Mr. KILDAY. That is not the point that we are concerned about. Mr. STEPHENS. People who were drawing retirement pay under laws in effect prior to the Career Compensation Act?

Captain MARTINEAU. Yes. We have a total in the 4 armed services, a total of some 43,500 who are drawing retired pay under laws other than the Career Compensation Act. And of those some 34,000 are retired for physical disability.

Mr. HÉBERT. What percentage, Captain, above the 60 percent that Mr. Stevenson was speaking about?

Do you have the breakdown of that 35,000 that you mentioned who are drawing disability pay, what percentage of that 35,000 would come into the area above 60 percent disability?

Captain MARTINEAU. I don't have that information at this time. Mr. BLANDFORD. One other point, Mr. Chairman, I think we should not overlook. That is while Mr. Stevenson is talking about election for pay purposes under the proposed Career Incentive Act, this opens up entirely again the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act with what result I would hesitate to say because I don't believe anybody can predict. There would be cases now with men with a 40-percent disability who would now elect to come under the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act in view of the fact that they have discovered that they have a disease or they are in poor health and their wives would undoubtedly outlive them.

Prior to this time they did not make that election. So when you talk about making an election here you don't confine it just to the Career Compensation Act, you are opening up the whole aspect of the uniformed services contingency option act.

Mr. BENNETT. Why do you feel you open that up.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Because you would have to open it up to be fair to the people. If you make this election people would now feel that they would be entitled to come under the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act. They might not be able to afford the reduction in their pay under the old laws in effect prior to the Career Compensation Act.

Now, they will say, they are entitled to that.

Mr. BENNETT. I think that is pretty farfetched.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The department considered it in this bill.
Mr. BENNETT. Which department bill.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The one in front of you there.

Mr. BENNETT. You mean it was stricken by the Department?
Mr. BLANDFORD. No, it was stricken by this committee.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. Capt. Thomas Jackson?

Captain JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I was originally not supposed to appear here as a witness, but Mr. Hoeppel who is in California was unable to get here in time for this hearing. He asked me to come up here for him.

Mr. Hoeppel is a former Member of Congress and he publishes a national-defense magazine that is in the interest of enlisted men and former enlisted men.

Now, the object of his appearance was to urge upon this committee that H. R. 554 be connected with this present bill under consideration by appropriate amendment.

Now, that has to do with double-time service in connection with retirement and for the treatment of the enlisted men who did not reach the commissioned rank the same as those who did.

Now, I don't know as much about this as Mr. Hoeppel so he has sent to me a copy of a letter to the chairman of the committee which I will ask be received and made a part of the record.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection, it will be included in the record. (The letter follows:)

Hon. CARL VINSON,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee,

Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 27, 1955.

DEAR MR. VINSON: I know you are a busy man, and as such you cannot give detailed study to various problems which come before you and your committee. One such problem is to eke out justice to personnel of the armed services, active and retired; especially is this true when you have prejudiced individuals who submit evasive or deceptive information to you and your committee.

I mention this, because you recently wrote to a colleague, indicating that the Department was opposed to granting longevity pay for double time to retired enlisted men. Merely because the Department opposes is one way to legislate in a biased manner, and as I know you wish to be fair, I respectfully request that you read the following statement of facts, and compare them, with the contortionism of the Pentagon which claims that our appeal is discriminatory,

etc.

I refer specifically to amending H. R. 2607, to provide equalization in retired pay to enlisted men between the period of June 1, 1942, and June 20, 1946. The chronological history of longevity pay for double time is as follows: Prior to enactment of the Pay Readjustment Act of June 16, 1942, officers and men received a maximum of 40 percent in longevity pay. As this act changed longevity pay to a maximum of 50 percent it naturally increased the pay of all military personnel, except those of us, who gained double time, fighting our Nation's battles on foreign soil.

For instance, in my own case, my longevity pay was reduced from 40 percent to 35 percent, and as a result, I and many others did not receive 75 percent of the pay of our rank, as is provided in the act of February 14, 1885, establishing retirement.

Your able subchairman, Mr. Kilday, recognized this discrimination against the real fighting men of the service, and he introduced a bill to remove this injustice.

The War Department reported favorably on Mr. Kilday's bill, and the Assistant Secretary of War, Mr. Patterson, said it was a good bill, and not discriminatory against any other enlisted men or group. Accordingly the bill passed your committee and the Senate, and was sent to the President. President Roosevelt, because of change of attitude by the War Department, vetoed the bill.

Again in 1946 Mr. Kilday introduced another bill, or added the vetoed bill to the Pay Act of June 29, 1946, and it then became law, thus giving to all men who retired with credit for 30 years' service the full 75 percent of the pay of their rank, as provided in the original law, establishing retirement.

From July 1, 1946, to the present all retired enlisted men who retired with credit for 30 years' service (including double time), all of them have received and are now receiving 75 percent of the pay of their retired rank.

Seeking to give to retired enlisted men, the proper 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which they retired, Mr. Kilday again introduced a bill to grant the 49 months' longevity pay to men who had double time, and who during this period, received only 35 to 45 percent received the full 75 percent-as the law stipulates.

