AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT AND OTHER PURPOSES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 29, 2005
• Sequence Number: 40
• Publication Date: August 20, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
S 13788 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE . August 20, 1970
I would like to call attention to sev- Through sound fiscal management, Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
eral significant new programs in the Il- continuing review of program develop- unanimous consent that the order for
linois budget. The total dollars involved ment, and the proper allocation of its the quorum call be rescinded.
are comparatively small. But each has limited resources, the State of Illinois The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
importance far beyond its dollar amount. is better meeting its responsibilities and objection, it is so ordered.
These are innovative developmental pro- serving its people. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
grams. Echoing Justice Brandeis, Gov- Mr. President, I commend Governor speak briefly, partly on a matter of pro-
ernor Ogilvie said: Ogilvie and the members of the general cedure concerning the amendment of-
I am convinced that the state must be assembly for their outstanding record fered by the Senator. from Oregon and
the laboratories for the nation. Ours is the and recommend a study of this record other Senators, which incorporates the
opportunity launch now ffailure. without to my colleagues in the Senate who so plan of the so-called volunteer army.
wasting money in p graciously have shared their own crea- Let me preface those, remarks by a
If these programs-in housing, man- tive thinking in many areas with me. brief statement. This is more than an
power, rehabilitation of prisoners and amendment, as that term is ordinarily
social services-prove successful, they PROPOSED USE OF UNUSED HIGH- understood. It is a basic, sweeping change
can be expanded. The objective at this WAY TRUST FUNDS FOR URBAN in policy in our plans for national se-
time is to advance each of these pro- WAY TRANSIT curity and for the plan of having the
grams prudently and well, and to carry manpower available to carry out those
them through with quality performance. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, this year policies.
First. Housing: The traditional State the CTA raised its fare to an all-time In effect, it would say that we are not
role in housing has undergone qualitative high of 45 cents to keep from going going to have a selective system any
expansion since the beginning of the broke. And the bus systems in Joliet, longer, after it expires on June 30, 1971.
Ogilvie administration, and it will con- Danville, and Peoria failed for lack of Instead, we are going to have the so-
tinue to do so through innovative pro- funds. called volunteer army.
grams under the Illinois Housing De- Urban centers are finding it more and This amendment, as an amendment,
velopment Authority. This year's budget more difficult to get funds for adequate in its present form, is opposed by the
for housing includes $1 million for a slum urban mass transit. Yet last year the President of the United States.
rehabilitation program under, which highway trust fund had a surplus of President Nixon made a recommenda-
rents withheld by the department of over $2 billion in unobligated funds. tion on this subject matter. He appointed
public aid will be added to proceeds from That situation seems pretty ludicrous a commission and that commission made
receivership certificates. - to me. an affirmative recommendation which
Second. Manpower: Manpower train- I have cosponsored a bill to allow high- was filed sometime in April of this year.
ing efforts are budgeted in several major way trust fund money to be used for But when the matter was coming to
departments to link people with jobs in urban mass transit. The money could be the floor and was being pressed in a se-
industry, and to take people off welfare used to purchase equipment and to re- rious manner, I needed to know exactly
rolls and put them on payrolls, an ob- tire debts incurred by forward-looking what the position of the White House
jective I have long, sought and the rea- mass transit systems like the CTA, which was. I therefore made that inquiry and
son why I support the Nixon program of obligated itself and is now having dif- I got an answer.
welfare reform. Our State administration ficulty paying off bonds. I am authorized to say on the floor of
is actively seeking out potential trainees I strongly feel that as long as mass the Senate that in its present form, and
for the new work-incentive program by transit systems are raising rates or fail- as a part of the procurement bill, the
making sure that special teams of doc- ing or both because of lack of funds, President of the United States is opposed
tors, day-care specialists, and counselors enormous amounts of money should not to it.
are in contact with welfare recipients. be going unused when their judicious use Generally, what he favors in this field
Moreover money has been budgeted for in mass transit may help grely in re- ould be the orderly and regular devel-
intensive minority group recruitment and lieving the pressure on high ay n or opment of a legislative enactment con-
training programs within State govern- in proximity to our metropolitan kle , templating hearings, and contemplating
ment.
trol, of course, is to do more than merely OF APP .5- ou,a~ualoial change in policy.
y I have not talked to the President my-
punish offenders. We must rehabilitate TIONS FOR MILITARY URE- self, but I talked to one representing him
them. The Illinois Department of Cor- MENT AND OTHER PI -,PO ES di
rectly. I do not think it is necessary
rections' budget has been increased by The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant for me to go any further than to say that
20 percent to do this. It will concentrate to the previous order, the Chair lays be- the White House has backed up what I
upon remedial education of the one-third fore the Senate the unfinished business, have just said. I will give the name of
of its inmates who are functionally il- which will be stated by title. the man I talked to, upon request of any
literate and will revamp its vocational The assistant legislative clerk read Senator. It is no secret. I have not spoken
training program. It will shift its empha- as follows: . to the President. I just do not want to go
sis from isolated institutions to commu- A bill (H.A. 17123) to authorize appropri- any further than I should. But I had to
nities, where through group homes, half- ations during the fiscal year 1971 for pro- know on that point, and I got the an-
way houses and intensive counseling it curement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, swer.
can supervise men while they do useful and tracked combat vehicles, and other I state that as a fact now, as a part of
work. - weapons, and research, development, test, my background of thought that, after all,
The Ogilvie administration cooperated and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to this is not an ordinary amendment.
fully with the Illinois Law Enforcement prescribe the authorized personnel strength Now, `Mr. President, in a bill of this
Officers Conference I sponsored in Wash- of the selected reserve of each Reserve com-
ponent of the Armed Forces, and for other magnitude-
ington this month. purposes. Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will
Third. Social services: The State, The Senate proceeded to the consid- the Senator from Mississippi yield for a
budget also renews the request for funds eration of the bill. quest. ion at that point, for clarification?
for experimental social service work de- Mr. STENNIS , I yield.
signed to end the redtape and the coil- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator
fusion which permeate Government ef- the previous order, the Senator from Ore- from Mississippi.
forts to help people who need help. Re- gon (Mr. HATFIELD) is recognized. Do I correctly understand that the
suits from projects now in the design Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if President has provided the Senator from
stage may show that with new manage- the Senator will yield, I suggest the ab- Mississippi with some written. statement
ment programs the effectiveness of the sence of a quorum. on his position on this amendment?
welfare system can be dramatically im- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. STENNIS. No, he has not. He has
proved. We cannot just strike out sense- clerk will call the roll. not. We need not waste a bit of time in
lessly at this system even though we rec- The assistant legislative clerk pro- questioning now how the President feels
ognize its obvious deficiencies. ceeded to call the roll. about this, I do not think.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9 -
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 13-4 87
appropriate because the budgetary proc- The Governor has instituted a person- Sound management, of course, is only
e';s should provide direction to State hov- al control system designed to provide the half the battle. The other-and equally-
ernment. For only with the discipline information required to insure that peo- Important-half is the establishment of
that the chief executive can bring to pie are employed only where they are firm, clear priorities for the allocation
tear through fiscal controls can we hope needed. of our limited resources. The fiscal year
t,, achieve our vision for Illinois. Third. Getting government out of ac- 1971 budget for my state reflects those
This budget is superior, in my judg- tivities it need not be in. One of the basic priorities.
i ient. to any Illinois budget in recent functions of state government is to pro- It provides for the strongest and most
years in allocating money where it is vide people with services that they truly far-reaching prcgram of environmenta',
most needed. Before last year executive need and want. All too often, however, protection in the history of our State-
re,-iew of budget requests was limited. government continues to operate pro- or of any State in the Union. Evers
Individual agencies often dealt directly grams that are no longer effective. Fre- power proper and necessary to arrest
v.-.th the legislature. Agency submissions quently, traditional formulas for dis- the continued damage to our air, water,
of .en were passed on to the legislature tributitr funds become excuses for avoid- and land is contained in that legislation.
without change. Once appropriation bills ing the hard decisions. The budget re- The general assembly also approved ap-
were enacted into law, the Governor had view provides an opportunity to examine propriations nere-nary for hard scien-
is , mechanism to control expenditure of the base of each State program. tific study of pollution problems and ways
i,'(iney by the agencies. The Governor has served notice that of solving these problems.
This year, the Illinois Bureau of the next year he intends to look at tradi- The State has undertaken a massive
Budget within the office of the Governor Lionel institutional funding practices program for land acquisition for publi+:
has breathed new life into Illinois state and formula grant programs just as parks and recreation areas, and fundi
government. No new taxes, reduced op- critically as his administration surveyed have been appropriated to permit State
crating costs, and smaller payrolls are operations this year. installations to come into complete com-
t.,e direct results of the modern tools of Fourth- Accountability. State govern- pliance with high standards of pollution
management approved by this general ment has not been held accountable as control. Moreover a long-range plan to
a-;sembly and utilized to the fullest ex- it should have been. In the past agen- help finance sewage treatment projects in
tent possible by the Ogilvie administra- ties have proliferated so that responsi- Illinois communities to abate the major
lion. bility became diffused and avoided. Over source of water pollution in our lakes and
In place of the decades-old procedure 50 agencies with separate appropria- rivers will be put to the voters at this
of allowing agencies to submit budget re- tions report directly to the Governor. coming general election.
quests with little or no executive direc- Many governments, facing a troubled Social legislation with the potential
Lion and then passing on the entire pack- society and major new demands, have for making historic breakthroughs got
are to the legislature, we have substi- taken the easy route of reorganization, priority attention this year. It includes
toted a system of controlled executive at the top, into super-agencies. All too an expanded program of providing day
budgeting. Department heads submitted often nothing has changed below. This care for children to free their mothers
their final requests this year only after year careful consideration is being given to work and to learn, a new school break-
receiving detailed guidelines and policy to the reorganization of the executive fast program for the hungry, and con-
determinations about the direction of branch. This will be reorganization from tinued pilot efforts in welfare services
t;ie State's overall program. As a re- the bottom with the emphasis on pro- aimed at breaking the cycle of despair
s;ult, no less than $350 million was cut grams, not hastily Imposed box shining and defeat among the poor.
from the original requests before the from the top down, For education, the State is providing
final budget was presented to the general This approach means that Illinois is more money than ever before In the his-
assembly. attempting to make every tax dollar pro- Cory of Illinois-nearly $1.7 billion-to
In applying tight fiscal controls the vide the maximum possible benefit for aid local schools at all levels, to provide
Ogilvie administration stressed four those who pay the bills, the general pub- increased support for State colleges and
management objectives: lie. It means the Ogilvie administration universities, and to broaden substantially
First. Cutting costs. The goal Is to in- is putting an end to programs which are the opportunities to provide financial as-
sure that all the State money is spent no lodger effective, and phasing out jobs sistance for deserving students.
efficiently. Previously, Illinois has had no that are no longer necessary. Sound The current State budget Implements
effective control over the cost of State management also demands accountable- new programs and funds for housing,
government. This year, Governor Ogilvie it'. Illinois is avoiding the easy answer an area of great personal interest to me,
instituted a system of apportioning funds of reorganizing at the top to simply cre- that made it possible forIllinois to quali-
to State agencies every 3 months. Under ate a more ponderous bureaucracy. fy for private foundation grants and
the former practice, agencies were free It also means that my State has In- Federal funding. This support, in turn,
to spend at will without controls during stituted a system of controls which will may lead to dramatic progress despite
the entire 2-year life of their Individual bring under a continuing review the the current stagnation In housing de,
appropriations. Now they must justify spending process of government-thus velopment.
.heir commitments and costs each quar- ending the year-end rush to spend all For correctional work and law en-
:,er. The apportionment system has en- appropriations in order to justify the forcement, there are major new efforts
:ebled the administration to conduct an same or a higher budget the next time to educate and rehabilitate prisoners.
ongoing budget and expenditure review around. Additional agents were authorized for
throughout the year. The evidence of this kind of sound the Illinois Bureau of Investigation, and
In addition, a cost reduction team has management philosophy can be found on a high level of support was given to the
been trained to review ongoing agency every page of the detailed State budget Illinois Law Enforcement Commission to
operations. Each agency is compelled to document itself. And the result has been allow it to continue as the best sut:h
assume that its operations will increase good news for our people In 1971-no State-directed effort in the Nation.
in productivity through experience and new taxes. Tax relief has been extended to larger
effective management. And probably most important of all, numbers of the elderly and special as-
Second. Holding down State employ- the 1971 budget actually reduces the op- sistance was given to local governments
nient. State government has always em- eraling costs of Illinois government. which will feel the impact of the exemp-
ployed too many people to do the jobs This means that more State tax money tions granted individuals from the hated
assigned, a problem that plagues our will return to the communities and in- personal property tax.
