Admiral AGETON. Yes, sir; equal pay for equal rank and equal length of service.

Of course, they would come along with a cost-of-living increase every time they pass a pay bill. I assume that the Congress would give them a cost-of-living increase. At least that is what I read in the papers.

Senator CANNON. Your proposal then would not let them even receive the rates in retirement that they actually received on active duty? Admiral AGETON. You mean the percentage rate?

Senator CANNON. Yes, the percentage of the rates. That is just the reverse of the problem we have now where we have people who are urging that they be entitled to receive the percentage of rates that they never did receive on active duty.

Admiral AGETON. Senator, I know that this is a very moot question, but it is one on which all retired people are going to feel very strongly.

In a few years now, if you make a raise in pay in 1963 and probably in 1968, 1967, or 1966-we hope you will make another raise of pay-you are going to have the pay based on the 1958 pay scale that you recompute now, you are going to have one on the 1963, you are going to have one on the 1968 and 1973.

Before long you are going to have six or eight different pay scales. This is not only a terribly complicated thing to administer but it is very unfair.

Senator CANNON. Except that in the bill as it is now proposed there would be a cost-of-living increase.

Admiral AGETON. Yes.

Senator CANNON. For retirees consistently in the future, which has not happened in the past.

Admiral AGETON. But there would still be probably an escalation, a number of them. It is going to greatly complicate it. I think they have enough trouble now keeping track of what they are doing, what with quite a few people being on the 1947 and 1948 pay bill.

Senator CANNON. Senator Beall.

Senator BEALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Admiral. We appreciate your appearing here and presenting your views.

Admiral AGETON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for hearing me. I am very pleased to be here.

Senator CANNON. The next witness will be Mr. William M. Rein, recording secretary of the Association of Regular Army Sergeants. Mr. Rein.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. REIN, MASTER SERGEANT, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ASSOCIATION OF REGULAR ARMY SERGEANTS

Sergeant REIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Master Sergeant William M. Rein, U.S. Army, retired, national executive secretary of the Association of Regular Army Sergeants. Our association is a worldwide organization of career sergeants, active and retired, devoted to enhancing the moral leadership, prestige, and espirit de corps

of the noncommissioned officers corps. I am appearing today to express the views of our members in strong support for a pay raise for all members of the Armed Forces, to urge that the minimum increase in any rank, officer and enlisted, be at least 10 percent, and to give the enlisted man's view on some of the provisions of H.R. 5555.

I would like first to speak on three special items:

1. I believe our association was the first to recommend, in testimony presented to the House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1, an increase in commuted rations for enlisted men to $1.25 per day. We had recommended this after a survey of our membership indicated it would come much closer to meeting actual expenses than the $1.03 now paid. We recommend it be stated in law to assure it would be provided. We were highly gratified to see the House subcommittee adopt this recommendation and we urge this committee to retain it in H.R. 5555.

2. The House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1 added a wholly new benefit to the pay laws, the family separation allowance. I'm sure this has already been thoroughly explained to this committee. This provision has been greeted enthusiastically by our members and by all married men of enlisted ranks. It will do so much to help enlisted morale as anything contained in the pay bill. We cannot point out anything that bothers the soldier's wife more than the gnawing worry over extra expenses when her husband is away on orders. We strongly urge that the committee retain this provision in this bill.

3. The House voted to overrule its Armed Services Committee and approve recomputation of retired pay on the 1958 pay scales for those retired before June 1, 1958, under the Career Compensation Act. The association has supported this historic principle of recomputation, a right military men have been led to expect during their entire career. However, we would remind this committee of another area where retirement pay should be equalized. We recommend an amendment to this bill to provide that enlisted men, in computing their retired pay, be allowed to use their Reserve service the same as officers in making such computation.

A separate bill to accomplish this needed equity has been introduced by Senator Inouye, a member of this committee. In a report to this committee, on Senator Inouye's bill earlier this session, the Comptroller General said that if the committee wanted to take some action on the matter the pay bill would be the appropriate place in which to amend the law. If the committee does not feel the full benefits afforded officers can also be afforded enlisted men, then it is requested this committee at least consider the limited alternate proposal submitted in a report on Senator Inouye's bill by the Defense Department. That proposal would allow credit in the same way as credit toward non-active-duty Reserve retirement, a privilege which has been extended to Regular officers for past Reserve service since 1958. This continued discrimination against enlisted men has been a morale problem and we urge this committee to solve it by taking some positive

action.

We appreciate this committee's concern for the military man in scheduling these hearings soon after House passage of the bill. We know it comes at a time when members of this committee are shouldering a heavy load of committee work.

Military men have not had a raise since 1958. Civil service personnel have had two raises in this time, and a third will go into effect next January 1, and a fourth has been recently asked for by the administration. We are sure we do not have to impress on this committee how this has affected the morale of military personnel. Some military people are deeply troubled by the feeling that their importance is no longer appreciated fully at the highest national levels. We are sure this isn't so in Congress and we trust the committee will see that military pay needs are treated with the same urgency as civil service pay.

The association's executive committee stated in a statement on the pay bill in January, that delaying the raise to October 1, 1963, would be a tragic blow to morale. We have constantly urged that the pay raise be made retroactive to March 1, 1963. If this is not feasible, then certainly the bill should be made effective the first of the month following passage, as has always been done in the past and as was done with the last civil service raise.

While the defense bill provided an average 14 percent-reduced to 12.5 percent by the House-we hoped this committee would keep in mind that this is merely an overall average and in some cases the raise is significantly less. We recommend the minimum increase for career personnel be 10 percent. We particularly ask this assurance in instances where compensation systems are changed, such as in any category where foreign duty pay may be eliminated or reduced.

