all their power they have forgotten retired veterans and also have forgotten retired disabled war veterans because of lack of judgment and wisdom in their failure to vote proper pay raises, cost of living, medical care, and provide care for their families in which they are in distress today, because of lack of funds that our Senators and Congressmen have denied them. Including present housing for U.S. Coast Guard families who are in service today, there is no such thing as a commissary, there is no such thing as medical care for the Coast Guard families today, and there is no such thing for proper facilities of schooling for the children of those who are in the Coast Guard. I find in the military pay bill H.R. 5555 that it is not adequate enough to take care of the U.S. Coast Guard personnel. There is not sufficient money in this bill for officers' pay raises nor is there sufficient amount of money to take care of their families as well. You cannot lead an organization such as the Coast Guard into austerity of deterioration by casting them aside in which the U.S. Coast Guard has served our Nation in three ways, in time of peace, in time of war, and for security. The U.S. Coast Guard has been known as an organization for errands of mercy on the high seas, on the land, and in the air, and for saving lives and property, also known throughout the world as heroes, in which they have dedicated their lives without question at any given time. In my career in the Coast Guard I have found officers not given the proper promotions because of the lack of funds, the Coast Guard ships are in austerity of deterioration because of lack of funds, including proper housing or proper hospital facilities. The Coast Guard officials have had their hands tied for years under this austerity of deterioration. The only branch of military service in war or peace that pays their own way and brings security back to the U.S. taxpayers is the Coast Guard. There have been more lives saved by the U.S. Coast Guard personnel under hazardous duty and also a long-term duty in which the Coast Guard brings weather information and aids to navigation which our country has never recognized in supporting the U.S. Coast Guard in their needs today. In speaking for the enlisted personnel I find their morale is mighty low, including their families, who must suffer along with them through lack of proper pay, proper medical facilities, proper commissary, and proper housing. No U.S. coastguardsman can operate under this pay scale that we have today. Their families and children have become the victims of destitution without proper pay to hold their heads up for the work that they are doing for the U.S. Government today. Their families are in dire need of better facilities, better pay scales, and more security in retirement pay than they receive today. Only moral blindness on our Senators part to overlook the U.S. Coast Guard, the enlisted personnel, the officers and their families, no man or woman who is in the U.S. Coast Guard who is serving their Nation either by straight retirement or disabled retirement should be lacking money security today, tomorrow, or at any time. They should have many benefits put in the bill for hazardous duty, there should be many new benefits put into this bill for proper medical care and proper retirement allowances which the Coast Guard is denied today. At no time in history have I ever seen the Coast Guard in such dire need of a better pay scale for officers and enlisted men. I also find that the retirement benefits in the U.S. Coast Guard is worse than being on relief or welfare in the United States. There are no funds for dental care, shortage of medical care, and the retirement bill should be revised immediately as I speak from experience as a disabled war veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard is the only branch of service that served its Nation when it was born and always first to be called upon to serve their Nation, no matter what type of hazardous duty and they have never refused and they have served with honor. If you look in the history books you will find there isn't a spot on this earth or on sea that the Coast Guard does not touch and yet the Coast Guard is the poorest paid and never recognized for their merits of achievement in serving their country today. The U.S. Coast Guard is smaller than the New York Police Department and they do more work than all the branches of the military services combined, and their value to their country is so great that the U.S. Government could not survive without the U.S. Coast Guard supporting them. You must give credit to the officers and the enlisted personnel families who made it so, so that the officers and enlisted men can serve their Nation without worry or anxiety about their families back home and this must be brought to the attention of the Senators here today that the Coast Guard should have proper pay so they can hold 21-482-63-19 considerations are the same with regard to those in the warrant officer grades and, for that matter, with reference to those in all of the officer grades. Therefore our association renews its recommendation that the $30 per month increase in pay be extended to all officer grades, as was previously proposed by the House Armed Services Subcommittee No. 1 in H.R. 4696. Dealing with recommendation No. 1 in our letter of July 10, 1963, our association wishes to repeat that the pay increases have been needed for a long time and therefore renews its recommendations that an earlier date than October 1, 1963, be approved. Our association wishes, again, to emphasize its support of the retention of section 4 (c) of H.R. 5555 in this legislation, so as to permit members of the uniformed services who retired prior to June 1, 