IMPROVED OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTION FOR CERTAIN OFFICERS IN THE NAVAL SERVICE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2004
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: July 20, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

.T 964
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE `*` 15747
IMPROVED OPPORTUNITY FOR PRO-
MOTION FOR CERTAIN OFFICERS
IN THE NAVAL SERVICE
The bill (H.R. 10322) to extend the
provisions of the act of August 11, 1959,
Public Law 86-155, as amended (74 Stat.
396) to provide improved opportunity for
promotion for certain officers in the naval
service was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the report
(No. 1190), explaining the purposes of the
bill.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PURPOSE
This bill extends the so-called Navy and
Marine Corps hump authority enacted in
1959 from June 30, 1965, until June 30, 1970.
The basic law enacted in 1959 provided au-
thority whereby the Navy and Marine Corps,
under prescribed procedures, could manda-
torily retire Regular officers in the grades of
commander and captain, and Marine Corps
equivalents, prior to the normal point of re-
tirement. Normally, a commander twice
failed of selection to the next higher grade
would be retired after 26 years of service, and
a captain at 30 years of service. Under this
legislation, all officers affected must complete
at least 20 years of service, but their retire-
ment points will have been reduced from 1
to a maximum of 7 years.
This legislation has been necessary in or-
der to provide an equitable promotion oppor-
tunity to the grades of commander and
captain, and Marine Corps equivalents, for
those officers who were commissioned during
World War II.
During the period of extension-from 1965
to 1970-this authority will be used by the
Navy and Marine Corps for the purpose of
creating vacancies only for the grade of
captain or colonel. The problem of the
hump no longer exists in either the Navy or
Marine Corps with respect to the grades of
commander and lieutenant colonel. It
should be pointed out that as a technical
matter this authority would be in existence
for the grade of commander or lieutenant
colonel and could possibly be utilized by the
boards for the elimination of officers whose
performance did not justify their being con-
tinued on active duty for any purpose.
BACKGROUND
The premise of the hump extension au-
thority contained in this bill is the same
that necessitated the enactment of the orig-
inal legislation in 1959. It is the fact that
.it is essential for the management of the
Navy and Marine Corps that its career officers
at any point in time be properly distributed
in terms of years and experience throughout
the grade structure. If this legislation had
not been enacted in 1959, about three-fourths
of all the Regular officers in the Navy and
Marine Corps who were commissioned dur-
ing World War II would have been forced
into premature retirement. This result
would have occurred because the anticipated
vacancies would have been insufficient to
provide a reasonable promotion opportunity
for this group of officers, all of whom were
commissioned within a 2- to 3-year period.
This group in both the Navy and Marine
Corps constitutes what is known as the
World War II hump. The basic legislation,
therefore, has been utilized to provide va-
cancies in addition to those caused by normal
attrition in order to permit these younger
officers to be selected into the grades of
commander or lieutenant colonel, or captain
or colonel. Without the vacancies, the
younger officers would have been mandatorily
retired due to nonselection after the com-
pletion of 20 years of active service.
REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE AUTHORITY
(PUBLIC LAW B6-155) TO DATE
The basic authority provides for two meth-
ods of mandatorily retiring Regular Navy
and Marine Corps officers prior to the normal
point of retirement. The first method, that
was used by the Navy, provides that officers
in the grade of captain who have served in
grade for a period of 5 years will be subject
to board consideration for the purpose of
being either continued on active duty or
being mandatorily retired. The second
method, which has been utilized by the
Marine Corps, is to provide for similar type
boards for officers in the grade of colonel
who have been twice failed of selection to the
grade of brigadier general. For the grade
of commander in the Navy and lieutenant
colonel in the Marine Corps the basic au-
thority provides that officers who have been
twice failed of selection to the next higher
grade will be subject to board action for the
purpose of either being continued on active
duty or being mandatorily retired.
The number of officers who either have
been or will be mandatorily retired prior to
their normal retirement point in the Navy
and Marine Corps during the effective period
of this law, between June 30, 1960, and June
30, 1965, is as follows: In the Navy, approxi-
mately 1,047 (or 35 percent) of the captains
who have completed 5 years in grade were
mandatorily retired under this authority;
in the grade of commander, approximately
910 officers will have been mandatorily re-
tired; in the Marine Corps, 240 colonels will
have been mandatorily retired, with 30 con-
tinued on active duty for a normal career;
in the grade of lieutenant colonel, 369 were
mandatorily retired, and 3 continued.
The vacancies created under this legisla-
tion during the initial 5 year period have
enabled the Navy to provide a 45-percent
promotion opportunity to the grade of cap-
tain and a 65- to 75-percent rate to the grade
of commander. Without these vacancies,
there would have been only an approximate
promotion opportunity of 30 percent to the
grade of commander and about 25 percent
to the grade of captain. In the Marine
Corps, with respect to the grade of lieutenant
colonel, without the enactment of. this leg-
islation, there would have been about a 25-
percent opportunity for selection to this
grade. With the vacancies created under
this authority, a promotion opportunity of
about 70 percent has been possible. With
respect to the grade of colonel, the authority
contemplated that the vacancies created
would permit about a 60-percent promotion
opportunity for this grade. Without this
authority, Regular officers in the grade of
lieutenant colonel would have been con-
fronted with even less promotion opportunity
than their counterparts in the Navy.
NEED FOR THE BILL
The need for extending the authority con-
tained in this bill from June 30, 1965, to
June 30, 1970,' is the same as that underlying
the original legislation, which is to provide
a reasonable promotion opportunity to the
grade of captain in the Navy and colonel
in the Marine Corps.
Without the authority to create vacancies
by mandatory retirement over the 5-year
period in question, promotion opportunity to
the grade of captain in the Navy and colonel
in the Marine Corps would be only 30 per-
cent. With this legislation, the opportunity
will be 45 percent in the Navy and 60 percent
in the Marine Corps.
In terms of the operation of the authority
for the next 5 years, in the Navy there will
be mandatorily retired approximately 448 of_
floors in the grade Hof captain (347 unre-
stricted line and 101 other groups). In the
Marine Corps 326 Regular colonels will be
mandatorily retired over the 5-year period
prior to the normal retirement point.
As indicated previously, there are no plans
for the continued use of the authority for
the purpose of mandatorily retiring twice-
failed commanders and lieutenant colonels
prior to the normal retirement point.
Neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps
foresee the need of any use of this authority
beyond June 30, 1970, at this time.
With the authority contained in the ex-
tension, both the Navy and Marine Corps
will be able to retire officers in the grade of
captain and colonel progressively over a
5-year period in order to assist in creating
the vacancies for the officers in and behind
the World War II hump for the purpose of
moving these officers into the grades of cap-
tain and colonel.
It might be observed that if the extension
is not granted, in addition to the lack of
promotion opportunity, about one-half of the
officers in the grade of colonel in the Marine
Corps would be mandatorily retired in fiscal
year 1972 and in the Navy, during this ap-
proximate time period, about 40 percent of
the captains would be mandatorily retired.
SAVINGS PROVISION
Section 3 is a savings provision inserted
for the purpose of conforming the changes
in the retired serviceman's family protection
plan to the provisions enacted in 1959 in the
hump authority for this purpose. Basically,
this provision operates to prevent the manda-
tory retirement of an officer under the hump
authority from having his rights altered be-
cause of his early retirement.
Section 3 of Public Law 86-155 is a savings
provision to protect the validity of changes
or revocations of elections made by non-
continued officers under the Contingency Op-
tion Act. Under that act, a member of the
Armed Forces may elect to receive reduced
retired pay in order that his wife and chil-
dren may have an annuity after his death.
At the time of enactment of Public Law 86-
155, elections under the Contingency Option
Act had to be made before the member com-
pleted 18 years of service. Hav&ng made an
election, the member could change or revoke
it, but such a change or revocation would
be void if the member retired within 5 years
after making it. It was obviously probable
that some of the officers who would be re-
tired early under the hump law would have
registered changes or revocations of elec-
tions which would be invalidated by their
unexpectedly early retirement. In fairness
to such officers a savings provision was in-
serted in the law to provide that such an
officer's change or revocation is effective if
made at such a time that it would have been
effective if he had been permitted to complete
his normal 26- or 30-year career.
The Contingency Option Act was amended
by the act of October 4, 1961, Public Law
87-381, and was renamed the retired service-
man's family protection plan (codified in 10
U.S.C. 1431-1446). The 5-year waiting period
was reduced to 3 years. Further, a service-
man, subject to the 3-year rule, may make an
original election after his 18th year and may
make a new election after having revoked
an earlier one. Because of these changes, it
is necessary, in section 2 of the proposed
legislation, to amend section 3 of the hump
law so as to afford protection to these newly
authorized actions. It should be noted, how-
ever, that, in order to protect the actuarial
soundness of the plan, an officer will not be
able to enter or reenter the program after
the date on which the board which con-
siders him for continuation is convened. In
other words, he is not permitted to wait
until he knows that he is about to be retired
before deciding to participate in the plan.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 i3748
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 20
COST AND BUDGET DATA
The Department's letter concerning the
proposed legislation indicates that its en-
actment would result in increased annual
costs ranging from $497,000 in fiscal year
1986 to $4,774,000 In fiscal year 1970. For
budgetary reasons it was necessary for the
Department to state these increases as at-
tributable to these years, but most of the
additional cost represents expenditures that,
in the absence of the proposed legislation,
would have to be made In future years. The
retirement of officers prior to their normal
retirement points will, of course, cause in-
creased expenditures through the retired
pay appropriation until the time when the
officers would have reached their normal
retirement points. After that, until the
officers' deaths, the expenditures in retired
pay will be less, because the earlier an offi-
cer retires, the lower his retired pay.
Payments for unused leave, for travel from
last duty station to home, and for the re-
placements' travel are all payments that
would be made in later years, therefore, do
not represent true costs.