State governments, particularly those dividual citizens of Illinois-in the form For road building, the legislature has
with outmoded spoils systems. The re- of unrestricted bloc grants to local gov- approved the largest program in our his-
suit has infected all State government ernments, aid to hard-pressed police de- Cory to rebuild and extend a system that
operations. Our present Illinois State ad- partnients, assistance for hard-pressed had fallen into a State of disrepair and
ministration is determined that there school districts, and help for the needy, neglect. Necessary funds have been pro-
not be more People on the State payrolls the sick, and the disabled. And fewer vided to create a new major airport near
than are needed; coincidental with this tax dollars will be staying behind in East St. Louis that potentially can be the
goal is a determination that each State the agencies and departments of the lytalyst to restore e prosperity to this sad-
employee earn his keep. bureaucracy. area.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Mr. HATFIELD. May I ask another
question?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. HATFIELD. I understand that the
President's position on the concept of a
volunteer military is that he has very
definitely come out in support of it. Both
during the campaign and, I think, when
he appointed the Gates Commission to
make this study, he indicated his sup-
port. I am a bit confused as to whether
the President is expressing himself on the
concept of a volunteer military or on the
timing or implementation,
Mr. STENNIS. I said, .as plainly as I
could, that the President opposes this
amendment, as an amendment to the bill.
The thing that he favors about the vol-
unteer army is a bill which would be en-
acted in the regular course of the legis-
lative process. That is what he, in ef-
fect, has already said over and over, and
made a start on it with the Gates Com-
mission.
Now I want to continue, as that is the
situation.
Mr. HATFIELD. This has been a tele-
phone conversation with the President
with the Senator from Mississippi?
Mr. STENNIS. No. I said I had not
talked with the President. I am not in
the habit of quoting people by name from
the President. I have my facts.
Mr. HATFIELD. I am not challenging
the Senator's facts. I just want to un-
derstand what the facts are, as to
whether the Senator talked with the
President, or a staff person, in writing, or
what.
Mr. STENNIS. I told the Senator that
I do not have it in writing. But I have it.
I can back it up.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator
from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I thank the Sena-
tor for his questions.
Mr. President, another thing that af-
fected me, I cannot agree to a request
here for a few hours debate on this
measure. I think the Senate is due an
explanation on that.
There comes a time when the man who
is the so-called manager of a bill must
make up his mind what his duty is.
Thus, confronted with this amend-
ment, so seriously pushed yesterday
afternoon, I saw that I had to decide
what my duty was, not what I would like
to do.
Accordingly, I was satisfied that my
duty was to say that this matter should
not be passed on by the Senate in its
present mood, until it is fully debated
and the facts are known to the mem-
bership, and to get those facts out. It
just cannot be done in these few hours.
I have proposed to develop the facts here
on the floor as best I can, as will others.
Another point that weighed on me was
that the amendment, in its present form,
calls for a $4 billion increase per year-
a $4 billion increase per year, Mr. Presi-
dent, in the budget.
I do not know of any time in the his-
tory of the Senate that it has ever passed
a new policy and a new bill that added-
and this is just wartime, like World War
II-that added $4 billion to the budget
with 4 or 6 hours of debate. Of course
not.
This thing has
the facts, as far
S 13789
The $4 billion is actually $4.3 billion, This is the President speaking and not
and that is the lowest responsible esti- the Senator from Mississippi.
mate that I know of. It is generally ad- I continue to read :
mitted that it may be more. Some think Third, as reliance on the draft is decreased,
considerably more. a, standby draft mechanism for emergency
So, I reached the conclusion as to what use should be developed.
my duty was and I do not hesitate to try The amendment does not provide for these
to carry it out. essential safeguards.
I want to mention that I am getting
the actual facts together that will have
a bearing on this issue.
It is said that we are going to get men
who will take volunteer courses to carry
out this policy.
We are at war now, Mr. President, and
I want it to 'end; but I do not favor just
pulling out, regardless.
The amendment would increase the
pay of an E2, which is the corporal level,
$160 a month.
My commonsense tells me that that is
not going to get the men to do the job
that we are involved in now. We are
already in war.
I am going to show the full facts from
authenticated official figures before the
debate is over. But as a preliminary
matter, the riflemen in Vietnam repre-
sent 16 percent of the Army in Vietnam.
But they took 54 percent of the casual-
ties.
When we add the mortarmen and the
tank helpers that go along with the rifle-
men, they constitute only 22 percent of
the Army in Vietnam. But they took 67
percent of the casualties in the fiscal year
1970.
Those are official figures in Vietnam.
Can we argue here that we are going
to get men to volunteer for a $160 a
month increase in pay to go into a situa-
tion like that? I do not think so. At least,
the matter should be weighed more than
it can be here on the Senate floor.
I am going to develop these figures
more at length. They are not classified.
They show what we are up against.
. Those are just some of the matters
that come to my mind more readily that
have a direct bearing.
The volunteer army may be all right
once the shooting is over. I do not just
condemn everything about it, but I think
personally that it will be many years be-
fore it would work.
Those who sponsor the call lay down
certain necessary transition steps to take.
I am talking now about the President of
the United States. He is the man who
sponsors the call.
Mr. Laird in a recent letter to me in
response to a request I made for his ideas
on this amendment said:
This amendment assumes the termination
of the draft legislation in July, 1971. I am
convinced that the military manpower need
will require the continuation of the draft
beyond that date.
I point out that the President in his April
23, 1970, message to Congress stated that
steps to reduce the draft call to zero, increase
the number of volunteers, and to end the
draft system should be initiated subject
to overriding considerations of national
security.
In stating his position, the President pro-
I will develop this later. I want to
bring out now some of the major things
that this amendment does, and would
do, contrary to the recommendations of
the President of the United States. He
is, of course, the one whose opinion car-
ries weight. Even though some might
have suggested it before he did, the
President is still the real father of this
proposal. So, those points will have to be
debated and argued.
I call on those who sponsor the
amendment to give some solid, sound
reasons to show why the President is
wrong, where he is in error, and where
he cannot sustain these reasons that he
gives.
Let us not refer to the Commission. I
have great respect for the Commission.
The responsibility of that Commission
waso ver when its report was filed. They
are eminent men. They did the best they
could.
I know some of them and I respect
those that I know and I respect the repu-
tation of all of them. But I doubt that
they talked to a GI since World War II.
I doub that they have talked to any GI
concerning he things he thinks about
since World War II. That was a long
time ago. Maybe some of them did. I
hope that they did. It sounds kind of
like a remote proposition.
Mr. President, I think the President
of the United States has had more con-
tact by far-I know he has-than any of
the Commission members have within
the last few years with this problem.
Those are some of the things in the back-
ground of my mind.
I want to identify the statement of the
President to which I have referred. It
was a message from the President rela-
tive to reforming the draft system, 91st
Congress, second session, April 23, 1970.
That was referred to our committee.
There were hearings. As I have said, I
am not trying to kill the whole concept
of a volunteer army.
The thing that I have been concerned
about in the hearings has primarily con-
cerned the extension of the draft, which
I think is absolutely necessary. It ex-
pires by operation of law next June 30.
This matter came up last December
after the House had passed an amend-
ment providing for what we call the lot-
tery system. There was a feeling and a
sentiment in the Senate that, when that
matter came to the floor, it would have a
lot of amendments tied to it. It was al-
ready about November, as I recall.
I felt certain that, if there were a lot
of amendments, the matter would not
pass in conference. -
vided three safeguards in proposing the ter- I favored the so-called lottery system.
mination of the draft. I remember that we talked to the leader
First, the draft could not be ended all at about it. However, skipping over all of
once. There must be a phase-out of the sys- those things, there was an understand-
tem in order to secure maintenance of our ing that, if the amendment that the
defense posture in each step
House had
d
.
passe
was permitted to come
got to be developed on Second, it would be necessary to extend to the floor and not be amended, that in
as it can. the induction authority beyond July 1, 1971. early 1970 this e r our committee could
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040b11~01 0-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9 .
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 20, 1970
start hearings on the proposition of the
extension of the Selective Service Act.
That was agreed to. I agreed to that, and
the bill came on the floor and was passed
without the scintilla of amendment. It
became law. The President got his re-
quest on that matter. I think as a whole
that it has operated all right.
Mr. President, I want those Senators
who are present to listen to this. We were
hack in session in January and Febru-
ary. General Hershey was retired and a
new draft Selective Service man was to
be selected.
Mr. President, I will go back just a lit-
tle. As early as last fall when this agree-
ment was had we had a man in Selective
Service assigned to the preparation of
these hearings. Mr. Braswell, our Chief
of Staff, worked with him during that
preparation, and they made a lot of
headway getting ready for these hearings
that I planned to hold.
They had to have a head of Selective
Service. Without recalling names, several
persons were discussed and it took a good
while. Finally, Mr. Tarr was selected. I
thought he was an outstanding choice.
He was approved and he went Into the
matter with his sleeves rolled up. I said,
"What about hearings?" He said, "Please
give me time." I thought he was entitled
to it.
We called on the White House for a
bill on Selective Service extension and
they had to work on it a good deal but
they got it together. However, time was
running all the while and we had to
start our hearings on this massive bill
that is now before the Senate.
I made some effort and thought a lot
about the appointment of a subcommit-
tee for hearings on the Selective Service.
It is a sticky subject. I just never did
get to the selection of that committee.
I am thinking now in terms of the Se-
lective Service Act.
In the meantime discussion about the
volunteer army came up. and that re-
port was filed in late April. I recall that
Mr. Gates came by my office and talked
about it before they filed it. In my mind,
and I know everyone agreed with me,
the Selective Service hearings would
bring up the subject of the volunteer
army.
I never dreamed that, with the excep-
tion of some opposition, the proposal
would be not to have Selective Service
continue. The war was still on. Accord-
ing to the President's plan, it would
probably continue a while, and the Pres-
ident himself was saying all the time,
"We have to have a transition and I have
to have an extension of this Selective
Service."
The Senator from Massachusetts had
been in favor of hearings early, and he
continued to be in favor of them. I con-
ferred with him from time to time. We
:ot into this massive bill, and we had
iubcommmttees running day and night.
They held hearings. That has already
been described.
This is a huge bill and we had wit-
nesses of all kinds. We finally got to the
markup of the bill and we spent 2 weeks
on that. Then, there was the campus un-
rest and everything else going on by
then. That loomed pretty large in my
mind about opening those hearings then.
It was not the proper time to get at it
in that atmosphere. I wish to be frank
about the matter. I knew the House
would not start hearings unless it was
after the election. That is part of life,
running for reelection. We had men run-
ning for reelection, too. That added to
the problem. It was not reason enough,
but it was part of the picture.
Anyway, I always thought we should
have hearings as soon as we could. I was
prepared for them. I expected and really
wanted the volunteer army matter to
come in with the hearings and as part
of those hearings. I still think the only
logical way to hold hearings is to have
the hearings on the extension of Selec-
tive Service.
Am I impinging on anyone's time?
Mr. MANSFIELD. No.
Mr. STENNIS. Then. we could take up
the volunteer army as maybe a segment
of those hearings, as soon as we get this
bill off the floor, whenever that is, and
subject to the necessary duties our com-
mittee will have and that many members
of the committee will have in confer-
ence on this bill, which I hope will be
short. This is the very matter I expect
our committee to take up next, and I am
talking about in the year 1970.
It is a matter of making room for
other things that will be coming along.
I want to get Selective Service hearings
started in 1970. and that will include this
volunteer army concept. We will get the
views of the Secretary of Defense and
anybody else in official life. and outside
witnesses. We will be churning along on
this matter because we are already ready
on the Selective Service part.
Now. I stated a moment ago the White
House sent down its proposals. I am re-
minded now that it was limited to
giving the President discretion in this
student deferment and a change in the
quota system. We do not yet have an
actual bill for extension of Selective
Service from the administration. We
have several proposals from Senators.
one of them being rather long. We have
bills for the volunteer army. However,
we do not Yet have an actual bill on Se-
lective Service extension as a whole, al-
though we know about what it will con-
tain. We know the problems that go with
it and that have been worked on.
If we can get this bill off the floor
and subject. as I said, to the situation
with respect to the conference. the hear-
ings on Selective Service and also the
volunteer army will be the next order
of business.
I revert to what I started to say in the
beginning. to outline the matter briefly,
about the matter being pressed for pas-
sage here as a part of procurement for
the military services. I do not blame any-
one, but I think before It is passed the
facts should be before the membership
in the best way we can get the facts
under the circumstances. I am getting
together all those facts, as are other
Senators, and we are trying to draw these
issues as well as we can.
I warn the membership of this body
that we are running far, far ahead of
time; we are running away with the
recommendations of the President. It
seems to me we are closing our eyes to
the war that is going on in Vietnam.
Unfortunately, I think it will continue
for some time under the policy o1 the
President, which I am supporting.
Now, to come in here contrary to his
recommendations and his wishes and
pick this thing up off the floor without
really a chance to develop all the facts
and put it on such an important bill, a
bill that must pass this year because
they cannot make appropriations until
this bill passes, I think is a highly unwise
thing to do. I think it would cause harm;
I think it is unsound. I think it would
seriously jeopardize our security-not
some alliance: I am not thinking about
some obligation we have on the other
side of the world.
