MILITARY PAY INCREASE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 30, 2014
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: May 8, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963
Waggonner
Wallhauser
Watson
Weaver
Westland
WhalIey
Addabbo
Albert
Andrews
Ashley
Barrett
Bass
Beckworth
Bennett, Fla.
Blatnik
Boggs
Boland
Bonner
Brademas
Brooks
Brown, Calif.
Burke
Burkhalter
Byrne, Pa.
Cameron
Carey
Chelf
Clark
Cohelan
Corman
Daddario
Daniels
Davis, Ga.
Davis, Tenn.
Dawson
Delaney
Dent
Denton
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Dulski
Duncan
dmondson
dwards
lliott
verett
vins
allon
rbstein
ascell
eighan
innegan
God
aser
Friedel
Fulton, Tenn.
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gathings
Giaimo
Gilbert
Gill
Gonzalez
Grabowski
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Griffiths
Hagen, Calif.
Hanna
Adair
Anderson
Aspinall
Ayres
Beermann
Bolling
Buckley
Celler
Collier
Conte
Cooley
Fino
Wharton
Whitener
Whitten
Widnall
Williams
Wilson, Bob
NAYS-190
Wilson, Ind.
Winstead
Wydler
Wyman
Younger
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Hansen Philbin
Harding Pike
Hardy Pilcher
Hawkins Poage
Hays Powell
Hebert Price
Hechler Pucinski
Hemphill Purcell
Holifield Randall
Holland Reuss
Hull Rhodes, Pa.
Jarman Rivers, Alaska
Jennings Rivers, S.C.
Joelson Roberts, Ala.
Johnson, Calif. Rodino
Johnson, Wis. Rogers, Colo.
Jones, Ala. Rooney
Jones, Mo. Rosenthal
Karsten Rostenkowski
Karth Roush
Kastenmeier Roybal
Kelly Ryan, Mich.
King, Calif. Ryan, N.Y.
Kirwan St Germain
Kluczynski St. Onge
Landrum Secrest
Lankford
Leggett.
Lesinski
Libonati
Long, La.
Long, Md.
McDowell
McFall
Macdonald
Madden
Mahon
Matsunaga
Matthews
Mills
Minish
Monagan
Montoya
Moorhead
Morgan
Morrison
Moss
Selden
Senner
Sheppard
Shipley
Sickles
Sikes
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Staebler
Staggers
Stephens
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
Thomas
Thompson, La.
Thompson, N.J.
Thompson, Tex.
Thornberry
Toll
Trimble
Multer Tuten
Murphy, Ill. 'Udall
Murphy, N.Y. Ullman
Natcher Van Deerlin
Nedzi Vanik
Nix Vinson
O'Brien, Ill. Watts
O'Brien, N.Y. Weltner
O'Hara, Ill. White
O'Hara, Mich. Wickersham
Olsen, Mont. Willis
Olson, Minn. Wilson,
O'Neill Charles H.
Wright
Young
Zablocki
Patman
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
NOT VOTING-36
Fogarty
Forrester
Gary
Grant
Green, Pa.
Hagan, Ga.
Halpern
Harris
Harsha
Healey
Hoeven
Hosmer
Ichord
/Kee
Keogh
Miller, Calif.
Morton
Rains
Roosevelt
Scott
Shelley
Sisk
Steed
Walter
So the motion to recommit was agreed
to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Hoeven for, with Mr. Keogh against.
Mr. Beermann for, with Mr. Walter against.
Mr. Fino for, with Mr. Green of Pennsyl-
vania against.
Mr. Conte for, with Mr. Celler against.
Mr. Morton of Maryland for, with Mr.
Fogarty against.
Mr. Adair for, with Mr. Aspinall against.
Mr. Halpern for, with Mr. Buckley against.
Mr. Collier for, with Mr. Rains against.
Mr. Ayres for, with Mr. Roosevelt against.
Mr. Harsha for, with Mr. Shelley against
Mr. Anderson for, with Mr. Cooley against.
Mr. Hosmer for, with Mr. Sisk against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Miller of California, with Mr. Hagan
of Georgia.
Mr. Steed with Mrs. Kee.
Mr. Scott with Mr. Ichord.
Mr. Gary with Mr. Grant.
Mr. Harris with Mr. Forrester.
Messrs. ROBERTS of Texas, PASS-
MAN, WAGGONNER, and ROGERS of
Texas changed their vote from "nay" to
"yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce may sit this afternoon during
general debate.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the Spe-
cial Subcommittee on Education have
permission to sit this afternoon during
general debate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
MILITARY PAY INCREASE
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules I call
up House Resolution 335 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move
that the House resolve itself into the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5555) to amend title 37, United States
Code, to increase the rates of basic pay for
members of the uniformed services, and for
other purposes. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall con-
tinue not to exceed two hours, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-minute rule. At
the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. BROWN], and pending that I yield
myself such time as I ma Y consume.
7575
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 335
provides for consideration of H.R. 5555,
a bill to increase the rates of basic pay
for members of the uniformed services,
and for other purposes. The resolution
provides an open rule with 2 hours of
general debate.
The purpose of H.R. 5555 is to pro-
vide increases in basic pay and subsist-
ence allowances; to establish a new
method of adjusting retirement pay; and
to provide other benefits, for members
of the uniformed services.
The last basic pay increase for mem-
bers of the uniformed services became
effective on June 1, 1958. Classified em-
ployees of the Federal Government re-
ceived pay increases in 1958, 1960, 1962,
- and will receive another increase on
January 1, 1964.
The average earnings of manufactur-
ing?production workers, a group usually
associated with enlisted personnel?has
increase by 44.8 percent since 1952. The
cumulative average increase for classi-
fied civil service employees in the past
10 years totals 39.8 percent. For mem-
bers of the uniformed services, the over-
all average increase in compensation
since 1952, including the recent increase
in basic allowance for quarters, is 16.2
percent. Even with the increases rec-
ommended in H.R. 5555, the average in-
crease in total compensation for mem-
bers of the uniformed services since 1952
will still be substantially less than the
increases obtained by workers in private
industry and civil service employees.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 335.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. DE-
LANEY], a member of the Committee on
Rules, has explained this resolution
which makes in order the consideration
of H.R. 5555, under 2 hours of general
debate and an open rule, for the purpose
of increasing the base pay of those in
the armed services of the United States,
for making adjustments in the subsist-
ence allowances and adjustments in some
other benefits and allowances due those
in the armed services, or who have re-
tired therefrom.
? Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legis-
lation is long overdue. There have been
several increases in pay granted to the
classified employees of this Government,
and many increases in pay to the va-
rious workers and employees in private
industry, since Congress last adjusted
the pay of those who bear the arms of
the United States in defense of this Re-
public. In my opinion this action is not
only long overdue, but is a very, very
meager as far as the total pay increase
is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the average increase in
base pay, as provided under this bill for
all those in the armed services is about
12.6 percent. In addition, of course,
there is some increase provided for the
subsistence pay allowances given to en-
listed men, and some to officers. In ad-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
dition, as I said a mOment ago, there
are other adjustments being made by
this legislation in connection with re-
tirement benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the total cost of this leg-
islation will be a little under $1 billion
for the first fiscal year, and the increases
over the next 5-year period will bring the
average cost up to about $11/4 billion an-
nually, which is somewhat less than
originally estimated when the legislation
was first proposed by the President of
the United States, whose message was
sent to Congress on the subject.
But in considering this bill, it is my
understanding there will be, after gen-
eral debate is concluded, and the 5-min-
ute rule is put into effect, several im-
portant amendments offered which may
be far reaching in their effect. Frankly,
I have endeavored to study some of the
proposed amendments and am somewhat
perplexed in my own mind as to just
what they may do or may not do if they
become a part of the law, as a part of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest very respect-
fully to my colleagues that they pay
close attention to the explanations and
to the debate on these particular amend-
ments as the discussion proceeds during
the afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further re-
quest for time.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. MOLTER].
Mr. MULTER. M. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent tospeak out of order.
The SPEAKER. Is there-objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York? .
There was no objection.
CONGRESSIONAL WEEKEND
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I desire
to speak about the forthcoming congres-
sional weekend. Therefore, I apologize
to the Members of the House for taking
this time on a matter of minor impor-
tance when we are about to consider
a bill of such major importance.
I would like to direct the attention
of the House to the fact that this year
the congressional weekend will start on
Friday, May 17, and continue through
Sunday, May 19.
Mr. Speaker, this year, unlike prior
years, the New York City congressional
delegation will play the part of the host.
I want to emphasize that this costs no
money to the Congress or the Govern-
ment. Members pay their own way as
well as that of their families and friends.
Mr. Speaker, we have a full and in-
? teresting program arranged for all those
who plan to go on the tour.
We will leave here Friday morning at
9:45 and the Members will return Sun-
day night by train. There is some con-
fusion about reservations because some
Members have already contacted mem-
bers of the New York delegation or my-
self, as I have been acting as chairman
of the group, indicating a desire to go.
Others have written directly to the
mayor of the city of New York accepting
his invitation to be there. That, how-
ever, does not make their reservations
firm.
In order to make firm reservations and
to get their railroad tickets and their
hotel reservations, it is important that
Members immediately send in their
checks for themselves and as many mem-
bers of their family and friends as will
attend. No reservations can be made
except upon payment. Checks should be
made payable to "Congressional Week-
end" and sent to my office.
I thank the House for its attention. '
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I have
no further requests for time and I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
'the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, I move that the House resolve
Itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5555) to
amend title 37, United States Code, to in-
crease the rates of basic pay for members
of the uniformed services, and for other
purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 5555, with Mr.
BOGGS in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may require.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored today to
begin debate on the bill H.R. 5555, a bill
to increase the basic pay of the uni-
formed services, and for other purposes.
This bill increases the basic pay of the
Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Ma-
rines, the Coast Guard, the Coast and
Geodetic Survey and the Public Health
Service?all of the uniformed services.
I do not think it is necessary for me
to remind this committee that the mil-
itary pay has not been increased since
1958, nor is it necessary for me to re-
mind this committee that the Civil Serv-
ice pay was increased in 1958, 1960, 1962,
and will be increased again in 1964.
In that regard I would like to remind
the committee that the Congress last
year, when it passed the Postal and Fed-
eral Employees Salary Act of 1962, re-
vised the salary schedule and the effec-
tive dates proposed by the President.
I recognize this is not very dramatic,
talking about pay. But somebody has to
do it, so I am the one, and I will do the
very best I can. I am not much to look
at but I have a pretty good story for you
to listen to. Furthermore, these people
of whom I speak have done a pretty good
job for your country and mine. So I
hope you will listen. I want you to
listen.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. My distinguished friend
has stated that his remarks are not
May 8
dramatic. What the gentleman is say-
ing is dramatic, highly dramatic. He is
discussing something essential to the de-
fense-of this Nation, and I do not know
of any subject more dramatic than the
successful defense of America and the
free world. The gentleman's committee
has brought to the floor a measure which
will help to insure that those who wear
the uniform of the Nation will be able to
keep their heads above water financially,
will be able to live as we want Americans
to live, to be able to live as other Ameri-
cans live. Now assuredly this is some-
thing they are entitled to, something
they have long been entitled to. This
bill should have been enacted a year ago,
when civilia personnel were given a
pay raise. I want to commend the gen-
tleman, who is one of the great leaders
of this Congress, for his important work
in the field of defense and I commend
the Committee on Armed Services for
their work in bringing this needed meas-
ure to the floor. There is much to be
said on the need for a military pay
raise?the best way to say it is by a solid
vote for passage of the bill.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina.
When these other pay bills came up they
contained an effective date recommended
by the President. The House of Repre-
sentatives paid no attention to that rec-
ommendation. They suggested the first
day of the month after the bill was
passed: We did the same, in the sub-
committee, but the full committee de-
cided otherwise, and we have gone along
with the full committee, naturally, and
made the effective date October 1, 1963,
the one suggested by the President.
But listen to the increases they made
on civil service pay increases. We went
$280 million over what was suggested by
the administration for fiscal 1963, $227
million over what the administration
asked for 1964, and $111 million over
what the administration asked for in
1965, and nobody blinked an eye.
I should also emphasize the fact that
the civil service increase last year went
to 1,550,006 Federal employees with an
eventual cost of $1 billion annually,
whereas our proposal of $1,191,694,000
annual increase applies not only to
1,868,000 of the 2,700,000 active members
of the, armed services but also includes
pay for 900,000 members of the Reserve
components and 411,000 retired person-
nel. I know we will not now become
economy minded to those who maintain
our National Guard, particularly since
we did not have the same concern last
year over another piece of legislation.
The total cost of this bill is $1,191,694,-
000. This is $46,832,000 under the pro=
posal submitted by the administration
and the Department of Defense. The
President in his budget message re-
quested $900 million for the remainder
of this year for the proposed increase.
That was based upon the assumption
that the pay increase would take effect
on October 1, 1963. We have reluctantly
accepted this proposed effective date,
and as a result of the reduction we have
made in the proposed legislation, the
cost for the remainder of 1964, starting
October 1, will be $892 million or $8 mil-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
lion under what the Department of De-
fense requested for the remainder of
this year.
I would be less than candid, however,
if. I did not say this to you. The sub-
committee of which I have the great
honor to be chairman contemplated an
effective date of July 1, and an annual
expenditure of $1,547 million for all the
uniformed services. This was $278 mil-
lion over the budget. We figured that
the military should be paid with the
same spoon that the other of our chil-
dren we have created are paid; namely,
the civil service and postal employees.
But in the wisdom of the full commit-
tee, we decided on another course. Our
subcommittee felt that our proposal
would come closer to resolving a vital
question, that of the retention of the
quality problems that exist today in the
military of our country. However, I do
recognize the facts of life and I am prac-
tical enough to realize that this bill does
involve an increase in pay and allow-
ances for military personnel of almost
$1,200 million annually and this repre-
sents a very substantial increase in the
total cost of pay and allowances for all
of our uniformed services. As a matter
of fact, the present cost of basic pay and
allowances for members of the armed
rvices today is $9,952 million and an
ditional $900 million is spent on sub-
istence for enlisted personnel. To this
tal, we seek to add $1,200. Thus, the
mounts that are recommended in this
ill are less than the amounts that many
us felt were very, very necessary.
evertheless we realize that they are
ubstantial and will, of course, go a long
ays toward solving some of the prob-
ems that confront very materially the
military today.
The bill originally submitted by the
Department of Defense was complex.
When I say "complex," that is an
understatement. It contained many
provisions which we not only did not
approve but we felt did not belong in
the bill and we cut them out.
We are concerned with two problems,
and keep this uppermost in your minds.
The first is the problem of retention.
We want to retain these highly trained
technical people on active duty. The
second is quality. First, retention and
second, quality. These are the things
we want to accomplish.
Our training costs for the Armed
Forces last year was $21/2 billion, just to
train these people. A billion dollars of
this was in the technical area alone.
Our retention rates; that is, our re-
enlistment rates, are considerably under
what they should be if we are to reduce
those training costs and at the same
time improve the combat efficiency of
the armed services. We have an overall
enlistment rate of only 53 percent. In
the first term reenlistment grades, 24.1
percent. But in some of the most diffi-
cult skills our reenlistments are only 15
percent. This is also true among our
officers. Only about 35 percent of the
officers who enter on active duty remain
at the end of their obligated period. The
services today have to accept beween 95
and 98 percent of all of the officers who
apply for retention on active duty. It is
obvious to me, 4and it should be to you,
that if 95 to 98 percent of every 100
officers who apply for extended duty,
active duty, must be accepted in order
to provide the necessary officers for
leadership and management in our
armed services, then there will be a gap
in the future, and no degree of selectivity
whatsoever. If this is to continue, it is
equally obvious that in the years ahead
we will have many mediocre officers and
we will not have the kind of leadership
and management that all of us realize
is not only vital but is necessary in the
maintenance of a good military regime.
We are spending $50 to $60 billion a
year, on our defense budget. In many
areas we would have a quality of man-
agement that is not good for the country
or the military.
Mr. WICIpERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. I agree with the
gentleman from South Carolina. I am
in favor of the bill, including the Rivers
amendment.
Mr. RIVERS. I thank the distin-
guished gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Chairman, what does this bill do?
The bill is not very long. This is what
it does:
First of all, it provides basic pay for
all members of the armed services who
have completed more than 2 years of ac-
tive duty for pay purposes. The bill
submitted by the Department of Defense
proposes increases for all members of
the armed service. This action of the
committee reduced the cost $134,226,000.
The Department of Defense proposed
elimination of foreign duty and sea Pair
which has been in effect for over 20 years.
Of course we did not accept that. If
you abolish foreign duty and sea pay,
you would not have any Navy to start
with. We did not buy that. Bear in
mind that foreign duty and sea pay ap-
plies only to enlisted men. No officers
get this. We do not pay foreign duty
and sea pay to officers. We refused to
repeal the law on foreign duty and sea
pay. This immediately added $127 mil-
lion to the bill. -
Another major item in the bill was in
the area of subsistence allowance. The
Department of Defense recommended
that we increase the subsistence- allow-
ance for officers from $47.88 a month to
$77 a month.
However, the Department of Defense
did not recommend any increase in sub-
ertence allowances for enlisted person-
nel. The increase from $47.88 to $77
recommended by the Department of De-
fense for officers amounted to $120 mil-
ion a year. We could not approve this
approach to the problem. Instead, we
increased the subsistence allowances for
officers by the amount of the increase
in the cost of food since 1952, namely,
6.6 percent, and this suggests an increase
in subsistence allowances for officers of
$3.12 a month.
Now I want to make it clear that as a
result of what we propose as an increase
in subsistence allowances for officers we
have reduced the take-home pay of of-
ficers by $26 a month below that which
7577
the Department of Defense recom-
mended. At the same time we have
increased the take-home pay of enlisted
personnel in subsistence allowances by
$77 million a year. The Department of
Defense did not have anything for these
people, so we increased it $77 million,
which was the Only honorable and just
thing to do.
We have also made some slight modi-
fication in submarine pay to take care
of the, crewmembers of conventional
submarines who go to nuclear training
schools to learn the complexities of
nuclear submarines.
We have also added a new type of
hazardous incentive pay for those who
work in high-pressure chambers.
In addition, we allow an individual to
draw two incentive pays if he is per-
forming two hazardous duties on a full-
time basis. The amounts of money in-
volved in these last three changes are
very small compared to the total cost of
the bill. For example, the double in-
&ntive payment provision involves a
cost of $1,941,000 annually; the sub-
marine pay for training duty involves
$2,065,000 annually, and the high-pres-
sure chamber incentive pay adds a cost
of $145,000 a year. Now, if you do not
know what double incentive pay is, let's
say a man is a paratrooper and he has
to jump out of a plane and when he hits
the ground he has to perform some
other duty. We take care of the entire
mission. That is what this means.
Now, the committee has also provided
a new allowance for .members of the uni-
formed services who are permitted by
law to transport their dependents and
household effects to new duty assign-
ments, but are precluded from having
their dependents with them. This is
known as the family separation allow-
ance. The reason for doing this is fairly
simple and it is based on pure eco-
?nomics. When the head of a household
is away from his family for long periods
of time it is obvious that the cost of
maintaining the household increases.
In other words, when the head of the
household is not there to shovel snow or
cut the grass or to repair leaky faucets
or to do the multitude of chores that fall
upon every head of a household, then
his wife usually must hire someone to do
these jobs. These are the people who
do not occupy Government quarters.
In addition, in the cold war situation
which has faced us in the past?do you
know how long it will go? I do not?
and will undoubtedly continue to face
us, there are more and more cases of
men being separated from their families
for long periods of time. This is having
a serious effect upon our retention rates.
Some of these people are away 50 per-
cent of the time and others are away
326 days out of 365. These things are
having a serious repercussion on the re-
tention rates in the military.
We are trying to do something about
it, because these men require terrific
training. As I told you, $2,500 million is
for training. We have many areas where
the head of the household is separated
from his family in -remote areas, when
they are on duty at sea or when they
are assigned to areas where their families
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 8
cannot handle these conditions.. I might
say that Of all the provisions in this bill
this is the most exciting and enthusiastic
provision other than the increase in basic
pay, as far as the dependents and the
military ? generally are concerned. The
total cost of this provision is estimated
to be $41,979,000 for a full fiscal year,
of which $37,658,000 will be paid to en-
listed personnel and $4,331,000 to officers.
Mr. Chairman, the bill contains other
sections which I might mention briefly.
One of them is the repeal of the au-
thority to provide responsibility pay-
ments. This type of pay was authorized
for captains, majors, lieutenant colonels,
and, for colonels? back in 1958. It has
never been implemented. So we repeal
it.
In addition, we have eliminated the
State of Hawaii as an area in which for-
eign duty pay would be authorised. By
doing this we need a savings clause so
that some of these enlisted men who are
there now would not be deprived of this
benefit. This was the honorable thing
to do.
We also have a provision in the bill
that permits anyone who retires during
this fiscal year, 1963, to be affected un-
der the provisions of this bill. We did
that for this reason. Many people when
they know the effective date is corning,
for some reason or other will try to stay
on until the effective date. We have
cured all of this jumping around and
trying to stay on active duty. Therefore
anyone who retires in 1963 will come
under the provisions Of this bill. I think
that is the only way to do it.
There is another technical provision in
the bill which protects the widows and
dependents of service personnel who have
died on active duty or who die as the
result of a service-connected disability.
This is also necessary because in the past
we have eliminated certain inerements
in basic pay, and we have done this in
the proposed legislation. Without this
savings provision, some individuals might
take a reduction in their dependency and
indemnity compensation.
These increments and provisions of
law are very difficult to explain. But
they have gone on over the years and
we have had to protect these people,
certainly the widows and orphans are
protected. Without a savings clause,
a retired second lieutenant in this cate-
gory would have taken a reduction in
pay and as a result his widow would
suffer this reduction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the last
and probably the most controversial
part of the bill, this question of retire-
ment pay. I hope the Members of the
House will listen to this explanation.
Back in 1958 when we enacted the
Pay Act of 1958, we decided that we
would depart from the traditional con-
cept of applying retirement pay to ex-
isting pay scales.
I am sure that each Member of the
House has received a lot of correspond-
ence on this and I shall try to explain
it.
Mr. G'UBSER. Mr. .Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
would be delighted to yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. GUBSER,. I would merely like
to emphasize at this point that the gen-
tleman from South Carolina is making
a very important statement at this time,
Which has to do with an important
amendment that will be offered later in
the debate. I sincerely hope that the
gentleman will have the undivided at-
tention of the Members of ? the House
because of the importance of his state-
ment, and it certainly merits it.
Mr. RIVERS 'of pouth Carolina.
Back in 1958?and I haVe sat on all the
pay bills for 23 years?we passed the
1958 act. At that time there was a law
on the books which gave every man on
active duty, officer and enlisted man,
the right to recompute his pay if he was
retired, on the pay scales of any new
legislation. You may say, "Well, he went
from one to the other," but he did not.
They do not live between these pay
scales too long, I can tell you that.
? This law, with the exception of a brief
period in the 1920's has been on the books
for 100 years and every man, upon re-
tirement, was not only led to believe that
he was going to have his retirement pay
recomputed, but it was the law. But the
Congress in its wisdom abruptly cut this
off and denied this to them in 1958, with-
out any notice whatever. As a matter
of fact the, law even stated that the re-
tirement pay would be based on whatever
pay scales were in effect.
The reason the Congress gave in 1958
was that the rising cost of military re-
tirement was becoming very noticeable
and they wanted to do something about
it; so?barn?went the law, without
notice.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
' delighted to yield.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.
Chairman, it happens that I served on
the Committee on Armed Services at
that time.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. And
let me state that no more distinguished
Member ever served on this committee
than the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. The gen-
tleman will remember that at that time
there had been the Cordiner report
which never had been officially presented
to the Congress but had been allowed
to leak. This was part of the Cordiner
report recommendation to reduce the
retirement pay and take it away from
the active scale, the one that had been
in effect for 100 years. And it was only
after a fight that we got a 6 percent
limitation on it. This has not been to
the credit of this Congress since, that
we have allowed this condition to con-
tinue.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
agree with the gentleman and I thank
him.
Mr. GUBSER. 'Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
delighted to yield.
Declassified and Approved For Release
Mr. GUBSER. A moment ago the
gentleman was quoting, I believe, title X,
section 6149, of the United States Code
and cited the law, that new basic rates
would be taken into consideration in a
recomputation of retired pay. Is this
statement not true, that in 1958 Congress
did not bother to repeal that law and it
Is still on the books? It only denied the
beneficiaries of retirement pay prior to
1958 the right of applying this law to the
new pay scale?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
would say the gentleman is substantially
correct.
Mr. GUBSER. It is still on the books
and is still the law; we did not repeal it.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. The
Department of Defense recognized this
inequity, this miserable inequity, if you
will permit me to say so. They recom-
mended that those persons who retired
prior to June 1, 1958, the effective date
of the 1958 Pay Act, be permitted to
recompute under the 1958 pay scales.
In addition, they were to also receive
a 5-percent cost-of-living increase. The
cost of recomputing for those retired
" prior to June 1958, and the fiscal year
1964 would have been $30 million.
,Mr. Chairman, all of you have un-
doubtedly received extensive correspond-
ence from retired personnel who urged
the Congress to go back to the traditional
concept of recomputing, or computing,
retired pay. The committee, after care-
ful consideration of this problem, came
to the conclusion that' it should adhere
to the 1958 act. I would be less than
candid with you and positively not fair to
myself if I did not say this to you, that
the committee, in my opinion, made a
mistake. I had an amendment in the
committee and it was defeated in com-
mittee, but when this amendment is of-
fered you will be able to express your
will today to right this wrong. I propose
to offer an amendment that will give you
the right and the opportunity, with us
who are similarly minded, to right this
wrong, with the understanding, as the
Department of Defense has urged us to
do, that this is the end; give them notice
that in the future there will be no re-
computing. Instead, we will give them
notice, under the cost-of-living index
section when it amounts to 3 percent,
that it will be automatically adjusted.
President Eisenhower suggested this,
President Kennedy both as Senator and
as President, Secretary McNamara, the
Bureau of the Budget, all people have
recommended it. Further, back in 1960
the House Armed Services Committee
recommended it. You who were here
then helped us pass this recomputation.
I know that many of you would prefer
to continue the traditional method of
recomputation, but since this matter of
retirement is getting so large I am will-
ing now to accept the fact that we should
change the law and right this wrong
?
today.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman has
made a significant statement here. Can
the gentleman tell the House whether or
not workers in industry who have retired
can recompute their pensions? Can they
recompute their pay when they retire,
and their factories work under new
scales?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. The
whole concept of military pay is below
that of civilians, even including the so-
called fringe benefits. I may say this
to the gentleman since he has brought
that up, and I am glad he has, that
the taxpayers of America also pay the
civil service increases. There was a time
when we had comparability between the
military and industry. We tried to keep
our military salaries at a level where
industry would not take our best trained
people. There was what was called com-
parability. That is gone. But we always
had a comparability, we thought, by these
things the gentleman mentions, between
the military and the civil servants, and
that is even gone. We have had cases of
colonels with over 25 years of service
having civil service men employed under
them making more than they.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Can civil service em-
ployees under the Government Pay Acts
recompute?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I do
not know.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I think there is a
treat deal of merit to the gentleman's
argument, but I am at a loss to under-
stand how I can explain to the working
people of my district that we permit the
military people to recompute when we
cannot permit the working people, who
pay the taxes, to recompute their pen-
sions to meet the rising cost of living.
How can I explain that to the working-
man who has retired and is also faced
with the increased cost of living?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Be-
cause the civil service employees get
about five times faster increases in their
salaries. Since 1958 they have had four
increases and the military none. For be-
tween 40 and 50 years flag officers in
this country did not get any increase in
salaries. Everything went to the lower
echelons. The civil service employees are
way ahead of the military, and in the
gentleman's lifetime the military will
never catch up with the civil service. So
recomputation cannot be compared.
You cannot do that. It is a theoretical
question.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Is it not true
that the military men were promised this
by law when they went on active duty?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. This
was the law then, and military pay scales
have always been made low because of
these benefits. For instance, in indus-
try there was a time when there might
have been a disparity when the military
had all these hospital rights and every-
thing, but industry has 10 times the
rights that military people have in this
hospitalization area and with this "space
available" concept and all these things
No. 68-17
that exist today. We have this industrial
management concept today, and when
you compare that with the matter of
military dependents riding on planes
and such things as that, the rights of
the military have been whittled away and
? whittled away and whittled away until
today they do not even exist.
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
delighted to yield to my colleague.
Mr. BOB WILSON. Is it not accurate
to say that those who are on the re-
tired rolls today are still subject to re-
call to active duty at any time? Also,
is it not true that the Federal judges
are also subject to recall and, thus, they
have their retirement pay adjusted ac-
cording to the pay of active duty judges?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
think that is correct.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
glad to yield to my colleague.
Mr. GUBSER. I would like to make
one point in answer to a question raised
by the gentleman from Illinois. From
1908 to 1946, a span of 38 years, com-
missioned officers in the U.S. Army and
Navy did not get a single increase, yet,
at the same time the national wage index
rose from 100 in 1908 as a base to 581.1.
I might also point out, according to
the comparability tables which exist to-
day, after allowing a weight for non-
contributory retirements and other
fringe benefits, a colonel gets $200 less
than his civil service counterpart. That
is the situation that exists today.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
would also like to say we are not the
only taxpayers. The military pays some
taxes too. They are not exempt from
the income tax.
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
promised to yield to our colleague, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. TEAGUE],
then, of course, I shall be delighted to
yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I wanted to
the gentleman a question not pertain-
ing to this matter or recomputation. I
would be glad to wait until the gentle-
man is finished with that subject before
asking the question I have in mind. If
the gentleman from New York has a
question on the subject of recomputa-
tion, I would ask my colleague from
South Carolina to yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Does
the gentleman from New York have a
question on the subject of recomputa-
tion?
Mr. BECKER. Yes, I do. You were
talking a few minutes ago about how a
man could go back home and explain to
the people, civil service people and others
why they could not recompute their pay
the same as the military. I would say
very sirpply and certainly not at all
facetiously that if it were not for the
dedicated military leaders who remain
in the service for 20 years or more, we
would not have any kind of homefront
7579
or any kind of retirement to be worried
about.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
heard a distinguished American one time
say something about this situation
where people are worried about the budg-
et, but this distinguished American in
speaking about this concern that our
expenditures of $54 billion a year for the
military might bankrupt this country
said, he would rather be a live American
with an empty pocketbook rather than
be a dead American with a full pocket-
book. Those are my sentiments.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair -
nian, will the gentleman yield to me at
this point?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
delighted to yield to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, the gentleman spoke about hazard-
ous duty pay and work in decompression
chambers and so on. But the gentle-
man did not mention what to me is the
most hazardous duty of all, and that is
serving under enemy shell fire. Would
the gentleman tell the committee what
happened as far as this provision is con-
cerned, with reference to extra pay for
combat missions?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. My
colleague knows as well as I do that that
was not accepted by the full committee.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I know, but
I am not sure all the Members of the
House know that. I understand an
amendment will be offered to put that
provision back in the bill providing for
extra duty pay for the most hazardous
duty that there is. I might say it amazed
me that the committee would take that
out.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to summarize
what we have done: We have provided
basic increases in pay for 1,868,000 of the
personnel of the uniformed services.
There are 812,000 people with under 2
years of service for pay purposes who will
not receive any increase.
Typical increases are as follows: A 5-
percent cost-of-living increase for gen-
erals and , other flag officers running
from $60 a month for a brigadier general
to $95 a Month for a member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A 10-percent increase for colonels, an
average of $92 a month.
A 15-percent increase for majors, an
average of $93 a month.
A 17.8-percent increase for captains,
an average of $85 a month.
A 16.4-percent increase for first lieu-
tenants, an average of $50 a month.
A 5.4-percent increase for second lieu-
tenants, an average of $14 a month.
The percentage increases for second
lieutenants apparently are low because
35,000 of these are with less than 2 years
of service, and they do not receive any
increase in basic pay because they have
an obligated service. The service may
want them and may not. But the aver-
age increase, roughly, for the rest is $43
a month. The great percentage in-
creases are in the grades of first lieu-
tenants, captains, and majors.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
There is the point where we are get-
ting hurt. We want these officers. We
want them to make a decision as to
whether they are going to make the serv-
ice a career or not. These boys are
needed badly. We have spent an awful
lot of money on them.
The average increase for warrant of -
ficers, one, two, three, and four, is
roughly 15 percent, running from $49 a
month for a W-1 to $97 a month for a
W-4. The overall increase for officers is
14.3 percent, an average of $71 a month.
Among the enlisted personnel the in-
creases run from 14 percent a month for
E-9's, an average of $63 a month, to a
maximum of $120; 16 percent for E-8's,
averaging $60 a month, with a maximum
of $120. The E-9's and E-8's are very
special people. They have done a very
outstanding service. There are not too
many of those.
It is 15 percent for an E-4, an average
of $25 a month, and a maximum of $30
a month; 10.7 percent for the E-3's, aver-
aging $12 a month, with a maximum of
$24 a month, and one-half of 1 percent in
the E-l's, an average of 42 cents a month,
with a maximum of $5 a month.
