future, I would not see that any other group had a right to come in and ask for recomputation. In other words, the Congress has taken a stand on this particular provision.

Senator CANNON. Of course, if I may interrupt there a moment, Congress took that stand in 1958 and said recomputation was no longer permitted. But it did not stop the people from coming back in to try to get recomputation since that date.

If I were to go along on this proposal, I would want to make it amply clear that this ends it once and for all. But I don't know how you are going to be able to justify it logically by saying: "Well, now Congress has taken a position cutting it off and fixing it once and for all," because that is what they thought they did in the 1958 pay act.

Secretary VANCE. I don't think that takes into account, Senator, the abruptness of the termination in 1958. I think it is clearly understood by everybody in the military departments that this is once and for all, this is the last time.

General WHEELER. I might add that I certainly understand this loud and clear.

Senator YOUNG. But isn't it a fact as I understand it loud and clear also that civil service employees through their organizations are likely to come in in a few years and want recomputations of their salaries, and I think it has been estimated that would cost our taxpayers about $2 billion.

General WHEELER. As I said earlier, Senator, the only way I can reply to that, of course, is that I have never heard that civil service pay, retired pay, has ever been tied as directly to active duty pay as that of the military. In other words, I now rest my case solely on the traditional aspects of the matter.

Senator YOUNG. Now I might say to the Secretary in resting the the case on tradition, tradition of 122 years I believe as the Secretary said, did we not have a tradition of at least 122 years that promotions in our Armed Forces went by seniority, and that was found to be outmoded and outdated, and no good, and was discarded in World War II? Isn't that a fact?

Secretary VANCE. I cannot speak on that.

General WHEELER. It wasn't followed rigidly. As you may recall during the Civil War, while you had

Senator YOUNG. We had political generals then.

General WHEELER. Not all of them political, sir. Some of them were darned good generals.

Senator YOUNG. Yes, Garfield from my State of Ohio was a political general, but he was a very good general. I happen to know of that.

General WHEELER. The promotion of numerous officers over contemporaries was amply justified by acts on the battlefield, so I would say promotion by seniority has not been followed rigidly.

Senator YOUNG. But the seniority system of promotions has been followed up to World War II, has been generally followed.

General WHEELER. With some variants. I would point out, for example, that General Pershing was advanced rather rapidly over his contemporaries. General Marshall likewise.

Senator YOUNG. That was in World War II.

General WHEELER. I point out that these perhaps were exceptions, but the fact remains that this has not been

Secretary VANCE. Senator Young, I would point out, and I believe I am correct with respect to civil service employees, the Postal Service and Federal Employees Act of 1962 provides there shall be readjustment based on the consumer price index, which is the provision we are suggesting for the future.

Senator YOUNG. That is the cost of living, but it is not contemplated presently that they will be based upon increases in salaries, and of course as you know, Mr. Secretary, the civil servants of this country have had basic salary increases recently, and very expensive

ones.

Secretary VANCE. Correct.

Senator YOUNG. And to that Congress has added cost-of-living increases, of course, which no one quarrels with. I am just raising the point that I think they are likely to come in and want a recomputation also.

Secretary VANCE. They had raises in 1958, 1960, and 1962 all in a row, and will in 1964.

Senator CANNON. Yes, there have been some raises, although their retirement system is based on a contribution system as distinguished from a military.

Secretary VANCE. That is correct.

Senator YOUNG. Which is noncontributory. But as has been_already made a part of the record, their retirement is not readjusted or recomputed based on pay raises that go into effect after retirement. But the cost-of-living index is the thing that is taken into consideration there.

Now General Wheeler, do you support the provisions making the combat pay provision retroactive to January 1, 1962?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir; I do. As Secretary Vance mentioned, we have had our people check out possible administrative difficulties. We believe that we can handle this without undue strain. I think it would be recognition of people who were subjected to the same conditions over a period of time. I think it is justified, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANNON. And insofar as the retroactive provision on recomputation, if that is approved, if the recomputation provision is approved by the committee, do you agree with the Secretary that the cutoff date should be as of the effective date of the bill, rather than permit recomputation back to January 1, 1963, as is now proposed? General WHEELER. I would agree with that; yes, sir. I agree with the Secretary.

Senator CANNON. Senator Saltonstall, do you have any questions? Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. Secretary Vance and General Wheeler, I was listening to Secretary Rusk, and so I will want to read your statements. I have no questions at the present time. Senator CANNON. Senator Young, do you have anything further? Senator YOUNG. I might ask just this further question, although I am sure I know what the answer will be.

Can you gentlemen name any retirement system in private industry, no matter how large the corporation or how wealthy it is, any retirement system of any retired officials or employees of any corporation in

America where that is based upon pay scales not in effect at the time such persons retired?

Secretary VANCE. There are none that I know of that are based on recomputation.

General WHEELER. That is true, Senator, and I would add thisthis is one of the great attractions in the past of the military services. I recall the Cordiner Committee went on record that this tie-in was one of the strongest incentives we have had to retain people. I know of

none.

Senator YOUNG. General, I found military service attractive. I also found congressional in the House of Representatives attractive, but I never thought of recomputation of my own salary.

I have no other questions.

Senator CANNON. Senator Saltonstall has a question.

Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask this question of General Wheeler? General Wheeler, is there a very strong feeling among men, officers in the Army like yourself, that this retirement pay and the retirement provisions that were in the 1958 act should be changed, and that it is fundamental for the morale of the officers? It seems to me there has been stronger feeling expressed to me on that subject than on almost any subject.

