(NO. 56) SUBCOMMITTE NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF S. 3001, TO AMEND TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE RATES OF BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 37
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2004
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: July 23, 1964
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
[No. 561
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 CONSIDERATION OF S. 3001, TO AMEND
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE RATES OF
BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, July 22, 1964.
The subcommittee mot at 10 a.m.., Hon. L. Mendel Rivers (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. RIVERS. Lot the committee come to order.
This is about a seven-page statement, and I am going to ask Mr.
Blandford to road it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Because I have been speaking since 7 this morning.
So, Mr. Blandford, you read this statement for me.
Mr. Br ANDFOnD. All right, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. And road it as strongly as you know how.
Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): Members of the committee, we are
beginning hearings this morning on S. 3001, a very modest military
pay increase proposal.
(The bill is as follows-committee insert:)
[S. 3001, 88th Gong., 2d sess.]
AN ACT To amend title 37, United States Code, to increase the rates of basic pay for members of the
uniformed services
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section 203(a) of title 37, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
"(a) The rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services
within each pay grade are set forth in the following tables:
0_b'------------
$1, 302.00
$1,347.90
$1, 347.00
$1,347.90
$1,347.90
$1,309.20
$1,399.20
0-9..............
1,163.80
1,183.80
1,209.60
1,209.60
1,209.60
1,240.20
1,240.20
0-8----_
1,045.20
1, 076. 40
1,101.00
1,101.90
1., 101.90
1,183. 80
1, 183.80
0-7--------------
868. 20
927.60
927. 60
927.60
968. 70
068. 70
1,025.10
0-6------- ------
643.20
707.40
753.30
753.30
753.30
753.30
753.30
0-5--------------
514. 50
604.80
645.00
645.90
645.90
645.90
666.30
0-4--------------
434. 10
528.00
583. 70
563.70
573.90
500.70
640.50
0-3 2 ------------
353. 70
450.90
481. 80
533.10
558.60
579.00
609. 90
O-2 2-------------
281.40
384.30
461.40
476. 70
486.90
486.90
4`36. 90
0-1 2-------------
241. 20
307. 50
384.30
384. 30
384.30
384.30
384.30
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9528
Years of service computed under section 205
"Pay grade
Over I2 ! (Ivor A Ovcr 16 Over 1,11 1 Over POI Over 22 Over 26 Over 30
0101 IS 1.5t1G.9(1 $1.5()(1.90 31,1114- 30 $1.614 30 $1 72200 $1 22.18) $1,029.70 $1,829.70
0-9 ----__----_ 1,201.50 1,261.50 1 31P 20 1.399.20 1 506.00 1606.90 1.814.30 1.614.30
0-1:.___------------ - 1:240. 1.240.20 I, P9L 50 L347. 110 1.344).20 1.455.60 1,455. 8(11 1.455.611
0-7---------------- 1,026.10 1.076.40 1.183.80 1,041 1 260.
,266.00 1,00 1,266. 0(1 1.266.0(}
0 G
----------------- 753.30 779 903.10 260.
i 448.00 90&70 1,0''5.10 1,112.10 1,112.10
0-s __ -_- _-_- 702.00 748.20 ~ $01.(X1 -50.80 876.30 907.20 i 907.10 007.20
0 4. _.I 670 50 707 73ti 00 758.40. 7513.40 731.40 753 10 758.40
03 r. _ _ _ 640.50 056. 16 656. 10 r,111 10 616. 141 65(.10 1156. t0 615(1. 10
0- ' r _ _ - 41(8 90 41(6.90 488.90 ' 486.90 498.90 496.')0 41(11 X1 486.90
0-I'----------------- 384.30 381.30 ' 384.30 38-4. 30 ! W. 341 ' 31(4. 30 394. -10 394.30
,
"I While serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stall. Chief of Staff 4 the Ann_v. Chief of Aavai
Ole-rations, Chief of Stiff of the Air Force, or Conmm)rdint of the Marine Cures, b rsic lmy for this grade
Is t~,n19,30 regardless of cumulative sears of service eumpute'l under section215 of this title.
Does not aplF11y to mm.missio09d officers who ttav) been crwlited with over 4 years' active service as
an enlisted member.
"COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WIIr1 IIACE BEEN CREDITED WITH I )VEIL -1 Y1ARS(
ic'I'IVE SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER
0-3 - --------------------- I
O 2 ------------------------I
0-1_._ ... _ f
"l'ay grade
0-3----------------------- .
0 1 . ---- -_______-
Years of service computed under section 205
river 4 Over 6 Over 8 Over 0 I Over 12 Over 14
5533. 10 WA 60 1 5.1:9.00 $1349 90 $640.50 $666. 30
476.70 441.90 502.20 533.00 548.40 503.70
W. 30 4 410. 10 425.40 440. 70 456,00 47 (1 70
Y.-ars of service computed under secttou 205
4,ver 16 0xer 18 Over 20 Over Over 26 Over 30
$0x41.30 I 5000.30 1666.30 5666.30 3606.30 $&;G. 30
SRI. 70 563. 70 I 5413. 70 1 W. 70 563.70 I 5(3. 70
46.70 i 476.70 476.70 1 476.70 i 476.70 476.70
1 (WARRANT OFFICERS
}-ears or sere:Ce computed under se Aton 205
3 or Iess f elver 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6 Over 5
_.-
5-44070 f $44x. 70 $450. 41(1 *171- 10 I ti49:'. 00
W-4 _ 0361 20 1y
W 3 331. 50 405 00 ! 411} Otl 410 )m 113 '(1 445. x11
W .. _ _ -- _ " 87. 41) 1 353 70 353. 70 3113.90 304 30 405.00
tV-1. ------- _:3x.3) 31_.60 312.60. 33.&.411 353-70 369.00
Over 10 Over 12
$512 40 II1 $548.40
471 (0 418.90
420 `.0 435. 60
384 "0 ; 300 90
W-4----------------------------
W-3----------------------------
W-2----------------------------
W-1----------------------------
Over 14 I Over 16 Over If, ( Over 20 Over 22 Over 76
55 3.90
317 20
450.90
415, 20
5594.6(1
517.50
4416. 50
430. 50
$609.90 $630.30 3&51.00
533.10 553.50 573.90
481.1141 497.10 517.50
445.180 481.40 461.40
$702 ( 0
591.(0
517.:0
461.40
$7(r2 00
594.60
517.50
461.40
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9529
E-9 ------------------
E-8 ------------------
E-7 ------------------
$208 39
$282.00
F-6------------- --
175.81
246.00
11 5------------------
145.24
215.40
E-4 ------------------
122.30
184.50
F-3 -----------------
99.37
148. 50
F-2------------------
85.80
123.00
F-1
83.20
112.80
E-1 (under 4
months) -----------
111-9 ----------------------------
E 8----------------------------
----------------------------
E-6----------------------------
F-6----------------------------
T-4--------------------------
E-3----------------------------
F-2----------------------------
F-1----------------------------
$466.50
405.00
358.80
322.80
287. 10
220.50
169.20
123.00
112.80
8202. 20
266.20
225.60
194.70
159.00
123.00
112.80
$476.70
415.20
369.00
333.00
287. 10
220. 50
169.20
123.00
112.80
$302.40
266.40
235.80
210.00
169.20
123.00
112.80
$486.90
425.40
379.20
338.40
287. 10
220. 50
169.20
123.00
112.80
----------
$445.80
$466.00
$374.10
394.50
$312.60
322.80
333.00
343.60
276.90
287.10
297.30
312.60
261.10
261.30
271.50
282.00
220.50
220.50
220. 50
220.50
169.20
109.20
169.20
160.20
123.00
123.00
123. 00
123.00
112.80
112.80
112.80
112.80
$497. 10
$522.90
$573.90
$573.90
435.60
461.40
512.40
512.40
384.30
410. 10
461.40
461.40
338.40
338.40
338.40
338.40
287. 10
287. 10
287. 10
287. 10
220.50
220. 50
220. 50
220. 50
169.20
169.20
169.20
169. 20
123.00
123. 00
123.00
123.00
112.80
112. 80
112.80
112. 80."
SEC. 2. 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).
SE c. 3. The enactment of this Act does not reduce-
(1) 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 payable fot
that day by reason of a subsequent determination; or
(2) the basic pay or the retired pay or retainer pay to which a member or
former member of a uniformed service was entitled on the day before the
effective date of this Act.
SEc. 4. This Act becomes effective on the first day of the first calendar month
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
Passed the Senate July 20, 1964.
Attest: FELTON M. JOHNSTON,
Secretary.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, let me tell you what the bill does, what the
Department of Defense proposed, and what I suggest we do.
Stated simply, the bill increases the pay of all officers and warrant
officers with over 2 years of service by 2.5 percent, and all enlisted
personnel with over 2 years of service by 2.5 percent.
Commissioned and. warrant officers with under 2 years of service
receive an 8.5-percent increase because they have not been increased
since 1952, and the Senate report has recommended a greater increase
for this group on the grounds that young commissioned officers with
under 2 years of service, following a short orientation course "are
assigned to jobs carrying the full responsibility for the grade concerned
and they are, therefore, not in a training status."
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21.1? ; ,A-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Tile Senate report also points out that it young second lieutenant or
first. lieutenant is usually 4 to 7 years older than the enlisted ratan that
is drafted. The Senate report further states that 55 percent of the
second lieutenants and 69 percent of the first lieutenants are married
and, thus, have dependents; whereas only 16.5 percent, of tlie enlisted
personnel are married. I presume this refers to enlisted personnel
with under 2 years of service.
The Senate report ahn points cut that no increase is provided for
enlisted personnel with under 2 years of service because, for the most
part., they are in it training status but that, in addition, the young
roan who enters Service as an E'-] recruit is normally assured of three
pay raises during his first 2 years of service, with it grood clt.ince of re-
ceiving it fourth increase. That i after -1 ntunCis, the E-t recruit is
increased from $78 to 883.2(1 it immth and shortly thereafter, is pro-
moted to E-2 at $85.80 at month. .1.tnl most of tlae young men who
enter service are promoted to I, :; in their first 2 reins of service at
a pay of $911.37.
Second lieutenants, art the other hand, under present l,tw receive
5222.30 it tnontla and they nominally wait 1s mouths before they are
promoted to first lieutenant.
In 1963, the Committee oil Awned Services rejected all."- increases
for members of the armed services with tinder 2 years of service on
the ernuncls that all individuals entering the service had an obligation
to serve. and the officer who elected to go to college had tine advantage
of entering on active duty, in ntunl eases, aas it conruuissiaaned officer
aid, thus, receive more poi- than I i would receive as on enlisted man.
However, it cannot be denied Clint the cost of living 11n- increased
considcratbly since 1952, the last time we provided increases in pay fur
those with under 2 years of service, and therefore (lie larger pay in-
crease for junior officers with under 2 years of service can be justified
on that basis since officers must provide their own food and lodging)
if married, and Ill most instances the uniform allowance only covers a
part of the cost of the uniform.
Our the other hand, the young enlisted ratan is (provided with food,
clothing, shelter and, as I have indicated, normally enters on active
duty without dependents.
how, the Senate bill is not what the Depa rtntent of Defuse recom-
mended. 'flu I)cfcatse I)epartor-'nit recormnen.ted it 3-percent in-
crease for officers and warranr ofliccrs, including oflicers at.d warrant
ollicers with under 2 yeaas of service. 'fhe I)epartutent recommended
a 2.4-percent increase for enlisted personnel with over 2 years of
service but. no increase for enlisted personnel with under 2 years of
service. it is my understanding that the Depattntertt based its pro-
posal on file relationship of basic pay rates to salary trends of pro-
fessional and technical employees insofar its officers are concerned, and
based its 2.4-percent increase for enlisted perso;utel on the relation-
ship of basic pay rates to salary ttcnds of technical and clerical person-
nel rind Army-.fir Farce wage board pay scales. Be that as it May,
the Senate eonunittee saw fit to Modify the Defense Department
proposal. and gave the same percentage increase, to ofliccrs, warrant
officers, and ertlistecl personnel-namely-, 2.5-percent increase, with
the exception of junior officers and warrant ofliccrs WWI under 2
years of service who will receive an 8.5-percent iatcrettse.
The cost of the Senate Proposal for all the uniformed services,
including the Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and the Coast and
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9531
Geodetic Survey, is $207,519,000 on a 12-month basis, and
$172,321,000 if the bill becomes effective September 1, 1964.
The departmental proposal recommended an October 1, 1964,.
effective date at a cost of $142,616,000 for the Department of Defense..
When the cost of the Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and the
Coast and Geodetic Survey is added, this increases the cost of the
Department's proposal by about $4 million. Thus, the difference
between the Senate proposal and the amount budgeted for fiscal year
1965 is $26 million more than that recommended by the Department
of Defense. Of this amount, however, about $10 million of the
increase is due to the fact that the Senate refused to accept the
Department's proposal that reservists in a drill pay status not
receive any pay increase.