There will be a reduction th active duty
pay as the retiring officers are replaced by
officers In lower pay brackets.
The only direct cost clearly attributable
to the proposed legislation is the $234,000
that may be paid in readjustment pay to
117 colonels who will be eligible for the
payment if they are retired under the legis-
lation.
The costs which would result from not
passing the legislation are probably greater.
They are difficult to state In dollars and
cents, since It is impossible to put a price
tag on the loss In combat effectiveness that
would result from the assessment of 70 per-
cent attrition on the commanders and lieu-
tenant colonels who are the war-tested hard
core of our future leadership.
In the long run and in the overall view,
the Committee on Armed Services believes
that the monetary costs of the proposed leg-
islation will be negligible.
AUTHORITY TO SELL CRUDE OIL
FROM UMIAT FIELD, NAVAL PE-
TROLEUM RESERVE NO. 4
The bill (HR. 6299) to authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to produce and sell
crude oil from the Umiat field, Naval Pe-
troleum Reserve No. 4, for the purpose
of making local fuel available for use
in connection with the drilling, mechan-
ical, and heating operations of those In-
volved in oil and gas exploration and de-
velopment work in the nearby areas out-
side Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, and
for other purposes was considered, or-
dered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the re-
port (No. 1193), explaining the purposes
of the bill.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be-printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PURPOSE
This bill would provide temporary authori-
zation, until January 1, 1989, for the Secre-
tary of the Navy to produce and sell petro-
leum from the Umlat Field of Naval Petro-
leum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska. The purpose of
this sale is to aid petroleum exploration and
development in the nearby areas outside the
naval petroleum reserve.
ERPLANATION
The Navy owns oil reserves at Umlat. Alas-
ka, an area deep within the Arctic Circle,
hundreds of miles from a town or city. The
Umiat Field was discovered in 1945 during
Navy exploration of Naval Petroleum Reserve
No. 4. Exploration was suspended in 1954.
Estimates of the recoverable oil In this field
have varied from 30 to 122 million barrels.
There is now no economical method for
transporting oil out of the area.
Within recent years private oil companies
have engaged In oil exploration and develop-
ment In this area. Fuel requiremer_ts for
commercial drilling on nearby lands cutside
the reserve must be airlifted from Fairbanks.
a distance of 350 miles, or barged it from
wells in Canada, 1.000 miles away. Conse-
quently, the current cost of fuel oil at Umlat
Is very expensive-rlore than $35 a barrel
compared with approximately $3 a barrel in
Anchorage, Alaska. This oil is necessary as
fuel for diesel-powered drilling equipment
and to provide heating for' the machines and
men who operate the equipment.
The combined prcduction chpacity of the
two wells that are almost Immediately capa-
ble of providing the production conten-:plated
by this bill Is about 500.000 barrels over a pe-
riod of less than 5 years. This production
would be less than 1 percent of the oil in this
one 8,500-acre field within the 23-n:ill1on-
acre reserve.
WAY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REQUIRED
Under section 7422 of title 10, United
States Code, oil is ordinarily produced from
the naval petroleum reserve only to protect
or conserve these reserves or wheneler the
oil is needed for national defense. and the
production is authorized by joint resolution
of the Congress.
It commercial oilfields are successfully de-
veloped outside the reserve, the private oil
companies presumably will devise and de-
velop means of transporting the oil out of
that area. If this were done, the Navy would
then have access to the oil It owns within the
reserve so that this oil might be produced
and used in times of national eme-gency.
For this reason the Department of the Navy
favors enactment of the bill.
TIfv:AL DATA
Enactment of this bill would not Involve
the expenditure of any Federal funds since
the Navy plans that the sales contract will
provide that the purchaser Is responsible for
all production costs. On the contrary, Gov-
ernment revenues will be increased by the
amount of the purchase price.
The basic law, section 7430(b) of title 10,
United States Code. requires public sale of
production from the reserves to the highest
qualified bidder. The committee was in-
formed that the Navy plans to use the Se-
attle, Wash., posted price of marine diesel
bunker fuel as the base price for the oil to be
sold In the Umlat Field. This price would be
Increased by a differential factor that gives
weight to the remoteness of the area. This
weighted price wou.d become the maximum
at which the oil could be sold by the success-
ful bidder to other explorers and developers
in the area. The successful bidder will be the
one that offers the largest return to the De-
partment of the Navy from the`ve)ghted
FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNI-
FORMED SERVICES
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the unfin-
ished business continue to be laid aside
temporarily and that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 1126, the bill S. 3001, and that the
bill be made the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 3001) to
amend title 37, United States Code, to
increase the rates of basic pay for mem-
ber. of the uniformed services.
The PRESIDING OF, ICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suer;est the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roil.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PRCxr+iJRE In the chair). Without ob-
jection, it is so ordered.
PURPOSE OF THE HILL
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, S. 3001,
the pending bill, was unanimously ap-
proved by the Senate Committee on
Armed Forces on July 9. The purpose of
the bill Is to provide a simple and time-
ly increase In basic pay for career mem-
bers and the junior officers of our Armed
Fol ces.
T-.MELY INCREASE TOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
Ordinarly the comnattee would not
recommend a military pay increase at
this time, for It is well known that Con-
gress passed military pay legislation in
the previous session of Congress, which
became effective October 1, 1963. How-
ever, since legislation increasing the pay
of the civilian workers of the Federal
Government, in even greater percentage,
has now passed both Houses, it is only
fair that a military pay increase be
passed at this time in order to maintain
a 1 easonable comparison in compensa-
tion trends for military personnel.
The budget of the President for this
year included a pay increase not only
for civil servants of the Government,
but- also for military personnel.
Following the enactment of the Mili-
tary Pay Act of 1958, which provided for
significant Increases, there was no fur-
th(r military pay legislation until the
Mi'.itary Pay Act enacted last October,
except for an adjustment in the allow-
aru:es for quarters, effective January 1,
1963.
As Senators know, the civilian workers
of the Federal Government, following a
pair increase in 1958, also received in-
creases In 1960, 1962, and except for
the supergrades, January 1, 1964. The
latter was an automatic increase pro-
vided for in the legislation of 1962.
As Senators are all aware, the Senate
and the House of Representatives both
approved legislation providing for a sub-
stantial civilian pay increase. That
measure is now pending in conference.
It is now a regular part of the con-
gressional procedure--almost ritualls-
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 1964
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tic-to grant a civilian pay increase in
every election year. The military have
not been that fortunate. They have
been compelled to wait, and I must as-
sume some responsibility for delay, be-
cause I had delayed a military pay in-
crease on one or two previous occasions,
to see whether or not legislation provid-
ing for a civilian pay increase would
finally be enacted. That carried the
military pay increase over for another
year. So the military has consistently
been behind the civilian workers of the
Federal Government with respect to
timing in receiving a pay increase.
We all know that the legislation now
in conference will be enacted into law,
and under the circumstances an increase
in military compensation is not only
warranted at this time, but is imperative
if we are to deal justly with those in the
military services. Those who wear the
uniform are entitled to the same consid-
eration as those who carry on civilian
work. Those who wear the uniform have
no 40-hour week. They do not receive
any overtime pay. They must work 90
hours a week. There are a number of
other benefits that civilian workers have
granted to them in their work that are
not available to those in our armed
services.
AMOUNT OF INCREASES
SUMMARY OF INCREASES
Mr. President, I turn now to the spe-
cific provisions of the bill. In summary,
the bill provides for a 2.5-percent in-
crease in basic pay for all personnel, en-
listed and commissioned, with more than
2 years of service. In addition, for com-
missioned and warrant officers with less
than 2 years of service, the bill provides
for a 8.5-percent increase in basic pay.
AN 8.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR
OFFICERS WITH LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF
SERVICE
For the junior officers with less than
2 years of service the 8.5 percent increase
would provide an average monthly in-
crease of approximately $19 for the 0-1
second lieutenant, and $22 for the 0-2
first lieutenant. In terms of total annual
compensation, the 0-1 second lieutenant
with dependents would receive $4,790, as
compared with $4,563 at present. A first
lieutenant would receive $5,388, as com-
pared with $5,214 at present.
The reason that the commissioned per-
sonnel with less than 2 years of service
will receive an 8.5-percent increase as
compaerd with a 2.5-percent increase
given to other members of the armed
services lies in the fact that the com-
missioned personnel with less than 2
years of service have had no increase
whatever since 1952 in their basic pay.
It may be remembered that when the
Senate passed the last pay bill for the
Armed Forces it allowed an increase for
our commissioned personnel with less
than 2 years of service, but after long
discussion in conference that provision
was lost. It went down the drain. This
modest increase of $19 a month for a
second lieutenant and $22 a month for
a first lieutenant is thoroughly justified,
in my opinion.
15749
A 2.5-PERCENT INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR ALL
PERSONNEL WITH OVER 2 YEARS OF SERVICE
Mr. President, for officers with over 2
years of service the bill provides a 2.5-
percent increase in basic pay which would
authorize average monthly increases as
follows: For the 0-2 first lieutenant, $11;
for the 0-3 captain, $15; for the 0-4
major, $18; for the 0-5 lieutenant colo-
nel, $22; for the 0-6 colonel, $26; and for
general officers, 0-7 brigadier general
through 0-10 chief of staff, a range from
$31 to $49 per month.
Therefore, all Members of the Senate
can see that these increases are ex-
tremely modest.
As an example of the effect on total
annual compensation for officers with
typical years of service, the 0-1 first lieu-
tenant with dependents would receive
$7,735 as compared to $7,595.
For enlisted personnel the effect of the
2.5-percent increase on those with typi-
cal years of service with dependents is as
follows: The E-4 would receive $4,158, as
compared to $4,098 at present. The E-6
would receive $5,575, as compared to
$5,480 at present, and the E-9 would re-
ceive $7,783 as compared to $7,638 at
present. Table 2, beginning on page 6 of
the report, sets forth the amounts for
each pay grade. Those figures show that
these increases are very small indeed.