Again this bill by Mr. Kilday passed your committee and the Senate and was sent to the White House. It was again vetoed on the urging of the Pentagon group, which as I see it, are penalizing all retired enlisted men, because they have an antipathy against the undersigned.

Continuing, in the Career Compensation Act of 1949, Mr. Kilday again provided that all men who retired with credit for 30 years' service should receive 75 percent of the pay of their rank-and because this provision of his, was tied up with an increase for the Pentagon group, it became law.

It seems ironic that only when retired enlisted men's legislation is tied up with legislation in which officers profit, that this seems to be the only way we can obtain justice.

When Congressman Wilson (the veterans' friend) recently requested information from the Department of Defense as to the justice of our proposed amendment to give equalization in pay to all who had double time, and who received less than 75 percent of the pay of their rank, for the period stated, the Pentagon would not answer the specific question, but began to throw mud at myself and associates, saying that what we are proposing would entail myriads of hours of research, etc.

As I explained to Congressman Wilson there is not one iota of truth in the communication from the Pentagon.

You can see for yourself that what we appeal for, require no research of any kind, and what we plead for would give our rapidly diminishing group simple justice, in these our last days.

Please read the enclosed brief which elucidates a bit more in detail than this communication.

As so many of the men who would have profited had this legislation became law in 1943 or 1944, as Mr. Kilday proposed, this condition no longer applies, as they have passed on-and those who yet remain, are rapidly falling prey to the Grim Reaper.

If you wish you can add a proviso to the proposed amendment to H. R. 2607 (see last page of brief) to provide that benefits provided in this act shall not be automatic (thus requiring absolutely no research), and that all beneficiaries under this amendment be required to apply for this equalization in pay within a period of 2 years or whatever term seems more appropriate to you.

Please do not let the prejudiced younger legislative represenatives in the Pentagon pull the wool over the eyes of the committee. Mr. Kilday will confirm every word uttered here, I am sure.

In conclusion, may I say that the best way to serve the men of today is to be fair to those who served in the yesterday years. I myself was discharged the first time from the Army, over 56 years ago. And again, in conclusion, may I hope your own health is good, as I wish you all of the best in the years ahead. With thanks, I am,

Your well wisher,

POST OFFICE Box 687, ARCADIA, CALIF.

J. H. HOEPPEL, Manager.

Captain JACKSON. And a short brief in support of the bill.
Mr. KILDAY. That will also be included in the record.

(The brief follows:)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT TO H. R. 2607, TO PROVIDE EQUALIZATION IN RETIRED PAY TO ENLISTED MEN WHO RETIRED WITH CREDIT FOR 30 YEARS' SERVICE

(Amendment proposed is shown at the conclusion of this brief)

The following pertinent facts are submitted in connection with consideration of the proposed amendment, to equalize retired pay of enlisted men who retired from the armed service with 30 years' service credit.

(a) The act of February 14, 1885, establishing the right for enlisted men to retire after 30 years' service has never been repealed. This original retirement act provides that when an enlisted man shall have served 30 years in the armed services he shall be eligible to retirement, and that on retirement he will be entitled to 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which retired; and in addition, that he would be entitled to subsistence, clothing, and quarter allowances for life.

(b) The Pay Readjustment Act of June 16, 1942, which for the first time in American history provided subsistence allowances for officers, arbitrarily in the same act, took subsistence and other allowances from retired enlisted men, even though some of them had been receiving subsistence, clothing, and quarter allowances for 50 or more years.

To be more specific, retired enlisted men had their allowances taken from them, while for the officers a new innovation in the same act was established to give officers and their dependents subsistence allowances, which allowances they are today receiving.

DISCRIMINATIONS IN RETIRED PAY ALSO ESTABLISHED

Even though the original retirement act for enlisted men has not been repealed, and even though this original retirement act provided that men retired with credit for 30 years' service should receive 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which they retired, this provision of law, was also arbitrarily circumvented by a provision in the act of June 16, 1942, which prescribed new methods of computing longevity pay.

(a) The act of June 16, 1942, increased longevity credits for officers and men to a maximum of 50 percent, from the hitherto maximum of 40 percent. As a consequence of this act which provided increased longevity pay for the armed services, all such individuals received an increase in longevity pay, ecept retired enlisted men, who at the time of their retirement had double-time credit on which their retirement as enlisted men after 30 years' service was based. In the case of the writer of this brief, longevity pay was actually decreased to 35 percent while other enlisted men without double-time credit for retirement, received the full 50-percent increase in longevity pay.

(b) Under this new method of computing longevity pay, based only on active service (and disregarding double-time credits) all men who served abroad, fighting our Nation's battles on foreign soil and suffering every hazard and sacrificeall these men had their longevity pay reduced, so that effective June 1, 1942, all such retired enlisted men received less than 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which they retired. This reduction in longevity pay continued until July 1, 1946, after which period (in the Pay Act of June 29, 1946) they were given full 75 percent of the pay of their rank, as provided in the original act establishing retire

ment.