Now, let me give you the monthly increases recommended in this
bill by grade.
The 2.5-percent increase provides the following average monthly
increases in pay for commissioned officers and warrant officers:
0-2
First lieutenant-------------------------------------------- $11.00
0-3
Captain---------------------------------------------------
15. 00
0-4
Major----------------------------------------------------
18. 00
0-5
Lieutenant colonel-----------------------------------------
`'22.00
0-6
Colonel---------------------------------------------------
26. 00
0-7
Brigadier general-------------------------------------------
31. 00
0-8
Major general--------------------------------------------- -
-36.00
0-9
Lieutenant general-----------------------------------------
39. 00
0-10
General---------------------------------------------------
45. 00
0-10
Chief of staff----------------------------------------------
49. 00
W-1
Warrant officer--------------------------------------------
10.20
W-2
Warrant officer--------------------------------------------
11.80
W-3
Warrant officer--------------------------------------------
13.50
W-4
Warrant officer____________________________________________
16. 00
For the officers with less than 2 years of service who will receive an
8.5-percent increase, the average increase will be:
0-1 Second lieutenant------------------------------------------ $19.00
0-2 First lieu tenant-------------------------------------------- 22.00
0-3 Captain--------------------------------------------------- 28.00
0-4 Major, if there are any------------------------------------- 34. 00
W-l. Warrant officer-------------------------------------------- 18. 78
W-2 Warrant officer -------------------------------------------- 22.58
W-3 Warrant officer-------------------------------------------- 25. 86
W-4 Warrant officer ------------------------------------ _------- 28.30
For enlisted personnel, the 2.5-percent increase will provide the
following average increases:
E-1, for those few who have over 2 years of service------------------- $2. 80
E-2 Private--------------------------------------------------- 3. 00
E-3 Private first class----------------------------
E-4 Corporal-------------------------------------------------- 5.00
E-5 Sergeant-------------------------------------------------- 6.50
E-6 Staff sergeant----------------------------------------------- 7. 80
E-7 Sergeant first class----------------------------------------- 9.20
E-8 Master sergeant--------------------------------------------- 10.40
E-9 Sergeant major-------------------------------------------- 12. 10
The Department also recommended that all reservists in a drill
pay status not receive an increase. They suggested something
similar last year and . we. refused to accept it. They recommended
that all reservists receiving drill pay not receive an. increase this year
and the Senate eliminated it from their bill. Thus, we do not have
that problem to contend with.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9532
Now, let inc give you my views on this proposal.
Mr. RIvERs. Now I. want everybody to listen to this. Everybody
who is affected listen to this.
Mr. BLANDFORD (reacting): When I say this is a node-.A pity in-
crease, that is the understatement of the year. am not impressed
with comparability studies that have beeprepared comparing
military pay with civil service pay. I doubt very much whether
military pay can be compared with any civilian occupation, civil
service or private industry. I know one thing, unless Ave provide
adequate increases for members of the armed services, we are going to
develop a generation of mediocre officers and noncommissioned
officers which may be one of (It() most dangerous trends ever faced by
any nation.
This is not at pity increase that will do much for the military except
to keep faith with the pledge that President Kennedy made when he
said lie would use his best efforts -to assure than, in the future, mili-
tary- compensation will keep pace with increases in salaries and wages
in the civilian economy.
This proposal does provide an increase and it can be argued, if you
use the right set of figures, that it provides some comparability with
civil service employees. But 1 don't know how you compare the re-
sponsibility of it captain of it carrier or a squadron comnutnder or a
regimental command er with at G:5 14 or ('S 15. On the other hand,
I don't know how you compare the responsibility of a GS -14 or 15
with it colonel or it captain serving on it board waiting to be retired.
The civil service employee, for the most part, 'tas it continuing re-
sponsibility and his job does not change frequently. On the other
hand, military personnel-officers and noncommissioned officers
alike in it normal career will have varying degrees of responsibility.
()it some occasions. they will be paid far less than the responsibilitry
they have assumed. Ott some occasions they will be paid approxi-
mate.ly' the right auwunt. for the responsibility- was unwed, and, in a few
cases, will be paid inure than the responsibility asscuned. For that
reason, I am not impressed with aouaparability studies, but I realize
we have to compare military pity with sanncthin .
Now if I inn nothing else, 1 hope I ant practical. And one of the
first things I learned early in life is that "at bird in hand is worth
two in the bush." I do not want to jeopardize the expeditious enact-
ment of this proposal by suggest ing c.hatnaes that will increase the
pay- scales by in amount that night endanger its immediate con-
sideration. For example, at half of 1 percent increase in this proposal
involves an annual cost increase of about $40 million.
There are other problems that face the military. Not the least
of these is a rather doubtful decision of the Internal Revenue Service
that dislocation allowances are taxable income. But this is a question
that probably= will have to be decided by the Ways and Means Com-
mittee and if Ave were to amend this bill in all at (erupt to correct that
ruling, it aright well be subject to a point of order.
so, I shall support this bill just is it is presented to us. It is simply
at revised pity- scale that will do little for our unitary personnel except
to let them know that Ave are aware of their existence. It won't
overcome the tendency toward mediocrity- which T want afraid will
develop unless Ave take some drastic action in the near future.
If I am here next Jinuarv, and if certain other events Cake place,
and I should be chairman of this committee, or the ranking minority
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04i } 3CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
member, I will state here and now that it is my intention to introduce
a bill that will provide substantial increases in military pay, that will
provide substantial increases in subsistence allowances, and that will
overcome this somewhat naive decision of the Internal Revenue
Service with regard to dislocation allowances.
In addition, by next January if the Department of Defense has not
come up with a solution to the problems that have been created
through the payments of proficiency pay and reenlistment bonuses,
then I propose to begin hearings, if I am in a position to do so, on those
subjects.
I shall support this measure just as the Senate has presented it to
us because it is the only practical way to handle the problem. Next
January, one way or another, I intend to do a great deal more for the
members of our armed services who are watching their privileges,
their rights, their benefits being attacked from every side.
Mr. RIVERS. There is nothing else I need to say but this: The
only reason I make that statement is because one crumb is better than
no crumbs, and that is exactly what is before us.
Mr. WILSON. I hate to vote for this crummy bill, but I guess I will
have to.
Mr. RIVERS. This thing has one eye on the budget, one eye on
something else. We don't have the benefit of any hearings. We
have not had the benefit of any expression from any witnesses. And
after discussion with the chairman and Mr.. Blandford, we find it is
better to take this and hope that we can do something better in the
future.
Now, the reason we didn't put in last year the under 2 years' offi-
cers: We felt then and we feel now, lots of us-and certainly the House
is on record-that these ROTC and other officers owed the country
a definite. obligation and were really an unknown quantity. And if
it turned out as we hoped it would, and as a great percentage of
them have turned out and will turn out, they make excellent officers.
.We didn't feel that we really owed them any responsibility. They
signed the contract.
Positively we have no complaint about it and no fuss with the
other body about it. But we do think there are other considerations
that have not been adequately taken care of. And this is the reason,
with great painstaking, this statement has been made.
In the areas which I have outlined, I feel very deeply, Mr. Secre-
tary, that these things have come about and we have been reluctant-
and the Department-to do something about it.
I would like very much to make an all-inclusive bill, as I tried to
do last year. But maybe in the future we will be in a position to
do more. I hope so, at any rate.
Now, that, is the position I am in. That is the position I hope
the committee will take. We face a practical problem. It is better
to get this 2.5 than nothing.
Now, I do agree with what the other body has done about not
agreeing with the Department on these drill pay status groups. They
did do a good job on that. I am glad to go along with them on that.
So my statement will have to speak for itself.
Mr. Secretary, did you want to say something?
Mr. BLANDEORD. He has a statement.
Mr. RIVER. Mr. Bates?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
41334
Mr. BATES. Well, I would prefer that the Secretary make his
statement. and then I think we can ask questions at that. time.
Afr. RivEits. '"but is right. And in view of this, we have thought
it would wise to Bear from the distinguished Secretary, because nobody
has had the benefit of his position on this.
You sent up it roughly 3-percent bill, didn't you?
Secretary PAUL. Yes. sir; 3-percent for officers and a lesser amount
for enlisted personnel.
Mr. BATES. Nil-. Chairman, do I understand the Senate did not
conduct any hearings on this?
Mr. RIVERS. No, nothing.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. So, -Nil-. Secretary--
Mr. BLANDFORn. They did have it witness. You did testify, did
you not?
Secretary PAUL. No.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Or did you answer questions?
Secretary PAUL. No, sir.
Mr. Itivras. I don't think there was any. We have no record.
1Ir. RATES. May I ask tuiother prehtniiin ry question with respect
to that? Was this bill also introduced in tile lluusc?
'\fr.ltivrits. No.
1Ir. BLA X nFORD. O.
'Ur. BATES. Now, how did the Department of Defense transmit
this to the Senate? Was that it request:'
Secretary PAUL. No, sir. We submitted it legislative proposal in
February, Mr. Bates, which was not the same as the bill tint Senator
Russell's committee reported out.
'1(r. BATES. Was that introduced in the House?
Secretary PAUL. No, Sit'. It was not introduced in either the
Senate or the House.
AIr. Riviits. I am ;:lad Mr. Bates has asked that question.
Last, year during the hearings, Mr. Bates, if you will iemember,
the Deptirtinent did tell us that after this bill ryas passed-- last year,
wasn't it?
Mr. BLANnFORD. 1 CS.
Mr. Rrvims. A proposal would he sent up here promptly this year,
and that commitment was kept, '\1r. Secretar}-, for which I. congratu-
late you. But the chairman, '\It-. Vinson, didn't feel that we should
take any action on this bill, this recent proposal, until we had had
some sort of expression from the other body. Because as we recall,
we passed the last bill last March avid it wasn't sent back to us until-
what, late in September, is it, N-Ir. Bliuidford'.'
Secretary FALL. Yes, sir; I believe it was late in September.
'tlr. ltrvERS. Very late in September. And we didn't want that
to happen again. SSo we were gratified with action in the, other body,
so gratified that PVC want to ha VC this meeting. That is the reason
for it.
You may proceed, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yonr excellent stittenient covered some of the points in my state-
ment, but inasmuch as this is the only hearing we will have had on
this pay bill, I would appreciate the opportunity to read m_yE.tatement.
It is Very short.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/;Ag,CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Mr.. Rivriis. Go right ahead, sir. This meeting is the only history
we have on it, the legislative history.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I am happy to appear this morning to testify on S. 3001, a bill to
increase the rates of basic pay for members of the uniformed services.
An increase in military pay is clearly justified on the bisis of upward
salary adjustment-, in the civilian sector, including Federal civilian
pay. Of at least equal importance as the actual amounts proposed,
however, is the principle embodied in this legislation of the need for
an annual review procedure for military compensation. This is in
keeping with the pledge made by President Kennedy when he signed
last year's pay bill to the effect that the administration would use its
best efforts to assure that in the future military compensation will keep
pace with increases in salaries and wages in the civilian economy.
In his budget message to the Congress this year, President Johnson
reaffirmed the soundness of the principle of an annual review and
support of this pledge.
One of the principal sources of difficulty for the military has been
that, whereas their compensation has been adjusted sporadically and
after considerable timelag, the pay of Federal civilian employees has
been adjusted on a more regular basis. The last basic pay increase
for members of the uniformed services became effective on October 1,
1963, but before that it had been 5 years since the last military pay
increase. During this 5-year period, classified employees of the Fed-
eral Government received four pay increases-in 1958, 1960, 1962,
and 1963-and conferees of the House and the Senate are now sched-
uled to meet on an additional civilian pay increase for this year. The
consequences of previous lags in military pay increases behind the
civilian sector have been unfortunate, and dramatic. We have calcu-
lated, for example, that over the last 15 years, the average officer-I
believe we took a captain with 6 years of service as the average-has
Jost $14,000 because he got his pay increases at such infrequent inter-
vals. The Department of Defense submitted a legislative proposal
in February of this year which would have raised the basic pay of all
enlisted personnel with over 2 years of service by 2.4 percent and the
basic pay of all officers, including those with under 2 years of service,
by 3 percent.
As you are aware, S. 3001, . while not distributing basic pay in
increases in these same amounts, is roughly comparable in total cost.
Specifically, S. 3001 would grant all enlisted personnel with over 2
years of service ono-tenth of 1 percent more than the Defense Depart-
ment proposal-a 2.5-portent increase as contrasted with 2.4 percent.
In the case of officers, S. 3001 would grant all officers with over 2 years
of service one-half of 1 percent loss than the Defense Department
proposal--a 2.5-percent increase as compared with a 3-percent in-
crease. S. 3001 would grant officers with under 2 years of service
6 percent more than the Department of Defense proposal-8% percent
as contrasted with 232 percent. The only other difference relates to
drill pay for reservists and National Guard personnel. S. 3001 would
extend the now pay rates to all reservists including those called to
active duty and those performing drill. The Defense Department
proposal would have extended the new pay scales only to members of
the Reserve forces while on active duty, including active duty for
training.
