of basic pay for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

We support an increase in military pay as a forward step in the direction of recognizing the unique contribution of a member of the uniformed services to the defense of our way of life, a contribution which is most difficult to equate with that of his contemporary in civilian life. The sufficiency of the increase recommended in H.R. 5555 is a matter peculiarly within your determination based upon the vast amount of expert testimony which has been furnished.

We support also, Mr. Chairman, the action taken by the House of Representatives regarding "recomputation" for those individuals retired prior to the enactment of the 1958 military pay raise.

There is one provision of the bill, however, with which we take justifiable issue. I refer to that part which denies individuals the increased rates of pay established in this legislation until they have completed 2 years of service for pay purposes.

For a long time, this committee has been concerned with the matter of equity. Much of the legislation which comes before this body has been proposed in an effort to equate obligations and benefits and conditions between and among members of the uniformed services. In our judgment, any proposal which fails to include an increase in the rate of pay for every individual in the uniformed services is neither equitable nor fair.

There is little equity in the distribution of military service. Each year hundred of thousands of young men of draft age escape such service, the burden of which falls upon a relative few. Under our system this situation will continue. The numbers of volunteers and inductees required by the Armed Forces compared to the numbers available and eligible for service permits the great majority of our youth to seek their civilian fortunes untouched and uninfluenced by the military.

Moreover, the law imposes upon this minority group a serious and continuing obligation of service and vulnerability. Under this proposed legislation, we would further penalize this group by compensating them at a 1952 rate of pay, an 11-year-old scale, for the first 2 years of service.

Only those who possess the required physical and mental qualifications are accepted for military service. In effect, we are accepting only the best qualified of all of those available and eligible for military service who may apply or are inducted, imposing upon them by law a long-term obligation and period of vulnerability. Now, this bill would deny such individuals any increase in basic pay until they have completed a minimum of 2 years' service for pay purposes.

At a time when the Armed Forces are seeking to expand the voluntary aspect of military service and to interest qualified young men in a long-term professional military career, it would seem patently unwise to reduce the initial attractiveness of entry into the service. It is imperative that we attract into both the Active and Reserve Forces the largest possible numbers of qualified young men. As one means of doing this, we must compensate them fairly and adequately. We recognize the importance of increased pay as an incentive to retention. But, before we can hope to retain men in service, we must

21-482-63- -12

attract them. The men we attract initially do, through long training and service, become the careerists-the competent, dedicated, and qualified individuals upon whom the services, both Active and Reserve, are so dependent.

In order to assure a sufficient number of careerists in both the Active and Reserve forces, we must attract for initial enlistment or induction large numbers of individuals. One means of doing this is to compensate them in all grades at rates that at least approach civilian pay scales.

We must be mindful that many young men have family responsibilities and give up well-paying civilian jobs in order to enlist and they should, therefore, be compensated, as nearly as possible, at a level that will permit them to meet these responsibilities. Furthermore, increasing numbers of the young men coming into the military, Active or Reserve, are college graduates. This fact should be considered in determining compensation.

In the case of National Guardsmen or other reservists, we must be mindful that in many, many instances these men suffer financial losses during periods of active duty for training. The country has a responsibility to compensate to some reasonable degree for such losses. This loss is frequently as severe among new enlistees as among those of longer service.

Consider also that in recent years we have seen a significant change in the role of the military reserves. Nothing points up so well as the calling to active duty of a substantial number of National Guard and Reserve organizations during the Berlin crisis. No longer can the Reserve Forces expect to serve on active duty only in times of war. They may expect in the future to be called for extended periods of duty in situations short of war.

It hardly seems fair to expect an individual who has not completed 2 years to serve on active duty in situations short of war or in combat at a rate of pay that was authorized in 1952, while others draw from a scale more in economic tune with our times. Those who have completed less than 2 years of service are exposed in combat to the same dangers as men who have served for longer periods. They are, in the case of reservists, subject to the same loss in personal income as a result of being called for active duty. They have in most instances the same family responsibilities as others. They should, therefore, in my opinion, be compensated in a relatively equal scale.

The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of the military services have all given emphasis to the policy of greater utilization of Reserve organizations in national emergencies. This is particularly significant, and a young man who volunteers for Reserve service in this day does so with the knowledge that he may be called for extended active duty in a situation short of war. I am convinced that it is only fair and reasonable to compensate those men at a higher level than now prevails.

The rewards for devotion to the country as a member of the Armed Forces have suffered gradual erosion during the post-World War II period. The opportunity to arrest this trend is now available to the Congress.

We are convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the Congress has no desire to overlook or penalize any of those who serve our Nation as members of the uniformed services be they Regulars, reservists, or National Guardsmen.

Accordingly, we urge that the amendment provide for pay increases for military personnel in all grades, that no man serving his country in uniform be denied equal consideration in the determination of compensation.

Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, General Harrison, for your fine statement. Do you have any formula or any particular amount in mind in recommending an increase for these categories?

General HARRISON. No, I don't have a particular amount, Mr. Chairman, but I think an amount comparable in percentage to that granted to other grades would be a fair way of approaching it."

Senator CANNON. Of course that varies depending on which grade it is, and particularly if the $30 increase is put in as recommended by the DOD, you would have even a different variation.

What about the proposal of the DOD to eliminate the subsistence and increase the first lieutenants, captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels $30? Has the association taken a position on that?

General HARRISON. No, we haven't, Mr. Chairman, but I personally feel that the association would be in favor of that recommendation. Senator CANNON. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SALTONSTALL. I think I have just two questions, General Harrison. The first one is the National Guard Association goes along with the bill. They believe it would be more fair if the men -of the first 2 years service would get an increase?