I am thinking about the security of
our Nation, our people. I am concerned
about the war we are already in. It is on
the other side of the world. I feel a pre-
cipitate withdrawal there would cause
us far more trouble in the future than
we are in now. There is a difference of
opinion on that,
I think we have to meet these facts as
they are, rather than as we would like
them to be.
Whatever merit the proposal has, it
ought to stand on Its own rather than be
brought in here as a part of this bill. I
will oppose it to the utmost for the
reasons I have given.
Mr. President, that states, In brief
form, the reasons I have in asking for
more time to gather the facts and debate
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
have no intention now, or ever in the
future, of debating with my chairman.
I hold him in as high a respect and ad-
miration as I do any man that I know
in this world. I am not going to dispute
anything that he said, because he speaks
from Years of accumulated wisdom, far
superior to mine.
I would, however, like to reemphasize
several things I said yesterday. While
they might be termed "rebuttal," they are
not; they are just a restatement of this
amendment because I happen to be one of
the cosponsors.
First of all, this amendment does not
repeal the draft. I want to make that
abundantly clear. The draft ends auto-
inatically the end of June, 1971. If the
Congress wants to renew the draft, it
can do it; but this amendment has noth-
ing to do with July 1 or June 30, 19" 1.
I like to think of this proposal as I
used to think of a promotion when I was
in business. If I had an idea to advertise,
to attempt to get more customers or keep
customers, I did not spring it overnight.
I would sort of urge them on, entice
them, you might say. I think that is
something this measure does. Before we
can ever talk about a voluntary military.
we have to let the troops know that they
are going to get more money, they are
going to get more fringe benefits; and I
do not think the time to do that is July
1. I think we should pay it to them now,
so that they can be thinking about it,
and think, "Well, by golly, maybe the
grass is greener in my uniform than it
is going to be in my backyard at home,
looking for a job."
The pay increases, the fringe increases,
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
are, to me, the real meat of the Gates
Commission report.
We have raised the pay of the military
several times in the. last few years, but
I do not think anybody can say that the
military pay, particularly in the lower
enlisted grades and the lower officer
grades, would be enticing enough to any-
body to say, "I want to be a soldier."
Yes, there are many young men in this
country who look forward to wearing the
uniform, and they do not care about the
pay, just as we have many young men in
this country who are going to become
ministers and do not care about the pay.
We have many men in this country who
engage, in many areas, in politics that
are not profitable. I cannot make that
same argument about the Senate and the
House. Many men are going to become
policemen and firemen; certainly the pay
is not what attracts them to that. But
whether we can get the 75,000 men a year
that we need to keep a standing Army,
Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps going
I think, is something we cannot gamble
with. Certainly, a little more enticement
is going to help.
So all this amendment really does is
say, "Look, fellows, here is what you are
going to get if you decide to stay in the
military."
I can say that the last pay bill had a
very salutary effect on the troops, and
I think this one will have the same effect.
I became interested in this subject a
long time ago, I think before anybody
else in the country. As I said yesterday,
I have spent 37 years in the Active Re-
serve, the Air Force, and the National
Guard. In my last 5 years, when I was
in the Senate, before my self-imposed
sabbatical leave, I had a Mobilization
Day assignment, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel for the Air Force. That
meant that if war came, within 10 days
I would put on a blue suit, march over
to the Pentagon, and be a Deputy Chief
of Staff for Personnel.
So I have spent a good many years in
that area: I have taken whatever corre-
spondence courses could be taken on mili-
tary pay and on control of personnel.
Looking at the number of dropouts
that we have every year in just the
Air Force alone, young enlisted men who
had spent 4 years, say, studying electron-
ics at Keesler Air Force Base, or pho-
tography, or hydraulics, or engine main-
tenance, only to lose them and see them
go to work for some company at a much
better salary, I became convinced that
we could save money by this move.
Dr. Milton Friedman is a member of
the Gates Commission. I am not. He is
a learned economist. I am a layman at
best. But I have had quite a bit of ex-
perience in the personnel field in both
civilian life and in the military. Both he
and I agree that there ultimately will be
a saving. -
Here we are talking about what I have
to confess are estimates. The Gates Com-
mission is pretty much talking on
guesses. The figures the military will use
to oppose this amendment are guesses.
My guess at one time was that the Air
Force would save $1 billion a year if
there were a proper pay scale and fringe
benefit improvements and promotion im-
provements to entice young men into
making the Air Force their career. I
apply this to every other branch. Possi-
bly in the Air Force there has to be more
of an education program because we are
in a little more sophisticated area than
the other services find themselves in-
without any reflection on the other serv-
ices.
So I feel that my original motive in
this matter certainly has not changed
We are not proposing to end the draft.
We are merely proposing to set the foun-
dation stones on which we can build a
voluntary military service.
The question arises, what are we going
to do in an emergency? What have we
always done in- an emergency? The Con-
gress has passed draft laws. We had one
in 1917. We had one in 1940. We had one
again in 1948, and the one passed in 1948
has never been rescinded.
In the amendment that the distin-
guished Senator from Oregon, I, and
other Senators are sponsoring, we pro-
vide for something that has never been
provided for before-a real basis on
which to build a working Reserve. After
37 years spent in the Reserve I think I
know a little about it, perhaps not as
much as some people know, but more
than most people know. We have never
had a universally effective Reserve force
in this country, except for the ground
National Guard and now the Air Nation-
al Guard, and some segments of the
Reserves which are active in air trans-
port. We have never had a Reserve, for
example, that could be called up. I re-
member back in 1939-I was then a first
lieutenant in the Infantry Reserve, I
think it was the 317th Brigade, though
I may have forgotten it--but they called
up all the officers. First of all, we had
only half officer strength, and only three
of us could pass the physical. That would
have been a heck of a division, marching
off with three officers, three first lieu-
tenants with rifles on their shoulders.
I have never seen any improvement in
the Reserves since, except the National
Guard, ground and air, and I would add
the Navy, although I do not think the
Navy, outside of the air component,
could muster a real reserve force.
When I think of Reserves, I think of
young men in this country up into their
thirties, who have hard some exposure to
military training. I do -not necessarily
mean ROTC. I can remember the days
of the Citizens Military Training Corps,
that gave us many fine officers in World
War II, and its training consisted of a
month each year for 4 years, and then
an examination, and the young man
would be commissioned a second lieu-
tenant in the Reserves.
We are turning out, contrary to what
Senators might hear in the media or read
in the newspapers, more Reserve officers
than we ever have in the ROTC. The Air
Force alone has about 140 requests from
colleges that it cannot meet. The Army
has about 67; I think that figure is sub-
stantially correct.
So the source of our officer strength,
the ROTC, is not disappearing. We wish .
we had had better reception at some of
the colleges where we have it, but it has
not been received, and I suggest that the
Pentagon take it out of all the schools
that do not want it. If some of our fine
eastern and western colleges do no want
the ROTC, let us take it away from them
and give it to some of the little schools
that do want it, because frankly, I think
we get a finer grade of officers from the
smaller schools anyway.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. I was interested in the
Senator's point, because two colleges in
my State of Kentucky have been seek-
ing for 5 years or more to have ROTC
installed in those colleges, and they have
the support of both the faculty and the
regents and the student body. One of
them has more than 8,000 students.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I appreciate the
remarks of the Senator, and I happen to
know that is true, because I have seen
those two schools listed among those that
want to have an ROTC program, either
Army, Air Force, or Navy.
But, not having had what you could
really call a reserve system in this coun-
try, where we could call the troops up,
except in the cases I have listed, this bill
is designed to provide a starting base for
a Ready Reserve. One of the ways in
which that can be accomplished is that
we are going to require the continued
registration of every young man in the
country. This does not mean he will be
drafted; it just means we will have the
name and address of every young man,
and then we can try-we are not going to
force him-but we can try to interest the
young man in taking some kind of mili-
tary training. I do not mean 25-mile
hikes and all that business, but at least
to understand what war is and why na-
tions have to go to war sometimes, to
understand the need for discipline, and
to begin to understand the need for lead-
ership.
I think we could do a pretty good job
with young men of this country if we
approached them on a voluntary basis
and said, _ "Look, we have a voluntary
Reserve in this country; it would be to
your advantage to join it. We are going
to pay you a little bit to attend drills;
you are not going to get rich on it, but
one thing you are going to do, you are
going to know a little bit something about
being a soldier or an airman or a sailor
or a marine, and if it ever becomes neces-
sary to institute the draft again, you will
be called."
I think I can speak with experience
greater than that of any other Member
of this body who has been in the service
in saying that the man who has been ex-
posed to training is usually the man who
does not get hurt. It is the man we try
to make a soldier of in 6 weeks, or an air-
man of in 8 weeks, or a marine of in about
the same time, who just does not under-
stand it, and he is more prone to be hurt
than the other men. I would use that
argument with any of my grandchildren,
in urging them to take some kind of mili-
tary training.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at that point?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am happy to
yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. I have read some of
the comments of the Senator from Ari-
zona on this question at other times,
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9 .
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE August 20, 13i0
Just looking through the amendment,
is there a provision in this amendment
to require some kind of universal mili-
tary training?
Mr. GOLDWATER. No.
Mr. KENNEDY. There is nothing in
the amendment that would require, in
any way, some sort of universal military
training for all young people, even for
the limited period of time of which the
Senator from Arizona has spoken. Is that
correct?
Mr. GOLDWATER. No: and I say to
my friend from Massachusetts, moreover,
that I would lead the fight against uni-
versal military training. In addition to
my interest in this legislation from the
point of view of thinking we could save
money. there is also my concern with
the rights of the people of this country.
As I said yesterday, I do not think it is
right for our Government to tell any
young man how he is going to spend 2
or 3 or 4 years of his life.
I think we have enough young men
who. if they were left alone, would meet
the need for 75.l00 volunteers a year.
But universal military training, while It
has been very effective in some countries,
I just cannot fit in with the American
way of life, and I say to my friend from
Massachusetts that if anything like that
is ever proposed here. I will be out in
front, leading the fight against it-
I would propose an anpeal. a very un-
derstanding appeal by the military serv-
ices to the young men to associate them-
selves with some Reserve unit: and while
I may have sounded critical here this
morning of the services, we have had
very little attention paid to the Reserves
over the period of years that I was as-
sociated with the Reserves, which was
well over half of my life. Outside of the
Navy, which constantly pays attention
to its Reserves, and the Air Force. which
pays attention to the Reserve units that
have transport assignments. and the Na-
tional Guard, both ground and air, we
have nothing that we can bank on in
time of war.
So we have proposed. through the me-
chanics of this amendment, to set un a
way for the services to become interested.
Mr. KENNEDY. The training the Sen-
ator was talking about, then, was in re-
lationship to the Reserves?
Mr. GOLDWATER. That is right.
Mr_ KENNEDY. Strenr'thening the
Reserves'?
Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
have four grandsons. When they get to
the appropriate age, in school. I would
try to interest them in taking military
training. I might go farther than some
grandfathers, because I have rot a lot
out of it myself. I would urge joining up
with a local Reserve unit that would
meet. say, twice a month for 2 hours to
learn about the problems of being a sol-
dier. an airman, or a sailor, But in no
way should this be mandatory or re-
quired.
My personal feeling. I might say to
the Senator from Massachusetts. is that
a young man is a lot better off having
exposed himself to some military train-
ing. It is much like when I was a boy,
all of us learned how to box. We did not
do It to go around being bullies: we just
did it so we could protect ourselves, and
because if others knew we could box, they
would put us on a list to be left alone.
This might be important to the United
States: if the potential enemies of this
country knew we had a Ready Reserve,
ready to go. that could be called up over-
night, maybe It might have a salutary
effect so far as peace is concerned.
Mr. President. I did not intend to speak
long on this measure at this time. I shall
devote further time to it. But I hope
Senators on both sides will pay close
attention to this matter. The learned
Senator from Mississippi has had more
experience in this field than, possibly
any of the rest of us.
But we think-those of us who sponsor
this amendment-that now is the time
to lay the groundwork. Now is the time
to tell the troops around the world that
we are going to pay them a little more
money and that we are going to give
them a little better fringe benefits. I
have in mind, for example. if a man is
stationed in the Mediterranean, let his
wife come to the Mediterranean. If he
is stationed any place that his family
can go, take the family there. Make it
easier for him. We do not make it im-
pos..ible for our civilian employees to
live overseas, but we certainly put all
the rocks in the world in the road of a
man going overseas in uniform.
We could improve the fringe benefits
in medicine, for example. We could
provide better housing where better
housing does not exist now.
We are talking about a large chuirk
of our population. It is not going to be
3.5 million men. It is probably going to
be between 2 million and 2.5 million men
when Vietnam is over, or it might even
be before Vietnam is over. But, still, that
is a lot of people.
I witness Senators on the floor of the
Senate every day shedding big crocodile
tears about 100,000 people or 500,000
people who lead a tough life. Right now,
3 y2 million men-potentially 2?.4
million men-lead a tough life all
the time, regardless of what they are
paid. When a man is risking his life and
defending the rest of this country and
the free world, I do not think one can
put a dollar sign on it.
So it is something we have to be seri-
ous about andconsiderate about-all the
things I have mentioned and many,
many more.