35-006- i4-'No. 5s--2
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21b3 PIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
The formula we applied in arriving at our proposed military basic
pay increases this year was as follows :
(a) Officers: The basic pay of officers will be adjusted arnually to
insure that it retains a constant relationship to an index based upon
the Bureau of Labor survey of the salaries of professional, adminis-
trative, and technical employees, except that no adjustment will be
made until the index moves'-) poinrs.
(b) Enlisted, over 2 years of service: The basic pay of enlisted
personnel with more than 2 years of service will be adjusted annuall
to insure that it retains it constant relationshi to an index of technica
clerical, and wage board wages ;the index shad be based on the Bureau
of Labor National Survey of 'Technical and Clerical Pay and the
Army-Air Force Wage Board pay scales), except that no adjustment
will be made until the index moves 2 points.
(c) Enlisted, under 2 years of service: The basic. pay o, enlisted
personnel with less than 2 rears of service will be adjusted annually to
insure that it retains a constant relationship to the Consumer Price
Index, except that no adjustment will be made ur.til the index moves
2 points.
In applying this formula, our review indicated that in the period
between the time of our calcualton as to Lite military pay increases in
1963 and the time for developing our program and budget estimates
for fiscal year 1965 the appropriate indexes relating to officers, and to
enlisted personnel with over 2 years of service, had risen by more
than the minimum indicated in our formula, whereas the index for
enlisted personnel with under 2 years had not.
The other important principle embodied in our proposed l=egislation
this year relates to the its t of a military pay increase on the cost of
the retirement system. Ti Ithe military, an increase in basic pay
increases retirement, costs more than it comparable increase in civilian
pay because military retirement benefits are tied exclusively to ter-
minal pay, asagainst a high-five average, and are drawn for a longer
period of time, due to the early retirement provisions for military
personnel. Taking into account these differences, we made an adjust-
ment in our military pay proposal3 which lowered the proposed in-
creases below those which would have resulted from a strict comparison
with the indexes described above. The result, was the proposed
increase of 3 percent for officers and 2.4 percent for enlisted personnel
with over 2 years of service.
In sununary, :11r. Chairman, the Department of Defense strongly
supports it basic pay increase for military personnel this year. The
amounts of such increases in the bill before your subcommittee vary
from the amounts we had recommended. This is of much less
consequence than the fact that in passing even this modest increase
within it year after passage of the last inilitar, pay increase, the
Congress and the administration will have demonstrated clearly that
the principle of regular military pay adjustments is accepted as the
established policy of this Government. We believe that, increases
in the dollar magnitude reflected in S. 3001, as in our proposals, are
fully justified, and we appreciate your prompt consideration of a
matter which is of such great importance to the morale, well-being,
and general efficiency of the men and worsen in our uniformed services.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. A very fine statement.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04 7l j CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Now, in summary, you think that your proposal would auto-
matically take care of the cost of living for the future if such a thing
were underwritten by Congress; that is, the two points in the Con-
sumer Index?
Secretary PAUL. I think it would. Now, there is always a question
as to whether we start at the right starting point. But assuming we
started at the right point, which is the present moment-yes, sir; I
do think that a regular adjustment of this kind is about as good a
formula as we have been able to come up with. I can't guarantee
that it would at all times keep pace with the outside economy, but--
Mr. RIVERS. The reason I ask you that question, you have capably
referred to the civilian employees in the Department. They don't
follow any such thing. You have pointed out in your statement that
there were bills in 1948, 1950, 1962, and 1964.
Now; I have been in Congress 24 years, 24 long years, and we have
had an awful lot of pay increases for the civilians, and I haven't
noticed-not deprecating the contribution that these fine people
make to their Government, but certainly not apologizing for an
equal contribution the military have made to keeping this country
free. I don't think that those who have framed the pay increase for
the civilians followed any such a formula as this.
And if we were to follow your idea, the comparability would be
ridiculous to even consider it.
Is this right or not, Mr. Blandford?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think that is quite correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. I find trouble now following comparability.
Secretary PAUL. So do I, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. I don't know how you are going to compare a GS-14-
we will say a GS-12 with an equal pay of an officer in charge of one
of these lonely, lonely SAC missions in an absolescent aircraft, or
something over yonder in that dismal role in Korea, keeping .watch
over something that he doesn't even know what the program is or the
policy is and the hope is. I don't know how you are going to com-
pare that.
So comparability gets me confused in a morass of-l don't know
what. Certainly it is confusion. So I don't know. But I do think
Mr. Secretary-and I want to compliment you-this is something
that we have got to keep under constant consideration in the Depart-
ment, because of these things I have indicated. They attacked the
commissaries and they attacked all the fringe benefits. I have just
finished, as you know-almost finished-the first phase of a hospital
hearing. All of these fringe benefits are under constant, annoying
attacks from all kinds and/or descriptions of people. And the morale
of the military in the meantime is being seriously affected. And this
is why I am glad to hear you. say what you have. We have to stand
watch all the time on the interests and the morale of these people,
these dedicated people. And we are the only voice they have.
Mr. Bates, have you anything?
Mr. BATES. Just a few questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, did I understand you support S. 3001, even ` though
it varies somewhat from the DOD proposal?
Secretary PAUL. Well, we certainly support it in the sense, Mr.
Bates, that we think it is a good bill. We do think that our formula
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/2' ,IA-RDP661300403R000400280002-4
makes a little more sense, but certainly I am not here to criticize
S. 3001.
Mr. BATES. Well, (Ines that pose any problems for you in the future,
the passage of this bill:'
tieeret--rv I'A t,. NVell, the only problems I can foresee,'\fr. Bates
and f don't think this is necessarily a major problem --is in raising the
"under two" officers by 04 percent. As the chairman pointed out
earlier, We had actually proposed an increase for the "under two"
officers last year, and this subco-umitttee also reported out it bill that
had a significant increase for thero. But when the final act mane out,
there wasn't any increase.
So we have proposed an increase, and obviously we think they should
have one. But the only difficult,v I can see is that this bill, in pro-
viding an w!_ percent increase for that particular category, is in effect
making it slight structural change in the pay system, whereas our
theory behind our proposal was that this was an annual adjustment,
not looking toward the basic structure of the system. With that reser-
vation, I think it is a very good bill.
Mr. BATE-,. We also had tit(, reservation last year, and ai a matter
of fact since 1952, when We denied the man} increases.
Secretary PAIL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. We had reservations there, too. There was a question
of we had so much money available and we tried to give it to those
Who had the greatest family responsibilities.
Mr. RtvEUS. That is right.
Mr. BATEs. And unfortunately in most cases these young nien that
were coming into the service didn't have the same commensurate
responsibility that those in the advanced grades had. Therefore,
we made the pay structure the way that we did.
Secretary PAtn.. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Secretary, I note your comment in respect to the
various increases which the civil servants have had. And you say
Chat the cousequencn of previous raises in military pay increases belhin(l
the civilian sector have been unfortunate autd dramatic. Do you
know any cases where the Department of i)efett;e has presented pay
bills to the Congress where the Congress failed to ac
Secretary PAUL. No, sir; I don't know of any.
Mr. BATE,. Now in respect. to another matter, and that is the
eompatirability feature - -and f have the saute problem in my mind as
OW chairman, because I don't thi-,k that you can -nix oil and Water.
It is it useful tool. I could go that far, and have it as one phase of
comparison.
But I trust that on this occasion we are not establishing a frozen
rule so that henceforth everything Will be in absolute accord with
the base period that We are accepting now. Ilecause as you said
yourself a few moments ago, if tho starting point is right, we are all
right. If it isn't, We are wrong. So I would chink that we ought to
have some latitude here.
Now, in respect to officers, the ]tureau of Labor survey's salaries of
professional, administrative, and technical e-nplovecs: Are these civil-
ians in Government or civilians out of Government, or both,
Secretary PAT-r,. It sloes not include tile GoVC111111011t.
Mr. BATES. The entire ecntnRny?
Secretary PAT-L. iviliams.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9539
Mr. BATES. Now we may as well be practical. We know the
political influence of the civil servants. We know that. We have
seen this history here where the military have been denied pay in-
creases because they haven't exercised the same political pressures
that have been exerted by other groups. We know that.
Now, if we are going to consider just outside people or primarily
people outside the Government,, I think that that is something we
ought to watch very carefully, because I think any time the civilians
in Government get an increase we certainly ought to consider the
same thing for the military. And it hasn't been done. You have
complained about it and we have complained about it. And if we.
establish a formula which doesn't include that possibility, I think we
are making a mistake.
Now in the second group, enlisted men with over 2 years of service,
the Bureau of Labor national survey of technical and clerical pay and
the Army-Air Force Wage Boards-now we know v hat the wage
boards are, which is separate from your ragular civil service pay.
I can understand that.
Now this other group is the same as you had under the officers, that
is outside civilians primarily?
Secretary PAUL. It is a different survey, but it is outside civilians,
yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. All right.
Now the third group you have got for the cost of living index for
the enlisted under 2 years of service.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir. We feel for the reasons that the chairman
has stated and that Senator Russell stated on the floor of the Son, to
that aside from a cost of living adjustment, that these people who are
fulfilling an obligation, who are in the training status, given the limita-
tions on what one can spend for it pay increase, would fall in the lowest
priority.
Mr. BATES. Now none of us read the bill. I haven't even read the
bill. I don't think any of use have read the bill. I don't even know
if we have it before us.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RivERs. We have a report.
Mr. BATES. We have a report. I don't know, whether it contains
the language' you have.. It says "The basic pay of officers will be
adjusted annually to insure that it retains a constant relationship."
Secretary PAUL. No, sir.
Mr. BATES. Is that part of the bill?
Secretary PAUL. No, none of this is in the bill.
Mr. BATES. None of this philosophy is associated with the bill?
Secretary PAUL. None of thi 3 is in the bill.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman., since it is not in the bill and since it is
not a matter before us, 1 won't consider it any further.
Mr. RIVERS. This bill only goes-simply stated, the bill increases:
with over 2 years, 2.5, and the under 2 years' officers, the 8.5, and the
over 2 years' enlisted- -- -
Mr. BLANDFORD. 2.5.
Mr. RivERs. 2.5; that is about all?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is all.
Mr. RivERs. And the drill status.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9.340
l Ir. BLANDFORD. Well, actually it increases them.
Of course, the drill pay status isn't mentioned now. It was in the
original proposal but it isn't in this bill because it is not necessary.
Mr. RIVERS. Ye;.
.Mr. BATES. AIc. Clnurma n, I have just a couple of other quick
questions.
I have been receiving some mail front servicemen with respect to
possible exchanges and cotnlltissaries. Now that is all in lieu of pay,
emoluments for service performed, really. Is there any contemplated
action by the Department now in respect to conumssary stores and
post exchanges, to cut then down, to eliminate therm, to, curtail them
in any respect?
Secretary PAUL. No, sir, I know of no such plans.
MIr. BATES. -%Ir. Secretary, I wonder if we could-because we are
starting or talking about it base point here, in this bill, It starting point
for further adjustments later on. Even though you don't have it,
these rules and ratios, in the bill, nevertheless we are discussing them.
Secretary PAUL. Yes.
MTr. BATES. I wonder if you have some charts, starting with the
Ilook Commission report in the bill enacted in 1949, so wc? could get
these comparisons?
R-Tr. BLANDFOIt). It is in the Serrate report.
.fir. BATES. Fine.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATES. So we know what this relationship has been since 1949.
Mr. BLANDFORD. It is in the Senate report.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir, there is an analysis in that report.
Ir. BATES. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
\ir. RIVERS. Are there any other questions''
.\Tr. WILSON. I have a question, Mr. C?Itairnutn.
Mfr. RIVERS. Go ahead.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Secretary, can this be in any way construed as a
cost-of-living increase'
Secretary PAUL. Well, I could rationalize myself into saying it is,
alt bough the surveys, %Ir. Wilson, really weren't based on that.
'I'hev were based on the, actual salaries being received by other people,
civilians, in the general economy. So I think it is stretching it a bit
to just sal- it is acost -of-living increase, although of course it takes
(hat into consideration, indirectly, because that is one of the reasons
why their pay has been increa-w(l, I presuine.
Mr. %\ ILSON. The reason why---I recognize of course that retired
personnel tare not in any way considered in this bill because of the
existing laws. And their situutWn is dependent on a cost-of-living
increase before they are granted increases.
(\Tr. Blandford no(Is)
fir. WILSON. So I want it pretty clear Its to w!tether till, should be
considered a cost-of-living increment or for comparability reasons or
some other reasons.
Secretary PAUL. No; it really is not It cost-of-living increase.
llr. BLANDI'Ottn. I think, \Ir. \Vilson, the cost-of-IiN ingr index
would run about I.S.