I ask unanimous consent that table No.
2 be printed in the RECORD at this point
in my remarks.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
TABLE No. 2. -Examples of present pay and allowances with those proposed for fiscal year 1965 (S. 3001)
OFFICERS
Number
in grade
Typical
years
Present
Proposed
Alternative or additional
Monthly
grade
Title
,
fiscal
of
(no change)
amount
year 1985
service,
Type
Monthly
Monthly
Increase
Percent
amount
amount
increase
0-10
Ohief of Staff; Chief of
5
30
Basic pay---------------------
$1,070.00
$2,019.30
$49.30
2.6
__________-__:____-______-_________
----------
Naval Operations;Com-
man d a n t, U S M C;
Personal allowance____________
Quarters allowance with de-
1333.33
1201.00
1333.33
1201.00
0
0
0
0
------------------------------------
Quarters allowance without do-
__________
1$160.20
Obairman JCS.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance-____-___
1 47.88
147.88
0
0
Vendents.
Flight pay (if eligible)_____________
165.00
Total, monthly________________
2,652.21
2,601.51
49.30
1.9
___-_______________-_____
----------
-----
Total,annual_________________
Total,
30,626.52
31,218.12
591.60
1.9
___________-_-_____-__--_
----------
0-10
General, admiral___________
32
30
Basic pay_____________________
1,785.00
1,829.70
44,70
2.5
_________________________
__________
Personal allowance-___________
1 183.33
1 183.33
0
0
_________________________
Quarters allowance with de
1 201.00
1201.00
0
0
-
ers. allowance without de
1160.20
pendents.
-
ents.
Subsistenceallowance-_________
147.88
147.88
0
0
pay (if eligible)_____________
165.00
Total, monthly________________
2,217.21
2,261.91
44.70
2.0
_____________________________
____------
Total, annual__________________
26,606.52
27,142.92
636.40
2.0
_____________________________
______-
0-9
Lieutenant general, vice
110
30
Basic pay_____________________
_
1.,575.00
1,614.30
39.30
2.5
_____________________________
----------
admiral.
Personalallowa
nce------------
141.67
141.67
0
0
Quarters allowance with de-
1 201.00
1201.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de-
1160.20
pendents.
Pendants.
f
i
i
l
165
00
Subsistence allowance ---------
Total, monthly________________
147.88
1,865.55
147.88
1,004.85
0
39.30
0
2.1
g
e)_____________
el
b
Fght pay (i
------------------------------------
.
_---______
Total, annual__________________
22,386.60
22,858.20
471.80
2.1
____________________________________
---------
0-8
Major general, rear admiral
495
30
Basic pay_____________________
1,420.00
1,455.60
35.60
2.5
_
half).
Quarters allowance with de-
1 201. 00
1 201.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de
160.20
pendents,
pendents.
Subsistence allowance ---------
147.88
147.88
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible)_____________
165.00
Total, monthly________________
1,668.88
1,704.48
- 35.60
2.1
_
annual__________________
20,026.56
20,453.76
427,20
2.1
_________________________________
_______-
O-7
Brigadier general, rear
643
28
Basic pay______________
-
1,235.00
1,266.00
31.00
2.5
_-_______-_____-__-___
-------------
--------
admiral (lower half).
Quarters allowance with de-
1 201.00
1201.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de
160.20
-
pendents.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance_________
147.88
147.88
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible)_____________
165.00
Total, monthly________________
1,483.88
1,514.88
31.00
2.0
_
Total, annual ------------------
17, 806, 56
18,178.56
372.00
2.0
____________________________________
O-6
Colonel, captain-----------
15,371
24
Basic pay_____________________
1,000.00
1,025.10
25.10
2.5
------------------------------------
allowance with de-
1170.10
1170.10
0
0
Quarters allowance without de-
pendents.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance ---------
147.98
1 47.88
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible) -------------
245.00
Total, monthly--------------
1,217.98
1,243.08
25.10
2.1
------------------------------------
----------
Total, annual-----------------
14,615.76
14,916.96
301.20
2.1
------------------------------------
___-------
Footnotes at end of table.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
15750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Juy 20
TABLE No. 2.-Examples of present pay and allowances: with those proposed for fiscal year 1965 (S. 8001)-Continued
OTFICERS
Pay
Number
in~ e,
Typical
o
Present
Proposed
Alternative or additi
l
M
th
grade
Title
Ilscal
year 1985
f
service
Type
Monthly
Montaly
Intreaae
Percent
ona
(no change)
on
amount
amount
amount
increase
0-9
Lieutenant colonel, com-
37.461
21
Basic pay---------------------
8866.00
8876. 30
121
30
25
mender.
.
____________-_____--------------?,__
-__----?_
Quarters allowance with le-
1167.60
1167.50
0
0
Quarters allowance without de-
81130
20
pendents.
Subsistence allowanw
147
88
1
ppaendents.
.
...... ___
T
.
47.88
0
0
FlieI'tpay 817e11giht;)-------------
245.00
wat. monthly---------------
1,060.38
1,071.67
21.30
2.0
---------
-
0-4
Major, lieutenant com-
66,284
19
Total, annual -----------------
llua:cpay---------------------
12,721.56
740.00
1$080, 16
75&40
255.60
1&40
2.0
2
5
-
-------------------------
---------------------
Quarters allow
nce
ith
t d
----------
112
mender.
.
a
w
ou
e-
0.00
Quarters allowance with Ie-
1146.05
1 14&0s
0
0
pendents.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance--------.
147.U
147.88
0
0
Flight tray ((f eligibbl)______
240
00
Total, monthly ................
00293
951.33
11.40
1.9
_______
_
.
0-3
Captain, lieutenant-------
106,248
8
Basic paY
666
00
11,415.96
679
810
320.00
14
00
1.0
2
---------
------------------------------------
--~--_-_
----_---?-
---------------------
Quartees allowance with de-
.
1180.06
.
' 130.05
.
0
.6
0
-------------------------------
Quarters allowance without do-
-?_--_?-
1105
00
pendents.
pendents.
.
Subsistence allowance.........
147.88
117.88
0
0
Flight pay if oliglbl.')
185
00
Total. monthly---------------
742.93
765. U3
14.00
1.8
_____________
______
.
0-2
tat lieutenant, lieutenant
b6.761
4
Total- annual .............
liasicpay................. .---
8.915.00
485.00
9.7.76
476. 79
36(1,70
11:70
1.8
2
5
_____?-??
_ -----------_-,__
.
.
--
-_,_,____?
.
.
....
------------- ^-____?--_---.
.... .----
Quarters allowance with de-
1120.00
1120.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de-
195
10
pendents,
ponaents.
.
SubelErence allowance .......
147.88
147, all
0
0
Flight pay (if rligible)
150
00
Total. monthly------------- -
0,32. SA
644.118
IL 70
1.8
_____________
_
.
O-1
2d lieutenant, ensign-__-__
50,
804
0
annual .................
IIaslc pay---------------------
7,694.56
222.30
7.734.116
241.30
140.40
1&90
1.8
8
5
__________________________________?
----
----------
Quarters allowance with de-
' 110.10
1 c10.10
0
.
0
____________- ----------------
Quarters allowance without de-
----------
185
27
pen.leets.
pendants.
.
Suhaktrn?,' allowance .........
147.78
147-88
0
0
Flight p.,y (ifeligIb:o)
100
OD
Total, monthly ---------------
880.28
399.18
18.90
5.0
.............
.
W 4
-
Chief warrant, commis
-
8.366
24
annual ............... -
Basic pay_____________________
4.568.86
6a& 00
4.790.16
651.00
226.80
16. 00
6.0
2
5
__________________________________ _
---------------------------------?-
----------
-________-
stoned warrant,
Quart,-rs allowance with die-
I 146.05
1145.815
0
.
0
__________--__-----------_----
Quarters allowance without de-
_----_--_-
1120
00
pendants.
Subsidence allowan
147
88
1
pendents.
.
ce---------
.
47.68
0
0
Flight pay (If eligible)_____________
165.00
Total, monthly ...............
871.93
843.13
16.00
1.9
------------------
W-3
-
4
1127
21
Total,annual -----------------
Basic
a
9,935.I5
640
00
10,127.16
192.00
1.9
------------------
------------------------------------
----------
----------
______
.
y----.----------------
p
Quart,?rs allowance with ce-
.
' 180.06
653.:0
1120.10
13.50
0
2.5
0
?---------?----------
Quarters allowance without de-
?-?-----
1105
00
per"lents.
Subsistence allowance ---------
147.88
'47.88
0
0
pendents.
Flight pay (Ifellgfbh)_____________
.
140.00
Total, monthlY_______________
717.93
731.43
13.50
1.8
__-____
W-2
----- do---------------------
4,999
18
Total,
annual_________________
Basle Pay---------------------
8.615. 18
470.00
8,777,18
481.80
162.00
11.80
1.8
2.5
-___________-_-__?---------
...__- ____________-----------_-_--_
------
----------
----------
Quart?rs allowance with ce-
' 120.00
1120.(0
0
0
------------------------------
Quarters allowance without de-
----------
195.10
pen lents.
Subsistence allowan
1
7
8
1
pendants.
ce ________
.8
4
47.88
0
0
Flight pay (If eligibit)_____________
135.00
Total, monthly_____
887.88
649.68
11.80
1.8
-
W-1
Warrant officer____________
2,772
14
Totsl,annual__?-_---?...__.
Basic pay_____________________
7,654.56
405.00
7,796.16
416.20
141.80
10.20
1.6
2.5
------ __------ ---- ?---?-------?-
--
--------?
Quart-rs allowance with de-
1110.10
1110.10
0
0
----------------------------------
Quarters allowance without de-
-_-_-_----
185
20
pendents.
Subsistence allowan
147
88
'47
ppeendents,
.
ce_________
T
.