Almost all of these E-l's have less
than 2 years of service. They are of
an unknown quantity. They are re-
quired to serve, and when they get 2
years of service they get the increase.
We have captains with less than 2
years that get nothing. For instance,
doctors coming in with less than 2 years'
service, receive no increases.
The total increase in the basic pay is
$847,498,000.
Where is the rest of the money in the
bill? The family separation allowance
will cost approximately $42 million a
year. Increases in subsistence allow-
ance for enlisted personnel, will cost $77
million.
As I told you, the Department of De-
fense did not have anything for the en-
listed men. We put in $77 million a
year. There is a small increase in sub-
sistence allowance for officers, only $13
million a year. There is a 5-percent
increase in retirement pay, $52 million
a year; increased retirement costs to
those who retire in the calendar year
1963 will roughly be $9 million, for 1964.
The increase for submarine pay, high
pressure chamber duty, and double in-
centive payments amounts to $4 mil-
lion.
Terminal leave payments, social se-
curity, death gratuities, and re-enlist-
ment bonuses, all of which are affected
by the changes in basic pay, involve an
additional $75 million annually.
This gives us a grand total of $1,191,-
694,000 which would be the full 1964 fis-
cal year cost for the Department of De-
fense.
As a result, however, of the proposed
effective date of October 1, 1963, the fis-
cal 1964 cost for the Department of De-
fense will be $892 million, which is $8
million below the amount requested by
the President for the Department of De-
fense, and $46,832,000 below the full fis-
cal year cost proposed by the Depart-
ment of Defense.
Finally, I would like to tell you how
these increases will be distributed be-
tween officers and enlisted personnel.
On the basis of a full fiscal year, in-
volving an annual cost of $1,191,694,-
000 for the Department of Defense, $383
million will be paid to officers and $808.6
million will be paid to enlisted personnel.
This is the bill.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
will be delighted to yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I have sev-
eral questions. I am only going to ask
one; I will ask the others during general
debate. Will the gentleman tell me how
he arrived at this family separation pay
of $30 a month for the enlisted man and
$53 a month for the officer, based on the
fact that the man is away from home
and she has to hire somebody to cut the
grass and fix the leaks and so forth?
Do you think that there would be any
more occasion for that to happen in the
officer's family than in the enlisted man's
family?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
think it will happen to anybody away
from home. I know I am away from
home a good deal and I do not have the
luxury of living with my family.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Why do you
make a distinction between $30 a month
for the enlisted man and $53 a month
for the officer, when the officer has the
higher pay?
Mr. RIVERS of South, Carolina. It
works out on the quarters allowance.
It is one-third of the quarters allowances
paid to bachelor officers. That is the
way we arrive at it. Now, repairing a
leaky faucet or mowing the grass or
something of that sort requires money,
but these people do not live in Govern-
ment quarters, and these are the people
we are trying to take care of. This is
a retention bill. If you have a highly
technical and accomplished officer or
enlisted man, he is the one we want to
keep in the service.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I am talking
about the difference in pay. You are
not touching on the difference at all be-
tween $30 and $53.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. That
is the minimum. It is based on the
minimum cost of the bachelor officer's
allowance.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. A bachelor
officer would not have any family sep-
aration, would he?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. We
use the smallest amount.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. You are not
going to have family separations with
bachelor officers, I hope.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
trying to show you the yardstick we used.
If you want to have it for some officer
with eight dependents, put in the amend-
ment. We tried to save as much as we
could, and we adjusted it. That is my
answer.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
yield to the gentleman from New York.
May 8
Mr. STRATTON. Would not the gen-
tleman agree with me that the expenses
of repairs and obsolescence around the
home when an officer is absent on duty
would be more expensive in more ex-
pensive quarters than in less expensive
quarters? Therefore, there is a basic
reason for having a percentage figure
of the quarters allowances. I will ask the
gentleman from South Carolina is that
not the reasonable explanation?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman from South
Carolina yield to me in order to permit
me to answer that argument?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Why,
certainly I will yield to the gentleman
from Missouri for anything
Mr. JONES of Missouri. In the first
place, this staff officer will have servants
to do this job. He would not be doing
the job himself. There is not money for
it. The enlisted man does that work,
and that is why.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I as-
sume that there are people around who
do not agree with you. We are trying
to keep these people on active duty.
We are checking that figure to try to
keep this cost down.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I cer-
tainly yield to my distinguished chair-
man.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I want
to take this opportunity to congratulate
the distinguished gentleman from South
Carolina on his clear analysis of a very,
very complicated bill. I want to com-
pliment not only the gentleman from
South Carolina but his subcommittee
for the hard work and the weeks and
months which they have devoted to this
bill. The gentleman deserves the thanks
not only of the Armed Services Com-
mittee but of the House itself.
Now, then, the question I want to ask
the gentleman is this?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
thank the chairman very much.
Mr. VINSON. As I understood it, the
gentleman said concerning recomputa-
tion that he was going to offer an amend-
ment to extend recomputation tb those
who retired prior to 1958 and that that
would be the end of the recomputation,
as I understood the gentleman. Is that
correct?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Well,
if the?
Mr. VINSON. The question I would
like to ask the gentleman?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Let
me answer the chairman. If the amend-
ment carries.
Mr. VINSON. I understand.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. But
as long as it is a law on the books I am
dedicated to following it.
Mr. VINSON. If the gentleman will
yield further, then he proposes after
1958 to stop the recomputation? Would
it not merely' magnify and create more
inequities than already exist today?
What about the man who retired in 1959?
What about the man who retired in 1962,
or 1961? Is he not entitled to the same
principle being applied to him that you
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
apply to the man who retired prior to
1958? I want to be logical, and my dis-
tinguished colleague, the gentleman from
South Carolina is very, very logical ordi-
narily. But I do not think he was quite
as logical in that statement as he was
in other statements which he has made
on this bill.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Does
the chairman want me to answer his
question?
Mr. VINSON. Yes, please.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Why,
positively not, positively not. We are
giving him notice today. You did not
give him any notice in 1958. We low-
ered the boom on him in 1958.
Mr. VINSON. We gave him notice.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. And
the law was on the books in 1958 and
except for just a brief period in the
1920's it had been on the books for 100
long years.
Mr. VINSON. We stopped it in 1958.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. We
stopped it in the most outrageous man-
ner, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. 'VINSON. But you propose to
continue this.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. That
is why I am sure the chairman voted
with us in that unanimous report from
the committee and the unanimous deci-
sion of the House to right it, and the bill
was passed in 1960.
Mr. VINSON. You propose to give to
this group who retired prior to 1958 the
right to recompute, but you do not pro-
pose to give those who retire after 1958
this recomputation in the 1963 bill. Why
should you make fish of one and fowl of
the other? If we are on sound ground in
one instance why not extend it on to
those who retire after 1958?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Let
me respond to my distinguished chair-
man. I said a while ago it does not take
me long to understand when I walk into
a stone wall. I recognize the wall is there
after a while. But we face the facts of
life, and I am willing, despite the fact
that I do not agree that we should not
give them that right, because age catches
up with them.
Mr. VINSON. Will we not have just
as much justification
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I am
willing to accept it now even though I
think they should have it.
Mr. VINSON. Do they not have just
as much justification, those who retire
under the new pay bill, the 1963 pay bill,
to claim the same rights as you are giv-
ing those under the amendment with ref-
erence to the pre-1958 retirees?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. If the
gentleman agrees that the basic law was
wrong in its inception. I do not agree.
Mr. VINSON. The gentleman is try-
ing to make the point that we did not
know it. It has been on the books for 5
years. We stopped it and denied it in
1958. If we are going to open it up, open
it up in its entirety. Is the reason why
he wants to stop 'it in the future because
he is apprehensive about the rising cost
of retired pay? Was he worried in 1958
when we cut it off?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. How-
ever, we did not have too much concern
for that in 1958 when the House unani-
mously passed the bill trying to right this
terrible law. I know you agree with me
that it is a terrible law. We are not
patting them under this act. We are
putting them under the act on the books
in 1958. For the future we have an esca-
lator clause, when the cost of living goes
up 3 percent; and we give them notice.
It becomes effective automatically.
William Jennings Bryan once said
this?if he did not he should have said
it?
The humblest citizen in the land clad in
the armor of right can prevail against a whole
host of error.
I would rather be wrong on the right
side than right on the wrong side.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I certainly approve of recomputa-
tion, as the gentleman from South Caro-
lina has outlined, and I feel certain that
most Members of the House will look
sympathetically upon that question.
Mr. Chairman, the most attractive
financial inducement for the services of
military personnel is the liberal retire-
ment pattern. A part of this pattern has
been for many years the privilege of hav-
ing retirement benefits tied to the pay of
personnel on active duty. It has become
usual to say that this principle is so ex-
pensive that it will eventually jeopard-
ize the entire retirement program. I
think this is a misleading statement; for
the only thing that can imperil the re-
tirement program is Congress itself. The
principle is a generous one but I think
it should be maintained not only for
those who retired in 1958 but also for
subsequent retirees as well. It is a neces-
sary part of our national defense to have
a liberal retirement program. as this is
the method we chiefly use to give ade-
quate financial incentive for military
service. I sincerely hope that Congress
will approve continuing this principle of
computation on the basis of current ac-
tive duty pay scales.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the
gentleman .from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS]
(Mr. ARENDS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to express my endorsement of the
bill H.R. 5555; the proposed military pay
increase for members of the uniformed
services.
The proposal has been thoroughly dis-
cussed by the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, the Honorable MEN-
DEL RIVERS of South Carolina, and I will
not attempt to add to the detailed ex-
planation.
I would like to point out that in my
opinion this bill, if enacted, should go
a long way toward solving the serious
retention problem in our uniformed serv-
ices, particularly for those who have ac-
quired skills that are vital to our na-
tional defense.
There has been much criticism of some
of the actions taken by the committee
7581
and much of it concerns the cost of the
proposed measure.
Some persons feel that the bill is in-
adequate; others are concerned about the
increased cost to the Government.
First, I think I should' mention that
today the cost of pay and allowances for
the armed services, exclusive of subsis-
tence allowances for enlisted personnel,
on an annual basis involves an expendi-
ture in excess of $9,952 million.
The proposal before us would increase
the cost of basic pay alone by $847,493,-
000 on a full fiscal year basis. It will
also increase subsistence allowances by
about $13 million a year for officers and
$77 million a year for enlisted personnel.
You will recall that the President rec-
ommended enactment of legislation
which would have involved an annual
expenditure of $1,238,526,000 for the De-
partment of Defense.
The bill before Us involves a cost of
$1,191,694,000.
The subcommittee that considered the
proposal under the distinguished chair- -
man from South Carolina [Mr. RIVERS],
reported a bill to the full committee that
would have involved an annual expendi-
ture for the Department of Defense of
$1,517 million, which was substantially
above that recommended by the Depart-
ment of Defense.
But in addition, it must be remembered
that in the President's military budget
message he requested only $900 million
for the proposed pay increase for fiscal
1964, since he recommended an October
1, 1963, effective date.
In simple mathematics, the President's
budget contained only $900 million, but
the subcommittee's recommendation
contemplated a fiscal 1964 expenditure of
$1,517 million, because it contemplated
a July 1, 1963, effective date.
We are all concerned, of course, with
the cost of Government and deficit fi-
nancing, and the pay increase recom-
mended by the subcommittee exceeded
the President's budget for military pay
by some $617 million for fiscal 1964.
At this point, the committee realized
that a $600 million increase in the Presi-
dent's budget might seriously jeopardize
the favorable consideration of this very
important pay increase.
As a result, the committee made sev-
eral substantial changes in the subcom-
mittee proposal.
By eliminating increases for those with,
under 2 _years of service, the subcom-
mittee proposal was reduced by almost
$136 million.
By eliminating a $30 additional in-
crease across the board for all officers,
over and above that recommended by
the Department of Defense, another
$111,495,000 was removed from the sub-
committee proposal.
Another substantial savings of some
$32 million came about by committee
action providing a straight 5 percent in-
crease in retirement pay, and eliminat-
ing the recomputation proposal sug-
gested by the Department of Defense.
All together, the actions of the full
committee reduced the subcommittee
proposal by $325,489,000 and reduced the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 8
overall cost of the bill, on an annual
basis, from $1,517 million to $1,191,694,-
000.
Since the Department proposal orig-
inally contemplated an annual expendi-
ture of $1,238 million, you can see that
the committee proposal is $46,832,000 un-
der the cost of the Department's pro-
posal.
Finally, because the President had
only requested $900 million for the re-
mainder of fiscal 1964, the committee
adopted an October 1, 1963 effective date,
at a cost of $891,521,000 for the remain-
der of fiscal 1964, which is $8 million
under the President's budget for fiscal
1964.
I think we must bear in mind that
while there are some persons who feel
that this pay proposal is inadequate,
nevertheless it is substantial. It is par-
ticularly substantial at the important
retention points in our armed services.
You might be interested to know some-
thing about the cost of the bill by grade
distribution.
For example, the entire cost of the
proposed increase for four-star generals
and admirals involves an increased ex-
penditure of $32,000.
The cost of the proposed pay increase
for three-star admirals and generals is
$95,000 annually.
For major generals it is $406,000 an-
nually.
For brigadier generals it is $474,000
annually.
For colonels and Navy captains it is
$16,815,000 annually.
For lieutenant colonels and comman-
ders, $40,934,000.
At the important retention grade of
major, the cost goes to $63,280,000 an-
nually.
For captains and lieutenants, which is
one of the most serious retention points,
the cost goes to $92,319,000, and for
1st lieutenants and lieutenants, junior
grade, the cost is $31,424,000.
Among the enlisted personnel, you will
be interested to learn that the increase
for E-9's, that is the sergeant majors
and master chief petty officers, involves
an annual expenditure of $10,317,000.
For master sergeants and senior chief
petty officers, the E-8's, the annual in-
creased cost is $24,367,000.
For E-7's it is $43 million.
For E-6's, the staff sergeants, the cost
is $101,563,000.
For the very important retention
points of E-5 and E-4, the cost is $146,-
953,000 and $135,582,000, respectively.
For E-3's, the cost is $87,791,000.
Whenever we increase military pay
scales, we must consider where the in-
dividuals are distributed by grade.
For example, there are 269,772 privates
with under 2 years of service, and only
35,000 with over 2 and under 3 years of
service.
On the other hand, there are only
42,000 E-4's with under 2 years of serv-
ice, but there are 110,000 with over 2
years of service, 60,000 with over 3 years
of service, and 89,000 with over 4 years of
service. All together, there are 451,000
E-4's.
As you can see, when you increase pay
scales by even $1 a month in these
grades, the cost goes up quite rapidly.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also
mention another very important feature
of the proposal and that is the proposed
family separation allowance.
The cost involved here is relatively
small, $42 million a year. Of this
amount, it is estimated that enlisted per-
sonnel will receive $37,678,000 annually,
while officers will receive only $4,301,000.
This is a vital part of the bill before
us, for it recognizes, for the first time,
the costs involved to the family when
the breadwinner is away from home for
extended periods of time.
We know, and particularly Members
of Congress should know, that maintain-
ing two homes, or maintaining a home
where the father is away, can be a very
expensive proposition.
Today if you call a plumber to fix a
leaky faucet, the cost can be rather
substantial.
Most fathers when they are home can
do minor repairs around the house, but
whenever the father is away from home
for a long period of time, one of two
things happens: the repairs go unat-
tended or the wife must pay for the cost
of the repairs.
I sincerely hope that this new benefit
which the committee recommends, will
be overwhelmingly approved by the
House.
The amount is not large, but it is at
least a recognition on the part of the
Congress that we sympathize with the
wives of our service personnel who are
faced with long separations from their
husbands.
It has a double significance for it is
not only a recognition of separation,
but also an allowance which will permit
the service wife to maintain the house-
hold for her husband the way it would
be maintained if he were home.
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly sup-
port H.R. 5555 and hope that it will re-
ceive the overwhelming approval of the
House.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GAviN].
(Mr. GAVIN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I support
this pay increase. It is long overdue.
We must bear one thing in mind, we get
what we pay for.
The last increase in basic pay for
members of the uniformed services be-
came effective June 1, 1958. Approxi-
mately 5 years have elapsed since this
last increase in basic pay was enacted
for members of the uniformed services.
Classified employees of the Federal
Government, on the other hand, after
receiving a pay increase in 1958, received
additional increases in 1960 and 1962,
and will receive another increase on
January 1, 1964. Without question, the
hearings conducted by the Armed Serv-
ices Committee on the proposed legisla-
tion established an overwhelming need
for an adjustment to the existing rates
of compensation for members of the uni-
formed services. Committee delibera-
tions were almost exclusively concerned
with the amount of increase which could
logically be proposed and where the dis-
tribution of this increase would do the
greatest good.
The purpose of H.R. 5555 is to provide
increases in basic pay and subsistence
allowances; to establish a new method
of adjusting retired pay; and to provide
other benefits for members of the uni-
formed services.
The most important single effect of
H.R. 5555 is the general increase in basic
rates of pay. This statement in no way
depreciates the importance of other pro-
visions of the bill but rather reflects the
fact that the increases in basic pay ap-
ply to the greatest number of people and
accounts for the major cost of the pro-
posed bill.
These selective pay increases which
would be provided by the bill are ex-
pressly designed to alleviate the enlisted
and junior officer retention problems ex-
isting in the armed services today.
The critical enlisted retention prob-
lem in all the services is associated with
retaining individuals in most of the tech-
nical occupations upon completion of
their initial term of service.
? The retention of officers ,beyond their
obligated period of service also poses a
serious problem for the services. Here
the problem facing the Armed Forces is
strictly a question of quality. Unless
they can attract and retain more officer
personnel with the necessary high
degree of competence and dedication re-
quired, they are faced with a force struc-
ture of steadily declining quality com-
pletely incompatible with the increased
technoldgical and combat leadership de-
mands being placed upon the Armed
Forces.
Consequently, for enlisted members
the largest percentage increases are pro-
vided at the critical retention points in
pay grades E-3 and E-4. Substantial
increases are also provided for enlisted
members in pay grades E-8 and E-9 at
the - "over 22" and "over 26" years of
service point as an incentive for longer
career enlisted service.
For officers the largest percentage in-
creases are in the lower grades of first
lieutenant through major. The percent-
age increases are progressively smaller
for the higher ranks, so that the per-
centage increase for flag and general
officers is only 5 percent.
The ,increases in basic pay recom-
mended in H.R. 5555 were originally
contained in the proposal of the Depart-
ment of Defense. However, the increases
in basic pay for members with under 2
years of service proposed by the Depart-
ment of Defense were not concurred in.
As I have stated this pay proposal is a
career proposal designed to encourage
individuals to undertake or continue in
a career status beyond the periods of
obligated service required by law. Ca-
reer service in the past, when the serv-
ices were entirely manned by volunteers,
commenced with an individual's initial
entry into the Armed Forces. At the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
present time, and for the foreseeable
future, the large numbers of young men
who are required to man our Armed
Forces cannot be obtained solely from
volunteers without the compulsion of
selective service laws. Therefore, a di-
viding line between career service and
non-career service has been drawn at the
end of the 2-year obligated service period
required by law. The action to limit in-
creases in basic pay to those with 2 years
and over reduced the total cost of the
basic pay increase proposed by the De-
partment of Defense for active duty per-
sonnel by $134,226,000.
Aside from the selective increases
which are calculated to improve reten-
tion there is a general increase in basic
pay for all personnel with over 2 years'
service. Since 1952 there has been a
steady deterioration of the compensa-
tion provided members of the uniformed
services. Between 1952 and 1962, the
median earnings of professional, scien-
tific, technical, and kindred workers, a
group generally comparable to officer
personel has increased by 49 percent.
During the same period the average
earnings of manufacturing-production
workers, a group usually associated with
enlisted personnel, has ?increased by 44.8
percent. The cumulative average in-
crease for classified civil service em-
ployees in the past 10 years totals 39.8
percent. For members of the uniformed
services, on the other hand, the overall
average increase in compensation since
1952, including the recent increase in
basic allowance for quarters which be-
came effective January 1, 1963, is 16.2
percent. Even with the increases recom-
mended in the proposed legislation, the
average increase in total compensation
for members of the uniformed services
since 1952 will be substantially less than
the increases obtained by workers in the
private economy and civil service em-
ployees.
Up to this point I have been discuss-
ing the details of the recommended in-
creases in basic pay as well as the
amounts attached thereto. But this pay
increase involves more than just dollars
and numbers of people. There is a prin-
ciple which we should bear in mind.
There is no open market in most mili-
tary skills, where they can be hired on
an as-needed basis. Furthermore, a
good many of the special burdens of
military life are acceptable only to dedi-
cated people and not subject to direct
compensation. Nevertheless, we would
be sadly mistaken if we concluded that
military compensation is somehow im-
mune from competition.
It takes cash income to support and
rear a family. Every person in the
Armed Forces knows whether he is living
better or poorer than his friends in civil
life. ?
We face two realities. First, there has
been and it seems likely there will con-
tinue to be, a trend to increase indi-
vidual compensation in both private and
. public employment; second, we consist-
ently lag this trend in setting military
pay scales.
We could, if we liked, let the gap grow
wider. Underpaying military personnel
saves money?at the moment. At a
given moment, the military force is a
captive population, bound by terms of
enlistment or, in the case of officers, by
less specific but still effective commit-
ments. But we can impose this burden
only temporarily. We would soon begin
paying for it. Some of the payment
would be in partially obscured but quite
tangible costs?training, for instance.
The most serious costs would be in the
effectiveness of the Armed Forces, and
here the cost could be disastrous.
The pay scale we are here considering
provides an average increase of 12.5
percent. This average is significant only
as an index of cost in relation to the cost
of the current pay scale. Within this
overall amount the scale purposefully al-
locates bigger increases in the most criti-
cal segments of the career population,
goes down to as little as 5 percent in
other areas, and in the case of begin-
ners provides no increase.
Immediate needs have been the prin-
cipal concern of the Committee on
Armed Services in making the recom-
mendations contained in H.R. 5555.
Considered solely as a pay matter the
proposed scale is probably less than is
justified and desirable.
Its limitations obviously are dictated
in some measure by the budgetary sit-
uation in which we find ourselves, and
I wish it were possible to meet this
problem more adequately.
But it should be understood clearly
that the proposed bill will not be per-
manently valid. We should be aware
that under present trends military pay
needs to be adjusted more frequently
than at 5-year intervals. Unintention-
ally, but actually, the Federal Govern-
ment in its lag in adjusting military pay
much of the time has effectively loaded
a disproportionate share of the defense
costs on the people who man the es-
tablishment. This is neither a fair nor
a sound policy.
The details on other aspects of the bill
will be covered by several of my col-
leagues. I would like to conclude_ my
statement with a few words about the
overall cost and the effective date.
Enactment of this proposed legislation
will require additional annual appropri-
ations to the Department of Defense in
the approximate amount of $1.2 billion.
For fiscal year 1964 the increase would be
slightly less than $900 million since the
proposed legislation submitted to the
Congress by the Department of Defense
contained an effective date of October
1, 1963.
The President, in his budget submis-
sion to the Congress for fiscal year 1964,
included only $900 million to cover the
cost of the proposed legislation on the
basis of an October 1, 1963, effective date.
The committee recognizes that in the
Military Pay Acts of 1949, 1952, 1955,
and 1958, the Congress established a pat-
tern of providing that pay increases for
members of the Armed Forces would be-
come effective on the first day of the first
month after enactment. In addition,
testimony before the committee during
the course of the hearings on the pro-
posed legislation established beyond
question that the proposed pay increase
for members of the uniformed services
Is long overdue.
7583
Nonetheless, in view of the practical
limitations imposed by the President's
budget for fiscal year 1964, the commit-
tee has reluctantly acceded to the recom-
mendations of the Department of De-
fense. Accordingly, the proposed legis-
lation provides for an effective date of
October 1, 1963, or the first day of the
first month after enactment., whichever
is later. The fiscal cost for 1964, assum-
ing an October 1, 1963, effective date, is
$891,521,000, or $8,479,000 less than the
President's budget proposal.
We believe that H.R. 5555, as it stands,
is an urgent need?no less urgent than
the dollars we shall appropriate for the
most critical of our weapons programs.
The Committee on Armed Services
strongly endorses enactment of the pro-
posed legislation.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. BEcKER],
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I con-
cur in a great deal of the remarks of my
distinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee, the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RivErts] . As a member of the
committee I think we all feel that we
would like very -much, because of the
dedication of our military personnel, to
double the amount of this bill and give
all we believe they need and deserve. I
think we are restricted in our thinking a
great deal in trying to justify what we
are doing because of the vast billions of
dollars that are voted by the Congress for
every type of boondoggling project you
can imagine, except for those dedicated
people who preserve the security of this
Nation and the free world.
I have said on the floor of the House
before and I have been challenged for
this, perhaps facetiously or cynically, but
I have said time and again that our mili-
tary leaders of this Nation have won
every war in-our history. Every war in
our history has been won because of our
military leaders and our fighting youth
of this Nation, but it has been our civilian
leaders that have lost every peace and
put the world in the mess it is in today.
I only wish we could do more than we
are doing now. But what I have in mind
distinctly is what I would call the dedi-
cation of the men in our military service.
Yet I read yesterday of the disgraceful
action taken by the Secretary of Defense
against one of the greatest naval officers,
one of the greatest military officers we
have ever had, one of the finest men it
has ever been my privilege to know, Ad-
miral George Anderson, being retired as
Chief of Naval Operations. There were
some very flowery statements about his
fine service, and intimations that he
might be kicked upstairs to an ambas-
sadorship. This is a disgraceful action.
We passed in 1958, a pay bill so that
we might retain military personnel and
not spend billions of dollars for retrain-
ing new men all the time. This did not
have its desired effect, nor will this bill
have its desired effect. What will have
the desired effect is the recognition of
the motivation and dedication of those
men who give their lives for the security
of this Nation. We are not going to do
this with pay bills alone. We are not
going to do it on this floor today. We
can only hope. we will alleviate their
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
financial condition and the housing and
other conditions under which they have
to live in many trying situations over
the world.
I would like to quote for a moment an
editorial, and I am not addicted to edi-
torial writers because there is one edi-
torial on the same page of today's
Evening Star criticizing me. In the
bottom editorial they have, "Mr. Beck-
er's Blackout." Above, they say in this
editorial in the Evening Star:
We think that Admiral Anderson was de-
nied another term as Chief of Naval Opera-
tions, or at least a 1-year extension, for two
principal reasons. One was his plain-spo-
ken opposition, when called to testify by the
McClellan committee, to Mr. McNamara's
TFX project. The other, and perhaps lesser
reason, was his criticism of the military pay
bill. But the two statements, read together,
do not make sense. They are an affront to
the intelligence of a child.
Then they go on further to say:
If, as we believe, TFX was an important if
not a dominant factor in what has happened
to Admiral Anderson, doubts are raised in
our mind as to whether Mr. McNamara is a
"big" man as well as a competent man.
Further:
Mr. McNamara should be the boss, but it
does not follow that he should be a czar and
absolute master in his own domain.
Mr. Chairman, the editorial in full is
as follows:
THE FIRING OF ADMIRAL ANDERSON
Adm. George W. Anderson's distinguished
career in the Navy has been torpedoed by
Defense Secretary McNamara. Those who
are willing to buy one or both nf the offi-
cial explanations which have been offered
are welcome to do so. We do not buy either.
We think that Admiral Anderson was
denied another term as Chief of Naval Op-
erations, or at least a 1-year extension,
for two principal reasons. One was his
plain-spoken opposition, when called to
testify by the McClellan committee, to Mr.
McNamara's TFX project. The other, and
perhaps lesser reason, was his criticism of
the military pay bill.
In this connection we make one point.
The official spokesman at the Pentagon says
Mr. McNamara and the President believe
that 2 years should be a normal tour as
service chief except in extraordinary cir-
cumstances. Well and good. But the Presi-
dent, in announcing that Admiral Anderson
was being dumped overboard, also said that
"he has served with great distinction during
a critical period in this Nation's history."
We realize that praise of this sort has be-
come more or less the conventional thing
when the executioner is getting set for his
task. But the two statements, read to-
gether, do not make sense. They are an
affront to the intelligence of a child.
Our concern, however, runs to more than
the injustice which, as we see it, has been
done to Admiral Anderson. He had reached
the top in the Navy, and this denial of a sec-
ond term as Chief of Naval Operations does
not necessarily mean a blighted career for
the future. But what about the Secretary
of Defense? And what about those other
service people who, one day, will find them-
selves in Admiral Anderson's position?
As for the Secretary, we have already made
plain our belief that his decision on the
TFX was the right one. We haxe expressed
our respect for his competence and stated
in addition that the Pentagon should and
must be run by a strong civilian. The
Secretary of Defense ought to be just that?
the Secretary of Defense. He should not al-
low himself to be pushed around by gen-
erals or admirals. But this affair shakes
us up a bit. If, as we believe, TFX was an
important if not a dominant factor in what
has happened to Admiral Anderson, doubts
are raised in our mind as to whether Mr.
McNamara is a "big" man as well as a com-
petent man.
Of possibly greater importance is the effect
that the timing of the Anderson ouster can
be expected to have on other service officers
when called in the future to testify before
congressional committees.
Mr. McNamara, or so we are told, doesn't
care much what people say or think about
him. He is too busy running the Defense
Department. But he ought to case?espe-
cially when he is trying both to install new
management techniques in the Pentagon
and to shake up the services a bit. Mr. Mc-
Namara should be the boss. But it doesn't
follow that he should be a czar?an absolute
master in his own domain.
For, whether he realizes it or not, he
has a partner in this defense enterprise?
and it will never be a silent partner. This
partner is the Congress, representing the
people of the United States. We do not
think that Congress should conduct nit-
picking harrassments of the Secretary of
Defense. But we do believe, and very
strongly, that the appropriate committees
of Congress are entitled to know what is
going on in the Pentagon and that they
should be able to call the service chiefs, or
other officers, before them and have the
benefit of their uninhibited, unintimidated,
and completely honest opinions on matters
affecting the security of the United States.
It is not our intention to say that Mr.
McNamara is deliberately trying to gag the
service people. But we think that is the
effect of what he has done in the case of
Admiral Anderson and, to a lesser extent,
in the case of General Lemay. Unless the at-
mosphere in this respect is cleared, and con-
vincingly cleared, we fear that many officers
in the future will hesitate to give testimony
to any congressional committee which brings
them into conflict with a strong-willed Sec-
retary of Defense. Surely it is not neces-
sary to argue the point that this is poten-
tially dangerous for the people of the United
States?dangerous both to their security
and, someday perhaps, to their freedom.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind you of
this. We appoint young men, the finest
young men, the cream of the crop from
our district to the Naval Academy at
Annapolis, the Air Force Academy at
Denver, and to the Military Academy at
West Point. Why do we appoint them?
What do we do in our investigation and
in our efforts? We try to get the best
men we can get because we want moti-
vated, dedicated young men who will be
the military leaders of this Nation and
who will continue, God willing, when we
are in trouble, so that we will be able to
win not only the battle but the war.
I say 'what has happened to George
Anderson is a disgrace to this Nation. It
is not the first time it has happened. But
as one American, and as one Member of
this House, I say to you, while we are
discussing a pay bill, providing for pay
increase and other emoluments, let us not
forget that this is not going to pay for
the dedication of these men, but we do
want to show respect for their service
and their intelligence and their ability
and an appreciation of their willingness
to serve and to give advice to our civilian
leaders. They must also be heard and
recognized because of their experience
and ability.
May 8
Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the time
to say more ffot only about George An-
derson, but I would mention Gen. Curtis
LeMay, Adm. Arleigh Burke, General
MacArthur and many others. There was
Billy Mitchell in the First World War.
The way we have treated some of these
men by our civilian leaders is a disgrace
to this Nation, and God knows we need
these men.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 27 minutes.
(Mr. BATES asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, as the
chairman of the subcommittee, has indi-
cated, this is not a dramatic bill, it is not
a glamorous presentation that we are
making before you today, and we pur-
posely approach it in that way. There
is no need for us to talk about the
Thresher or the men who gave their lives
on that ship; or the accounts in, the
newspapers about the widows of those
men and the talk about the small pit-
tance that they received after their hus-
bands had lost their lives. We are not
talking about those who only last week
in California went down on the Andrew
Jackson on its first trial run?another..
Polaris submarine. We are all old
enough to understand the facts without
having recourse to that emotional kind
of discussion.
Mr. Chairman, the basic purpose of
H.R. 5555, the proposed Uniformed Serv-
ices Pay Act of 1963 is threefold:
First. It would provide selective in-
creases in basic pay and subsistence
allowances.
Second. It would establish a new
method for adjusting retirement or re-
tainer pay in the future based on in-
creases in the cost of living.
Third. It would correct certain inequi-
ties in the present compensation system
for service members.
Mr. Chairman, the overall increase
which would be made by this bill in the
present level of expenditures for basic
pay and allowances for military person-
nel of our Active Forces is approximately
10 percent.