Secretary IPAUL. ht's; I (lave that. It runs about 1.2 percent over
the ,little period under which these percentages Were compiled.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/041111 CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Mr. WILSON. That is the figure.
In other words, for the purpose of computation of retired pay in-
creases-as you know, of course it has to be cumulative, 3 percent or
more, and I think we start computing from January 1 to each suc-
ceeding January. And you are at 1.2 percent level now.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir. And that is for a period of roughly a
year, a little more than a year.
Mr. WILSON. I would like to have a clarification on your reference
to the cost of living with regard to enlisted pay in your statement.
Why did you refer to it at all? Is this proposed legislation that
you are going to introduce next year?
Secretary PAUL. No, sir. I was just describing the formula that we
had applied in developing our own proposals to the Congress. And the
reason why I referred to that one as the cost-of-living increase is be-
cause that one and that one alone is based on the Consumer Price
Index, which is a cost-of-living calculation, and that is the same index
upon which the adjustment in retired pay is to be based.
Mr. WILSON. And your cost of living is over a greater period of
years, then, because there have been no increases since 1952 in that
category, as I understand it.
Secretary PAUL. Well, there has been a 1.2-percent change, and
I think that is about standard in the way of a raise, over a period of
about 12 months.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, you didn't quite understand I think Mr.
Wilson's question, because your answer will have to be different.
The cost of living obviously has gone up considerably more than
1.2 percent since 1952.
Secretary PAUL. Oh, yes.
Mr. BLANDFORD. The Department used as a basis the decision of
the Congress that as of October 1, 1963, the pay of the enlisted man
with under 2 years of service was exactly the base point where it
should be, and therefore whenever the cost of living after October 1,
1963, goes to two points or more, then the Department will recom-
mend a cost-of-living increase for enlisted personnel with under 2
years of service.
Isn't that correct?
Secretary PAUL. That is right.
Mr. WILSON. But you don't anticipate any legislation in the future
that would make it an automatic increase based on the 2-percent
.raise in the cost of living?
Secretary PAUL., No, sir. , We don't think that mandatory legisla-
tion-no, sir, we are not proposing that.
Mr. WILSON. Now, Mr. Chairman, just let me say this.
I came to this meeting intending to oppose this legislation, because
I think, while it is intended.to be a pat on the back, it is practically a
slap in the. face to the military, because it is inadequate.
I hope-by granting a minor increase this year, I hope we don't
forgo next year the prospect of giving a logical increase or a needed
increase next year.
I think this is entirely inadequate. I think the military is far
behind the increases that have been granted civil servants, and I.just.
want to go on record as saying, that I am reluctantly supporting you
in this position.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9542
.fir. R.vmis. That is the reason I [Wade nav statement, in pipes that
I could dispel au}- feeling Ilk my colleagues' minds that I was going to
take this thing lying down. And I arr. glad to hear my colleague sati
that.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RtvEas. Wait just it ininute.
1la.vo you lirnislaed. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. Yes
.
.Afr. RtvEIIs. Yes.
\Ir. Lo vc. I just wruttccl to ask, llr. C'hatirman--
yfr. RIVERS. Who was atskiilg?
_lfr. Logo. It was I.
1 wanted to ask if the military have fallen behind, as t-iey have
during It number of years, rind what, lilts been the reason for it? Has
it been the fault of this committee or (toes it lie in the Budget Bureau
or who hats been initiating or failing to initiate adequate pay increases
for the milita y people over the years"
Mr. Rtvatts. Well. there are many factors involved. I would
say \lr. Bland ford, check me out on this.
The I)eparttuent was lax from the period--tlae last pay bill we had
was, what, 1956.'
Mr. 13t,->oro11n. 1115-5.
:dir. I{tva.tts. Before I961)
Mr. BI.. N1) 'ottn. WV have had pity increases actually in 1949,
1952-since this committee has been established.
.Nit-. l tvr:as. 1949. 1952-- --
Mr. BL.\Nlllottn. 1949, 1952, 19:55, and 1958.
Mr. Krvr?:xa. 1958 was the last one---1958 was the last one, before
1963.
Now, I don't---of course, \Ir. Paul was not here. But tlnc Depart-
tnent hand been slow getting it up, and the Congress has been equally
slow doing sonnet long about it.
,\1r. Lo_Nc. By the Congress, do you mean this committee or do
you meali the ('on-ress as at whole?
Mr. Itavtats. I mean the Congress. This committee hit,- always
been alert.
Mr. BLAyEFOttD. I think, %Ir. Chairman, one of the thin, you
have to keep in mind in this is than when you are dealing with military
pate. which is about $12 billion-pay and allowances now constitute
about 812 billion of the defense budget --just a tiny increase in the
pay, for example, of the under-two man runs into it very substantial
amount [if .nouel.
And I can recall pity hills--I think the pay bill in 1949 ran $400
million, all(] the pay hill in 1952 ran close to $500 million. Then in
1955 it ran between s,700 and $800 million.
13111 von are clealingr with such large sums tintl? the Congress. not
by inertia but because of the tremendous amount- involved, normally
waits for the administration to make the recommendation because
of the large atrnounts involved.
Every pay increase for the military involves it very substantial
sum of money-. This is the smallest . If 1 am not mistaken, ])III: increase
proposal that. hats ever been submitted to the ('on,ress, isn't- that
correct. since 19--- 1 think since 1922.
Secretary PAUL. Y OS; ruin also the (quickest one to be submitted
after the last previous one.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9543
Mr. BLANDFORD. YeS.
Secretary PAUL. If I may add that.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Yes
Mr. Blandford, have you finished?
Mr. BLANDFORD. When the members are finished, Mr. Chairman,
I have several technical questions to develop.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Stratton.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask with regard
to this matter of providing no pay increase for those with less than 2
years' service. It wasn't very long ago, Mr. Secretary, that we were
disturbed with reports that appeared in the press and that were dis-
cussed I think on the floor, either in the House or the other body, and
considerable agitation from Members of Congress in both bodies, with
regard to poverty in the Air Force and presumably by extension to
some of the other services.
Why do you continue to insist on no pay increase for those with 2
years of service in view of these statistics that were presented, pre-
sumably with the blessing of the Air Force, I think in the Air Force
Times and possibly in other publications?
I have never seen, Mr. Secretary, any statement by the Defense
Department on those figures.
Individual Members were contacted by the press and asked to
comment whether we were in favor of poverty in the armed services
while we were trying to eliminate it elsewhere. And my only reaction
was that we were aware of the fact that those who were serving under
2 years were probably not being adequately compensated, that we
had removed an increase for them, in the last pay bill largely in an
effort to bring the total below or down a little closer to the budget
figure. And it was my impression that we all agreed that they ought
to be increased in their compensation and that the Department rec-
ognized that.
Now here we are in a position where officers with under 2 years are
being given increases as you point out-what is it, 8 percent?
Mr. RzvERs. 8.5.
Mr. STRATTON. 8.5 percent. And yet neither you nor the Senate
committee apparently, in spite of all the agitation a couple of months
ago about being concerned about poverty in the Air Force, has even
considered this point.
I would like to know, Mr. Secretary, two questions. First of all,
I would like to have you answer this specific question for me, and
second-becauso you seem to have agreed in your statement that en-
listed men with under 2 years' service shouldn't have a pay increase
because you say they comp in 4 to 7 years younger than the officers
and most of them aren't married, and yet we are given these statistics
about 7,000 of them who are on relief or could be on relief.
Second, I would like to know what the position of the Department
is for the first time officially with regard to those stories that appeared
in the Air Force Times and elsewhere.
Secretary PAUL. Well, the story that appeared in the Air Force
Times-I read that analysis for the first time in the Air Force Times.
We have responded to as far as I know every congressional inquiry we
have had on the subject of this article.
I think-first of all, it is a statistical exercise. We have since that
time analyzed it.
36-0 6-64-No. 66---3
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 CIIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9544
I think it. is to some degree misleading. General Berg, who accohn-
panied me this morning, is the leading expert in our office on this
general subject and has given it good deal of time to an analysis of this.
And we can furnish you with an analysis of the .fir Force article,
either in writing or orally, as ~-ou prefer..
.Mr. ItiivExs. What about your statenten t, on the 12th'?
Secretary Pat:L. Sir''
\lr. I11VExs. 11'Ihat about the slarletnent you n)ade- excuse me,
\I r. Stratton.
'lire stateinent voti made on the 12th of June regarding the 8,000
Air Force men wlticr fell below tile hnininhum established by the
President, on poverty-:' I think thin:, is what. Mr. Stratton is referring to.
Secretary 1'at:i.. I don't recall that precise statement.
.Mr. STRATro4. I wasn't aware that the had made any official
statement, ylr. Chairman. Maybe trey responded to Meuibers of
'ongress. slut I think it is important we ought to get into [lie record
what tic position of the Department is.
JIr. RIVERS. I think so.
Seere1111,4 PAUL. I would be very- happy to put it in the record here.
\Ir. i3L. rnoltn. I lutve sonic information. Mr. C'hairoian, that
!night, be helpful in this matter.
Mr. STlt_tVi'oN. AIr. ('hairturui, can't we get the Secretary to rive us
his answer?
Ir. Rlvutts. I want --right Isere, this article, let Mr. 3latinshek
read it---
=lr.: irRAITOa. I a in at little disturbed. I and in favor of this legi.s-
lation, Mr. Chairman!, and I support your feeling. I don t want to
hold this up.
I do think that in view of the public flaps that were created by these
statistics, whether they are fallacious or whether they are true, we
ought at least to make it statement as to why, once again, in spite of
these statistics, we are refusing to increase the pay of enlisted. men with
less than 2 years of service.
-ecreturv PAUL. The
statement, that -%Ir. Slatinshek has, which
c?rune front me, is our official position on it., Mr. Stratton.
Mr. ('ttAIRMA ----
1-Ir. Itivmts. Let hull read it.
fir. SL.xTISSIIEK. 'Phis is aft interoffice meow from General Berg
to Secretary Paul in respect to this particular problem, and it is
entitled "Air Force Pockets of Poverty." I'll(, nheino reads as follows:
The I )t?p:rrtnu?n( of the Air Force made it recent ucwv relvase which inferred
dirt sort,- of its n?rnbcrs fell below the poverty line established by tl_r President
in his "War on Povt?rty." 5pccifrcallp, it W IS indicated that soma 8,000 Air
Force nuwtbers made less than the prescribed amounts for their site faurily; i.e..
53,000 for, a fainily of 1, 52,300 for a family of :3, S2,0oi) for a fancily of 2, and
I55OO fur a single person. The following eonuucnts regarding tlu: portion of
the annonnceanent are olferrtl.
(a) T}rt 5,{)00 member, t?stirnatcd Werr all airam'a.seeond class (11-3) or airnnea
third class (13-21 with lcs. than 2 years' service. 'Phis number was arrived at on a
statistical basis of IIi' rurniber of pt?opi' it, these grades who were niarritd with
tither out dependent or two dt?ptndent= who wtrc riot on hying status, did not
receive proficiency pay or any other incentive pay. Further, this tittertninatroll
did not include any valet for inedieal ca-c for tln?nvst-INus or their det?cndcuts nor
did it include any value for conuuissarv or poi exchungt? privileges. Since it.
w:ts a statistical conclusion and did trot consider actunt individuals, ro COn-
sideration could he civcu to the pos~ibili'y of adrlt?d income from "rnoonlightiug"
or added income from the adult dependent.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/0/345 CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
(b) Aside from the doubtful validity of these statistics as set forth above, it
must be noted that whatever poverty may exist for these people is primarily a
result of their own decision. Existing law does not contemplate that an enlisted
man of the first 4 pay grades with under 4 years of service will be married. To
this end, no quarters allowance is provided for these people and they are not
entitled to housing. Upon a permanent change of station, their dependents are
not recognized and the sponsor is not entitled to travel allowance for his depend-
ents or movements of his household goods. Ile is entitled to a "dependents
assistance allowance" which, together with a mandatory allotment from him is
supposed to "assist" his dependents at their original residence.
In addition, the Air Force indicated that some 4,000-odd of its members were
receiving relief by living in low-cost housing. These figures must also be ap-
proached with caution since the rules to enter low-cost housing vary by geograph-
ical area. The lower income limits for low-cost housing are not necessarily
equivalent to poverty levels and once an individual enters low-cost housing, he
is not required to move until his income has exceeded a maximum level.
In conclusion, the Air Force presentation which, startling in its general con-
clusion, may not be at all indicative of the actual situations.
Mr. BENNETT (presiding). I think Mr. Stratton still has the floor.
Mr. STRATTON. If I may pursue this matter.
Mr. Secretary, it was my recollection that 2 years ago, or 1 year ago,
when we had the other pay bill here before us, it seems to me it was
Admiral Smedberg who pointed out that the same situation existed
in the Navy, and that there were certain members of the Navy who
were qualified for relief under the laws of the State of New York. I
am not sure whether this was a technical statistical presentation, it
may have been, or whether there were specific cases of individuals
living in the New York metropolitan area who actually were receiving
some kind of assistance.
