Page images

He cannot predict that the war won't get worse, that in the period when he was 19 there might have been no war if he chose the deferment at the end of the period there might be a war. He would have no choice at that point.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What is your own feeling about the college deferment?

Mr. GORHAM. Frankly, my own personal feeling about it is that with the postgraduate deferments sealed off, the issue is not a terribly urgent one as it was before. I don't think, in other words, it will lead to inequity of service participation.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now, if we have a total mobilization, or a national emergency, do you think we ought to have student deferments?

Mr. GORHAM. If we have a total mobilization, then I think in a sense the argument for student deferment might be more persuasive than it is now. We might, in fact, then concern ourselves with the flow into civilian occupations and balance those against military needs.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So your consideration, then, is consideration based on manpower needs?

Mr. GORHAM. Right.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We had the Secretary of Labor here yesterday, and he said that is no basis for student deferments at all.

Mr. GORHAM. Was that answer in the context of the total mobilization?

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I'm trying to find out what your rationale is for student deferments. How can you have student deferments, in a total mobilization, based upon manpower needs, and not have them when we don't have a total mobilization? Assume for a minute that there should be other considerations than manpower needs.

If there are these other considerations, what rationale do you base student deferments upon?

Mr. GORHAM. I don't believe the basis for student deferment at this time would be manpower needs of the Nation.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What is it then?

Mr. GORHAM. In fact, quite the reverse. If we had a full mobilization, then, in fact, at that time you might want student deferment for a manpower need point of view; but at this point I would agree with Secretary Wirtz that if there is an argument for student deferment to the baccalaureate level, that argument is not an argument of manpower needs.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What is your basis for student deferments?

Mr. GORHAM. I don't particularly favor student deferment.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What is your basis for college deferment?

Mr. GORHAM. I have not taken a position favoring or not favoring. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That is what I am trying to find out.

Mr. GORHAM. I really don't have a position. When the President came forth with his recommendation on postgraduate deferments and

ending the pyramid of deferments, the issue was of much less weight and I think I would have to agree with the President that we really should get a public display of interest on the subject.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now we all agree with the President on this. The real question is, you are in a responsible position for guiding the overall development of the various education programs in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The President has indicated that he wants the Congress to examine, debate, and bring to the American people the best information we possibly can, and then to make a determination.

Now, I doubt if there are many people who have given this particular problem the degree of thought which you have. I think it would be very helpful to us to have your own opinions about it.

Mr. GORHAM. I think largely the issue of college deferment is an issue of public sentiment.

If you look fairly closely at the question of whether or not an interruption of college will lead to a decline in college attendance subsequent to that deferred service, and we could find no evidence at breaking the career at midpoint would discourage continuation; so from a long-term point of view, ending college deferments would not necessarily have important implications one way or the other for the number of trained manpower which our educational system produces.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, as to the second part of your answer, to the fact that an interruption does not generally deter an individual from continuing on with his education, I suppose in some instances it actually encourages him, because the cold war GI bill opens broad educational opportunities.

As to the first part of your response, I gather it to be your opinion that the principal reason for college deferments is public sentiment. Those are the words I wrote down here.

Mr. GORHAM. Yes, I would say that the President really chose wisely to turn this issue over.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You find very little justification other than public sentiment?

Mr. GORHAM. I do, yes.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do you think that there are equitable considerations which ought to be built upon that public sentiment, as far as they are our responsibilities?

Mr. GORHAM. I think we should make it very clear to the public what I have mentioned earlier in my testimony, Senator Kennedy, which is that when the postgraduate deferment is ended and when a fair system of selection is introduced, college deferment is not tantamount to evasion from service.

I think the public should understand it is not choosing whether these young men going to college will avoid service or not.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would be to the point that under the Marshall Commission's recommendation, they would be inducted, if chosen, at the completion of their second year, their sophomore year. There have been others who have suggested that after being selected, young men should be able to finish their school year. There are still others who have suggested that young men should be permitted to complete their college careers, if we had a peacetime situation, recognizing that we will probably have to continue the

draft even after Vietnam. But there are also those who have suggested that in a war situation, or in a limited war situation like Vietnam, with 475,000 men there, half of them draftees, that there is a real question of equity. Once they have been selected, should they be able to continue their college course, in the light that those boys taking apprenticeship training or going to a night school, in many cases, would not be able to?

The working boy does not have that opportunity to defer that responsibility of service for 4 years. Hopefully, this situation would be resolved.

Now, my question is whether you think there is presently an inequity when the 19-year-old boy is taken today, out of his job training, and is sent to Fort Dix and then to the rice paddies, when another boy is able to defer that responsibility for 3 years? Do you see a fundamental inequity presented there?

Mr. GORHAM. Well, I think the answer really depends on whether you are an optimist or pessimist about the involvement of this country in combat around the world. If you are very optimistic

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Let's take the reality, let's take Vietnam today. Let's take our current situation rather than speculating.

Mr. GORHAM. That is what I'm suggesting, Vietnam today, the expression, "relax, things can get worse"; and I relaxed, and things got worse.

