The background for this congressional action seems to have been that such promotion was extremely galling to many Army and Air Force officers, who did not come under this statute and therefore had not been promised promotion on retirement. Yet I observe even now that Army and Air Force colonels are promoted shortly before their retirement date and therefore are retired with the rank and pay of brigadier general. 2. The same statute (43 Stat. 1279) provided that those naval and marine officers so commended would be retired with 75 percent of the active duty pay of the rank they held on the active list at the time of retirement. This proviso was repealed by the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (Public Law 81-351) of October 12, 1949, when officers already retired were forbidden to recompute their retired pay on the basis of 75 percent of the current pay of the rank from which they were retired. The 20-year retirement of officers at their own request was encouraged after World War II to reduce the humps in the active list and to expedite the flow of promotion. I personally suffered from this breach of faith. I retired in 1947 after 241⁄2 years of commissioned service, 21⁄2 of which were spent in active combat duty in the Pacific. In 1949, my percentage of the active duty pay of a captain was reduced from the 75 percent promised to me to 60 percent. I have continued to be paid at that percentage ever since under the 1952 and 1955 Pay Acts, and a 6 percent cost-of-living increase in 1958. During those 14 years, the cost of living index has risen 16 percent. A law, 10 U.S.C. 1649, specifically provides that "the retired pay to which the officer is entitled shall be recomputed on the basis of the new rates" as a percentage of the active duty pay of the rank from which an officer was retired. The common formula was to multify the number of years for pay purposes by 212 percent. To the best of my knowledge, this statute has not been repealed. The Pay Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-422) discontinued basing all retired pay on a percentage of active duty pay. This "contract repudiation" established at least two scales of retired pay for all ranks and rates, those retiring after June 1, 1958, being paid on a preferred pay scale, which was much higher because of the significant raises given to active duty pay by the Pay Act of 1958. Congressman Carl Vinson, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has predicted "staggering costs" of retired pay, if "compounded" by recomputation and has forecast a retired pay cost of $7.8 billion per year by fiscal 1984. Chairman Vinson also said: Our objective should be to provide the fairest retirement system possible for all members of the armed services who retire for length of service or for disability * He further stated: It does not make sense to me to say that an individual who retired 20 years ago should now be entitled to recompute his retirement pay on the scales that now exist. I will address myself to this problem presently. Certainly, we have no quarrel with Mr. Vinson's objective of providing the fairest retirement system possible. But, despite Chairman Vinson's long friendship for the Navy, I must take issue with his statement that recomputation compounds the cost of retirement to $7.8 billion in 1984. The cost of recomputation in fiscal year 1965 has been estimated at $32 million. When we consider that those officers, who retired immediately after World War II, are now upward of 77 years of age, that those, who retired in 1949 at an average age of 55, are now upward of 70 years of age and those youngsters, who retired in 1958 (before June 1), are now pushing 60, it will be apparent that most of these fine battle-tested officers will, to our sorrow, no longer be on the retired list in fiscal year 1984. Included are such outstanding World War II officers as Admiral Spruance, Admiral Kinkaid, Gen. Tony McAuliff, Gen. H. M. Smith, Gen. Chesty Puller, Gen. Lemuel Shepherd, Adm. Daniel Barbey, Rear Adm. Herbert Knowles, and many others less well known but equally deserving of your consideration. Let us see how much officers on the preferred retired pay scale are favored over those with equal rank and length of service who retired before June 1, 1958. A general or admiral retired after June 1 receives $2,957 more per year; a major general or rear admiral $1,928 more; a colonel or Navy captain $1,070 more; an Army captain and a Navy lieutenant $133 more decidedly unequal retired pay for equal rank and equal years of service. In my own case, I now receive $449.89 per month. I have never been able to keep my family of four and educate my children on my retired pay. I have enjoyed the necessity of working to produce additional income for the past 15 years, until I became disabled last October. Had it not been for the Dual Compensation Act, which deprived me of my retired pay while I was for nearly 3 years an Ambassador serving our country abroad, I might not have had to spend $16,000 of our private income and savings during this interesting tour of duty. A retired captain, with the same length of service as I have, now receives $546 per month, with a "5 percent cost of living" increase would draw $573.30. IV. COMPARISON OF CIVIL SERVICE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CIVIL PAY SCALES I will not take the committee's time to belabor at length this issue, which has been so well illustrated by others. But I do want to make the point, apparently ignored by Chairman Vinson and others, that a civil servant retiree, even considering the retired military officer's fringe benefits, does much better than his contemporary of equal rank and length of service. That civilians contribute to their retirement fund is given overemphasis the military retiree has for many yearsin fact, all during my service, contributed even more generously by acceptance of substandard wages, according to comparability tables. In 1958, 1960, and 1962 the President recommended, and the Congress enacted generous pay raises for all civil servants. This year the President has again recommended another pay raise of 4.7 percent for civil servants averaging $322 per year and an especially large pay raise for the officials at the executive level will soon be