Mr. BLANDFORD. Those increases in flight pay correspond to what percentage with regard to basic pay?

Colonel CORBIN. They are the percentages if you remember that were picked out at various years service. Do you want me to repeat those?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.

Colonel CORBIN. For the officers, you will remember they were comparing the present scales, that is career-compensation scales, running it in percentages, using for the major general 26 years, it came out for the proposed bill H. R. 2607, 16 percent, that was the multiple that was applied here.

For brigadier generals at 22, this point here [indicating] that was 19 percent.

Mr. BLANDFORD. In relation to what, Colonel?

Colonel CORBIN. This percentage has now been multiplied by the new basic scales.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. But how did you arrive at your percentages. Colonel CORBIN. The original percentage was the then flying pay compared to the then basic pay under the Career Compensation Act. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is the point?

Colonel CORBIN. Yes.

Mr. BLANDFORD. In other words, what you did, you took the incentive pay of the Career Compensation Act and related it to its proportion to basic pay, translated it into percentages and then applied it, taking into consideration the 4 percent increase in 1952, and applied it to the new pay scale.

Colonel CORBIN. Well, of course, there was no 4 percent raise. Mr. BLANDFORD. No increase in flight pay, but the proportion had to respond to it.

Colonel CORBIN. That is right; yes. And this just represents the approved percentages multiplied back against the new scale. This, of course, is always reduced to the nearest $5 and the biggest change at point in this chart is $5.

Mr. HARDY. So that the hazardous-duty pay as represented on this chart represents the same percentage of basic pay as the hazardousduty pay represented of basic pay in the original Officer Personnel

Act.

Colonel CORBIN. In the Career Compensation Act, yes, sir; using these incentive points, 26, 22, 14, and so on down the scale as the basis. Because you remember that in the Career Compensation Act the hazardous-duty pay was merely a single line pay. The same pay for each grade.

Mr. HARDY. The point is this, let me see if I understand: Whether or not the incentive pay here in this bill now is the same percentage of basic pay as incentive pay was in the original Career Compensation Act.

Colonel CORBIN. No, sir; that wouldn't be a true statement the way you stated it.

It is at these career points which were considered to be the average career for each grade. But if you remember in the Career Compensation Act the flying pay for example, was the same for all generals, the same for all colonels, no matter how many years service, the same for all lieutenant colonels, and so on.

We have taken these points, figured a ratio, and multiplied back against the whole basic pay table, so that now we have varying flying pay rates for years of service.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to say so, I think it is the most likely spot for controversy on the floor that I can think of, because many people, including myself, are not too inclined toward hazard pay which varies with rank. I have to be talked to a lot before I

Mr. KILDAY. I think it depends upon whether the basic idea of the incentive is justified.

If it is justified, then it must have a percentage relationship to base pay. In other words, $10 to a man making $75 a month is quite an incentive, whereas $10 to a man making $200 a month would probably be no incentive. It is just a question as to whether or not incentive pay is justified, and I think it is too late for us to examine into that, because it came into the law back in 1917.

Mr. BENNETT. Of course, we may have no controversy on this bill; this bill may go through without any difficulty at all. It is so complicated that I myself feel remiss to take a large cudgel up against any portion of it. But I do want to say this, that throughout this entire hearing we have had a great deal of confidence expressed by our witnesses in the Hook report, and a large measure of assumption that Congress would endorse that report.

But, you see, actually Congress has already had that report before it and has repudiated it, and has repudiated the very idea which we are now about to embrace here with regard to incentive pay varying on the basis of rank.

So that sanguine approach seems to me to be unwarranted by the legislative history of this legislation in the past.

Mr. KILDAY. Well, the gentleman may be correct on that. But I don't believe it is correct to say that the philosophy of the Hook Commission report was rejected by Congress.

It is true that we had to revise some of the scales which we proposed in 1949, but you will recall that in 1949 this phase of pay probably consumed as much or more time on the floor of the House than all of the ballots on the bill put together.