Things can get worse. If they get worse, the deferment of college students could lead to a higher incidence of succession to bodily harm in 2 years from now than they do now. If things get better, obviously it would have been fine to be deferred for 2 years. In other words, everything hinges on what will happen in the future. If you view it optimistically, you would argue against college deferments.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That is difficult for me to see. You can look at it in the broad and philosophical sense, and then I would agree with you. Unfortunately, those who are being taken today face a clear and present danger of death in Vietnam-and this is the reality today.

Mr. GORHAM. That's right.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The question comes down to, I think: towards what should our draft system be directed, today, tomorrow, and 3 years from now? We will have a new generations born; maybe they will not have to assume the burdens of freedom in other parts of the world. I agree that this is a possibility.

The question is whether you feel that the equities of the current situation recommend that we seriously consider whether, if an individual is selected by a random selection system at the age of 19, he ought to have the opportunity to continue in college?

Mr. GORHAM. Well, I would go back to what I said earlier. You are not designing a draft selection system for 1 day; you are really designing it for some period of time. You cannot change it every 6 months.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Why not make it this way? Why not give the President the power to make a determination that in a limited war situation under certain prescribed procedures, that student deferments will not be allowed? In a nonlimited war situa

tion the President could decide that student deferments would be allowed.

Mr. GORHAM. I'm not suggesting that would be complicated; it is possible to provide the President with that authority. I believe he has that authority now to turn on or off deferments.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That is what I am trying to find out from you. I would like to hear your official views and then your private views.

Mr. GORHAM. You have been getting my private views, Senator Kennedy. And my private views on student deferment are precisely those that I mentioned. I really think that the decision to defer, making a decision on this particular issue was a very wise choice. I think the hearings of your committee and debate around the country will add a great deal of light to which way the President should go on this issue.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Should we continue? We have already covered many of the points covered your testimony, but could we continue on through it, Mr. Gorham?

Mr. GORHAM. I think we have covered fairly well the-at least at length, the student deferment issue.

We have responsibility for one program which relates to the medical rejectees of selective service. This is a voluntary program whereby we defer young men who have been rejected for medical reasons to their local communities to receive care. It is strictly a referral program.

We don't give care under this program; we do give personnel who are medically rejected persons to their communities, even private doctors or their public facilities if they cannot afford private services.

This program has been running about $5 million a year, funded out of OEO funds which have been transferred to HEW.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now, on that point, I want to get back into the questions of health deferments. Why is OEO paying for this? Why isn't it the Public Health Service?

Mr. GORHAM. Why was it funded originally under OEO?
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. GORHAM. Really, the task force which set this into motion is the President's Task Force on Manpower Conservation. It was done in conjunction with the President's Task Force on Economic Opportunity and it was one of the elements of equal opportunity bill put in along with other equal opportunity measures.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Currently, though, why does it have to continue? I would think it is a Public Health Service function.

Mr. GORHAM. Yes, this year the decision was made to place this program in the partnership for health, which is grants to State health agencies, so it will be done on a State-by-State basis and, in fact, the funding is encompassed within a larger amount of noncategorical funding, which will go to State agencies.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. How comprehensive is that? Mr. GORHAM. How comprehensive is what, Senator?

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The coverage of the funds you are distributing.

Mr. GORHAM. The total funds for comprehensive health, I believe, is about $140 million, but that encompasses all State health programs, and this will be one of the programs in which States will place in their State programs rather than have them directed by the Federal Government.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Now, as I understand the figures you have here, there were, between July 1, 1965 and January 31, 1967, about 698,000 men unable to meet the Armed Forces medical qualifications, and about 460,000 more men rejected at the Armed Forces examining and entrance stations.

Of these, 404,000 were interviewed, and 188,000 were referred at the local level for care and treatment. And then, you say: "To date, action has been taken at the local level on 162,000 of these cases. It was determined at the local level that approximately 50 percent of these did not need care."

Why were they rejected?

Mr. GORHAM. Well, the grounds for rejections are fairly broad. They include things which care won't do any good for, and they include things which care isn't available for. The former kinds of things are congenital malformations of a wide variety, trick knees, an awful lot of these are bone problems and cervix and muscular problems for which medical service can't do a great deal.

Among the things which are grounds for deferment, medical conditions, for which services are not often available, are psychiatric conditions.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would certainly not be accurate to say they did not need care.

Mr. GORHAM. As far as the psychiatric conditions are concerned, yes, it would not be fair to say they didn't need care.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What would it be?

Mr. GORHAM. They need care, yes, but we don't have the mental health programs in the country to provide the care for the numbers of people in this country who require that care.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Would it be more accurate to say there was a need, but that you didn't have the facilities or the wherewithall?

Mr. GORHAM. That is correct. But this "no need for care," in fact, are conditions which don't require care or we don't know how to give care for. They didn't include those conditions which we know how to treat, but we don't have doctors for.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Could you give us some ideas as to the profile of these that have been rejected for health reasons? What the effect of poverty is on the individuals that have been rejected for one reason or another, medical reasons?

Mr. GORHAM. Are you asking of the 700,000 men?
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That's right.

Mr. GORHAM. How many are being rejected for health reasons because of poverty?

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That's right.

Mr. GORHAM. The impact of poverty on their health?

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. GORHAM. I don't believe I can give you the answer to that question, Senator Kennedy. I think it is a terribly important ques

« PreviousContinue »