY JUST TO MAKE UP WHAT HE LOST ON
ONE TRANSFER. IF YOU ADD UP ALL THE DOLLARS RECEIVED DURING, AND
AFTER, ACTIVE SERVICE, MUCH OF THE "GOOD DEAL" BEGINS TO LOOK LESS
GOOD.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
4
I HAVE PAINTED A STARK PICTURE AND ONE WONDERS WHY AS MANY AS
13% OF ENLISTEES DO REMAIN TO SERVE AT LEAST 20 YEARS. IT IS SIMPLE.
THERE IS MUCH MORE TO A NAVAL CAREER THAN MONEY. MOST NAVY PEOPLE
COULD EARN MORE SOME OTHER WAY. THAT FACT IS BORNE OUT BY SEVERAL
REPUTABLE STUDIES THAT SHOW MILITARY RETIREES' LIFESTREAM EARNING,
INCLUDING RETIRED PAY, TO BE LESS THAN THOSE WITH COMPARABLE
CIVILIAN CAREERS. OUR PEOPLE STAY FOR SEVERAL REASONS. HARD WORK,
FAMILY SEPARATION, YEARS OF LOWER THAN AVERAGE COMPENSATION, ARE
OFFSET BY DESIRE FOR MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTIONS TO JOBS AND ORGANIZA-
TIONS THEY CAN RESPECT, BY THE CAMARADERIE THAT COMES FROM SERVICE
WITH LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS IN SHARP UNITS, BY A TRUE SENSE OF
PATRIOTISM THAT I SENSE WHEN I VISIT OUR FLEET UNITS AND, YES, BY A
FEELING OF SECURITY FOR THEIR FAMILIES THAT WE HAVE LED THEM TO
BELIEVE IS AVAILABLE TO THEM WHEN THEIR SERVICE IS DONE. UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT. WOULD URTATNIA_NPT BE ORN..H.ICAL
TO BREAK CONTRACT WITH AND EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY
_ .... _
CaQSEN TO. SERVE.
MANY MAJOR CHANGES HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE TO MILITARY RETIREMENT.
HIGH THREE YEAR AVERAGING NOW PERTAINS TO THOSE WHO CAME ABOARD AFTER
1980. SEMI-ANNUAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS (WE MISTAKENLY REFER
TO THEM AS "PAY RAISES") BECAME ANNUAL, THEN EVERY 13 MONTHS.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE CAPPED FOR RETIREES DURING THE PAST THREE FISCAL
YEARS. THESE ARE NOT TRIVIAL CHANGES. IF WE WERE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO
LIMIT A RETIRING CHIEF PETTY OFFICER TO 1/2 INFLATION FOR HIS COST
OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT EVERY YEAR FROM TRANSFER TO FLEET RESERVE AT
41 UNTIL HE REACHED AGE 62, AND THE NATION AVERAGED 5% INFLATION
DURING THOSE YEARS, HE WOULD LOSE 40% OF HIS RETIRED PAY'S BUYING
'6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
POWER. REMEMBER, THIS FELLOW ONLY STARTED WITH 27% OF HIS PAY WHEN
HE FINISHED HIS 20 YEARS. THIS TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT CAN BEST BE
CATEGORIZED AS CRUEL. PEOPLE WON'T UNDERSTAND IT UNTIL IT IS TOO
LATE. THEN THEY WILL FEEL BETRAYED, AND RIGHTFULLY SO IN MY OPINION.
IT WON'T TAKE LONG FOR THE WORD TO GET BACK TO THE VERY PEOPLE WE
NEED TO RETAIN AND IT WON'T BE ONLY RETIRED PEOPLE WE HAVE HURT.
MANY SEEM TO BE CONCERNED BECAUSE OF MAJOR INCREASES IN RETIRED
PAY THAT WERE REALIZED BY SOME DURING THE 1970's. THAT WAS THE
DIRECT IMPACT OF RUNAWAY INFLATION COUPLED WITH ACTIVE DUTY PAY
BEING HELD AT LOWER LEVELS. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR RETIREES
WERE NOT MATCHED BY SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS FOR THOSE ON ACTIVE DUTY.
