Now the subcommittee made quite some extensive changes in the warrant officers' pay scale. First off, the bill itself, the original bill, proposed an extra increase for the enlisted man who has been promoted into the lowest warrant grade, the reason being that the differential between the highest enlisted grade the master sergeant and the warrant officer is so small under existing law that men are actually losing money by being promoted into the warrant grade. That was recognized, and an extra dollar increase was put in for this lowest warrant grade. However, the subcommittee, considering that matter, further noted that by increasing only the W-1 grade, that it narrowed the differential for promotion into the W-2 and W-3 grades. So to increase the incentive to make a higher dollar increase, to give a man more to look forward to, the subcommittee put further increases into the W-2 and the W-3 grade. Mr. KILDAY. Of course, Captain, that carried out the pattern that had been set for officers? Captain MARTINEAU. Exactly, sir. Mr. KILDAY. The step increments for officers. I believe it was actually an oversight on the part of the drafting team, was it not, that the pattern followed for officers and the Warrant Officer Act, the Arends bill of last year, was not followed. Captain MARTINEAU. I am afraid, Mr. Kilday, that the draftees of the original bill did not give sufficient weight or consideration to the warrant officer bill that was considered and enacted last spring, whereby now for the first time warrant officers are subjected to the selection process. They must be selected for promotion after not more than 3 years in the lower grade. If they are not selected, by law they must go out. Likewise, they must spend not more than 6 years in the W-2 grade, and not more than 6 years in the W-3 grade, and finally they will finish up in the W-4. Because as the members know, everybody who comes into the warrant grade in the first place has got considerable enlisted service already. Mr. KILDAY. For which he gets credit. Captain MARTINEAU. For which he gets credit. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, on this point of warrant officers, in some of the services warrant officers have had a pretty hectic time; that is, at times the grade has been expanded and then reduced to practical extinction, and so on. In the last Congress-Mr. Arends' bill and before his subcommittee-we established a career pattern for warrant officers, to bring stability into the grade. They are a very useful group of men. As the captain has said, he has to have long enlisted service before he qualifies for a warrant grade. And in the past there has been a stagnation. We are hopeful that with the warrant officers' bill of last year and pay patterns corresponding to that bill and also to the officer pattern, that we will have established this grade on a permanent, firm basis that offers an excellent career and really a real incentive to the enlisted man who can never see himself becoming a commissioned officer, but he can see himself becoming a warrant officer. It would be a real incentive to him to remain as an enlisted man and qualify for a warrant officer and see a career of this kind available to him, and he earns every penny he gets. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Will the gentleman from Texas also point out that the bill last year provided for selection, immediate selection by which the dead timber has been removed and we have now nothing but the best of warrant officers in the services? Mr. KILDAY. That is right. That is what I meant when I referred to stagnation. Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. And some men can go to sea. Mr. GAVIN. At this point, Mr. Kilday, will you explain this whole program is returning pretty much back to the Hook committee recommendations that were presented in 1949 and got away in the Senate and we are now coming back. Mr. KILDAY. That is right. There are 2 things-I guess really 3 things that affected the Hook Commission pattern. First was the action of the committee in not going along with all of the pay scales recommended by the Hook Commission. The next thing was that our bill was recommitted. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. KILDAY. In the House. We had to bring it back to the committee and make some percentage reductions that none of us really liked, because we were sold on the idea of the Hook Commission report of a permanent pay situation which could be increased in the event of an increase in the cost of living or for even incentives or whatnot or should that time ever come, decreased, there should ever be a decrease in the cost of living. Now this bill attempts to get back to the pattern recommended by the Hook Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Captain, with your next chart, for enlisted personnel. Captain MARTINEAU. This is the next chart on the warrant, that will show the percentage. This is the warrant picture, again, Mr. Chairman. Here we compare the committee proposal with existing law and show on the third line in blue the dollar increase and finally the percentage increase. