Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page

117 116

7 21 212

128 134

29

193

261

152

246

263 58

Gorham, Hon. William, Assistant Secretary for Program Coordination,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ---

Prepared statement.
Hershey, Lt. Gen. Lewis B., Director, Selective Service System; accom,

panied by Col. Bernard T. Franck III, Chief, Office of Legislation and
Liaison --

Information supplied by ---
Howe, Harold, II, U.S. Commissioner of Education.-
Marshall, Burke, Chairman, National Advisory Commission on Selective

Service, accompanied by Bradley Patterson, Staff Director, National
Advisory Commission on Selective Service.

Prepared statement...
Morris, Thomas D., Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower); accom-

panied by: Harold Wool, director, Procurement and General Research,
Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) and Frank Bar-
timo, Assistant General Counsel, (Manpower)--
Morrison, Don, Chuck Sable, Tom Myles, Carolyn Carter and Anthony

Gittens (a panel)
Nagle, John F., chief, Washington office, National Federation of the Blind,

prepared statement.-
Shriver, Sargent, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, accompanied

by David Gottlieb, Associate Director, Plans Programs, Job Corps;
William H. Crook, Assistant Director, VISTA; and Robinson Hollister,

Chief, Research and Plans, Office of Economic Opportunity-
Tatum, Arlo, executive secretary of the Committee for Conscientious

Objectors.---
Vetter, Betty M., executive director, Scientific Manpower Commission,

prepared statement...
Wirtz, Hon. W. Willard, Secretary of Labor---

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Articles entitled:

"American Democracy and Military Service," by Morris Janowitz,

from the Trans-Action, March 1967.Choosy Class of 1967," by Frederick C. Klein, from the Wall Street

Journal, March 8, 1967... "The Case for a Lottery," by Eli Ginzberg, from the Public Interest,

fall, 1966--"The Draft Is Here to Stay, but it Should Be Changed," by Hanson

W. Baldwin, from the New York Times Magazine, November 20,

1966.. “Who Gets in the Army?" by Daniel P. Moyniham, from the New

Republic, November 5, 1966..-
“Who Should Serve?” by Keith R. Johnson, from Atlantic Monthly,

February 1966.-
Excepts from report of the Marshall Commission..
Letter from Hon. W. Willard Wirtz, to Senator Edward Kennedy, dated

April 5, 1967.
1967 National Service Conference, Washington, D.C., April 2–4, programs

of... Resolution of the Legislature of the State of New Mexico, First Session,

28th Legislature.Table 1.— Percentage of men in selected ages with military service experi

292

303

288

277

284

268 93

96

100

305

ence, by educational level, 1964..
Table 2.–Proposed buildup of a national service program first 3 years..
Information supplied by "General Hershey at the request of Senator

Javits.
Volunteer programs..

33 104

21 274

MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 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 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph S. Clark, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Clark (presiding), Kennedy of Massachusetts, Javits, and Prouty.

Committee staff members present: Stewart, E. McClure, chief clerk; William C. Smith, counsel to the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty ; Peter C. Benedict, minority labor counsel; and Robert Patricelli, minority counsel to the subcommittee.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. The Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty opens today hearings on possible revision of the draft.

I am delighted that Senator Edward Kennedy has consented to serve as chairman of these hearings on the manpower and poverty implications of the Selective Service System.

The fact is that these implications of the draft have never been given the serious consideration they deserve, mainly because the armed services have always viewed the draft in terms of military needs, never in terms of its effects on our civilian society and economy.

As many know, the subcommittee is conducting an intensive review of the poverty program which includes a review of many of our manpower policies.

The implications of the draft on both poverty and manpower policies are obvious to all. Accordingly, the hearings which Senator Kennedy will conduct will be of the greatest possible value to us as we move forward in not only our consideration of the effectiveness of the poverty program but also in marking up the poverty bill which presumably will be coming down fairly soon since President Johnson has sent down his message on poverty and the urban problem last week.

In my opinion, the country deserves better than a purely military revision of the draft—and the Nation's young men deserve better than that for legislation that has such far-ranging consequences and which touches so many millions of lives.

Senator Kennedy and I have discussed these hearings with Senator Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Kennedy and I are aware of the fact that the legislative jurisdiction on changes in the draft is vested in the Armed Services Committee.

I think I can fairly say that Senator Russell concurs in holding the hearing in connection with the manpower implications in connection with the draft but he insists, as he should, that legislative authority to report a bill be in his committee.

To us it seems clear that the Selective Service System should be impeccably fair and just. Yet the evidence is clear that since 1948— when the present act was passed-serious inequities have crept into the administration of the law.

On February 23, Senator Edward Kennedy, of Massachusetts, introduced for himself and for me a Senate resolution designed to correct these inequities and modernize the Selective Service System.

Speaking for both of us, Senator Kennedy declared: Our present system is neither fair nor equitable nor just. Its policies are discriminatory-students are deferred, nonstudents are drafted; good students keep their deferments, poor students may lose them. And its impact is unerena returning Peace Corps volunteer goes to the top of the list in one district and to the bottom in another.

Our joint proposal calls for five basic reforms:

First, it would establish national criteria (instead of State quotas) for the classification of registrants and require such criteria to be administered uniformly throughout the United States;

Second, it would require that inductions be carried out on the basis of random selection:

Third, it would eliminate all deferments except those for extreme hardship and for students doing undergraduate work, the latter for no longer than 4 academic years in peacetime;

Fourth, it would require that the youngest registrants be inducted first; and

Fifth, it would revise the physical and mental standards for military service so that persons who do not meet the standards necessary for combat may be inducted for noncombat service.

