« PreviousContinue »
at 18 whether to serve in the military or the nonmilitary capacity, so in this particular case, could you tell me whether you would have indicated at registration time whether you would have operated at military, nonmilitary, or the draft pool?
Senator PROUTY. All right, suppose I indicate that I prefer to go into the military services. I am not selected. I still remain 1-Ă. Now, am I required to participate in any of these programs under those circumstances?
Mr. EBERLY. Under this program, no, sir.
Senator PROUTY. If I am not taken into the military service, or rejected for physical or other reasons, then am I required to become a part of one of these other programs?
Mr. EBERLY. You are eligible, and every encouragement would be given, but I do not advocate compulsion on this, sir.
Senator PROUTY. Would it require a constitutional amendment to create a system of national service, since the 13th amendment seems to prohibit involuntary servitude, and the Supreme Court has justified the President's draft on the constitutional power to raise and support armies?
Mr. EBERLY. My understanding on that, sir, is that there is very definitely a constitutional question concerning compulsory National service. The judgment, of course, would have to await the actual
Senator PROUTY. Well, with or without a constitutional amendment, doesn't the very basis of the national service system tend to create a very regimented society?
Mr. EBERLY. I think it would give a more open society, sir. I spoke in my statement of the ghettoization in suburbs as well as the ghettos or the slums.
I think that the opportunities for the different kinds of experiences that would obtain under a program of national service would, in fact, give greater measure of responsibility to the young people, greater scope, more freedom, more openness.
Senator PROUTY. Even if there were no direct coercion for a young man to join a national service project, would not the indirect coercion of the alternative of being drafted tend to push many men into the national service project, rather than going to the armed services?
Mr. EBERLY. This is why I say the decision should be made at the time of registration, rather than the time when he is about to be called up for military service, so as to remove as much of that as possible.
At the same time, I said that a program of this kind should exist, even when the draft goes to zero, and in that case, sir, there would be no coercion of this type at all.
Senator PROUTY. You mentioned in your report of November 1966 that there would be a great use of national service people in the area of education.
Isn't it at least possible that an undedicated individual working with a particular school could cause such havoc before he was dismissed that his service would be most unfortunate?
Mr. EBERLY. I have respect, sir, for the selection techniques of the National Teacher Corps, VISTA, the Peace Corps, and other programs here.
I have respect for the thousands of voluntary agencies in this country, for the tens of thousands of school systems, for the 7,000 or so
hospitals, in determining who they will admit to service in the respective capacities.
So that I think that this can be handled.
Senator PROUTY. Couldn't this concept, if adopted, become just another haven for draft dodgers?
Mr. EBERLY. I don't think so, because they would choose before they would be exposed to the draft. As I mentioned to the Chairman, if there is a time of high draft situation, as there is now, this program might be limited to those who for one reason or another reason were not liable for the draft.
Senator PROUTY. I think we are talking about the situation as it exists at the present time. In a democracy such as ours, doesn't it become almost imperative that we try to treat all young people alike, as equal as possible?
Under your proposal, I don't think we are.
Mr. EBERLY. I think that there would be greater equity, sir, under this proposal than under the current situation, in which hundreds of thousands of young men are called for military service, and other hundreds of thousands are qualified for military service, but are not called, nor do they serve the Nation in other capacities in such programs as VISTA and the Peace Corps.
Senator PROUTY. This is an idealistic concept, but isn't it possible to encourage national service without getting into draft deferment or substitution?
Mr. EBERLY. Yes, but I think if we stopped there, sir, that there would be a tendency for programs to be strongly oriented toward the elite.
The Peace Corps is now 97 percent college backgrounds. The VISTA figure is about 70 percent. National Teacher Corps, of course, is a hundred, and I think a deliberate effort has to be made to develop, establish service educational programs for the full spectrum of our society.
At the same time, I suggest that these programs be set up under the concept of national service, so that instead of the situation as it is now, where a person can't get into the Job Corps unless he has been a high school dropout, or unless his family's income is under $3,000 or $4,000 a year, the umbrella would be overall, so that national service placement centers and other activities would be national service activity, rather than having the stigma of the poor or the underprivileged attached to them.
Senator PROUTY. I would like to quote from the report of the National Advisory Committee on the Draft, of which Mr. Burke Marshall was Chairman.
In their report they said, and I quote:
In the voluntary national services as an alternative to military service, the Commission found, first of all, that there are difficult questions of public policy and a lack of constitutional basis involved in compulsory national service. Second, it concluded that no fair way exists to equate voluntary service programs with military service.
Frankly, I must admit that that reflects my own view.
Mr. EBERLY. Yes, sir; and I agree that there is no equation, but we have to compare the situation of what we have now when there is even less of an equation, if that is mathematically possible.
Senator PROUTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EBERLY. It would reduce the inequities. It would certainly not eliminate them.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Senator Javits.
Senator JAVITS. Now, Mr. Eberly, I am grateful to you for making clear that those were your ideas, and not necessarily any classic national service concept, because you can already see from Senator Prouty's questions the thicket into which you have plunged us with the concept of national service as an involuntary form of service and as an alternative to the draft.
Now, I wish to state to you what I consider the national service idea to be, in its classic form, as Secretary McNamara expressed it, as I have expressed it, and others have expressed it, and I would appreciate your comment.
First, that everybody is liable for the draft who reaches a certain
This means no deferments, exemptions, or anything else, on the ground of national service.