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, these charts will be available. I think it is important that we get to the enlisted pay scales, where we should perhaps spend as much time as is needed. Mr. VAN ZANDT. What is your highest percentage of incentive increase there? Captain MARTINEAU. The highest percentage for the warrant officers, Mr. Van Zandt, would be for the W-1 grade with over 12 years' service, who gets a 2212 percent increase over present pay. Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Kilday if there was any kind of formula the subcommittee used in increasing the pay of particular grades? Was a percentage Mr. KILDAY. Of the warrant officers? Mr. COLE. Well, warrant or officer or any of them. Mr. KILDAY. Yes. I have set that out here in what I read. I would like to have Mr. Blandford give that. Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, it is a rather complicated situation, Mr. Cole. What they did: They took the original Hook Commission proposal. When the House recommitted the original bill that this committee reported, we were required to reduce pay to this extent: Officers by 5 percent. Warrant officers by 3 percent, and enlisted personnel by 2 percent. Now, in attempting to go back to a sound pay system which will keep people in the service and you had to use some type of a formula-they went back to the original Hook Commission and they added to that the 4 percent that we granted in 1952 and then looked at the career pattern and in the increment stages; that is, over 2 years of service until you get up to 18, and then 4 years, every 4 years thereafter Mr. KILDAY. How much is an increment? Mr. BLANDFORD. The increment is $7.80 for an enlisted man and $15 for an officer. In other words, an officer who stays in grade, the same as in civil service, receives more money up to a certain point in the pay scale. A first lieutenant will stay in grade, we will say for 8, 10, or 12 years, and every 2 years he gets a $15 increase per month. Up to a certain point where he has reached what is considered maximum progress, and if he hasn't been promoted, he is not entitled to increments thereafter. The same thing in the pay scales for enlisted personnel and for warrant officers. Now, recognizing the urgency of the situation, recognizing that the enlistment rate in the Navy is the lowest in the recorded history of the Navy, recognizing that the reenlistment rate in all of our armed services is one-half of what it was in 1949, and that our applications for regular commissions from among qualified officers, Reserve officers, in ROTC graduates, honor graduates, distinguished graduates, and recognizing the resignation rate is going up-recognizing all of those things, the drafters then took another look at their pay scales and decided that in certain instances they would double the increments, at certain critical points. In other words, at a point where a man would say, "Well, I am not going to stay in this business, I don't get enough, I can go out and earn more, I will give up 6 or 8 years and I will get out. The most I can expect to get is another $15." Mr. BROOKS. Russ, can I ask you this question? How did they arrive at the figures for the increment? Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, the increment figures were originally arrived at by the Hook Commission, but I think that that was based upon the tradition of the 1922 Pay Act. We have had it for a long time. Then the 1942 act. They had fogeys every 5 years, if I am not mistaken, up to 1942-or was it every 3 years? (Chorus of "3 years.") Mr. BLANDFORD. They had the fogey system; what they used to call fogeys, and that went up to a certain maximum. I think they went up to 35 percent-well, from a certain grade of enlisted and then 50 percent for officers, I think is the way it was. Mr. JOHNSON. Was that enlisted rate a percentage increase or Mr. KILDAY. This was a dollar amount. The Hook Commission took a lot of factors into consideration and arrived at an arbitrary figure. Mr. JOHNSON. What I was asking him was about the enlistment rate. He says it is the lowest it has ever been. Mr. BLANDFORD. The reenlistment rate in the Navy is the lowest in the recorded history of the Navy. Mr. JOHNSON. In percentage or in numbers? Mr. BLANDFORD. In percentage. Not in numbers, obviously- Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, in the enlisted grades you will find-start, I think, with the E-3. There is a double increment for the E-3, at over 3, moving from 0-3 to the over 4. Then there is a double increment for the E-4 who completes more than 3 and moves into the over 4. The same thing for the E-5. Mr. KILDAY. You see, that the man we want to make particular effort to get The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. He has moved up to corporal. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. He has assumed responsibility and responsibility of command. He is the fellow who has shown that he is temperamentally suited for military service, and he has the aptitude for military service. He is the fellow we want to keep. Now, I would like to at this point, with the other chart, I believethis is the increment, if you want to follow that further. The CHAIRMAN. No. We are through with that. We all understand it. Mr. COLE. Do I understand, then, the only independent action the subcommittee took, other than an effort to establish as a pattern the recommendations of the Hook Committee-but above that the subcommittee independently recommended double increments in certain critical categories? Mr. KILDAY. No, that is not quite correct. That is why I wanted this chart, and I wanted to say a few words about it. This was in connection with what I had to say as to the title of this bill-Career Incentive Act. Now, under the bill as it came to us-that is not on there. But anyway, the other chart reflected that. But anyway, as it came to us, the E-1 with 4 months of service, no pay increase after 2 years, you will see that we have carried it out through his career. The committee inserted that. Now, here is what I want to point out: As to the enlisted man with less than 2 years of service and the officer with less than 3 years of service of course, we only have a relatively small percentage of our people who are willing to undertake a military career. Of the number of the percentage willing to undertake it, there is even a smaller percentage who have the aptitude to follow a military career. So long as we are maintaining a large military establishment, we are going to have to prepare a career that will attract the maximum number of those persons who are temperamentally suited and who have the aptitude in order to maintain anything like the numbers which we must maintain. Now, in time of war you can't pay a man to get killed. And in time of peace you can't perhaps pay a man for his-adequately pay a man for 2 years taken out of his life and out of his civilian career. Therefore, you are relegated to giving him a reasonable amount for his personal needs. Relatively few draftees have dependents. So it would not be to anyone's advantage to attempt to pay them all to take care of the dependents of the relatively few. So you can't put that in your pay scales. You must go to an allotment and an allowance act to take care of the relatively few who have dependents. As to the man who is going to be a lawyer, engineer or a doctor and takes out 2 years to render this service to his country, you can't compensate him by adding to his monthly pay. Then you are relegated to such things as Congress may determine under a GI bill or something of that kind. So in attempting to project a career basis here, and realize that with approximately 3 million enlisted men, a $1 a month increase means $36 million a year and you haven't done anybody any good. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. KILDAY. A $2 increase and you have spent $72 million. By the time you get to $6, I think you get to maybe $180 million. And you have done relatively little good. So what we are attempting to do here is to say to the fellow who has completed 2 years of service as an enlisted man or 3 years as an officer: "Here is this increased amount of pay," and hope with the steps going up above it-suppose he is caught in a combat regiment where they have a tight table of organization and he can't see that he is going to make sergeant within the next 2 years but he does see that notwithstanding his tight table of organization, which permits him to stay in his outfit-and that is one of the definite things that is being attempted at this time, is to build up the pride of organization-that he can still stay there, and if the sergeant ahead of him falls out, still he will get a pay increase. But over and above everything else, for every one of those men who has served 2 years obligated service he has no choice. He must serve 2 years because it has been imposed on all of those. But for every one of those that we can succeed in signing up and enlist, we eliminate one draftee. And I think that is a highly desirable thing. I think it is what everybody wants to get to. And some day we hope, when the condition of the world permits it, we would then have a volunteer service. The same thing with reference to the lieutenant. And before I leave it, these fellows aren't going to stay as privates during all that 2 years. They are going to be promoted. Relatively few, with all the turnover of people going on, will stay stationary. The vast majority will be increased. And we hope it will be sufficient to attract them to stay on. Mr. ARENDS. Could I ask my chairman The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ARENDS. The rumor that I have heard was that there is going to be an effort to increase that. Mr. KILDAY. No; I haven't heard that. Mr. ARENDS. I hope they resist it. Mr. KILDAY. Well, it is my purpose to resist it. It is not any idea of not paying these boys. Mr. ARENDS. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. More money. As I said, if you give them a dollar, you spend $36 million a year. You can't just give it to the bottom man. Mr. ARENDS. No. And under your explanation Mr. KILDAY. If you give it to the bottom man, you have to go all the way up. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Zandt. |