.88
0
0
Flight pay Of eligible)_____________
130.00
otal, monthly_______________
662 97
673.18
10.20
1.7
-----------------
-
Total, annual -----------------
6,766.76
8,87&16
12240
1.8
-
----------------
-----------------------------------
E-9
Sergeant major or master
cchhieeff patty officer
13,546
20
Basic pay_____________________
-
t
ll
8485.00
'
$497.10
$12.10
26
Sea and foreign duty pay----------
$22.51
.
Quar
ers a
ow
mee with de-
120.00
' 120.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de-
185.21
ndents.
Subsistence allowanc
181
0
1
pendents.
e-_____-_.
.6
31.6)
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible) -------------
105.0
Total, monthly_______________
63& 50
648.6)
12.10
1.9
Proficiency pay, minimum --------
30.0
E-8
Master sergeant or senior
88,706
10
Total, annual-----------------
Baste pay_________________ ___
7,838.OD
416.00
7,783.21
426.4)
145.20
10.40
1.9
16
Proficiency pay, maximum ........
Sea and foreign duty pay
100.0
22
5
chief petty officer.
Quarters allowance with de-
1120.00
' 120.0)
0
0
__________
Quarters allowance without de-
.
185.2
ndents.
Subsistence aliowaneo-_____..__
'81.60
131.60
0
0
________
Flight pay (if eligible______
105.0
Total, monthly_______
666.50
678.01)
10.40
1.8
_
Proficiency pay, minimum_______
30.0
E-7
Sergeant Ist class or chief
110.621
18
Total, annual_________
Basic pay_____________________
6.70&00
370.00
6.922&)
370.2)
124.80
9.20
1.8
2.6
Proficiency pay, maximum________
Sea and foreign duty pay --
100.0
22
5
petty officer.
Quarters allowance with do
1114.90
1114.9')
0
0
--------
Quarters allowance without de-
.
175.0
pendents.
Subsistence allowaaal
'31
50
131
6?)
0
pendants.
_____:.-
Total, monthly-_________
.
616.40
.
625.6)
9.20
0
1.8
F ll ght pay (it eligible) _____________
Proficiency pay, minimum--------
10510
30.0
E-6
Staff sergeant or petty of-
231,284
14
Total, annual-----------------
Basic Pay---------------------
6,19&80
816.00
6,807. a)
an $1
110.40
7.80
1.8
25
Proficiency pay, rnaximum________
Sea and foreign duty pay-
100.6'
20.0.
fleer 1st class.
Quarters allowance with d,r
1110. 10
1110.10
0
0
--------
Quarters allowance without de-
1 70.2(
penitents.
Subsisten
e all
131
50
1 3
8
pendents.
c
owance ---------
.
1.
0
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible: ---_________
100.00
Total, monthly____________._
456.60
464.41)
7.80
L7
I'roflcicnclency pay, minimum---.
80.00
E-5
Sergeant or petty officer
405, 292
10
Total, annual_________________
Ba c pay- -------------------
4479.20
26& 00
6,67283
27L &I
93.60
80
&
L7
26
l'roflcieneyray, maximum -------
Sea and fore on dut
Y p
100.00
70.00
72d class.
aQuarkrs -lowaneo with -
1
2661 00
' 275. 00
0
0
-de
Quarters allowance withoutithout de-
^
1 ,0 20
ndent
s,
n
Subsistence allowance_________
131.50
131.6)
0
0
Flightp
ay(ifeligible'--__________
90.00
Total, monthly _______________
40L50
40&00
6.50
L6
Proficiency pay, minimum________
30.00
E-4
Corpora or petty officer,
class
460,917
6
Total, annual_________________
Basic pay--_______-_.__.--. ._
4,81&0D
206.00
4,89&00
210.00
7&00
6.00
L8
25
Proficiency pay, maxlmum_______
Sea andfarei duty
Y --
100.00
70.20
,
Quarters allowance with tIe
1 10& OD
1)05.00
0
0
Quarters allowance without de
170.20
dents
Subsistence allowance ---------
13150
131. 60
0
0
Fllghtpay(Ifeligible) -------------
70.00
Total, monthly ----------------
14L60
846.60
5.00
1.6
Proficiency pay, minimum--------
00.00
Totaisnnual__________________
4,.00&00
4,1818.00
60.00
1.6
Proficiency aay. maximum________
100.00
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 1964
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
15751
No. 2.-Examples of present pay and allowances with those proposed for fiscal year 1965 (S. 8001)-Continued
ENLISTED
pa
Number
in grade
Typical
years
Present
Proposed
_
Alternative or additional
Monthly
grade
Title
,
fiscal
year 1965
of
service
Type
Monthly
Monthly
Increase
Percent
(no change)
amount
amount
amount
increase
E-3
Private let class or seaman-
754
686
1
Basic pay_____________________
$99.37
$90.37
0
0
Sea and foreign duty pay----------
$0.00
,
Quarters allowance without
155.20
155.20
0
0
Quarters allowance with 2 do-
183.10
or 1 dependent.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance---------
131.50
131.50
0
0
Quarters allowance with 3 or more
1105.00
dependents.
Total, monthly________________
186.07
186.07
0
0
Flight pay (if eligible)_____________
55,00
Total, annual-----------------
2,070.00
2,232.84
0
0
Proficiency pay, minimum --------
30.00
Proficiency pay, maximum --------
100.00
E-2
Private or seaman appren-
345,801
1
Basic pay_____________________
85.80
85.80
0
0
Sea and foreign duty pay__________
8.00
tice.
Quarters allowance without or
155.20
155.20
0
0
Quarters allowance with 2 de-
183.10
. 1 dependent.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance ---------
131.50
131.50
0
0
Quarters allowance with 3 or more
1 105.00
dependents.
Total, monthly_______________
172.60
172.50
0
0
Flight pay (ifeligible) -------------
50.00
Total, annual_________________
2,070.00
2,070.00
----------
E-1
Private or seaman recruit--
160,271
20
Basic pay_____________________
78.00
78.00
0
0
Sea and foreign duty pay----------
5.00
Quarters allowance without or
155.20
1 66. 20
0
0
Quarters allowance with 2 de-
183.10
1 dependent.
pendents.
Subsistence allowance ---------
1 31. 50
131.50
0
0
Quarters allowance with 3 or more
1105.00
dependents.
_
60
00
Total, monthly_______________
164.70
164.70
0
0
_
Flight pay (if eligible)------_-_--
.
Total, annual-----------------
1,076.40
1,976,40
0
0
1 Tax free.
2 Under 4 months.
NOTE.-Minimum amount of retired pay: For length of service or age, 50 percent of
basic pay at 20 years. For permanent disability, 30 percent of basic pay but not less
COMMITTEE APPROACH
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, some
comment is now in order with respect to
the committee approach to this legisla-
tion. First, the committee felt that a
bill should be reported at the present
time, in view of the civilian increases,
which, as I have stated, have been much
more numerous and substantial than
those given to the members of the armed
services; second, that the bill should be
simple in its approach and in its appli-
cation.
As the Senate may know, the Depart-
ment of Defense, in February 1964, sub-
mitted a military pay proposal which
would have provided for a 2.4-percent
increase in basic pay for all enlisted per-
sonnel with over 2 years of service and a
flat 3 percent in basic pay for all offi-
cers both under and over 2 years of serv-
ice. These percentages were computed
through rather complex formulas in-
volving comparisons with a number of
civilian type indexes, together with cer-
tain retirement discount formulas.
The committee, after consideration,
decided on a more simplified approach.
First, it was felt that the career enlisted
and officer grades should receive the
same percentage increases. Let it be re-
membered that in the last two pay acts
enlisted men have received less overall
increases than commissioned personnel,
Second, it was the committee's opinion
that junior officers- with under 2 years
of service should receive more than the
3-percent increase proposed by Defense
in view of the fact that this pay bracket
has not been increased since 1952.
Third, the committee did not adopt the
Department of Defense proposal which
would have excluded from any increase
the reservists and National Guardsmen
who are entitled to drill pay. Historic-
ally, reservists entitled to drill pay have
been authorized the current basic pay
of the grade concerned. Our reservists
in a drill pay status are a vital part of
our national defense and the .committee
than 2 percent times years of service. For temporary disability, 50 percent of basin
pay bu- E not less than 2A percent times years of service. Maximum amount of retired
pay, 75 percent of basic pay. This maximum is payable if the member has 30 years of
service or at least an 80-percent disability rating.
saw no reason for changing the current
law in this regard.
I should observe, Mr. President, that
the pending bill does not involve addi-
tional costs over what the Defense pro-
posal would have involved when the in-
clusion of drill pay in the increase is
taken into account. The defense pro-
posal would have cost $191 million an-
nually. With the inclusion of drill pay
an additional $11 million is involved.
The pending bill involves for the Depart-
ment of Defense an additional annual
cost of $202,441,000, which is the total
increase for 1,833,000 men on duty in our
Armed Forces.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED
Mr. President, the increases contained
in this bill would affect 2,762,000 per-
sons, including 1,833,000 on active duty,
and 879,000 in the Reserves.
This is a very simple proposal. In my
opinion the proposed increase is fully
deserved by our men and women in the
uniform, and I urge that the Senate pass
the bill promptly.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, since
the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee introduced this bill
and has brought it to the Senate for con-
sideration, I have received letters from
wives of enlisted men who have - served
less than 2 years, complaining that they
had received no increase in pay and that
their living costs have substantially in-
creased. How can I answer such letters?
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, there
may be some cases of men who volun-
tarily enlisted and who may have a com-
plaint. Otherwise, I do not believe there
is any merit in this suggestion. For the
most part the enlisted personnel, during
their first 2 years, are in a purely train-
ing status.
In addition, most men with less than
2 years' service live in barracks and eat
at Government mess halls. The E-1 re-
cruit, upon his entry into military service
is assured, through normal promotion,
during his first 2 years of service, of three
automatic pay raises during that period,
with a good chance of receiving four.
