The American Bar Association considers the situation to be a serious one, that warrants prompt remedial action.

The Department of Defense also recognized the serious nature of this problem when it submitted its original pay proposal, introduced as H.R. 3006. That bill contained a section (section 4) which was designed to do two things:

(a) It would have permitted those officers who, under present law are already granted constructive service for promotion purposes because of their professional education (i.e., chaplains, lawyers, veterinary officers, and certain medical service officers), to be credited with the same amount of service for pay purposes when they are initially commissioned.

(b) It would have granted certain other officers constructive service for pay purposes, as well as for grade and promotion purposes.

When this section was considered in committee by the House of Representatives, the entire section was deleted on the grounds that it concerned personnel legislation, and should therefore not properly be considered as part of a pay proposal.

There is no question but that the portion of the section that would have created a new class of officers entitled to constructive service for grade and promotion purposes as well as pay purposes-was "personnel legislation" and should probably be considered separately from this pay legislation.

However, that part which would permit officers already granted constructive service for promotion purposes to credit the same service for pay purposes is clearly pay legislation. In my view, this matter should be considered on its own merits in connection with this pay bill, regardless of the personnel considerations that might affect the other parts of the original Department of Defense proposal. The American Bar Association is, of course, primarily concerned with the problem of increasing the effectiveness of legal services within the Armed Forces by improving the retention of qualified and experienced lawyers as judge advocates on active duty. We recognize, however, that the same problem exists with respect to other professionally trained officers who have already been granted constructive service for promotion purposes in recognition of their education. Therefore, the attached amendment is not limited to lawyers, but includes the same professionally trained officers that were included in the original Department of Defense proposal--that is, chaplains, veterinary officers, and certain specialized medical service officers.

In conclusion, I would like to add that this proposal would provide the maximum benefit at the points that would be of most aid to the retention problemthat is, to the younger officer. To show you graphically what I mean, the following brief table has been prepared, showing the differences in pay for officers with average service in various grades:

Thus, the major benefits would accrue to the younger officer, particularly at the crucial time that he is making a decision whether to make the Armed Forces a career-which incidentally is approximately the same time that he has obtained sufficient experience to make him of value to the service.

The American Bar Association strongly recommends your favorable consideration of the attached amendment.

This concludes my prepared statement. I shall be glad to appear before the subcommittee to answer any questions which may arise. if it is deemed necessary that I do so.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5555

On page 18, after line 5, insert the following:

"PAY CREDIT FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"SEC. 15. Section 205 of title 37, United States Code, is amended as follows: "(1) Subsection (a) is amended by striking out the word 'and' at the end of clause (8), redesignating clause (9) as clause ‘(10)', and inserting the following new clause:

"(9) for an officer who is

"(A) a chaplain of the Army or Navy;

"(B) in the Judge Advocate General's Corps or Veterinary Corps of the Army;

"(C) a line officer of the Navy designated for special duty (law); "(D) an officer of the Air Force designated as a chaplain, judge advocate, or veterinary officer; or,

"(E) in the Medical Service Corps of the Army or Navy, or designated as a medical service officer of the Air Force, and who holds a degree of doctor of philosophy, or a comparable degree, in a science allied to medicine; not more than three years, as determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned; and'

"(2) The last sentence of subsection (a) is amended by striking out the figure '(9)' and inserting in place thereof the figure ‘(10)'.

"(3) Subsection (b) is amended by striking out the words 'clause (7) or (8)' and inserting in place thereof the words 'clause (7), (8), or (9)'.

"(4) Subsection (d) is redesignated as subsection (e)' and the following new subsection is inserted after subsection (c):

"(d) Notwithstanding any other law, service credited under clause (9) of the subsection (a) of this section may not

“(1) be included in establishing eligibility for voluntary retirement or separation from a uniformed service; or

"(2) be counted in determining years of service to be used as a multiplier in computing retired pay.'

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION

The American Dental Association wishes to present the following comments on H.R. 5555, the Uniformed Services Pay Act of 1963.

The American Dental Association has cooperated closely with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Public Health Service in attempting to work out and maintain a system for providing high-quality dental care for members of the uniformed services.

The association is fully aware that each of the uniformed services has encountered difficulty in attracting and retaining the career dental officers that are needed. This is a serious problem that will be of a continuing nature unless some corrective action is taken. It is certain that the current low level of pay for military dental officers has been an important contributing factor that should receive immediate attention.

The pressing need of the Armed Forces for a sufficient number of highly qualified dental officers is illustrated by the fact that for every 100 young men inducted into service today, an average of 20 dentures, 25 bridges, 80 extractions, and 505 fillings are needed to restore oral health—an integral part of total health. Once restorative care is ended, of course, a sufficient supply of dental officers is needed to assure that good oral health is maintained. Unless adequate compensation is provided to attract and retain the necessary career professional personnel to fulfill these needs, it can be expected that there will be a serious deterioration in the oral health of our people in military service.