General HARRISON. Yes. We feel that the bill is deficient in this particular area, and when you consider that no increase has been given since 1952, this is a period of 11 years, I think it is warranted -at this time.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I am informed by Mr. Braswell, our able assistant, that your suggestion would mean about $17 million for the officers and $114 million for the enlisted men, or about a total of $131 million added to the cost of the bill.

General HARRISON. I don't think that the Congress or the administration hesitated in applying increases, justifiable increases to the civil service employees or the civilian employees of the Government, and they made it available to individuals regardless of whether they were employed for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You believe that it would be a fairer bill if we included these men?

General HARRISON. I honestly do.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANNON. General, on this provision of recomputation, I take it the National Guard Association supports that provision in the bill?

General HARRISON. The association, Mr. Chairman, is for the principle of recomputation.

We have had several resolutions at conferences since the 1958 Pay Act which mandated the officers of the association to request for recomputation.

Now since the bill has come out of the House with a recomputation of pay based on the 1958 Pay Act, which many of us believe was unfair, and provided a new concept, I think that we are practical enough to recognize that there must be compromises, and this does set up a precedent and a policy that I think the association probably, and would, go along with.

Senator CANNON. So as I understand it then, that if the Congress goes along with the recomputation under the 1958 act, and then says this is the end of recomputation once and for all, and provides for the review based on the rise in the cost of living, your organization would support that position.

General HARRISON. I am quite certain that that would be our position.

Senator CANNON. Any further questions? (No response.)

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your being here and giving us the benefit of your views.

The next witness will be Colonel Carlton, executive director of the Reserve Officers Association.

Colonel Carlton, we are very happy to welcome you here to testify before the subcommittee, and present the views of your organization. STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN T. CARLTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES; ACCOMPANIED BY REAR ADM. ALEXANDER JACKSON, JR., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, DIRECTOR OF NAVAL AFFAIRS; COL. ARTHUR BRACKETT, DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE AFFAIRS; MAJ. GEN. GEORGE O. N. LODOEN, DIRECTOR OF ARMY AFFAIRS; COL. CHARLES M. BOYER, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND NOW CONSULTANT ON THE NATIONAL STAFF; AND LT. COL. FLOYD OLES, CHAIRMAN, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT

Colonel CARLTON. May I introduce several officers? First, Rear Adm. Alexander Jackson, Jr., director of naval affairs; Col. Árthur Brackett, director of Air Force affairs; Maj. Gen. George O. N. Lodoen, director of Army affairs; Col. Charles M. Boyer, former executive director and now consultant on the national staff; and Lt. Col. Floyd Oles, for the past 5 years chairman of the ROA Committee on Retirement.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in connection with H.R. 5555, a bill to increase the rates of basic pay for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

The matter of the compensation and other benefits for the military personnel of our armed services has always been of primary concern to this association. This is not only because it affects officers of the Reserve Forces who constitute the majority of our membership, but because it is of vital concern to people, who-we contend-are still the most vital instrument of any armed force, notwithstanding the rapid advances of technology in the art of warfare. This, then, is close to the heart of our objectives; ROA was chartered by Congress

to work for a sound military policy that will provide for adequate national security.

We would like, with your permission, to address ourselves to what we see as the major features or concepts of the bill. These are first, of course, the pay scales; second, the failure to provide increases in pay for those with less than 2 years' service; third, the relation of active duty pay to retired pay; and fourth, the timing or effective date of the pay provisions of the bill.

We have been told-and the public has been told-that the Department of Defense proposal is the product of long and exhaustive study by experts in the field of military pay and compensation. It is well known that a study group did labor long and hard, in comparative isolation, to develop a comprehensive pay proposal. We also know that this study group had as advisers a number of senior, mature, and experienced officers, all retired and of the general or flag rank. We know that the advice of these senior officers was submitted to the Secretary of Defense. We also know that this proposed pay legislation was referred to the Secretaries of the three services and to the military chiefs of the various armed services, all who dissented in varying degrees to many aspects of the bill.

Yet after all of this, we are convinced that the pay scales proposed by the Department of Defense in the original bill considered by the House have no relation to those considered adequate by any of these agencies. All these studies, all these expert advices, then, appear not to be reflected in the proposed bill.

We in the Reserve Officers Association have confidence in the judgment of the senior members of the pay study group and the secretaries and military chiefs of the services. We do think, therefore, that increases ought to be more on the order of those originally proposed by the pay study group.

It is obvious that the pay scales proposed by the Department of Defense or in the bill now under consideration do not represent increases in the magnitude that have been afforded employees of the civil service since the last military pay raise in 1958. If the civil service pay rates were justified on the basis of comparability with private industry, it appears that military personnel shall suffer even more in comparability with them.

Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the very grave responsibilities placed on your committee-indeed, on the whole Congress, in regard to the fiscal stability of the Government. We know of the tremendous cost of supporting our Military Establishment. But if we are to depend on this establishment to secure our freedom and that of much of the rest of the world, we cannot do it with second-rate personnel. And we cannot keep and retain first-rate personnel without adequate compensation. Not only would it be foolhardy to do so, but we cannot in all justice expect them to take the risks of a military career nor expect them to subject their families to the insecurity, separations and vicissitudes of a military life without adequate compensation. We cannot expect them to live by patriotism alone.

Thus, we urge you, in your experience and judgment, to assure yourselves that the legislation you develop here does provide adequate and fair compensation to these outstanding professional citizens who sacrifice so much and upon whom we depend so much.