Now, the Selective Service System, however, does throw off people who are rejected by the draft, and need to be rehabilitated.
They should be available, in my judgment, for some form of rehabilitating national service.
This brings me to the second point, which deals with people who are granted deferments, and who would otherwise or should otherwise, in matter of fairness, have served.
Now, the question is, can these two groups be called on for some element of national service?
And the answer is that they can, within the context of the requirements of training, money, demand, et cetera, of the various forms of service which the President would designate as national service. And that would include onerous types of service.
We wouldn't be setting up training camps, or anything like that. We would be making available people for Peace Corps, VISTA, Teachers' Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, perhaps other forms of service that the President would designate, who would otherwise have served in the Armed Forces, but for the fact that the Armed Forces doesn't need them.
That is not a preference. Indeed, they are subject to call for military service at any time, unless the armed services, when their turn comes and they are in something else of a national service character, decide that the public interest dictates that they should be allowed to complete it.
Now, that is the concept of national service we have.
It doesn't involve anything near the numbers you speak of, and it doesn't involve violations which I think Senator Prouty is perfectly right about of the 13th amendment.
Just as the Army can send soldiers out to work on roads, or to be orderlies in hospitals, the Army can inject these people into established services of the same character, such as Public Health Service, or some other.
Now, that is a concept of national service which will spread the burden a little more widely, and which will by no means take in everybody, and I certainly would eliminate extending it to women.
We are not thinking of drafting women or making them subject to the draft, remotely, or to national service.
These are all volunteers, they will be volunteers. The system doesn't set up new camps. It doesn't set up anything new. It is just a way of mobilizing our manpower, and utilizing a lot of the rejectees and the deferred who might not otherwise serve at all.
Now, that is all, in my judgment, it is the classic concept of national service at this time.
Now, would you be kind enough to comment?
Mr. EBERLY. May I just ask for a clarification? What happens in the time when no draft is in operation, under this particular system? Senator JAVITS. When no draft is in operation, you just have more people who are available for this purpose, that is all. They may not all be used, but there are more people available.
In a war situation, in 1966 as Senator Kennedy has pointed out, we called a million men.
That pretty much soaked up the whole deal. There wasn't much left. On the other hand, in 1967, or rather, in 1968, hopefully, we may call only five or 600,000, and that might make 300,000 or 250,000, depending on the rejectees and the deferreds, who are available for some form of national service.
That is all I was ever talking about, and I think that is all McNamara has ever talked about.
Mr. EBERLY. I think, Senator, that the value of this system you suggest to society and to the individuals who would participate in it is such that we are in more agreement than disagreement.
On the other hand, I would ask about the individual, once again. And the freedom of choice he would have.
It would seem to me that if we simply wait until a person's number is called for going into military service, and then depending upon whether he passes and so forth, determining whether he goes to military or nonmilitary, that some young men who would be better suited for the Peace Corps and VISTA, and such jobs, will end up in the military, and that some young man who would be happy to be in military service would not be called.
Senator JAVITS. That is where I think we part company.
I think that is properly the judgment of the Nation, not of the individual. If he is wanted and needed for military service, as it is today, then he is subject to call, and he has got to serve.
Now, that, I think, is the point of difference. I thoroughly agree with Senator Prouty. You would have a terribly topsy-turvey world if you ever started that system of option out of the armed services. Everybody would opt for the Peace Corps?
Why not? Who wants to get shot in Vietnam?
Mr. EBERLY. Let's take that as a hypothetical situation. They would still all be liable for the draft.
Senator JAVITS. Of course they would.
Mr. EBERLY. They would just be placed later in the order of call. Senator JAVITs. But, being later in the order of call means in most cases that you aren't called at all.
Everybody wants to be later in the order of call.
Mr. EBERLY. But, sir; if everybody goes into a nonmilitary program, then they are all in the same boat.
Senator JAVITS. Pardon?
Mr. EBERLY. If everybody decides to opt for the nonmilitary, then they are all in the same boat, so it would not be tantamount to exemption.
Senator JAVITS. They are all in the same boat, but the Government hasn't got the manpower it needs for national security.
Well, in any case, let's say this. I agree with you to the extent I have stated. The only precaution I wanted to take is that we don't invalidate, and I think in the eyes of many Senators, it would invalidate, the whole national service concept, with the broadness which you put out, and the matter of guaranteed deferment.
I think the whole cost situation, then, becomes completely different, from the way you have laid it out. I am not for training camps for national service people. They fit into slots which already exist, and for which we are appropriating, which are deficient in manpower.
They encourage us to expand some of these services, because we know we have a certain amount of guarantee so we will get the people, but that is all.
I think really, I hope, Mr. Eberly, that you will be thinking about this very seriously because I really was concerned as you testified, since you are, you know, coming as an authoritative witness, that some of your suggestions may hurt the whole concept which so many of us consider an improvement.
The last thing I would like to say to you is this: It may be, as a matter of law, that you could get an identification of youth which are willing to serve in national service, though not compelled to, when they make out their draft applications.
Some indication that they are interested in national service. That is about as far as you could go. In my judgment as a lawyer, I would be very dubious about whether you could go further. Thank you very much.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Anything else, Senator Prouty?
Senator PROUTY. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Eberly, I want to thank you very much for your appearance here, and coming here, and giving us the benefits of your thoughts.
They have been extremely helpful, and I appreciate your appearance, as do the members.
Mr. EBERLY. Thank you, Senator.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The subcommittee stands in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in this same room.
(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 22, 1967.)