Mr. President, I hope that we have a
long debate on this matter. I think it will
help the country to understand what we
are trying to do and to understand what
I think we will have to do.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
able and distinguished senior Senator
from Arizona yield for several questions?
Air. GOLDWATER. I yield, but I
should like to remind the Senator that
I am the junior Senator. I am one of
the oldest junior Senators in the Senate.
i Law? liter. I
Mr. ERVIN. I would say. If the Sena-
tor from Arizona would permit me to do
so. that the seniority in experience of
the very distinguished junior Senator
from Arizona has conferred upon him
great wisdom.
My questions are these:
First, does not the Senator from
Arizona think that every man has the
same duties to his nation that all ether
men have?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I agree with the
Senator. I feel that way. But I do not
think we should force that service on a
man, unless we are in times of real
emergency, when we have to get 10 or 12
million men into uniform.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from
Arizona agree with the Senator from
North Carolina that service in the Aimed
Forces of the Nation has a tendency to
make a man understand more clearly
his duties to his country and to value his
country more highly?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I could not agree
more with the Senator from North
Carolina. He is a distinguished veteran
himself and wear's one of the highest
decorations this country gives.
I know of very few men who have
served in the military services who have
ever turned against their country. A few,
yes. But, on the whole, they not only
come out of this experience with a greater
regard for their country but a better
understanding of their country as well.
In addition, they come out of it with a
distinct. clear understanding of the need
for leadership-and we have too little of
it in this country today-and the need
for discipline. I do not mean the kind
of discipline of clicking heels or popping
to a salute. I mean the discipline that
we do not find today-the discipline of
respect, the discipline of time, the
discipline of work.
If I had my life to live over again-I
have said this often-I probably would
have taken my appointment to West
Point, and I would either be a general
today or I would be dead; but I would
have enjoyed my life a great deal more.
Mr. ERVIN. I know it to be true that
the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
nothwithstanding the fact that he did
not make of himself a professional
soldier, has devoted a large part of his
time and his energy to serving his coun-
try in the armed forces-and even in
times of peace, in the Reserves of the
United States. I think he merits the
commendation of our Nation for having
so conducted himself.
I should like to ask the Senator from
Arizona if he does not agree with the
Senator from North Carolina that, if the
financial status of the Federal Gosern-
ment permitted, it would be highly de-
sirable for the Federal Government to
require'every young man to receive train-
ing in the armed services of the Nation
for a limited period of time, and if he
does not agree with the Senator from
North Carolina that such a policy would
ultimately promote the health of the Na-
tion as well as better citizenship in the
Nation.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I might say to my
friend that I have always said that there
are two things a man has to do-he has
to pay taxes and he has to defend his
country. I would not agree that, even if
the Federal Government could afford it,
we should force an unwilling young man
to take military training. I think it would
be to his advantage. But he might dis-
agree.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
In answer to a question from the dis-
tinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
I said that I would not favor universal
military training, because one of the two
major premises that I stand on in rela-
tion to this amendment is that I do not
think the Federal Government has the
right to tell any man or woman how they
are going to spend 3 or 4 years of their
life. This is in regard to the young man
who does not want to be drafted or does
not want to be a voluntary member of the
military. I think it would be to his ad-
vantage to take this training, but I could
not back the type of universal training
that it would take to do what the Senator
thinks is wise, even though I think the
training would be wise.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from
Arizona concede that a very good case
can be made for the proposition that it
is just as fair to depend on voluntary tax-
payers for the support of the U.S. Gov-
ernment as it is to depend solely upon
volunteers for furnishing the manpower
for our armed services?
Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator
makes a very interesting point. I am
afraid that if we had voluntary taxpay-
ing, we would not raise a great deal of
money. But I am not worried about de-
pending upon the young men of this
country to provide a volun,v military
force.
Keep in mind that I am talking about
the normal times in which we hope to
live. I am not talking about World War I
or World War II or-well, I do not like
to use Korea, but even Vietnam. Had we
had a voluntary military, I think that we
would have been able to fill all the slots
needed in a war the size of Vietnam had
we fought that war the way we should
have fought it. I do not happen to agree
that under the direction of Secretary
McNamara or President Johnson, this'
war was fought in a proper way. But that
is beside the point. So while I am very
much interested in becoming a voluntary
taxpayer-something I do not believe we
will ever see-I do not believe we can
compare the two, enticing as that
might be.
Mr. ERVIN. I would certainly agree
with my distinguished friend from Ari-
zona that the conflict in Vietnam has not
been fought in the proper way. I would
be inclined to the opinion than the same
observation could be made with respect
to the Korean episode. I have always been
convinced that those civilians who have
the ultimate charge of our military forces
would be intellectually enablec: to serve
their country in troublous time in a more
effective manner if they would pay less
attention to trying to find out a con-
census of opinion and would spend more
time reading the advice which Polonius
gave to his son, Laertes, on the occasion
when the latter was about to journey
from Denmark to Paris. In substance,
Polonius told Laertes, "Beware of en-
trance into a quarrel,. but once in it, so
bear thyself that the enemy will beware
of thee."
I say with the firm conviction of the
correctness of my assertion that if the
civilian authorities had permitted the
military to take charge of the situation
in South Vietnam, the military would
have won this war 3 or 4 years ago.
I cannot help confessing another abid-
ing conviction, that a nation can never
justify sending its boys into battle to die
in a war it does not permit them to win.
I want to thank the distinguished Sen-
ator from Arizona for his courtesy in
yielding to me. I rejoice in the fact that
he and I ordinarily share kindred views
on military subjects, even though my
views in respect to the pending amend-
ment prevent me from voting for it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Carolina
with whom I have served in such a de-
lightful way for many years. It is true
that we do not agree on this question,
but I would hope that the Senator would
lend his judgment to it as we go along.
I certainly agree with the remarks he
just made. The observation made after
the fall of Dienbienphu, that the French
did not lose Dienbienphu in Vietnam,
they lost it in Paris, is precisely what is
happening in America today.
If we lose the war in Vietnam, we will
have lost it in New York and Washing-
ton. We will have lost it through the dis-
tortions made by the news media regard-
ing the war and what it does.
I have said' time and again that had
we made up our minds to win the war in
Vietnam at the same moment we went
into it, the war might not even have
started, because any nation facing up to
the fact that they would be opposed by
the greatest power on earth, by the naval
and air forces of the United States, I do
not think they would choose to fight.
I suggest, as distasteful as it might
seem, this is one of the instruments of
national policy which this country has
never understood.
I do not believe that World War II
would have occurred. had the United
States been armed and prepared and had
Germany known that a foot on Poland,
or a foot on England would also mean a
foot on the United States.
Mr. President, it is unfortunately true
that peace is kept only through power.
I wish it were not so. I hope that my
grandchildren will live to see the day
when peace in the world, will be kept
because of the goodness in men's hearts
and minds and not their evil.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, If the Sen-
ator will permit me one more observa-
tion, without losing his right to the floor,
I should like to state as an abiding con-
viction that when statesmen or politi-
cians, or whatever we may call them, fail
to such an extent that war comes, they
should take a back seat and allow the
military men, who have been especially
trained to wage war, to direct the actual
tactics in the area where the war is
being waged.
Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator is
absolutely correct. There is not one
single instance in history that will not
back. him up. It is unfortunate, but It
is true.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, con-
tinuing this dialog on the voluntary Army
concept which has been proposed by the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) and
cosponsored by the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER) and other Senators, I
want to make some comments at this
S 13793
time concerning the dilemmas in which
we find ourselves.
I have had an opportunity to read the
Gates report and to read the proposed
amendment. I have been in favor of a
voluntary Army, and have made speeches
on the subject, for at least 5 years.
The question obviously becomes filled
with emotion when we think of the deep
resentment people feel around the coun-
try, be they young or old, over the arbi-
trary selection caused by the draft laws.
The other day, I had the opportunity
to talk to people in the Defense Depart-
ment and to talk to some people, im-
partial civilians, looking into the sub-
ject; and almost everyone agrees, so far
as I can see at this time, that any draft
law which drafts less than all the people
must, of necessity, be inequitable. There
is no possibility of making it operate
evenly, because. we are going to select
certain people and make them do things
which we are not going to make others
do.
It is also obvious that the country and
the taxpayers, cannot possibly afford any
kind of uniform service law, where every-
one is required to serve for a stated
length of time whether we are at war or
peace. I am not sure that it would be
right anyhow, for reasons which the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)
just stated.
Then we have the other situation,
when we are at war, whether declared or
undeclared. Many Americans have been
killed and many Americans are still in
Vietnam. In an unpopular war of this
kind can we maintain the necessary
forces to complete the President pro-
grams if the draft is dropped? What we
are looking at is not the situation we
were faced with as this administration
came into office, but what the situation
will be in Asia and the rest of the world
after July 1, 1971. Hence, we will try to
determine what kind and what catagories
of personnel will be needed to provide
security for this country.
According to the President's announce-
ments which have already been made
public, our armed' services in Southeast
Asia, as of May 1, 1971, will be about
240,000 troops as compared to 540,000 in
January of 1969.
Many of these troops will be logistic
forces-communications, supply troops,
and so forth. Some of them will be ar-
tillery. Some of them, obviously, will be
ordinary infantry, defending whatever
bases and depots we have still there.
No one knows now what the situation
will be 3 months later, whether we will be
reducing the number of troops still fur-
ther-which we all earnestly hope we
will be-or whether by that time we will
have reached some kind of agreement
with North Vietnam which will enable us
to get out even more rapidly.
In looking around the rest of the world
outside of Southeast Asia, where else
are we liable to be using troops in ground
infantry action? It is very. difficult to see
where this would happen except perhaps.
in Western Europe in the event the So-
viets decide to heat up that area.
We have had some 350,000 troops,
members of the armed services, in Europe
for 25 years. For the life of me I have
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 S 13794
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE August 20, 1970
been unable to understand why we have
done this. For the life of me I have been
unable to understand why the United
States should use its own forces in the
area of Western Europe, which is eco-
nomically and, from the point of view
of manpower, better able to protect Itself
than is any other area that I know of
around the world.
It makes no sense to me. Over and over
a^_ain I have joined with the Senator
from Mon tana (Mr. MANSFIELD) in urg-
ine that we have a very substantial re-
duction of forces in that area.
In the Mideast fortunately, and
through the very fine activities of our
Secretary of State and President, we
have at least a tenuous cease-fire. We
hope that we will be able to move from
that into further negotiations for a per-
nhanent peace in that troubled region.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, would the
Senator yield for a comment on that
point concerning his comments on the
European forces?
Mr. DOMINICK. I am very happy to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I think the
distinguished Senator's comment is most
pertinent. I can well understand why Eu-
rope would want to have more than 500,-
000 Americans in Europe today, more
than we have actually in Vietnam. They
are there as hostages. In the event west-
ern Europe should be attacked, we will be
there.
What I cannot understand is their re-
luctance in the past to bear their fair
share of the cost of troops needed for a
common defense. This, I think, has been
ludicrous and I think it is a scandal that
in years past we have not said, "If you
want us here, the least you can do with
your high level of prosperity is to pay
a fairer share of the costs involved."
These countries now recognize that
they must pay a fairer share. The ques-
tion is how much. I think we are some
ways apart in what we think is a fair
share.
The point the Senator makes is very
well taken. It has been an unfair situa-
Lion. I have talked with officials who
helped create NATO. They never en-
visioned that we would, 25 years later.
have troops in Europe to the present ex-
tent and bear the present level of ex-
pense.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I
thank my friend, the Senator from Il-
linois. The points he has made are very
accurate. Not only have they not paid
for the costs of our troops, but also they
have not fulfilled their own NATO corn-
initments. As a matter of fact, one of our
NATO allies, France, has thrown us out
and required that we be in another coun-
try.
apparently the whole complex was de-
vooloped from the idea that we might be
facing a threat from Eastern Europe. I
think that is still a possibility. But one
country that has been urging us to keep
our forces there Western Germany has
now reached a nonaggression treaty with
the Soviet Union. I do not know that it is
worth anything but if it is this further
emphasizes the desirability of removing
our troops from there. We can meet our
commitments to NATO by airlift. We can
bring our troops back in. We have no de-
sire to go back on our commitments.
The point I make is that 1.25 million
volunteers are In the armed services.
Some 800,000 additional men are volun-
teers in their first term of service. If we
have this capability now in this country,
do we in fact need to further extend this
draft situation which can be nothing but
inequitable, no matter how we look at it?
1 he major argument in favor of it is
that we cannot get troops for the "nitty-
gritty" ground combat. People are en-
listing in other specialities. They will vol-
unteer to be pilots or to go on Navy ships.
They will enlist for the electronics field or
communications. But we do not find
many people enlisting for ground infan-
try action.
This is a problem and the question Is
how do we solve it.
Again, we have to look at where we
will use troops of this kind in the future.
What is the immediate threat which
would create a need for drafting a num-
ber of troops of this kind?
It is hard, frankly, to see the realism
behind it.