General WHEELER. Senator, it is quite true that the provisions of the 1958 act were the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction among the officers and among the retired group who were directly affected, and this dissatisfaction has carried forward over the years.

I believe that that action of the Congress in 1958, and hopefully, favorable action on the recomputation provision in this bill, will lay to rest once and for all the idea that hereafter retired pay will be tied to active duty pay.

I have the feeling that if the provision that when the Consumer Price Index goes up by 3 percent there will be an automatic adjustment upward, will alleviate much of the feeling that has been had in the past.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You are satisfied with what the House did? General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I mean the House as a whole, not the committee.

General WHEELER. The House as a whole, Senator.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And Mr. Secretary, do you agree with that? Secretary VANCE. Yes, sir. I had certain reservations which I testified to earlier with respect to specific aspects of the bill, but with those exceptions in mind, in general I agree with the House bill.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, General Wheeler. We appreciate your being here and giving the committee your views.

Secretary VANCE. Thank you.

General WHEELER. Thank you, sir.

Senator CANNON. The next witness will be Secretary Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force. He is accompanied by General Stone.

Secretary Zuckert, we are very happy to welcome you here and wel

come General Stone, and Mr. Fridge. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. GEN. W. S. STONE, CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNEL; AND BENJAMIN W. FRIDGE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, AND RESERVE FORCES, U.S. AIR FORCE

Secretary ZUCKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to appear before this committee today in support of a pay raise for the Armed Forces.

As Secretary of the Air Force, I want to indorse and support the proposals and position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower), Mr. Norman S. Paul, in his statement before the committee.

As a citizen, an observer, as an administrator familiar with the pay situation in the military services since World War II, and as a responsible official of the Government today, I want to say that this is one of the most important measures to come before the 88th Congress. I cannot emphasize too strongly the need for constructive new legislation dealing with the pay structure of the Armed Forces.

My prepared remarks are brief. I will, of course, be glad to answer any questions which the members of the committee or staff may have, and I have Lt. Gen. William S. Stone, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Air Force, and Mr. Fridge from my own office, to assist me.

I do not want to go into any detail as to the provisions of the bill now under consideration. It is, of course, a step in the right direction. I hope you will understand my purpose and position if I say I am not so much interested in the specific details of the solution to our problem as I am in meeting the overall quality-manpower requirement. This legislation is a step in that direction.

All of the military services are facing a very serious problem and legislative action toward its solution is imperative. An increase in the pay of the Armed Forces is only part of the solution, but it is a critical part. The requirement is the maintenance of the high quality of the forces necessary for defense in the aerospace age.

The members and staffs of the Committees on the Armed Services are fully aware of the increasing demands on the people of the Armed Forces as the world moves toward an ever more intricate structure of relationships between nations. You understand the demands brought about by the constantly increasing technical complexity of weapons, and by the growing difficulty of management of the vast national resources committed to defense. And no one knows better than the members of your committee and your staff of the manner in which the men and women in the uniformed service of the United States have responded to these demands.

You are familiar with it day in and day out, year in and year out. The public becomes conscious of it only when some national threat, or near crisis, calls attention to the state of readiness, disciplined strength, and combat capability of the Armed Forces. Berlin and Cuba focused attention on these qualities, but similar responses are registered every day and every night in many types of military duty imposed by full-time defense.

21-482-63- -7

Members of this committee have shared in a SAC alert and have seen the honed edge of this great force. You have observed professionalism of a Polaris submarine crew, and witnessed the firepower of the Army's special forces. You've shared the watch on a long polar night with the DEW line troops, you've watched an air defense scramble, you've marveled at the precision striking power of skilled tactical air pilots, and you are familiar with the unprecedented delivery service by military air transport, and such things as the little known and unsung performance of the air-sea rescue units.

Many people are aware, for example, of some of the great contributions of the Air Force and the other services to the national space program, but it isn't possible to publicize the work of the thousands of enlisted and commissioned specialists in research and development, in all phases of logistics, in planning and in administration. But the devotion to duty is the same -across the board-and the demand for integrity, competence, and hard work is the same.

President Kennedy has recognized the dual reason for a pay adjustment. I say dual because it is needed for two purposes-to assure our common defense and security and to assure fair and decent treatment for the men and women of the Armed Forces.

A major step has been taken toward bringing into line with industrial employment the pay scales for employment in the civil departments of Government. Civil Service pay as you know has been adjusted twice since 1958, with no change in military pay, which as a result lags seriously behind both Government and industrial pay. I am confident the American people do not want this.

The American people want the standard of living for the military service to be at a level which reflects the dignity and honor of the military profession.

They will not knowingly ask those in the military service to live under conditions measurably inferior to the conditions enjoyed by citizens of comparable ability and responsibility in civilian pursuits. And above all, the American people expect the pay of the Armed Forces to be fitted to the needs of defense.

For a service as demanding in technical competence as the Air Force, the competitive status of civilian engineering opportunities, for example, is of the utmost importance. Studies show that the average income for engineering graduates of 352 schools in civilian pursuits is at least 20 percent higher than for the same graduates in the Air Force for 1 year of service, for 5 years, and for 10.

But the highest type of college graduate, the type we want, looks at the earning potential of his chosen field not just in the early years, but in the later years as well-throughout the active period of his professional life. He gives serious consideration to the treatment he can expect, if he does well, after 10 years, and after 20 years, and beyond. He is knowledgeable of the stature of people who have risen to the top in the field. This is one reason why the military pay structure must provide continuing progression in earning power as capability and responsibility increase.

It is true that the retention pinch is greatest at the levels of first lieutenant, captain, and major, and we need the most substantial pay boosts in these grades. While the middle grades are generally most in