Under existing law, at the end of 4
months, a man with less than 2 years'
service receives an increase of $5.20 a
month: -
That is more than the bill gives to
those who serve more than 2 years.
Moreover, although the requirements
vary among the military departments, it
is possible for a recruit to be promoted
during that period to the grade of E-4,
which is corporal, although he may have
served less than a year.
There may be a few instances of
married men who have voluntarily en-
listed; but we know now that none who
are married are drafted. They cannot
be taken involuntarily. But the vast
majority of the less-than-2-year men live
in barracks. They are housed in Gov-
ernment barracks, are fed in the Gov-
ernment mess, and receive their auto-
matic increases in pay during that period.
Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the
Senator's comments.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from
Kansas is the ranking member of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice, and has handled pay increases.
Mr. CARLSON. I am familiar with
the pay schedules of the civil employees.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is fa-
miliar with the pay increase for civilian
employees. He understands the absolute
impossibility of dealing exactly equally
with every employee, because some who
are in the same caetgory will have jobs
that are twice as hard and involve more
responsibility than others in the same
grade or whatever the classification is.
Mr. CARLSON. The -Senator from
Georgia has been most helpful. I ap-
preciate his comments. The pay in-
crease is justified. The Senator from
Georgia, who is chairman of the com-
mittee, and the other members of the
committee are entitled to much credit
for the fine way in which they considered
and reported the bill.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
15752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA'T'E
I hope it will be unanimously approved
by the Senate.
Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is there anything
In the act passed last year which would
give the Department of Defense the op-
portunity to come before Congress every
year or so to obtain increases such as
are provided in the instant bill?
Mr. RUSSELL. No; nothing was
written into the law. We do not treat
the military personnel as we do the
civilian personnel by providing auto-
matic increases for them, We did not
provide anything in the bill that would
authorize such action.
In the committee report it was stated
that if the increases we had allowed,
which were the first that had been
granted since 1958, were not adequate,
the Department of Defense could come
back and submit an additional program
this year. I do not know whether this
proposal was submitted in pursuance of
that statement or not; but that state-
ment was In the committee report.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I recall, the cost
to the Government for the Increases
made available last year was in excess of
$1 billion a year.
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes; It was in excess
of $1 billion.
Mr. ELLENDER. I feel that the in-
crease we provided last year, a sum of
more than $1 billion a year, was rather
generous. This year, 1 year later, we are
again increasing the salaries of generals
and admirals and members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and so forth, by an addi-
tional $207 million a year. Is that a cor-
rect statement?
Mr. RUSSELL. No; this amount is
$201 million. It is $207 million if we
include the Coast Guard and the Public
Health Service.
Mr. ELLENDER. They are all sup-
posed to be a part of the armed services.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. The amount Is
$207,510,000.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. That
is for the Public Health Service, the Coast
Guard, and the Armed Forces.
Mr. ELLENDER. I did not hear what
the Senator fromGeorgia stated was the
justification for the increase; but, as I
understand, the committee did not spend
much time in holding hearings, did it?
Mr. RUSSELL. No; it did not.
Mr. ELLENDER. What Is the justifi-
cation for such an increase so soon after
the previous pay raise?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from
Louisiana knows that we could have held
hearings over the weeks and could have
built up a record that would have been
very long to sustain this proposal. But
I did not hold hearings because I thought
the hearings that had been held on the
civilian pay increase bill, which showed
the difficulty of retaining personnel in
the civil service and showed the increase
in the cost of living, applied in every re-
spect to the Armed Forces.
The Senator well knows that In 1955
Congress increased the pay of civil serv-
ice employees by 7.7 percent on the aver-
age; in 1958 it increased their pay 10.1
percent; in 1980 It was increased by 7.7
percent; in 1982 we increased the pay of
civil service employees by 5.5 percent on
the average; and In January 1964, we in-
creased the pay of civil service employees
by 4.1 percent. Under that bill, there
was an automatic Increase, in January of
this year. of 4.1 percent.
Only the other day the-Senate passed
another bill to Increase the pay of civil
service employees by 4.2 percent, but
that percentage ran from 3 to 22.5 per-
cent for classified employees.
Mr. ELLENDER. To 33 percent. in one
case.
Mr. RUSSELL. Thirty-three percent
in one case.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is what caused
me to vote against the bill.
Mr. RUSSELL. I, too, voted against
that bill. But this bill provides an in-
crease of only 21/2 percent. That is the
highest increase, except for the group
of less-than-2-year officers, who would
get 8 percent. In general, a 2?/2-percent
increase is the highest that anyone in
the military service would receive.
I do not see how anyone can justify
leaving the military personnel so far be-
hind when we have Increased the pay of
civilian employees again and again. Of
course, that was not done with my vote;
I voted against that increase.
The Government has contributed to
inflation. It Is mid that the pay in-
crease is not inflationary; but It would
be difficult to find anyone who would
not say that his costs of living have not
been affected by inflation. The Gov-
ernment has contributed to the wage
spiral by its constant increases In civil
service pay. But I do not believe the
man in uniform should be discriminated
against because he does not have a
Government employees' union that is
permitted to come to Washington and
lobby with Senators and Representatives
to obtain pay increases. That Is one
reason why I encouraged the committee
to report the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. I hope the Senator
from Georgia will not try to promote a
footrace between those who serve in the
Armed Forces and those who are em-
ployed in the civil service. If one branch
receives a pay raise, I do not believe in
providing the other branch with a raise
whether it is justified or not. I do not
believe that is the way Congress should
act.
Mr. RUSSELL. I do not propose to
have a footrace; but, in my judgment,
those who serve in the Armed Forces are
more entitled to a pay Increase every
year than are the civil employees of the
Government. If we increase the pay of
civil employees even more than they are
entitled to, I do not propose to see those
who wear our country's uniform dis-
criminated against and denied an
Increase.
So long as I have anything to do with
it, I shall continue to urge the Senate
to deal equally as between those who are
in the civil employment of the Govern-
ment and those who are risking their
lives In Vietnam and elsewhere today
and who tomorrow may be called upon
dcely 20
to risk and give their lives in large num-
bers. I believe they are as much en-
titled to an increase as are the employees
of the Senate and, for that matter,
Members of the Senate themselves. We
voted ourselves a large increase.
Mr. ELLENDER. It was $7,500.
Mr. RUSSELL. We voted ourselves an
increase of $7,500 at one fell swoop.
I may be entirely wrong in my philos-
ophy, but if Congress, whatever may be
its reason-perhaps because it does not
understand the situation, perhaps for
poatical reasons, to build a Frankenstein
of so many Federal employees-is un-
wMing to say, "No," I do not propose to
sec: those who have no other voice in
Washington discriminated against when
we distribute tax funds to those in civil-
ian Government employment.
Mr. ELLENDER. I thought the armed
sal vices were very well treated last year.
My reason for asking the questions was
to be at least consistent. I think it has
been clearly indicated here one pay in-
crease leads to another; and that the
whole process is threatening to get out
of hand.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is exactly what
I run trying to do. I am trying to be
consistent. We are not being very con-
sisr,ent if we give to those in uniform
only a 2.5-percent increase, while we give
a 4.2-percent increase to civilian em-
ployees.
Mr. ELLENDER. I note that table I,
proposed increases in one bracket in
b.u;ic rates for officers under 2 years,
shows that the increase will be $49.30.
Mr. RUSSELL The Senator is cor-
rer t.
Mr. ELLENDER. Let us take the ad-
mirals and generals.
Mr. RUSSELL. None of them has
served as little as 2 years.
Mr. ELLENDER. Under 2 years, there
is an increase of $102 in comparison to
$3&_20 for one over 10 years. Why is it
that the longer they serve the less in-
cm case they seem to get?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor-
rect. The reason is that those figures
were computed, yet they do not apply tc
a single living human being. Those fig-
uros should have been marked with as-
terisks and explained. We seem to give
a greater percent of increase to those
who serve less than to those who servf
more.
Mr. FLLENDER. Why is that?
Mr. RUSSELL. Those figures were
based on a mathematical formula. The3
do not apply to a single living human
being. They are available in case the
President should reach down and make
some second lieutenant with less than
2.3 cars' service, say, a Chief of Staff in
this Army or an admiral in the Navy.
Those figures would then apply. Unless
the. President did that, they would not
apply to anyone. They do not apply
tcxiay.
Mr. ELLENDER. What this table
shows is a little confusing, to say the
least. It shows that for under 2 years'
service the increase will be greater than
for those who have served over 30 years.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor-
rct. That is because none of them is in
thr,t category. There is not a man in
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 19 64
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15753
these high grades who would be affected
by this pay increase.
Mr. ELLENDER. So I am to under-
stand that generals and admirals who
have served less than 2 years will not re-
ceive the increase of $102?
Mr. RUSSELL. I beg the Senator's
pardon?
Mr. ELLENDER. Am I to understand
that generals and admirals who have
served under 2 years will not receive the
increase of $102?
Mr. RUSSELL. They would, if there
were any such. The Senator knows that
there are no generals or admirals who
have served less than 2 years.
Mr. ELLENDER, I do not know it. I
am asking.
Mr. RUSSELL. If the Senator will
look at the last figures on the right, he
will see the total number involved. He
will see that many, if not most of our
generals and admirals have served more
than 20 years=most of them more than
30 years.
Mr. ELLENDER. I see that. In each
category of generals and admirals, there
are 32 who would be affected.
Mr. RUSSELL. No-there are 32 peo-
ple affected who would receive $44.70 a
month. I do not believe that is a great
increase to give a general or an admiral.
Mr. ELLENDER. Let me say to my
good friend the Senator from Georgia
that I am not complaining about it. I
am only wondering why this table should
show-
Mr. RUSSELL. It was really an over-
sight, because in making a mathematical
computation we take it out; not a living
soul would be affected by it, because we
raised it by 81/2 percent since they have
not had a pay increase since 1952.