I forget how many times we counted the teller votes.

Mr. BENNETT. But this idea was repudiated; wasn't it? This philosophy was repudiated in those teller votes?

Mr. BLANDFORD. No. We reported a bill with a flat amount of flight pay for each grade. At that time we did not have flight pay based on years of serivce. But the House very definitely retained the idea that we would have flight pay that would be graduated upward as rank increased.

Mr. BENNETT. Much more modestly than the Hook Commission would have indicated.

Mr. BLANDFORD. No; they made not a single change in flight pay on the floor of the House. Not a change.

They attempted it, but it was defeated; that is where Mr. Kilday stated earlier that it is not a question of whether you should pay incentive pay, it is a question of how much. Because the philosophy has already been established that incentive pay is justified.

I would like to say this for the record, because I think it is very important: These amounts of money that are payable here do not represent the amount of money that is paid the individual for the hazard involved. We have never attempted to compensate a man for the hazard involved in his particular hazardous occupation. It is impossible to pay a man to fly a B-47, knowing that his chances of being killed are much better than the average individual.

You can't pay a man enough for being killed.

Now the only thing we could do was to pass a law, and establish by statute, a sufficient incentive for individuals to expose themselves to that hazard.

But we must always remember that we are never attempting to compensate for the hazard. It can't be done. I think the chairman will bear me out on that, that it just can't be done.

Mr. KILDAY. This is the basic question that we will have to face on the floor. We have had it before.

Mr. BENNETT. Maybe I am just remembering that I wasn't too enthusiastic about paying higher rank officers more incentive pay. Mr. KILDAY. I think the big impact of the increase is in the ranks where the most flying is done.

Colonel CORBIN. That is right, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. I believe there has been a great change even since 1949 when the public attitude toward flying jets and flying reciprocal engines, for instance the crash yesterday, I believe it was at Lake Charles, I think that the feeling now is more comparable to what we had in 1917 when they were flying planes made of spruce and canvas, the very idea of flying those things produced the incentive pay of 50 percent.

Now, we have moved to the jet engine and I think even the person who accepts flying has to have some incentive.

Mr. BENNETT. I think my own thinking has undergone some revision on the matter. I lived in the midst of jet pilots, when I went home after this last session and I think I can see the problem more acutely

now.

Is there any infantry combat pay in this bill?

Mr. BLANDFORD. No, because infantry combat pay started-Senator Blair Moody offered an amendment to a bill that was never considered by the House Armed Services Committee, it was a veterans affairs bill, it went into the Korean GI bill, if I am not mistaken, and this committee never passed on it. It is only payable in time of combat, and it is an unusual type of legislation because if you are on a minesweeper you have to be blown up 6 times in 1 month in order to qualify for that combat pay.

Mr. KILDAY. Doesn't the Career Compensation Act give the President power to suspend hazard-duty pay in time of war?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. That is where the difficulty arose, I believe, in Korea. In 1949 we realized that the hazard of the infantryman was probably great or greater than anyone else, certainly most disagreeable service. And the time of combat when everybody is subjected to hazard, the President does have that power, and perhaps should exercise it. It is a matter for his judgment. There were some remarks made here as to what would happen in an atomic war. It may be in that kind of a war the safest man would be the military man.

He would be better protected against the effect of fallouts. Perhaps, the civilian would be subject to the greatest hazard in atomic

war.

I believe it is proper.

Mr. BENNETT. In other words, if you had the question asked on the floor, "Why aren't combat Infantry allotments made in this thing," your answer would be that this is a peacetime law we are passing now and has no relationship to combat. As a former infantryman, I am full of emotion on that subject. I have always felt that pay should be there as sort of a sweet thing that the Federal Government did to show that it appreciated the service of the combat soldier. I think it has a tremendous morale factor among infantry soldiers. The amount of it is not too important.

