Page images
PDF
EPUB

That is the experience level of the people in our armed services today, and it is a critical problem.

Now, what we are trying to do, really, by this bill is to raise that experience level. And certainly no one at all would be against raising the pay of people in the lower ranks, provided we had the money to do it and if we are going to accomplish anything.

But I would like to point out that these selective service laws are bringing people in to service, as Mr. Kilday pointed out, but we are losing them at the end of that obligated service. And this is where we must have them, and we are getting into serious shape unless we can keep more men in these middle grades. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Captain, get your Mr. WILSON, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. We have talked about the low reenlistment rates as the main justification for this bill, and I guess it is, but let's not overlook the fact that this is not just another reenlistment bonus-type bill. This is a two-way incentive bill, not only to get the men to reenlist but to keep them in and give them a chance to work up. It works both ways, not only to extend their enlistments but to get them to give them an opportunity to step upward.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Captain, have you a chart here on incentive pay for members assigned to hazardous duty ?

Captain MARTINEAU. Yes; we have.
The CHAIRMAN. Put that up.

Captain MARTINEAU. I would like to have Colonel Corbin of the Air Force explain this.

Mr. ARENDS. Alongside with the possibility of promotion, which we passed last year, where a man who has it and who merits it, can earn these promotions, plus all these reenlistment bonuses, which are very substantial today, plus the pay increase bill, if we can't get the boys in the services today, I don't know where we can turn.

I think we opened up many avenues for boys to enter the services.

Mr. KILDAY. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think a big incentive will be, should be, the fact that Congress last year in the reenlistment bonus and this year in the adjustment of pay is showing a sufficient amount of interest.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. Kilday. It is a great incentive.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, this is only one thing. There are other factors in the field of so-called fringe benefits. Hospitalization and medical care for dependents, as well as housing, is another.

The CHAIRMAN. Explain the chart where men are permitted to perform hazardous duty.

Colonel CORBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to explain first the development of this chart because it is a little complicated.

Under the Career Compensation Act we have here the grade shown. This is the pay for all major generals. This was the flying pay for all brigadier generals. And so on down the line. $100 a month was the pay for all second lieutenants.

Mr. NORBLAD. What does CCA mean!

Colonel CORBIN. Under the Career Compensation Act, that is correct.

on it.

A new theory was adopted by your subcommittee, and that was that hazardous duty pay should bear a relationship to basic pay.

The background of the theory is of course you could hire a man for $50 who received $100 basic pay to take a risk. You could not hire a man for the same amount receiving $400 a month.

Using selected years service and taking the Career Compensation Act rates—and these selected years service are where most of the men flying fall in their present grades--and taking the basic pay, they developed a ratio. This is the ratio of the Career Compensation Act rates to the Career Compensation Act basic pay.

Next slide, please.

Taking these ratios and making what amounts to a more uniform curve, reducing the colonels and raising your second and first lieutenant, your captain, and your major, where your critical need for fliers is today and where we are losing some 4,500 this year, these ratios came out.

Now, the new proposed basic pay that has already been presented is shown here at these selected years service. Multiplying the rates by the basic pay, we arrived at these amounts.

And we will now show you the officers charts with those imposed

These areas indicate the selected years service and show the result of the multiplication, the old or the Career Compensation Act pay in red, the committee proposal in black, and this area down here I wanted to point out especially because we used a 3-year point for a second lieutenant.

Your brand-new second lieutenant, of course, gets no increase because we are multiplying the percentage by no increase.

However, remembering that this is a volunteer service, this man does at the end of 2 years—and that is opposed to the general theory of the basic pay-get a slight increase in basic pay.

Mr. SHORT. Your increase for hazardous pay goes up to lieutenant colonel and then it tapers off, goes down from above lieutenant colonel.

Colonel CORBIN. That is correct; yes, sir, on those developed percentages.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, thank you very much.
Any more charts?
Colonel CORBIN. I have both the warrant and enlisted scale.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, let's see those right quickly, then.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. While we are waiting on the chart, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Colonel ?

Colonel CORBIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Just how far does this hazardous pay apply! Now, you have mentioned flight lieutenants, and so forth. I am thinking now about the frogmen, and so forth. Does this hazardous pay go down into that group?

Colonel CORBIN. This applies only to crewmen of submarines and airplanes—crew members. That is, they are required to fly with the airplanes. They are required to serve in submarines to get this pay.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. The question is: Does hazardous pay apply to the frogmen?

Colonel CORBIN. Not this hazardous pay; no, sir. There is a different rate, and there is a proposal in this bill.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. All right. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Colonel. Colonel CORBIN. This shows the same thing for warrant officers with selected years service, the basic pay of the Career Compensation Act, the ratio developed, the new ratios, increase for warrants, the proposed basic pay, and the resulting flight and submarine pay.

This whole chart is in the new pay scale. These are the points that we used.

Remember that all of these are derived by merely multiplying ratios.

For enlisted [indicates chart).
The CHAIRMAN. Any more?

Colonel CORBIN. This is the enlisted chart showing the same development. The new percentages. And you will notice a very large increase down at E-1. That was proposed by the subcommittee to bring up the flying pay of this man, of whom the Air Force now has some. They didn't use to. It was below the flying pay of the noncrew member.

All right, now the whole chart.
And this is the whole chart, the career pattern being shown here.
There is no increase beyond this point. That is the optimum years
service for flying.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Colonel.
Colonel CORBIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Short, have you a matter that you want to address to Mr. Kilday with regard to probably what is set out in the Seely-Brown bill?

Mr. SHORT. Yes,
The CHAIRMAN. That he has submitted.