A comparison between increases in the
pay of military personnel and increases
in the pay of civilian employees of the
Government for the past 10 years shows
that the pending bill gives only a very
modest increase in the compensation of
military personnel.
For example, in 1955, classified civil
service employees received a 7.5-percent
increase in compensation; in 1958 they
received a 10-percent increase; in 1960
they received a 7.7-percent increase; in
1962 they received a 5.5-percent increase,
and will receive a further increase of 4.1
percent on January 1, 1964.
In contrast, the basic pay scales for
members of the uniformed services have
been increased only twice in the past 10
years.
In the case of military personnel, Con-
gress in 1955 provided an average in-
crease in basic compensation of 6.7 per-
cent. In 1958 military personnel received
an average increase in basic compensa-
tion of 6.2 percent. Thus, the last time
that the rates of basic pay for members
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
of the uniformed services were increased
was some 5 years ago.
In 1962 Congress, for the first time in
10 years, authorized a sorely needed in-
crease in the basic allowance for quar-
ters for members of the uniformed serv-
ices. The effective date of the increase,
however, was delayed until January 1,
1963.
For military personnel this increase in
the quarters allowance represented an
average increase of 2.5 percent in basic
compensation. All the percentages I
have stated represent percentage in-
creases in the budget estimates for basic
pay, quarters and subsistence allowances
for personnel on active duty.
Expressed another way, the cumulative
percentage of pay increases provided by
Congress since 1952 for classified civil
service employees is 39.8 percent. For
military personnel over the same period,
Congress has provided a cumulative in-
crease of 16.2 percent including the re-
cent increase in the basic allowance for
quarters.
It has been said before and it is just as
true today, that pay alone is not, and
never has been, the primary motivation
for a career in the armed services.
We could never compensate in dollars
for the hazards and privations that mem-
bers of the armed services must be pre-
pared to accept, and do accept, in wear-
ing the uniform of their country. But,
what Congress can do, and in simple jus-
tice ought to do, is to extend to our serv-
ice men and women the same considera-
tion that we have consistently demon-
strated in providing pay increases for
civilian employees of the Government.
I believe, particularly in the case of
members of the uniformed services who
have no unions to bargain for them, that
the Congress has a duty to see to it that
the rates of pay for service members are
regularly adjusted to conform to the
pattern of steadily increasing earnings
in the United States.
Such a policy is in the national inter-
est and is the only sound one in the long
run. It is the only policy which can
make it possible for the armed services
to attract and retain their fair share of
our best young men for career service.
THE PROBLEM-INADEQUATE RETENTION
Mr. Chairman, our national commit-
ments require military personnel to serve
in many locations where their depend-
ents cannot accompany them. Our
troops, ships, and aircraft squadrons are
deployed in instant readiness for com-
bat, and personnel so deployed must
undergo considerable hardship, including
long separations from their homes and
families. The combination of inadequate
pay and personal hardship is effectively
preventing the Armed Forces from at-
tracting sufficient young candidates for
career military service, while at the same
time, personnel with substantial invest-
ments of service are quitting the Armed
Forces.
The loss of highly trained personnel,
particularly in the enlisted technician
category, and the loss of young officers,
especially flying and submarine officers,
is very expensive in terms of the money
required for their training. More im-
portant, it is damaging to the combat
efficiency of the Armed Forces.
In order to maintain the required force
structure, the military services must re-
cruit or draft annually about 450,000 men
to replace an equivalent number leaving
the service. Thus, the total administra-
tive load, or the in-and-out problem gen-
erated by such turnover, is more than
900,000 men a year. Training costs of
the military services total about $2,500
million a year.
Mr. Chairman, increased retention of
skilled manpower not only means in-
creased operational efficiency, but also
that a substantial investment in tech-
nical training costs would be preserved.
For example, it costs $8,530 to train an
Army electronic guidance systems re-
pairman; $12,550 to train an Air Force
nuclear weapons specialist.
All of the services are short of the
desired number of careerists in the elec-
tronics and other technical career fields.
The Army is short 19,100 careerists in
electronics, and another 10,200 in other
technical specialties. The Navy is short
34,000 careerists in electronics, and
18,600 career mechanics and repairmen.
The services are procuring and train-
ing sufficient numbers to have the desired
60 to 65 percent career force in elec-
tronics, but too few are reenlisting for
the career force. In 1962, out of 39,000
fully trained electronics specialists who
were eligible to reenlist, only 9,936 re-
enlisted. The 29,000 who did not re-
enlist represented a training loss of $135
million, and an experience loss that is
impossible to estimate.
I could cite many other examples but
I will mention only a few more for il-
--lustration of the problem.
To train an aviation fire control tech-
nician for the Navy costs $7,580. The
desired career ratio for this skill is over
50 percent; the actual career ratio is 34
percent. Similarly, it costs $6,660 to
train a Navy aviation electronics tech-
nician but only one out of three men in
this skill is a career man.
The Army spends $8,530 to train an
electronics guidance repairman for sur-
face-to-surface missiles. Only 15 per-
cent trained in this field are reenlisted
for a second term; 85 percent leave the
service.
Not all the problems are in the elec-
tronics field. It costs $8,000 to train a
teletypewriter maintenance man, and
the Army needs 60 percent of these men
to be careerists. It has only 40 percent
who are careerists.
It costs $5,300 to train a specialist in
the communications security field and
it takes a full enlistment to reach ac-
ceptable proficiency. Yet, the Army has
only 18 percent careerists in this field.
The problems of inadequate retention
and associated high replacement train-
ing costs are not limited to enlisted per-
sonnel.
When officers leave after serving a
minimum tour of duty?and approxi-
mately two out of three do leave?the
cost of procuring and training replace-
ments must also be repeated.
In particular, pilots leaving the service
represent a large investment. It costs
7585
a minimum of $75,000 to put an Air
Force pilot through pilot training; and
an additional $200,000 to qualify him in
a fighter aircraft such as the E-102, for
a total cost of $275,000.
During the next fiscal year, it is esti-
mated that some 525 Air Force pilots
alone will voluntarily leave the service,
representing an investment cost of $130
million.
Retention rates of officers in other
fields are equally disturbing. The Air
Force, with a critical need for officers in
the scientific and engineering skills is
retaining only about 15 percent of such
officers upon completion of their obli-
gated service. In some research and de-
velopment specialties, the retention rate
is as low as 7 percent. The Army is re-
taining only 16 percent of its Judge Ad-
vocate General officers, and 19 percent of
its engineers. The Navy experience is
equally poor.
These are the facts, amorig others,
which principally determined the pat-
tern of the proposed basic pay increases
which I will now discuss.
BASIC PAY INCREASE
Mr. Chairman, no Member of the
House should let the cost of the bill mis-
lead him into thinking that the selective
increases in basic pay which the bill
would provide are generous in any re-
spect.
The plain and simple fact is that the
sheer size of the Armed Forces which our
national security requires makes even a
modest pay increase for service members
bulk large in terms of total cost.
For example, to increase the pay of
all members of the Armed Forces by even
$10 a month would mean a total annual
increased cost of $382 million. The fact
of force size alone, and the fact that
some 5 years have elapsed since the last
increase in basic pay for service mem-
bers, make self-evident the reasons for
the cost of the bill.
Let me tell you, generally, what we
have done with reference to the increase
in basic pay.
With one major exception the rates of
basic pay in this bill correspond to rates
originally recommended by the Depart-
ment of Defense. The major exception
is that the Department of Defense had
proposed increases in basic pay for all
members irrespective of length of service.
The committee rejected this proposal.
Under this bill before you, no increase is
provided for members with less than 2
years of service for pay purposes. For
members with more than 2 years of serv-
ice for pay purposes, the average in-
crease is 14.7 percent.
The pattern of selective pay increases
which would be provided by this bill has
been expressly designed to alleviate the
enlisted and junior officer retention prob-
lems I have described.
For officers, the highest percentage in-
crease, about 18 percent, is provided at
the critical retention points in the grades
of first lieutenant and captain. The
amount of the increase is progressively
less for each higher grade. The aver-
age increase for majors is 15.1 percent;
for lieutenant colonels, 12.1 percent; for
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
colonels, 10 percent; and for flag and
general officers, 5 percent.
For enlisted members the largest per-
centage increases, in general, go to mem-
bers in pay grade E-3, 18 percent; and in
pay grade E-4, 16 percent. The smallest
increase, 4.8 percent, would be provided
for members in pay grade E-1 with more
than 2 years of service.
The critical point in the career deci-
sion for most enlisted members is at
the 3- to 4-year service point. By that
time the average enlisted man has ad-
vanced to the grade of E-4 and is seri-
ously eyeing the pay rates for the E-5.
Accordingly, this bill, provides a basic
pay increase of $30 a month to the E-4
with over 4 years of service, and a $30
increase to the E-5 with over 6 years
of service. This amounts to a 17.6-per-
cent increase in basic pay for the E-4,
and a 14.3-percent increase for the E-5.
We hope that these increases will prove ?
sufficient to encourage a significant num-
ber of enlisted men to seek career status
at this critical decision point.
The largest increases, dollarwise, would
go to enlisted members in the three high-
est enlisted pay grade, E-7, E-8, and E-9.
Under the present pay scale, enlisted
members in pay grades E-8 and E-9 re-
ceive only one longevity increase of $10
a month between 20 and 30 years of serv-
ice, and the E-7 receives no longevity in-
creases. As a result, most of these highly
skilled noncommissioned officers leave
the service at the 20- or 22-year point.
The bill would correct this deficiency
in the present pay' scale by providing
significant 'incentive increases for all
three senior enlisted grades at the 22-
and 26-year service points. At the 22-
year point, the increase for the E-7 will
be $50 a month; for the E-8 and E-9,
$70. At the 26-year point, the B-7 will
receive a $100 a month increase, and the
E-8 and E-9 will each receive a $120
a month more.
At present, the maximum basic pay
an E-7, master sergeant, can receive is
$350, after 20 years' service. This bill
will increase that to $450. For an E-9,
the present maximum is $440 after 22
years of service. Under this bill he would
receive $560 a month in basic pay after
26 years' service.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED PAY RATES
Mr. Chairman, the rates of basic pay
for members of the uniformed services
were last increased in 1958. Since that
time, increases in earnings of workers in
private industry, and of civilian em-
ployees of the Federal Government have
created a substantial disparity between
service pay and the compensation avail-
able elsewhere for comparable skills and
responsibilities.
For example, the indexes of earnings
in private industry show that the aver-
age pay of officers has lagged substan-
tially behind increases in earnings else-
where in the ecoi_lomy. Since 1958, the
median earnings of full-time employed,
professional, scientific and technical
workers, a group generally comparable
to officer personnel, has been increasing
about 3 percent a year.
For classified civil service employees in
grades GS-8 through GS-12, which in
general are related, paywise, to the com-
missioned officer grades of first lieuten-
ant through major, Congress, since 1958,
has provided cumulative pay increases?
including phase 2 of the 1962 in-
crease?ranging from 19 to 23 percent.
It can be seen, therefore, that even the
maximum increase of 18 percent in basic
pay which this bill would provide for
first lieutenants and captains is not ex-
cessive when compared to the pay in-
creases achieved by the other groups I
have mentioned.
The 5-percent increase which this bill
would provide for flag and general offi-
cers is based on the increase in the cost
of living since 1958 as reflected in the
Consumer Price Index. In other words,
for the most senior officers, this bill does
no more than maintain the purchasing
power of their basic pay at the 1958 level.
With respect to enlisted members, the
bill now before the House would provide
an average increase of 14.5 percent in
basic pay. Since 1958 the average hourly
earnings, excluding overtime, of produc-
tion workers in manufacturing has in-
creased 15.1 percent. The average earn-
ings of Army-Air Force wage board blue
collar workers, a group generally com-
parable to enlisted personnel, has in-
creased by 20 percent since 1958.
The proposed average increase in basic
pay for enlisted members is therefore
fairly close to the average increase in
hourly earnings of production workers in
industry, but less than the average in-
crease in earnings since 1958 for blue col-
lar workers of the Department of De-
fense.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear from
the facts I have cited that the proposed
average increase in basic pay for both
officers and enlisted members is in no
way excessive and will do no more than
narrow the gap which has developed be-
tween service pay and the earnings of
workers elsewhere in the economy.
INCENTIVE HAZARDOUS-DUTY PAY
The bill now before the House would
also amend existing law governing en-
titlement to incentive hazardous-duty
pay. Although these changes are mini-
mal from a cost standpoint, they would
correct certain deficiencies and inequi-
ties in existing law. The amendments
that would be made pertain to submarine
pay, incentive pay for high-pressure
chamber duty, and multiple payments of
incentive pay.
SUBMARINE PAY
We all know and realize the impor-
tance of our submarine fleet. This es-
sential element of our defense posture is
being expanded, and conventional sub-
marines are giving way to vastly more
complicated, nuclear-powered, missile-
firing submarines. The conversion and
strengthening of our submarine fleet
requires extensive retraining of individ-
uals now qualified in and assigned to
conventional submarines, as well as
thousands of new volunteers. However,
existing law does not authorize subma-
rine pay during time spent in training
as a prospective member of a submarine
being constructed, or during periods of
instruction to prepare for assignment to
a submarine of advanced design. Yet,
when these multi-million-dollar subma-
May 8
rifles slide into the water, their crews
are expected to be fully qualified to
operate them as fighting units of the
fleet.
The limitations of existing law have
seriously hampered the Navy in obtain-
ing sufficient volunteers from personnel
qualified in submarines. The reason is
one of pure economics. Officers and men
already qualified in submarines and re-
ceiving submarine pay, cannot afford to
voluntarily give up their submarine pay
while undergoing training for assignment
to submarines of advanced design.
The bill now before the House will cor-
rect this inequity by authorizing, in the
case of personnel already qualified in
submarines, the payment of submarine
pay during periods of instruction to pre-
pare for assignment to a submarine of
advanced design, or a position of in-
creased responsibility on a submarine.
The annual cost of this provision would
be $2,065,000.
HIGH-PRESSURE-CHAMBER DUTY
The second change in incentive pay for
hazardous duty concerns those officers
and enlisted members performing duty
as an observer or in any other capacity
"inside a high- or low-pressure, cham-
ber." The present law authorizes
monthly hazardous-duty payments of
$110 for officers and $55 for enlisted
members on duty as a "low-pressure
chamber inside observer" only. The
present bill would merely extend the spe-
cial pay to include duty in a high-pres-
sure chamber as well as a low-pressure
chamber, regardless of whether or not
the individual is an observer.
The risks taken and the training re-
quired to work in a high-pressure en-
vironment are similar to those in a low-
pressure environment and should be
equally compensated. The annual cost
of this provision would be $145,000.
MULTIPLE HAZARDS
In the Military Establishment today
the mission of certain units requires
members to expose themselves concur-
rently to two or more hazards, any one
of which would qualify them to receive
incentive-hazardous duty pay. For ex-
ample, certain demolition experts are
required to train as parachutists and to
jump into areas to neutralize explosives.
This bill would duly recognize the multi-
ple hazard involved in such duties by
providing that members required to
regularly perform two or more hazardous
duties be authorized to receive not more
than two incentive pays a month. The
annual cost of this provision would be
$1,941,000.
INCREASE IN SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
Mr. Chairman, this bill would also in-
crease, for the first time in 11 years, the
basic allowances for subsistence for of-
ficers and enlisted members. It is an
adjustment that is obviously long over-
due if this element of basic compensation
for service members is to continue to
fulfill its intended function.
OFFICERS
For officers, the present rate of $47.88
a month would be increased to $51 a
month or, in other words, an increase of
$3.12 a month. This is a 6.6-percent in-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 7587
crease over the present rate and is based
on the increase in the cost of food since
1952 as reflected in the Consumer Price
Index.
I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that
the Department of Defense recom-
mended that the subsistence allowance
for officers be increased from $47.88 a
month to $77 a month. Under the De-
partment of Defense proposal, the in-
creased cost in subsistence allowance for
officers would have been $122 million an-
nually. The Department of Defense,
however, did not recommend any in-
crease in the subsistence allowances for
enlisted members.
The Committee on Armed Services did
not accept the recommendation of the
Department of Defense. Under the les-
ser amount recommended by the commit-
tee, the increased annual cost for sub-
sistence for officers would be $13 million,
or $109 million less than the cost that
would have resulted from the Defense
proposal. This means that under the bill
now before the House, each officer would
receive $26 a month less in basic com-
pensation than was recommended by the
Department of Defense. At the same
time, however, the increase in subsis-
tence allowances which this bill would
provide for enlisted members will in-
crease the take-home pay of enlisted
members by $77,549,000 a year.
ENLISTED MEMBERS
You will recall that under existing law
three different subsistence allowances
are prescribed for enlisted members de-
pending upon the conditions applicable.
Two of the rates are prescribed by
statute. The third rate is established ad-
ministratively by the Secretary of De-
fense and is applicable to enlisted mem-
bers authorized to ration separately.
The number of enlisted men presently
authorized to ration separately is about
800,000. Generally, these are career en-
listed men who are married and subsist
with their families. Under existing law
these enlisted members are entitled to
an amount equivalent to the actual cost
of the ration as determined by the Sec-
retary of Defense. At present this
amount is $1.03 a day, or about $31 a
month. It reflects only the cost of the
food to the Government to feed the
member if he were subsisting in the
mess hall.
Under this bill, for the first time in
the history of the military pay system,
enlisted members authorized to ration
separately will be entitled to a statutory
monthly amount. The amount pre-
scribed in the bill is $37.50 a month, or
the equivalent of $1.25 a day on a 30-day
month.
The Committee on Armed Services be-
lieves that the proposed amount of
$37.50 a month for an enlisted member to
subsist separately is an eminently rea-
sonable and modest one in light of its
intended function. Certainly, it more
nearly approximates the cost of meals
served in the mess hall since the present
amount of $1.03 a day does not recognize
the added cost to the Government of
procuring, shipping, storing, and issuing
No. 68-18
the raw food to the mess halls, nor the
cost of preparing and serving it.
At the same time, by placing the sub-
sistence allowance for enlisted members
on a monthly basis, the bill would effect
a highly desirable simplification and
modernization of the present system.
The increased annual cost resulting
from this proposed increase in the
amount of the subsistence allowance for
enlisted members who ration separately
? would be $54 million.
The other changes in rates for sub-
sistence allowance which would be made
by the bill would affect relatively few
members.
The first of these changes would in-
crease from $2.57 a day to $97.50 a
month?equivalent to $3.25 a day?the
subsistence allowance for enlisted mem-
bers who do not have a field ration mess
available, and whose duty assignment
requires them to incur subsistence ex-
penses substantially in excess of those
incurred by other members authorized
to ration separately.
At present, there are approximately
63,000 enlisted members who receive the
$2.57- a-day subsistence allowance. How-
ever, from testimony developed during
the course of hearings on this provision,
it was ascertained that some of these
men are assigned to areas where mess-
ing facilities or commissaries are avail-
able, although not at the installation to
which they actually report. Obviously,
for these men the cost of subsisting is not
substantially greater than for the en-
listed man assigned to a base where
messing facilities or a commissary are
available, but who is authorized to mess
separately. Therefore, under the lan-
guage of this bill, some enlisted members
now receiving the $2.57 daily subsistence
allowance would only be entitled to re-
ceive the lower $1.25-a-day rate. Others
now receiving $2.57 a day and perform-
ing duties which actually require them
to incur substantially increased sub-
sistence- would receive $97.5,0 a month?
$3.25 a day equivalent.
The change represents an increase of
26 percent and is based on the increase
in the cost of meals served in restaurants
since 1952 when the last previous adjust-
ment to this rate was made. The annual
increased cost of this provision in the bill
would be $15 million.
The third rate which would be changed
by the bill is the rate presently author-
ized for enlisted personnel assigned to
duty under emergency conditions where
no messing facilities of the United States
are available. Under existing law this
rate is $3.42 a day. The number of en-
listed men?about 800 a year?who re-
ceive this amount is extremely small and
such assignments invariably are of short
duration. Under the bill the new rate
would be $129.30 a month. This is
equivalent to $4.31 a day on a 30-day
month, or a 26-percent increase. It, too,
is based on the increased cost since 1952
of eating in restaurants, as reflected in
the Consumer Price Index. The annual
increased cost of this provision in the bill
would be $274,000. '
NEW FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Mr. Chairman, one of the most acute
problems confronting service members is
the lack of any reimbursement to them
for the additional expenses caused by
lengthy, enforced separation of service
families.
To correct this inequity and to allevi-
ate the financial hardships caused by the
added expenses which result from such
enforced separations, the bill now before
the House would establish a new allow-
ance to be known as a family separation
allowance.
Briefly, this provision of the bill will
do two things:
First, it provides an additional quar-
ter allowance to members with depend-
ents who are assigned to an oversea
station without their dependents and
where bachelor quarters are not avail-
able for the service members.
Under such circumstances, the effect
of existing law is that the service mem-
ber is required to find quarters on the
local economy and pay for such quar-
ters out of his own pocket. This in-
equity would be corrected by the bill
in that it would authorize, in effect, re-
imbursement to the member for this ad-
ditional, necessary expense.
Second, it provides to all eligible mem-
bers?pay grade E-4 with 4 years of serv-
ice and all pay grades above?when sep-
arated from their families for a period
of 30 consecutive days or longer, an al-
lowance of $30 a month or one-third the
amount of the basic allowance for quar-
ters of a member of the same grade
without dependents, whichever is
greater. This means that the range of
this allowance would be a minimum of
$30 to a maximum of $53 a month. To
qualify for this allowance, the family
separation must be involuntary; that is,
due to exigencies of the service, and the
dependents of the service member must
not be occupying Government quarters
during the absence of the service
member.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the need and
justification for the proposed family
separation allowance are all too evident
to require extended discussion.
It must be recognized that as a result
of the continuing tensions of cold war,
more and more members of the uni-
formed services are being separated
from their families for longer periods of
time, and on a recurring basis.
For example, in the Tactical Air Com-
mand, 49 percent of all personnel as-
signed to that command were away from
their home bases without their families
for more than 6 months out of each of
the last two preceding fiscal years.
During calendar year 1962, the 14 car-
riers of the U.S. fleet were absent from
home ports for an average of 329 days
out of the 366 of the year.
Many of our service personnel are
assigned to isolated points where their
families cannot join them, such as radar
sites and duty in the Antarctic. It is
obvious that When the breadwinner of a
family is away from home for extended
periods of time, the cost of maintaining
the household increases. This includes
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the expense of hiring help to do the
various handyman jobs that are nor-
mally taken care of by the husband
when the family is together, such as
home and automobile maintenance and
repair, yard maintenance, and increased
child care expenses.
Mr. Chairman, it is too much to ask
of our service' members that they not
only undergo enforced separations from
their families for extended periods, but
also pay out of their pockets all the extra
expenses to their families which result
from these separations. The assistance
which this proposed allowance would
provide will do a?great deal to ease the
present burden on our serivcemen and
their families.
The estimated annual cot of this sec-
tion of the bill for the Department of
Defense is approximately $42 million.
EXCLUDING HAWAII AS FOREIGN-DUTY STATION
Among the proposals made by the De-
partment of Defense to the Committee
on Armed Services was the elimination
of sea- and foreign-duty pay for enlisted
personnel. The committee rejected this
proposal.
Under existing law only enlisted mem-
bers receive sea- and foreign-duty pay.
Such pay was eliminated for officers in
1949. The amounts of sea- and foreign-
duty pay today for enlisted members
range from $8 a month to $22.50 a month,
depending on the grade of the enlisted
member concerned.
We believe that the present system of
sea- and foreign-duty pay is essential for
morale purposes and in recognition of
the many unpleasant aspects of such
duty. Enlisted members at sea for long
periods of time most often live under
crowded, cramped conditions. Enlisted
members on foreign duty and in Alaska
must often serve in undesirable areas
for extended periods of time.
The committee does believe, however,
that existing law should be amended so
that entitlement to foreign duty pay
shall not include duty in the State of
Hawaii, and the bill would so provide.
PROPOSED CHANGES AFFECTING
RETIREMENT PAY
Mr. Chairman, this bill also contains
three major provisions affecting retire-
ment pay for members of the uniformed
services. In effect, these provisions
would accomplish the following:
NEW METHOD FOR 1ui LIRE ADJUSTMENTS
OF RETIRED PAY
To replace the former system of re-
computation of retired pay based on
changes in active duty pay rates and
which was in effect prior to June 1, 1958,
a new statutory method is provided for
- adjustment of retirement or retainer pay
in the future.
The proposed new system is essentially
the same as the system prescribed by the
Congress in the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962 for adjustment of annuities
of civil service retirees. Future adjust-
ments of retired pay for members of the
uniformed services would be based on in-
creases in the cost of living as reflected
in the Consumer Price Index. Whenever
the increase is equal to or greater than
3 percent since the last adjustment of
retirement pay or retainer pay, then all
retired pay rates would be increased by
the same percentage.
APPLICATION OF PROPOSED PAY SCALES TO
PERSONNEL WHO RETIRE IN 1963
The proposed legislation provides that
personnel who became entitled to retired
or retainer pay during calendar year
1963 will be paid retired or retainer pay
on the new rates contained in the bill.
The committee considers this provision
to be fully justified in fairness to the
many retirees who have no control over
their separation date during this cal-
endar year. This situation has become
accentuated by the fact that the pro-
posed effective date for the proposed leg-
islation is October 1, 1963 or the first day
of the first month after enactment,
whichever is later.
The services all have programs to re-
duce the World War II hump in certain
grades and to revitalize the force. Many
members also face mandatory retirement
due to physical disability, age, and com-
pletion of certain mandatory years of
service.
Recommendations of the Department
of Defense for increases in the basic pay
scales were submitted to the Congress on
the 25th day of January 1963. Almost
without exception, therefore, the service
members who retired, or will be retired,
during this calendar year were still on
active duty when the proposed new rates
of basic pay were submitted to the Con-
gress. The Committee on Armed Serv-
ices believes that these service members
have rightfully earned the extension to
them of the proposed new rates of basic
pay.
Accordingly, the bill would authorize
the retired pay of members retired at
any time during 1963,,and before the ef-
fective date of the bill, to be computed
on the proposed new rates of basic pay.
FIVE-PERCENT INCREASE IN RETIREMENT PAY
Mr. Chairman, the third important
provision affecting retired personnel
would provide a 5-percent increase in
present rates of retirement pay or re-
tainer pay for all other retired person-
nel.
The proposed increase of 5 percent is
based on the increase in the cost of liv-
ing between 1958 and 1962 as reflected
in the Consumer Price Index.
None of the provisions that I have
mentioned affecting the rates of retired
pay are retroactive. The new. rates
would be payable only from and after
the effective date of this bill.
ANNUAL COST-SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, in view of the various
provisions contained in the bill now un-
der consideration, and the importance
of this bill to all members of the uni-
formed services, I believe it would be
helpful to the Members of the House for
me to summarize at this point the cost
aspects of the bill as a whole.
Under this bill, the total annual cost
of the proposed increases in pay and al-
lowance for military personnel will be
$1,191,694,000. Of this total, $1,052,630,-
000 is for active personnel, $68,845,000
for Reserves in a drill pay status, and
$70,219,000 for retired personnel?$383,-
May 8
005,000 will go to officers, $808,633,000 to
enlisted personnel, and $56,000 to officer
candidates and cadets.
The proposed increase in basic pay for
active and reserve personnel accounts
for $915,156,000 and the increase in sub-
sistence, $90,560,000. These will have
the further effect of increasing other
items linked to either or both of these,
such as reenlistment bonus, terminal
leave pay, severance pay, reserve read-
justment, social security, and death gra-
tuity, by $75,114,000. Nearly all of the
remainder for active and reserve person-
nel results from the proposed family
separation allowance when exigencies of
the service prevent families from living
at or near the duty station. The annual
cost of the family separation allowance
will be $41,979,000.
The annual cost of H.R. 5555 is $46,-
832,000 below the cost of the Defense
Department proposal. This reduction
was accomplished even though the com-
mittee refused the Department's pro-
posals, to abolish sea and foreign duty
pay?which is only paid to enlisted per-
sonnel?and to deny any increase in
basic pay for drills attended by Reserve
members in an obligatory status. Also,
the committee added $77,549000 for an
increase in subsistence allowances for
enlisted personnel, who had received no
increase in this item since 1952. The
reduction in the total cost was accom-
plished by eliminating any increases in
basic pay for members with less than 2
years of service and by reducing the
proposed increase in the subsistence al-
lowance for officers.
The total cost includes the extension
of the scope of submarine pay to include
time devoted to certain types of training,
at a cost of $2,065,000. Also, it is pro-
posed to allow the concurrent payment
of two types of hazardous duty incen-
tive pay in appropriate circumstances, at
a cost of $1,979,000.
All of the costs I have stated are on
an annual basis. However, it is pro-
posed to have the increases become ef-
fective on October 1, 1963, or on the first
day of the month following enactment,
whichever is later. If the effective date
is October 1, 1963, the increase in cost
for fiscal year 1964 will be $891,521,000.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, I have covered the
major provisions of the bill. I believe
the bill provides, at minimum cost, a
sorely needed and long overdue pay in-
crease for members of the uniformed
services. I believe the selective pay in-
creases which are provided by the bill
have been placed where they are most
needed and will be the most effective in
attracting and retaining trained per-
sonnel for career service.
I cannot overemphasize the fact that
without trained and experienced person-
nel, the effort and billions of dollars we
spend on weapons, ships, planes and sub-
marines could be wasted.
The Armed Forces are responsible for
the security of the United States. They
must be ready and effective. To be ready
and effective they must be able to attract
and retain adequate numbers of our best
people.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
I have high hopes for the results which
may be achieved by the enactment of
this bill. I believe that the reduced
training costs made possible by improved
retention of highly trained officers and
enlisted members will offset in substan-
tial part the cost of the bill.
I know that increased retention of our
skilled officers and enlisted members
will be reflected in increased combat
capability, making this bill an essential
and worthwhile investmen.t in our
national security.
I sincerely trust the bill will be favor-
ably received by the House and that it
will be adopted.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATES. I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Chairman,
last week end when I was home a number
of servicemen engaged in recruiting duty
and who, therefore, live off the post
where no rations are available, called on
me and expressed concern that their al-
lowanCe of $2.57 a day would be cut to
$1.25 by the passage of this bill. On page
23 of the committee report the language
regarding subsistence allowances indi-
cates to me that their fears were un-
founded. In fact, their $2.57 will be in-
creased to $3.25 a day. May I ask the
gentleman from Massachusetts or the
chairman of the subcommittee whether
I am correct in that?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. We
have gotten out a letter on this subject.
This idea that the ration allowance for
enlisted personnel will be reduced is
entirely in error.
There is no intention on the part of
the committee to reduce the present
allowance now paid to personnel on
civilian component duty, such as ROTC,
Reserve, and National Guard duty, re-
cruiting duty, or other similar duty,
where the enlisted personnel involved are
not assigned to a military installation
or a Government mess is not available.
All allowances for enlisted personnel
will be increased under the pay increase
now under consideration.
The subsistence allowances, when ra-
tions in kind are not available?and this
is the case the gentleman refers W?
are to be increased from $2.57 to $3.25
per day. The $3.25 a day will be pay-
able when the member's duty assignment
requires him to incur subsistence ex-
penses substantially in excess of mem-
bers permitted to mess separately. He
gets the $3.25 and the $1.25 figure does
not apply to him. Many of them have
told me of their worry about this, but
their concern is not well founded. We
would not do this under any circum-
stances.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. I thank the gen-
tleman. I think these recruiters are do-
ing an excellent job. I think they ought
to be encouraged to continue their ef-
forts. I appreciate the remarks of the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATES. I yield to the gentleman
from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to compliment the gentleman
from Massachusetts on the fine way he
has presented the facts on this difficult
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I support the passage
of H.R. 5555. Between 1952 and 1962,
the average earnings of professional,
scientific, technical workers, and others
in categories generally similar to mili-
tary officer personnel have increased by
49 percent. At the same time the aver-
age earnings of manufacturing-produc-
tion workers, a group which might be
considered analogous to enlisted person-
nel, has gone up 44.8 percent over the
10 years in question. The civil service
employees, as the result of numerous
pay raises over the past 10 years have
gone up a total of 39.8 percent. The uni-
formed personnel of the Armed Forces
have received pay raises over the 10-
year time period totaling but 16.2 per-
cent.
The pending bill will raise pay for
uniformed personnel of the Department
of Defense by about 12.6 percent. The
bill substantially follows the recom-
mendations of the administration. It
will cost slightly less in fiscal 1964 than
budgetary provisions suggested for this
purpose by the President.
Classified employees of the Federal
Government have received raises in
1958, 1960, 1962, and will receive another
in 1964. It has been 5 years since
there has been a pay raise for the mem-
bers of the uniformed services. It is
time Congress began the task of equal-
izing the existing disparity in compen-
sation.