So I don't think that your statement that this story was purely a
statistical statement quite holds up.
I remember the story indicated that of this total--I have forgotten
whether it was 4,000 or 7,000--the overwhelming majority were those
who were in public housing. And I would agree with you that because
somebody is in public housing-and. I have served on a public housing
authority in my home community-that that doesn't mean that he
is necessarily destitute. In fact, we used to give breaks to service
personnel. But they also listed a specific number who were actually
receiving other kinds of welfare assistance.
Now this wasn't a statistical determination. Unless the Air Force
Times was completely misrepresenting the picture, these were a
specific number of persons who were getting various kinds of relief.
Relatively to the numbers who were on public housing it was small.
But it was specific.
And the reason that this story was dramatically brought to my
attention is that I remember that Admiral Smedberg made a point
of this 2 years ago. And. certainly if this was true 2 years ago, it
would be even truer today when we have failed to give those with
less than 2 years service any increase at all.
Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman yield.?
Mr. BENNETT. Well--
Mr. STRATTON. I would like-may I just get the answer to this?
Secretary PAUL. Well, you are correct.
The Air Force Times, incidentally, did report very accurately what
the Air Force told them, because I asked for a copy of the briefing
that was given to them and received it. The article was accurate.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21~$IA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
And you are also correct in stating that there are other types of
relief benefits that the roughly 5,000 people have been receiving.
Of the total of 5,000, 4,698 were in low-cost public housing. And
the other numbers were 280 food, 45 grants, and 24 cloth.ng. And
that completes the 5,000.
And it is also correct that Admiral Smedberg had specific examples
of people who were in a relief status. And New York City was one
of them. And there were various newspaper articles nTitten at about
that time that listed specifics. So there are specific cases that cer-
tainly do exist
Now translating that into the answer to,
our question, fir Stratton,
about why do we allow this to go on and why don't we ask for an
increase for those people, I can only repeat what has been said earlier,
that these personnel with under 2 veers of service historically-the
philosophy regarding their pay has to be provided them with their
needs in kind, such as clothes, food, shelter, with a minimum remun-
aration in the form of pay.
Mr. BENNETT. They are not all volunteers, are they?
Secretary PAUL. No, then are not.
"Tr. BENNETT. Well, that is a strange thing now. Now the letter
says this is our owns fault and that they brought it on their own
because they are married.
Mr. BLANoroan. They are married after being inducted.
Secretary PAUL. A lot of them [parry after being inducted.
Mr. BENNETT. The statement says volunteers, and they are not
volunteers for military service, but that they have asked for it them-
selves.
T assume what that letter meant was that they asked for it because
they were married and not because they were in the service.
Is that the meaning of that article?
Secretary P:1r7r.. That is the meaning, yes, '.\fr. Bennett.
Mr. S'ra.1TTON. Do you have a rule against irarriage on the part
of enlisted men in the first 2 years'
Secretary PAUL. No. The Air Force and the 'Marine Corps do not
allow a man to enlist if lie is married. The other services do. How-
ever, of course, once he is in we can't stop him from getting married.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, aren't we being a little bit ridiculous, then?
You can stop him. You can stop him in the service academies.
Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous to have no rule agair.st it, and
yet to say that it is his own fault and he. is just going to Kane to sleep
in the bed that he has made for himself' '
You say you are not going to provide any additional food, you are
not going to provide any housing, you are not going to provide any
moving of furniture. The nature of human nature being what it is,
it seems to ine you can expect these men to get married, and it seems
to inc extremely shortsighted if we are not going to make any provision
for that during a 4-year period.
fir. BLANDFORD. We do provide, qtr. Stratton. of course, the
advantages of the Dependents Assistance Act with that very thought
in mind. That was written in 1950, during the Korean crisis, and it
has been the law ever since, and we have continued it, and it amounts
to a very substantial amount of money being paid out each year. It
was never intended to equalize what they might have earned on the
Outside, but it was to provide them against penury, complete penury.
Mr. BENNETT. Are you through, Mr. Stratton?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/0~17 CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Mr. STRATTON. I don't want to pursue this too far, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say I would appreciate it if the Secretary would give me
a copy of this analysis, and I think it ought to be in the record. Is
there something more than just the letter that Mr. Slatinshek read?
Secretary PAUL. We can provide you with more information. That
is all that has been given to the committee so far. We can go into
more detail if you wish.
Mr. STRATTON. I think, too, Mr. Chairman, that while as I say I
don't intend to oppose this bill, I do think that this position that is
taken particularly on a followup pay bill with regard to those with
under 2 years of service is really indefensible, and I think something
should be done about it. I can't quite believe that the Department
would take what seems to be the callous attitude that they are taking.
Secretary PAUL. Mr. Stratton, I really don't think we are being
callous about this. We are complying with the existing statutes, and
the existing statutes have boon on the books for many years, and what
you are suggesting would involve a basic rolook at the whole philos-
ophy of what we pay to these people who are in a training status and
why we do it.
Mr. STRATTON. You proposed an increase for those under 2 years'
service in the last bill. We are the ones that cut it out.
Secretary PAUL. Well, it was by far the smallest increase of any in
the bill. It was, I believe, a 5-percent increase and we did not resist
it at all when it was taken out. It was so much smaller than any of
the other increases that it was really do minimis in a bill of the magni-
tude we were proposing last year.
Mr. STRATTON. You are not suggesting in the future that the pay
for the first 2 years should be dust frozen in perpetuity and all future
increases would relate to those over and above 2 years of service?
Secretary PAUL. No, sir; I certainly don't, and I would also like
to restate, which was mentioned I believe in the chairman's statement
earlier, that a man who comes in as an E-1 with any luck at all will
realize several advancements before he has completed his 2 years of
obligated service or his 2-year tour so that his pay will, in f act, increase.
There is an automatic increase after 4 months. He becomes an E-2,
and in most cases he can achieve the rating of E-4 perhaps within a
year of his first service, so that he does realize some compensation
increase through that method.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, it seems to me that we got to keep that pay
in mind just as much as the pay of those above 2 years. We are
certainly not going to keep them paying $21 a day once a month
from now until doomsday.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BENNETT. Okay.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. WILSON. I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we are
not paying them $21 once a month, and that is the reason in consider-
ing these pay increases in the past that we bypassed the privates and
gave some consideration to those up the line, because, for political
reasons, since there are more privates than anybody else, they have
benefited over the years more proportionately in their increases than
others in higher grades.
Frankly, I don't think they are underpaid right now, in the first-
year category. When you look at interns who have gone-'through 8
years of medical school or so and consider the pay they get while they
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 ,~IA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
are in a training status, I don't. think that there is or could be any
valid objection to withdrawing or lei; eling them out for the first
2 years.
I would just like to say, this. 1 would like it copy= of General Berg's
statement to you, AIr. Secreta rv. It is incredible'
ncredible it is an incredible
statement, in tnv opinion. I mean we are saying that- the Army or
the Air horce 'hates, who said. turd very clearly--it- is a Dcpartiuent
of Air Force news release that contains all this information, and
claimed that Air Force men were in that condition. So I don't think
it is any editorial comment. ']'his is an actual statement by the
I)eparttoent of Defense, and in effect, General Berg, if I ara reading
this correctly-, says "We said it but. it wasn't true," and ye: it really
doesn't say that.
Secretary PALL. We didn't say it, A-It,. Wilson. The Department
of the Air horce put it out.
Mr. WILSON. Well, all right.
Secretary PAUL. I neti-er saw it until I rend it.
\1r. WVILS0N. Who Is the Department of the ,fir Force?
Secretary PAM.. For these purpt,,es, I wouldn't know. [Laughter.]
Mr. :Yr@ATTOy. Wit-, any effort matte to fill(] out?
Secretary 1':,_uL, Yes. General Berg perhaps --l don't recall of any
individuals. This hits happened before in the Defense Del1u?trnent,
\Ir. Stratton. Individual nrilitaty departments give briefings to the
press on a variety of issues.
F. Lom;. Mr. ('hinirman----
Secretary PAC-L. I(ettlisticallt we can's stop it.
'%Ir. l(ry1=.Ia. A1'ait now. .t lla'-errt recognized 'Mr. Schweiker.
Who had the floor last?
.Nil'. BraxEvr. Mr. Jtrattutt.
\Ir. STRATTON. \Ir. Wilson.
Mr. IR.IVEns. Well, wait. Dr. Long, till([ then you arc i.ert, Air.
Srhiweiker.
\tr. LoIt occulreci to Inc as you were speaking there, `:Ir. Paul,
all([ giving these justificatiolLs, that we were really applying it. double
standard to the higher ranks as compared to the people who have been
in there less than 2 years. A lot of the arguments that the higher
sia.nchirds are underpaid are also statistical. I mews you could prob-
;Lhly find many people who had other means or other sou.r(es of in-
come,, just as you could argue that .he people with less than 2 years,
while theoretically they may have logy incomes. may ltctvi' other
sources Of Income.
1 think this applies also to many of the arguments of medical
subsistence and so on.
So I don't think you are entitle! to use these argnnient: for one
group and not use them for allot-bur.
Now isn't- I would also like to w;k this question. \t`hat. is your
statistics for the average pay increase that tit. person under 2 year:
gets by promotion, by virtue of promotion, as opposed or as compared
to what the others have gotten by-'irtuc of time till([ promotion!
Secretary PAIL. Well, the F-1, which is the lowest entr'v trade, is
t478 a month and after 4 m.ntith:--_. -
\Ir. LONG. Now you are giving file a theoretical figure. I want to
know, taking the whole ganutt of enlisted people. I imtean of i ren Who
are under 2 years Service, what hW; been their tiVcra1110 pay increase?
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/2l49CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
In the terms of how much you are paying them now, the average
man, after he is in 6 months, 1 year, and a year and a half?
Follow me----
Mr. RIVERS. Let me give you this and maybe this will help you.
After 4 months, the E-1 recruit is increased from $78 to $83.20 a
month, and shortly thereafter is promoted to E-2 at $85.80 a month.
Mr. LONG. Are they all promoted on that way of --
Mr. RivERs. And most of the young men who enter the service are
promoted to E-3 in their first 2 year. of service at the pay of $99.37.
No; they have the opportunity.
Mr. LONG. Well, what I am. trying to find out is not what they can
do but what does actually happen. How many men who have been-
what is the average earnings of your men who have been, that i3 who
have ended their first year of obligated service?
Secretary PAUL. General Berg, can you help out?
General BERG. Approximately $100 a month.
Mr. LONG. As compared with how much starting out?
General Berg. $78.
Mr. LONG. $78.
Mr. RIVERS. What percentage--
Mr. LONG. Row much are they earning at the end of 2 years
obligated? What is your average?
General Berg. It varies considerably by service, but somewhere in
the neighborhood of 50 percent of them end up by iriaking $122.30
a month.
Mr. LONG. Yes. It is still a pretty modest amount.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
General BERG. On a percentage basis, to answer the question you
asked originally, at the end of 2 years the average man's pay will have
increased 27 percent. This is the under-2 enlisted man.
Mr. LONG. Right. How does this compare with people in higher
ranks above that? For example, what about a second lieutenant
who is not in his first 2 years but is going on? How much does his
pay increase after 2 years?
General BERG. Well, in order to make the same comparison
Mr. LONG. Yes
General BERG. An under-two officer gets promoted one time, at the
end of 18 months, and the increase in pay for him amounts to 5.9
percent.
Mr. LONG. Now, is it the real reason-well, let me ask this question:
Are you going to come in next year, Mr. Paul, with no recommenda-
tion for an increase of pay for the people with less than 2 years?
Secretary PAUL. I don't know.
Mr. RIVERS. Of course you may not be here. Let's find out if
you are going to be here.
Secretary PAUL. If I am here, I don't know, Dr. Long, what we
are going to come up with next year.
Mr. LONG. Is there any discussion of this? Because it does seem
to me it is relevant to our consideration here. You come in here
with a pay increase and we all would-we don't want to hold things up.
We want to see the people get their pay increase. And we are sort of
prisoners, in other words, of your proposal.
But if you are going to do this year after year, come in here with no
pay increase for the people under 2 years, then I think we are entitled
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/215 IA-RDP66BOO403R000400280002-4
to say to ourselves, "Well, maybe we ought to Mart voting against
your proposals, to make you come in with something better'
Secretary PALL. We have--- in answer Lu your question, we have
this matter very much under study, along with other aspects of mili-
tary compensation. At this time, though, I can't say what we are
going to conic up with next January, whether we will or we won't.
Now we have- as -Mr. Stratton pointed out, lase. year we did recom-
mend an increase for people in this category, of 5 percent. It did not
come out that wiry in the final act. We accepted that, of course.