Mr. SHORT. Well, briefly, members of the committee, there are 125,000 service families who are now living in mobile homes. There has been provision made, of course, in this bill for dislocation allowances. The question is whether or not the service families living in mobile units should be given equal treatment with servicemen who are living in houses. And under the terms of H. R. 3827, a different bill, introduced by Congressman Horace Seely-Brown, the service personnel owning mobile homes would be placed on equal terms with their fellow servicemen whose furniture and possessions are moved at Government expense.

Mr. KILDAY. The Seely-Brown bill is not contained in this bill, nor its provisions carried in it. Of course

Mr. SHORT. If the gentleman will permit, the Comptroller General, I think, has ruled-and the Department of Defense also—that under existing law there is no authority whereby they can pay for transporting a trailer or a mobile home, as such, nor is there authority in the present law for transporting baggage and household goods in such a house trailer.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, why wouldn't this be a nice solution of it? In view of the fact that

no doubt it is germane, but in view of the fact that it covers a phase that has never heretofore been dealt with in pay bills, why not have Mr. Kilday's subcommittee take the Seely-Brown matter and have a hearing on that, and if they find they are in favor of it, then report it as a separate bill?

Mr. KILDAY. Well, that was the attitude of the committee, that it is novel. It is a new departure. It should be considered in a separate bill We have got about all we can pray over now.

Mr. Short. That is right I might say I brought that up because former Senator Scott Lucas, of Illinois, who is interested in this he represents a firm. He pointed out it doesn't help the manufacturing trailer industry as much as it would help the individual serviceman. There are 125,000 families who are more or less discriminated

Mr. KILDAY. Senator Lucas' statement is in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it?
Mr. KILDAY. Yes.
Mr. SHORT. Yes. I have a copy of it.

But here is the point: As long as a man is moved and he is paid for transportation of his household goods and personal belongings, what difference does it make to us whether he moves by train or trailer or anything else? And he gives an illustration whereby men moving their household goods and effects by trailer can do it more cheaply than if they moved by rail.

The CHAIRMAN. I think

Mr. SHORT. Of course, I am against anything that would increase or have a tendency toward promoting a nomadic army of people living in trailers. I think it is a bad thing.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. SHORT. I don't like it.
Mr. RIVERS. Wait now, right there, Mr. Chairman-
The CHAIRMAN. Order.

Mr. SHORT. A pancake is never so flat that it doesn't have two sides. There are two sides to it.

The reason I am bringing it up is not because it was introduced by a Republican from Connecticut or because of a former Democrat United States Senator from Illinois. I think both of them have something there.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait 1 minute. I suggest, members of the committee, that this not be contained in this bill. Let's have this bill along the usual line of other bills. We will refer this bill to Mr. Kilday's subcommittee and respectfully request Mr. Kilday's subcommittee to give consideration for advancing the bill and make a report at the earliest possible date that he and his subcommittee can do it.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, in being practical about the matter, it is germane on the floor of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course it is germane
Mr. ARENDS. There may be a motion on the floor of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. There may be. I think we should have a long hearing on it, a thorough investigation. If the House will just be patient, no doubt we will reach a decision on it. But it should not be included in this pay bill, even though it is germane.

Mr. Kilday. Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes during the interim, of course these people will get the advantage of the dislocation allowance.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. KILDAY. Which will be some help in this.

Mr. SHORT. We can handle this similarly to the way we handled the Hinshaw bill, by means of separate legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right exactly. Now, Mr. Miller. d

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, as long as we touched on this dislocation allowance, I would like to make this part of the record, that this dislocation allowance should be made promptly. Some question during the hearing came up as to the payment. If it is going to be something that is going to be dragged out through redtape for 3 or 4 months, it is losing its effect. These people need the money when they are moving. I think the services should take cognizance, if that is the thought of this committee; it should be paid promptly.

Mr. BLANDFORD. It is in the report.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kilday, have you anything else on the bill you desire to present to the full committee?

Mr. KILDAY. No. I want to say, of course, we have to get to the floor before they convene. We have to get the thing filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a motion to make?

Mr. KILDAY. I have. Before making the motion, I want to suggest that we file a clean bill. We could have brought the marked up bill to the full committee so there would be an opportunity to see the changes, but

The CHAIRMAN. You will have to get a number on that.
Mr. KILDAY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will consider parliamentarily that we are acting on a clean bill with a new number.

Mr. KILDAY. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KILDAY. I move-

Mr. Gavin. At this point, I wonder, Captain Martineau, if you prepared the chart to show the cost of this bill for each individual branch of the service.

Mr. BLANDFORD. We have that.

Mr. KILDAY. It is in the record and it is set out in the record as a separate subject.

Mr. GAVIN. All right.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your next point, Mr. Kilday?
Mr. KILDAY. I move a favorable report of the clean bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kilday moves that the bill to provide incentives for members of the uniformed services by increasing certain pay and allowances, which is now set out in H. R. 2607.

Mr. SMART. As amended.

The CHAIRMAN. And that a new clean bill then be introduced with a new number; that it is reported favorably to the House with the recommendation that it pass.

[Chorus of “Call roll.”']

The CHAIRMAN. All in favor when your name is called, vote aye, and all opposed vote no.

Call the roll, please.
(Rollcall)
Nr. RIVERS. We won.
(Laughter.]
Mr. SMART. Mr. Chairman, the vote is 32 yes and no nays.

The CHAIRMAN. A quorum being present and by a vote of 32 to 0, it is recommended that the bill be reported to the House favorably.

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, may it forever be remembered by the members of the different branches of the armed services that the House

« PreviousContinue »