The second and fourth of these reforms were also supported by the President in his March 6 message to Congress on selective service. The President said he was asking for more extended study on the establishment of national criteria and student deferments.

We hope these hearings will provide at least a part of that more extended study. I think it is clear that while the President has authority under the Executive order to change the provisions of the draft, the actual legislation is a congressional responsibility.

A great many pressing questions are waiting to be explored by these hearings of our Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty.

These hearings will seek answers to such questions as the impaet of the draft on American youth and their careers, relation of the draft to the problem of poverty, the effects of selective service on manpower policies, educational deferments, on-the-job training, and employment potentials for servicemen and women after they return to civilian life.

Another question with vast implications for the future anticipates the substitution of volunteer service for the draft. President Johnson, in his selective service message to Congress, posed it this way:

We have witnessed in our day the building of another tradition, by men and women of the Peace Corps, in VISTA, and in other such programs which have touched, and perhaps even changed, the life of our country and our world. This spirit is as characteristic of modern America as our advanced technology or our scientific achievements.

I have wondered if we could establish through these programs and others like them a practical system of nonmilitary alternatives to the draft without harming our security.

I have wondered the same thing, and so have millions of other Americans. I don't have a resolution of the problem, fervently as I wish for one.

Possibly these hearings may find an answer-or the beginning of one. I hope the day comes, and without too much delay, that we can get rid of the draft, because the draft, among other faults, is inconsistent with our aims for peace throughout the world.

The psychological effect of the draft on many, perhaps most, young men is to dispose them favorably toward the military-industrial complex which President Eisenhower strongly warned against in his last speech before leaving the White House.

To many young men wanting to go on to college, the draft is a severe setback, and many are never able to make up the lost ground. There are some, of course, to whom the draft has meant educational and vocational opoprtunities they otherwise would not have had.

There are three groups affected by educational deferments: Those who are mentally or physically disqualified; those who are mentally and physically qualified but for one reason or another will not enter college; and finally, those who are deferred because they are already in college.

The second group constitutes the bulk of the young men now in the armed services, and there lies one of the greatest injustices of the present draft system.

Why should young men, who cannot—through no fault of their own-go on to college, become the ones to be shot at, the ones asked to sacrifice their futures and perhaps their lives?

Organized labor, student groups, and churches have protested that “Educational deferments, under the present draft policy, clearly discriminate against sons of low-income families. These deferments are of no value to those who canont afford higher education or who must drop out of high school to help support their family."

Such are some of the questions these hearings under Senator Kennedy may wish to explore. Correction of the present inequities is urgent because with 32 million young Americans currently registered under selective service and 2 million coming of draft age every year, few American families are not affected directly or indirectly by the draft.

In summary, we face two urgent problems: first, to accomplish a drastic revision of the law to eliminate for once and for all the inequities and injustices that now flaw its operation; and second, to transform the Selective Service System into an agency with a responsibility to make its own specific contribution to the economic health and internal strength of our Nation and with policies shaped toward the goal of full employment and the assurance of jobs for those who have fulfilled their military obligations and are resuming civilian careers.

Our young men have an obligation to serve their country. Their country, in turn, has an obligation to help them return to a productive life and a future of economic security and opportunity.

I am glad to see Senator Javits and Senator Prouty here. I know of the keen interest they have taken in this subject.

Senator Kennedy, I am going to turn the gavel over to you.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts (presiding). First of all, I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee for the opportunity to undertake, along with the other members of this subcommittee, this important deliberation.

This subcommitee of the Labor Committee has many and broad responsibilities, and now is undertaking a comprehensive study of the poverty program. Certainly nothing that is studied during this session of Congress will be more important or of more dramatic impact upon the poor of this country than this eight-month study.

I feel, in this context, that hearings on draft reform are an extremely appropriate assignment for this subcommittee. Not only does the draft have extraordinary implications and ramifications on the education of the young people, but also on employability and, generally, the problems of poverty.

So when the Congress considers the problems of the draft, it is concerned not only about the direct effect that the draft has on the defense of our country-providing the necessary manpower—but also about the effects of the draft on labor, on health, on education, on familiesin short, on the young people, the ones who are affected by it.

So I look forward to the deliberations of this subcommittee. I appreciate the comments that were made by the chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Clark, who has concerned himself so deeply with this crucial matter as he has concerned himself with so many others.

The hearings we begin this morning concern, as I have said, the effects of the draft upon American youth. They are very important.

They are important not only because the needs for reforming our existing draft laws are clear and pressing. The hearings are equally important because we know all too little about the nature and extent of distortion the institution of the draft causes in the plans our young men make for their educations, their careers, and their families.

Reform is needed, needed quickly, and needed urgently. Operative sections of our draft laws expire in 14 weeks. If we do not extend the induction authority of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, then we will work serious disruptions on our supply of military manpower. But if we merely extend the induction authority, without reforming the structure under which this authority operates, then we will stand accused of perpetuating a structure riddled with inequity.

We must not lose sight of the central purpose of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is stated in the act to be the provision of manpower for "an adequate armed strength * * * to insure the security of this Nation."

But we must not let this vital purpose override other, shared purposes. The youth of America are the resource upon which the future of the country will be built. We have an obligation to insure that the choices our young people make in the critical 18- to 26-year-old period are motivated not by a hope to beat the draft, but rather by a hope to fulfill their ambitions and abilities.

The Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and particularly this Employment, Manpower and Poverty Subcommittee, is an apt forum

*

« PreviousContinue »