(Mr. STAFFORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATES. I yield.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. May
I compliment the distinguished gentle-
man from Massachusetts, who was an
outstanding officer of the Navy. I think
the gentleman knows as much about this
subject, if not more, than any other
Member. He is a tower of strength on
our subcommittee. Without his fine
contribution I doubt if we would have
gotten this bill out at all. His knowledge
on this subject is extraordinary.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BATES. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. VINSON. I, too, want to join our
colleagues in complimenting the gentle-
man from Massachusetts for the admira-
ble manner in which he has explained a
complicated bill.
I want to say this. It has been my
privilege over the years to participate in
a great many pay bills. There can be no
doubt that this pay bill is the most equi-
table and fairest pay bill that has been
submitted to the Congress during ,the
time I have had the honor to serve here.
I certainly trust that this bill will receive
the overwhelming support of every Mem-
ber of this House. It is fair and equita-
ble to the Active Forces and it is fair and
equitable to those in the Reserves. I
hope this committee bill will receive the
approval of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment
7589
the distinguished gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RIVERS] for his excellent
and clear statement concerning the pro-
posed legislation.
I also want to compliment all members
of the subcommittee of which he is chair-
man for the fine work they did in the
recommendations submitted to the full
committee.
I think most of us will agree that be-
cause of rising costs, and the substantial
increases that have been enacted for
civil service employees, as well as the fact
that wages and salaries have been in-
creased in all segments of American in-
dustry, that a pay increase for members
of the uniformed services is not only
fully justified, but absolutely necessary
if we are to retain the trained personnel
we need so badly.
It is also essential if we are to obtain,
on a career basis, the type of men we
must have in our Armed Forces in order
to maintain our combat efficiency, and
to utilize the highly complicated weap-
ons systems that we are now producing.
Now the Department of Defense sub-
mitted a pay proposal to the Congress
which recommended an annual increase
of $1,238,526,000, for 2,710,000 members
of the armed services on a full fiscal year
basis.
But the President only requested $900
million for 9 months of fiscal year 1964
to pay for the proposed pay increase for
merrIbers of the armed services.
After carefully analyzing the Depart-
ment proposal, we have reported a bill
to the House involving a full fiscal year
cost of $1,191,694,000, ?or $46,832,000
under the President's proposal.
And with an effective date of Octo-
ber 1, 1963, the committee proposal in-
volves a cost of $896,521,000, or $8,479,000
less than the amount requested by the
President for the remainder of fiscal 1964.
Now I would like to tell you briefly
where this $1,191,694,000 will go if we -
enact the proposed legislation.
On a full fiscal year basis, the pro-
posed legislation increases the basic pay
scales for 1,890,000 members of the
armed services by $847,498,000.
The increase in subsistence allowances
for officers accounts for approximately
$13 million.
The increase in subsistence allowances
for enlisted personnel is approximately
$77 million.
Retaining sea and foreign duty pay,
which the Department of Defense
wanted to eliminate, accounts for
$127,675,000.
We have also recommended a new
benefit to be known as a family separa-
tion allowance, at an annual cost of
$41 million.
_ Now I think the first thing the House
would like to know is how we were able
to bring the cost of this bill under the
amount suggested, by the President.
First of all, we reduced the cost by
$135 million by eliminating any increase
in basic pay for those with under 2 years
of service.
Our major problem is in retaining en-
listed personnel and officers after they
have been trained.
So long as we have a Selective Service
System, we will not have any difficulty
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
in obtaining the numbers of men that
are needed.
The problem comes up when we try to
encourage these men to reenlist or to
continue on as officers after they have
been trained.
We spend more than $21/2 billion a
year training our military personnel.
Over $1 billion a year goes into technical
training alone. And yet our first-term
reenlistment rates in some of the critical
skills is as low as 15 percent.
The overall reenlistment rate for those
who complete their obligated service or
their first enlistment is only 24 percent.
After the first reenlistment, the re-
tention rates increase since these people
then have an investment in retirement.
But we still lose far too many men
at the end of their obligated service, and
even after their first reenlistment, and
this is reflected in high training costs
and reduced combat efficiency.
If we can increase our reenlistment
rates substantially we can reduce our
training costs, because we can assign
fewer people as trainers, and at the same
time we can assign those trainers to our
combat units.
And if we can increase our retention
rate for officers, we will not only reduce
training costs, which in some areas are
fantastically high, but at the same time
we will provide the services with a higher
number of applicants from which to
choose those who express a desire to
make a career of the services and eventu-
ally become our military leaders.
Today we have to accept 98 percent of
those officers who apply for extended
tours of duty; as a result, there is no
degree of selectivity.
Since the basic problem is the reten-
tion of persons who have completed their
obligated service, we decided 'to elimi-
nate any pay increase for those with
under 2 years of service. This resulted
in our first substantial savings of $135
million.
I might say that this is the same pol-
icy we adopted in the 1955 and 1958 mili-
tary pay increases.
Now the Department of Defense want-
ed to repeal sea and foreign duty pay.
As you know, this money is paid in
amounts ranging from $8 a month for a
private, up to $22.50 a month for master
sergeants. It is paid only to enlisted per-
sonnel. Officers do not get this pay.
The Department of Defense wanted to
substitute a remote and isolated duty al-
lowance to be paid to officers and enlisted
personnel at a cost of $30 million and re-
peal sea and foreign duty pay at a sav-
ings of $134 million.
Obviously, many of our enlisted per-
sonnel would suffer a substantial loss of
pay if we repealed sea and foreign duty
pay.
Thus we refused to repeal this present
benefit, although we did eliminate the
State of Hawaii as an area in which an
individual can qualify for foreign duty
pay.
Because we did not repeal sea and for-
eign duty pay, we added $127,675,000 to
the cost of the bill.
The next item of consequence in-
volved subsistence allowances for officers.
The Department of Defense wanted to
increase the subsistence allowance for
all officers by $29 a month, at a cost of
$120 million a year. At the same time,
the Department recommended no in-
crease in subsistence allowances for en-
listed personnel.
We did not believe this was a proper
approach.
As a result, we increased the subsist-
ence allowance for officers by bnly $3 a
month, at a cost of $13 million. We also
increased subsistence allowances for en-
listed personnel by $77 million a year.
We did this by increasing the average
enlisted man's commuted ration allow-
ance by about $7 a month.
As a result, we took $77 million from
the officers and gave that money to en-
listed personnel. This still gave us a
savings of $30 million.
As I have already indicated, the De-
partment of Defense recommended a
remote and isolated duty station allow-
ance which would have been applicable
to officers and enlisted personnel in
amounts equal to 15 or 25 percent of
basic pay. They had allocated $30 mil-
lion for this proposal.
We rejected this proposal not only be-
cause we retained sea and foreign duty
pay, but also because we adopted a
family separation allowance to compen-
sate those enlisted personnel and officers
who are entitled to transport their de-
pendents and household effects to their
duty stations at Government expense but
who are denied the right to have their
dependents with them, for various rea-
sons. ,
We also found that many of our service
personnel are ordered to temporary duty
assignments for long periods of time.
These individuals likewise cannot trans-
port their dependents at Government
expense because they are on temporary
duty.
Whenever the head of a household is
away from his family for long periods
of time the cost of maintaining the
household is increased since there is no
man to do the many chores that have to
be done around the house.
This added $40 million to the cost of
the proposal, which was $10 million more
than the Department recommended for
remote and isolated duty.
We also provide in the proposed leg-
islation that anyone who retires during
calendar year 1963 may compute his re-
tirement pay under the proposed pay
- scales.
We did this because the effective date
has been put off until October 1, 1963.
This has brought about many efforts
on the part of officers and enlisted per-
sonnel to postpone their retirement and
as a result it has practically eliminated
many deserving promotions that would
otherwise take place.
In many cases, Reserve officers in the
Army and Air Force who must go off
active duty as officers will seek to enlist
and wait until the effective date of the
act before applying for retirement as an
officer in their Reserve grades.
All this can be obviated by adopting
the provision to which I have referred,
namely that anyone who retires during
May 8
this calendar year can compute his re-
tirement pay under the new pay scales.
This will do a great deal for morale and,
in my opinion, it is fully juStified. This
?action adds $9 million to the cost of the
bill.
The next proposal that faced the Com-
mittee was the question of retirement
pay.
In 1958, the Congress decided not to
apply the new pay scales to those already
retired. The Department of Defense
recommended that those retired prior to
June 1, 1958, who are paid under the
Career Compensation Act, be allowed to
recompute their retirement pay under
the 1958 pay scales, and, in addition, re-
ceive a 5-percent cost of living increase.
The committee rejected this proposal,
and instead approved a straight 5-Per-
cent increase in .all retired pay.
As a result of the committee's action
in adhering to the decision we made in
1958 not to permit recomputation, we
reduced the cost of the proposal by an
additional $30 million.
Another large cost involved our re-
servists.
The Department of Defense recom-
mended that all reservists who are re-
quired to participate in inactive duty
training with pay be entitled to draw
their pay under existing pay scales, and
not qualify for the proposed new in-
creases.
We did not believe it was right to dis-
.criminate between obligated and unob-
ligated reservists.
By refusing to accept this recommen-
dation of the Department of Defense we
added $19 million to the cost of the pro-
posal.
Now the major costs in the proposed
legislation, therefore, are in these areas:
$847,500,000 in basic pay for all officers
and enlisted personnel with over 2 years
of service; $13 million in subsistence al-
lowances for officers; $77 million in sub-
sistence allowances for enlisted person-
nel; $41,979,000 for separation allow-
ances; $68 million for increases in basic
pay for reserve personnel; $52 million
for the 5-percent cost of living increase
for retired personnel; and $9 million for
those who retire during calendar year
1963.
The remaining $74 million will be
found in such items as reenlistment bo-
nuses, terminal leave payments, and so-
cial security, all of which are tied in
with basic pay scales, and in submarine
--pay for training duty, high and low pres-
sure chamber incentive pay, and mul-
tiple hazard duty payments.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me give you
a few examples of the pay increases pro-
vided in the proposed legislation:
The maximum increase for members
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is $95 a
month, which amounts to a 5-percent
increase, or a straight cost of living in-
crease.
Four-star generals and admirals will
receive a $8q a month increase, which
is a 5-percent cost of living increase.
A lieutenant general or vice admiral
will receive an increase of $75 a month,
which is a straight 5 percent cost of liv-
ing increase.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Major generals and rear admirals will
receive an increase of $70 a month, which
is a straight 5 percent cost of living in-
crease.
Brigadier generals and rear admirals
will receive $60 a month, which is a
straight cost of living increase.
The average colonel or Navy captain
will receive about a $90 a month increase,
which is 10 percent above their -present
pay.
The average lieutenant colonel and
commander will receive a $91 a month
increase, which is 12 percent above their
present pay.
The average major or lieutenant com-
mander will receive a $93 a month in-
crease, which is 15 percent over their
present basic pay.
The average captain or Navy lieuten-
ant will receive an $85 a month increase
which is 17.8 percent above their present
basic pay.
A first lieutenant or Navy lieutenant,
junior grade, will receive a $56 a month
increase, which is 16.4 percent above
their present pay.
You will note, therefore, that among
the officers, the largest percentage in-
crease is in the grades of lieutenants,
captains, and majors, right at the criti-
cal retention points.
Among enlisted personnel, we give
chief master sergeants as much as $120
a month increase, but the average E-9
will receive an increase of $63 a month,
or 14.7 percent above his present basic
pay.
The average E-7 will receive a 10-per-
cent increase, or $33 a month.
The average E-6 will receive a 13.7-
percent increase, or $37 a month.
The average E-5 will, receive a 13.7-
percent increase, or $31 a month.
The average E-4 will receive a 15.2-
percent increase, or $25 a month.
An E-3 will receive a 10.7-percent in-
crease, or $12 a month.
You will note that we provide substan-
tial percentage increases in practically
all of the enlisted grades, and particu-
larly at the reenlistment points.
Now let me summarize by telling you
where the money goes as between officers
and enlisted personnel.
You will recall that the Department of
Defense wanted to take away $134 mil-
lion from the enlisted personnel by elimi-
nating sea and foreign duty pay. We
refused to do this.
You will recall that the Department
of Defense wanted to increase subsist-
ence allowances for officers by $120 mil-
lion, and we refused to do this.
Instead, we took $26 away from each
officer and gave $77 million of that
money to enlisted personnel.
So of the $1,191,600,000 contained in
this bill, $383 million is for officers, and
$808 million is for enlisted personnel.
Stated another way, we have reduced
all officers by $26 a month under the
amounts recommended by the Depart-
ment of Defense for subsistence allow-
ances; we have given enlisted person-
nel with over 2 years of service the basic
pay scales recommended by the Depart-
ment of Defense, and in addition, have
given enlisted personnel $77 million more
in subsistence allowances than the De-
partment recommended.
In addition, we saved $127 million in
sea and foreign duty pay which the De-
partment of Defense wanted to take
away from enlisted personnel.
We are presenting to you a bill within
the dollar framework prepared by the
Department, but $46 million under the
total amount recommended by the De-
partment.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have
presented a fair and equitable pay bill.
The Department recommended an
annual expenditure of $1,238 million.
Our proposal involves $1,191,694,000.
We have reduced the overall fiscal cost
of the bill by $46 million, and we have
reduced the cost for the remainder of
fiscal year 1964 by $8 million.
I hope that the House will overwhelm-
ingly support the bill recommended by
the Armed Services Committee.
(Mr. 'VINSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. BOB Wnsow].
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I
opposed this bill in the Armed Services
Committee because it had one glaring
weakness, the failure to include recom-
putation for those officers and enlisted
personnel who retired prior to 1958.
I am hopeful the committee will re-
store the recomputation provision.
When Congress passed the 1958 Pay Act,
we gingerly put one foot into the cold
water of retired pay reform. The water
at that time was obviously too cold for
comfort, so rather than taking the
plunge, Congress proceeded to let one
foot freeze while we debated the merits
of diving in. It is obvious that we were
not ready at that time to go all the way,
and it is equally obvious that with this
pay bill Congress will finally take the
plunge that has concerned us for so long.
Before we do that, let us correct the
situation that created a glaring inequity,
not only in law but in moral obligation.
By not taking the complete plunge in
1958, we created an impression that we
were merely experimenting with the
idea that retired pay should not be tied
to active duty pay.
For example, when the act of May 20,
1958, was enacted, there were several
provisions of law relating to a substan-
tial number of members and former
members of the uniformed services that
provided, in effect, that their retired pay
would be recomputed to reflect in-
creases in the basic pay of members on
active duty. These provisions of law
,were not repealed by the act of May 20,
1958, and are still "on the books" al-
though section 3(a) of that act pre-
vented their application in the case of
the increases provided by that act.
We have given aid and comfort to
those who were unfairly treated. And
now we change the sequels and say our
past sympathies were synthetic. The
House in passing the 1960 amendment,
and also failing to remove the provisions
of law allowing recomputation, indicated
7591
that it was sympathetic to those who
had been unfairly treated in 1958.
The original pay proposal submitted
to the Congress by the Department of
Defense in January of this year pro-
vided for recomputation on the 1958 pay
rates. In making this recommendation,
the Department of Defense stressed the
need for correcting the inequities that
now exist among retired members. This
is necessary also to provide a more equi-
table basis for transition to the proposed
new system for adjusting retired pay in
the future, based on increases in the cost
of living. The bill reported out by the
subcommittee which I supported likewise
provided for recomputation; but the bill
now before- us makes no provision for
such adjustment.
Mr. Chairman, the gross inequity that
has resulted from the denial of recom-
putation in 1958 has been the subject of
numerous resolutions from State legis-
latures urging the Congress to pass legis-
lation to end the inferior status of serv-
ice members retired prior to June 1, 1958.
Editorial comment from many news-
papers all over the country has been to
the same effect.
Mr. Chairman, there was only one
reason for the denial of recomputation
in 1958. The action had nothing to do
with the merits of recomputation on the
1958 pay scales. It saved money pri-
marily at the expense of the dedicated
officers and men who struggled through
the lean years of the twenties and thir-
ties and then emerged in the forties to
assume the brunt of responsibility for
fashioning together and leading the
world's greatest military machine.
The Department of Defense, in 1958,
ignored the recommendations of the
Cordirier committee with respect to re-
computation of retirement pay and rec-
ommended no increase to members on
the, retired rolls. Congress, primarily
under the leadership of the House, in-
sisted on a 6-percent increase for re-
tirees and wrote that into the bill.
In 1960 the Department of Defense
acknowledged its mistake and proposed
the Retired Pay Recomputation Act of
1960, which this House passed by an
overwhelming vote.
Defense Secretary Gates, in his testi-
mony at that time before the House Com-
mittee on Armed Services, said:
We urge Congress to pass this bill which
is now before this committee for considera-
tion. In doing so, we will be keeping faith
with those who kept faith with their country,
particularly during the dark and dangerous
days of World War II, and to all who have
given the best years of their life in loyal,
honorable service in our Armed Forces.
Mr. Chairman, it was not just generals
and admirals who were harmed by the
1958 action. The records of the Depart-
ment of Defense indicate that approxi-
mately 112,000 members have been made
to suffer a loss in retired pay by the radi-
cal departure in 1958 from the historical
method of recomputation for retired per-
sonnel. True, officers in the grades of
lieutenant colonel and higher and the
sergeants and warrant officers would re-
ceive more than the lower ranks from
recomputation on the 1958 rates but this
is largely because they are the ones who
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
had suffered the greatest erosion in in-
come during their active duty days.
They are the ones who had been the most
underpaid in relation to their responsi-
bilities while they were on active duty.
The correction of this serious deficiency
was the principal objective of the 1958
Military Pay Act. That act was ex-
pressly designed to relieve some of the
compression in service pay that had de-
veloped over a period of many years.
The pay compression developed not as
a result of increasing the lower rates
too much; it developed because the rates
of pay for the higher grades were too
long held down.
Therefore, in 1958 we approved a mili-
tary pay bill which gave the upper rallies
a long overdue, proportionately larger
increase. But when, at the same time,
we denied retired members the time-hon-
ored right of recomputing retired pay at
the current rate, we said, in effect, to the
pre-1958 retirees, "We recognize that you
were underpaid while serving on active
duty and now we are changing the rules
so that this underpayment will continue
throughout your retirement years." Of
course, no one told them that, but by our
action in 1958 that is exactly what we
did.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is generally
not known, or has been forgotten, that
between 1908 and 1946, a period of 38
years, no pay increases whatsoever were
given to flag and general officers on ac-
tive duty and therefore no increase in
retired pay. During this same period the
cost of living more than doubled.
Every Member of this House should
also be aware of the fact that if retired
pay for members on the retired rolls had
been adjusted during the period 1943 to
1961 to keep pace with the increases in
the cost-of-living, the cost to the Gov-
ernment would have been $130 million
more than the cost of recomputation
over the same period, including recom-
putation on the 1958 pay scales.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, when
it was cheaper to use recomputation
rather than cost-of-living increases to
adjust retired pay, we did so. Now that
it appears that it will be cheaper to give
cost-of-living increases in the future
rather than recomputation, it is proposed
to change the rules at the expense of
some of our retired service members.
Mr. Chairman, let there be no mis-
take about this fact: there is more than
100 years of tradition involved here. Ex-
isting law specifically provides for re-
computation. .Our action in 1958 de-
nying recomputation did not change the
law, but only prevented its application.
For example, section,6149, title 10, United
States Code, reads as follows:
The retired pay of each retired officer of
the Navy or the Marine Corps shall be com-
puted 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 re-
tirement 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.
Other provisions of law provide the
same right to enlisted members and to
members of the other uniformed services.
The question has been asked: "What
other retirement system allows its retired
people to recompute retired pay on rates
revised after retirement?" I answer:
"Federal judges?because judges, like
military personnel, are ,also subject to
recall to duty." But the real question
should be this: What other retirement
system has promised its members that
their retired pay will be adjusted in ac-
cordance with current rates?
Mr. Chairman, I urge the inclusion of
the Rivers-Gubser amendment to restore
recomputation.
(Mr. BOB WILSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. GUBSER].
(Mr. GUBSER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I re-
gret very much that time is so limited
that a thorough discussion of this most
important bill is impossible. Because of
this limitation I must confine my remarks
to the recomputation amendment which
I had originally planned to introduce but
which I am most pleased to say will now
be introduced by the distinguished and
knowledgeable chairman of our subcom-
mittee, the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RIVERS].
There are many points of confusion
about the recomputation amendment
that perhaps I might be able to clear up.
First of all, the distinguished chair-
man of the full committee indicated that
fair warning was given to retirees be-
cause of the action of the House in 1958
in allowing only a cost-of-living increase.
If I quote him correctly, he said "it has
been on the books since 1958."
I must point out to the House that the
basic law which states that recomputa-
tion shall be allowed on the basis of pay
increases subsequent to retirement is still
on the books as of this day. It was not
repealed in 1958, and the _Comptroller
General has repeatedly ruled that unless
there is legislative intent to the contrary
recomputation shall be allowed. All we
did in 1958 was express legislative in-
tent to the contrary and say that the
benefits of the law shall be denied those
who retired prior to June 1, 1958. The
Congress itself held out hope to these re-
tirees when, in this very chamber in
1960, after a unanimous recommenda-
tion of the House Armed Services Com-
mittee, the House Unanimously said to
the retirees of this Nation: "We did
wrong, we will correct that wrong and
allow you your right to recompute."
Now, some will say that even if the re-
computation amendment carries in this
bill, that a built-in future injustice will
still remain. They will say that in the
future there will be a disparity between
retirees. But let me point out that there
is a difference between the 1958 law and
the bill which is before you. The 19'58
law said not one single word about future
treatment of retirees. This bill does. It
says that in the future they will be
allowed increases in increments of 3
percent as the cost of living increases.
May 8
So the cost of living formula for the
future is in this bill, and in that respect
it differs from the 1958 law.
The chairman made some statement
about being fish and fowl, that there is
a difference between those who would
retire in 1959 and those who would re-
tire after the passage of this bill. If
we want to make all fish or all fowl, then
why does someone not suggest that we
go back and say to those who retired
after 1958, "you can only get what those
who retired prior to 1958 are getting."
Obviously there will be_no takers for this
offer.
The first meaningful pay increase oc-
curred in 1958. For 38 years there was
not a single pay increase for flag officers
or general officers. The raises for 50
years were less 10 percent of the na-
tional wage index.
In 1958 the Congress corrected its neg-
lect of 50 years. So the 1958 pay raise
was the first meaningful increase for
those who recompute. Future raises will
not be picking up the lost ground of 50
years and will be less dramatic. There-
fore not much of a question will be raised
about a cost of living increase versus
traditional recomputation.
Make no mistake about it. The real
injustice, the real mistake was made in
1958 when we created a situation where
a colonel with 30 years of service could
retire on May 31, 1958, and would re-
ceive $93.75 per month less than his West
Point classmate who retired on June 1,
1958, with the same length of service,
with equal distinction and equal rank.
The future is provided for in this bill.
The amendment will correct the mistakes
of the past.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. PIRNIE].
(Mr. PIRNIE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of H.R. 5555 is to provide a long
delayed and much deserved pay increase
for members of our Armed Forces. A
detailed study made by the subcommittee
found the morale and effectiveness of
our servicemen to be closely identified
with this move. Fortunately we do have
in uniform those who are dedicated to
their tasks and are bound to the service
by other than monetary considerations.
They represent a standard of courage
and competency that throughout our
history has kept this Nation secure. I
do not believe this standard is in danger
but I do wish to point out that the mili-
tary strength of this Nation depends
today upon not only the valor of our
forces but their individual capacity to
employ intricate and rapidly changing
weapon systems.
In passing upon this legislation, we
should be mindful of the changed con-
ditions now surrounding our Armed
Forces. Modern warfare employs tech-
niques and weapons which require skills
never before contemplated. Months and
more often years are necessary to train
for these skills, many of which have ap-
plications in civilian life. Therefore, if
we lose these trained personnel to more
attractive jobs in industry we are robbed,
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
not only of their skills but we also have
to expend excessive time and money to
obtain replacements. Accordingly, a
proper pay bill is more than fair treat-
ment to the serviceman, it is also a real
bargain for us all, economically and
securitywise.
While we can rely upon many to be
career motivated, we should not penal-
ize such spirit by being unappreciative
and unfair with respect to compensa-
tion. It is significant to point out that
military pay has risen only 16.2 percent
since 1952, in comparison to increases of
49 percent for professional workers, 44.8
percent for production workers, and 34.3
for civil service employees in the same
period. Nevertheless, the proposed in-
crease in this bill will still leave military
compensation substantially below other
pay levels.
The details of the bill have been care-
fully outlined. I am confident it has
been demonstrated that the adjustments
have been carefully selected and will cor-
rect a substantial number of admitted
deficiencies.
Disappointment has been expressed in
many circles that the bill does not permit
personnel retired prior to June 1, 1958, to
recompute their pay on 1958 pay scales
as had previously been voted by this
House. Having indicated our belief that
this recomputation was necessary and
proper, our present proposal seems in-
consistent. Although it can be argued
with much validity that most retirement
plans carry no such recomputation pos-
sibilities, we have recognized this proce-
dure in the past and the personnel af-
fected may well feel singled out for what
seems to them unfair treatment. I,
therefore, feel that the purposes of this
bill and the best interests of the Nation
will be better served if the recomputa-
tion provision is restored.
In conclusion, let me point out that the
distinguished chairman of our subcom-
mittee, the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RIVERS], the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. BATES], and the en-
tire committee did a magnificent job in
formulating proposals for committee ac-
tion. Our full committee responded to
the forceful and objective leadership of
our able chairman, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. ViEsoN], in reporting a bill
which provides relief in many sensitive
areas.
However, in bringing this bill to the
floor, our committee does not claim that
it is a complete answer to a critical need.
We do, however, view it as a constructive
step forward which is urgently required.
The proposed effective date is a conces-
sion to the President's budget but delay
beyond that date is unthinkable. Favor-
able action on this bill to meet the ob-
jectives I have mentioned is clearly in
the interest of our defense program.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PIRNIE. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to compliment the gentleman
for his very fine statement and for his
support of this bill.
I would also like to join with the
gentleman in the position which he has
taken to permit recomputation of retired
pay of those who retired prior to June
1, 1958. Likewise I join with the other
Members of this House, particularly the
gentlemen from California [Mr. BOB
WILSON and Mr. GUBSER] , in their posi-
tion favoring this recomputation provi-
sion for retired members of the Armed
Forces. I certainly subscribe to the same
position as they do and want to take
this opportunity to join with the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. Films] and
aline myself with the position which he
has taken. It is important these inequi-
ties be corrected.
Mr. PIRNIE. I thank the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
ROBISON].
(Mr. ROBISON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I am
not at all sure that the provisions of H.R.
5555?the military pay bill?are ade-
quate and fair to those who have ac-
cepted, normally out of ,patriotic reasons,
the economic disadvantages as well as
the hazards of peacetime military
service.
My adherence to the principle of econ-
omy in Government has, I hope, been
well demonstrated. I suppose the cus-
tomary thing to say, here, would be that:
"I yield to no man in my support of the
concept of 'fiscal responsibility.'" How-
ever, neither do I think that this con-
cept should be applied with such broad
strokes, or in such a shortsighted fashion
that the equally important principle of
equity is violated.
There is a temptation, always present,
to do this when Congress is relatively
free?as it is, here, in view of the almost
total absence of any organized voice in
behalf of the armed services?from polit-
ical pressures.
It also seems to me?and I say this in
all kindness?that the Committee on
Armed Services has swung from one ex-
treme of generosity, with the authoriza-
tion bill for military hardware, to an
extreme of fiscal caution, with this, the
pay bill. This has left those of us who
do not serve on this committee, but who
must to a great degree rely on the judg-
ment and advice of those who do, facing
a considerable dilemma. And, in view
of the way the committee system works
during floor debate, there is not a great
deal that the rest of us can do about
resolving our individual doubts.
I have been substantially impressed by
the morale problem we face, first in in-
teresting and then in retaining compe-
tent personnel in military-career status.
I have been equally impressed by the
ever-growing technical competence de-
manded of our Armed Forces, and by the
great disparity in pay for comparable
civilian work. I am also aware of the
lack of comparability between the pay of
those who serve our Government in uni-
form, and those who serve it in corre-
sponding capacities, insofar as training,
experience, and responsibility are con-
cerned, but as civilians, and it seems to
me that we are guilty of discrimination
here.
7593
I intend, therefore: to support H.R.
5555?as being worthy of my support
insofar as it goes toward improving the
present situation, and I also intend to
support the amendments to be offered
by Representative WILSON, of California,
or by others, to correct the patent in-
equity worked on our military retirees by -
the abandonment, in H.R. 5555, of the
principle of recomputation of retired
pay.
At this time, I do not know what other
amendments may be offered but I assure
you I shall give them my serious con-
sideration, and I wish to close by ex-
pressing the hope that further improve-
ments in this measure may be given
serious consideration in the other body.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. HORTON].
(Mr. HORTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, the qual-
ity of the country's defense is the quality
of its armed services and the men and
women in uniform.
Every year we spend billions of dollars
to purchase or develop the most modern
and technically perfect military equip-
ment known to science. However, it is
equally important that we have in service
People with the skills to handle this com-
plex equipment.
The defense of our Nation demands
that those who are in the armed services
be the very best. Yet, if we are unwilling
to pay them adequately, to pay them in
accordance with what their abilities
would command in civilian life, then we
jeopardize our security.
I believe the United States has the
moral obligation to adequately compen-
sate its service men and women and to
adopt .a sufficiently realistic military pay
scale that will attract others into service.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. CLAU-
SEN].
(Mr. CLAUSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to add my comments to what
has already been said here on the floor
of the House with reference to the mili-
tary pay bill H.R. 5555 and the so-called
theory of recomputation of pensions.
National defense is big business and
should be recognized and treated as such.
It is the primary responsibility of this
Federal level of Government. It is quite
evident to me that we will have a con-
tinuing responsibility for sometime to
come?at least until a positive program
of winning the cold war is advocated and
adopted. Meanwhile many individuals
and families are effected by the action
of this body. Where I was formerly a
member of the Naval Air Arm during
World War II, I severed my association
with the naval military organization
after my terminal leave expired' in 1945
and up until now have not participated
in any of their activities.
I feel that salaries of members of our
armed services should be adequate to
attract desirable personnel and keep
them, thereby minimizing the turnover
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
and the mandatory draft calls. This, in
my judgment, will reflect in economy
over a long period of time and minimize
the inconveniences to personnel and
families affected.
This position, of course, applies to the
military pay bill, H.R. 5555. I also plan
to support the "theory of recomputation"
of pensions for those military men who
retired before 1958 so that such pensions.
will be based on current salary levels as
they were for more than 100 years before
the law was changed in 1959. Recogni-
tion of this inequity will rectify an exist-
ing problem in keeping with every rule of
fairness and satisfy my conscience for
having met a responsibility that is truly
OUTS.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. JOELSON].
(Mr. JOELSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I in-
tend to support the military pay raise
bill which I believe will be passed by the
House by a sizable margin. I support
the measure because it is necessary if we
are to do justice to our servicemen.
However, we should not overlook the fact
that by passing this bill, we are adding
approximately a billion and one-half
dollars to the national budget.
I predict that tomorrow or later in the
week when we take up the debt increase
bill, many of my colleagues who sup-
ported this military pay raise legislation
will engage in a clamorous chorus
against the debt increase. I am simply
intrigued by the fact that although two-
thirds of our budget comprising the
defense, space, and veterans appropria-
tions are supported by almost every
Member of the House,-many of the big-
gest spenders bewail our high national
debt the loudest.
Maybe due to the sprinktime season,
I am moved to offer a rhyme from a not-
so-bashful poet. I have titled this epic
"Paradox," and it reads as follows:
One day we favor spending.
The next?of debt we prate.
Although it's irresponsible,
Politically it's great.
' Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the remaining time on our side to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT].
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I likewise yield the remainder
of our time to the distinguished gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. BENNETT].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Florida [Mr. BENNETT] JS recognized
for 10 minutes.
(Mr. BENNETT bf Florida asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, some 35 or more Members of Con-
gress-have indicated that they would
like to join with me as coauthors on
the amendment on combat pay.
They are as follows: Representatives
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, THOMAS L. ASHLEY,
OLIVER P. BOLTON, FRANK T. Bow, W. E.
(BILL) BROOK, JOEL T. BROYHILL, JAMES
C. CLEVELAND, JEFFREY COHELAN, JAMES C.
CORMAN, EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, WILLIAM
JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, THADDEUS J. DUL-
SKI, CARL ELLIOTT, DANTE B. FASCELL,
SAM GIBBONS, HENRY B. GONZALEZ,
GEORGE A. GOODLING, CHARLES S. GUB-
SER, SEYMOUR HALPERN, CHET HOLIFIELD,
CHARLES S. JOELSON, EDNA F. KELLY,
ROBERT L. LEGGETT, TORBERT H. MAC-
DONALD, WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, SPARK M.
MATSUNAGA, D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS,
HARRIS B. MCDOWELL, JR., ROBERT H.
MICHEL, ARNOLD OLSEN, CLAUDE PEPPER,
OTIS G. PIKE, RALPH J. RIVERS, RALPH J.