Certain aspects of military life which many men find unattractive such as frequent moving, separation from the family, and other inherent disadvantages are inescapable and cannot, of course, be eliminated. It is possible, however, and necessary to eliminate the disparity of pay that now exists between those in the uniformed services and those employed in other agencies of the Federal Government.

Enactment of H.R. 5555 would be a step toward removing the existing inequity, but it would still fall short of achieving the comparability between civil service compensation and military compensation that is desirable. Civil service pay has been increased in 1958, 1960, and 1962. Pay for the uniformed services was last increased in 1958. Until this disparity is rectified, the uniformed services will not find it possible to maintain the stable corps of dental officers that is necessary for accomplishment of their mission.

It should be noted that the American Dental Association, in 1956, strongly supported the Medical and Dental Officer Career Incentive Act which increased special pay for dentists and physicians in increments based upon length of service. The association, this year, recommended to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that consideration be given to providing additional increments of incentive pay for dental officers with substantial periods of service. The congressional action establishing incentive pay for dentists and physicians has been helpful in increasing the attractiveness of career service and in recognizing that special problems exist in recruiting and retaining dentists and physicians in military service. However, incentive pay has not been increased since 1956.

In enacting the Medical and Dental Officers Career Incentive Act, Congress established the principle that the duties of medical and dental officers are of such similarity and importance that compensation should be equal. The American Dental Association believes this is a sound principle and assumes it will be followed in any action taken by Congress. If incentive pay for dentists and physicians is to be increased, and the association is of the firm opinion that it should be, it is recommended that additional increments be related to those periods of service where statistics indicate that resignations are most prevalent. The American Dental Association appreciates this opportunity to present its views and to go on record in support of improved pay levels for dental officers in the uniformed services.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. DOYLE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I consider H.R. 5555 one of the important legislative measures before the Congress this session and appreciate this opportunity to place the American Legion on the record strongly favoring its enactment into law.

Last October in Las Vegas, Nev., the 44th Annual National Convention of the American Legion, upon recommendation of the committee on security, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 397 supporting a pay increase for members of our Armed Forces.

The American Legion recognizes that the period since World War II is unique in the annals of our history as a Nation. Never before has it been necessary, short of all-out war, to maintain such high levels of manpower in our active military forces. Never before have we been faced with the level of requirement for technically trained personnel to man the evermore complex weapon systems guarding the security of the Nation. These same technicians, needed by our Armed Forces, are in great demand by civilian industries. Herein lies the problem: The solution obviously is to tailor military pay to meet these needs by offering our servicemen strong inducement to stay in the Armed Forces. A thorough study of the provisions of H.R. 5555, as approved by the House of Representatives, leads our organization to the conclusion that while this bill is a start in the right direction, it has not gone far enough to meet the problems in fulfilling the objective sought by American Legion Resolution No. 397.

For the record, the text of Resolution No. 397 is presented below in its entirety:

"Whereas the security of the United States depends on poised and ready military power in being;

"Whereas our military strength can be measured by the courage, dedication and training of Americans in uniform at the time of meeting enemy attack, and it is therefore necessary that our military forces be composed of the highest type of citizens;

"Whereas it is necessary to offer some benefits to offset the many hardships imposed by a military career in order to attract to and hold in the military services our best citizens; and

"Whereas the American Legion has always strongly endorsed and supported the principle of adequate benefits for Armed Forces personnel: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, by the American Legion in National Convention assembled in Las Vegas, Nev., October 9-11, 1962, That we reaffirm our position supporting an increase in pay for our comrades in service, to the extent that compensation received will be more nearly equal to that which could be gained in civilian life in their various specialties and professions; and our support for increased benefits for our Armed Forces in housing, professional services, and in commissary and post exchange privileges, as an expression of the appreciation of the American people for the dedication of service personnel to the defense of our Nation."

Let me say, at the outset, that an increase in service benefits is long overdue. As this committee is aware, the last basic pay increase for members of the uniformed forces became effective on June 1, 1958. By way of contrast, classified employees of the Federal Government received pay increases in 1958, 1960, 1962, while yet another will come due January 1, 1964.

As the House committee's report indicates, 5 years have elapsed since a basic pay increase was last enacted for the members of the uniformed services. Νο one seriously questions the disparity in pay between certain segments of the military forces compared with civil service or private industry.

What stronger argument for a military pay increase can there be than the statistics of the House committee which show that, since 1952, the average pay of nonmilitary Government workers has increased 49 percent, manufacturing and production workers by 44.8 percent, and the military a mere 16.2 percent. In order to obtain any degree of comparability, the increases in this bill would have to be double those proposed.

However, industry does not hold out a 20-year retirement to a skilled worker or his management team. Presently this is the one big inducement to get men to follow careers in the Armed Forces. Industry has long recognized that a trained and skilled worker must be retained if the company is to succeed. While it is not within the immediate purview of this subcommittee, serious study should be given to the matter of retaining both enlisted and officer personnel beyond 20 years.

