Why then should officers receive whether they are officers or enlisted men. more hazardous duty pay than enlisted men? Differences in quarters allowances between enlisted men and officer personnel appear to deserve special study also. For is it not true that an enlisted man with three children has the same obligations to adequately feed and clothe his family and provide for the creature comforts, as does the commissioned officer? In conclusion, the American Legion supports H.R. 5555 and offers for consideration changes which we believe will more adequately meet the vexing problems which plague our Armed Forces. I thank you. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Medical Association desires to present its views on H.R. 5555, 88th Congress, the Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963. The American Medical Association has played an active part in assisting the Congress and the armed services in providing adequate medical care to our servicemen. The AMA Council on National Security has maintained close contact with the medical departments of the Armed Forces and is acutely aware of their military medical manpower problems, including intern, residency and postgraduate training, and the recruitment and retention of physicians in all categories. The difficulty of attracting and retaining adequate numbers of competent career medical officers for the military services has been and will continue to be a very serious problem. The expense of prolonged medical education, with little or no earnings for 9 or more years, and the current low rate of military pay for medical officers has compounded this problem. The civil service and the Veterans' Administration also have had some difficulty in meeting their needs for physicians. While the Veterans' Administration and civil service pay raises enacted in the fall of 1962, with a second incre ment to become effective in January 1964, have helped to solve their medical manpower problem, the change has intensified the difficulties of the military by creating an even wider disparity in physician compensation. The young military physician who has completed the obligated service beyond his military residency training, and who has 6 to 8 years of active service, currently receives about $11,000 per annum. In contrast, under civil service present pay scales and with an equal amount of service, he would earn $16,000 or more annually. As of January 1964, in the Veterans' Administration, his salary would be between $17,725 and $18,240, or approximately half again as much as the $12,000 he would receive under H.R. 5555. It is unfortunate that for these and for other reasons, over two-thirds of the younger physicians resign as soon as their military obligation is fulfilled. The remaining number of physicians has proven to be insufficient for the provision of adequate medical services for the Armed Forces. In addition, the above factors have, in part, necessitated the extension of the Doctor Draft Act which has been a most unsatisfactory mechanism toward building a career military medical service. The American Medical Association at the time of the hearing on the 1956 Medical and Dental Officer Career Incentive Act strongly supported the legislative recommendation of the Department of Defense, and particularly the resultant action of the Congress which increased the special pay for physicians by providing incremental steps of $50 per month after 2, 6, and 10 years of service, respectively. There has been no change in the incentive pay for military physicians since that time. In testimony before this committee at that time, Dr. Harold C. Lueth of the AMA Council on National Security, in supporting the proposed increase in special pay for physicians, recommended that the incremental steps be further increased to $100 per month to make the total special pay $200, $300, and $400 per month for the respective periods after 2, 6, and 10 years active service as a medical officer. These recommendations were sound and, if adopted, would have had a neutralizing effect on the continuing declining strength of the career medical corps of the Armed Forces. It is therefore recommended that H.R. 5555, 88th Congress, be amended to increase the doctor incentive military pay to $300 per month after 6 years of active military service and to $400 per month after 10 years of active military service as a medical officer. An increase in the doctor incentive pay from the present maximum of $250 per month to the recommended maximum of $400 per month (after 10 years of active service) would be a first step toward eliminating the doctor pay inequities existing between the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense. The military physicians would, under this proposal, receive $15,600 per annum compared to the $18,500 physician's salary available through the Veterans' Administration. Although other factors such as stability of assignment, separation from family, operation and combat hazards, and retirement cannot be completely equated, the existing severe economic disparities must be reduced if the Armed Forces are to attract and retain adequate numbers of career medical officers. The American Medical Association appreciates the opportunity to restate our views on this vital problem. Further losses from the already depleted group of experienced military medical officers can be avoided. Corrective action is essential at this time if adequate, high quality medical services are to be furnished to our defense forces. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following statement is submitted for, and on behalf of, the American Veterinary Medical Association pertaining to H.R. 5555, the proposed "Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963". We request this statement be included in the record of hearings. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports in principle the proposed legislation to provide increases in pay for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. Our association believes an increase in the rates of basic pay is essential for all members of the uniformed services, particularly since the last adjustment was in June 1958, as the members of the committee are aware. An important factor also, that in our opinion justifies an increase in the rates of pay, is that of retention in the services of career personnel, officers and enlisted, on whom the military must depend in this complex scientific and technological era. It is a fact that classified employees of the Federal Government were authorized and received pay increases in 1958, 1960 and 1962, and another increase becomes effective in January 1964. These were justified too, in our opinion; again we have personnel retention as a factor in these increases in many departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Also, it is well known that over the past 5 years higher salaries and wages have been paid in private industry and in most of the professions. PART 2 According to our information, the Military Pay Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Armed Services, is also considering the question of incentive pay in connection with H.R. 5555, now applicable to medical, dental, and veterinary officers under section 302 (b) and section 303, title 37, United States Code. Should the committee amend H.R. 5555 to increase the incentive pay now authorized under the sections of title 37, United States Code cited in the preceding paragraph, the American Veterinary Medical Association requests that the incentive pay of doctors of veterinary medicine be increased to bring their special pay in line with that which may be recommended for physicians and dentists in amending section 302 (b) title 37, United States Code. We call to the attention of the committee that the disparity in the incentive pay assumes greater significance when the veterinarian completes 2 years of service, and this continues until completion of his 10th year of service. In addition, the disparity is compounded in that physicans and destists may count their constructive service credit (5 and 4 years respectively) for pay purposes, while veterinarians may not count their 3 years constructive service for the same purpose. Neither may veterinarians count their longevity credit as a multiplier in determining their retirement pay after they complete 20 years of active duty; physicians and dentists may do so. Our association hopes this committee will agree the disparities affecting the veterinarian should be corrected in any amendment to H.R. 5555 pertaining to incentive pay and constructive credit. In connection with the preceding paragraph, we respectfully call attention to House Report No. 1806, second session, 84th Congress, page 10, which states the increased constructive service credit granted physicians and dentists is in recognition of their long and expensive years of professional education. Furthermore, with reference to counting such credit for basic pay purposes, the following is quoted from page 5, House Report 1806, cited above: This principle will permit a medical or dental officer to receive the same amount of retired pay as his line officer contemporary in age will receive, since the latter will have entered on active duty 4 or 5 years prior to the physician or dentist who had to obtain additional schooling to qualify for his profession and a commission in the Armed Forces. Both statements from the House Report cited are applicable to the veterinarian, since he must spend 4 years in a school of veterinary medicine to obtain his degree, in addition to the mandatory 2 years minimum college work prior to acceptance in a school of veterinary medicine. We point out the fact that there is an overall shortage of veterinarians in the United States. Also there is a great demand in civil life for the wellqualified veterinarian in the many disciplines of veterinary medicine in research and professional fields, other than private practice, such as pathology, bacteriology, radiology, virology, and laboratory animal medicine, to name a few. The functions of the military veterinarian are similar to those of the veterinarian in civilian life. His training in the medical sciences enables him to partcipate in certain preventive medicine and research activities, including control of animal diseases transmissible to man, research projects involving food or animals, nuclear energy research, experiments to determine the effects upon animals and man, and research relative to the preservation of food by radiation for the development of new concepts in the feeding of military personnel. Gentlemen, veterinarians with physicians and dentists of the healing arts profession, have on several occasions been called under the special doctors draft law to meet service requirements. It is pointed out that the time and expense of veterinary medical education is not insignificant; it takes 6 or more years, the same as dentists, and is costly. The disparities presently existing in the basic and incentive pay of the veterinarian with that of the physician and dentist in the uniformed services are not conducive either to attracting the highly qualified veterinary graduate to the military service or to making the service a career. In conclusion, we urge the committee to amend H.R. 5555 to provide that: (1) The disparities cited in part 2, pages 2 and 3 of this statement be eliminated; and (2) Section 302 (b), title 37, United States Code pertaining to physicians and dentists include amending section 303 (Special Pay: Veterinarians) to coincide with any increase provided for physicians and dentists. The American Veterinary Medical Association appreciates this opportunity to present their views. J. A. MCCALLAM, V.M.D., (For the American Veterinary Medical Association). LETTER OF H. S. HAYMAN, CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER, U.S. COAST GUARD, PRESIDENT OF CHIEF WARRANT AND WARRANT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, JULY 10, 1963. DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: In behalf of our association, comprising of over 2,000 active and retired members, I wish to take this opportunity to express our views on H.R. 5555, Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963, that is presently before your committee. Our statement that was made before the House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1 is a matter of record. However I would like, at this time, to reemphasize the importance of certain features that have been the subject of much previous discussion and which are of vital concern to all members of the uniformed services, both active and retired. We strongly urge your favorable consideration of this bill, as previously written, with the following amendments: (1) An earlier effective date than October 1, 1963. This raise is badly needed, and is needed now. Simply stated, we merely ask to be afforded the same treatment as our contemporaries in private industry and in the Federal civil service whose pay adjustments are granted currently, and on occasions have been made retroactively. (2) Restore the $30 per month increase in basic pay rates for all officer grades which was previously proposed by the House Armed Srevices Subcommittee No. 1 in H.R. 4696. This provision is only fair and equitable and would provide a much-needed incentive for career officers. Particularly so, for warrant