We now have a proposal to reduce our
overall services to 2.9 million from about
3.5 million. But for each troop we put
into combat, for each flier, for each Navy
combat person, or for each marine we
have more backup support troops than
any other country in the world. I think
it is somewhere in-the neighborhood of 11
to 13 or something of that number for
each person who actually conducts any
fighting. I am not sure of the exact figure,
but it is very, very high.
We do not need to go in this Cadillac
form if we are engaged In a war which
involves the security of the United States.
We need to give the necessary support
pay and recompense to the actual people
who are engaged in this as a career, yes.
But do we need an overall force of this
size-2.9 million persons?
My own thinking is that we do not as
long as we have a method of calling up
large masses of people if we find our-
selves in a very serious problem, as well
as keeping a strong Reserve and Na-
tional Guard force.
We can reduce the Regular Army by a
considerable amount of personnel. These
points seem to militate in favor of this
arendment and in favor of a volunteer
army and dropping the draft as of July.
The things that we cannot envisage
right now concern the defects that would
turn up if we were to have rather exten-
sive hearings on this matter next year.
Does this amendment which we have
under discussion in fact provide the
proper amount in order to be able to
make a high-class volunteer army more
practicable?
How much additional training allow-
ance or pay will we have to have in order
to get combat troops In the infantry?
Why are the Marines-able to fill their
lists with volunteers while the Army
infantry cannot. Is there that much dif-
ference in their fighting roles, or their
pay and allowances or their service liv-
inr conditions? Or is it the method of
recruiting or the allure of the Marine
morale? These questions need to be
examined.
What are the policy problems of the
future with respect to the actual u3e of
troops?
Will we have to find ourselves in the
Cuban area, for example?
Strong intelligence indications that
have recently come to light show that
the Cuban problem, Jar from getting
better, is getting worse. They are
stronger militarily, their missile capa-
bility is getting better, and their nu-
clear capability is being increased.
There is at the present time one nu-
clear noncritical plant in operation used
for peaceful purposes. It Is my under-
standing that another one Is proposed
for 1971 or 1972 which is a critical mass
type nuclear plant.
Every Cuban working in it has been
trained in the Soviet Union. There are
continued reports from Cuban Intelli-
gence that missiles are in the country.
What is going to happen In Western
Europe? Is there going to be an agree-
ment which will calm down some of the
tensions which have existed In that
area? Are we going to be able to stay
out of the Middle East or find ourselves
engaged there, God forbid, in a more
direct way?
These are all problems we are going
to have to wrestle with In determining
what we are going to do in connection
with this amendment. I am frank to say
I have not made up my mind. Are we
being premature in taking the amend-
ment up at this time or is it necessary
to get started on It now, as has been sug-
gested by the Senator from Arizona and
the Senator from Oregon so we can test
it out In the intervening 6 or 8 months
prior to the time the draft expires and
comes up for renewal? It is a most per-
plexing and difficult problem and it is
one that should be examined at this
time.
We have been wrestling with other
problems that are difficult but we have
not been wrestling so much In connec-
tion with problems which affect the wel-
fare of so many of our young people, as
well as those who are enjoying the lux-
uries and freedoms we have in our Na-
tion. I have'not made up my mind on
what to do about this matter, but I
hope before the final vote we would have
some debate, some discussion, and open
remarks as to what our policy position
may be around the world within the next
2 years. because it is within those 2
years that I feel this voluntary Army
versus the draft situation will be most
critical.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am
grateful to the distinguished Senator
from Colorado and Senators who have
engaged in this colloquy today on the
subject which we intend to lay before
the Senate very shortly, namely, amend-
ment No. 844.
Mr. President, Before I make any
further comments, Iask unanimous con-
sent that the name of the distinguished
junior Senator from Illinois (Mr. SMITH)
be added as a cosponsor of the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
EAGLETON). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. the
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
very able Senator from Colorado has just
addressed himself to some of the most
fundamental points we are concerned
with in the overall manpower procure-
ment responsibility that we in Congress
have, a responsibility to enact legisla-
tion that will provide our military or-
ganization with sufficient manpower to
meet not only domestic defense needs of
this Nation, but to implement our foreign
policy as well. I am pleased that the
Senator touched on these important
points of foreign policy which depend
on an adequate military force to carry
them out and to implement them.
I shall make only one or two points
this morning because when we call up
the amendment we will go into other
arguments and debate on the matter.
The question has been raised this
morning by the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services, the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS),
about the cost of an all-volunteer, mili-
tary. The distinguished Senator from
Mississippi has used the figure $4 billion
as the cost which would be required to
implement an all-volunteer system.
I would like to quote from the same
letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr.
Laird, who Indicated that there is not
today in the Pentagon a real basic set of
data on which to compute accurately an
exact cost. I would add further that the
Gates Commission report, on page 7, in-
dicated that with the basic pay increase,
proficiency pay, Reserve pay increase,
additional Medical Corps expense, re-
cruiting, ROTC, and miscellaneous, the
figure would come to $3.24 billion.
Mr. President, I wish to emphasize
very carefully this morning that it costs
approximately $6,000 to train a soldier.
Today we have draftees coming into our
military program under what we call a
mixed force; namely, we have volun-
teers, and we have those volunteers who
volunteer to avoid conscription, and we
have draftees. When one considers we
have a 92 percent to 95 percent turnover
rate within our draftee group, I think it
is very apparent that we are expending
a great deal of taxpayer money to train
people to a point where, at about the
time they become proficient, they are out
of the service.
The Navy has indicated that it is be-
lieved the No. 1 problem they face today
is what they call "personal turbulence,"
and that is simply another word for turn-
over rate. That is in a branch of service
in which there is today an all-volunteer
recruitment program. Some of those
volunteers are not true volunteers; they
are enlisting to avoid the draft. The point
is that even in enlisted situations there
Is this high turnover rate.
We are expending over $3 billion for
the training of draftees. Our present
system is costing us over $3 billion and
I am saying, and my cosponsors believe,
if we accept these figures-and they are
very general and ,I do not purport to say
they can be computed to the exact dollar
or perhaps even millions of dollars-if
for the moment we accept the $4 billion
figure given by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, that the
all-volunteer system would cost us, I
would point out that costs us over $4
billion to maintain the coercive nonvol-
untary draft program.
When one considers the two figures, it
is obvious that by reducing the turnover
rate under a voluntary system, we would
receive far more in return for our $4
billion in an all-volunteer force than we
get from $4 billion in a draft mix system.
Further, we have the support of a very
important committee appointed by Pres-
ident Eisenhower in 1957, which was
headed by Ralph Cordinier. The report
became known as the Cordinier report,
and I would like to quote from that docu-
ment.
It was estimated at that time, and this
goes back to 1957 so if anything the fig-
ures would be increased as they apply
to the situation today, 10 percent of the
military force is engaged in training new
recruits.
When one considers that by instituting
an all-volunteer system, under the best
calculations which have been given us,
we would release a number of people
today who are involved in a constant
training program; and that is estimated
at a 3-percent reduction in personnel for
training purposes. If one considers a 2.65
training level, as the Cordinier report
referred to at that time, that would
mean 79,500 personnel could be released
from the entire time they have to give
to training, for other military assign-
ments.
The Gates Commission states that
when you take the present accession and
other recruitment programs, we have
about 250 million true recruits or en-
listees; and on that basis, out of the
325,000 that go in as "new" each year we
would have to have only 75,000 addi-
tional new enlistees to have an all-vol-
unteer system.
When one considers the savings that
could be made in manpower alone in
an all-volunteer system in the area of
training, it is obvious we would not
have to pick up a great number more
men than are voluntarily enlisting with-
out the pressure of the draft.
The question has been raised this
morning also as to the matter of whether
all young men have a duty to perform
to their country and whether that duty
can only be performed through military
service.
I would like to say that I speak as a
combat veteran of World War H. I feel
that the experience I had in the Navy
.was a very excellent experience. At the
same time, I do not believe that, because
I was privileged to serve in the Navy in
World War II, fighting for my country,
I should assume I have a higher degree
of citizenship than any person who was
not able to serve in the Armed Services,
as many of my friends with whom I
had attended the university were denied
entrance into the military service, when
they were seeking to serve. It was excel-
lent for me, but, by the. same token, I
do not believe it gives me an extra
badge of citizenship that is`denied those
who were not in the military service.
Furthermore, as I indicated yester-
day, when we talk about serving our
country, we should not restrict our
thinking to believing that the only way
to serve our country is through serving
S 13795
in a military uniform. I think that is
one way of serving one's country, but I
think there are many other ways one
serves his country. I would hate to think
that we would restrict our thinking, in
discussing the amendment, to the
thought that only young men in uni-
form are rendering a service that is
looked upon as doing one's duty to his
country.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a brief observation, and
then I should like to ask him some
questions.
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'will
support a volunteer Army in peacetime.
But when, as now, battlefield casualties
are high I do not believe a volunteer
Army is either equitable or wise..
In my view, it is inequitable to permit
the risks of battle to fall only on those
less affluent Americans who are induced
to join the Army by a pay raise. And it
is unwise to insulate from the horrors of
war middle- and upper-class Americans
who might lead the protest against
senseless foreign adventures.
I recognize that the present draft sys-
tem has many of the defects of a volun-
tary system. But the draft can be made
more equitable, as I have fought to do
for years. The volunteer Army is inher-
ently inequitable.
There are some who argue that we
never would have become involved in a
large scale war in Indochina, if it were
not for the draft. This is sheer specula-
tion. The one certain fact is that we are
in Indochina now, and that the process
for determining who will serve there
should be a fair one.
Some suggest that if the draft were
ended, American involvement in Indo-
china would have to come grinding to a
halt. This, of course, directly contradicts
the finding of the Gates Commission that
our military manpower needs could be
met by an all-volunteer force. In any
event, if the Congress wishes to end the
war, it can do so by legislation directly
aimed at that goal.
Finally, I note that the cost of the Hat-
field amendment for this year is at least
$3.2 billion dollars. When we have such
pressing budgetary problems and domes-
tic needs, I sharply question whether a
volunteer Army, even if desirable, should
rank so high on our list of national
priorities.
I would now like to ask the Senator
from Oregon how his cost figures are
related to the level of unemployment?
Mr. HATFIELD. In reply to my friend
and colleague, the figures that I quoted
included unemployment.
Mr. KENNEDY. What level of unem-
ployment?
Mr. HATFIELD. Is the Senator refer-
ring to the Cordinier report?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am familiar with the
figures in that report. I am referring to
present estimates of the cost of a volun-
teer army under the Senator's amend-
ment.
Mr. HATFIELD. The $3.2 billion under
the Gates Commission finding?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. It has been some
time since the Gates Commission report
was made. Unemployment has increased
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 S 13796
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 20, 1910
since that report. It has actually doubled.
How does the Senator think that fact
affects the cost of his proposed program?
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is quite
correct in saying that the figures on un-
employment are changing, but as far
as the report is concerned, unemploy-
ment was approximately 5 percent at
that time.
Mr. KENNEDY. So the cost of the
Senator's proposed program is based on
an unemployment figure of 5 percent?
Mr. HATFIELD- Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. How does it vary as
unemployment varies? Of course, this
matter was developed quite completely
In a Defense Department report and lead
to extraordinary estimates on the cost
of a volunteer Army, ranging from about
$4 or $5 or $6 billion up to $17 billion,
as I remember. The cost was very closely
related to the unemployment question.
Has the Senator any information now
which would suggest that, under his
amendment, there would be a difference
in cost if there were a reduction in the
unemployment rate or a rise in the un-
employment rate over the period of the
next 2 years?
Mr. HATFIELD. The figures we are
using at this time are on the basis of the
finding in the Gates Commission report.
which was based on an unemployment
figure of approximately 5 percent. as I
have said. As far as the total cost is con-
cerned, we must realize that we are deal-
ing here with certain variants--the size
of the military force we are going to
base it on. whether it be 2.5 million or
2.6 million, and the fact that we must
include in this estimate anticipated sav-
ings, following the recommendations of
the Gates Commission, which among
other recommendations, would transfer
certain present military duties to civilian
jobs.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is being done at
the present time, as I understand.
Mr. HATFIELD. That action has been
taken in certain instances.
Mr. KENNEDY. Nothing currently pro-
hibits the military from moving in that
direction in a more extensive way. or even
recruiting civilians for clerk and typist
jobs, for example.
Mr. HATFIELD. There is no prohibi-
tion. The point is that we would be call-
ing upon the military. by action of the
Congress, to accelerate that program or
policy.
We do go into other cost factors, for
example. transportation. It is estimated
by the Gates Commission that we would
save a minimum of $68 million in trans-
portation. on the basis of a lesser call
for transporting recruits or inductees
from one place to another.
In the field of training and administra-
tion. the estimated reduction in the cost
of such programs is $675 million.
In the area of what they call civilian-
ization, or the very point we were just dis-
cussing, moving further in the direction
of providing civilian personnel with re-
sponsibilities now being performed by
military personnel, the estimate is that
there would be a saving in cost of $100
million.