1958, to recompute their retired pay under the pay scales which were then established. Retired pay is earned pay. Those who were retired prior to June 1, 1958, served under an assurance that, when active duty pay was to be raised, retired pay would be raised percentagewise on the basis of the newly established rates. There can be no doubt that many members of the uniformed services continued in active service in reliance upon that assurance, which was guaranteed in applicable statutes which are still effective. Furthermore, for the first time in many years, the Military Pay Act of 1958 adjusted the pay of higher ranking officers upward and, thus, merely gave to them increases which should have been extended to them under various pay laws theretofore enacted, which, for the most part, increased the pay only of those in lower ranks. Not to remove the discrimination which was established in 1958 would be to freeze these officers in inadequate pay status which would be unfair and detrimental not only to their morale, but also to the morale of those in active service. Finally, we also wish to reiterate our strong endorsement of section 12(a) of H.R. 5555, which provides that members who retire during calendar year 1963 may compute their retired pay on the rates established in 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 opportunity, and, up to this point, have been justified in believing they would be able to compute their pay at the new rates. It is requested that this statement be placed before your subcommittee and that it be made a part of the record. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. H. S. HAYMAN, DEAR DICK: Maj. Gen. E. N. Harmon who is now the president of Norwich University in my State has written me in detail of the act to restore the principle of basing retired pay on active-duty pay. On behalf of the general, I ask that your committee consider this argument and include this letter in the official record. Best regards. Sincerely yours, GEORGE D. AIKEN. LETTER FROM MAJ. GEN. E. N. HARMON, U.S.A. RETIRED, PRESIDENT OF NORWICH UNIVERSITY, NORTHFIELD, VT. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, Washington, D.C. APRIL 20, 1963. DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: When the military pay bill is considered by Congress I emphatically urge you to support an amendment to restore the principle of basing retired pay on active-duty pay. This tradition of over 100 years' standing is based on both legal and moral obligations of the Government to members of its armed services. When the Secretary of Defense recommended the adjustment of retirement pay for those who retired prior to May 31, 1958 (many of whom served in both World Wars), he recognized the justice of the above-stated principle. He also recognized and is the best authority on the impact on morale of those on active duty. Furthermore, all during my 30 years of service, myself, as well as all of the other officers in the services, regarded three-fourths pay on retirement as actually a part of our regular active pay. I know I would have left the service on a half dozen occasions when I had received tempting offers of increased salary, but in considering that I was going to be retired on three-fourths pay some day, if I managed to live that long, it had a steadying influence and kept me in the service. During the war, for example, I commanded anywhere from 15,000 to 185,000 men and received $10,000 a year as base pay for this job. What job in civilian life with that responsibility would expect to pay only $10,000? However, I was satisfied as I knew that some day, if I survived, I would get very good retirement pay, which I considered as part of the whole pay system and it was therefore something that was coming to me from a Government that I was fighting for and could trust. I am a veteran of both wars and it came to me as a distinct shock that when the pay was raised in 1958 our understanding with the Government for all these years was broken and we people who had been retired were not raised in step with it. Surely there was a moral obligation to the Government, to take care of all people who came into the service under this understanding, to carry through with it. If it is decided in the future to economize, then it should be made with a clear understanding with those who recently entered the service and are agreeable to it, otherwise the Government will not be keeping faith. In my opinion the return to the principle of retired pay based on active-duty pay must be established now-no matter what the cost. If we are to break our contract with the members of the Armed Forces, we certainly should not be so brazen as to fail to equalize the pay of those who have retired prior to June 1, 1958. These people have served in World Wars I and II and Korea. Some in all three, and they have lost a portion of their just retirement pay since June 1, 1958. Military pay habitually lags behind civilian and civil service pay rates as evidenced by fact. Classified employees of the Federal Government received pay increases in 1958, 1960, 1962, and will receive another in 1964, all since the last military increase in 1958. The above fact, combined with a gradual eroding of traditional fringe benefits, combines to establish our members of the Armed Forces as second-class citizens. Certainly no budgetary considerations are important enough to allow this to continue. No one can feed his family on a sense of duty and patriotism. In my considered opinion, this proposed pay bill which purports to encourage competent people to serve their Nation (often away from families, in hardship areas, and exposed to extraordinary dangers) has a major inconsistency in it, and will not only fail in its purpose, but will accomplish the further lowering of morale in the Armed Forces. Because it will become evident that the legal and moral obligations of our Government to those who serve in its Armed Forces are not being honored. I am confident that 100 percent of all retired officers in Vermont would concur with me, also that the majority of all veterans and their organizations would agree. I have neither the time to organize them in this cause, nor the inclination to burden you with a lot of messages from them. However, I feel I can safely speak for all veterans on this subject and hope you will accept my views as representing the views of the vast majority of those who have served this Nation in the Armed Forces. Sincerely yours, E. N. HARMON, Major General, U.S. Army (retired), President. 