out of 450,000 physical rejectees received care in the first year of the program.

So this is a real problem. Mr. Shriver is submitting some ideas about how we might go about perfecting and developing a voluntary system for the rehabilitation of rejectees. I think many of us feel that we ought to permit a full opportunity for volunteerism before we even consider the question of compulsion, and I think if your Department has some ideas on how we can develop and perfect that system of referral, I think it would make a very useful contribution.

Mr. HowE. We will try to do this, and I would say that it seems to me this ought to reach outside the Office of Education into other parts of HEW. Vocational rehabilitation occurs to me, for example, as an important program of work responsibility here, and we will even endeavor to give you a paper on this.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Howe, for appearing here this morning.

The subcommittee now will go into recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning, when we will hear the testimony of Prof. Milton Friedman. He will talk about the volunteer army concept.

Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 6, 1967.)

MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER, AND

POVERTY OF THE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edward M. Kennedy presiding pro tempore.

Present: Senators Kennedy of Massachusetts (presiding pro tempore), and Prouty.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk, Robert Patricelli, minority counsel to the subcommittee.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The subcommittee will come. to order.

Our two witnesses this morning will address themselves to two different aspects of a central concern of a democratic society: the right of every individual to his constitutional promise of freedom. President Kennedy, in 1960, cautioned us to be vigilant in guarding the fulfillment of this promise. He said, "A nation that extends the reach of public authority seems likely to forget that each extension endangers traditional immunities and freedoms."

Our first witness, Prof. Milton Friedman, is an articulate advocate of the volunteer army. A volunteer army, by definition, would involve no public compulsion whatsoever. Our second witness, Mr. Arlo Tatum, will concern himself with conscientious objection which, if the draft is continued, provides a means by which those who do not believe in armed force can exercise that belief.

But even if the concept of a volunteer army is accepted in principle, there will be a timelag in its implementation. During this time, we must continue to rely upon the draft for our military manpower, and we will of course continue to do so if the volunteer armed force concept is not accepted. When we do rely upon the draft, section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act provides a safety valve from compulsory military service for those who object to bearing

arms.

There are serious problems involved in administering this safety valve, problems with which Mr. Tatum is closely familiar. His testimony will provide us with an insight into them.

At the conclusion of today's hearing, the subcommittee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. Next week the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on draft reform, and while we have additional witnesses whose testimony is important to

the work of this subcommittee, we do not want to conflict with the hearings of the Armed Services Committee. We will convene again at an appropriate time.

So I will call as our first witness this morning Mr. Milton Friedman, professor of economics, University of Chicago. I might say it is not only a pleasure to welcome Professor Friedman to this subcommittee as an articulate spokesman for one of the important considerations which are being given to the volunteer army, but also I have had a chance of attending a conference at the University of Chicago to hear for myself his eloquence and to notice his persuasive powers.

He is an extremely effective spokesman for the volunteer army, and I know that the members of the committee and the Members of the Senate will benefit from his observations and thoughtfulness on a problem of draft reform and, more specifically, the opportunities which would be available to our country, to the young people, if we were to adopt the volunteer army.

So, Professor Friedman, we welcome you to this subcommittee and you may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF MILTON FRIEDMAN, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I appreciate very much your inviting me to participate in these hearings, which I think are of the utmost importance for the future of our country. I remember very well the role you played in our conference in Chicago, and I am sure that its success and appeal owes a good deal to your presence

there.

A military draft is, in my opinion, both undesirable and unnecessary. We can and should man our Armed Forces with volunteers. This is a method the United States has traditionally used except in time of major wars.

Only a minority of young men now enter the Armed Forces; hence, some method of selective service, of deciding which young man should serve and which two or three should not serve is inevitable, but our present method is inequitable, wasteful, and inconsistent with a free society.

On this point there is wide agreement. Even most supporters of the draft regard it as at best a necessary evil. The draft is inequitable because irrelevant considerations play so large a role in determining who serves. It is wasteful because deferment of students, fathers, and married men jams colleges, raises the birth rate and fuels divorce

courts.

It is inconsistent with a free society because it exacts compulsory service from some and limits the freedom of others to travel abroad, emigrate, or even to talk and act freely. A lottery would only make the arbitrary element overt. Universal national service would compound the evil-regimenting all youth to camouflage the regimentation of some.

Two principal objections are made to a voluntary force. First. That a "professional" army endangers political freedom. There is a real danger, but it arises from a strong armed force not from the method of recruiting enlisted men. Napoleon and Franco both rose to power

at the head of a conscript army. However we recruit, the essential need is to maintain close links between the officer corps and the body politic. Whatever method we use to recruit the enlisted man, the essential link is to maintain close links between the officer corps and the body politic.