SCOTT, DON L. SHORT, OLIN E. TEAGUE,
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, and BOB WILSON.
This is a measure which is approved
by the Department of Defense, is re-
quested by the Army, and has the ap-
proval of the Bureau of the Budget.
Mr. Chairman, the exact provisions of
the measure which I hope to introduce as
an amendment to this bill are to be found
at page A2749 of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD of May 6. This is a modest pro-
posal, Mr. Chairman. It provides that-,
the men who are serving in Laos, Viet-
nam, and places where we are actually
engaged in combat duty receive a maxi-
amum of $55 a month when they are
under actual hostile firing.
This pay is sometimes called hostile
fire pay, sometimes called combat pay.
This amount of $55 was arrived at by
simply taking the lowest amount of spe-
' cial pay or extra pay under other legisla-
tion for people serving on active duty.
You may not realize just how much we
pay for other types of pay. We pay
$632,486,960 a year for various types of
special pay. And if you will look at the
tables which I have set out in the CoN-
GRESSIONAL RECORD On pages A2837 and
A2833 of today you will see that many
people who serve and obtain special kinds
of pay are not doing anything that is
very difficult.
Paratroopers receive their special
pay for making one jump in every 3
months. They obtain parachute pay for
the entire period. And people with flight
pay are required to fly only 1 day out of
every 3 months to obtain flight pay.
In Congress we have actually encour-
aged, and at times even prohibited some
men drawing flight pay from flying be-
cause we know that they are too old to
fly and we do not wish to bear the cost of
the airplane ,and the gasoline, and so
forth. And we pay them these very sub-
stantial amounts of pay far in excess of
the $55 a month which I am proposing
for this. I am not asking that any of
that be stricken, but I am asking that
this Congress consider what I would call
the tragic and inconsiderate approach
which is about to be made on this bill
unless we amend it.
There is no administrative problem in-
volved in combat pay. We had combat
pay in World War II; we had combat pay
in the Korean war. There were not any
administrative difficulties raised with re-
spect to combat pay.
Certainly there are administrative dif-
ficulties about these other types of pay.
Some of these other types of pay are
fantastic. We pay many millions of
dollars per year to people who we know
will never serve again in the ?particular
May 8
field in which they are being paid these
large sums. There are many adminis-
trative responsibilities and difficulties
with respect to some of these other types
of pay, but we do not blink an eye about
that, not a bit. We say we will go ahead
and pay it. But here we are only talk-
ing about something that involves per-
haps only $1 million or $2 million a
year.
If you will look at page A2837 of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD you will see set
out the costs. The Army, which is the
chief service involved, would have about
$1 million a year. In the next column
you will see the total of such pay for
all services, which is estimated at from
$1,400,000 to $1,800,000. That is for all
types that might be involved in this par-
ticular kind of pay. Compare that, if
you will, with the $632 million that we
spend for these other types of pay. Look
and see what we are paying this money
for and contrast it with what is involved
here. Then note the regulations which
are set out. These are very simple regu-
lations. This man must serve 6 days
a month as compared with parachute
pay, where the regulation is one jump
in 3 months. This man, as I said, has to
serve 6 days a month in that sort of
situation before he is allowed to have
this type of pay.
So I would like to stress that there is
no administrative difficulty about this at
all. I would like to stress that the cost
here is very slight indeed. I would like
to stress finally that it is the right thing
to do.
Mr. Chairman, this is a small matter
in dollars.
It is a small thing in the number of
people involved. It is a big thing in .the
moral responsibility of our country. I
do not think anybody could better say
it than the Department of Defense did
when it asked for this amendment be to
approved. At page A2834 of the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD you will find they
said:
While combat is, of course, the basic pur-
pose of a military establishment, the fact
remains that the actual hazards and hard-
ships of combat are &irrently experienced
by a small percentage of the Armed Forces.
In approving $55 per month to be
paid, under strict regulations, the De-
partment said:
It is, of course, impossible for the Govern-
ment to compensate adequately for this
kind of sacrifice or potential sacrifice, but
it would give a token recognition of the
special role being played by such personnel.
Casualty data indicate that at the end
of the first 100 days in combat?not
necessarily consecutive?one-half of his
friends with whom he entered combat
will be missing in action, in a hospital,
or dead. At the end of 200 days in com-
bat, 93 percent of his buddies will be
gone. For all practical purposes, 200
days in frontline combat as an infantry-
man amounts to either a death sentence
or a future as a mentally or physically
handicapped man.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65600383R000500040017-0
1963 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Mr. EDMONDSON. I want to con-
gratulate the gentleman from Florida on
a very splendid presentation and states-
manlike approach to this subject and
will support the amendment. I con-
gratulate him also on being the proud
father today of a new baby girl, and
wish the best to the new daughter and
her lovely mother.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I thank
the gentleman very much.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. COHELAN. I, too, should like to
congratulate the gentleman on the very
excellent statement he has made and his
very excellent work on our Committee
on Armed Services. It was my privilege
to support him in committee, and I only
hope that when he presents his amend-
Ment at the appropriate time it will re-
ceive overwhelming support.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. In con-
clusion, I should like to say that of
course you can draft men. Of course
you can tell men on the frontlines
In combat that if they do not fulfill their
purpose they can be lined up against the
barracks or the bunkers or whatever you
may have, sand shot. That is the law,
that is true: You can compel these men
to go into this kind of combat. You can
compel them without paying any money.
So there is no incentive required as far
as that is concerned to have anybody up
in the frontlines.
You cannot pay a man to be a front-
line soldier. We compel them to do that.
There are many benefits paid and people
serving in the Armed Forces, many vet-
erans' benefits to former servicemen.
There is the 20-year retirement privilege.
Some of the other benefits are quite
generous. But every one of these bene-
flts,_everybody knows, is based upon the
man who is out there compelled to take
the life of another man, perhaps against
his ethics, against his morals, against
his emotions, against his basic feelings.
He:takes the lives of other people for the
protection, for the security, and for the
continuation of his beloved land. He
does this endangering ?his ?own life.
There is nobody else in the world that
does the sort of thing he does. Are we
so niggardly as to deny $2 Million an-
nually for that kind of service?
Mr. CLEVELAND. MI. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Are there any
retroactive provisions in the gentleman's
amendment?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. There are
no retroactive provisions in the amend-
ment.
Mr. CLEVELAND. There are several
people that have already been killed in
this combat the gentleman is talking
about.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. If the
gentleman would like to add the retro-
active amendment, I would be glad to
support it.
No. 138-19
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the Armed Services Commit-
tee, and certainly, as a very strong be-
liever in, and supporter of our Armed
Forces, and our dedicated and patriotic
military personnel, I am proud, indeed,
to support, and to urge the Members of
this body to support this bill for the
military pay increase (H.R. 5555). Al-
though this bill does not perfectly suit
all the demands or meet all the needs
of our military personnel, it does en-
compass a good many long-needed
changes and improvements in our mili-
tary compensation program. I have
endeavored, along with many of my col-
leagues on both sides of the aisle today,
to attempt to rectify some of the inequi-
ties existing in the bill. Some have been
improved, some have not, but I stand
in support of the bill as is reported and
urge its approval and passage.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me that in deciding whether
the Government of the United States
should or should not provide for the re-
computation of military retired pay in
accordance with the fluctuations of ac-
tive duty pay, the decision should be
based on the answers to three basic ques-
tions. These are:
First. Is the procedure morally right?
Second. Is it legally permissible or
required?
Third. Is it financially feasible?
To every question, the answer is "Yes."
The procedure is unquestionably mor-
ally right. Since the inception of the
military pay and retirement system, it
has been practically the undeviating pol-
icy 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. When
this policy was deviated from in 1922,
the next Congress acted swiftly to cor-
rect the error.
On April 12, 1926, House Report No.
857 of the 69th Congress pointed out
that, and I quote:
The pay of retired officers Is not a fixed
sum nor is it a specified sum, but it is 75
percent of the pay of the rank upon which
they are retired; that is, three-fourths of the
pay of officers of shinier rank still on the
active list, and not three-fourths of the pay
at the time of retirement.
This indicates that the policy is legally
permissible. That the policy may not
only be legally permissible but legally
required is indicated by section 6149,
United States Code, title 10. This sec-
tion reads as follows:
The retired pay of each retired officer of
the Navy or Marine Corps should be com-
puted on the basis of rates of pay provided
by law, at the time of retirement, for of-
ficers on the active list. If after the retire-
ment of any such officer the rates of pay for
officers on the active list are changed the re-
tired pay to which the officer is entitled
shall be recomputed on the basis of the new
rates.
Clearly, then, the policy of recomputa-
tion is so hallowed by tradition as to be
morally right, and so outlined by United
States Codes as to be not only legally
Permissible but perhaps required.
7591
It remains then to consider the third
question, Is it financially feasible? I say
to you that this question must be an-
swered with an unqualified "Yes." For
If the Government of this Nation is faced
with a course of action that is both
morally and legally right, then that
course must be followed. If, in the fol-
lowing, financial adjustments are nec-
essary, then those adjustments must be
made, whatever the cost. Fortunately,
in following this path of moral and legal
obligation, the cost is not such as to de-
stroy our economy. I am informed that
the beginning cost, under the proposed
pay scales, would be $33 million annually,
and that this amount would decrease
each year as recipients passed to a
greater reward.
I am aware that the ranks of the re-
tired will be swelled enormously in years
to come and that if the principle of re-
computation is followed in the case of
future pay raises, that the cost will rise.
The question before us now, however,
should not be answered on a basis of
what might or might not happen in the
future, but what is happening in this,
the present. Stated bluntly, it is that
this Congress is faced with a choice of
keeping faith with the men and women
who gave the best portion of their lives
to the service of their country in the
Armed Forces, or of repudiating its
moral and legal obligation to these men
and women.
In honor there can be but one an-
swer?we must keep faith by providing
for recomputation of retired pay.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman,
I am in favor of the military pay bill,
H.R. 5555, not because I am under any
illusion about our Nation's ability to ade-
quately remunerate our military serv-
ants, commensurate with the value of
their service, but because I feel we have
an obligation to recognize their contribu-
tion to the stature and strength of our
Nation.
These dedicated men and women who
serve in uniform will not be less vigilant
or alert, nor will they be less willing to
give their last full measure of devotion
if we do not provide them with a pay
increase. I do feel, however, that we
who are recipients of the sacrifices they
make in peace, as well as war, could not
in conscience look a new day squarely in
the face if we did not make this small
measure of effort to indicate our appre-
ciation of their talents and selfless
devotion.
The bare, bold fact of life is this:
When diplomacy breaks down we must
depend upon our career military men,
who are trained in their respective
specialties, for life itself. I, for one,
want to be assured that my life, the lives
of the members of my family, the future
of freedom itself are indeed in the hands
and care of America's best. We cannot
hope to keep this assurance unless we
are realistic and fair in our responsibil-
ities to give adequate material support
to those upon whom our own future and
the future of freedom is so dependent.
I share with all peace-loving people
the hope that some day, somehow, we
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65600383R000500040017-0
rDeclassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65800383R000500040017-0
--,
7596
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
can "beat our swords into plowshares"?
use our nuclear abilities for constructive
purposes instead of potentially destruc-
tive purposes. But wishing does not
make it so. We must face the facts as
they are. We are compelled by circum-
stance to be adequately armed, It is of
little avail to be adequately armed with
expensive and complicated equipment if
we do not have the trained personnel to
use it. It is poor economy to spend
literally billions to buy this equipment
and to train men to use it if because of
an unrealistic pay scale they are not
encouraged to make the maximum use of
their training in continued service.
While the bill calls for an increase in
spending, this is one situation in which
we find an increase in spending respon-
sible for the saving of the taxpayer's
dollar.
In most of the bills before the House
dealing with the military we are con-
cerned with things. In this bill we are
concerned with persons.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we
have deprived our military personnel of
the right to strike, bargain, picket, arbi-
trate, or even mediate for better hours,
wages, and working conditions. There
Is no such thing as an 8-hour-a-day sol-
dier or sailor and, therefore, hours are
no subject for consideration. Our Navy,
Army, Air Force, and Marine personnel
are working or available for work on an
around the clock basis. These men are
given consideration for job assignment
and duty location, but any Congressman
can testify from his mailbag that this
Is not an entirely enjoyable and volun-
tary proposition.
We are living in a land with more free-
dom than any other people on the face
of the globe at any time in history, but
we must remember that there is a group
which has no right to speak publicly
at all unless censored prior to speaking,
a group which has no degree of freedom
of press, a group which only recently
was given the right to write their Con-
gressmen on compensation matters, a
group which is constantly mobile, there-
fore ineffective in utilizing the elective
franchise, a group which is constantly
under totalitarian control due to its very
nature and which group has the power
through simple order in battle or through
the process of court-Martial, to effective-
ly take the lives of its members.
This is our military. This is not a
time of war and it is amazing to me
that there are patriotic Americans who
are constantly coming forward and vol-
untarily exposing themselves to the
semi-irrevocable membership in this
system.
In short, when it comes to civil rights,
which the American people have come
to enjoy, our soldiers and sailors just
do not have any. No rights to even de-
termine what they will eat, where they
will sleep, or what they will wear.
At one time a swabie would earn his
military keep by learning the manual of
arms with an M-1 rifle. Tdday it is
interesting to note that first-class sea-
man sailors attending the nuclear power
schools at Mare Island, Calif., and
throughout the country, must know
chemistry, physics, analytics, and cal-
culus before they get into the school, only
to graduate as an enlisted third-class
petty officer.
Yes, today we demand a lot of our peo-
ple as we are engaged in an effort to cut
military expenditures such that fewer
people more ably prepared can do a bet-
ter job of defense with fewer bombs, mis-
siles, and armaments.
We question intraspectively among the
Congress the necessity of the American
people to have forced conscription for
an uncertain 10-year period of jeopardy
at a time when we have not declared a
war in 22 years.
Surely if the future of the American
defense is going to rest on the shoulders
of a relatively few highly trained pro-
fessional defenders who are in a sense
rightless, certainly they should be
compensated.
The problem presented to this Con-
gress therefore is an adequate wage scale.
We are bargaining with ourselves with
some of us representing the public purse
and some of us the silenced defenders.
Are new concepts involved in this bar-
gaining? I do not think so. Nobody
asks to pay us what we are worth or pay
us on the basis of our relative technical
know-how, or pay us on the basis of our
ability to produce fire power or defensive
power.
The only thing asked is to place us in
the same parity position we maintained
10 years ago.
In 1952, officers between the rank of
second lieutenant to colonel earned on
the average each of $300 per year more
than their corresponding 05-7 to 05-14
civil servant counterparts. Today those
same civil servants earn from $2,100 to
$3,300 per year more than each of their
military counterparts. Enlisted rates are
similarly comparable. Is it no wonder
that 20 years after the last war we must
continue forced conscription?
Every Member of Congress has corre-
spondence from service People claiming
that they have been kicked in the teeth
by Uncle Sam. I think they have?I
think we can forsake the pocket book for
today and stand up to our responsibility
to a voiceless people who form the back
bone of our protectorate of democracy.
With respect to a second matter it is
my feeling that a retired second lieute-
nant is the same whether he has retired
this year or 10 years ago. They both are
entitled to parity irrespective of the hand
fate deals in the date service is termi-
nated.
Likewise this is a multimillion dollar
decision to make, but decisions somehow
are easy when right is evident.
It is the feeling of the members of our
great Armys and Navy and special corps
that there is something sacred in the
Idea of consistency and fairness. They
are disciplined, of course, to accept dog-
matic instruction and not too severely
complain but occasionally every 5 years
or so when the merits of their service is
drawn in question, there is a way in
which the Congress can say "job well
done." I think there is a way we can
say this without our voices but from the
heart of the Congress.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, in the
complexities of modern-day military
May 8
armament, the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force must carry out widely diversified
research and development responsibili-
ties. In order to continue research on
and the development of the Nike-X, the
Minuteman and Titan missiles, and the
nuclear-powered submarine, the military
services must have personnel of the high-
est competence.
On examining H.R. 5555 and compar-
ing it to the upper level pay increases au-
thorized under the Federal Salary Re-
form Act, I find that similar pay in-
creases have not been provided for the
upper grades of the uniformed services.
It is my firm conviction that some at-
tempt must be made to establish a pay
relationship between the various pay
systems of the Government. If this is
not done, the pay system of the uni-
formed services will continue to deterior-
rate in relation to other Federal pay sys-
tems. When this happens, the services
will be unable to retain the qualified and
experienced personnel, so vitally needed
to carry out their programs.
Further, the health of the Nation
stands to suffer if the work of the com-
missioned corps of the Public Health
Service and its National Institutes of
Health continues to be limited in scope
and quality because of the inability of
that Service to attract and retain
needed personnel. The Secretary of
HEW referring to NIH personnel recently
stated he has never before found so
many people willing to devote so Much
time for so little money. He said "It
is because they are dedicated." But
how long can this dedication last. Sec-
retary Celebrezze admitted he is losing
Scientists because of the pay scale and
stated that "NIH is not matching private
Industry in salaries and is hardly match-
ing the universities." There has been
a steady erosion of the scientific staff
at NTH in recent years. Many of its key
staff members have left for higher pay-
ing positions in universities, other cen-
ters for biomedical research, and in pri-
vate industry. Unless salaries for lead-
ing scientists are improved to a marked
degree, medical and scientific research
programs will .be seriously impaired.
The Congress has placed increasing
emphasis on public health programs
such as water pollution control, air pol-
lution control, and radiological health.
There is a serious shortage of the ex-
perienced public health leaders such pro-
grams demand and the Public Health
Service must be able to compete for these
People. Again, a marked improvement
In salary and incentive pay is necessary.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, it is
apparent to me that a pay boost is
needed for the members of our Armed
Forces. We need to attract and keep the
best possible manpower in our military
forces. Normally I oppose Federal
spending bills when the Federal Govern-
ment is deficit financing. That is, bor-
rowing to spend, instead of making both
ends meet.
My approval of the military pay boost
Is a worthy excention to the rule, as I
see it.
I assume, of course, that the very mili-
tary officers and men who will benefit
from the pay increase are aware of the
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65800383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
dangers of deficit financing and the
threat to the value of our currency by
such action. It is incumbent on them,
Members of Congress, and all responsible
citizens to so revise Federal expenditures
as to return to a balanced budget.
It is far more costly to our taxpayers
to pay for turnover of military personnel
than to pay this pay increase. However,
the President, Secretary McNamara, and
Members of Congress owe a responsi-
bility to taxpayers today, and those of
the future to whom we shift the debt, to
curtail nonessential expenditures to bal-
ance the budget.
For my part, I shall oppose spending in
public works, welfare and social meas-
ures, foreign aid, and other nondefense
expenditures. Further, I believe we
should demand of the military that
wasteful procurement practices and
other unnecessary expenditures be elim-
inated so that this pay bill can be
absorbed.
A $52 billion defense budget has
enough waste, duplication, and uneco-
nomic practices in it, such as occur in
sole-source procurement and surplus
disposal, that more than enough can be
saved to pay for the pay boost.
I have no patience nor defense for
those who vote for all appropriations, all
tax cuts, and no balancing of the budget.
While I vote for economy and the
balanced budget at every opportunity,
I am happy in the knowledge that I can
indicate my approval of increased pay
for our military personnel.
However, pay boosts do not go to the
heart of the matter of retention of men
in the Armed Forces. The President,
our military leaders, the Members of
Congress, have a responsibility to im-
prove the career aspects of military serv-
ice. The draft should not be used as a
crutch by the military, so that men serve
because they have to do so. We should
seek to improve the quality of our mili-
tary personnel, on a career basis, so that
the rapid turnover will be reduced. I be-
lieve this pay bill is part of that effort,
but only a part.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 5555, the military
pay increase bill, a measure which has
been long overdue.
As stated in the committee report,
the purpose of the proposed legislation
is to provide increases in basic pay and
subsistence allowances; to establish a
new method of adjusting retirement pay;
and to provide other benefits for mem-
bers of our uniformed services.
There appears to be a general agree-
ment here that our military personnel
on active duty are grossly underpaid as
compared to employees in our civil serv-
ice. For example, a colonel is paid about
$200 a month less than his civil service
counterpart. Such a differential cer-
tainly is not conducive to enlistment in
our armed services. Yet I note with deep
concern that the full Committee on
Armed Services has deleted two provi-
sions from the bill as originally intro-
duced which would have provided some
incentive fringe benefits. These are:
first, the recomputation provision; and
second, the combat pay provision.
I am firmly of the position that these
two provisions should be restored. As
stated in the additional views of the re-
port, the bill as reported by the full corn-
mitte contains a major inconsistency.
While purporting to encourage com-
petent members of our armed services
to make lifetime careers of the military
service, it breaks faith with those who
have already devoted their lives to such
service.
It has been traditional for more than
100 years that retired military pay be
computed on active duty pay. Secretary
McNamara has submitted a memoran-
dum to the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee expressing beyond doubt that the
authority for recomputation of pay is
based on clear provisions of the law
rather than on mere practice. He dis-
closed that the Controller General has
consistently held that section 6149,
United States Code, title 10, and other
laws established this right. This section
reads in part:
The retired pay to which the officer is en-
titled shall be recomputed on the basis of
the new rates.
The traditional principle of recompu-
tation prevailed until 1958 when in a
drastic and sudden action with no warn-
ing to retired personnel, Congress pro-
vided that all officers who retired prior
to June 1, 1958 would receive instead only
a 6-percent cost-of-living increase.
It is a well-known fact that fringe
benefits including retired pay have al-
ways been offered as an inducement for
servicemen to accept less money in the
military than they would receive in com-
parable civilian positions. At the hear-
ings on this measure an experienced re-
cruiting officer now retired testified at
page 1577 as follows:
Every man on the retired rolls and on ac-
tive duty has ben told by the recruiting offi-
cers that his retired pay would be based upon
the active duty pay scales.
The opposition to the restoration of the
two deleted provisions is based upon
budgetary considerations. I believe that
as Members of Congress representing the
greatest democratic government in man-
kind's history, we ought to keep a prom-
ise in line with our world image. We
ought not to replace morality with budg-
etary considerations.
Restoration of the recomputation pro-
visions would mean that we shall keep
faith with those citizens of ours who, by
the nature of their work must sacrifice
their lives, if need be, upon call.
The deletion of the combat pay bene-
fits as contained in the original bill as
introduced must have come to many of
us as a great surprise. The bill as
amended provides for hazardous pay for
parachute duty, demolition duty, flight
duty, thermal stress duty, high and low
pressure duty, and submarine duty, yet
fails to provide for combat duty pay.
What could be more hazardous than
combat with an enemy determined to kill
you? Certainly, in the name of equity,
we ought to restore and provide for addi-
tional compensation for those who place
their lives in jeopardy in our Nation's
behalf. Seventy-three Americans have
. 7597
already given up their lives in Vietnam
in our present struggle against commu-
nism. Four of these brave men were citi-
zens of my great State of Hawaii. There
will not doubt be others who must make
the supreme sacrifice before_freedom
prevails. While the additional compen-
sation proposed in the original bill and
deleted by the committee is certainly
only a token of our concern and wholly
insufficient by way of compensation, I am
sure that the practicalities of life will
bring forth an appreciation from its re-
cipients and members of their families.
Both of these deleted provisions were
approved by the subcommittee which
studied this legislation for weeks. They
were requested by the Army and by the
Department of Defense and approved by
the Bureau of the Budget and the Presi-
dent. Certainly, there can be no real
reason why these two provisions cannot
be restored. I urge the restoration of
these two provisions and passage of the
bill with such amendments as will do the
job as we ought to do it.
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chair-
man, I am happy to associate myself
with the remarks of the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. BENNETT]. I
agree, there is a moral obligation on the
part of this Congress to continue com-
bat pay for those gentlemen who have
volunteered to advise, on a military level,
the actions in Vietnam.
I visited Vietnam in December of last
year and witnessed the extreme difficul-
ties that our advisory group endure in
the defense of South Vietnam's democ-
racy. Although these special forces
volunteer for these assignments, there is
not reason why we should not compen-
sate them for the extreme dangers that
they face, day in and day out. Jungle
warfare, as many of my colleagues know,
is most difficult as you are fighting the
hazards of nature as well as the enemy.
I believe that these volunteer forces,
who are willing to endanger their lives,
and sacrifice them if need be, are en-
titled to the same extra compensation
that is presently being awarded to our
Air Force personnel as well as the air-
borne infantry. In my opinion, those
that are actually facing the danger of a
hidden enemy 24 hours a day, are more
deserving of extra compensation for
their dedication to the cause of freedom.
Let us acknowledge their courageous
stand in the face of tyranny by giving
full support to the amendment before
us.
Mr. HARDING. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 5555, a bill to increase
the rates of basic pay for members of
the uniformed services.
President Kennedy pointed out in his
message to the Congress:
In this era of increasingly complex weap-
ons 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 Forces.
General military pay was last increased 41/2
years ago. Since then, higher wages and sal-
aries in private industry have provided
strong inducement for highly trained mili-
tary personnel to leave the service for better
paying jobs in civilian life.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
I have known many members of the
military service who could be making
much more in civilian life in the way of
salaries and wages; however, they are
devoted to the concept of maintaining
the freedom of our great Nation. I am
convinced that it is in the national in-
terest for us to pass HR. 5555 with the
amendments that have been adopted
here today to partially relieve the finan-
cial sacrifices that our servicemen must
make. I believe that it is incumbent
upon the Congress to do everything pos-
sible to make the military an attractive
career for the young men who have cho-
sen to defend our way of life.
The salary increases in this bill are at
a minimum and in many instances they
should be even higher. I receive many
letters from career servicemen who are
having a difficult time making ends meet
financially. Several of them have ap-
plied for hardship discharges rather
than continue to face financial difficul-
ties caused in part by inadequate mili-
tary pay.
When we consider the great cost of
training our servicemen and getting
them to the state of combat readiness
in this day of nuclear and technolog-
ical warfare, I am sure that it would be
cheaper for the Government to pay these
men on a basis equivalent with the pay
scales of private industry rather than
have them leave the service and be faced
with the cost of retraining replace-
ments.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I
was proud to support the amendments
offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RayElls] and also the gen-
tleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT] . I
believe that these two amendments have
strengthened the bill in that they are
correcting inequalities that existed prior
to their adoption. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, as a matter of honor and
justice, I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 5555 that we may not only show
our appreciation to the members of the
military service who are contributing so
much to our national defense but also
"COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
May 8
that we may pay them wages and sal-
aries that are more nearly equal with
those being paid for comparable work
outside the military service.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. [After counting.] One hundred
and nineteen MeMbers are present, a
quorum.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Uniformed Services
Pay Act of 1963".
BASIC PAY
SEC. 2. Section 203 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"1203. Rates
"The rates of monthly basic pay for mem-
bers of the uniformed services within each
pay grade are set forth in the following
tables:
"Pay grade
Years of service computed under sec. 205
2 or less
Over
2
Over
3
Over
4
Over
6
Over
8
Over
10
Over
12
Over
14
Over
16
Over
, 18
Over
20
Over
22
Over
26
Over
-30
0-10 I
$1, 200.00
$1, 315
$1, 315
$1, 315
$1,355
$1, 365
$1, 365
$1, 470
$1, 470
$1, 575
$1, 575
$1, 680
$1, 680
$1, 785
$1, 785
0-9
1, 063. 30
1, 155
1, 180
1, 180
1, 180
1,210
1,210
1, 260
1, 260
1,365
1,365
1, 470
1,470
1, 575
1,575
0-8
963.30
1,050
1,075
1,075
1, 075
1, 155
1, 155
1, 210
1,210
1, 260
1,315
1,365
1,420
1,420
1,420
0-7
800. 28
905
905
905
945
945
1,000
1,000
1,050
1, 155
1, 235
1, 235
1, 235
1, 235
1,235
0-6
692.50
690
735
735
735
735
735
735
760
880
925
945
1,000
1,085
2 1, 085
0-5
474. 24
565
605
605
605
605
625
660
705
760
805
835
870
870
870
0- 4
400. 14
490
625
525
525
560
600
635
665
695
725
725
725
725
725
0-3
326.04
410
440
490
535
540
570
600
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
0-2
259.36
345
420
435
450
465
490
510
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
0-1
222.30
280
355
365
380
395
410
430
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
"Pay grade
"WARRANT OFFICERS
Years of service computed under see. 205
W-4
W-3
W-2
W-1
'Pay grade
E-9
E-8
E-7
E-6
E-5
E-4
E-3
E-2
E-1
E-1 (under 4 months)
2 or less
$332.90
302.64
264.82
219. 42
$430
395
345
305
$430
395
345
305
$440
400
355
330
$460
405
375
345
$480
435
395
360
$500
460
410
375
"ENLISTED MEMBERS
$535
475
425
390
$560
490
440
405
$580
505
455
420
$595
520
470
435
$615
540
485
450
$635
560
505
450
$685
580
505
450
$685
580
505
450
Years of service computed under sec. 205
2 or less
Over
30
$206.39
171.81
145. 24
122.30
99.37
85.80
83.20
78.00
$275
240
210
180
145
120
110
$285
250
220
190
155
120
110
$295
260
230
200
165
120
110
$305
270
240
210
165
120
110
$365
315
280
250
210
165
120
110
$435
375
325
290
260
210
165
120
110
$445
385
335
300
270
210
165
120
110
$455
395,
345
310
280
210
165
120
110
$465
405
355
320
280
210
165
120
110
$475
415
365
330
280
210
165
120
110
$485
425
375
330
280
210
165
120
110
$510
450
400
330
280
210
165
120
110
$560
500
450
330
280
210
165
120
' 110
$560
500
450
330
280
210
165
120
110"
"1 While serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army "2 Wh.le serving as a permanent professor at the U.S. Military Academy or the
Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine U.S. Air Force Academy, basic pay for this grade is $1,165, if the officer has over 31
Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade IS $1,970 regardless years of service computed under sec. 205 of this title, and $1,235, if the officer has over 36
of years of service computed under sec. 205 of this title. years of that service.
BASIC PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CONTRACT
SURGEONS
SECA. (a) Section 201(b) of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking
out the words "0-2 with two or less" and
inserting in place thereof the words "0-3
with over four, but not more than six,".
(b) Section 421(a) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
words "0-2 with less than two" and insert-
ing in place thereof the words "0-3 with
over four, but not more than six,".
RETIRED PAY AND RETAINER PAY
SEC. 4. (a) Except as provided in section
1402 of title 10, United States Code, the
changes made by this Act in the rates of basic
Declassified and Approved For Release
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.
(b) A member or former member of a
uniformed service who was entitled to retired
pay or retainer pay on the day before the
50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50'-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
effective date of this Act is entitled to an
increase of 5 percent in that retired pay
or retainer pay.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a member of an armed force who was
entitled to pay and allowances under any of
the following provisions of law on the day
before the effective date of this Act shall
continue to receive the pay and allowances
to which he was entitled on that day:
(1) The Act of March 23, 1946, chapter 112
(60 Stat. 59).
(2) The Act of June 26, 1948, chapter 677
(62 Stat. 1052) .
(3) The Act of September 18, 1950, chapter
952 (64 Stat. A224) .
(d) Chapter 71 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended?
(1) by adding the following new section
after section 1401:
"? 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and re-
tainer pay to reflect changes in
Consumer Price Index
"(a) Unless otherwise specifically pro-
vided by law, the retired pay or retainer pay
of a member or former member of an armed
force shall be computed at the rate of basic
pay applicable to him when he was retired,
was granted retired pay, or became entitled
to retainer pay, as the case may be.
"(b) In January of each calendar year
after 1963, the Secretary of Defense shall de-
termine the percent that the annual average
of the Consumer Price Index (all items?
United States city average) published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the preceding
calendar year has increased over that for
1962 or, if later, for the calendar year pre-
ceding that in which the most recent ad-
justment in retired pay and retainer pay has
been made under this subsection. If the
Secretary determines the percent of that in-
crease to be 3 or more, the retired pay or re-
tainer pay of a member or former member
of an armed force who became entitled to
that pay before January 2 of the year in
which the Secretary makes that determina-
tion shall, as of April 1 of that year, be in-
creased by that percent, adjusted to the
nearest one-tenth of 1 percent."; and
(2) by inserting the following new item in
the analysis:
"1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and re-
tainer pay to reflect changes in
Consumer Price Index."
(e) Title 10, United States Code, is amend-
ed as follows:
(1) Section 1401 is amended by striking
out the words ", and adjust to reflect later
changes in applicable permanent rates" in
footnote 1 to the table;
(2) Sections 3991 and 8991 are each
amended?
(A) by amending column 1 of formula A
In the table to read as follows:
"Monthly basic pay 2 of member's retired
grade.1"; and
(B) by amending footnote 2 to the table
to read as follows:
"2 Compute at rates applicable on date of
retirement."
(3) Chapter 561 is amended by repealing
section 6149 and striking out the following
item in the analysis:
"6149. Retired pay: computed on basis of
rates of pay for officers on the active
list."
(4) Sections 6151 (b) , 6323(e), 6325 (a) (2)
and (b) (2), 6326(c) (2), 6381(a) (2), 6389(c)
(2), 6390(b) (2), and 6394(h) are each
amended by striking out the words "to which
he would be entitled if serving on active duty
in" and inserting in place thereof the word
"of".