Now whether we would propose what is essentially a whole change
in the philosophy of how you treat these people is a very big subject
indeed, and we certainly will study it. But can't say now what we
might CIO.
Mr. Lose. Let nie ask you this question. Do you think this is
(rood economics, to underpay these people;"
Now as a Congressman,. 1 do a very lively business in parents of
people in these first couple of years and the nien themselves, using
every device they can to try to get out of this obligated service. They
Avant. postponements. 'They want to gel out early. They want hard-
ship this, they want hardship that. And isn't it very large part of this
due to the fact that this isn't a good deal compared with what- they can
get elsewhere? And if you did pay them more, you wouldn't have
much of this lira-ling and dodging, and you would have more willing
people and perhaps, a better lurid of person wantin to stay in.
Secretary PAUL. Well, I think undoubtedly if you significantly
increased the pay of these people, more of them would stay in and there
would be less griping and less people leaving the service. As Mr.
Blandford pointed out,, the cost of a significant pay increase--and
we are talking about well over 800,000 people here--the cost of a
significant pay increase would be in hundreds of millions of dollars
it year, and whether the Government fee-b that this is an investment
that they wish to make is a question.
So far it has not been an investment they wish to make. Now I
must say also iii connection with our study of the draft, we owe the
President it report on this subject I believe by the first of April next
year. We are very actively studying it now. We are considering
in the course of that study whether or not we might be able to, by an
increase in pay, eliminate the need for the draft, just as we are also
studying it po.,sible lowering of the standards for admission. into the
service, and it number of other things.
o this is certainly what we are looking at right now. Bu; whether
it is worth the price. I can't say.
Mr. Lose. Don't you feel it is true that while we all have an
obligation to our country, to take youn boys in the early years of
their lives, just getting started out, laid utiderpaying them for this
service to the countrythis is it, rich country, a prosperous country.
We are in a sense asking people in the formative years of their lives,
in the years when they are trying to get started and trying to get
going, we are asking their to subsidize the rest of us in a way which
is perhaps putting a greater burden upon them than we have a right
to ask them to do?
Secretary PAUL. Well-------
Mr. LONG. I mean-in other words, why should a young boy 18
or 19 subsidize me as a taxpayer, by working for me at a lower price
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9551
that what he is worth on the open market? In wartime yes, but why
in peacetime?
Secretary PAUL. Well, the obligation of a young man to serve in
the military forces of his country in my own opinion, Dr. Long, is a
fixed obligation and one that every young man in this country has,
if he is physically fit and able to do it.
Mr. LONG. Of course.
Secretary PAUL. But I don't see---
Mr. LONG. But at a lower price than his services are worth? Don't
we as taxpayers have the obligation to pay the taxes to support our
country and to defend our country? Why should we expect him
to do it at a lower rate?
Secretary PAUL. Well, there is a big question as to what he's
worth-and I hate to get into this kind of a discussion about what a
young man is worth-but as a soldier he isn't worth very much until
he is trained and a good deal of the time he spends in his first month in
the service is strictly nonproductive from the point of view of the
Government, until that man is trained and ready to perform as a
soldier.
Mr. LONG. Well, you could say that about the Congressman. You
can say we weren't worth very much until we got training, but they
pay me the same amount of money as they do for Mr. Rivers, who
has been here for 24 years.
I mean; I don't think we should use one argument
Mr. RIVERS. No; I don't think we better include the Congress.
Mr. WILSON. Well, as long as you are including Congressmen, I
point out that the congressional salaries in 1940 were $10,000 and we
are now paid $22,500. The private's wage in 1940 was $21 and he
now gets $80, and he has gained far more, 400 percent almost-made
a far greater gain than many other elements of our society.
Mr. LONG. Well, of course it is possible to argue to a follow who
is starving to death that you are giving him throe times as many
calories as. you did last year, but if he is still starving, it isn't very much
consolation to him.
Mr. WILSON. This is merely an arbitrary figure.
Mr. LONG. I might raise this question, too: The point was made
here that these men are on a training status and it is customary to pay
people in a training status a lower amount, and the analogy was drawn
with interns and so on. But an intern, working to be a medical
doctor, is doing something, acquiring training that is ' a longrun
investment in his earning capacity and will pay off very handsomely
in the future. I don't think you are arguing that a fellow coming
into the armed services, serving obligatory service, is acquiring the
kind of training that is going to be helpful to him in the future, in that
same sentence.
In many cases they won't be very much better off.
Mr. RIVERS. Are you addressing yourself to the beyond the 2
years?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No; the under 2.
Mr. BENNETT. Under 2.
Mr. LONG. I am talking about the under 2.
Mr. RIVERS. I thought the Secretary gave you a good answer.
There is an area of obligation.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/2 40~9IA-RDP66BOO403R000400280002-4
Mr. LONG. Well, I agree that a man is obligated to serve his
country, but I don't see why he is obligated to serve it at cut-rate
prices.
Mr. BENNETT. You can always introduce a bill to make it better.
Mr. RIvEns. Of course that is Subject to a lot of discussion. I
think we have done pretty well by them.
In that connection, in the last pay bill, General Le-May and I were
talking, and having many discussions about the inadequacy of the pay,
in the first bill as l whole. And he told me. I think he said it cost
him. $30,000 to train a boy in the Air Force for 2 years, that in the
first 2 years they invested over $30,000 in him, General Berg. And
the return was very nominal. Just at the time hoo started producinge,
he was looking for greener pastures because as lie put it, and you hav
put it, that it wasn't attractive.
And of course we get to the apple. You can only cut it so many
ways, and Mr. Blandford says you have to look at the budget. And
Senator Russell has said in his statement there just wasn't enough
money. And he cut his half a percentage point above what you
recommended across the board. but he added the drill status and the
under-2 officers.
Mr. LONG. I wonder---w-e are spending $50 billion a year, Mr.
Chairman, on our Arnied Forces. I wonder how much paying people
under 2 years a sum which would be compared to what their opportuni-
ty for earning would be in real life, in other words, giving them the
same type of compensation you try to give to give comparability pay
to the other-how much this would add in dollars and percentage
terms to your national defense budget?
Mr. BLANDFOitn. I think we can develop that, Dr. Long.
Mr. LONG. What?
Mr. BLANDFORD. I plan to develop that this morning.
Mr. LONG. You do?
Mr. RIVERS. Are you finished:'
,Ir. LoNG. I would like to bear the answer to that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I think it is important. I tliii-.k Dr. Long has
put has finger on it point that we ought to look at, because you recog-
nize that if you increase the under 2 to a sizable amount, and since we
always try to keep a relationship between one pay scale vis-a-vis the
other pay scales, that this will automatically set up a chain reaction
for all the rest of the pay scales.
Now, X1r. Secretary, am I correct, if we provide a 2.5 increase for
enlisted personnel with under 2 years of service, that this would
increase the cost of this bill by approximately $28 million?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, if you use that as a basis and considering
the fact that a Half of 1 percent increase in this bill constitutes a. $40
million increase for all of the pay scales, and you multiply that to come
up with any kind of an increase that would amount to anything, you
can see that a 1-percent increase will cost $80 million additional a
year-
.fr. RlvERs. Above the 2 years.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Multiply that by whatever percentage you wish.
NvIr. RIVERS. Wait, now. Above 2 years, 1 percent would be $80
million.
Mr. BLANDFOID. $80 Million.
Mr. RIVEIts. Below the 2 years, 21~ would be $28 million.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/~J53CIA-RDP66BOO403R000400280002-4
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
We have gone into this, Dr. Long, since I have been here, since
1.947, since we have been handling these pay bills. We have gone
into these-they are staggerine sums of money when you get into
some sizable increases. Where you are really going to come up with
the statistics that will be most helpful to you-and I am confident
that the Congress is going to have to face this problem-will be on
the size of your Armed Forces, your training costs, which are tremen-
dous, and how you are going to obtain personnel in the future, and
whether it will be possible for the armed services to operate with fewer
people if you provide an adequate amount of money so you can elimi-
nate the necessity for drafting people. If you can continue to cut
your retraining cost, increase your reenlistments and retention rates,
you can then pay these people the amounts that you are talking about.
I personally think it can be done. But you can't do it if you are
going to maintain a force structure of 2,800,000 people within the
economy. That is the problem.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, now, let's hold that right there. I want to got
to Mr. Schweiker because he has been trying to get the floor.
Mr. Schweiker.
Mr. SciiwEiKE, R. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. And then we will get back to you, Doctor.
Mr. LONG. I am all through.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I would like to ask the Secretary: The President
has ordered some study about eliminating the draft. Now, what
studies have you folks made with relation to this pay scale in the event
we do decide we can on a practical basis eliminate the draft, and, if so,
were these factors considered in this pay raise?
Secretary.PAUL. Well, in this particular pay raise, no, because we
have not completed our study on the alternatives, possible alternatives
to a draft. This is going to take us at least a year, to complete that
study.
As I said to Dr. Long, we are taking into account the effect of paying
people more, on whether or not we might be able to eliminate the draft.
We just haven't completed that as yet.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Well, if you eliminate the draft you certainly
would conclude you are going to have to pay more to attract them.
Isn't that an obvious conclusion? You wouldn't pay them less to
attract them?
Secretary PAUL. No, you wouldn't pay them less, but I don't
think it is an obvious conclusion that you have to pay them, more.
Mr. SCHWEIIKER. You don't have to pay them more to attract them?
Secretary PAUL. I think
Mr. SCHWEIKEIt. Why can't we get them now, then, if you don't
have to pay them more?
Secretary PAUL. Well, for one thing, our standards, both mental
and physical, are quite high. Much higher than they have been in
previous years. And there is a possibility that we could lower the
standards and thereby get voluntary enlistments, I don't know. It is
premature for me to state conclusions at this point. But I don't
think pay is necessarily the answer.
Mr. SCI3WEII{ER. Well, I couldn't agree with--
Secretary PAUL.. It may turn out to be. I wouldn't want to
prejudge that.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/1 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
3554
Mr. SCHWWEIKEU. I couldn't agree with you less. You can't read
letters that conic iitto our ollices as to tune those fellows try to stake
out-by just hauling It trailer to their base of destination. We
passed it bill and it nearly broke the backs of these fellows just to
move theirs. Because he didn't have the moaaoy to put. out. Ile
deducted and put aside so many dollia?s at nrontla for bow many ntontlis
were involved in his particular move, without figuring the extra costs.
Winch Was sontethiiig that was caused by- the nature of his occupation.
And U.S. News had another article, that nobody referred to vet,
that there are thousands of people under the poverty standards iii all
brandies of the service. Are you folks familiar with this article?
Secretary I'.tt.-L. I Ira vu't read that article.
Mr. ScmWEIKEK. You haven't road that article. I would sure be
glad to send it to you, because if you are studying it on the basis of
some comparability program you would look at that analysis, and
including the extra etaaolunrents of the job, you will find it ww?t uld still
put its below the poverty standards, of thousands of men in the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
I don't think this arguncent -1 Would like to state this for the record,
that I don't buy this argument that because he is training he ought to
be on starvation wages.
If you are talking contparahilih, no business does this today.
business goes to at college and recruits tine fellows at the going rate,
and keep tlaent on a rate for at year or two, even though they Itre
completely unprociuctiw-e. And tatey even pay them to go to college,
at Lite rail' that they get when they- .ire earmit-g.
So, as far as comparability-, we .fie way- oil' front auditing comparable
to business. If you take the minimum wage rate alone, why, these
fellows, even if they fire earning the higher rate that you say they- are
earning after a year, they are still only one-half of what We Iaty as it
inininium rate in this country. which labor is griping is inadequate
and wants to be raised now.
So, I sure think this is it tragic mistake, to not increase our lower
enlisted ranks. I just can't understauad, that we put it bill in and not
do that, in view of the fact we are nruvittg toward tine elintinsatiutt of
the draft, if it is practical, and we are trying to get better men, '.whether
we lower the physical standards or not, and we are trying to get theist
to stay. And I must say I do approve the si;-percent increaSC for the
junior officers. These are the ~lows that need it the most. They
tire forming homes, they are buying furniture, they fire buying fur-
nishings. They have no savings to rely oar when they form their
families. I approve of that.
But I sure swallow laird to put at bill through without increasing
the lower pay grades. lit essence, We are discriminating, No. 1,
against the married nman, land, No. 2, against the draftee, because
that is what tlae 2-year deal is maned at, that the fellow servos.
If the draft were being done fairly it is one thing, but it lot of people
don't get drafted.
so yon ask tire fellow to take a dnuble penalt.v, of the penalty of
.giving 2 years of his life, and the penalty of lower wages. So I think
this is all backward, AIr. Chairman. I think it is it sorry bill to pass
with this provision in it.
T agree with the comrptrability principle, and I agree wi?Lh your
statement about higher pay rates and more study later on. But I
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/a5155CIA-RDP66BOO403R000400280002-4
think we are certainly going backward in our thinking, and are very
obsolete in our approach when we come in with a bill like this.