Then, as far as the impact upon the
general economy is concerned, there is a
very interesting figure, which I am sure
the Senator from Massachusetts is aware
is an element in the cost calculation, and
that is the loss of productivity to society
by men trying to avoid the draft. We are
losing a great resource in this country,
as the Senator knows, as a result of a
sizable number of people--it is up to
60,000-moving out of the country to
escape the draft. And it is estimated that
over 30,000 men have now refused induc-
tion. Others are in colleges and univer-
sities in an attempt to avoid the draft.
This has resulted in an increased cost of
education for people who are not really
seeking an education or who are qualified
to receive it. but are there for the single
purpose of avoiding the draft. That is a
difficult figure to state in specific terms,
but it is estimated that the saving could
reach as high as $3 billion, and that, of
course, would have another great impact
on our economy.
So I think all these factors must be
considered when we consider the cost of
a volunteer system versus a coercive sys-
tem, and what it means in the long run.
As I indicated yesterday, I may add to
my comments to the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts, the real cost of this program
under a volunteer system would not be
any more than the present cost. By that
I mean that the present costs are being
borne not just by the taxpayer, who
sriould bear all the costs for the defense
of this country, but by the requirement
that we are placing upon the shoulders
of our servicemen to subsidize their own
military service because of the noncom-
parability of the pay scale they are re-
ceiving when contrasted to what they
could earn in civilian life.
John Kenneth Galbraith called this
"the patriotic tax," Dr. 01 called it "the
hidden tax." Whatever you call it, it is
still there.
Therefore, when we consider or talk
about an all-volunteer system in terms
of dollars, it really is not going to cost,
in real dollars, more money. It means
only that we are going to send the bill to
the taxpayer, rather than requiring the
young men to subsidize their own service.
Mr. KENNEDY. Those same savings in
cost would have existed in Australia,
when they instituted the volunteer army
system, would they not?
Mr. HATFIELD. I am sure in some de-
gree. Perhaps not to the same magni-
tude.
Ivir. KENNEDY. But all the different
cost-saving elements, lower administra-
tive overhead and the others which the
Senator has mentioned, were there per-
haps, in some varying degree.
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me interrupt the
Senator at that point. When the Aus-
tralians moved from one type of system
to another. they did not include any ad-
ditional incentives, as we are doing, so
we could not make quite the direct com-
parison the Senator is attempting to
make between the two Countries.
Mr. KENNEDY. They had some modi-
fication, did they not, in pay scales?
Mr. HATFIELD. No significant modi-
fication.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well. one can question
whether the pay scales included in the
Senator's amendment are going to be
significant enough and sufficiently at-
tractive to young people to induce them
to participate in our involvement in
Southeast Asia.
I understand that in the Australian
experience, the principal consideration
was the unemployment question. When
they instituted the volunteer army, they
had relatively high unemployment. As
soon as that unemployment was met with
economic expansion, the bottom, effec-
tively, fell out of the whole volunteer
army system in Australia. The Australian
experience does not suggest that we
should expect any savings from a volun-
teer army.
I wonder if the Senator would reveal
to us any information he has about other
industrial countries that have tried to
introduce this system and tell what addi-
tional savings have been made with the
institution of volunteer armies. Because
I suspect the record of other countries
that have attempted it has not been
quite as sanguine as my colleague from
Oregon suggests.
Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to stay to
the Senator, in response, that I think he
has posed at least two questions here. He
attempts to draw an analogy to the Aus-
tralian situation, and I think, upon
reading the Gates Commission report,
the Senator would find this is a most in-
appropriate analogy, and that it is not
possible to draw a valid analogy between
Australia and this country.
Let me quote from page 171 of the re-
port, addressed to that very question:
Some has cited the Australian decision to
return to a draft as evidence that an all-
volunteer force is not feasible for the United
States. There are several reasons why this
argument by analogy is inappropriate. First.
the Australians have not made a concerted
effort to attract additional recruits on a vol-
untary basis. Once the decision was made to
use conscription to. raise force levels, no
serious effort was made to Increase voluntary
enlistments either by raising pay or re-
doubling recruiting efforts. Second, the Aus-
tralian economy is heavily unionized and
apprenticeship programs requiring four or
more years deplete the pool of men available
for military ser.-ice. Third, Australia has en-
joyed a rapid growth In its economy (the
unemployment rate is about 1 pen'ent)
which makes civilian jobs relatively more at-
traective than military service. Finally, civil-
Ian earnings s gnifidantiy exceed military pay
rates. Civilians receive over-time and other
supplementary compensation in excess cf the
common wage rates set by the government
for both the military and the civilian
economy.
The Australians could have expande(i tile
size of the Armed Forces on a voluntary
basis by raising pay-
What we are planning to do here--
and reorganizing recruiting.
Which we provide in this amendment:
Given the important differences between
the two countries, one cannot conclude that
the Australian experience shows that the
United States would be unable to attract
enough recruits on a voluntary basis if ener-
getic and efficient recruiting were combined
with competitive rates of pay.
Let me add one further point as to the
second question that I believe the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts raised, and that
is. have we any other evidence of any
other countries? Yes, we have. We have
very outstanding evidence in both Can-
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
ada and Great Britain, where they have
instituted this kind of system.
Mr. KENNEDY. How did the force
levels in Britain change over a period of
time after they adopted a voluntary
army? Have they increased; remained the
same, or been reduced?
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me respond to the
Senator's question with a quotation of
further facts from this report.:
The Canadian Armed Forces have always
been entirely voluntary except for the period.
from 1940 to early 1945. The Canadian forces
presently number slightly less than 100,000
men-
Mr. KENNEDY. 100,000 men?
Mr. HATFIELD. 100,000 men-
supported by an annual inflow of about
12,000 men.
So that is the situation as far as Can-
ada is concerned.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is not
suggesting that the fact that the Armed
Forces of Canada have been able to raise
100,000 men demonstrates that we can
have a voluntary army here with our
much broader military obligations.
Mr. HATFIELD. That was not the
question the Stsnator from Massachusetts
asked.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I was talking
about some kind of comparable experi-
ence. Because 100,000 men does not even
meet the present demand for troops in
Vietnam-
Mr. HATFIELD. Would the Senator
care to suggest some country that is com-
parable, in terms of the obligations we
maintain?
Mr. KENNEDY. No, but is there an
industrialized society that has to any
extent a force level, in terms of total pop-
ulation, which would be comparable to
the United States? Canada, quite clear-
ly, with 100,000 men, is not.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would say there is
no country comparable to the United
States as far as the requirements that
we have for military forces. Perhaps the
Senator would be willing to accept
Great Britain. But he is not going to
find any country that has the-require-
ments we have today for the mainte-
nance of a high manpower level in the
armed services, because of our inter-
national commitments and our interna-
tional involvements.
Mr. KENNEDY. All right.
Mr. HATFIELD. Consequently, the
Senator is asking a question for which
it is impossible to provide an answer.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I just questioned
using the example of Canada as a pos-
sible response to my question. I think
Great Britain may be a useful example
if the Senator would indicate to us what
their force levels were prior to the time
that they went to the volunteer army,
and what gradual reductions in force
levels have been experienced since the
transition to a volunteer army system.
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Because I do not think
anyone has demonstrated on this floor,
that we could get a volunteer army that
would reach even 2 million men, with
the kind of pay raise the Senator sug-
gests. I am questioning that point.
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me make the rec-
ord clear here, because I would not want
the Senator's implication to stand as a
fact. We have today a volunteer military
force of more than 2 million.
Mr. KENNEDY. But that is not com-
pletely accurate. Surely the Senator does
not mean to suggest that the 2 million
who volunteered were not influenced by
fear of the draft?
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator was not
here earlier to hear the very careful de-
scription we made, based upon these two
reports. If the Senator has other studies,
I shall be glad to study them, but these
two, one prepared by the Defense De-
partment and the other by the Gates
commission, have both indicated very
clearly that in our Armed Forces today
there are between 2 million and 2.25 mil-
lion true volunteers, of which 1.25 mil-
lion are men beyond their first tour of
duty.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator has
the figures. I do not have them handy.
Does he have the Marshall Commission
figures on this particular question?
Mr. HATFIELD. No. I have studies
more recent than the Marshall Commis-
sion report. The Marshall report was in
1966.
Mr. KENNEDY. But did not the De-
fense Department study you refer to pre-
cede the Marshall Commission?
Mr. HATFIELD. 1966 was the Mar-
shall report, and we are now dealing with
the report of 1970. But I might say that
the Gates Commission report is based
upon the Defense Department's own
study figures.
Mr. KENNEDY. All I mean to say is
that the Marshall Commission looked
into this very question as well; and, their
report being one of the basic documents,
I was wondering whether the Senator
had the results of that report.
Mr. HATFIELD. I do not have the
Marshall report here. I have later re-
ports. I do not have the Marshall report
in its total form, but I do have these fig-
ures from the Marshall Commission re-
port.? They set their base at 2.65 million
men and estimate that it would cost be-
tween $4 and $7 billion. The Gates Com-
mission concludes that $2.12 billion
would be needed to expend annually for
a stable force of 2.5 million.
So when we raise these reports, we
have to determine the base we are start-
ing from, because we have different
bases from different studies.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure the Senator
from Oregon will say that we are just as
justified in relying upon the Marshall
Commission report, with their estimates,
as we are on the Gates Commission
report.
Mr. HATFIELD. No, I would not say
that; because the Gates Commission re-
port is a more recent report. I think it
probably represents a more thorough ap-
proach and study than does the Mar-
shall report.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is really a ques-
tion-of personal subjective judgment, I
am sure. As a matter of fact, it seems
to me, in looking through the Gates Com-
mission report, that there was a-good
deal of reliance upon many of the find-
ings of the Marshall Commission report.
Mr. HATFIELD. I think it is quite
obvious that all these commissions are
required to use certain basic data that
would be similar to all of them.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
But if the manpower level were going
to be 2.6 million, does the Senator ques-
tion the Marshall Commission report
about the cost of a voluntary army?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Let me just point
out one or two things about the Marshall
Commission. They did not estimate the
recruitment short fall and the elasticity
of supply correctly. Consequently, their
pay projections, I believe, can be con-
sidered as less than totally accurate.
Using the $17 billion figure-let us take
that as a point-a first-term enlistee
would receive $13,045 annually.
Consequently, I think we are dealing
here with quite a range of calculations
that makes the Marshall report less re-
liable, in my opinion, than the Gates re-
port, which sets a pretty clear base upon
which they make their calculations.
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand--I
wish the Senator would correct me if I
am wrong-this $17 billion figure was de-
veloped in the Defense Department study
report. Am I not correct? It was de-
veloped by a distinguished citizen of the
Senator's State, as I recall-Dr. 01.
Mr. HATFIELD. Dr. Oi, from the State
of Washington, the University of Wash-
ington.
Mr. KENNEDY. Those figures were
propounded by the Defense Department
not the Marshall Commission report. But
in any event, both studies run contrary
to the recommendations that were made
to the Gates Commission. The Senator
would agree with me on that, would he
not?
Mr. HATFIELD. The only thing I
would agree with is that all these reports
are using certain basic DOD data, and
each commission, I suppose, has a certain
approach to its assignment and perhaps
certain preliminary or prior commit-
ments or convictions.
I should like to take note of one inter-
esting thing on this point. Within the
knowledgment that the members who
came together to serve on the commission
came together with certain prior view-
points. Yet, as they moved into the data
and made their evaluations and studies,
it was a unanimous report.
Consequently, I think that one has to
say that any commission is going to start
its assignment with certain prior com-
mitments, convictions, or viewpoints.
But the important thing is that as these
commissions made their studies and
came forth with their recommendations,
there is the widest range of representa-
tion on the, Gates Commission, that a far
more in-depth program was undertaken
by the Gates Commission. Therefore, I
would say that because of its more recent
date, 1970, we are dealing with much
more current viewpoints as it relates to
our national commitments and interna-
tional commitments.
I am not saying that one has to pick
one report over the other. They all have
made their contribution. I am saying
that I would like to pick the latest find-
ings, the latest commission study, be-
cause I think it is far more current.
I should like to point out one thing
further to the Senator from Massachu-
setts. The Marshall Commission was not
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE l tt,y tc t 20, 1970
concentrating, was not focused, upon the
issue of the voluntary military. The
Gates Commission was specifically study-
ine that particular issue.
Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator point-
ed out earlier, the Gates Commission
was appointed by the President and
realized that the President had made
certain statements during the course of
the campaign on the desirability of a
volunteer army. I am not prepared to
suggest that the Gates Commission was
either required or forced to come out
with an endorsement of the volunteer
Army; but, as the Senator pointed out
quite clearly, these commissions started
off from different points of view.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would point out to
the Senator from Massachusetts that
both the Marshall Commission and the
Gates Commission did have some con-
tinuity or similarity of staff people, so
there was some relationship between
these commissions.
Mr. KENNEDY. I take the Senator's
word for that. I was rather interested
in the Senator's comments yesterday-
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me comment be-
fore that, if the Senator will permit me
to interrupt, on the last implication. that
the President had made certain state-
ments in the campaign, the implication
being that perhaps the commission might
reflect those statements of the President.