officer grades and commissioned officers in the lower grades, who serve in positions of high responsibility and, yet, who all too often draw less pay than enlisted personnel who work under them. We highly endorse the provisions of section 4 (c) of H.R. 5555 which permits members who retired before June 1, 1958, to recompute their retired pay under the pay scales currently in effect. These members were discriminated against in 1958 when, for the first time in many years, officers were given a substantial increase in basic pay. Similarly, we applaud the provisions of section 12 (a) which provides that members retired during calendar year 1963 may compute their retired pay on the rates established by section 2. These members, who for various reasons are compelled or otherwise induced to retire during the time this bill has been under active consideration, have certainly earned this right. It is requested this statement be placed before the subcommittee holding hearings on H.R. 5555 and that it be made a part of the record. I thank you for your indulgence and for the opportunity to present our views. I am extremely confident that your committee in its wisdom will approve a bill that is fair and equitable to the members of our uniformed services. In any event, we ask your speedy consideration of this measure which is needed and long overdue. Respectfully yours, H. S. HAYMAN, President. (The following letter was subsequently received :) Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON, DEAR SENATOR CANNON: On July 10, 1963, there was submitted to Hon. Richard B. Russell, chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, a letter on behalf of our association, by the undersigned as its president, supporting the enactment of the proposed Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963, contained in H.R. 5555, on which hearings are now being held by the subcommittee of which you are chairman. In that letter, our association made two specific recommendations; namely, that (1) an earlier effective date than October 1, 1963, be established, and (2) the $30 increase in basic pay rates for all officer grades, previously included in the pending legislation by the House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1, which was removed by the full committee, be restored. In the light of suggestions which have come before your committee, it is desired to submit certain additional comments. Dealing with the second of the above-mentioned recommendations first, the association wishes to urge upon the committee that there are just as valid reasons to include all warrant officer grades for the additional increase of $30 per month in basic pay, as there are for the 0-2, 0-3 and 0-4 grades, as recommended by the Department of Defense. Historically, the pay scales for warrant officer grades, W-1, W-2, W-3, and W-4, have steadily fallen further and further behind the rates established for corresponding commissioned grades, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, and 0-4. It is generally recognized that, at best, the increases in basic pay included in the pending bill are low on the basis of any prevailing standards of equality with the increases which have taken place in the pay of civilian employees, including those employed by the Federal Government. While it is true that retention in the service is an additional consideration for extending this pay benefit to those officers in the O-2, 0-3, and 0-4 grades, the economic Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Chairman, Armed Serices Committee, U.S. SENATE, April 24, 1963. DEAR DICK: The enclosed letter from retired Adm. H. Kent Hewitt of Orwell, Vt., is self-explanatory. I should like to know what the prospects are for a change along the lines Admiral Hewitt suggests and would appreciate it if you would make his letter part of the official record and include it in your hearings. Best regards. Sincerely yours, GEORGE D. AIKEN. LETTER FROM ADM. H. KENT HEWITT, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED),, ORWELL, VT. APRIL 22, 1963. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: Undoubtedly you have received many communications from retired officers among your constituents relative to the grave injustice done by the Career Compensation Act of 1958 to officers retiring prior to June 1 of that year. I am not prone to bother my representatives in Congress on matters of purely personal interest, but this is something of transcendent importance to many and to the morale of the military services as a whole. One of the incentives to the adoption of a military career (and its attendant hardships) by these officers, now so adversely affected, was the law (as yet, I believe, unrepealed) which guaranteed that retirement pay would be based on a fixed percentage of current active duty pay scales. The abandonment of this important principle for the older officers (but not for the newly retired) may well be considered an act of bad faith. How would you feel, my dear Senator, if, having held a command of great responsibility in war, you saw officers then junior to you but, no matter how worthy, who had attained their commensurate rank in peacetime, receive much higher rewards upon their retirements? I am sure that you would share the sentiments of the many so affected. A year or so ago, I addressed a letter to you in this vein. I am taking the liberty of recalling it to you, since measures now appear to be before Congress which attempt to correct this unfair treatment of many of the older officers and men with war service. The allegation that the cost of maintaining the retired list in the years to come would be increased too greatly by permitting officers retired prior to June 1, 1958, to compute their retired pay on the same basis as those retired thereafter seems to overlook the fact that those so affected are older and that, considering life expectancy, the added expense would decline rapidly and in not so many years be reduced to zero. It is my earnest hope that you will give this question the careful consideration which it merits, and that you will find your way clear to support adequate remedial measures. With all best wishes. Respectfully and sincerely yours, H. KENT HEWITT, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired). STATEMENT OF VINCENT S. LUKAS, CHIEF BOATSWAIN'S MATE, RETIRED, U.S. COAST GUARD A PLEA OF A DISABLED WAR VETERAN OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD My name is Vincent S. Lukas. I am a disabled war veteran and a cripple today through lack of medical care and also lack of funds in my retirement which has been denied me by my Senators and Congressmen who are in office today. In |