« PreviousContinue »
Secretary WIRTZ. I mean not to fuzzy that point at all. That point is broadly taken.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So that if there is going to be a student deferment, even a college deferment, it would have to be on some grounds other than manpower needs.
Secretary WIRTZ. In my judgment, I should add only that that position was taken in the context of a 19-year-old induction, with the recognition that if the inductions came at a later age, the purity of the position would be somewhat diluted, but I don't mean to fuzzy it up. The intention of my testimony is to say that the right answers ought to be arrived at here in terms of the consideration of the individual involved, and the military requirements, and I see nothing in the manpower situation to warrant pressing any different answers.
Senator JAVITS. Well, now, Mr. Secretary, I still am-you leave me a little uncertain, but I think I understand you. I want to be sure we do, not just I, but all of us. The administration still leaves to us, unless the President comes in with a recommendation, the question of college deferment. Give us some technical corollary for training deferment, if we add that based on your testimony, so that we have the tools available, if we should decide on both, though the administration has recommended neither.
It may and it may not.
The third point is that you personally, as a very distinguished personality, see no real need, if we begin to draft 19-year-olds, for either a college deferment or a training deferment. Am I correct?
Secretary WIRTZ. Except on the last point. I said quite candidly that I have on previous occasions, as an individual, expressed a view with respect to the deferment of college students, or the nondeferment of them. You will respect the fact that not as a matter of reluctance, but as a matter of complete approval, I think that the President's suggestion that the country debate that, that the Congress debate it, and explore it, seems to me well taken. I think it would be a mistake to seem in any way to prejudice that debate by an expression of what might be thought of as an official position.
Senator JAVITS. But that is exactly what I thought you were telling Senator Kennedy, our chairman. That your personal opinion was that you saw no need for deferments, if we take 19-year-olds.
Secretary WIRTZ. I beg your pardon. You mean from the standpoint of manpower need?
Senator JAVITS. Yes.
Secretary WIRTZ. I have no hesitation about that at all. I misunderstood your point, and do testify squarely to that effect.
Senator JAVITS. So we understand each other.
I yield to the Senator.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just in carrying that further, has not the principal justification for deferments always been manpower needs?
Secretary WIRTZ. Which kind of deferments?
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The student deferments. Wasn't the principal reason for the establishment of student deferments the very reason that you have testified is invalid and that is, for manpower needs?
Secretary WIRTZ. I don't believe so. I don't believe so, Senator. You know, that just grew, in the late 1950's.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Wasn't this because of sputnik, and a great many other things?
Secretary WIRTZ. I think it was not; no.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Then tell me, what do you feel is the justification, if it is not for manpower needs? Secretary WIRTZ. For student deferments?
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes.
Secretary WIRTZ. I think the point is that quite a good many of the people in the country feel frankly that those who are going to college are more worthwhile.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I know what the people in the country feel. I want to hear what you feel, Mr. Secretary, and the reasons for it. If it is not for manpower needs, then what justification is there?
Secretary WIRTZ. I guess that I think that the I can talk about it in terms of what I think are the arguments which other people have for it.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am interested in yours.
Secretary WIRTZ. I don't think it came from a manpower consideration, nor do I think it involves a manpower consideration, although I think it was rationalized in terms of the need of the country, especially for those things which come as a result of college education.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Are you suggesting that it was based, therefore, on irrational grounds? Based on a rationale which does not hold good?
Secretary WIRTZ. I think the reasons for a position which I refuse to take are irrational reasons.
Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman
Senator JAVITS. I yield.
Senator MORSE. I suggest that I expressed the reason that there were certain political considerations. If not manpower, aren't they basically political considerations? You cannot justify it on manpower, then you must try to justify it on public opinion considerations, and public opinion considerations, I think, spell out political consid
Senator JAVITS. I yield to the Senator.
Senator PELL. Thank you, Senator Javits.