Mr. RIVERS. As I have said in my statement, this is not my bill.
I am taking it because I have no alternative. But, next year, I hope
to be in a position to do more at an earlier period.
Now, are there any other questions?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Wait. I want to find out the order of questioning.
Dr. Long, have you finished?
Mr. LoNG. I am finished.
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Secretary, would you identify for the pur-
poses of the record the 10 0-4's with under 2 years of service?
Secretary PAUL. These O-4's are very elusive, I find, Mr. Bland-
ford. It is quite possible that that statistic, which has been on the
books of the Defense Establishment for a great many years, is in
error. We are attempting to track it down right now.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I wonder if I might have that for the purpose of
the report, if possible?
~Mr. RF-vERs. Say that, again. I missed that question, Mr. Bland-
ford.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, there was some fuss in the Senate about 1.0
majors who had under 2 years of service, and Senator Russell said
they couldn't be identified, and then they pointed out in the report
that there were 10 majors but nobody has been able to find them. I
don't think they exist.
I think-in order to avoid the same conflict on the floor, I would
like to eliminate those 10 majors with under 2 years of service.
Mr. BATES. Were they doctors or what they are?
Mr. BLANDFORD. (Statement requested off the record.)
No, they are not doctors. That is something else we want to point
out. That is, physicians and dentists who enter on active duty come
in with longevity credit when they enter on active duty. So no
doctor is included under this. There will be lawyers and there may
be some specialists of some type.
Mr. RIVERS. Of course we have argued the case of lawyers and
never got to first base. I have had some fights with the Army on
lawyers. When a lawyer gets in the service, he is a man almost with-
out a country. He doesn't have anybody striking for him.
Do you agree or not?
Secretary PAUL. I am a lawyer. How can I disagree, Mr. Chair-
man? [Laughter.]
Mr. BLANDFORD. Would you identify the 2,527 captains with
under 2 years of service?
Secretary PAUL. I suspect, Mr. Blandford, that that figure is in
error, also. And we will clean it up before you have to write your
report.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, we are saving money then.
How about the 4,861 first lieutenants?
Secretary PAUL. That ono--
Mr. BLANDFORD. Is solid.
Secretary PAUL. Is a solid figure.
Mr. BLANDFORD. All right. And of course we know about the
second lieutenants.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/215~IA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Then the other question is, Would you give me for the record the
average rate of progress, the same question that, Dr. Long asked you?
I wanted to be satisfied, and I think the subcommittee should be
satisfied, as to what happens to the average inductee or volunteer.
We know that at the end of 4 months ho automatically goes from an
I?,-l recruit to the higher pity, so that he goes from $78 to $S3.20 auto-
iriaticallv at the end of 4 months.
Now, on the average, how long does the E-1 recruit with over 4
months serve before he is promoted to li,,-2?
Secretary PAUL. On the average I additional month.
Mr. BLANDFORD. One additional inontll.
't'hen on the average, how long does the average E 2-no,,v these
are going to haunt you so be careful.
Mr. RIVERS. Before you answer it, I ant Lylad that Mr. Blandford
asked that because I was going to ask that in my closing statement.
If these figures that. we have mado for the record, made by Senatiir
Russell
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS (continuing). Are accurate in your books?
Certainly we don't. question the Senator. We just wanted to be
curtain.
Because it comes back to the question of Dr. Long and Mr.
Sehweikor, about these under two enlistees. So be very careful
with your answer.
Mr. BLANDFORn. NOw--
%fr. RIVERS. Wait, tow. Let's get his answer.
Mr. BLANDFORD. You say they served 1 month after. So after
5 months of service, the average enlisted man is then an E-2 drawing
$85.80 per month?
Secretary PAUL. That is correct.
:t-lr. BLAItiDFORD. Now, how long does the average E-2 serve in
that grade before he iinakes E-3?
I again caution you that every 174,-2 who doesn't make E-3 in that
period of time will either write you or me.
Secretary PAUL. Oil the average, an additional 31 or 14 months from
the time he entered the service.
Mr. BLANDFORD. So the average enlisted man becomes an E-3,
with the pay of $99.37, within 14 months after lie enters ,)n active
duty.
Now--
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt Mr. B6-idford at
that point?
I think the word "average" is misleading here. I think if we- are
going to get into this, we better find what, percentage of these people
actually make it.
Mr. BLANDFORD. That was going to be my next question.
Mr. STrRAv'ros. Because there are a lot of them that don't ;stake
that, and the word "average" is highly ittisleading.
'MTr. RIVERS. Let Mr. Blandford follow that..
T think lie wants to estuhlisll that first.
Ir. BLANDFORD. Now. what is the average time that the E
served before he goes to E-4?
Secretary PAUL. Thia is----now we are getting into an area where
there is a considerable variance between services. Promotion is
fastest in the Army and slowest in the Air Force, and the Navy is
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/-21. CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9557
somewhere in between. So this is a difficult figure to state as an
average.
But I would say that many-now, I don't even know whether we
can put it in percentage terms, we can certainly try-are promoted to
E-4 prio, to their 2 years of service, but I am unable to give you a
number of months in which that is accomplis.bed.
Mr. BLANDFORD. And Mr. Stratton, of course, has anticipated this.
Would you furnish for the record the number of people who served,
if you have these figures, varying months before they are promoted;
in other words, how do you arrive at the average? Do you have those
figures?
Enlisted men-Total service and percent promoted by service (less than 2 years'
service), fiscal year 1964
Average
Average
Percent
months
Percent
months
Percent
of eligi-
of service
of eligi-
of service
of eligi-
bles pro-
at time
bles pro-
at time
bles pro-
moted
of pro-
moted
of pro-
moted
motion
motion
E-1-- ---------------
E-1 (over 4 months).
------iao
----------
4
100.0
4
100.0
E-2--------'--------
100
4
96.2
4
99.0
E-3 -----------------
+99
8
87.3
13
59.6
E-4 -- - --------------
150
30
17. 0
29
5.0
Average
months
of service
at time
of pro-
motion
------4.0
7.7
19.0
31.2
Percent
of eligi-
bles pro-
moted
----------
100.0
03.6
85.0
Average
months
of service
at time
of pro-
motion
2.o
2.0
23.4
80.0
1 Approximate. About 50 percent of draftees attain E-4 during 2-year tour.
Monthly amount of pay
E-1------------------------------------------------------------- $78.00
E-1 (over 4 months) ---------------------------------------------- 83.20
E-2------------------------------------------------------------- 85. 80
E-3------------------------------------------------------------- 99.37
E-4------------------------------------------------------------- 122. 30
Secretary PAUL. Well-yes, we must have, or we couldn't have
gotten to the average. So we will furnish them.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I would like to know, for example, are we talking
about 5 percent of the enlisted personnel might take 5 years to make
E-3, and then we got 51 percent who make E-3, or do we have 68
percent who make E-3 in that period of time?
I think that is exactly what Mr. Stratton was trying to get at.
Mr. STRATTON. Right.
Secretary PAUL. We will give you that.
Mr. RIVERS. You can give that by the services easily, can't you?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir, we should have no difficulty about that.
Mr. BLANDFORD. We should have that as soon as possible".
Now, one other question. May I have the figure again, on the
cost of 8.5 increase for officers with under 2 years of service? And if
the figures that are in here that were contained in the Senate report
may now be in error, it is conceivable that the cost of this bill will be
a little less than you have indicated.
Secretary PAUL. Could you ask the question once more, Mr.
Blandford?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. You had some question about the 2,000-
some odd captains with under 2 years of service. I am trying to
arrive at a cost estimate of this bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/2'El IC A-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
You say you question whether there are 2,527 captains with under
2 years of service.
(SecrMarv Paul nods.
Mr. BLANDFORD. taut. I presuite your cost estimate on the 8.5
increase did include that number.
General BERG. Yes, that is right.
Secretary PArL. It did.
arr. BLANDFORD. Therefore -
Secretary PAUL. So that would lower the cost.
Mr. BLAXDFORD. Now what is the cost figure for the 8.5-percent
increase'.'
Secretary PAUL. 510.500,000, roughly.
,Ir. BLANDFORD. 810,500,000.
And it is quite )ossible now, on rcconsidercilion, t.lnlt that figure
]mLV be somewhat less.'
Secretary PAUL. Yes.
alt. BLANDFORD. All right. I have no further questions, tier.
(,'liairntiu.
General BERG. arr. Blandford, in defense of the budget experts in
the service, while your statement is exactly true, this bill \%ill be less.
Their budget proposals for the pay of people will in fact go up, be-
cause where the people move over to the over two, it costs them more
Honey.
Mr. BLANDFOIID. I run not suggesting that we are you to Save
money. I ant merely suggesting t liat the cost of this bill will be less.
General BERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Because obviously if they aren't wider two, they
are serving over two. and they should have asked for more money in
the first place.
General Bt-,l(G. That is correct.
Mr. BLASDFORD. I have no further questions, --\Ir. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Can it be successfully stated in general terms that
an enlisted milt, the greater percentage of theirr, over 75 percent we
Will slly the greater percentage of them go front E-1-what. is
below E-1''
'11r. BLANDFORD. Well, it is an E-1 with less than 4 months, and
then E.-1 with over 4 months.
Mr. BATES. A recruit.
Nil,. ittVEIlS. A recruit. or E--1 with less than 4 months, or an E-3,
the Ore'Iter percentage receive over a 33-percent increase in their pay?
Secretary PAUL. Is that about 1L 33-percent increase?
M1. BL-1NDl0RD. It. is not 33.
Secretary l'ArL. It is not quite that much, Mr (`llairmali.
Mr. R.1N mis. It is from 87S to X99; isn't it''
General Bmw. It is 27.4 percent.
Secretary PAUL. Right.
NIr. RrvERS. In the neighborhood of 30 percent.
General BERG. Yes, sir.
Secretal'V PALL. ICs, sir.
%Ir. RIVERS. And that under two officers have not, of course-
tllat is it matter of record. 't'hey have not received an increase in 12
years.
Secretary 1'ArL. That is correct, Mr. C'llairlnan.
arr. RIVERS. Twelve years?
Secretary PAUL. "1('S, Sll'.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/1, CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Mr. RIVERS. SO the statement of Senator Russell to the effect
that they do receive an increase is a factual one?
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. Is that right, Mr. Blandford?
Mr. BLANDFORD. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
May I insert at this time a statement from Senator Nelson with
respect to his views on the under 2 years of service enlisted men?
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection.
(The material is as follows:)
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
July 21, 1964.
Chairman, Subcommittee No. i of the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. RIVERS: I understand that your committee is presently considering
S. 3001, the military pay raise bill recently approved by the Senate. I have pre-
pared a 'statement relating ;to this-bill and I would,very ?muoh appreciate it if it
could be brought to the attention of your committee.
GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senator.
JULY 22, 1964.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON PREPARED FOR THE HOUSE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE
I am submitting this statement for consideration of the House Armed Services
Committee because the service pay of the enlisted man for his first 2 years is so
inadequate that it ought, I think, be a matter of concern to all of us.
In general, the military pay increase bill is one that should be supported by
every Member of Congress. Our men in service deserve adequate pay. In view
of the recent pay increase legislation for civilian Government employees, this bill,
which gives a 23-percent increase to some military men, is certainly justified.
Nonetheless, I believe it suffers from a serious deficiency. Continuing a policy
we have followed for the last 12 years, it does, not grant a, salary increase to the
enlisted man in his first 2 years of service. Whereas this policy may have been
justified in the past when service was universal or nearly so, it would seem to be
grossly unfair to continue it any longer.
The bill leaves unchanged the existing pay schedule which rewards the entering
enlisted man with only $78 per month for his service to his country. I believe it
can be shown that this low pay is one of the main reasons we have been failing to
hold men in the lower ranks. Moreover, it is undoubtedly one of the main reasons
more men do not volunteer for service. And, since we are now drafting only
90,000 men per year on an average, the failure to increase pay and other incentives
to volunteers helps perpetuate the draft which, I believe, is rapidly becoming
obsolete.
For these various reasons I would like to suggest that the committee consider
the following additions to the legislation:
A provision which would grant pay increases of 8j4 percent to enlisted men
in their first 2 years of service. (This would be an increase corresponding to
the increase provided for officers in their first 2 years under the pending legis-
lation.)
A provision which would direct the Secretary of Defense to offer for con-
gressional consideration, study, and debate, a broad plan of general pay
increases designed to better attract and retain high-quality men, especially
in the lower ranks, so that the present high turnover could be reduced.
Consider some of the results of our present failure to pay an adequate wage to
men in the lower ranks of military service:
We have not raised the pay of first-year enlistees for 12 years. Since
1952, a man entering service has been paid $78 per .month. During this
period the average total pay increase for the services has been 39,2 percent.