Therefore, we increased them a bit
more.
Mr. ELLENDER. Looking at the same
figure, in the first column, under 2
years, the increase in pay seems to be
i,imost as much, as, if not more than
.n the case of those who have served
onger.
Mr. RUSSELL. It is several times as
nuch because it is 81/2 percent instead
d 21/2 percent, but no one gets it.
Mr. ELLENDER. It strikes me, then,
hat the table is misleading.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor-
,ect. It is, to any one who does not
mderstand the Army's procedure. But
he Senator from Louisiana knows as
veil as I do that there Is no general
or admiral, nor even a colonel, in the
armed Forces today, who has had less
,han 2 years' experience.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Georgia yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
WALTExs In the chair). Does the Senator
from Georgia yield to the Senator from
Michigan?
Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. McNAMARA. I am happy to vote
for the support of the committee. I
arrive at the conclusion that I am in
support of this recommendation not on
the basis stated by the distinguished
Senator from Georgia, but because I
No. 138-0
believe that the Services require this
increase, and that they are properly en-
titled to it. Strictly on that basis, I am
for the report of the committee.
I believe that we put this problem out
of focus when we start comparing the
military with civilians.
Mr. RUSSELL. I was not altogether
comparing it with civilians. I believe
a most substantial reason for these pay
increases is to keep in our Armed Forces
the very finest young talent that we
have, who cannot afford, in their self-
interest, to stay with the services when
they can get three or four times as
much money working for some large in-
dustrial concern or some big business
organization.
Mr. McNAMARA. I thoroughly agree.
I am glad to hear the chairman of the
committee make that statement. More-
over, as the chairman of the committee
so ably points out, many of our fine
young men in the services are not there
by their own choice. Certainly, we
should treat them as well as the report
of the committee indicates they should
be treated. I wholeheartedly agree with
the report of the committee
Mr. RUSSELL. Let me say to the Sen-
ator that it has become common in this
country to "slough off" the officers of our
Army and to talk about the "brass," but
there are no more dedicated men in the
service of our country than those in uni-
form. I know of more men personally
who are serving at great financial sacri-
fice in the Army of the United States
than I do in any other walk of life in
this Nation or in any other enterprise.
Mr. McNAMARA. I am sure that
many of us share that view.
Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator.
(At this point Mr. McGovERN took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Georgia yield for one ob-
servation?
Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield.
Mr. STENNIS. I commend the dis-
tinguished Senator from Georgia, chair-
man of the Armed Services Committee,
for the work he did with reference to the
officers in the services with less than 2
years of service. The adjustments in pay
in that category were long overdue.
We talk about morale. This is where
a relatively few dollars will certainly
boost morale. The Senator has been very
fair and much concerned about this mat-
ter, and took it upon himself to lead in
making the adjustment, and I commend
him highly.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator will re-
call that when we passed the last pay
bill we undertook to do something about
young officers with less than 2 years serv-
ice, but we ran up against a stone wall.
In order to get a bill, we had to give
up that increase. The Senator is ex-
actly correct. We cannot expect too
much from the morale of these men, dis-
charging the same responsibilties as their
colleagues who have served, perhaps, for
2 years and 2 days, and are drawing
substantially more money than they are.
Mr. STENNIS. I believe that the Sen-
ator from Georgia has devised a plan
which will prevail and become the law.
Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator
for his comments.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Georgia yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I commend the
distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee for the work which
he has done on this bill. I believe that
these pay raises are justified. The distin-
guished Senator from Georgia has ren-
dered a very fine service. I shall sup-
port the measure.
I wish to inquire as to one or two cate-
gories. One is that of the man with less
than 2 years' service, which I shall come
to later. But first I wish to ask the dis-
tinguished Senator, the chairman of the
committee, if he would accept an amend-
ment to the substance of S. 2021, which
was drafted last year, as an amendment
to another pay bill. This is the amend-
ment which would give a Reserve officer's
widow the same protection that a Regu-
lar Army officer's widow would receive,
if the officer died during a 30-day pe-
riod after his retirement and before the
first check came in. I should like to send
the amendment to the desk-
Mr. RUSSELL. Let me say to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Texas that I
am thoroughly familiar with the pro-
vision. It has considerable merit, but I
have been hopeful to get this bill ap-
proved. The bill which will follow the
one now before the Senate, the dual com-
pensation bill, to equalize the oppor-
tunities of Reserve officers and Regular
officers serving in the Federal Govern-
ment, is a much more proper vehicle
for this amendment than the pay bill.
I hope that the Senator will defer offer-
ing his amendment for an hour or sound
offer it to the dual compensation bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the bill deals with military retirement
pay.
Mr. RUSSELL. I understand. So
does the other bill. It deals with com-
pensation.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The other bill
deals solely with civilian compensation
after the personnel have left the military
service and entered civilian employment.
I have worked on the bill long and
hard in order to get action for these
people.
Mr. RUSSELL. I am in favor of that
bill. But I regret that the Senator sees
fit to offer it as an amendment to this
bill. He has worked hard on the dual
compensation bill. There is no doubt in
my mind that the dual compensation bill
is a more appropriate place for the
amendment than a bill which provides
for a straight pay increase and does not
deal with retirement or pension.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The dual com-
pensation bill is under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. This amendment? S. 2021,
comes under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Armed Services, not under
our committee. We could not appropri-
ately put It in our bill, or we would have
written it into the bill. It is a matter
that has come before the Armed Services
Committee. As the distinguished Sena-
tor from Georgia knows, the bill had
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
15754
been offered as an amendment long be-
fore the bill was Introduced. While the
Defense Department has not seen fit to
write a report, the Social Security Ad-
ministration has. In Its report, it com-
ments on the relatively insignificant fi-
nancial effect of the plan. It applies
only in the very limited case of a Reserve
officer who has served his time and
then dies before the first of the follow-
ing month, on which day his first check
would be received by the widow. The
widow gets nothing, although the officer
has selected his annuity plan.
The proposed amendment would pro-
vide that the annuity eligibility would
go into effect when he retired. If he had
been a Regular officer and retired, this
annuity gap would not arise.
The amendment would apply to only
a very limited class. It would apply only
in the case of an officer who died in that
30-day period. If he were to live 30 days,
past the first of the month, the widow
would receive the annuity. It is a great
hardship, The husbands have served out
their time. They have earned the pen-
sion.
The Board of Actuaries advising the
Defense Department says it -would not
cost more. The reason that the Board
of Actuaries says it will not cost more
is thilt the men have already earned it.
They have designated their widows as
the survivors. Then they die before the
annuity can be collected. There is a
hiatus in the law that has existed for
years.
We have taken this measure up with
the committee. We have offered a bill.
oT this day, the Defense Department-
which says it wants to see fairness done
in this case-has never answered the re-
quest of the committee chairman. It
has never given a report on the bill. It
ought to be as fair to the widows of offi-
cers who die as they are to those who are
still in the service.
The chairman has rendered a distin-
guished service. The only way that we
can get fairness for the widows is to
bring this measure out on the floor of
the Senate. The Defense Department
has not prepared an answer to the com-
mittee with regard to this measure, and
11 months have gone by.
Mr. President, I ask the distinguished
chairman to please accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I freely
confess that the Senator has a case. I
do not believe there are many people in-
volved. But that is no reason for doing
an Injustice, if only one person is in-
volved. If there is any disparity, I want
to correct it. But I wish that the Sen-
ator would not insist that I accept his
amendment to the bill. If I do it now, it
will go to conference, That would mean
that the Senate amendment would un-
doubtedly be lost in the conference. It
would mean a delay in the enactment of
the bill, whereas I have every reason to
believe that in the form the bill is In to-
day, it will pass without any conference.
I shall be glad to again urge the De-
partment to make a report on the bill. I
am in favor of the bill proposed by the
Senator. If we receive a report fromthe
Department, I shall be glad to bring it
to the attention of the committee and
bring the bill on the floor:
I hope the Senator will not insist on
his amendment to the bill. The bill
affects many people of relatively small
income. If the amendment were agreed
to, It would cause a delay of a month or
two In the pay that these people would
receive.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. P-_?esident,
I appreciate the remarks of the distin-
guished chairman. Were this January,
of course, I would not attempt to offer
the amendment. But considering the
lateness of the session, this Is the only
way that we can obtain justice In this
session for this very limited class of
people.
The bill has not yet passed the House.
The bill would go to the House. It has
not yet reached the state of conference.
Mr. RUSSELL. That Is true. I had
hoped that it would not reach the state
of conference. I had reason to believe
that if it were passed in the form in
which it was reported by the commit-
tee. It would not go to conference.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If the House
were to strip this amendment from the
bill, there would be no occasion for a
conference unless the Senate then voted
for the amendment.
Mr. RUSSELL. If the entire House
voted for the amendment, it would- go to
conference. The bill has not been in-
troduced in the House. The military pay
Increase bill has not been Introduced in
the House.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. If the amend-
ment were agreed to, the question of
whether the bill. would then go to con-
ference would be a matter for the entire
Senate. Suppose the amendment were
agreed to. If the House removed the
amendment from the bill, then the ques-
tion of whether or not there would be a
conference would depend on whether the
Senate Insisted on its amendment.
Mr. RUSSELL. I had assumed that
If we were to send the bill over with the
amndment included in It, the House
would probably ask for a conference, if It
were to pass the bill, If It did not ask
for a conference, the Senator is correct
from a parliamentary standpoint. The
Senate could recede. But if a confer-
ence were requested, the Senate would
have no option. We could not dispose of
the bill then in any other way.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The Board of
Actuaries certified that there would be no
additional cost. It seems to me highly
improbable that there would be a con-
ference in the closing days, when it Is so
difficult to get a bill passed on this small
amendment that might affect a dozen
widows who have already earned the an-
nuity, and, merely because their hus-
bands died before the 1st of the month,
they cannot receive It. We worked on
this problem for more than a year.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I have
great compassion for the small number
of people Involved in the bill. But I can-
not accept a retroactive amendment that
goes back to 1951.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I would like to read a sentence from the
report of the chief actuary, Robert J.