Increased financial incentives, which the House committee included in its bill, will partially bridge the problem; but constantly dangling the 20-year retirement before men about to enter the Armed Forces has a profound effect on service beyond 20 years; a time when most officer and enlisted men are highly trained and qualified members of the defense team.

Adequate machinery now exists to weed out the incompetent. Is it not equally important to retain the cream of the crop in service at least for 30 years by some reans other than financial incentive which, of course, must be included in the package.

Earlier in this statement I spoke of the unprecedented demands for highly trained technicians in the armed services, who are also in demand by industry. In my opinion, the increase in benefits make up a package woefully inadequate to compete against industry.

I have personally talked to jet mechanics and electronics specialists; skills for which industry is bidding high, and these young men with few exceptions are leaving the service for industry.

To raise their benefits package to competitive levels, we will have to go far beyond the provisions as outlined in H.R. 5555. Soft skills are no problem in the Armed Forces but why continue blanket increases when the crux of the matter lies in keeping skilled manpower in the Armed Forces?

In still another critical area, the American Legion heartily subscribes to Secretar McNamara's statement to you, Mr. Chairman, that:

"Our most serious retention problems relate to younger officers in the grades of first lieutenant, captain, and major in the military service. These officers have completed their period of obligated service and the ability to induce more of them to remain beyond this period directly affects quality. The administration recommended that increases which, taking into account a quarters allowance increase voted by Congress last year, would average 23.6, 22.1, and 19.1 percent, respectively, for first lieutenants, captains, and majors."

However, we do not agree with the Defense Secretary in balancing these benefits off at the expense of other sections of the bill; such as increased subsistence.

The House in its deliberation of the pay bill stated that increase would be provided by the bill expressly designed to alleviate enlisted and junior officer retention problems. The above-mentioned percentages were then cut to 15.4, 16.8, and 14.7 percent respectively. The American Legion does not believe that the increases recommended by the House will wholly accomplish the intent of this body, particularly in the junior officer grades but they still will go a long way.

We strongly urge that this committee raise the percentage of increase for the military pay to the level as originally recommended by the Defense Department. The savings in the cost of training new men to replace trained officers who leave the service would offset a major portion of a realistic pay increase.

The American Legion by virtue of policy adopted at prior national conventions subscribes fully to the rider attached to H.R. 5555 on the floor of the House to provide for the recomputation of retired pay. Together with the National Guard Association, Reserve Officers, and Retired Officers Associations, we present a united front all supporting recomputation, which we contend is a legal obligation of this Government to every officer who entered upon active duty intending to follow the military as a career.

It is felt by some that to recompute retired military pay on the basis of new and increased active duty pay is only a moral obligation. In the opinion of the American Legion, we feel that this is not correct and is a legal obligation. This was substantiated by the Secretary of Defense last year when he demonstrated that the authority for recomputation pay is definitely based on clear provisions of law rather than on mere moral obligation.

The Comptroller General has held that section 6149, United States Code, title 10, and other laws, established this right and states in part that "*** the retired pay to which the officer is entitled shall be recomputed on the basis of new rates."

The Congress departed from this traditional principle in 1922 but it was quickly corrected in the following Congress. The 100-year principle again prevailed until 1958. While we subscribe to bringing pre-1958 up to the level of the 1958 Pay Act, we view the proposal to again provide a different method of computing their retirement as a serious breach of faith, and will result in a decided drop in the number of persons who would otherwise be interested in military careers.

Secondly, the cost of living further complicates an already complicated pay system. With one notable exception, retired pay has always been related to active duty pay. The American Legion saw no need to depart from this formula in 1958 and it sees less justification for it today. I, therefore, urge in the interest of equity and justice that your committee peg retirement pay to active duty pay for those retired prior to the effective date of this pay act.

H.R. 5555 includes a provision that would exclude from consideration for a pay raise any member of the armed services who has served less than a period of 2 years. While the intent of the House bill was to give a greater incentive, and induce greater numbers of officers and enlisted men to continue careers in the military service, the American Legion believes that this will have a converse effect. We also believe that if this provision becomes effective, it will tend to discourage persons who otherwise might consider making military service a career from doing so. We recommend that raises be given to persons regardless of the length of service.

The American Legion was pleased to see that the House bill has seen fit to correct the inequities of the existing law by authorizing the payment to a member of the armed services, an additional family separation allowance. This has always been one of the more acute problems confronting members of the Armed Forces and the correction of this inequity should do much to boost the morale of persons in the military who are faced with the requirement to maintain two homes.

The Legion has likewise been pleased to see that for the first time in the history of the military pay system, enlisted personnel will become entitled to a statutory commuted ration. We concur with the change of the existing law to the entitlement to a member of the Armed Forces who performs multiple hazardous duties.

And finally, our thanks to the Members of the House for their amendment to the bill from the floor restoring hostile-fire pay to the men who are assigned to combat areas. In this connection, we are of the distinct opinion that the dangers of hazardous duty for members of the Armed Forces are the same