recommended. President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of Defense McNamara have all in the past recognized the injustice done the military retirees by the 1958 pay act and have recommended recomputation for all those retired before June 1, 1958. In the last session of Congress, the House of Representatives passed such a bill. Despite the fact that over half of the Senators cosponsored a similar bill, the House bill died in this committee. There still seems to be some doubt that the Congress will pass an adequate armed services pay bill in this session of Congress to include recomputation of retired pay. Furthermore, with regard to retired pay and survivors benefits, the civil servants always seem to be better able to convince the Congress that something must be done for them. Last year the Government contributed $896 million to civil service retirement. In the next 20 years or less, the Federal Government will have to make up the $36 billion by which the civil service retirement fund is actuarily deficient. I know for a fact that the retirees of the Foreign Service have, nearly every year since 1958, come down to Congress and convinced it that their retired pay and survivors benefits must be increased. I do not decry these congressional actions. I think they are important. But I do strongly urge that, as a matter of honor and justice, recomputation for those retired before June 1, 1958, be passed. Regular Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force officers are the only officials commissioned to serve our Federal Government for their life's duration. Military retired pay was not conceived and has never been considered as a pension. The Court of Military Appeals has held that "officers on the retired list are not mere pensioners in any sense of the word. The salaries they receive are not solely recompense for past services, but a means devised by Congress to assure their availability*** in future contingencies." Many officers on the retired list before World War II served on active combat duty with heroism and distinction in World War II and the Korean war. The most illustrious of these was General of the Army Douglas MacArthur who was recalled to active duty to the high command in the Pacific in World War II and the Korean war. Let us take as a motto, equal pay for equal rank and length of service. V. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL RANK AND EQUAL LENGTH OF SERVICE What's to be done about it? I strongly recommend that the traditional recomputation be continued. But I have an alternate and reasonable suggestion to offer. It probably will not be popular with my fellow officers on the active list, but I am moved to present this proposal for the following four reasons: 1. The Congress and the Defense Department are seriously and properly concerned at the increasing cost of the retired list of the armed services. 1 2. H.R. 5555, while providing the recomputation feature which we favor, institutes another escalation of retired pay, not as discriminatory as the 1958 pay act, but establishing two or more levels of retired pay for equal rank and equal length of service. This will cause resentment and dissatisfaction by those on the lower pay scale, renewed agitation for equal pay, increased cost for the retired pay list, and lastly, but the most important, damage to the morale of the active services. 3. The Congress is apparently determined to abandon both computation and recomputation based on current active duty pay and base all pay raises in the future on cost of living, indexes. If such be the intent, now, with this pay bill, would be a good time to commence. 4. A just, honorable and equal pay bill for equal rank and equal length of service for pay purposes is an imperative need. Accordingly, I make the following recommendations: 1. That recomputation of retired pay and the increase in retired pay of 5 percent for "cost-of-living" increase as passed by the House of Representatives in H.R. 5555 be retained. 2. That H.R. 5555 be amended to provide that all retired pay in the future, for both officers and enlisted men, be based on a retired pay scale derived from the 1958 pay act plus 5 percent. This retired pay scale should be computed by multiplying this basic pay scale by the number of years of service for pay purposes by 21/2 percent (not to exceed 75 percent) for each officer and enlisted rank or rate and the individual's number of years of service for pay purposes from 2 to 30. Disability percentages would be retained as at present. I attach a skeleton retired pay scale table based on such a system of computation. I can't here, of course, discuss many complicating things that would be included here. They would have to be considered and continued, many types of retired pay that do not affect the regular service or even the retired rank. When active pay is increased by a percentage for a cost-of-living increase, the retired pay scale would be increased by the same percentage. All officers now retired and all officers to be retired in the future would be paid on the same pay scale. This would so simplify the administration of retired pay of all services as to provide a significant economy. Thus, we would finally achieve Chairman Vinson's "objective to provide the fairest retirement system possible for all members of the Armed Services"; thus, at least, we would achieve equal pay for equal rank and equal length of service. I have included here a skeleton pay scale based on the 1958 Pay Act plus 5 percent. I didn't make it for all years and for all ranks but I am sure any supply group could very quickly dash off one for you. (The tables referred to follow :) 1 Based on (a) 1958 Pay Act, (b) plus 5 percent cost-of-living increase, (c) 21⁄2 percent per year of service for Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Admiral, for your very I am a little disturbed by your proposal, you suggest that you have Admiral AGETON. May I speak to that? You see, if you have recomputation to 1958, then the people who The cost of living in the last 5 years has gone up about 5 or 6 percent. Admiral AGETON. Five percent. They would get no raise if you Senator CANNON. But you would not advocate recomputation from Admiral AGETON. I would not if all future retirees were placed on Senator CANNON. But are you suggesting that the future retirees |