(5) Section 6327(b) is amended by strik-
ing out the words "to which he would be
entitled if on active duty" and inserting in
place thereof the words "of the grade in
which retired".
(6) Section 6396(c) (2), 6398(b) (2), 6399
(c) (2), and 6400(b) (2) are each amended by
striking out the words "to which she would
be entitled if serving on active duty in" and
inserting in place thereof the word "of".
(f) A member or former member of a uni-
formed service is not entitled to? an increase
in his retired pay or retainer pay because of
the enactment of this Act for any period
before the effective date of this Act.
(g) Section 3(b) of the Act of August 10,
1956, ch. 1041 (33 U.S.C. 857a(b) ), and sec-
tion 221(b) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 213a(b) ) are each amended by
striking out the words "or 'the Secretary
concerned'" and inserting in place thereof
the words ", 'the Secretary concerned', or
'the Secretary of Defense' ".
(h) Section 1402(a) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting the
words, "at any time for a continuous period
of at least one year" immediately after the
words "serves on active duty" in the first
sentence and by striking out the words "on
the basis of any period of active duty that
was of less than six consecutive months'
duration or" in the second sentence.
SUBMARINE PAY FOR MEMBERS TRAINING FOR
DUTY ON NUCLEAR-POWERED SUBMARINES
SEC. 5. Section 301(a) (2) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(2) as determined by the Secretary con-
cerned, on a submarine (including, in the
case of nuclear-powered submarines, periods
of training and rehabilitation after assign-
ment thereto) , or, in the case of personnel
qualified in submarines, as a prospective
crewmember of a submarine being con-
structed, and during periods of instruction
to prepare for assignment to a submarine of
advanced design or a position of increased
responsibility on a submarine;".
INCENTIVE PAY FOR DUTY INSIDE A HIGH- OR
LOW-PRESSURE CHAMBER
SEC. 6. Section 301(a) (9) of title 37, United
States Code, is amedned to read as follows:
"(9) inside a high- or low-pressure cham-
ber;".
MULTIPLE PAYMENTS OF INCENTIVE PAY
SEC. 7. Section 301(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
words "only one payment" and inserting in
place thereof the words "not more than two
payments".
REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR RESPONSIBILITY PAY
SEC. 8. Chapter 5 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by repealing section 306
and striking out the following item in the
analysis:
"306. Special pay: officers holding positions
of unusul responsibility and of
critical nature."
INCREASE IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE
SEC. 9. Section 402 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (b) is amended by striking
out the words ", on a daily basis," and the
fourth sentence.
(2) Subsection (d) is amended to read as
follows:
"(d) The basic allowance for subsistence
for members of the uniformed services is as
follows:
7599
(1) Officers $51.00 a month
(2) Enlisted Members when $97.50 a month
rations in kind are
not available and
their duty assign-
ment requires them
to incur subsistence
expenses substan-
tially in excess of
those incurred by
members covered by
clause (3) .
(3) Enlisted members on $37.50 a month.
leave, when permis-
sion to mess sep-
arately is granted, or
when rations in kind
are not available
and the members
are not otherwise
qualified under
clause (2).
(4) Enlisted members when Not more than
assigned to duty un- $129.30 a
der emergency con- month."
ditions where no '
messing facilities of
the United States
are available and
they are required to
incur subsistence
expenses substan-
tially in excess of
those incurred by
members covered by
clause (2).
FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
SEC. 10. Chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) The following new section is inserted
after section 426:
"? 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 perma-
nent duty outside of the United States, or.
In 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 as-
signment to him.
"(b) Except in time of war or of national
emergency hereafter declared by Congress,
and in addition to any allowance or per diem
to whieh he otherwise may be entitled under
this title, including subsection (a) of this
section, a member of a uniformed service
who is entitled to a basic allowance for
quarters as a member with dependents un-
der section 403 of this title 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 the station;
"(2) he is on duty on board a ship away
from the home port of the ship for a con-
tinuous period of more than 30 days; or
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
"(3) he is on temporary duty away from
his permanent station for a continuous pe-
riod of more than 30 days and his depend-
ents do not reside at or near his temporary
duty station."
(2) The analysis is amended by inserting
the following item:
"427. Family separation allowance."
FOREIGN DUTY PAY
SEC. 11. (a) Section 305 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
words "or Hawaii" in subsection (a) and the
word "Hawaii," wherever it appears in sub-
section (b).
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) an
enlisted member who, on the day before the
effective date of this Act, is permanently
assigned to duty in Hawaii, shall, during the
remaining period of that assignment, be paid
the basic pay to which he was entitled on
that date plus special pay under section 305
of title 37, United States Code, whenever
qualified thereunder, if the total of that
basic pay and that special pay is more than
the basic pay to which he would otherwise
be entitled during that period under sec-
tion 2 of this Act.
SAVINGS PROVISIONS
SEC. 12. (a) Any member of the uniformed
services who becomes entitled to retired or
retainer pay during calendar year 1963 but
prior to the effective date of this Act, may
compute his retirement or retainer pay on or
after the effective date of this Act under the
rates established by section 2 of this Act
Unless entitled to a higher rate under some
other provision of law.
(b) The enactment of this Act does not
reduce the rate of dependency and indemnity
compensation under section 411 of title 38,
United States Code, that any person was
receiving on the day before the effective date
of this Act or which thereafter becomes pay-
able for that day by reason of a subsequent
determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sac. 13. This Act becomes effective on Oc-
tober 1, 1963 or on the first day of the first
month after enactment, whichever is later.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina (dur-
ing the reading) . Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be con-
sidered as read and be open to amend-
ment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RIVERS of South
Carolina: On page 4, strike out lines 8
through 11 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
"(b) A member or former member of a
uniformed service who, in accordance with
section 511 of the Career Compensation Act
of 1949 (63 Stat. 829), is entitled to retired
pay or retainer pay computed by 'method'
(a) of that section using rates of basic pay
that were in effect before October 1, 1949, is
entitled?
"(1) to have that pay recomputed by
'method' (b) of that section using the rates
of basic pay that were in effect under that
Act on the day before the effective date of
this Act; or
"(2) to continue to have that pay com-
puted by 'method' (a) using rates of basic
pay that were in effect before October 1,
1949, plus any applicable percentage in-
creases;
whichever pay is the greater.
"(c) A member or former member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to retired
pay or retainer pay computed under the
rates of basic pay that were in effect under
the Career Compensation Act of 1949 before
June 1, 1958, is entitled?
"(1)to have that pay recomputed under
the rates of basic pay that were in effect
under that Act on the day before the effec-
tive date of this Act; or
"(2) to continue to have that pay com-
puted under the rates of basic pay that were
in effect under that Act before June 1, 1958,
plus any applicable percentage increases;
whichever pay is the greater.
"(d) A member or former mernber of a uni-
formed service who was entitled to retired
pay on the day before the effective date of
this Act-and who served as Chief of Staff of
the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, or Commandant of the
Marine Corps is entitled?
"(1) to have his retired pay recomputed
under the formula for computing retired pay
applicable to him?
"(A) when he retired; or
"(B) if he served on active duty after he
retired and his retired pay was recomputed
by reason of that service, when his retired
pay was so recomputed;
using as his rate of basic pay the rate of
basic pay prescribed for officers serving on
active duty in those positions on June 1,
1958, by footnote 1 to the table for commis-
sioned officers in section 201(5) of the Career
Compensation Act of 1949, as amended (72
Stat. 122); or
"(2) to continue to receive the retired pay
to which he was entitled on the day before
the effective date of this Act;
whichever pay is the greater.
"(e) A member or former member of a
uniformed service who was entitled to re-
tired pay or retainer pay on the day before
the effective date of this Act is entitled to
an increase of 5 per centum in?
"(1) the retired pay or retainer pay to
which he was entitled on that day; or
"(2) the pay to which he is entitled un-
der subsection (b), (c), or (d) of this sec-
tion, in the case of a member or former
member who is entitled to have the retired
pay or retainer pay to which he was entitled
on that day recomputed under that subsec-
tion."
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina (dur-
ing the reading of the amendment).
Mr. Chairman, this is the recomputa-
tion amendment, and I think everybody
understands it. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, we have already discussed the
provisions and the intent of this amend-
ment. It is to right a wrong that was
committed in 1958 when we denied those
who retired prior to June 1, 1958, the
right to compute. They had had this
right by law with the exception of a brief
period in the 1920's purely for economic
reasons, and they were denied this right.
This applies to enlisted as well as officer
personnel and anybody who retired prior
to 1958. We have agreed that this is the
last time this sort of situation will arise.
When this amendment is disposed of, in
the future there will be an escalation
clause and we are giving notice. In 1958
we did not do that. We have the most
distinguished heroes of World War II in
the history of America out of the 11 mil-
May 8
lion or 12 million, or 14 million service
men and women who served their coun-
try, the greatest array of heroes since
the founding of this Republic?one re-
tired one day and one retired the next
day. One was denied and one was given
the right. This is not right. It is to -
right this wrong that I offer this amend-
ment, Mr. Chairman. I know it is right.
If we can afford a hundred billion dol-
lars in foreign aid, military assistance,
and Alliance for Progress, we can afford
this measly $30 million for the greatest
array there is since you were born.
As one poet said:
I have never had the privilege of tasting
the ardor of conflict, I have never been on
a battlefield.
Some of you may have. I do not know
what it is like, but I know this is my
day, this is my time to do something,
and I am trying, because in my heart
I know it is right.
Once a lineal descendant, a person
from whom Winston Churchill came,
said:
God ancrthe soldier we adore
In time of danger?not before? -
Danger passed and all things righted,
God forgotten and the soldier slighted.
I recall when we passed a bill to give
special consideration to five-star men.
I recall when MacArthur, Nimitz, and
all of these great heroes appeared, how
high the enthusiasm was to give them
something for what they had done.
How many do you think ought to have
the Legion of Merit or the Distinguished
Service Cross? How many do you know
of your acquaintances who never got the
decoration? This is your time to reward
these men and women who have given so
generously to their country.
I recognize, as you do, this retirement
problem. I recognize, as you do, that in
the future we may have to give consid-
eration to it. But I want to remind
you that this is your time to right a
wrong, and I will leave it there.
I thank you very much.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
RivEas] and I ask unanimous consent
to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
(Mr. VINSON asked and was given
permission- to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, on
April 9, the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices voted on two motions which dealt
directly with the question of recomputa-
tion. The first Motion was to grant
recomputation, plus a 5 percent cost of
living increase. That motion was de-
feated by a vote of 19 to 13. The second
motion was to permit those retired prior
to June 1, 1958, to be given a choice of
recomputation or a 5 percent of cost of
living increase. That motion was de-
feated by a vote of 18 to 23.
Therefore, the chairman of- the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, speaking for
a majority of the members of that com-
mittee, is asking the House to support
the committee's position. I think I can
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
demonstrate to you by facts and figures
the soundness of the position of the
majority of the Committee on Armed
Services. .
Here is what the issue boils down to.
The Pay Act of May 20, 1958, which
went into effect on June 1, 1958, pro-
vided that no one retired prior to June
1, 1958, could compute his retirement pay
under the new pay scales contained in
the 1958 Pay Act. However, these people
did receive a 6-percent cost-of-living
increase.
The issue before the House today is
whether we will permit all persons who
are paid under the Career Compensa-
tion Act, and who retired prior to June
1, 1958, to recompute their retirement
pay under the existing 1958 pay scales,
plus a 5-percent cost-of-living increase,
or whether we will adhere to the decision
we made in 1958 not to permit recom-
putation.
If recomputation is authorized by this
proposed law, then any person who re-
tired prior to June 1, 1958, who draws
his retirement pay under the Career
Compensation Act will be able to recom-
pute his retirement pay under the 1958
pay scales and this could include per-
sons who served in the Spanish Ameri-
can War, if they are still alive.
Bear in mind now, in 1948, when the
distinguished gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Kilday, on behalf of the Commit-
tee on Armed Services, presented that
bill after a long hearing, we wrote in
that all those distinguished officers who
retired prior to that date, June 1, 1958,
were not permitted to recompute their
retirement upon the scale of pay given
in the 1958 act. Now, that is the whole
issue.
One step further. Recomputation is
authorized by the proposed law, and any
person who retired prior to June 1, 1958,
and draws his retirement under the Ca-
reer Compensation Act will be able to
recompute his retirement pay under the
1958 pay scale, and this will include
persons who even served in the Spanish-
American War, if they are living.
We tried to bring about a cutoff period.
The Congress cut it off in 1958. From
1958 down to this very hour an effort
has been made to set aside that cutoff
date. The distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina in his amendment says
that it only applies to those who retired
before June 1, 1958. Now, I say to you
if it is fair to that group, why is it not
equally fair to the man who retired in
1959, 1960, 1961, or 1962 down to this
present time? Are you going to make
fish of one and fowl of another? As I
pointed out when he was speaking, the
logical conclusion is if you are going to
give it to him, do not stop it. That is
the logical thing to do. If those who re-
tired before 1958 are entitled to recom-
pute, why is not the man who retires
after 1958 entitled to the same thing?
Yet this amendment does not do it.
Now, we tried to stop it, and the reason
we had to stop it was because of the
enormous cost. And no man fought
more vigorously on the floor of this House
for the retired officers and the other
officers of the armed services than I have.
For 48 years I have been fighting their
fights here. But I see the danger of
what will happen.
Now, here is what is going to happen.
Just listen to this: You are sowing the
seed that is going to destroy the retire-
ment system. You cannot continue to
have this retirement cost going up bil-
lions of dollars year after year.
Mr. Chairman, in the next 10 years,
without any recomputation, it will be
in the neighborhood of $3 billion an-
nually. Here is what is going to happen:
If we continue this then we have got
to change the retirement system. When
you change your retirement system then
you are forcing people to stay in the
service longer than their military phys-
ical qualifications would warrant them
to stay there. Then, what happens?
Then you slow down promotions. Then
a man says "Why should I stay in the
service? I have no opportunity to go
forward."
If you adopt this ameedment, I ven-
ture the prediction here today that in
less than 5 years an effort will be made
on the floor of this House to completely
change the retirement system, because
this country cannot stand this retire-
ment pay as it is going along now. That
is the reason why in 1958 we had to do
it. Today what does the appropriation
bill carry for this purpose? $1,029 mil-
lion for retired pay. It will be $3 billion
in 1980.
Without any retired pay increases our
annual retirement costs will exceed $3
billion in 1980.
If we assume a 6-percent cost of liv-
ing increase every 4 years, those retire-
ment costs will go to $4,135 million by
1980.
And if we take the average increases
in military pay since the end of World
War II, which approximates an 11-per-
cent increase every 3 years, and project
that in the future on the basis of recom-
putation, then retirement costs for mili-
tary personnel in 1980 would exceed
$6,415 million annually, and by 1983
would exceed $7,800 million a year.
I might add that a study prepared by
the University of Michigan for the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee came up
with this conclusion:
The cost of living method of increasing
retired pay is not only the most equitable,
but more closely will achieve the objectives
of the retirement system. * * * The com-
mittee concludes after a thorough study of
all the evidence that the cost of living
method of increasing retired pay should be
retained and that this policy should be
continued in the future.
7601
Mr. Chairman, I want to preserve the
retirement system. These distinguished
men who have defended the country and
have given their lives are entitled to a
fair and an equitable bill. We have
given it to them. We have given them
a 6-percent, cost-of-living increase.
Let me show you this. Do you know
what? I ask my learned friend here, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRoss] , does
he know what is involved in this? They
talk about $32 million. That is the first
payment. If you adopt this amendment,
for the life of this amendment you will
put a cost of $600 million on the Ameri-
can taxpayer. That is exactly it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, of course my life
has been enriched by my association for
all these years with these admirals and
these generals, great men. I regret that
my conscience will not permit me to go
along with them. But I cannot do it un-
der these facts and figures.
Mr. Chairman, what does the law give
them today? The former Chief of Staff
under the law receives retirement at the
rate of $12,180 a year. If you vote for
the amendment which has been offered
by the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. RIVERS] you will give him $17,712.
Generals and admirals get $12,180, in
addition to the privileges, and they are
entitled to them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Georgia has expired.
Mr. 'VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 addi-
tional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to complain about the fringe
benefits which these people receive.
They are entitled to them. However,
generals and admirals get $12,180 today.
Under this amendment they would get
$16,068. Lieutenant generals and vice
admirals get when they retire $11,220.
Under this amendment they would get
$14,172.
Now, he had to retire before June 1.
It is proposed that we vote these in-
creases merely because of the fact that
he had been in the service and was re-
tired. It is wrong in principle to say
that because an officer on active duty
gets a certain amount then a retired
officer is entitled to base his retirement
pay upon the pay of the officer on active
duty.
Let me continue to show what some of
these increases are. Major generals and
rear admirals of the upper half get to-
day $10,272. Under this amendment they
would receive $12,768.
Brigadier generals and rear admirals
who today get $9,228, under this amend-
ment would get $11,100.
Here is the list; I am going to put it
in the RECORD:
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Annual retirement pay
Grade
' Present
pay
ne,compu-
tation and
5 percent
5-percent
increase
- only
Former Chiefs of Staff
$12, 180
$17, 712
$12, 792
Generals and admirals
12,180
16,068
12,792
Lieutenant generals and vice admirals
11,220
14,172
11,784
Major generals and rear admirals (upper half)
10,272
12,768
10,788
Brigadier generals and rear admirals (lower half)
9,228
11, 100
9,684
Colonels and captains (30)
7, 740
9,112
8,124
Lieutenants colonels and commanders (27)
5,760
6,588
6,048
Majors and lieutenant commanders (26)
4,896
5, 172
5, 136
Captains and lieutenants (25)
4,092
4,296
4, 296
1st lieutenants and lieutenants (25)
3,288
3,456
3, 456
2d lieutenants and ensigns (27)
3,216
3,372
3,372
E-7's (23 years)
2, 340
2, 532
2, 46C
R-S's (23 years)
2, 112
2,220
2,229
E-5's (24 years)
1,968
2,064
2,064
E-4's (25 years)
1,740
1,824
1,824
I made this statement before the Com-
mittee on Armed Services and the Com-
mittee on Armed Services concluded that
the facts did not warrant this increase.
Mr. Chairman, what has happened?
You saw here this morning by a roll-
call vote a bill from the Committee on
Appropriations recommitted because of
an item of $65,000. And yet on the next
matter before the House, they are asking
us to saddle upon the American taxpay-
er at least $600 million.
Mr. Chairman, I want to raise this
question. I am disturbed about it and
I think you had better be disturbed
about it. In my opinion if the amend-
ment is adopted, section 4(a) of this bill
would be completely ineffective in pre-
venting a demand for increased retire-
ment pay for the entire period 1958 to
1963. I take the position that under the
language of this amendment there are
5 years when he has not received this
money, and in my opinion he would have
the opportunity to file a claim in the
Court of Claims for every one of those
years, that he would be entitled to re-
compute for those years. He would be
entitled under this amendment to start
in 1958 and recompute down to October
1963. He has not received that pay, and
therefore he would be entitled to recom-
pute for each of those years.
Who knows what that will cost? Mr.
Chairman, we have a good bill here. We
have given them 6 percent. If you want
to give these distinguished gentlemen
these enormous increases-$4,000, $2,000,
$1,000, whatever the amount is-that is
your privilege. I have done my duty be-
cause I am afraid, I see the danger-
mark my word, and I repeat it here-the
day will come in this House, and the gen-
tleman from Michigan [Mr. FORD] will be
here probably, but I will not because I
am an old man-but he will be here and
will see an effort made to change the en-
tire retirement system if you continue to
permit these things to happen.
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to save the
retirement system.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ViNsoisr]
has expired.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the distin-
guished gentleman from Georgia be per-
mitted to continue an additional 5
minutes.
Mr. VrNSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman, but I have concluded my
statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Georgia says that he has finished
his statement.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words, and ask unanimous consent to re-
vise and extend my remarks, and to pro-
ceed for 5 additional minutes. ?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I would
be less than frank and candid if I clid
not say to you that I do not quite relish
being in this particular position at this
time. You have just heard the man who
has done more for the armed services of
the United States than any other man
who lives or ever will live. But I should
like to point out that deep' convictions
can be held by younger men as well as
those who are more experienced. I rise
here, not in disrespect of my chairman,
who is one of the greatest men I will ever
know, but out of a deep sense of convic-
tion that a wrong has been done and
that this Congress must correct it.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that by a vote
of 19 to 13 the Rivers amendment which
is before you was rejected in the House
Committee on Armed Services. But since
that time, I may say, there have been a
great many second thoughts, much addi-
tional thinking, and soul searching, and
the unofficial count today is that some-
where between 22 and 25 of that 37-man
committee are going to support this
amendment.
The distinguished chairman has said
that this recomputation amendment is
"sowing the seeds that will destroy the
retirement system." I respectfully dis-
agree. I cannot say that correcting a
wrong, an injustice, at a cost of $30 mil-
lion a year, and that is all that is at
stake here, is going to bankrupt the re-
tirement system. Thirty million dollars
a year is the most this amendment could
cost, and as each year goes by it will
cost less.
I do not believe we are ready to say
that the U.S. 'Government is going bank-
rupt because from time to time we im-
prove the Civil Service Retirement Sys-
tem. Yet the deficit in this system in-
creased from June 30, 1960, to June 30,
1961, by $1,117 million, despite a Federal
contribution of $896 million. My mathe-
matics indicates that in the fiscal year
1961 the cost of the Federal Share of the
Civil Service, Retirement System was
therefore $2,013 million. We know it will
May 8
increase in the future. None of us will
say that this is going to bankrupt the
country. Why is it that $30 million a
year spent in the interests of right and
fairness will bankrupt the country?
To say that the total cost of the
amendment is $600 million is to use the
technique of shock. The amendment
will cost that much over more than 20
years. Had this fact been stated the
amount would not have been shocking.
I should like to point out that at the rate
of $2,013 million annual Federal cost for
Civil Service Retirement over the same
period of time would amount to more
than $50 billion.
Our respected chairman has said that
if we permit recomputation for those
who retired prior to 1958, why not do
the same for those who retired after
1958? The thing the chairman did not
tell you is that those who have been
retired since the 1st of June 1958 do
get to compute their pay on the basis of
the 1958 pay scale, and they are getting
the increased payment today. You do
not have to allow it. They are getting
it now.
This amendment is a pure and simple
bit of fairness. We did not provide in
1958 for the future as we are doing in
this bill. This amendment is only cor-
recting the wrong of 1958. We are
wiping the slate clean and starting a
new system. Let me make this perfectly
clear. This is the end of recomputation
for the future.
This arriendment is not retroactive in
the sense that there will be retroactive
payments.
Let me make it clear that this amend-
ment will still keep the cost of the bill
under the President's budget for fiscal
year 1964.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUBSER. I yield to the gentle-
Man.
Mr. COHELAN. Will not the gentle-
man agree with me on the very point
that he is developing, the very thing we
are suggesting today is merely what the
Secretary of Defense has recognized as
a gross inequity and, therefore, in his
report on the pay bill that came up from
the Department of Defense this was pro-
vided for; is this not correct?
Mr. GUBSER. That is correct. The
gentleman raises a very significant point.
This was proposed by former President
Eisenhower. He is in favor of it today,
I understand. This was proposed by
President Kennedy in his successful
campaign. This is the position of the
Department of Defense because this was
in the bill that they sent to us. This is
the unanimous position of the Rivers
subcommittee which worked 2 weeks on
pay legislation. Everybody is in favor
of this.
I do not see why we do not get it
over with and do what is basically fair.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUBSER. I yield to the gentle-
man from South Carolina.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
would like' to say this. I do not think
it is a crime to be an admiral or a
general. For 40 years we did not give
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65600383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
them anything. In every statute, and I
have them listed here, they refer since
1920 only to officers below brigadier gen-
eral. In 1922 or 1942 it refers only to
the lowest commissioned grade. For over
40 years, from 1908 to 1946, which is
roughly 40 years, they got nothing. Now
what is wrong with correcting that in-
equity? My distinguished chairman,
said, in his opinion, they could go to
the court of claims and sue for this. I
happen to be a member of the bar just
as a lot of you?not very distinguished
but where I come from, I do not do so
bad. We put this in the bill. It is the
bill. There is no fanciful thinking here.
It says:
SEC. 4. (a) Except as provided in section
1402 of title 10, United States Code, 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 en-
titled on the day before the effective date
of this Act.
Now I respectfully reserve the right to
disagree with my chairman. I do not
think it can happen. This, of course, is
-my opinion. I think I have a lot of peo-
ple who know something about the law
on my side. So this is not a one-way
decision. I do not think many of them
Would go into the court of claims because
this act speaks pretty plainly. We have
a chance to do the right thing and we
have a distinguished array of people who
feel the same way about it.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GUBSER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ALGER. Do I understand that
this will bring all of the officers up to
? date on a recomputed basis or give them
the right to recompute but stops it for
the future?
Mr. GUBSER. That is exactly right.
Mr. ALGER. In other words, this is a
provision that makes the law consistent
and puts all retired officers on the same
basis. We assume that there will be no
further recomputation in the future.
Mr. GUBSER. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more point
I would like to make and since I have
yielded so much time, may I ask unani-
mous consent to proceed for 2 additional
minutes?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objeCtion.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I have
several examples of the four star gen-
erals who would benefit from this amend-
ment. ? These examples expose the spe-
cious argument which implies that this
amendment would favor only the high-
ranking officers. Unfortunately time
does not permit me to relate all of them.
Let us consider a distinguished officer
like Admiral Kinkaid, with 45 years in
the military service. Many of the of-
ficers who were junior to him are today
retired on the $16,000 a year that this
bill would give to Admiral Kinkaid.-i If
it is right for his junior officers to have
No. 68-20
it, what is wrong with giving it to him?
The same is true of General Clark.
Some of his junior officers were made
generals and because they retired after
1958 are getting $16,000 a year. But
their commanding officer who directed
them in World War II is getting $4,000
less. Is this right? Is this proper?
Don't make the mistake of concluding
that this amendment benefits only high-
ranking officers. The truth qf the mat-
ter is there are only 50 four-star generals
and chiefs of staff involved.
There are only 1,852 general officers.
There are 33,000 majors, lieutenant
colonels and colonels, and 5,000 company
grade officers.
There are 45,000 chief petty officers
and sergeants who would benefit from
this amendment. They get a increase
of only $130 a year, but that $130 to the
sergeant and chief means more than the
$4,000 increase to the retired member
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There are
four or five thousand other noncommis-
sioned officers, or a total of 50,000 non-
commissioned officers, who would bene-
fit from this amendment.
The Fleet Reserve Association, com-
posed entirely of enlisted men, is whole-
heartedly on record in favor of this
recomputation amendment. So are the
Army Sergeants Association and the
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.
The American Legion, AMVETS, DAV,
Jewish War Veterans, Catholic War Vet-
erans, Military Order of Purple Heart,
VFW, and Veterans of World War I
have also gone on record as favoring the
principle of this amendment.
I conclude by saying this amendment
officially ends recomputation for the fu-
ture. We correct the injustice of 1958
and the situation where one man retires
and gets more than another man of equal
rank and equal service of equal distinc-
tion.
This amendment will not bankrupt the
country. It was in the President's budget
for 1964; it is in the Department of De-
fense recommendation; it was a basic
part of President Kennedy's campaign
speeches. It is the subcommittee's po-
sition. We should respect this great
weight of authority and accept the Rivers
amendment.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this amendment be-
cause it recognizes that the insidious ills
of inflation fastened upon our Nation of
which the retired and pensioned are the
firstline victims cannot be placed at the
feet of those who questioned not the cost
to person when the time of crisis bid
them rise to the occasion.
At $30 million a year it would take 15
years to spend the same amount this
House voted a few days ago for the po-
litically inspired $450 million so-called
emergency public works bill?a total
authorized expenditure approaching $1
billion.
I voted against the emergency public
works bill because it deals with politics.
I vote for this amendment because it
deals with the welfare of persons who de-
serve our gratitude. I trust that those
why cry crocodile tears over our national
7603
spending will remember those tears when
they are faced with the necessity of vot-
ing on the multiplicity of fantastic pro-
grams to add agencies and bureaus to an
already towering bureaucracy to say
nothing of the aid to foreign govern-
ments to keep their leaders on an eco-
nomic level to which kings are accus-
tomed.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the pending amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 30
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pending amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult issue,
as are many of the issues that are before
the committees and before the House.
A few weeks ago, Some of us in the
Armed Services Committee came before
the House and appealed for some recog-
nition of the problem of financing and
costs with regard to our defense pro-
gram. We did not win that fight on the
B-70, but although we lost the battle we
may have won the war, because since
that time there has been a great deal
more recognition of the fact that even
in our defense expenditures there must
be some recognitioxiof the ultimate cost,
and that maximum effort must be made
to hold the line.
That is the spirit in which this bill
has come from the committee. That is
the issue under which this Rivers
amendment must be argued.
It is true that the recommendation
offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina was in the original submission
from. the Defense Department, but let
me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the
committee in its wisdom added some
costs to the bill.
We retained sea pay and overseas pay,
which the Department sought to strike
out. We added a family separation al-
lowance, and to balance off these in-
creases we have made some redUalons.
There has been a certain amount of
confusion about this matter of recom-
putation. This is a somewhat compli-
cated issue and sometimes even some of
us on the committee are perplexed over
some of the details.
I would like to try, if possible, to
throw a little light on some of the points
on this particular legislation and this
particular amendment. In the first
place, the purpose of this bill, the cen-
tral purpose, is to bring the pay of active
duty personnel somewhat more into line
with that of those in private industry,
and to retain active duty personnel in
the service, to make a career out of the
service. We are concerned-about retired
personnel too, of course. We certainly
have to be fair to them, but I think we
have also got to recognize that when a
pay bill comes along, the central and
important question is the pay given to
those on active duty who are immedi-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7604
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE " May 8
ately charged with the defense of our
country.
Now, two points have been involved in
this particular issue, and both of those
points were made eloquently to the com-
mittee by the Department of Defense.
The first point is that we simply can-
not provide the increases in active duty
pay that have got to be made if we are
going to have a highly trained profes-
sional armed force, if at the same time
all of these changes in active duty pay
must also be translated into the vastly
growing amount of money that is paid
out to our retired personnel. If we are
going to be restricted in the improve-
ments that we can give to our active
duty personnel because all such in-
creases must also be passed along to our
growing body of retired personnel, then
the result may likely be that we will
have to skimp on what we do for our
active duty people.
The second point was made by the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia,
namely, the vast increase in retirement
pay that we are running into. By 1980,
without any recomputation, retired pay
will cost $4.1 billion a year. If recom-
putation goes through today and if it
were to continue in the future?and I do
not see how in view of the eloquent argu-
ment given by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. Gummi], that we will ever be
able to cut off recomputation for good?
if we have recomputation all the way
through, then the entire cost of retired
pay will rise in 1980 to $6.4 billion or, in
other words, almost 6 percent of the
budget, assuming that the 1980 budget is
of the same size as the present one.
Now the issue has been raised, Mr.
Chairman, that we are breaking faith
with our retired service personnel.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the decision on
that matter was made back in 1958. I
did not happen to be a Member of the
Congress at that time, but what is being
proposed now in the Rivers amendment
is that we revoke that decision back in
1958, which has now been recognized
and has become accepted, and provide a
recomputation for people in that partic-
ular period but then cut it off for all
time in the future, and for all personnel
retired after 1958.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was given
permission to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. GUBSER. Did the gentleman
vote for the recomputation bill which
was unanimously passed by this House
in 1960?
Mr. STRATTON. I believe I did, but
it is possible for a Member to change
his mind. And, I have been impressed,
as the gentleman knows, by the tre-
mendous fiscal and economic problem
facing this country. I voted for the B-70
a year ago too, but I opposed it, as the
gentleman knows, the other day, because
of the seriousness of our fiscal situation.
Yes, we are told that we are breaking
faith with these people, but we did
that, if we did it, back in 1958. And if
we adopt the Rivers amendment we will
still be breaking faith, but only with a
5-year gap.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we are
being fair to our retired personnel. In
the first place, many of them are able
to get jobs in private industry after they
retire. In the second place we are giv-
ing them a 5 percent increase in this
bill. I may say that this 5 percent in
many cases is larger than what they
would get if they had recomputed their
pay on 1953 pay scales. In addition to
that, we are guaranteeing them now in
this bill for all time to come an automa-
tic cost of living increase of 3 percent
every time the cost of living goes up by
3 percents
Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is
not a single other private retirement
system that does the same thing. This
is an eminently fair arrangement. We
are guaranteeing that these honored
people who have served our Nation can,
when they retire, continue to live on the
same standard of living that prevailed
when they retired.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think in fair-
ness to the needs of our active services
and in recognition of our budget limita-
tions that we can be expected to do any
more.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment to re-
incorporate into the military pay bill?
H.R. 5555?the provision which would
permit Armed Forces personnel retired
before July 1958 to recompute their re-
tirement pay on tlie basis of current pay
rates.