THAT IS NOT A FAULT OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. IT IS A RESULT OF
OUTRAGEOUS INFLATION AND DECISIONS TO HOLD DOWN ACTIVE DUTY PAY.
ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL RESPONDED BY LEAVING IN DROVES. CHANGING THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS NOT A LOGICAL FIX FOR THE PROBLEMS OF THE
1970's. OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO AVOID SUCH PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.
I HAVE REFERRED TO THE "RETIRED" PAY SYSTEM THROUGHOUT MY
STATEMENT TODAY. THAT IS NOT REALLY AN ACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE SYSTEM. FOR MANY YEARS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE AFTER ACTIVE
SERVICE, IT IS "RETAINER" PAY. THAT IS THE WAY IT IS STATED IN MUCH
OF THE PERTINENT LEGISLATION. COLONEL THEODORE ROOSEVELT, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AT THE TIME THE FLEET RESERVE WAS ESTABLISHED,
DESCRIBED RETAINER PAY DURING A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING AS, "ADVANCED
RETIREMENT PAY...RETIREMENT PAY GIVEN BEFORE THEY GET TO THE AGE OF
RETIREMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR WHICH THEY GIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS TO THE
7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30 : CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT . " 'THIS CATEGORY WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS
? IN 1916 TO PROVIDE A POOL OF EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL WHO COULD BE
RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY ON SHORT NOTICE IN TIME OF WAR OR EMERGENCY.
THAT AUTHORITY WAS EXERCISED IN 1942 WHEN 67% OF OUR FLEET RESERVE
AND ENLISTED RETIREES WERE RECALLED TO JOIN IN THE FIGHT. THE FLEET
RESERVE CONCE11 IS A8 VALID TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1916 -- A POOL OF
DEDICATED, HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL WHO ARE READY TO SERVE. IT IS
A LOGICAL ADJUNCT TO THE OTHER PORTIONS OF OUR NAVAL RESERVE AND
PRECISELY IN LINE WITH THE MANY RESERVE INITIATIVES UNDERWAY IN ALL
OUR SERVICES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAY NOT HAVE HELPED YOU MUCH TODAY. I HAVE
NOT GI7N YOU A BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW RETIREMENT SYSTEM. I DON'T
THINK WE NEED ONE. I THINK WE NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR
SYSTEM DOES FOR US, HOW IT RELATES TO READINESS, WHY IT HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WIT# RETURN?TO?THE DRAFT QUESTIONS,
AND HOW IT IS VIEWED BY THE PEOPLE IT AFFECTS MOST -- TODAY'S
ACTIVE DUTY NAVY MEN AND WOMEN, BOTH CAREERIST AND THOSE STILL
UNDECIDED. I REPRESENT THEM, AND I DO SO PROUDLY FOR THEY GIVE ME
EVERY REASON TO BE PROUD OF THEM. WE DON'T PAY THEM TOO MUCH,
WHILE THEY SERVE, WHILE THEY REMAIN IN OUR FLEET RESERVE OR, LATER,
WHEN THEY ARE TRULY RETIRED. THE COMPLEX SYSTEM WE HAVE TODAY HAS
EVOLVED AS A TOTAL, INTEGRATED SUPPLY?AND?DEMAND COMMPENSATION
SYSTEM AND ATTEMPTS TO REACH IN THE GRAB BAG AND EXCISE INDIVIDUAL
PIECES WILL ASSUREDLY STOP THE MACHINERY. THE AVERAGE ENLISTED MAN
GIVES US NEARLY 23 YEARS OUT OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE YEARS OF HIS
LIFE. THE AVERAGE OFFICER SERVES FOR 24 YEARS. WE DON'T PROVIDE
8
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6
ANY VESTING -- THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE END TO GET
ANYTHING AT ALL. I DON'T THINK WE DO TOO MUCH FOR THEM, AND I
CERTAINLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO ANY LESS.
I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/07/30: CIA-RDP89-00066R000700070005-6