Perhaps we should accept the fact that in general we are not rational, we are emotional beings, and very often we act accordingly.
I was wondering why do we zero in on the magic age of 19, as opposed to the practice which I think has been proven more successful in other countries that young people are subject to the draft immediately upon graduation from high school-period; thus not leaving them in limbo for years?
Secretary WIRTZ. I have answered earlier and in a related connection that I am assuming the age 19 on the basis that that is a judgment which can be made in terms of two other considerations, the effect on the individual, and the value to the military service. I have no competence in either of those areas, and testify only to the manpower relationship which is that it is zero.
Senator PELL. But from your viewpoint, it would be the same thing. Secretary WIRTZ. My answer would be the same. If the answers on the other two questions came out 18, they would be the same as they are on 19. They probably would be the same on 20. They would differ above that, because there is a manpower consideration of a delay which means that boys will look for work, which they will be denied, because of their draft future. That is the only relevant manpower consideration.
Senator PELL. Thank you very much.
Senator JAVITS. I will be through in a minute, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the two other points which I gathered from your testimony, and we have clarified the first one, or passed that, is the matter of requiring the rejectee to be rehabilitated, if he is rehabilitatable. Now, again, can you give us any particularization of that, beyond your oral testimony? As I think that is a critically important point, and I am all for it, especially from the point of view of how it might tie into both the military and civilian responsibilities, so that, for example, if it would be in the national interest to have Neighborhood Youth Corps, Peace Corps, VISTA, or other agencies, undertake an obligation to train rejectees referred to them conceivably for service with them, if not with the Armed Forces, so that you have different gradations of rejection, and thus if you do that, you make something of the so-called national service idea.
Secretary WIRTZ. The question as to the particulars of my position on that? They would be, Senator Javits, that as pragmatic matter, the time has not come for a law requiring, compelling, anything on that. The time is here for boring in on that group, in the front thrust of our antipoverty, and so forth, program. I would concentrate it on these rejectees, and I would meet the problem as far as I can that way, and wait for some more maturization in the public mind of the concept which has been fairly easy for us to arrive at here, but I think the public would not today accept a compulsory system.
Senator JAVITS. Not accept the idea of drafting rejectees and retraining them?
Secretary WIRTZ. I think they would not.
Senator JAVITs. I am not prepared to agree with you on that. I don't say that in any adversary sense.
Secretary WIRTZ. No; I understand.
Senator JAVITS. I think we ought to reserve judgment on this. Therefore, again I suggest that if in rereading your testimony, there is some sharpening particularization, technical specification of that idea, which you could help us with, I, for one, would be very grateful. Secretary WIRTZ. Thank you.
Senator JAVITS. And the third point is an administrative point. And that is, the difficulty in the selective service program as it is now organized, a consistency of positions in terms of exemptions, of deferments, and so forth. And the question, therefore, as to whether administratively, we should not give an appeal power to draftees as we now give an appellate power to exempt or defer, and in that respect, if you are not prepared to answer, perhaps we ought to ask you to ascertain the position of the administration and let us have it in writing.
Secretary WIRTZ. I cannot be helpful on that, and I guess I had understood that that was the subject of discussion yesterday with General Hershey.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Secretary WIRTZ. And I would not know how to improve the record on that, and would ask, or would suggest, that I don't think I am much good to you on this third point.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The Marshall Commission goes into this in some detail.
Secretary WIRTZ. That is right.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It relates the role of the local draft board to regional offices, and I think it provides some helpful information for us.
Senator JAVITS. Well, Mr. Chairman, now I am not intimately acquainted with it. Do you think it would be helpful to include at this very point the proper excerpt which the Chair has described?
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Fine.
Senator JAVITS. And I will have a chance to see it.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It will go into the record at this point.