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 all their power they have forgotten retired veterans and also have forgotten retired disabled war veterans because of lack of judgment and wisdom in their failure to vote proper pay raises, cost of living, medical care, and provide care for their families in which they are in distress today, because of lack of funds that our Senators and Congressmen have denied them. Including present housing for U.S. Coast Guard families who are in service today, there is no such thing as a commissary, there is no such thing as medical care for the Coast Guard families today, and there is no such thing for proper facilities of schooling for the children of those who are in the Coast Guard. I find in the military pay bill H.R. 5555 that it is not adequate enough to take care of the U.S. Coast Guard personnel. There is not sufficient money in this bill for officers' pay raises nor is there sufficient amount of money to take care of their families as well. You cannot lead an organization such as the Coast Guard into austerity of deterioration by casting them aside in which the U.S. Coast Guard has served our Nation in three ways, in time of peace, in time of war, and for security. The U.S. Coast Guard has been known as an organization for errands of mercy on the high seas, on the land, and in the air, and for saving lives and property, also known throughout the world as heroes, in which they have dedicated their lives without question at any given time. In my career in the Coast Guard I have found officers not given the proper promotions because of the lack of funds, the Coast Guard ships are in austerity of deterioration because of lack of funds, including proper housing or proper hospital facilities. The Coast Guard officials have had their hands tied for years under this austerity of deterioration. The only branch of military service in war or peace that pays their own way and brings security back to the U.S. taxpayers is the Coast Guard. There have been more lives saved by the U.S. Coast Guard personnel under hazardous duty and also a long-term duty in which the Coast Guard brings weather information and aids to navigation which our country has never recognized in supporting the U.S. Coast Guard in their needs today. In speaking for the enlisted personnel I find their morale is mighty low, including their families, who must suffer along with them through lack of proper pay, proper medical facilities, proper commissary, and proper housing. No U.S. coastguardsman can operate under this pay scale that we have today. Their families and children have become the victims of destitution without proper pay to hold their heads up for the work that they are doing for the U.S. Government today. Their families are in dire need of better facilities, better pay scales, and more security in retirement pay than they receive today. Only moral blindness on our Senators part to overlook the U.S. Coast Guard, the enlisted personnel, the officers and their families, no man or woman who is in the U.S. Coast Guard who is serving their Nation either by straight retirement or disabled retirement should be lacking money security today, tomorrow, or at any time. They should have many benefits put in the bill for hazardous duty, there should be many new benefits put into this bill for proper medical care and proper retirement allowances which the Coast Guard is denied today. At no time in history have I ever seen the Coast Guard in such dire need of a better pay scale for officers and enlisted men. I also find that the retirement benefits in the U.S. Coast Guard is worse than being on relief or welfare in the United States. There are no funds for dental care, shortage of medical care, and the retirement bill should be revised immediately as I speak from experience as a disabled war veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard is the only branch of service that served its Nation when it was born and always first to be called upon to serve their Nation, no matter what type of hazardous duty and they have never refused and they have served with honor. If you look in the history books you will find there isn't a spot on this earth or on sea that the Coast Guard does not touch and yet the Coast Guard is the poorest paid and never recognized for their merits of achievement in serving their country today. The U.S. Coast Guard is smaller than the New York Police Department and they do more work than all the branches of the military services combined, and their value to their country is so great that the U.S. Government could not survive without the U.S. Coast Guard supporting them. You must give credit to the officers and the enlisted personnel families who made it so, so that the officers and enlisted men can serve their Nation without worry or anxiety about their families back home and this must be brought to the attention of the Senators here today that the Coast Guard should have proper pay so they can hold |