We support the House's decision to retain foreign duty pay. We would point out to this committee that under the bill, a long service career noncommissioned officer who gets a basic pay raise but is deprived of foreign duty pay would get a net increase of only $9 per month. From the standpoint of the Government's objective in passing this bill-which, as stated by the Secretary of Defense, is to encourage trained personnel to make the service a career-a raise of only $9 a month would have precisely the opposite effect than that desired.

We asked the minimum for all those with more than 2 years service be at least 10 percent. We think this percentage minimum should be equally applied to senior general officers who would get only 5 percent basic pay increases under the bill as now drawn and who were denied subsistence increases by the House. We do not believe any rank should have its standard of living scaled down in relation to other ranks or sections of the population.

The Association of Regular Army Sergeants applauds the announcement by Secretary of Defense McNamara that military pay will be reviewed annually in the Defense Department and raises recommended in line with raises for civil service personnel and increases in the private sector of the economy. The executive counsel of the Association of Regulary Army Sergeants recommended such a review in its statement on pay issued in early January of this year. On other changes in the military compensation system proposed in the pay bill draft, the Association of Regular Army Sergeants recommends the following:

PRO PAY

Addition of a statutory requirement in the pay bill for higher rates of proficiency pay. The Defense Department has never used the full proficiency pay authority voted by this committee in 1958. In order to give the proposal a fair chance to work, an amendment should be added to the pay bill, requiring the use of the P-3 step with a minimum pay for P-3 of at least $90 per month. This is still $60 a month below the $150 figure originally authorized by this committee. It is impossible to say how effective the proficiency pay authority might be in holding highly trained technical personnel in service until that authority is fully utilized.

LONGEVITY STEPS

We wholeheartedly support the additional fogies (longevity steps) for enlisted grades proposed in the pay bill. We feel the cutback of fogies in 1958 in the enlisted ranks was a mistake and encouraged the early retirement of many men who might have served useful 30year careers. We oppose the cutback in the 8-year fogy for E-4's as proposed in the bill. That fogy comes just before the reenlistment point. We also suggest that the committee consider the feasibility of an additional fogy after 28 years for senior enlisted men (E-7, E-8, and E-9). We feel it would encourage many of these men to delay their retirement from the 26-year point (date of the last fogy in the pay bill) to the 30-year point, retaining experienced and comparatively young men in service for another 4 years and delaying their eventual addition to the retired rolls.

SEA PAY

We have already expressed our feelings that any changes in foreign duty pay that means a cut for those now receiving it should be accompanied by corresponding raises in basic pay. We must say, however, in behalf of our fellow noncommissioned officers in the Navy, that we also support retention of sea pay. Duty at sea always entails special burdens and strains for which the man should always be compensated.

RETIREMENT STUDY

We are aware of the deep concern of this committee for the longrange cost of military retired pay. We would ask you, however, to carefully consider two points: The comparative cost-the actual cost to the Government of the civil service retirement system, even though it is a contributory system, and the impact of retirement changes such as the elimination of recomputation on military career planning, on the determination to make military service a career, by those most needed by the Armed Forces of our Nation in these troubled times.

We think it is time for a study of the comparative merit, to the serviceman and the Government, of the present retirement system for military personnel and other systems. We do not feel this problem has had definitive study and now, with the sweeping changes recommended in the retirement system, is the time for such a study. We are mainly concerned with the military man's equity in his retire

ment, we are concerned that his retirement should be considered a right and not a privilege, and we are concerned that he is not able to leave any equity in his retirement system to his survivors. We hope the committee will ask itself this question: If the civil service retirement system was not a contributory system, would not a move have been made long ago to change it because of cost, as is now to be done with military retirement? And we ask the committee to consider the case of a 30-year military man who dies in an accident shortly after his retirement. He can leave none of his retirement to his survivors, though a civil servant in a similar situation can leave his survivors an equity that is worth many times what he has contributed to the retirement fund. The career military service retiree is the forgotten man in determining retirement equity. We hope that regardless of the system finally adopted, military retirement will be recognized as earned retirement and the career soldier will have a just equity in his retirement, and that young men will not be discouraged from seeking a military career by the threat of constant changes in his retirement benefits.

I would like to express my thanks to this committee for hearing the views of the Association of Regular Army Sergeants. It has been a privilege and an honor to testify before you. Our association stands ready to help this committee in any way we can.

Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Sergeant Rein, for your very fine statement. I note in relation to the commuted rations you say you recommend $1.25 a day because the survey of your membership indicated it would come much closer to meeting actual expenses.

You are aware of the fact that the $1.03 was not intended to meet actual expenses but is simply a commutation of rations based on the amount it cost the Government to feed that particular man, and if he wants to commute his rations, then he can draw that similar amount.

You are familiar with that, are you not?

Sergeant REIN. Yes, sir, I am aware of this.

Senator CANNON. So that you would be changing the intent of the law rather than to make it based on what it costs the Government to feed a man, to go to a fixed legislative figure, is that correct?

Sergeant REIN. That is right, sir.

Senator CANNON. You also indicate that you support a 10-percent raise through all of the grades. You are aware of the fact that the bill as now written provides for a 10-percent raise or more through all of the enlisted ranks except the recruit, below the 2-year area, are you not?

Sergeant REIN. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. So you are in effect saying below the 2 years should be increased to 10 percent and you are aware of the fact that all of the officer, warrant officer, and officer grades up through the grade of colonel are increased at least 10 percent, are you not? Sergeant REIN. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. So that you are recommending that the brigadier generals, major generals, lieutenant generals, the generals, and the Chief of Staff be increased up to 10 percent, that the O-1 with less

21-482-63-16