(The material referred to follows:)
EXCERPTS FROM REPORT OF THE MARSHALL COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Selective Service System should be consolidated and operated under a more centralized administration, with its controlling concept the rule of law, to assure equal treatment for those in like circumstances. The System the Commission recommends would be organized as follows:
A. National headquarters should formulate and issue clear and binding policies concerning classifications, exemptions and deferments to be applied uniformly throughout the country.
B. A structure of eight regional offices (aligned for national security purposes with the eight regions of the Office of Emergency Planning) should be established to administer the policy and monitor its uniform application.
C. An additional structure of area offices should be established on a population basis with at least one in each state. At these offices men would be registered and classified in accordance with the policy directives disseminated from national headquarters. These area offices would be distributed on a population basis, with at least one in each state. (The Commission sees the possibility of 300-500 of these offices being able to answer the national need.)
(1) The use of modern data handling equipment, as well as the application of uniform rules, would facilitate processing registration, and classification.
(2) Under appropriate regulations, registrants would change their registration from one area office to another as they changed their permanent residence.
D. Local boards, composed of volunteer citizens, would operate at the area office level as the registrants' court of first appeal.
2. These changes should be made in the organization of the local boards:
A. Their composition should represent all elements of the public they serve.
C. A maximum retirement age should be established.
D. The President's power to appoint members should not be limited to those nominated by the Governors of the state.
E. Women should be eligible to serve.
3. The entire appeals process should be strengthened in the following ways: A. The registrant should be able to appeal his classification to his local board within 30 days instead of the 10 days presently stipulated.
B. Local boards should put their decisions in writing so appeal boards will have the benefit of the record in making their decisions, and the registrant will be able to know the facts of his case.
C. Appeal boards should be co-located with the eight regional offices, although operate independently of them. The National Selective Service (Presidential) Appeal Board would remain as presently constituted.
D. Appeal agents should be readily available at the area offices to assist registrant in making appeals.
E. Appeal boards, guided by the same criteria which area offices follow in making their classifications, would communicate their decisions throughout the System to insure uniformity.
F. An adequate number of panels should be established, above the local board level, for the specific purpose of hearing conscientious objector cases. 4. Both the registrant and the general public should be made fully acquainted with the workings of the improved System and the registrant's rights and obligations under it, in these ways:
A. Easily understandable information shoud be prepared in written form and made available to all registrants each time they are classified.
B. An adviser to registrants should be readily available at the area office to inform and counsel registrants who need assistance with registration and classification problems.
C. Public information procedures regarding the entire System should be made more effective by national headquarters.
Senator JAVITS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am through questioning this witness. I would like this permission: there are other witnesses to appear on days when I may not be able to be present. I ask unanimous consent that I may propound my questions in writing to the respective witnesses, and that they may be made a part of the record in connection with their testimony.
Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I have just one final question, Mr. Secretary. There have been questions raised here yesterday, and also to you today, about the role and responsibilities of the Army in training additional personnel. Now, we had testimony yesterday about the 100,000 currently being trained, and there has been some feeling, I would think, perhaps from the questioning itself, that the role of the military could be expanded in this training program.
I think you indicated some sympathy for this approach. I want to be the devil's advocate for just 1 minute, and ask you, How do you respond to the argument that we should not be making the Army a giant social agency?
And if we are going to develop these additional training programs, should they be developed outside the Defense Establishment? And since the Armed Forces have a particular responsibility in the defense of the country, should we be utilizing them for this kind of program?
Secretary WIRTZ. First, Mr. Chairman, you refer to my indication of sympathy with it. My position is rather one, as expressed, which I meant to suggest in my answer to Senator Prouty, that I want to wait and see what the returns are from the experience we already have. I am not sure, either, and it does not bother me as a matter of concept. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just on this point, though Mr. Secretary, Mr. Morris and General Hershey are quite clear that the 100,000 presently training are very easily trainable. As a matter of fact, they are just sent through the same cycle as other trainees. Additional manpower is made available in case, in identifying them, there is special training needed, or consultation of various sorts. But the