A second objection is made that a volunteer army is not feasible because too few men volunteer, and that a volunteer army would be largely Negro because it would be more attractive to the Negroes who have fewer opportunities in the civilian area than the whites.

I doubt very much this conclusion. Our present Armed Force has a fraction of Negroes that is roughly equal to the fraction of the population. A fully volunteer armed force would be more attractive to people with better occupational opportunities as well as to those with poorer opportunities.

In any event, the basic issue, in my opinion

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just on this point, Professor, I think that one of the reasons that there is a smaller percentage has been because of the rather high standards which have been adopted by the Armed Forces now as far as the entrance requirements are concerned.

Would you suggest, under your proposal, that we maintain these same high standards of physical and mental tests, or would you propose any alteration of those standards?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think the standards maintained should be determined by military needs, and not by social considerations. It seems to me that the Government in all its actions must be colorblind, and that it is just as bad to deny the Negroes the better opportunities they would seek in the Armed Forces as it is to deny them such opportunities in civilian life.

So it seems to me this issue is a red herring, that in fact the proportion of Negroes would not rise very much, but even if it did, that would only mean that they were finding this a more attractive opportunity than other pursuits. It seems to me then we ought to be prepared-not only prepared, but happy that we offer them better opportunities in this way and improve their status.

The third objection that is made to a volunteer force is that a volunteer force is not feasible because at present too few men volunteer. Little wonder. The starting pay, including not only cash allowances, but also the cost of food, of housing, of clothing and other amenities, is about $45 a week.

Most men who enter the Armed Forces could earn something like twice that in civilian pursuits. It is not surprising that relatively small numbers choose to volunteer under those terms. We could readily attract more volunteers simply by paying market wages and by improving the other conditions of service.

Estimates of how much total military pay would have to go up vary from $4 billion to $20 billion a year. Whatever the extra amount, we are now paying a larger sum in concealed form.

Conscription is a tax in kind, forced labor from men who serve. involuntarily. The amount of the tax is the difference between the sum for which they would voluntarily serve and the sum we now pay them. The real cost of manning the Armed Forces now, including this concealed tax, is greater than the cost of running a volunteer force of the same size because the volunteers would be the men who find military service the most attractive alternative.

Moreover, a volunteer force would need fewer recruits. We now waste manpower by high turnover, unnecessary training and retraining, and the use of underpaid servicemen for menial tasks.

Adding to cost, low pay of men in service encourages extravagant veterans bonuses currently over $6 billion a year, or 40 percent as much as total military pay.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Of course, those figures relate most dramatically to World War II benefits and Korean war benefits. But they would be continuing, really.

Mr. FRIEDMAN. They are continuing, but we shall be adding to them, as is already evident in the expanded veterans' benefits proposed and passed in Congress.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. As directed toward the Vietnam war?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes; and given the low pay that we now pay the armed services, I am not saying this is inequitable. I am only saying it would be far better to pay more in advance and attract the men that way, than to compel them to serve at a low pay and subsequently make it up to them.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. How much do you think you would have to pay, Mr. Friedman?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. There is no way of knowing for certain, but Walter Oi and some of the people who have worked on the military manpower studies have estimated that you would have to offer an entering salary of something in the neighborhood of $4,000 a year. We now offer an entering salary of something in the neighborhood of $2,000 a year. Moreover, it is not often realized that the entering salary has hardly changed since 1953. The pay raise bills in the meantime have almost entirely affected the pay of men who reenlist and of the officer corps, because we have had available the draft as a means of getting firstterm enlistments at low entering salaries.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So what would be the increase in cost now with, say, the 2.7-million-man Army, which is generally a peacetime army? What are the estimates of Professor Oi who, as I understand it, is a proponent of the volunteer Army?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. His estimates were in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 billion for a 2.7-million-man Armed Force, and something on the order of $7 to $8 billion a year for Armed Forces of about 3.2 million. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. These estimates were made. by Professor Oi for a peacetime situation, were they not? Or were they directed toward the Vietnam war situation?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The original estimates were made in a peacetime situation.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Have there been any studies of what it would cost to maintain a 3.3-million-man army? What would the estimates be for salaries which would be sufficiently attractive to meet those requirements?

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The major difference between the earlier estimates and the present ones is in the size of the Armed Forces, of course, and Mr. Oi revised his estimates before the Chicago draft conference to a figure of the order of $7 or $8 billion in order to take into account the present situation and the need to attract a larger Armed Force.