In reality, of course, since the first-2-year men have received no raise at all,
this percentage figure understates the basic fact that the great majority of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/2bJA-RDP66BOO4O3ROOO4OO28OOO2-4
servicemen have had very substantial pay increases relative to the first-2-year
enlistees, who have had none.
Since 1946, the only pay increase for entering enlistees has been the 1952 raise
of $3 per month, from $75 to $78. Over a year's period this amounts to $36.
Thus, on average in the 18 years since 1946, his pay bracket has been raised about
:l2 per year, or the pitifully low annual increase in weekly pay of about 4 cents.
This has been a major factor contributing to the unfortunate situation sum-
marized by a recent Department of the Air Force study entitled, "Economic
Status of Certain Air Force Personnel."
169,000 airmen draw less pay than the poverty level standards set by the
President's Council of Economic Advisers;
8,000 airmen are below the poverty level even after adjustment is made
for the value of their rations and quarters;
70,000 airmen must resort to "mconlighting" to supplement their income;
00,000 airmen are actually eligible for various relief benefits;
Incredible as it must seem to us, more than 5,000 airmen nre actually
receiving relief;
The Air Force Relief Agency, in response to the emergency needs of air-
nmen, spent one-half of its $2 million 1963 budget on such basics as food,
clothing, and rent,
The Senate Armed Services Committee report on the 'ill under consideration
states that its purl_ose is to "provide a timely increase in basic pay for tie members
of the uniformed service and thereby maintain a reasonable comparison in com-
pensation trends for military personnel."
If indeed we are to be faithful to this purpose I believe we should ncrease the
pay of first-term military men. Sonic 8-10,000 military members with less than 2
years of service will not receive a raise under this bill. This amounts to 35 percent
of the 2.3 million active duty enlisted members forecast for fiscal year _965.
Ninety-live percent of the enlisted members who are being denied an increase
under S. 3001 fall into the lowest three pay grades, private first class and below,
l' 1, E-2, E-3. Of the 5 percent reiiai iing, 45,000, fully 40,000 are in the next
higher grade, corporal, E-4.
Every Member of Congress is renunded daily of the state of affairs ;n the lower
ranks by the number of requests he receives for hardship discharges based mainly
on financial need.
The only reason things are not worse is that lower graders are mostly unmarried
and they receive rations and quarters. If this were not true, they would be among
the most impoverished citizens in these United States with their $961.32 fir:.t-year
take-home pay.
But even taking the factors of rations and quarters into consideration, they are
at a distinct disadvantage even in comparison to the least skilled, lowest ranked
Federal employee. After we add the value of these benefits to the first year salary
of the enlisted man, I estimate that the lowest paid white-collar Federal employee
receives 47 percent more annually, and the lowest paid blue-collar Federal em-
ployee receives 71 percent more.
Perhaps a more relevant comparison is between the first-year enlisted man
and the entering apprentice, rather than the lowest paid worker, for, of course,
the services do not accept all those who might qualify simply for clerk or jani-
torial work. I estimate that the average Federal employee at the beginning
apprentice level receives 125 percent more than the entering serviceman.
I believe our men in service deserve better treatment than this.
And I believe that our Nation's military strength could be substantially im-
proved by providing better treatment, fur one result of our present pay schedules
is a strikingly high turnover of personnel. The following figures show that we
are not able to retain trained personnel for substantial periods of time with
existing pay rates, especially at the lower ranks:
In the average year, 236,000 min at or below the E-3 level leave the
service for reasons other than retirement.
If the next higher grade is included, E-4 (corporal level), the yearly loss
for reasons other than retirement amounts to 380,000.
Thus, on average, every ?1 years we lose the equivalent of the total number
of men in service at these levels. Almost as many men as the total estimated
complement of men at or below the E-3 level (1.09 million for 1965) and
more than the total estimated complement of those at or below E-4 (1.54
million) leave service in every 4-year period.
This high loss rate in the lower ranks is highly uneconomic, is detrimental to
military morale, and is certain to have a weakening effect upon our military
efficiency. I believe better pay would s,.tbstantially reduce the rate of loss.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66BOO403ROO0400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/~1161CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Thus, both for reasons of fairness, and of sound military personnel policy, I
respectfully urge that the pay increase legislation now. being considered be modified
to iclude substantial. pay increases for men in their first years of service.
'STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, BEFORE THE SUB-
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, ON S. 3001
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit a statement on S. 3001. My re-
marks will be in keeping with the brief treatment given this bill, because I have
only one point to urge on the committee.
For the second time in 10 months the House is being asked to approve a mili-
tary pay bill which leaves unchanged the pay of enlisted men with less than 2
years of service. If S. 3001 passes in its present form, the 88th Congress will have
added almost a billion and a half dollars a year to the Nation's military payroll,
but so distributed it that certain junior officers will receive a greater monthly pay
raise than the entire monthly earnings of all enlisted men below the rank of ser-
geant who have not completed their second year under arms.
Taken in combination, these two pay bills constitute a major legislative achieve-
ment of this Congress. The sum involved is greater than the amount asked in the
President's antipoverty legislation, and almost three times as great as that pro-
vided in the civil service pay measure. Yet this whole effort could be a national
disgrace, even a political disaster, because it openly ignores the more than 843,000
enlisted men in those grades which have received no pay improvement since 1952.
This discriminatory treatment is supported by reasons which at best add up
to a bad excuse for spending less money. It has been, and is being, perpetuated
by a series of military pay "reviews" which consistently avoid the real issue of
providing a decent and equitable minimum wage to a vast segment of our military
forces. Neither the reasons nor the reviews any longer command widespread
respect within Government. We can hardly expect a more generous regard for
these official explanations when we go back home to face the mothers and fathers
of these young enlisted men, or the men themselves. I foi? one do not intend to
tell them that justice was done when Congress raised its own starting pay by
$7,500 a year while declining once again to raise theirs above $1,000.
As this thin volume of hearings is the sole public record of discussion on the
$207 million measure, at some point it should clearly state the obvious: The
existing pay levels for first-hitch enlisted men are possible only because military
manpower requirements are met by a draft of labor. Without official coercion
we could not, on the strength of this pay scale, achieve or maintain the level of
forces necessary to our national security.
If the draft were today, as it once was, an institution which had almost uni-
versal support and nearly universal application, this would not be so objectionable.
But the draft today has neither. It actually reaches fewer than half thepeople
to whom it is ostensibly directed. Moreover, it discriminates without good reason
and without adequate warning. As a result, the class of young men ultimately
subject to call is only slightly more equitably defined than the class which is
indirectly forced to enlist.
Most of those who now enter uniformed service because of the draft clearly
feel that it is, to a large extent, time out of their lives. Both on entering service
and on leaving it, they feel at a disadvantage to their contemporaries who are
not called. Yet they receive no compensating bonus for this sacrifice. Instead,
they have for many years now had only the promise of somewhat better pay if they
enlist for a second hitch. Reenlistment records show that this promise is an
insufficient incentive to a large percentage of both draftees and enlistees.
The time may again come when compulsory military service is widely con-
sidered a necessary obligation, and to some extent its own reward. Clearly,
that time has passed in the minds of many Americans. This is reflected in the
Defense Department's decision to work toward a system of wholly voluntary
military recruitment at a time when cost effectiveness is a major policy goal;
Looking forward to a not too distant future without the draft, I would ask
whether we ought to continue paying $78 a month in 1965 for services rendered
by draftees and enlisted men alike, when 3 years later the same tasks may be
performed at a cost of $100 by young men who have voluntarily chosen to make
the armed services a career. In short, should we continue to insist that some
young men subsidize our national security with their lost earnings as well as
part, or all, of their lives?
I think we should not. I would propose a substantial and genuinely com-
pensating increase for these men. I would not tie it, as two members of the
other body have, to a formula drawn from the context of the bill. The danger
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
9562
with that approach, even in the furor suggested by my colleague, Senator Nelson,
is that it does not confront and abolish the basic inequity present in the distorted
structure of today's military pay scale. And, as the events of the last year show,
repeated application of a uniform percentage formula to the existing scale quite
literally compounds the original distortion.
The cost of any substantial change will he great. It is estimated that all
increase of 25 percent for those enlisted uren with less than 2 years of ser%ice
would more than double the present trill's burden on the Treasury. Put cost has
always been an obstacle and failure to surmount it has only meant tea., it appears
higher the next time.
Furthermore, avoidance of this real question has given undeserved new life to
the theory that first-hitch enlisted men already get enough if not too much. I
should think that the continuing need for a draft would be an eloquent and
sufhieient reproof to this idea, but the Senate report relies heavily on it. Implicit
in this argument is the assumption that all enlisted luau's first torn of service
life should be undercompensated because in many cases it is compelled. This
runs directly counter to a growing feeling that courpulsur% service wit'iout added
compensation is, in fact, it servitude. I urge the committee to reexamine this
outworn assumption and report out a bill With a significant pay improvement for
those enlisted men who have long dcservcd it.
-NIr. RIVERS. Now --
Mr. SCIEWEIKER. I, he for or against it?
Mr. BLANDFORD. He is very much in favor of an increase for those
with under 2 years of service.
Mr. RIVERS. We will take care of that next year. We will have a
bill next year. I will either be sitting here or here [indicating].
Mr. Blandford, have you finished with those figures?
Mr. BLANFORD. Yes, sir. May I insert in the record a statement
front the Honorable Robert W. kastemneier, concerning S. 3001.
Mr. RIVER. Without objection.
Mr. STRATTON. I lust wanted to cotntnent on your cornnient.
Mr. CHAIRMAN, I think you were out at. the time, but 1. inferred
from what the Secretary said -- perhaps he didn't mean i , but he
implied that these pity rates for those under 2 years were going to be
frozen in perpetuity and that increase would upset the -'yhole pay
scale. I indicated I think when you were out that I felt very strongly
that we should incrca-4c these under 2 years of service and I am glad
that your comments suggest, Mr. Chairt[talr, that next. year ' ou would
look favorably on that kind of an increase.
Mr. RIVERS. Well, what we tire going to do, we are going to look
favorably on an increase, period, a^ross the board.
Secretary PAUL. It. Clutirtuan----
Mr. ItTVERS. I don't want to confine ntyself to any ett.egory or
commit myself to any category, but Ave are going to hit- e it very
inclusive---let me tini-,h-Ave are going to have it very inclusive, a
very comprehensive proposal.
I~ don't know how far it will get, but it. will positively get to the
hopper.
Secretary PAUI.. \lr. Chairman, I would just like to si v that. I
hope I didn't imply, and I apologize if I did, that the pay rates of
these people were going- to be frozen in perpetuity. 1 think that Would
be certainly completely contrary policy to our policy.
As a intttt.er of fact. in my statement 1 outlined a fcrritiulit that would
give them an increase.
Mr. RivFnis. Imes.
Secretary PAT L. Wllett the cost of Living goes up by a certain
number of percentage points.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
 Approved For Release 2005/04/I963CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4
Mr. RIVERS. I understood you to say-now, let m.e see if I under-
stood you. You said in your thinking in your shop, if it got 2 points
you would then start planning from there on. This is your planning
point.
Secretary PAUL. If it got to 2 points. If it had gotten to 2 points
this year, we would have proposed an increase to the Congress.
Mr. RIVERS. That is right. Then you recognize, of course, any
report that you make, we have the last word on. You recognize that,
don't vou?
Secretary PAUL. Yea, sir, I recognize that.
Mr. RIVERS. Of course, we are going to continue to work together.
Secretary PAUL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. 1 hope I am here and I hope you are there.
Secretary PAUL. '.Thank you. I hope so ai.;o.
Mr. RIVERS. We have a lot of plowing behind us and we will under-
stand where we are going. It is not beyond the realm. of possibility'--
Sam., you better pu.t it on the record now. It is not beyond the realm
of possibility that you may occupy a .higher position and I certainly
hope you do. I certainly hope you do becau3e you have merited. it,
Mr. Secretary.
This is on the record.. You have been very cooperative with this
committee. You have been very frank and you have not misled us or
failed to give us anything for which we have asked, and this we
appreciate. We have had a fine relationship with you and we ap-
preciate it very much.
Secretary PAUL. Thank you, fr. Chairmn.an.
Mr. RlvrRS. Now, Mr. Blandford, is there anything else?
Mr. BLANDFORD. Just report the, bill.
Mr. RIVERS. We don't need any executive session.
Mr. BLANDFORD. No.
Mr. RIVERS. Without objection, the bill is reported without amend-
ment.
Did you have any technical amendments?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No technical amendments.
Mr. RIVERS. And without objection we will submit it to the full
committee. I think the regular hearing date is on Tuesday.
Mr. BLANDFORD. Next Tuesday.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Blandford, you get the necessary statement.
Mr. B.LANDFORD. Right.
Mr. RIVERS. I want to thank the committee.
The committee is recessed according to the call of the Chair.
I wanted to ask if anybody has any statements to include in the
record.
(No response.)
Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at the call of the Chair.)
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280002-4