In this connection I wish to associate
myself with the views of those members
of the Armed Services Committee who
filed additional views on H.R. 5555 when
it was approved by our committee. I be-
lieve the first sentence of the additional
views is particularly pertinent:
This bill contains a major inconsistency.
It does indeed, Mr. Chairman. It not
only contains a major inconsistency, it
contains a major breach of trust with a
group of the most devoted and patriotic
citizens of this great country of ours?
that group made up of individuals who
have dedicated their lives to defending
and preserving the security of our Nation.
I am privileged to have in my congres-
sional district the U.S. Naval Academy
at Annapolis, Md., and from my former
membership on the Board of Visitors to
the Naval Academy, I am acutely aware
of the need for continuing to make serv-
ice careers as attractive as possible in
order to retain the Academy's highly
trained graduates as career officers. In
addition, many retired officers of all
services have chosen to make Annapolis
their home. Among them are some of
our finest combat leaders of two World
Wars and the Korean conflict. I ap-
preciate intimately their concern over
the arbitrary system of two classes of
retirees which the violation of the re-
computation tradition has created.
The, inequity, if not corrected, will
continue to be very upsetting to morale
among those on active duty today. The
active duty personnel believe they have
lost a most valuable and traditional
right?real security for the future?in
that heretofore they had a retirement
system which was geared to the existing
pay scales.
We all know the history of the recom-
putation provision so there is no need to
repeat it here. There are, however, a
few points?major points?which I
would like to emphasize at this time for
fear that they might be lost in the clouds
created by irrelevant debate.
The first is that when Congress in
1958 violated the longstanding tradition
of recomputation for retired pay, the in-
justice and error of the decision was soon
recognized and attempts were started to
rectify the situation. The House in 1960
passed a bill to reinstitute recomputa-
tion, but the measure died with adjourn-
ment before final action could be com-
pleted.
The Kennedy administration, like its
predecessor, has supported recomputa-
tion not only because of the traditign
but because it is provided for in existing
law. Secretary McNamara last year
submitted a memorandum to the Senate
Armed Services Committee which
showed that the Comptroller General
has consistently held that section 6149
of title 10 of the United States Code and
other laws establish this right.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to quote an excerpt from the re-
marks Mr. McNamara recently present-
ed to the House Armed Services Sub-
committee which originally considered
the pay proposals. This part of the
statement clearly indicates the admin-
istration's support for recomputation:
Apart from the historical precedent, re-
computation has certain advantages. Since
retirement pay is based on active duty, dis-
parities in rates of retirement pay between
members of the same grade and length of
service were avoided. Moreover, 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 in-
crease. Under recomputation the retriement
date as such was not crucial since the level
of retirement pay always bore the same rela-
tionship to active duty basic pay.
Another point which I would like to
emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is that re-
computation is a two-way street. Under
this tradition, retired military personnel
get their share of the harvest in bad
years as well as good. In four separate
instances retired personnel have taken
a cut in their annuities when the active
duty pay has been reduced.
Furthermore, Congress, when setting
active duty pay rates, traditionally has
taken into consideration the retirement
equity officers are accruing?that re-
tired pay for military personnel is not
completely gratuity but earned through
contributions by each individual in uni-
form. In other retirement systems the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
annuity is based on the total salary of
the individual while in the military it is
based only on the person's basic salary
without taking into account his allow-
ance for quarters and subsistence.
It is important to note in this connec-
tion that over the past 10 years the
median earnings have gone up 49 per-
cent for groups comparable to military
officers and 44.8 per,cent for groups com-
parable to enlisted personnel, while dur-
ing the same period military compensa-
tion rose by only 16.2 percent.
? Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is one
point on which this whole argument, I
believe, hinges, and that is that when we
talk about retirement pay for military
personnel we are not describing the prob-
lem properly. This in reality is not re-
tirement pay at all. 1t,is, in fact, re-
tainer pay.
The military servant, in comparison to
most of us, spends a relatively short por-
tion of his working life in his chosen
career. More often than not he retires
after 20 years, but his association with
the military does not stop there. In ad-
dition to being eligible to receive an an-
nuity, he assumes certain obligations.
For instance, he must keep his service
chief informed of his whereabouts and
get permission to travel outside the
country. He carries these burdens be-
cause he is on call by his former boss?
he can be recalled to active duty when
his services are needed. In this sense,
then, his so-called retirement is a retain-
er. It is to keep him ready and avail-
able so that he can again serve his coun-
try if needed.
In closing let me quote a very pertinent
section of the 1957 report of the Cordiner
Committee, that group established to
study all aspects of the military pay
problem. The report said:
The inclusion of retired personnel within
the new compensation system is considered
by the Committee to be a mandatory and
essential feature fully in consonance with
the long-established principle that retired
compensation must always remain closely re-
lated 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 adverse affect
up the retention rates of personnel currently
on active duty.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
urge my collagues to vote for this amend-
ment and thus for recomputation.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I will be very
happy to yield to the gentleman from
South Carolina.
Mr. RIVEAS of South Carolina. And
the Committee on Armed Services
then reported this thing out unanimous-
ly and the House passed it unanimously.
On, the subcommittee of which I have
the distinct honor to be chairman, the
distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. STRATTON] was a member of that
subcommittee, and I do not recall his
raising a point of order to this provision
when we reported it out. The point at -
which the gentleman got religion t am
not certain. But I am sorry to see such
a great concern for the budget now and
his colleagues in arms. We want to
take Care of them.
this disturbs me.
Mr. VINSON. Mr Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I would be happy
to yield to my distinguished chairman of
the full committee.
Mr. VINSON. So the committee can
clearly understand, in 1960, by direction
of the Armed Services Committee, I
presented to the House a bill permit-
ting recomputation or computation. It
passed unanimously. It went to the
other body. It was referred to a sub-
committee. It stayed in the subcom-
mittee. After awhile a decision was
made to have a staff study by the great
University of Michigan. That univers-
ity held that they were not entitled to
recomputation but they were entitled
to cost-of-living increases.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LANK-
FORD] has expired.
(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given
permission to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out to my respected
chairman that I am speaking of the ac-
tions of the House of Representatives,
not of the other body.
Mr. VINSON. I was just telling the
complete story.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. LANKFORD. Briefly.
Mr. STRATTON. Will the gentleman
permit me to point out that this proposal
which the gentleman from South Caro-
lina is now advocating so strongly is a
proposal which, when it was first pre-
sented to the subcommittee, by the De-
partment of Defense, was bitterly op-
posed by all of the representatives of the
retired associations as itself constituting
a breach of faith. Now we have the gen-
tleman and these representatives coming
in and telling us that this proposal they
opposed so strongly before our subcom-
mittee was just what the doctor ordered.
Mr. LANKFORD. In my opinion, and
in the opinion of a great many others, it
is a breach of faith.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. The
reason they opposed it is it did not go far
enough. Mention was made of the Uni-
versity of Michigan, that great univer-
sity. Their decision was based on
compression. Their report to the chair-
man was compressed from the top. Re-
member that high-ranking officer never
even got a pay increase for 40 years.
Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentle-
man.
(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
? Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I realize, as pointed
out by the gentleman from California,
that since the action of the full commit-
tee there has been a lot of reflection, a
lot of thought and much soul searching,
This disturbs me,
7605
and I might also add there has been a
lot of letter writing.
For that reason, I am reluctant to rise
in opposition to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from south Carolina,
but I do not feel that I can responsibly
pursue any other course.
This bill, may I point out to the Mem-
bers of the House, carries a cost tag of
$12 billion a year. The committee has
acted with some responsibility. We have
brought this bill into the House better
than $46 million under the recommenda-
tions of the Department' of Defense.
Here in one fast move of noneconomy
you are going to remove better than two-
thirds of those reductions which we
brought to the House.
The most discussed action of the com-
mittee has been the rejection of this
amendment, the recommendation to per-
mit military personnel who retired prior
to 1958 to recompute their retired pay by
using the 1958 pay scale. Recomputation
will cost us an additional $31 million a
year. I voted for the elimination of re-
computation in the committee. I shall
of course, adhere to that position in the
House, even though I have been swamped
by requests, as have all of the Members,
to change my position.
I have the greatest appreciation for
the service which our retired personnel
have rendered to this country, but I can-
not in good conscience, in the light of our
national debt of $306 billion and our
perennial deficits, vote for the right to
recompute, which is a feature not con-
tained in any other retirement plan.
I think it should be emphasized to all
the Members of the House that all re-
tired personnel are receiving under the
bill a 5-percent cost-of-living increase,
which seems to have been forgotten dur-
ing the discussion on this amendment. I
did not feel that we could afford, in view
of our budgetary problem, to grant both
a cost-of-living increase and recomputa-
tion.
Let me point out to the Members of the
House again the words of the great
chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services, when he pointed out that with-
out any increase in retirement pay what-
soever the cost to the American taxpayer
in 1980 for military retirement pay is
going to be $3 billion a year, and if you
project the cost of military retirement
in the future and have these same in-
creases as we have had in the past, by
1983 military retirement pay is going to
cost this Nation $7,800 million.
I further point out to the House the
words of the chairman when he stated to
the House that 11 generals and admirals
are going to get an annual increase of
$4,586 a year under this recomputation
amendment which they ask you to adopt.
I do not think that you can justify an
increase of $4,586. For that reason I
side with the chairman and believe that
the action asked by the gentleman from
South Carolina will jeopardize the entire
military retirement system.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for
this legislation, but I also intend to sup-
port the chairman of the committee, the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
distinguished gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Vmsoic] , in reference to this par-
ticular amendment.
I suspect the same question could be
asked me: How did I vote in 1960 on
similar legislation that included a re-
computation feature? My answer to
that question, if it were asked me, would
be that I have seen some financial fig-
ures that have given me a little religion
about this serious problem.
Let me quote some of those startling
figures. As has been indicated here
several times this afternoon, in 1971 the
cost of military retirement will be over
$2 billion a year.
In 1980 it will be over $3 billion a year.
But let us go back and_ take a look at
history to give us a better perspective
for the future.
In 1954, the first year that I went on
the Military Appropriations Subcommit-
tee, the mililtary retirement expendi-
ture was $386 million a year. The mili-
tary budget for fiscal 1964, the budget we
have before us?this year the cost will
be $1,163 million. In other words, go-
ing up from almost $400 inillion to over
$1 billion in 11 appropriation bills.
There is one other factor that I have
not heard mentioned here.
In 1954 the total military expendi-
tures were $40,386 million and the re-
tirement cost or expenditure in that
year was $386 million. In other words,
the percentage of retirement cost to to-
tal military expenditure was 0.96 percent
or slightly less than 1 percent of the
total military expenditure.
Now we turn to fiscal year 1964. We
have before us in the committee, and you
will shortly in the Congress, a military
expenditure figure of $51 billion. The
retirement cost is $1,163 million. But
the percentage of retirement to the to-
tal expenditure will go up to 2.28 per-
cent. In other words, in 11 appropfia-
ton bills your overall military expendi-
tures will have gone up 25 percent, but
your retirement costs will have gone up
130 percent.
This is only with reference to the past.
Now let us look at the future. Mr. Mc-
Namara tells us that he hopes in the
future, by good management and by be-
ing very selective on weapons systems,
he can more or less hold the line on
military expenditures. I hope he can
without any degradation of our military
capabilities. But nobody here this af-
ternoon can say our retirement costs will
not go up and will not skyrocket. As
they go up, and if you hold the line on
military spending, the percentage of re-
tirement costs annually to the total cost
of the military program will likewise
skyrocket. So in 10 years instead of
being 2.28 percent of your military cost
as it will be in fiscal year 1964, it will
be 3 percent or 4 percent or 5 percent of
every dollar that is spent annually in the
future for military protection.
Ladies and gentlemen, I do not think
we can maintain a military system in the
future for the protection and the secu-
rity of the United States paying 5 per-
cent, or 6 percent, or 7 percent of the cost
on an annual basis for retirements of the
past.
Let me add this point. Many people
have said that if we do not recompute,
it will be a breach of faith.
I thirilr there might be an argument
on either side of that question. But let
me assume for a moment it would be a
violation of a previous contract. I will
assume that for argument.
Every lawyer in this Chamber has from
time to time represented clients who had
a contract with another party but the
other party was in some fiscal or finan-
cial jeopardy. So the two lawyers and
the two parties involved sit down to try
to work out a new contract so that the
man who has a claim against the other
party will get paid something so that his
whole contract claim will not be de-
stroyed or wiped out.
I want to say to my friends in the mili-
tary, and I cherish and relish that re-
lationship, I hope and trust that their
attitude on this item on this program
will not cast in serious jeopardy a whole
retirement system for some 400,000 re-
tired military today who are getting
benefits, and a very substantial number
who will retire in the future. If they
are not sensible today about this whole
matter, I predict they will place the en-
tire system in serious jeopardy, and I do
not want that to happen. I urge you to
support the gentleman from Georgia,
[Mr. ViDisoiv] on this amendment.
? May I add one footnote to my remarks.
If the Rivers amendment is approved
it is still my intention to support the bill
on final passage.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting
to note that our good genial chairman,
with whom we have had occasion to dis-
agree recently, has managed to divide
us. You have seen how the "fearless
five" are pretty well split. However, as
a divided young Turk I rise in support
of the amendment.
I would first like to comment on some
of the remarks made by the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Foam] and also one
of the points made by our distinguished
chairman, Mr. VINSON.
I do not think there is any doubt but
what any retirement system we develop
is going to cost lots of money. What we
must do is begin to take a look at what
we are comparing these cost figures with.
I can think of some programs around
here I would like to talk about that will
cost and do cost more. If you are talk-
ing about $3 or $4 billion in terms of
possible projected requirements, that we
are committed to, I could compare this
with some other items we are voting on
around here where we have obligated
ourselves in excess of this amount.
What are we talking about? The dis-
tinguished gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Foee] , a member of the Committee
on Appropriations, who is very knowl-
edgeable in this area, neglected to point
out as he was giving us the cost lirogres-
sion certain things that I hope he gets
into the RECORD.
These are the realities. What we are
talking today about is a Military Estab-
lishment, the like of which this country
May 8
has never known before in peacetime.
We have gone from a "Here to Eternity"
establishment prior to World War II of
some 200,000 to an establishment com-
posed of Army, Navy, and Air Force,
the best in the world, with a manpower
requirement of 2.7 million. If you are
going to maintain the quality of this
force structure, you are going to have to
take a look it what we call the labor
supply price curve. You have to tell the
House what we require quantitatively in
order to maintain the kind of establish-
ment we presently have. The cold war
does not come cheap, but it is far less
expensive than at hot one. We cannot
have it both ways.
I am on a research and development
subcommittee. I have been in the field
investigating activities in this field. We
are looking at scientists, engineers, and
other professionals who are working
alongside of every grade of military men
and officers. There is a tremendous gap
in their incomes.
At the present time, for example, I
am interested in attrition rates of the
graduates of our Military Academies.
It is too high, in my opinion. We are
not considering just the men we are pro-
ducing at the Military Academy. But,
clearly, we are not holding enough of our
highly trained men, and it is not hard
to understand why.
What does this have to do with the
recomputation bill? Let me tell you
something. A good society is a society
that takes care of its retired people.
It is reflected in all its institutions, mil-
itary included. If you want the young
career men in the service to feel that we
will keep faith, I urge you to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COHELAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. BOB WILSON. I think the gentle-
man is making a very significant state-
ment. We have heard a great deal
about the total cost of retirement, but
that is not the point at issue in connec-
tion with this particular Rivers amend-
ment. We are talking about a total cost
of $30 million a year which over the
years will decrease each year. It is not
a continuing cost, it is not a cost that
increases. It is a decreased cost, and
we should not get confused with the total
retirement situation.
Mr. COHELAN. The gentleman is
correct. This is a declining amount
every day, but since the general prob-
lem of retirement has been raised, I want
us to bear the total problem in mind.
It does not make any difference whether
this amendment passes at all, if the truth
were known. The problems that the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Form]
and the rest of you are talking about are
going to be with us. What are you going
to do? Are you going to pay these peo-
ple? Are you going to rescind retire-
ments? You know that you are going
to do just like you did when you voted
for domestic and foreign aid and other
programs. You are going to pay the
necessary costs of the cold war.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release
50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
Mr. COHELAN. I yield to th 1;entle-
man from Georgia.
Mr. VINSON. In response to \ 't an-
swer and the question by the gem ;man
from California [Mr. BOB WnsO,),l of
the distinguished gentleman from Cal-
ifornia [Mr. COHELAN], the gentleman
from California [Mr. BOB Wnsou] was
trying to demonstrate that all the cost
is only $32 million a year and each year
will go down. Now, it has been figured
mathematically by the people involved
that the ultimate cost to administer this
program is $600 million.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, on
any question of fact you know I will not
quarrel with you. However, you also
know my great admiration for Secretary
McNamara, and my position on this
question is equivalent to his.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this amendment to allow those who re-
tired prior to June 1, 1958, to recompute
their retired pay on the basis of the 1958
act.
I would like to make it clear initially
that I do not believe this bill accom-
plishes all it should or could. Recogniz-
ing the very serious problems we face
in attracting and retaining qualified
personnel, though, I believe it should be
supported and approved.
I am deeply disturbed, however, by the
glaring inequity in this bill which allows
retirees with equal rank and equal length
of service to receive unequal pay?an
inequity initially brought about by the
abandonment, without warning, of re-
computation in 1958.
Prior to this date, recomputation, or
the adjustment of retirement pay in
accordance with changes in active duty
pay, had been followed for more than
100 years, both as a matter of practice
and legal right. The Comptroller Gen-
eral, as a matter of fact, has-consistently
held that section 6149, United States
Code, title 10, establishes this right be-
yond doubt.
As Secretary of Defense McNamara
made clear in his statement to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, inequities are
entailed in the recomputation system.
Primarily, with selected pay increases to
meet specific active -duty force needs, it
is inevitable that some groups on the
retired list would suffer real income
erosion if strict adherence to recom-
putation were practiced.
The Defense Department proposed
substituting for recomputation an ad-
justment of retirement pay on the basis
of increases in the Consumer Price
Index.
But as Secretary McNamara's state-
ment emphasizes:
Acceptance of this principle, however, does
not reconcile the Government's obligation
With respect to those members now on the
retired lists who were denied recomputation
in 1958. The question is whetheir they
should be allowed to recompute on the 1958
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 ad-
justment to all persons now retired, irrespec-
tive of the base upon which their present
retirement pay was computed.
For two reasons the Department of De-
fense has concluded that the first course of
action should be taken and we recommend
it to this committee: First, those who were
in the active duty force prior to 1958 and
were retired prior to June 1, 1958, had every
reason to expect that their retirement pay
would be based on active duty pay scales
at the time of retirement and thereafter
* * *; second, the objective of the 1958 pay
adjustments was to correct "compression"
which had occurred since 1942.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to make
clear that this amendment does not ask
for a permanent continuation of re-
computation. Rather it makes the
modest request that before a retirement
pay system based on the cost of living
index is adopted, that the inconsisten-
cies resulting from the 1958 act be cor-
rected; that equity in basic pay scales
be established with fair warning.
This, I believe, is a reasonable amend-
ment which would enable us to keep faith
with those who have served in our coun-
try's defense, and I urge that it be ac-
cepted.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, I move that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 15 minutes.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
CHAMBERLAIN].
(Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the pending recom-
putation amendment which would cor-
rect a major inconsistency contained in
this bill. As set forth in the additional
views included in the report, beginning
on page 69, while purporting to encour-
age competent members of our armed
services to make lifetime careers of the
military service, this bill breaks faith
with those who have already devaed
their lives to the service.
Mr. Chairman, there is a good and
simple reason for the military retirement
system to be different from other retire-
ment systems. It is because the status
of the military retired member is unique.
Even with a full career of 30 years, the
great majority of military men are
likely to be between 52 and 55 years of
age when they are mandatorily retired.
In almost any other occupation, an indi-
vidual at that age could look forward
to additional years of full or even in-
creased earnings instead of the sharply
reduced income of retirement.
It is apparent to anyone who will take
the time to check that the total career
earnings, including their retirement pay,
of military men who are forced into re-
tirement after 30 years of service, is
substantially less than their counter-
parts in other occupations who are per-
mitted to work until age 60 or 65.
Mr. Chairman, we must never forget
that the Government demands the best
years of life from a military member,
but reserves the right to dismiss the in-
dividual when his most useful years are
past. This is imperative since, if a mili-
tary force is to be maintained at a high
7607
standard of efficiency, its personnel must
be composed of men in the prime of
life.
While in the service, the individual,
theoretically at least, is under orders
constantly, not 8 hours a day, but 24, ex-
cept when granted definite leave of ab-
sence from duty. His personal liberty
is constantly curtailed, even his apparel,
speech, and manners are subject to scru-
tiny and criticism such as would not be
endured by civilian employees. His pay
is supposed to be sufficient for his needs,
but in the case of neither officer nor pri-
vate is it sufficient in itself to be an in-
ducement to enter the military service.
The attraction is supposed to be the hon-
or and dignity attached to the service,
and the opportunity for distinction in
service to our country. In peacetime, as
well as war, he must go wherever and
whenever he is ordered, whether it is
with or without his family. The civilian
employee, on the other hand, makes no
agreement when accepting employment
to be subject to military discipline or to
risk his life if necessary in carrying out
his duties. The duties of the civilian
employee are seldom of a hazardous na-
ture. The regulations to which he is
obliged to conform are usually what
would be customary in an ordinary busi-
ness office and no more.
In addition, even after retirement the
military officer continues to hold a Gov-
ernment office within the meaning of the
law and because of existing dual office
and dual compensation laws cannot avail
himself of certain types of employment
for which he is often suited.
And finally, he remains subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and to
recall to active duty. As such the re-
tired member continues to be an import-
tant part of our national defense team.
This vast reservoir of experience and
mature judgment of our retired military
people is relied upon heavily in times
of emergency.
For these and other reasons we must
never regard military retirement pay
merely as a pension for long and hon-
orable service. It is partly for that;
partly as a retainer pay;' and paftly re-
duced pay for the completion of a career,
the active part of which had to be termi-
nated at a relatively early age cause of
the character of the service.
Mr. Chairman, it is not worthy of the
dignity of the Congress of the United
States to allow the inequities which now
exist among our retired members to con-
tinue. Nothing that we could say here
today can justify the sharp disparity that
now exists in rates of retired pay for
service members retired under the same
laws, with the same rank, and the same
period of service. Today, for example,
a colonel who retired on May 1, 1958, re-
ceives approximately $1.000 a year less in
retired pay than a colonel who retired
on June 1, 1958.
Mr. Chairman, let us act now as we
did in 1960 when we voted overwhelm-
ingly to end the injustice which now
exists and thus make it possible to effect
an equitable, orderly transition to the
proposed new system of adjusting re-
tired pay in the future, as provided in
this bill.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and A proved For Release
50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
(Mr. PRICE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I think
all the figures that have been quoted
here this afternoon have been correct,
but they have been mishandled in such
a way that I think by this time the House
is completely confused.
I would like to point out that the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FORD]
said that by 1980 the possible cost of
military retirement will be around $3
billion. I would also like to point out
that the gentleman from California [Mr.
BOB WILSON] was entirely correct in
pointing out that the total cost of this
amendment, which in my opinion does
not in any way jeopardize the retirement
system, will amount to a maximum of
about $32 million a year and will be
going down each year so that by the
time you hit 1980 it will contribute less
than one percent to this total of $3
billion cost of military retirement. The
chairman, the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. VrisrsoN], was entirely correct when
he used the figure of $600 million, but
that is the total figure for all the years
that this amendment will have effect on
retirement pay.
This amendment has but one purpose,
not to jeopardize the retirement system
but to correct an injustice to retired
personnel who retired before June 1,
1958.
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr.
Chairman, it is not my intention to take
a great deal of time of the House today
on this particular bill. I am certainly in
support of any assistance we can render
to our military who are the defenders
of this great country of ours and who,
throughout the years, have shown their
devotion to our Nation, not by words
but by action.
Mr. Chairman, I know that every
Member of this House is aware of the
wonderful job that the Commissioned
Corps of the Public Health Service has
been performing over the years. As
chairman of the Public Health and Safe-
ty Subcommittee of the parent Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, I have personally had the oppor-
tunity to see the results of this distin-
guished group of dedicated people. As
a matter of fact, in the 86th Congress,
the subcommittee of which I was chair-
man reported the legislation known as
the Public Health Service Commissioned
Corps Personnel Act of 1960 without a
dissenting vote and without having any-
one appear before the subcommittee in
opposition to the legislation. Later,
after this legislation passed the House,
I had the privilege of serving on the con-
ference committee with my distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Arkan-
sas, the Honorable Oren Harris.
I realize full well, Mr. Chairman, that
the Commissioned Corps of the Public
Health Service is being considered in
this legislation we have before us today
as its members hold the rank of their
counterparts in the Army, Navy, and Air
Force.
Mr. Chairman, on February 22, 1962,
President Kennedy called for a new
study of military pay. He stated that
one of the important objectives would
be to achieve comparability of service
pay with that of industry and civilian
Federal employment.
While I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
the Armed Services Committee, under
the distinguished leadership of the gen-
tleman from Georgia, the Honorable
CARL VINSON, has done a very good job
in reporting this bill out of committee,
I do feel that the present pay bill for
the uniformed services falls far short in
achieving the comparability the Presi-
dent called for last year. As a result of
the last of three civil service pay raises
since 1958, the final step which goes into
effect in 1964, previous levels of com-
parability between the two systems have
substantially deteriorated. This lack
of comparability jeopardizes the essential
career system of the uniformed services
and presents a serious recruitment and
retention problem.
There has been a uniform lack of suc-
cess in retraining engineers, scientists,
physicians, and research and develop-
ment specialists. The Public Health
Service has reported a very serious prob-
lem in the recruitment and retention in
its Commissioned Corps of experienced
scientific and professional personnel to
provide leadership for major research
and national health programs. It serves
no useful purpose to place increasing
emphasis on important public health
programs, such as water pollution con-
trol, air pollution control, and radiologi-
cal health, if adequate compensation is
not provided to attract and retain the
type of professional and technical per-
sonnel needed for these programs.
Comparability studies show that in
1958 the maximum statutory pay of a
colonel, navy captain, or director in the
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health
Service was only $654 less than a GS-15.
In 1964, it will be $3,285 less and com-
parable to the pay of a GS-14. This
steady deterioration in the comparability
concept creates a serious effect on the
'morale of our uniformed services per-
sonnel and on the quality of our research
and development and public health pro-
grams.
Mr. Chairman, the report itself which
accompanied H.R. 5555 clearly supports
my point. I quote:
Since 1952 there has been a steady de-
terioration of the compensation provided
members of the uniformed services compared
to the compensation payments in private
industry and to civilian employees of the
Federal Government. Between 1952 and
1962, the median earnings of professional,
scientific, technical, and kindred workers, a
group generally comparable to officer per-
sonnel, has increased by 49 percent. The
average earnings of manufacturing?produc-
tion workers, a group usually associated with
enlisted personnel, has increased by 44.8 per-
cent since 1952. The cumulative average in-
crease for classified civil service employees
in the past 10 years totals 39.8 percent. For
members of the uniformed services, the over-
all average increase in compensation since
1952, including the recent increase in basic
allowance for quarters which became effec-
tive January 1, 1963, is 16.2 percent. This
Is slightly more th?i the increase in the
? May 8
cost of living Since 1952, 13.9 percent. Even
with the increases recommended in the pro-
posed legislation, the average increase in
total compensation for members of the uni-
formed services since 1952 will still be sub-
stantially less than the increases obtained
by workers in the private economy and civil
service employees.
As I stated in the beginning, Mr.
Chairman, I do not wish to belabor the
point at this time but I would like very
much to express our appreciation for the
Commissioned Corps of the Public
Health Service as I believe they, in their
field, are just as devoted and serve in
the protection of our Nation as those of
the military be they Army, Navy, or Air
Force officers.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. KEITH].
(Mr. KEITH asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I asked
for this time in order to ask a question
of the gentleman from California [Mr.
COHELAN]. In simple justice, if the Con-
gress should approve this kind of in-
crease for presently retired armed serv-
ices personnel, must we not also approve
similar increases for the civil service, for
the Foreign Service, the social security
recipients, and railroad retirement bene-
ficiaries?
Mr: COHELAN. Well, the gentleman
is asking me my opinion, and in my opin-
ion I believe the military pay structures
historically in this country have been on
an entirely different basis.
Mr. KEITH. I would ask the gentle-
man the further question, if he knows
the cost of, for example, a pension of
$100 per month at age 50?
Mr. COHELAN. You are asking me?
I did not get the question.
Mr. KEITH. The cost of a pension of
$100 per month for a person at age 50
would be about $20,000. That is the
single premium required at age 50 for
$100 per month.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GRoss].
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, with the
gentleman from Massachusetts who just
preceded me, I am greatly disturbed
about what will happen one of these
days when the retired civilian civil serv-
ice employees come in .and ask for a re-
computation of their retirement pay
based upon one of the numerous pay in-
creases, such as, perhaps, the one which
has been proposed for this year.
Let me say to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Vmsorrl, I am going to
walk with him through his rose garden
this afternoon in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. VINSON. Thank you.
Mr. GROSS. But let me say this to
the gentleman that when the multi-
billion-dollar annual foreign giveaway
bill comes up I hope that he will walk
down the sawdust trail with me to chop
off enough money from that program to
take care of all the spending measures he
has been supporting.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Can I depend upon the gentleman to
walk the sawdust trail with me, come
that day when the foreign giveaway pro-
gram comes up?
Mr. VINSON. I will say to the gen-
tleman from Iowa that as long as the
light burns the vilest sinner may return.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. ROOSEVELT].
(Mr. ROOSEVELT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment of the
distinguished gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RivEris]. I believe that
we must approve this amendment as a
matter of elementary justice. The
money proposed to be saved by not ap-
proving this amendment seems of little
consolation if at the same time and by
the same action we fail to honor our
commitments to the courageous men who
have constituted our Armed Faces in
times of crisis in this century.
There is no reason why our retired
military personnel should be considered
pensioners for they are still part of our
national defense structure, subject to
recall to active duty in time of need.
This being so, their payments should be
computed on the same scale as that used
for those on active duty.
The departure from the traditional
policy of one pay scale was first made in
1958, on the same grounds used for jus-
tification today?it would cost too much.
If we accept this argument, we will
deprive those already retired?those who
fought so valiantly in the three wars of
this century?of the compensation
which, under the old policy, they had
every right to expect. We must remedy
the defect in the 1958 legislation and in
the bill before us today by voting favor-
ably for the recomputation amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I merely seek to ask the
distinguished chairman of the full com-
mittee, the gentleman from Georgia,
whether he would explain how he arrived
at the figure of $600 million as the cost
of administering this particular pro-
gram?
Mr. VINSON. Well, I will say to the
gentleman that those figures are from
the computers down in the Department.
They advised, based upon the likelihood
of the number and the longevity and all
of that, that this amendment will cost
the American taxpayers for all the bene-
fits paid out, $600 million.
Mr., GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. GUBSER. That is an unfair figure
to use in the argument. One could say
that this bill is going to cost the Ameri-
can taxpayer $35 billion or $40 billion.
If we want to calculate it that way, let
us do it that way.
Mr. 'VINSON. If the gentleman will
yield further, this is going to cost that.
I am not trying to deceive anyone. I am
telling the truth. This amendment will
ultimately cost $600 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. GAvinl.
(Mr. GAVIN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, in re-
sponse to an inquiry from a constituent,
I have written him as follows:
I don't know of a more complex problem
that has ever been presented to our subcom-
mittee than this question of retired pay. I
concur in your observation that if we are not
careful we could kill this entire bill if we
persisted in attempting to put retirement
pay back on the traditional basis. It would
not only add $87 million to the fiscal 1964
costs and jeopardize the retirement system,
if enacted, but might kill the bill now under
consideration. I far prefer to pass a bill
that has a chance of becoming law, rather
than pass a bill that could die in the Senate.
In a previous Congress we passed a recompu-
tation bill which the Senate would not con-
sider. Now, if the Senate wouldn't even
consider the recomputation bill we passed
in the 86th Congress, I wonder what chance
we would have if we attempted to pass a
recomputation bill for the proposed new pay
scales?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
BALDWIN].
(Mr. BALDWIN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, every
person in this House who has been here
for more than the ,current term was a
Member of the House in 1960 when a
similar bill to this amendment passed
the House without a single person rais-
ing a dissenting voice. This record
started in the Armed Services Commit-
tee where there was a unanimous vote
and on the House floor?I remember it
clearly?there was not a single voice
raised in opposition to the bill. So if you
have constituents who are interested in
this bill, your constituents certainly
were led to believe in 1960 that you were
in favor of the bill on recomputation.
The only way, therefore, for this House
to be consistent with its position, upon
which it went on record in 1960, is to pass
this amendment today to do the thing
we attempted to do- in 1960 but were
blocked from doing by failure of action
of the other body.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. HARSHA.? Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of this amendment. It cor-
rects a grave injustice and inconsistency
In this legislation. The law as it now
stands purports to encourage competent
members of our armed services to make
lifetime careers of the military service,
but it breaks faith with those who have
already devoted their lives to the service.