I think it is amply clear that the
President, Mr. Nixon, has appointed a
number of commissions: and, as one re-
views some of these commissions. it cer-
tainly has not followed that they have
reflected the prior statements of the
President. I would only cite one as an
example this morning, and that is the
commission studying pornography.
The preliminary-or at least, the an-
nounced-findings thus far of that com-
mission certainly do not reflect the prior
statements of the President of the United
States. Therefore, I would not want the
record to show that there was any im-
plication here that the President's prior
statements would have had that kind of
effect upon a commission studying the
voluntary military.
Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator pointed
out, the Gates Commission was estab-
lished to get into the question of the
volunteer army, its prospects, and was
directed toward that particular ques-
tion, as I recall, rather than toward mak-
ing a broad and general survey of how
to eliminate the inequities in the present
draft system. including the question of
a volunteer army, which was the charge
of the Marshall Commission.
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me point out
a rain that it was very clearly indicated
that all those who had been appointed to
this commission by President Nixon did
not have common agreement as to their
tfewpoint at the time of their appoint-
~nent, so it was not as though we had a
at:+cked commission.
Mr. IIENNEDY. I was interested in the
nator's continents yesterday about the
ability to raise the armed forces that
will be necessary through the volunteer
systemn. The Senator quoted several mili-
tary leaders as being authorities on this
point.
I am wondering whether the Senator
has had the kind of experience I have
had in going around to colleges and
universities and asking the young people
how many of them would actually vol-
unteer for the Armed Forces. I recall a
comment by the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina in which he said
that he has done that at nine or 10 uni-
versities and has a volunteer army of
about seven and a half. He said that at
one college a fellow put up about half an
arm.
I am wondering what the Senator
could add to the consideration of this
question from the impressions he has
gathered from his travels to universities
and colleges.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to
share my experiences which now total
close to 200 campuses I have visited in
ttho past 21z years discussing this sub-
Jeet, not in each and every Instance, but
on a goodly number of campuses.
I have found. one, that the young
people of this country today overwhelm-
inely-I do not now include any minor-
ity, hard-core revolutionary groups-I
am talking about the overwhelming num-
ber of university students today-have
great, great desire to experience in their
lifetime an opportunity to make a ma-
jor contribution to their country.
in other words, I find no overwhelm-
ing desire to shrink from a responsibility
to one's country among our student pop-
ulation.
I think they feel that service to one's
country is not looked upon as being ex-
clusively carried out or performed in a
military uniform.
I find that students today are inter-
preting service to their country to mean
people, not just geography, national
boundaries, or a national state. They see
it as their fellow man. There is a certain
universality in their philosophy about
their fellow man, in all parts of the
world. This has proved true by their re-
sponse to the Peace Corps, VISTA, and
other such programs.
Two, I find that the students today
evidence a growing concern about the
coercive element in our society, the kind
of regimentation, the kind of authoritar-
ianism which they feel Government pol-
icy represents and In the civilian sector,
r,-jetting certain military requirements
such as the draft represents.
I think, too, when we look at the at-
titude of the student toward the miii-
tary today, we cannot divorce that from
their attitude toward Southeast Asia and
the war in which we find ourselves. That
particular point is hard to distinguish
because it is so interrelated. But I am
sFving that a number of young peo , e
today are indicating support for a vol-
unteer military.
Let me give the Senator the range. We
have men like Sam Brown and Dave
Hawk who were active in organizing the
moratorium program. They might be
considered as being of a different philo-
sophical persuasion than the YAF which
Is the Young Americans for Freedom.
They have all endorsed this amendment.
In other words. here is a broad range of
what we would call, without labels, lib-
eral to conservative, and we should also
consider men like Roy Wilkins, and
Ralph Abernathy who are certainly in
touch with the members of the black
community, and the YMCA, whist is an-
other representation of today's youth.
all of whom endorse this proposal. So, if
I were to respond in a general, ore-sen-
tence statement. I would say:
I find overwhelming support for a vol-
untary system.
I want to emphasize strongly. how-
ever, that I do not ascribe to our young
people today any lack of patriotism or
lack of desire to serve their country. I
think there is great danger, when we say
on the one hand that the young people
do not want to Join the military and,
through implication. that they do not
sense a responsibility to their country.
When we look at the ROTC programs
on many of the campuses where I have
visited, those programs are filled. I find
that in the applications coming to my of-
fice for appointments to the Army. Navy,
and the Air Forc- Academies, the young
men from my State who are applying
represent young men such as student
body presidents, captains of football
teams, and many top students academi-
cally. So that we will get the highest
caliber of young men out of high school
in Oregon today who are applying,
through my office, to the service acad-
emies.
Thus, in every way that I can measure
it. I believe that the young people of
this country will perform their duty to
their country at any time their country
has a requirement for them. I have that
kind of confidence in the students of
today.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am wondering
whether the Senator has had an oppor-
tunity to ask young people, when he
goes to these college and university cam-
puses, how many of them would volun-
teer.
I have yet to find even a small minor-
ity in the schools, colleges, and univer-
sities that I have had a chance to visit
showing any enthusiasm. Everyone
seems to be for a volunteer army. but
I think the fundamental question as, how
many young people who go to college will
actually volunteer?
With all respect to the Gates Com-
mission report, and to General Gruen-
ther's experience in recruiting, the at-
titudes of students in the schools, col-
leges, and universities today, attitudes
I know the Senator must be very much
aware of, have led me to the very strong
feeling that we would not be able to get
many college students in a volunteer
army.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. I
should like to comment further on the
question the Senator from Massachu-
setts poses to university students by
asking them how many would volunteer.
I do not really think one could expect
to get much in the way of results from
that kind of question. Of course, I accept
the Senator's report this morning. But
let me remind the Senator from Massa-
chusetts that only 8 percent of the draft
manpower pool are being conscripted.
Thus, we are dealing with a hypotheti-
cal attitude. How could any young man
answer that question if he is not looking
forward to a career in the military?
Only 8 percent are being drafted.
Therefore, there is no volunteer system
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
today as it relates to those in the draft
manpower pool. That is, they are all
subject to the draft. I do not think we
can make this measurement, or give
them an alternative, until there is a vi-
able alternative to ask them that ques-
tion.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is as-
suming, correctly, that university stu-
dents are sufficiently intelligent and
aware of what a volunteer army is. They
are probably better briefed on the ques-
tion of a voluntary army than many
Members of this body. They know that
a voluntary army would mean in terms
of payments, in terms of, perhaps, an
increase in educational opportunity. But
I really challenge the Senator to find
out how many young people-especially
those going to college-will volunteer.
I had the opportunity to do so in my
own State. It has been extraordinary to
find such an unenthusiastic response. At
first, when I asked the question, there
was a sprinkling of hands of people who
would volunteer, but today this is vir-
tually nonexistent.
Mr. HATFIELD. Does the Senator
purport to represent this as some kind
of scientific poll?
Mr. KENNEDY. No. But I asked the
question enough times to convince me
that there was not much interest in the
military. i think my experience would
convince any open-minded Senator that
volunteers for a volunteer army are
just not there from any of the universi-
ties, colleges, vocational trade schools
that he might mention. I do not ques-
tion that, perhaps, in some of our urban
The thing that I do not doubt is that
I can go to places in my own State, in
the lowest income areas, and offer the
kind of pay which is suggested iii the
amendment of the Senator and come up
with some individuals who will volun-
teer because they are being denied an
opportunity to participate in our society
in a meaningful way. The armed forces;
in their judgment, offers them the only
opportunity t% fulfill their desires. I do
not question that.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me
ask if the Senator will yield for a ques-
tion. Is the, Senator in support or in
opposition to a comparable pay program
for the military serviceman?
Does the Senator feel that we have
a comparable pay situation today?
Mr. KENNEDY. I do not think we
have a comparable pay situation.
Mr. HATFIELD. Would the Senator
support a pay increase, particularly for
enlisted people, at this time?
Mr. KENNEDY. A modest pay in-
crease, yes; but not in the Senator's
figures. I would support a modest pay in-
crease. Probably it would not be com-
parable pay.
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is for a
modest pay increase but not for com-
parable pay.
Mr. KENNEDY. A modest increase;
that is correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. Is the Senator aware
that we have at least 12,500 military
personnel receiving welfare checks today
because they qualify under welfare
status?
Mr. KENNEDY. I was aware that there
wer
e some; yes.
or in Alaskan native villages, where the
young people have never been beyond agree Mr. that this is HATFIELD. Does the something Senator not
the fences of their own homes or reser- that needs
Va.tinna - _-1A a-_ ._ ___ to be done?
tion of priorities with our budgetary Point out that on page 4, line 1
and there would be some volunteers. I of the
problem ___ ,
one of my objections to a volunteer army I do not think a $3.2 billion military pay The President, the Secretary of Defense,
in of my o. Its op to wol ntee be to raise. has the highest priority. and the secretaries of the military depart-
less affluent Americans. The more for- Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let the menu shall exercise the authority vested in
tunate young men will not have to serve. reiterate what I think is something that them by law of the provide for nation the through a itary vod man-
we should keep before us. This amend- tsry needs of un-
Mr. HATFIELD. Does not the Sena- y program of enlistments.
tor realize that the average draftee is ment does not repeal the draft.
19 years old and a high school gradu- I think the colloquy on the inequity of And no matter how we say it, that is
ate? I mean, the Senator is developing the draft this morning has been a good a volunteer army.
a conscription system primarily from discussion. I have enjoyed it. But let us I do not question that we can get vol-
the same basis of what we think about not lose sight of the fact that the calla- unteers. But the kind of volunteers we
as student deferments. quy this morning on the elements of the have
will e get are those in d our in o ne sone w who
Mr. KENNEDY. I am opposed to stu- draft do not really concern us at this another been disadvantaged
will look Arm oy
y
dent deferments, moment in this amendment. as being their who will l means to etting
Mi. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the This amendment simply adds to the of a being and arhaps haps out
point is where are the draftees coming pay scale of those serving in our military hopeless situation. pe more
from today? Are they coming from the branches on the basis of affording com- I quite sincerely challenge my good
universities and colleges from which the parable pay. It goes beyond the modest friend, the Senator from Oregon, to in-
Senator from Massachusetts has not pay increase expressed by the Senator quire at the colleges and universities and
been able to get much of a response con- from Massachusetts.
cerning volunteering? Not at all. We are From the standpoint of those who co- athe community colleges of or
ny State. He will find there11I amasue,
talking about the high schools. That is sponsor the amendment, we believe that that the young people are for the volun-
where the average draftees comes from. the young men serving in the military to- tary army.
Mr. KENNEDY. The draft system, day ought to have comparable pay to
which I support, reaches across the that which they could otherwise earn in Iu ter, Ihow many Senator td
board. volunteer, think the Senator will find
civilian life. We think this is equitable. a much better indication of the senti-
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is cor- We do not think a man serving in the ment of these young people than the re-
rect. military should be
Mr. KENNEDY. I find a put basis port of the Gates Commission,
of with
paucity of second-class citizenship, . We e do o not think k due respect, and the findings of General
people in the high schools or in the we should say to him, "You don't have Gruenther. And he would perhaps un-
colleges or universities who say they will the right to comparable pay."
volunteer. Maybe the situation is differ- We who sponsor this amendment do hesi equities of an all volunteer army. ore fuly concern about
ent in the State of Oregon, But I seri- not, believe that is fair or equitable. We Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator
ously doubt it. do not believe that our ideals and our from Massachusetts. I would restate that
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
S 13799
concepts of Government should perpe-
trate this upon our young people.
I want to make it very clear that this
amendment will not decide the continua-
tion or lack of continuation of the draft.
If we agree to this amendment, we will
have almost a year, to answer some of
the questions that the Senator has raised
to his satisfaction and permit him then
to support negative action or lack of ac-
tion to permit the draft to expire.
This is the purpose of those of us who
cosponsor the amendment. We will have
almost a year in which to see whether
we can recruit men and get a sufficient
number on the basis of increased pay to
have a volunteer army or military. But
we cannot transfer from one system to
another without a realistic transition
period.
That is why we have offered the
amendment today. I appreciate the com-
ments from the Senator from Massa-
chusetts, because he and I have dis-
cussed this matter before. I respect his
viewpoint.
I feel that we are working for the
same objectives. I feel that our differ-
ences perhaps are on the basis of proce-
dures by which to accomplish those ob-
jectives.
Let me say again that this amendment
in no way commits Congress to action
either by extending the draft or by doing
nothing and permitting it to expire.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if we
are talking about comparability or pay
increases, this is something else again
I
.
think all of us want to do justice to
those who are being called to serve in
the Armed Forces. But, as I said, I think
we have to balance that against other
kinds of economic needs.