(c) During this period of 49 months, from June 1, 1942, to June 30, 1946, all other enlisted men who retired with credit for 30 years' service (and who did not serve abroad but who served safely here in the United States, enjoying all comforts and social conveniences)—all these men received the full 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which they retired.

(d) The incorporation of the proposed amendment in H. R. 2607, would give to approximately 1,000 or more men (yet living) who gained double-time credit before August 24, 1912, the small difference in pay rightfully due them to thus equalize the retired pay during this 49 months' service-so that those who served abroad and in combat, would get the small difference in pay (which was denied them), but which was received by men of similar rank and retirement credit, who remained safely at home within the confines of the United States.

(e) Unlike today when exorbitant bonuses are offered to enlisted men to remain in service, during and following the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and the conflict in China, the War Department recommended and Congress voted "double-time credits" as an incentive to induce men to reenlist and to serve in these areas-at a time when men were desperately needed.

(f) Ironically though, these men who revolunteered to serve our Nation when their services were desperately needed, they now find that they were victimized out of 49 months' pay at 75 percent of the rank at which they retired (as was promised them, if they would serve to retire under the 30-year act). The inclusion of the proposed amendment would remove this discrimination which they have been suffering since June 1, 1942, and up to July 1, 1946.

(g) The Pay Act of June 29, 1946, recognized the merit of the appeal of these retired enlisted men, and since July 1, 1946, they have been receiving the same full 75 percent of the pay of their rank on parity, with other retired enlisted men of similar rank, and with credit for 30 years on retirement. The Pay Act of October 1949, known as the Career Compensation Act, also recognized the services of these men and again provided for them the full 75 percent of the pay of the rank at which they retired-thus equalizing the retired pay of all men who retired with credit for 30 years' service.

(h) During their period of service, these enlisted rien received low pay ($15.60 per month on foreign shores), they had insufficient medical care, poor rations, including embalmed beef, and wormy hardtack and myriads of discomforts while campaigning in Cuba, the Philippines, and in China. As a consequence, the most of them have already gone to their final rest, while the bulk of those remaining had impaired health during their lifetime, and are today, virtually all of them, at their advanced age, physical derelicts.

(i) In accordance with the foregoing partial statement of fact stipulating the injustices perpetrated on this small group of men whose numbers are being rapidly reduced through death attrition, it is respectfully requested that the

committee include the following proposed amendment to H. R. 2607 to remove this discrimination which exists to the aged and disabled enlisted men of the Spanish-American War period.

Amendment at the end of line 12, page 3, add a new section as follows:

"SEC. 3-A (a). The proviso in section 202 (d) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 is amended by striking out "That" and inserting in lieu thereof "that effective as of June 1, 1942."

"(b) Any retired pay accruing by reason of the enactment of this Act, to any retired enlisted men for the period beginning June 1, 1942, and ending June 30, 1946, shall be paid in a lump sum to such retired enlisted man, or, in the case of his death, to his widow, if he left one, by the Secretary of the Army, or the Secretary of the Navy, as the case may be." Respectfully submitted.

JOHN H. HOEPPEL, Manager, National Defense, Arcadia, Calif.

(Retired as master sergeant, Air Force, August 16, 1921.) Captain JACKSON. Personally I would be for this bill for two

reasons.

The bill was sponsored by a Member of Congress who I believe is as familiar and as interested in veteran and armed services affairs as any Member of this Congress, and for the second reason, from my examination it seems fair and just and should be accepted.

That is all I have to say and I thank you very much.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you, Captain. We will give it consideration in executive session.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Justin Chambers of the Reserve Officers Association.

Come around, Mr. Chambers; be seated if you like.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted copies of a statement to the committee staff which I would like to have included in the record, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection it will be included in the record. (The statement follows:)

The Reserve Officers Association is happy to have the opportunity to support as shrongly as possible the enactment of legislation to increase the pay of uniform military personnel.

The alarming rate at which both officers and men are leaving the services and the difficulty with which new personnel are recruited presents a most serious threat to our national security,

This, in substantial part, is a reflection on the low morale of many members of the military service.

No military service is stronger than the morale and enthusiasm of its personnel. One important influence on morale is the question of military pay. While there are many who for patriotic reasons are most anxious to serve in the military forces, the sheer economics of the world in which we live today requires each to consider the financial support he can afford to his family or dependents.

It would, perhaps, be well if through some magic military personnel did not require payment for their services. Unfortunately, the facts are that their families and their interests require the same financial support as their contemporaries in civilian life. In some cases due to the complexities of military life their living costs are much higher.

In October 1949 Congress enacted the Career Compensation Act. While this was an improvement in the pay situation which existed at that time, no one argued that the pay schedule established by that act was completely inadequate. In May 1952 Congress again enacted legislation which gave a 4-percent increase in pay to military personnel along with certain increases in the rental and subsistence allowance.

During this same period of 6 years industry has granted its workers various increases in pay and the civilian employees of the Government have received substantial salary increases. It is probable that in no case has salary kept