For over a century it has been tradi-
tional that retired military pay be based
on active duty pay. This right to recom-
pute retired pay on the basis of active
duty pay is not only a moral obligation
but has a firm basis in law.
In 1958, in a drastic and rather un-
precedented move and without adequate
warning to retired personnel, Congress
created this situation with which we are
now faced. It is up to Congress to cor-
rect it. We all know that every man on
the retired rolls and on active duty has
been told by recruiting officials that his
Declassified and Approved For Release
7609
retired pay would be based on active
duty. We know that fringe benefits, in-
cluding retired pay, have always been
offered as inducements for servicemen to
accept less money in the military than in
civilian life. I believe it is out of char-
acter for the U.S. Government to make
a promise and then refuse to keep it. Mr.
Chairman, this country gives billions
away in foreign aid, presumably to halt
communism and raise the standard of
living of other nations. But when it
comes time to grant a few dollars to our
own military who have done more to halt
the flow of communism than any other
group, and when an effort is made to
raise their standard of living, a great
furor is heard. I cannot follow ?the
thinking of those who vote for foreign
aid on one hand, yet oppose this effort at
fair play to our own veterans on the
other.
Mr. Chairman, I could continue on
this debate, but I think the issue is clear.
I urge my colleagues to keep faith with
our military and support this amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. COHELAN].
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend
the remarks I am about to make as well
as the remarks I made earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I am
taking this time merely to get over what
I failed to get over the last time; and
that is in connection with the statement
made by Secretary of Defense Mc-
Namara. The Secretary made it clear
in his statement to the Committee on
Armed Services that inequities are en-
tailed in the recomputation system pri-
marily with selected pay increases to
meet specific active-duty-force needs. It
is inevitable that some groups on the
retired list would suffer real income
erosion if strict adherence to recomputa-
tion were practiced.
And he goes on: The Defense Depart-
ment proposed a substitute for recom-
putation and adjustment of retirement
pay on the basis of increases in the Con-
sumer Price Index. But as the Secretary
emphasized, acceptance of this principle
does not reconcile the Government's
obligation with respect to members now
on the retired list who were denied re-
computation in 1958.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
BROYHILL].
(Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
I would like to put myself firmly on the
side of equity and justice by advocating
the military pay bill be amended to
rectify a longstanding breach of faith
and reestablish the confidence of our
military men and women in the word of
the U.S. Government, a confidence that
has been shaken by the failure to fulfill
an obligation.
50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
There are today 108,412 veterans who
retired prior to June 1, 1958, who will
receive no increase of pension from the
pay bill reported out?H.R. 5555.
Throughout their service and subsequent
retirement they were given to believe
that they would receive increases in
their pensions proportionate to in-
creases in active duty pay for the rank
in which they retired. They had entered
the service with this understanding.
But the pay bill that was passed in 1958
ended this practice, which had been fol-
lowed since 1861. Instead, those who had
retired prior to 1958 got a flat 6-percent
increase. Those who happened to be
lucky enough to retire after June 1, 1958,
had their pensions based on the new 1958
rates which were increased anywhere
from 6 to 25 percent.
When this happened it met immediate
opposition from the services, the retired
people, and from Congress. In the 86th
Congress alone a total of 45 House bills
and 2 Senate bills were introduced to let
those who retired before 1958 recompute
their pay on the new rates. Seeing the
mistake that had been made, the ad-
ministration, including the President,
the Department of Defense, and the
Bureau of the Budget favored a bill to
allow recomputation.
This bill?H.R. 11318?was passed
unanimOusly by the House in May 1960.
But the Senate never acted on it.
The new pay legislation requested by
the Department of Defense and worked
out by the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RIVERS] and his subcommittee
would allow these 108,412 retired people
to receive an increase in their pensions?
not based on the new 1963 rates, but
merely on the present 1958 scale. It
would accomplish what was unanimously
desired by the House in 1960.
Whereas this subcommittee bill falls
short, in my opinion, of what I would
consider a truly satisfactory pay bill for
the active and retired members of the
uniformed services, it is a vastly superior
measure to H.R. 5555. In all areas con-
cerned the bill reported by Congressman
RIVERS' subcommittee is a better ap-
proach to this matter and I would hope
the House of Representatives will accept
the-provisions of H.R. 4696 in preference
to the provisions of the bill we now have
before us.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. MATHIAS].
(Mr. MATHIAS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support, of the amendment.
Enactment of this recomputation pro-
vision would rectify a past wrong, would
eliminate an inconsistency in our mili-
tary pay scales, and would erase a glar-
ing inequity in retirement computations
now applicable to former members of our
armed services.
In 1958 the Congress passed a military
pay bill which provided for only a 6-per-
cent cost-of-living increase for all offi-
cers who retired before June 1, 1958, but
retained the traditional and higher ac-
tive duty rate of compensation for all
officers retiring after that date. Thus,
there arose an injustice?an inequity
visited upon many thousands of career
officers who bravely sought to preserve
this Republic in times of crisis and na-
tional emergency.
The Congress now has an opportunity
to correct the inequitable treatment ac-
corded pre-1958 retired career officers
by amending the military pay bill now
before us so as to permit the pre-1958
retirees to recompute their retirement
benefits on the basis of the present ac-
tive duty pay scales.
It is fair and necessary for the Con-
gress to eliminate senseless inconsisten-
cies occasioned by date and ill-conceived
provisions of law. It is furthermore a
matter of practical sense to correct these
deficiencies so as to accord proper equal-
ity in retirement provisions applicable to
all military officers.
If inequalities such as this computa-
tion provision are allowed to stand then
indeed it is hollow rhetoric to call this
bill before us today a career incentive
bill. While purporting to encourage
qualified Americans to pursue careers in
the military service, the bill in effect
punctures the morale of those who have
already devoted their lives to the serv-
ice. This unfairness will be of no little
concern to the present members of our
Armed Forces and to those prospective
applicants to the military service. These
men and women can only be adversely
impressed by a policy of inequality and
unconcern for corrective measures. In
a sense, a disparity of values exists to-
day?a disparity having no moral justi-
fication. It is fortunate, however, that
we in this Chamber now have an oppor-
tunity to rectify a past wrong, and to
give evidence of our concern and aware-
ness that all the officers of our armed
services can be treated with a similar
degree of equality and recognition for
the many years they have spent in de-
fense of their Nation. I commend to my
colleagues the wisdom and tenor of the
amendment now before us, and I voice
my wholehearted support in favor of its
passage.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. MILLER].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.
Chairman, I have here a copy of a re-
port by Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., "Can
Government Maintain Vital Scientific
Leadership." In this report Dr. Killian
says that one of our least recognized but
most critical national problems is the
recruitment and retention of top scien-
tific and engineering talent in Govern-
ment. This problem is particularly
acute in our uniformed services.
All agencies have reported lack of suc-
cess in recruiting and retaining en-
gineers, scientists, physicians, and re-
search and development specialists.
These people are highly sought after by
universities, industry, and nongovern-
mental research organizations.
As a graduate engineer, I am particu-
larly conscious of the fact that the serv-
ices are experiencing great difficulty in
their attempts to attract young gradu-
May 8
ate engineers from California colleges
and universities to careers as engineer
officers because of a salary differential.
For example, the entrance salary for
an engineer with a bachelor's degree un-
der the State merit system of California
begins at $562 per month. Within 6
months, the individual is eligible for a
promotion to a salary of $590 a month.
The same engineer under the Federal
civil service compensation plan would
qualify for a GS-7, with a starting sal-
ary of $538. Under H.R. 5555, however,
an unmarried engineer with a bachelor's
degree commissioned in the "0-1" grade
of the uniformed services would receive
$358.50 per month. Even taking into
account the tax advantages enjoyed by
commissioned officers, there still is a seri-
ous disparity in these pay scales.
But it is not in the entering grades
that the greatest disparity exists. As I
understand the situation, the bill be-
fore us still leaves officers in the grade
of colonel with a ceiling on their pay
and allowances about $1,500 less than
the ceiling for GS-15 civil service em-
ployees. The disparity between the ceil-
ing for officers in the grade of lieutenant
colonel and civil service employees in
grade GS-14 is well over $2,000.
While I intend to vote for this bill, Mr.
Chairman, it seems clear to me that we
are doing far too little in our efforts to
provide attractive careers in the uni-
formed services, especially for the kinds
of leadership necessary in an era when
science is on the ascendancy. The
Armed Forces who need more and more
technically trained personnel, and the
commissioned corps of the Public Health
Service, which utilizes only manpower
trained in the sciences, will be severely
disadvantaged in trying to maintain
adequate staffs of officers in the higher
grades.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RivEris].
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Chairman, Secretary McNamara said
this:
For two reasons the Department of De-
fense has concluded that the first course of
action should be taken?
That is the 3-percent escalator clause:
First, those who are on active-duty force
prior to 1958 and retired prior to June 1 had
every reason to expect that their retirement
pay would be based on active-duty scales,
which was the law for 100 years.
And it is the law today. We are re-
pealing it by this Act. This is the law
now. We suspended it in 1958. What
is wrong with being an admiral or a
general? For 40 years a four-star gen-
eral did not have a pay raise.
For 40 years at least a three-star gen-
eral was paid by the same scale as a
two-star general. Only in 1958 did we
have a pay raise for these men. What
is wrong with that?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
VINSON].
Mr. 'VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I trust
the House will support the committee's
position.
You should know before you vote for
this amendment where the money goes.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Releases @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 7611
It goes to 23,000 officers: 11 Chiefs of
Staff get an increase of $4,586; 39 gen-
erals and admirals get an increase of
$2,957; 139 lieutenant generals and vice
admirals get an increase of $2,359; 729
major generals and rear admirals get an
increase of $1,928; 934 brigadier gener-
als and admirals get an increase of
$1,345; 753 colonels and captains get an
increase of $1,070; 5,000 lieutenant colo-
nels and commanders will get an increase
of $561; 7,000 majors and lieutenant
commanders will get an increase of $87.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Georgia has expired.
All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. RIVERS].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman being in doubt, the Commit-
tee divided, and there were?ayes 126,
noes 110.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. RIVERS of
South Carolina and Mr. RtBERT.
The Committee again divided, and the
tellers reported that there were?ayes
152, noes 126.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that I sup-
ported the Rivers amendment that was
just adopted by the Committee. It is my
intention to support the bill on final pas-
sage if there is a rollcall vote.
However, I think an interesting ob-
servation may be had within a few days
when we have a rollcall vote to increase
the debt limit.
It is going to be rather interesting to
see how many people, notwithstanding
the Rivers amendment?those who have
supported the Rivers amendment today
and those who will support this bill,
which as the gentleman from Georgia,
the distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee says will eventually generate a
cost in the a'rea of $35 billion?who will
vote to saddle the responsibility of pay-
ing this obligation on the Treasury De-
partment, yet they will not vote to give
it the authority to raise the money with
which to pay the obligations that they
require him to meet.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT of
Florida:
Insert the following new section at the
end of the bill:
"SPECIAL PAY FOR DUTY SUBJECT TO HOSTILE
FIRE
"SEC. 14. (a) Chapter 5 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended as follows:
"(1) The following new section is added
after section 309:
310. Special pay: duty subject to hostile
fire
" (a) Except in time of war declared by
Congress, and under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense, a member of a
uniformed service may be paid special pay
at the rat of $55 a month for any month In
which he was entitled to basic pay and in
Which he?
No. 68-21
"'(1) was subject to hostile fire or explo-
sion of hostile mines;
'"(2) was on duty in an area in which he
was in imminent danger of being exposed to
hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and
in which, during the period he was on duty
in that area, other members of the uniformed
services were subject to hostile fire or ex-
plosion of hostile mines; or
" '(3) was killed, injured, or wounded by
hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or
any other hostile action.
A member covered by clause (3) who is
hospitalized for the treatment of his injury
or wound may be paid special pay under
this section for not more than three addi-
tional months during which he is so hos-
pitalized.
"'(b) A member may not be paid more
than one special pay under this section for
any month. A member may be paid special
pay under this section in addition to any
other pay and allowandes to which he may
be entitled.
"'(c) Any determination of fact that is
made in administering this. section is con-
clusive. Such a determination may not be
reviewed by any other officer or agency of
the United States unless there has been
fraud or gross negligence. However, the de-
termination may be changed on the basis of
new evidence or for other good cause.
"'(d) The Secretary of Defense shall re-
port to Congress by March 1 of each year on
the administration of this section during the
preceding calendar year.'
"(2) The following new item is inserted in
the analysis:
" '310. Special pay: duty subject to hostile
fire.'
"(b) The Combat Duty Pay Act of 1952
(50 App. U.S.C. 2351 et seq.) is repealed."
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment puts into
this bill what has already been the law
with regard to combat or hostile fire
pay, with certain modifications in World
War II and the Korean war. There are
improvements on it that have been made
in this, but these improvements that
have been made come from the requests
of the administration, they are approved
by the Bureau of the Budget, they were
requested by the Department of Defense.
Administration approval was full. Al-
though it has been said that the Com-
mittee on Armed Services turned down
this proposal, the special subcommittee
which held hearings on this legislation?
and they were quite extensive and quite
ifull?approved this provision, as has
been requested by the Bureau of the
Budget, the Department of Defense, and
others.
In a very brief manner, in hearings not
before you today, except in typewritten
form, the committee did reverse this
position of the sulnommittee by a close
vote. Now, you say the Committee on ,
Armed Services turned this down. The
truth of the matter is that the commit-
tee that actually studied this legislation
and heard witnesses on this legislation
approved the legislation which I am
asking you to put into this bill. It has
departmental approval; it has Bureau
of the Budget approval; it is at the re-
quest of the administration. It will cost
between $1 million and $2 million a year.
It is for the men who are actually
fighting in Vietnam. How anybody can
turn down these men for $55 a month,
payable only in accordance with the
strict regulations set out in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD, I cannot understand.
There is no administrative difficulty
about it. We have had this matter up
before. We have administered it be-
fore. There is no administrative diffi-
culty about it. There is certainly no
moral objection to this, because upon
this rests all the benefits which are
peculiar to the military. Who would be
eligible for retirement, who would be
eligible for these generous veterans
benefits we have, if the frontline soldier
was not the reason for doing it? So,
on the basis of these frontline soldiers?
actually they are few in number?who
are required to take the 'lives of other
men, at the same time protecting their
own, these are the men who give the
justification for all these other multi-
tudes of programs. Now, we have this
group which says we are not going to
give them the benefit. How ridiculous,
how absurd, how cold, how cruel can
we get? Is it possible that anybody
here could say that this amendment is
not right, is not proper, is not justified,
is not the moral responsibility of our
country?
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will
overwhelmingly vote for this amend-
ment. This amendment is approved by
all the people I have referred to. It has
ever moral justification behind it. If it
fails, this whole bill ought to fail.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Assuring the
gentleman I am not being facetious,
would this apply to troops, including
National Guard troops, called out in sit-
uations like the Mississippi and Little
Rock cases?
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. It would
not.
Mr. 'VINSON. If federalized, it would.
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Well, since
we are making a little history, like you
do so often on the floor, there is nothing
in the amendment that says that.
Since I am the man that offered it, as a
matter of legislative history, I would say
it would not apply to Little Rock, and if
it does, I say it should.
OVERDUE RAISE
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to concur with the remarks of my
distinguished colleagues on the Commit-
tee on Armed Services. An overdue pay
raise for the Armed Forces appears at
long last assured. I applaud the addi-
tional provisions for a family separation
allowance. It is regrettable that the
committee has not adopted recomputa-
tion features and I shall support an
amendment to that end. I shall also
support Mr. BENNETT'S hostile fire
amendment with the suggestion that its
provisions should be made retroactive, as
a small tribute, pitifully small, to the
brave men who have already died in
South Vietnam. Two of these brave men
have left proud but grieving families in
my district. I refer to the parents of
Sgt. Robert Gardiner of Nashua, N.H.,
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 8
and the mother of Maj. David Webster of
New London, N.H.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CLEVELAND to
the amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT of
Florida: Add a new subsection to section
310, as follows:
"(c) This section shall be effective from
January 1, 1961."
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of my amendment is simple. It
makes provision that the amendment
of the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. BENNETT], with which I am
in favor, be retroactive to January 1,
1961. I concur with his remarks. How-
ever, it seems to me that if what he says
is correct, then it should be just as cor-
rect that those people who have already
lost their lives and who have already
risked their lives in Vietnam, be entitled
to the provisions for special combat pay.
There have been two brave men killed in
action in South Vietnam who have left
parents residing in my district. I refer
to the parents of Sgt. Robert Gardiner, of
Nashua, N.H., and to the mother of Maj.
David Webster, of New London, N.H.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important,
to the extent possible, to have fairness
apply in all matters of ? military pay.
In all fairness the gallant men who have
already risked their lives and lost their
lives in South Vietnam should be en-
titled to special combat pay. We can
never repay our debt of gratitude to
them. We can at least attempt in a
small way to pay them.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment
to the amendment will be adopted. It
is my understanding that the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. BENNETT], has no
objection to my amendment making his
hostile pay provision retroactive.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from New Hamp-
shire [Mr. CLEVELAND].
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment which has
been offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. BENNETT].
(Mr. PIKE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, anybody
who follows my lead on any military bill
is in serious trouble. I marched against
the chairman on the subject of the B-70
and I was wrong or at least was outvoted.
I marched with the chairman today on
the subject of recomputation and I was
wrong again. Now I understand?
Mr. 'VINSON. Yes; and you are about
to be wrong again.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I did not
expect any other remark from you than
just exactly that. But I am prepared
to be wrong in this instance if you so
deem it to be, because if we were doing
an injustice to those affected by the re-
computation provision I say we are doing
a tragic injustice to those affected by
this combat pay provision.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend
in this bill that we are about to approve
$6321/2 million for incentive pay for dif-
ferent kinds of hazardous duty. We are
going to pay people extra money for
parachute jumping and for flight train-
ing, for thermal stress duty, and sub-
marine duty, and for glider training, as
well as for human acceleration duty.
We are going to pay them for low-pres-
sure duty, and for the first time we are
going to pay them for high-pressure
duty.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the mem-
bers of the committee that there is not
any higher pressure duty that any serv-
iceman serving his country can ever
perform than to be on the receiving end
of a bullet or shell. This particular
amendment which has been offered by
the distinguished gentleman from Flor-
ida [Mr. BENNETT], Will not Cost any-
thing like $6321/2 million. It will cost $2
million.
Mr. Chairman, there are those who
say that we should not support this
amendment because everybody in the
service is supposed to be ready for com-
bat duty. Well, certainly they are. But
everyone who volunteers for flight duty
is supposed to be ready for flight duty
and they volunteer for flight duty, by
the way, but we pay them extra for it.
They volunteer also for submarine duty,
but we pay them extra for that too.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest however that
nobody ever volunteers essentially for
the privilege of being shot at. When we
can take care of these people involved
in these undeclared wars, in these dirty
little wars, who are carrying the real
brunt of the cold war, and can take care
of them for $2 million I think it is incum-
bent upon us to do so.
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Bennett amendment
to provide extra pay for our men serving
in combat areas. I particularly want to
join with my colleague from New York
[Mr. PIKE], in his remarks.
Additionally, I would note that men
do not fight, risk death and die for
their country because of the pay which
they receive. Performance of this duty
is dependent on individual courage and
a high sense of loyalty to this Nation
and the freedoms which it provides for
all of us.
Combat pay is not incentive pay in any
sense of the word. Rather, it is a small
gesture, but a gesture still, on the part
of this Congress and the people we rep-
resent to our servicemen who are fight-
ing and dying in the cold war. It is a
small but I hope significant expression
of the deep gratitude every American
feels for the sacrifices and dedication of
these few men.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike out the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. TEAGUE of Texas asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amendment.
In my opinion this amendment is the
most deserving, the most honest, and the
finest part or will be the finest part of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, during World War II
approximately 15 percent of all the
troops serving their military establish-
ments suffered approximately 80 or 90
percent of all the casualties. That group
of men involved the men who faced
hostile fire. I was in a group of about
1,000 American soldiers who went ashore
at Utah Beach. Six months later 300
of those men had been killed and about
500 wounded.
Mr. Chairman, to say that parachute
duty, that submarine duty, that demo-
lition duty, that flight duty, thermal
stress duty, and lower-pressure duty is
more hazardous than that duty which is
being faced by the men in Vietnam who
are facing hostile fire in my opinion is
an insult to our men who suffer these
losses and who are serving under the
most hazardous duty of all duty we have
in our services.
Mr. Chairman, we have just voted on
an amendment on which no doubt every
Member of this House has had a number
of communications urging them to sup-
port that amendment. Yet I would
venture to say that not a single Member
of the House has had one letter, one
telegram in behalf of combat pay. Why
have you not received any such commu-
nications? Because those men who have
faced hostile fire are so very glad to get
home and get out alive that they are not
interested in combat pay. However,
that does not detract from the fairness
and justice of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the members of
the committee will vote for this amend-
ment.
Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of
the Committee on Armed Services nor.
do I serve on the Veterans' Affairs Com-
mittee, but I do think I know something
about this matter, since I believe I am
the only Member of the House who has
been with our Special Forces troops in
Vietnam. I went out into the so-called
strategic area with these troops and saw
how they work, saw how they live there
during the day, and saw them under at-
tack at night.
I question what the gentleman from
New York who preceded me said, that
these men are not volunteers. The spe-
cial forces are volunteers. They are so-
called instructors, but they are mainly
instructing in killing and being killed.
So far 73 of them have been killed. Un-
like those of us who served in World
War II and got combat pay, these peo-
ple do not even have the chance that we
had, because if we were wounded or
captured at least we were given some
niceties. Under civilized rules of war
if captured you would have spent time
in a prison camp. But if you are wound-
ed or captured in Vietnam, the Viet
Cong, the Communist Army, are under
orders to shoot, torture and kill every
wounded American soldier they take.
And they have been so doing.
I think not to pass this amendment
today would be an affront to our Armed
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Forces who have done much a great job.
I urge that it be passed.
The Secretary of the Army estimates
that under existing conditions between
1,500 and 2,000 Army personnel would
qualify for "hostile fire" pay at an an-
nual cost of about $1 million. This is a
comparatively small price to provide hot
war benefits to those serving on the
frontlines of the cold war.
Mr. Chairman, we may call our mili-
tary personnel in South Vietnam special
forces advisers but the casualty lists and
the helicopters shot down by the Commu-
nists are factual testimony that our
Armed Forces are engaged in a shooting
war. Perhaps a parent of a young man
who lost his life on the frontlines of this
so-called cold war expresses the problem
more eloquently. Maj. Gen. William F.
Train, commandant of the U.S. Army
War Office College at Carlisle Barracks,
Pa., is the father of Lt. William F. Train
III, who was killed in South Vietnam in
June 1962, while traveling with a Viet-
namese Army convoy. Major General
Train said:
The desirable thing would be- to have
everyone fully understand the term "cold
war." Insofar as the Vietnamese are con-
cerned, their nation is a battleground and
the shooting makes it a hot war for them.
Lives are frequently lost in the periphery
of the Nation's interest, Whether it be the
opening of the West in the 1870's or stem-
ming the flow of communism in Vietnam.
I think my son's loss of life in the service
of his country is similar to the loss of life in
any operation providing the freedom we
know?in war or peace.
This amendment would permit greater
recognition of the hardships and sacri-
fies of our Armed Forces who are work-
ing under hazardous conditions which
differ little from conditions of actual
warfare. These members of our?military
are doing a job for our country of which
our country should be very proud. I
urge my colleagues to recognize their
contribution by voting for the "hostile
fire" amendment.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the Bennett
amendment.
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I subscribe to all that has been
said in favor of combat pay. I hope we
do not delay long this vote. However, at
this time I want to emphasize another
issue in this bill. On February 20, 1962,
the President sent to the Congress a
civil service salary reform bill. In the
message transmitting this bill, the Presi-
dent said:
These are the very levels?upper levels--
in the career service in which our need tor
quality is most acute?in which keen judg-
ment, experience, and competence are at a
premium. It is here that we face our most
difficult personnel problem. 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 positions to be
the most vital single element of correction in
this entire proposal.
As a member of the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee, I supported the
President's bill for salary reform in civil
service. I felt the principle of com-
parability he expressed was a true and
necessary one. However, on examining
H.R. 5555 and comparing the upper level
pay increases with those authorized for
similar grade levels under the Federal
Salary Reform Act, I find that little com-
parability exists. This point is recog-
nized in the report of the Armed Services
Committee. On page 3 there is a most
interesting chart which shows that the
average uniformed services pay, includ-
ing that which would be authorized un-
der H.R. 5555, would still be over 11 per-
cent less than the second step increase
which is provided for civil service per-
sonnel under the Federal Salary Reform
Act.
I feel strongly that there must be some
relationship between the pay system of
the uniformed services and the other pay
systems of the Federal Government. If
there is none, there will be continued
loss of personnel, continued loss of
morale, and there can only be a deteri-
oration in our military might and in our
research and development programs.
Our uniformed services are losing ex-
perienced and competent people just as
they reach their years of full experience
and productivity. The Government must
help the uniformed services to retain
these people by providing adequate sal-
aries which are at least comparable to
those provided other Federal officers and
employees. If the Government cannot,
the services will suffer, and, in turn, the
Nation will suffer.
I submit we have been paying too little
to professional classifications in the uni-
formed services. I hope this body will
have another chance to provide greater
increases in this area. I hope the other
body will provide such greater increases
and that we will conference the items
and concur.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have probably had
the doubtful privilege of drawing more
parachute pay than anybody else in this
Chamber. Having drawn that pay I cer-
tainly would not vote to take it away
from those who now earn it, but I would
say also, if you are going to pay a man on
the basis of risk involved, hazard in-
volved, on the basis of real danger, there
is no comparison between parachute pay
and combat pay for men who are under
fire. Having experienced both I would
urge you very sincerely to vote for the
Bennett amendment for combat pay.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. BENNETT], as
amended.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk reads follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LANGEN: On
page 8, immediately below line 3 insert the
following:
"(i) Section 1210(b) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting im-
mediately before the period at the end there-
7613
of the following: `: Provided, That an officer
heretofore or hereafter retired or granted
retired pay for disability rated 80 per centum
or more shall be considered, for purposes
of computation of retired pay, to have not
less than six years of service'."
(Mr. LANGEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, in the
interest of time I shall be very brief for .
I present to you an amendment that is
rather simple compared with those we
have just been considering. This
amendment merely provides- that officers
who are retired or granted retired pay
for disability of 80 percent or more shall
be considered to have had a minimum of
6 years of service.
On April 4 of this year I inserted in
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an itemized
account of what was involved in the re-
tirement provisions that has been avail-
able to officers who have had this dis-
ability experience during the course of
their service.
Let me point out that this involves a
group of officers who literally made every
sacrifice but that of life itself during the
course of their service to their country.
Consequently, because of the limited pe-
riod of their service, the retirement pro-
vided to them has certainly not been
commensurate with the degree to which
they have served their country.
In these instances, the best example
of the inequity that exists is possibly the
fact that under certain circumstances
these officers by a process of demotion
and application to the Veterans' Admin-
istration can actually receive more
money than they are entitled to in their
own retirement.
I have listened to the gentlemen here
this afternoon who have so eloquently
proclaimed the need for equity in the
veterans' retirement program. Here is
an opportunity to provide that kind of
equity, an amendment I think you all
can vote for, that will provide a just
consideration for a group of people that
have made a great sacrifice in the de-
fense of their country. ,
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
...Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would have to be for
this amendment but I am compelled to
. oppose it for these reasons.
The gentleman's amendment seeks to
change the disability retirement system.
Our bill under consideration today has
to do with compensation. His section
applies to disability retirement. This is
a complex matter and should not be con-
sidered in a pay bill, and this is a pay
bill. The amendment seeks in so marry
words to distinguish between two groups
of officers by providing one with a high
retirement pay simply because his dis-
ability rating is, say, 5 percent higher
than that of a man with a 75-percent
disability, rating.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this
amendment does not have a place in this
bill. This is a very complicated thing,
this disability section of the compensa-
tion law. I ask that the amendment be
defeated.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0
7614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Minnesota [Mr. LANGEN].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a step in the
right direction to compensate those who
are making maximum contributions to
the national security. But it is by no
? means adequate, nor is it comparable in
all respects to that which is being done
by the Government in terms of pay and
benefits for employees of our civilian
branches.
I will support the bill, however, as a
measure of equity and justice for the
armed services, and I will also support
the pending amendment for recomputa-
tion for combat pay and perhaps some
other amendments designed to strength-
en the bill.
It is clear that with but short inter-
ruption retired military pay has been
based on active duty pay for the past 100
years or more.
That fact is known to the military, to
the Department of Defense, to the
Comptroller of the United States, to the
courts and everyone else who is familiar
with this question.
In 1958, we departed from that tradi-
tion and that practice and by that act
the Congress has perpetrated a grave in-
justice upon some of the most outstand-
ing leaders of our armed services?those
who in many instances served gallantly
in bloody battles of World War II and
the Korean war.
We must redress that wrong. Presi-
dent Eisenhower said so; President Ken-
nedy says so, Secretary McNamara said
so, and the very able chairman of the
House Armed Services said so, when this
provision was pending here before.
Many leading military, civic, labor,
veteran, patriotic, and business groups
favor this recomputation proposal. The
House has previously unanimously voted
for it. The country has approved it and
the country wants it.
As a matter of simple equity and jus-
tice to those who have rendered the Na-
tion such peerless service in time of peace
and unrest as well as in time of war,
Congress should repair the damage to
morale and the breach of faith that fail-
ure to provide recomputation has im-
posed upon our armed services.
I urge that the House may overwhelm-
ingly rectify' the wrong that has been
done and vote in favor of this amend-
ment and also the bill.
(Mr. PHILBIN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend this re-
marks.)
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter
from a sergeant in my district, and I
should like to ask whether or not the
statement he makes is correct. His let-
ter reads as follows:
. As the bill stands as reported in the Air
Force Times (which is the only way we have
of knowing what's going on) a staff sergeant
(E-5) with over 12 years' service will receive
a $30-per-month raise, which isn't enough
by a long shot if Congress hopes to keep well-
trained men in uniform, but at the same
time the bill proposes to cut the subsistence
allowance for men on this type of duty
where messing facilities are not available
from $2.57 per day to $1.25 per day or a loss
of $39.60 per month. It doesn't take much
knowledge of math to see where this raise
as proposed will cost $9.60 plus paying in-
come taxes on the raise. If Congress cannot
give a raise without cutting our pay some-
where else, I say leave it alone.
I asked the Department of Defense for
an explanation of this, and if that letter
is correct. I had a reply from the De-
fense Department which indicates there
may be some merit to the statement.
I wonder if the chairman would be good
enough to clarify the record at this
point.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
would like to answer the gentleman in
this way. To begin with, whoever wrote
that letter in the Defense Department
is wrong. They did not write this bill,
we wrote it, and I can state to you
categorically it is not true. Where ra-
tions are not in kind, he gets $3.25 and
I would like to get the defense official
who said this is not true.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I have the letter here
if the gentleman wants to see it.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. I
will get him. You need not worry about
this because this is absolutely wrong
and they do get $3.25 and I do not care
what the official says.
Mr. PUCINSKI. We are correct then
and the conclusion drawn in the Air
Force Times is not correct and these
men are not suffering a reduction in sub-
sistence; is that correct?
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. My
able assistant on my right here, our dis-
tinguished clerk of the committee, Mr.
Blandford, who is familiar with all this
and who has forgotten more than any
Defense Department official ever learned
advises me that the man is wrong. We
will change him if he continues to be
wrong.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I thank the distin-
guished chairman for setting the record
straight.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, now
that this bill has been busted wide open,
I wonder if the House could not remain
in session tonight long enough to settle
the TFX controversy, or should that be
referred to the United Nations?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr: BOGGS, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5555) to amend title 37, United
States Code, to increase the rates of
basic pay for members of the uniformed
services, and for other purposes, pursu-
ant to House Resolution 335 he reported
the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
May 8
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. For what purpose
does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Curtris] rise?
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. CURTIS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman qual-
ifies. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. CURTIS moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 5555, to the Committee on Armed
Services.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion to
recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER (after counting).
The yeas and nays are refused.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker
appointed as tellers Mr. RIVERS of South
Carolina and Mr. CURTIS.
The House divided, and the tellers
reported that there were?ayes 293, noes
10.
So the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days
in which to extend their remarks on
the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from South
Carolina?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, on
rollcall 41, I was unavoidably detained
in talking with a constituent. Had I
been present I would have voted against
recommittal of the conference report.
COLLECTIVE DEFENSE AGREEMENT
WITH ISRAEL
(Mr. ROOSEVELT asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD and to in-
clude extraneous matter.)
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, I
have today introduced a resolution
identical to one being introduced today
in the other body by Senator Javits
which, if adopted, would urge that the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/30: CIA-RDP65B00383R000500040017-0