Meyer, of the Social Security Adminis-
tration, advising the Defense Depart-
ment on this b ll. It is dated April 7,
1964. It rea4s:
Ady 20
Accordingly, from our point of view, we
would have no objection to S. 2021 as drafted
in Its present form. insofar as Its bearing on
the cost of the plan is concerned.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator's report
L: based on a bill on which the Depart-
ment of Defense has not yet submitted a
report. I assure the Senator that I will
obtain a report on the bill from the De-
partment of Defense within the next 3
weeks so that the matter can be consid-
ered. But I cannot accept a retroactive
amendment to the bill.
I regret it very much. I am for the
Senator's proposal. When we get a re-
port from the Defense Department, I in-
tend to move to report his bill. But I
cannot accept a provision on the pending
bill which is intended to have retroactive
application.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
has my amendment been stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Texas
has not yet been stated. The clerk will
state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 4,
line 15, It Is proposed to add a new sec-
tion 5, as follows:
That (a) section 1437 of title 10, United
States Code, Is amended by striking out at
the beginning of the first sentence thereof
"Each annuity" and Inserting in lieu thereof
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of
Lois section, each annuity".
(b) Such section is further amended bI
aiding at the end thereof a new subsectior
as follows:
"(b) In any case in which a person-
"()) has met all the requirements for th4
receipt of retired or retainer pay under chap
ter 67 of this title.
"(3) has made an election in favor of
beneficiary or beneficiaries under seetlo:
1134 of this title, and
"(3) dies prior to the date on which h
could have first become eligible for the re
ceeipt of retired or retainer pay under sue
chapter 87,
an annuity shall be paid under this chapt4
to such beneficiary or beneficiaries, as tl
cue may be, upon application filed by sue
beneficiary or beneficiaries as provided
regulations prescribed by the Secretary co)
carved, beginning as of the first day of tl
month in which such person would ha
been eligible to receive retired or retainer p;
under chapter 67 of this title had he n
died."
(c) The amendments made by subsectio
(3) and (b) of this section shall becor
effective as of October 1, 1963, but no ben
fits shall accrue to any person as a result
t:ze enactment of such amendments prior
tie date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President
ask unanimous consent that a lett
dated April 7, 1964, from Mr. Robert
Myers, Chief Actuary, Social Securil
Administration, referring to the bi
S. 2021, be printed at this point in tl'
RECORD.
There being no objection, the lette
was ordered to be printed in the RECORC
as follows:
DEPARTMENT Or HEALTH, EDUCA-
TION, AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SE-
CURITY ADMINISTEATION,
Washington, D.C., April 7, 1964.
Mr. R. L. WALTER.
Chairman, DOD Joint Board, RSFPP, Off
of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Persol
net, Department of the Army, Was]
ington, D.C.
DEAR Ru v: This is in response to yoi
request to the Board of Actuaries in regain
to Its views on S. 2021.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The following recommendation on this
bill is based on our understanding that it
is of extremely limited scope in that it
would only apply to reservists who are not
in active-duty status for the fractional-
month period between the time that they
attain age 60 and the first day of the follow-
ing calendar month. As the law now
stands, such individuals who have elected
to participate under the plan do not have
any protection thereunder in the rare event
that they die in this fractional-month pe-
riod. The bill would change the situation
so that they would have this protection.
As we understand the bill, there would be
no deduction from the subsequent retired
pay for the fractional-month protection
afforded. From a strictly actuarial-equiva-
lent approach, there should be such a pro-
portionate deduction for the fractional-
month period involved with respect to all
the reservists affected-not only the few
dying in this fractional month but also the
vast majority who live through it.
The Board of Actuaries has considered
this problem from a broad viewpoint. After
taking into account both the administrative
problems that would be created by requiring
proportionate deductions for the fractional-
month period and the relatively insignifi-
cant effect on the financing operations of
the plan resulting from such proportionate
deductions, the Board does not consider it
necessary. that such proportionate deduc-
tions be required. We would, of course,
have no objection if they were required.
Accordingly, from out point of view, we
would have no objection- to S. 2021 as
drafted in its present form insofar as its
bearing on the cost of the plan is concerned.
We are somewhat concerned, however, about
the policy involved in this bill, since such a
procedure might well serve as a precedent
to cover similar cases of deaths in active
service under the plan, and the cost of doing
this is not covered in the financing provided.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT J. MYERs,
Chief Actuary.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
ny amendment is identical in terms with
he bill S. 2021. I believe that the dis-
,inguished Senator from Georgia, as he
tated, is fully conversant with the
amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that a brief
xplanation of the amendment be
hinted at this point.
There being no objection, the expla
ation was ordered to be printed in the
ZECORD, as follows:
EXPLANATION OF YARBOROUGH AMENDMENT TO
MILITARY PAY BILL
This amendment concerns payment of an-
.uities for survivors of retired members of
he Armed Forces. Under present law a
iember of the Armed Forces may elect to
ccept a reduced amount of retired pay in
rder to provide an annuity for his widow,
r children under 18 years of age and who
also meet other limiting conditions. This
annuity may be 50, 25, or 12/2 percent of the
,educed amount of the man's retired or re-
~ainer pay.
In order for the intended beneficiary to
qualify for the annuity, the serviceman must
have been in receipt of retired pay at the
time of his death. For the convenience of
Government bookkeeping, an individual does
not start receiving retired pay until the be-
ginning of the month following the month
In which he actually qualifies for retired pay.
Thus if he dies between the date on which
he qualifies for retired pay and the first of
the following month, his intended bene-
ficiary will receive no annuity.
This amendment would correct the unin-
tended inequity by amending section 1437 of
title 10, United States Code so that in cases
in which a serviceman has completed all the
age and service requirements for the receipt
of retired pay but dies between the date on
which he qualifies and the first of the fol-
lowing month, his properly designated bene-
ficiaries will receive the annuity to which
they are entitled.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I appeal once
more to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia to accept the amendment. I
have worked for more than a year on
this proposal for the limited class of
people who have been so disadvantaged.
A Reserve officer who has been in military
service has earned his retirement. He
might have designated his wife as an
annuitant. He has earned that annuity
by his service to our Government in the
uniform of his country. If a Regular
Army officer retires on the first of a
month and dies before the first of the
next month, this problem does not arise,
but if a Reserve officer should die in a
similar situation, his wife would not re-
ceive a red cent. He might have served
for a period of more than 20 years. He
has earned the annuity. Yet his wife
might be left penniless.
This is a question which is under the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Com-
mittee; it is not under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. We have worked on S. 2021 for
more than a year. We have brought the
proposal in the form of a bill to the com-
mittee of which the distinguished Sena-
tor from Georgia is chairman. We were
told to offer the proposal as a separate
bill. Last August we introduced the bill.
For 11 months, the Defense Department
has declined to give the committee a re-
port on the bill. , The Department would
kill it by its refusal to report. But the
board of actuaries advising the Defense
Department has rendered a report and
has shown that it would have no sub-
stantial cost.
The deceased Reserve officers have
earned the annuity. It is money that the
officers earned while in the uniform of
their country.
The injustice is so great that, I be-
lieve, with the great prestige of the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Committee.
on Armed Services behind the proposal,
the House of Representatives would ac-
cept it, if the chairman would accept it.
I commend the Senator from Georgia for
his work on the pending bill. I shall sup-
port the pay bill. But I point out that
here is a group of people who have suf-
fered and waited for a long time, and we
have been unable to obtain a report from
the Defense Department on the subject.
I think it is time that someone acted in
behalf of those affected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is an agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH].
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I re-
gret that I cannoi accept the amend-
ment. If the Senator will offer the
amendment to the dual compensation
bill, which deals with equalizing the dis-
crepancies between Reserve officers and
Regular officers, and which is to follow
the pending bill, I shall be happy to
support the proposal. But I do not
1.5755
think. It has any place in the pending
bill. It would be much more in order in
connection with the bill H.R. 7381.
- The Senator from Texas is a member
of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service. I think he should offer
his proposal as an amendment to the
bill H.R. 7381, rather than the pending
bill. The proposal could only result in
delaying a modest increase in compen-
sation to those in the service of our
country. The bill providing for dual
employment and dual. compensation
deals with a condition which has existed
for a great number of years.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I point out that the dual compensation
bill deals only with compensation and
not with retirement.
Mr. RUSSELL. No retirement bene-
fits are provided in the pending bill.
The bill H.R. 7381 deals with equalizing
inequities between Reserve officers and
Regular officers. The pending bill ap-
plies to both, Reserve and Regular, in
reference to the proposed pay increase.
I Insist, that the bill is much more in
order on the bill H.R. 7381, which is to
follow consideration of the pending bill.
I shall be glad to support the proposal in
connection with that other bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. The Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the bill S. 2021. It
is a military question.
Mr. RUSSELL. I have not been too
sure that the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices has jurisdiction of that bill, because
many questions relating to Reserve offi-
cers are handled in the Finance Com-
mittee. I was for the bill, and I was
hoping that we could obtain a report on
the subject and bring the bill before the
Senate. Therefore, I have not raised
any question of jurisdiction. But I can-
not accept the bill as an amendment to
the pending bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I understand that the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee, the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], is willing to appoint a special
subcommittee of members of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services who will not
be too busy in the closing weeks, and
who would be willing to serve on such
a subcommittee to consider the bill S.
2021. Am I correct in my statement?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor-
rect. The amendment possesses great
merit. Standing on its own bottom, I
would be happy to support it. There is
no doubt in my mind as to the action
that would be taken. However, I do not
wish to speak for a subcommittee that
has not yet been appointed. I shall be
happy to appoint a subcommittee of
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 15756
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE JWy 20
three members of the Committee on
Armed Services to consider the bill im-
mediately. I shall appoint such a sub-
committee today.
Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. President
I appreciate that action of the distin-
guished chairman, particularly his offer
to appoint the subcommittee today. We
had not asked the chairman for such
prompt action. I am grateful for it.
Mr. President, In view of that state-
ment, I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I wish to ask the distinguished chair-
man of the committee a question with
reference to the paragraph of the report
beginning on the second line from the
bottom of page 1, which reads:
The basic pay for those with under 2 years
of service has not increased since 1952, as
compared to the other pay brackets which
have been increased in varying amounts in
1955, 1958, and 1963. The committee was
of the opinion, therefore, that an increase
for the under-2-year officer pay brackets in
excess of that provided for the over-2-year
pay brackets was justified in view of the
lack of past increases for these brackets.
My question to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Georgia Is, Has this situation
existed with reference to servicemen in
grades E-1 to E-5 since 1952? Have they
had no increases in pay since 1952?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is cor-
rect. All of those with under 2 years
of service, whether enlisted men or com-
missioned personnel, have not received
any basic pay increase since 1952.
There is a considerable difference. how-
ever, In the status of commissioned and
enlisted personnel in the under-2-year
bracket. Most of the first 2 years serv-
ice of the enlisted men is spent in train-
ing of one kind or another, whereas the
commissioned personnel have had their
training and are supposed to embark
upon their duties when they reach the
organization to which they are assigned.
In addition, married men are no longer
drafted. Most of these men are single
and live in Government barracks and
eat at the Government mess; whereas
the officers in many cases have to find
housing and have to eat outside and do
not have the benefits of the Government
mess. That is the reason why the dis-
tinction is made.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Those in grades
E-1 to E-5 who have been in service for
over 2 years also live in barracks and eat
at Government mess.
Mr. RUSSELL. If they have over 2
years' service, they receive the increase.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Those who
served for 2 years also received an in-
crease in 1955, 1958, and 1963.
Mr. RUSSELL. I believe that is cor-
rect.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. But during that
same period of time, as was so ably
pointed out by the chairman of the com-
mittee in his statement in support of the
entire bill-and I am in support of it-
civilian employees of the Government
have received numerous increases.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. Of
course, civilian employees of our Gov-
ernment do not live in Government bar-
racks or eat at the Government mess.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. And they do not
receive hospitalization.
Mr. RUSSELL. Thatis correct.
Mr. YARBOROUGH, During that
period of time, with the exception of
E-1 through E-5, the privates, the cor-
porals, and all the rest of the lower
grades, have received three other raises
in addition to these here proposed.
Mr. RUSSELL. This is not as unfair
as it seems because the less-than-2-years
servicemen are automatically assured
of three pay raises during that 2-year
period-three promotions. At the end
of 4 months they receive an increase of
$5.20 under existing law. At the end of
1 year they may receive increases be-
cause of promo lon that amount to
about 18 or 20 percent of their Initial
pay. That is due to the pay increases
established by existing law.
I do not believe the same rule applies
to enlisted men that applies to officers,
who in many cases are married and who
are from 4 to 7 years older, on the
average. than enlisted men with less than
2 years' service. who are very well pro-
vided for In the barracks and at the
mess.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The letters I
have been receiving over the years from
those in these grades and their families
are not in accordance with the opinion
expressed here that they do not need the
increase.
Mr. RUSSELL. If the Senator will
pardon me for Interrupting, if the selec-
tive service regulations had net been
changed so that married men are no
longer subject to the draft, I would have
supported a pay Increase for this cate-
gory, but under the present selective
service regulations, a married man is not
subject to Induction or compulsory serv-
ice. Therefore, these are usually single
men, between the ages of 18 to 21.
There are individual cases in which
married men, even though they may have
had a child or two, have enlisted for one
reason or another. In that latter case,
this pay is not adequate. but I do not
believe we should overpay 98 percent of
those for whom this pay bracket is ade-
quate In order to equalize the pay for
the I or 2 percent for whom the com-
pensation may not be adequate.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I cannot agree
that $78 a month or $83.20 a month or
$85.80 a month, for example, in grades
E-1 and E-2 is overpayment.
Mr. RUSSELL. I have not said they
are overpaid. I said if we were to give
them a substantial increase, they would
be overpaid. I think this pay is about
right. At one time we Increased the
compensation of the recruit in the U.S.
Army, as I recall, from $30 to $65 or $70
a month, which was the largest Increase
ever given. It was in 1942. Since that
time it has been increased to $78.
The 2-year service members are, in a
sense, discharging their obligation to
their country. If they remain in the
service longer and desire to make a ca-
recr of it or serve for longer than 2 years,
they will receive the benefit of these pay
increases.
Very frankly, I do not think the situ-
ation justifies an increase of pay which
would bring about a great increase in
the total cost of the bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Could the dis-
tinguished chairman of the committee
inform me, or does the staff have the
figures, as to what the increase in cost
would be if the pay of the enlisted men
were increased, not by the 8'/2 percent
the officers and warrant officers would
receive, but by only 2'/2 percent?
"Jr. RUSSELL. It would be only $28
million, but such an increase in those
pay brackets would mean an additional
pay of only what would be spent in a
night over the weekend or perhaps on
a case of beer. It would not be a sub-
stuntial increase. If their pay is to be
hi creased, it should be an 8- or 10-per-
cent increase, on the ground that they
have been passed over. Personally, I
do not think they are entitled to one,
because they live in Government quar-
ters, in barracks. Ninety-nine percent of
them eat at the Government mess. I
refer to those with less than 2 years'
service. All of them arc engaged in train-
ivi?; for at least 4 months, and the ma-
jority of them are in training for 1 year.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. They could not
very well eat anywhere but in a Govern-
ment messhall, at $78 a month.
Mr. RUSSELL. Of course not. If
they did not eat there, we would increase
their pay also.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I have had legis-
lasive counsel draft a proposed amend-
m;mt to increase the pay of these enlister
men by 2.5 percent. I agree with the dis-
tiiiguished chairman that it ought to be
8.) percent.
Mr. RUSSELL. I did not say it ough
to be. If they should receive an increase
that is what they should receive. I di
not believe they should receive an in
crease.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I made a rapi,
calculation that it would cost $26 mil
lion. The staff claims it would be $2
million.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. We are increas
log the pay of all the civil servants. W
are increasing the pay of every militar
person except those who have served les
than 2 years, below grade 5. The table
st=ow that some majors have served un
der 2 years but are al o receiving an in-
crease. Table 1 shows majors and lieu-
tenant commanders with less than
years of service who are getting an In-
ease.
Mr. RUSSELL. I challenge the
Senator to name one in that category.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The figurer
show that.
Mr. RUSSELL. If the President were
to reach down to one of these recruit.
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
and appoint him Chief of Staff, he would
get an increase of $49.30 a month, but the
possibility of the President doing that is
remote, and therefore the figures do not
mean anything.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. The distin-
guished chairman has challenged me to
name one major.
Mr. RUSSELL. I have challenged the
Senator to name a lieutenant command-
er or major who has less than 2 years of
service. There may be a few medical offi-
cers, of course.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Table 1 shows
10 majors with less than 2 years' service.
Mr. RUSSELL. There undoubtedly
may be a few officers that I overlooked.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. And also cap-
tains and lieutenants. The table shows
2,527 captains and lieutenants with less
15757
than 2 years' service. It shows 4,861 first
lieutenants, or lieutenants junior grade.
Mr. RUSSELL. All of them would re-
ceive an 81/2 percent increase.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I ask unani-
mous consent that table 1 be printed in
the RECORD at this point. -
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows;
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
 15758
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENAT E
ell ~
ssx?~s~ P8Pt~N 98 s 888 888 98?g? 88R 8 ?8s~
989 : ~s~ 5388 i. 888133 seems 9823P Rsan j ?8ss
?s m 49 iii o
a iri& i >> si.Z t-w wA
sss
a^o+da
f:8
989 888 889 ass 88x'?9 PBPng 888al ?8? 9
9.4 0
2
s?sxaef ri~ drar
NM . ? YM ? i pa _ _ 99 _ _ 9a
989
888
Is; d
axis
989
ova
889
spa
989
OP
113
989
O a
R88
adci
089
ass
aA
888 R8R 888
888
mdM
988 $88 ass
a all 1.
as as ;iii
888 99 8 ? 889-a 88Ev8 Seals
?'t3 8i5 ~^r't- ddb
AA ALi G- " 1: " a
sea
+A! Y$
!3 M3
NM
889
919
as
88R 888
as AA
ass
MN
83 >
ass 888
gSv
aii 9a
989 888 88$
>> >
989 888 9953 sits
113 as NM A
$88pi 8s8g 989 Rs8gi 98s5a
tog 199- 999x; 99ga 94=i
>> >>>
888
gig
Ego
Mgt
' 1ST .gg
s :; lcf
888"A 8ss8! 88811 ?88aj
90 gig 10" 90">
Aa
88gnA 88819 8j88869
60
gig 90 K 60-
Z
82'9 8890- 488
989 5i
o k6a ka4~"
A.Z.
88$3 98898 885PI
989 888 8$8?"
boa 96
888 989 ass P812V12
? ,~ .. gill
ass. i 888 88s P8p-;;
19 a
[988 88? 888 888?:.,8
BiN~ , , ~M ' ~Y! ? NSW
Yl 9 ~
jg gig UX.)
gig
Approved For Release 2005/04/21 CIA-RDP66B00403R000400280009-7
,,'suly 20
pt~ r[~ N
t~Ci +tDN
9899 888"
d o 8
~~wM
2BPgn 888"
889a{sqq s89g3
~~W ~-, 19 YS~W
aw ~z~~s~ ~zv
U ~
O O
888
e~-.O ~iM~
909~N
.?+ 89
888x8
?8251
988~!N
g888 9
888A-a
88888
a3e~a9~w
88888
8880
9898
P8?
sss;
gs~~s