Colonel BRINCKMANN. I would like to answer that off the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KILDAY. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. KILDAY. Back on the record.

Colonel CORBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out in these overall scales that actually 95 percent of the pay increases proposed by this go to major and below.

Mr. KILDAY. What was the percent?

Colonel CORBIN. Ninety-five percent. Let me have the next chart, please.

This chart, of course, for the warrant officers is derived in the same way and there is no significant change there that proposed in the bill presently before this committee. Only a matter of $5 change at some points due to multiplying percentage.

I will point out that there is what I consider one area in this bill be changed, that is the decrease of W-1 under 2 by $1.00. I believe he should remain at the present $100. I don't know that there is anybody in this area but there might be, particularly in the Army, flying [indicating].

Mr. BLANDFORD. There is a mistake in that. That W-1 should be $100.

Colonel CORBIN. Yes, that is what it says. I believe it is an error. Captain MARTINEAU. A misprint.

Colonel CORBIN. I merely propose it be changed back to $100. Mr. BLANDFORD. It should be. It should have been $100 in the first place.

Mr. KILDAY. That is the first place you have a decrease.

Mr. HARDY. You have some on the previous chart.

Colonel CORBIN. Yes, there is, in the grade of colonel that didn't change.

Mr. BLANDFORD. It didn't decrease, did it?

Colonel CORBIN. Yes, it did. This is the same as the proposal, that right area there by multiplication of the percentages did decrease that pay.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, you don't have any colonels drawing hazard pay with less than 2 years of service?

Colonel CORBIN. That is true.

Mr. BLANDFORD. You probably have a flight surgeon somewhere along the line.

Colonel CORBIN. He still gets a raise.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I know.

Mr. KILDAY. Of course, it is true that the Army warrant officer pilot-without objection, that $90 will be changed back to $100. I am sure that is a typographical error.

Mr. BLANDFORD. It is an error.

Colonel CORBIN. The enlisted scale even by the changes indicated have not changed appreciably at any area and this is essentially the flying-pay table proposed in 2607.

Mr. KILDAY. Any questions on this chart?

(No response.)

Mr. KILDAY. Do you have anything further?
Colonel CORBIN. No.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Now, Mr. Chairman, the next point is the question of the dislocation allowance. If you will turn to page 10 of the committee print you will see what we have attempted to do in placing reasonable restrictions on the payment of dislocation allowance.

We have reworded the section so as to provide that under such regulations as may be approved by the Secretary concerned a member of a uniformed service whose dependents are authorized to move and actually move in connection with his permanent change of station is entitled to a dislocation allowance equal to his monthly basic allowance for quarters.

However, the member is entitled to the payment of a dislocation allowance for not more than one permanent change of station during any fiscal year, except on the finding of the Secretary of the Department concerned that the exigencies of the service require more than one such change of station during any fiscal year. This limitation upon the payment of a dislocation allowance shall not apply to members of the uniformed services ordered to service schools as a permanent change of station. In addition, this limitation shall not be applicable in time of war or national emergency declared after the effective date of this amendatory act. A member is not entitled to payment of a dislocation allowance when ordered from home to first duty station or from last duty station to home.

That is to remove any question about that part.

Mr. KILDAY. I think that adequately expresses what I had in mind. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Does that include all schools?

Mr. BLANDFORD. All service schools.

Now, this ought to go on the record, definitely as to what we mean by service schools. Because this is something that does not appear in any other legislation to my knowledge.

For example, I would assume that if a man were sent to Harvard University, that business administration course up there, and that he already had had one permanent change of station during a fiscal year, that "service schools" would not include his move to Harvard University as a permanent change of station.

Therefore, that would require a finding by the Secretary that the exigencies of the service require the payment of a dislocation. allowance.

Mr. BATES. Except that that is a 2-year school.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Let us say the man is ordered from Washington to Quantico, and he arrives at Quantico and he goes through a course