 `.,13800
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE August 20, 19;'0
I think we are dealing with a very un- outside the military, there have been con-
realistic hypothesis when we try to take ditlons growing over a period of time
a poll or make some kind of a survey as which have denied certain people in this
to how many college or university stu- country the same rights to achieve and
dents will volunteer for military service progress as other people. But must we
when that is not the source from which put that responsibility upon the military
we derive our inductees and draftees. -procurement program we adopt in this
-1 hey are not coming from the colleges country? I believe the Senator has been
and universities. They are coming from a leader in attempting to rectify this sit-
the high schools. uation, and I have indicated my involve-
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is not ment in trying to change..the condition
accurate in that statement. With the in this country. We have made a corn
abolition of graduate student and oc- mitment to the poor and the black in
cupational deferments the random selee- this country that we are going to pro-
tion system is more and more applying vide them with equal opportunity.
to all young men. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will
Mr. HATFIELD. Let me point out say to my dear friend from Oregon that I
again that when the Senator speaks of will be the first person to support the
random selection he is dealing with a volunteer army when we rectify those
manpower pool of 12 million. inequitable conditions. When we elimi-
Mr. KENNEDY. But the draft is be- nate these conditions, I will be the first
ginning to assume that out of those 12 to support the volunteer army.
million, college students serve as well as Mr. HATFIELD. I hope the Senator
others. does not forget that the enlistment rates
Mr. HATFIELD. I am sure the Senator for those below the poverty line and for
from Massachusetts would agree that we blacks are approximately the same Ir-
are not drawing from college students respective of the method of recruitment.
proportionately in relation to the induc- In other words, what difference does it
tees we take into the draft each year. The make at this point whether a black or a
fact remains we still have from that Poor person thinks he has a better op-litary group of people he referred to rates of or iunhtgr if
ghe oes reater status, Into income, miand dig to
enlistment of true volunteers.
Mr. KENNEDY. But surely college stu- nity under a draft system rather than a
dents will not volunteer even nearly as voluntary system?
much as men from the lower income Mr. KENNEDY. The question is wheth-
-der a volunteer army system all
u
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Oregon yield for a moment
or two so that a colloquy may ensue at
this point? I hate to bring this spirited
debate to an end. It has been very inter-
esting and helpful.
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.
groups. cr
Mr. HATFIELD. But let me remind the who serve will be poor. I think they will
distinguished Senator from Massachu- be and I object to the volunteer army
setts that when he talks about this for that reason.
r.ruup, we might take the blacks as one Mr. HATFIELD. I suggest two things:
such disadvantaged group in this coun- Reenlistment rates of whites are sub-
trv. We have 11.7 percent in the Army stantial today under a draft system.
through the draft program and enlist- Therefore. I think while we hope to es-
nient program. At the same time- tablish a purely volunteer system, the
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator reenlistment rates would be greater be-
tell me the reenlistment rates for blacks cause there would be more adequate
in Vietnam'' comparable pay. Second, because there
Mr. HATFIELD. I have the overall re- has been a denial of lack of opportunity
enlistment rates, for those in our civilian society, let us
Mr. KENNEDY. Would my good friend not thrust on the military program 'the
tell me the reenlistment rates for blacks responsibility for that inequity in our
in combat divisions in Vietnam? : ocaety. We in Congress must move and
Mr. HATFIELD. First I would like to do our job and maintain our responsi-
finish my thought. The ratio of blacks bility to correct those inequities. But I
to the total population is about 12 per- do not think we should put the onus for
cent; so we have comparability with those inequities upon the military and
indicate it is their responsibility by some
those who are serving as volunteers,
.
implication
forced volunteers, or inductees. That is I would like to. quote one other state- this afternoon but it could not because
the point we should keep in mind. from the Gates Commission re- of developments over which therm was
Mr. KENNEDY. The point I would ment port. The Senator was concerned about no control and which came up overnight_
like to keep in mind is the rate of re- whether we would be able to maintain Therefore, to the best of my knowledge,
enlistment in combat divisions In Viet- our volunteer rates with the war and all we will have at least one amendment to
tam. There are twice as many among that is going on now. Under the Depart- be voted on this afternoon, and maybe
the minority groups. In the 1st Cavalry ment of Defense study, the Gates Com- another one. There will be three tomor-
I believe. 42 percent of the reenlistments mission, which drew from those studies, row. When disposed of, the Senate will
were black. The reason is they get adds- it is indicated we have the same number take up the public works appropriation
tional pay for jump pay or combat pay. of volunteers today as before the Viet-bill,
The Question we have to decide is nam war.
t; iiether the volunteer army will be made
no solely of the poor people in this coun-
try. the people who are denied the op-
portunity for economic or other reasons,
of going to school or college and getting
good jobs.
Mr. HATFIELD. I think the Senator
has put his finger on probably the most
fundamental point of all. The Senator
pointed to the fact that in this country.
PROGRAM-UNANIMOUS-CONSENT
AGREEMENT
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished majority leader is in the
Chamber and I would like to ask him if
he would enlighten the membership con-
certing the program for the remainder
of the day and the week, if possible.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, Indeed. I am
glad to respond to the acting minority
leader. I am delighted the chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services Is in
the Chamber. This request has been
agreed to by the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), the dis-
tinguished Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
FULBRIGHT ~ , and the distinguished mi-
nority leader (Mr. SCOTT).
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that on amendment 813 there be a
time limitation of not to exceed 1 hour,
the time to be equally divided between
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STEN-
Nrs). the manager of the bill, and the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FuL-
BRIGHT), the sponsor of the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is there objection?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
not object. I think we can get through
with that amendment and dispose of it
today.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would imagine
there will be a vote on that amendment,
although what the outcome will be I do
not know.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there
is a possibility that a second Fulbright
amendment may be called up but we will
have to wait to see what happens.
Tomorrow the distinguished Senator
from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) will offer an
amendment under a 1-hour time limita-
tion, as, hopefully, will the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. B.. vH) and the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. TYOrxcs).
After those amendments have been
disposed of it is the intention of the joint
Ieadership to call up Calendar No. 1129,
HR. 18127, an act making appropriations
for public works, and so forth. That is
the public works appropriation bill and
there will be time available in which to
consider it. The leadership gave serious
consideration to calling up that measure
Mr. GRIFP LN. I thank the ms jority
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Senator
from Oregon for yielding.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
ask ethat the unanimous consent be held
up for the time being?
Mr. STENNIS. With respect to amend-
ment 813? No, I do not.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9 -
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 13801
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- the minority leader, and I discussed this period of testing and experience, to see
pore. Without objection, the request is matter yesterday. We stood ready for a how people respond to it. That is why I
agreed to. time agreement and we
ORDER FOR RECESS TO TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield further, I ask unani-
mous consent that when the Senate com-
pletes its business today, it stand, in re-
cess until 9:30. a.m. tomorrow.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(Later in the day this order was modi-
fied to provide for a recess to 9 a.m. to-
morrow.)
move on a time agreementrbut it wa thMr.1DOLE. Let me say to the Senator
not satisfactory to the chairman of the from Oregon that I agree largely in his
Armed Services Committee. response. There appears to be a very
So I can only give the Senator a gen- serious question, however, whether there
eral estimate, and that is that even may be a gap between the effective date
though we stand ready now for a time of this legislation and the expiration of
limitation, it provides that the amend- the Selective Service Act, assuming that
ment will not be laid before the Senate act were not extended.
before Monday, and a vote had not be- I am only suggesting a possibility that
fore Tuesday, or perhaps even Wednes- might bring together some with differing
day. views, whereby the amendment would be
Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield implemented, when determined by the
further, one question raised in the col- President as Commander in Chief to be
loquy yesterday between th
i
ti
e d
s
n- in the national interest.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF guished Senator from Oregon and the The President, whoever he may be, is
SENATOR JAVITS TOMORROW distinguished Senator from Missisippi the Commander in Chief of the armed
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. PI ask was with reference to the possible effec- services and of course has a direct in-
unanim MANSFIELD. tPresident, after resi the Jour- tive date and whether or not adoption terest.
unl im u consent that ha and the boor- of the amendment would amount to re- I would also point out, as the Senator
jetted as been
on the calendar have been peal of the Draft Act. Speculating with from Oregon knows, that President
disposed te, the hetcalend rd Senator the Senator from Oregon on the possi- Nixon, should he be the President, is a
from New York (Mr. nguish be ector bility of arriving at a compromise, if the strong supporter of the all-volunteer-
from for n r exceed 20 minutes. amendment of the Senator from Oregon Army concept. We have a President who
The ACTING Ppro tern- were effective when the President deter- supports the concept, but who questions
pore. Without objection; it PRESIDENT
so ordered. mined it was in the national interest, when it should be implemented.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And that so con could the apparent conflict he avoided I am simply raising that possibility in at t elusion of his remarks the Senate then
between those opposed to an all-volun- an effort to reach some accommodation.
return to the pending business. teer army for that reason and those of Mr. HATFIELD. May l respond to the
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- who now support the all-volunteer army Senator from Kansas that I appreciate
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. proposal. his idea of getting support for the basic
Mr. HATFIELD In
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (H.R. 1749) for the relief of
Eagle Lake Timber Co., a Partnership, of
Susanville, Calif., and it was signed by
the Acting President pro tempore (Mr.
ALLEN).
sonse to the commitment we in common, which
Senator from Arkansas, a
t the present is an all-volnteeraarmed force. I would
time, under the wording of the amend- point out that the Senate is going to have
ment, it would be implemented on the to make a decision on the question of the
first calendar month following enact- draft before the next presidential elec-
ment as far as the pay increase is con- tion. In other words, I think we can
cerned. I would like to emphasize again, pretty well depend, with God's protec-
as the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD- tion and grace, that Mr. Nixon will make
WATER) emphasized this morning, the the decision on implementing this meas-
amendment
ae
action on the draft, which is due now and
L, is to be 1 , June 1971.p0 herwise,bif it is
to expire June 30, 1971. It in no way not implemented at this point, we are
commits the Senate to that question. it going to be faced with the probability of
commits the Senate only to an implemen- having to extend the draft, come next
tation of a pa
inc
y
rease, which would be June, for at least another year, and
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA- comparable pay to civilian employment, maybe two. Whatever the length of time,
TIONS FOR MILITARY PROCURE- or an approximately 60 percent increase we will be faced with that reality.
MENT AND OTHER PURPOSES for the enlisted rates and an approxi- That is why I feel the sooner we can
The Senate continued with the con- mately 25 percent increase for junior offiimplement this proposal, the sooner we
sideration of the bill (H.R. 17123) to cers. can get perhaps a more accurate base
authorize ao theiations (H.R. 1 the fit- Therefore, we do not really confront on which to determine whether this Na-
authorize 1971 far pons during nt of air- the question of the expiration or of ac- tion is ready at this moment for an all-
cal year 1971 for rcsre, and tracked tion on the draft. volunteer armed force, based on whether , missiles combat vehicles, and other weapons, and Second, let me point out that it is the we can get the needed manpower. We will
development, other
and weapons, and very intention of those of us who have have that amount of time and have that
research, tde Armed Forces, and v t pre- been cosponsoring this proposal that it experience in order to make that kind of tion for scribe the authorized personnel an strength s a step toward an all-volunteer mili- judgment in June. We will have alter-
ofthe SReserve each treve tary. The Senator from Kansas, who natives. We will not be faced with only
of the Selected t the Armed Forces, and for holds the Purple Heart and many other having to extend the draft for another
come purposes, awards for distinguished military serv- year or another 2 years,--which would be
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ice, realizes that every program for re- about the only alternative as I see it, at
Chair recognizes the OFFICER. from cruitment cannot be cranked up 1 day that time.
Chairm cog HATFIELD) , after the expiration of an existing system Mr. DOLE. There is a great deal of
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Son- on the previous day. Therefore, there merit in bringing up the amendment at
afro yield? must be some sort of transition period, this time as we should move forward. I understand there have been full
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield, 1971,
We feel almost aa year from now, we would and complete hearings but Ioam real is-
Mr. DOLE. First, as a cosponsor of have ample time to make a judgment and tic and knowing that hearings might be
the amendment, i wish to comend the an evaluation of whether or not recruit- held, but that no bill would be reported
distinguished Senator from Oregon for ments and enlistments were increasing to the Senate.
his continuing leadership with reference sufficiently to meet our needs, whatever So this is an opportunity to present
to the all-volunteer Army proposal. For those needs may be at that time. There- the amendment and at least discuss the
my information, does' the Senator from fore, we avoid the kind of problem that pros and cons. If we can assure the Amer-
amen
Oregon know at this time when the would occur if we tried to throw out ican people, young and old, that there
Mr. . The chairman of the the next day. dment might be considered. one system one day and start another will be no gap, I will be a great ste
forward.
Armed Servic sLComittee, the Senator syThat is why we feel it so important to ' Mr. HATFIELD.I think that the Sen-
from Mississippi, the majority leader, implement this new effort, to get that ator, here again, has raised a most valid
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9 '
S 13802
CONGRESSIONAL
point, and one that the record should
certainly show, clear and unencumbered
d
and that
any confused language.
b
y
that we are doing this at this time In
order to avoid a gap, and this is what I
believe to be at least the best insurance
,vc could get against just, that one thing,
the gap that the Senator refers to.
If we implement this at this time un-
der this pay increase, the cost question
has been raised. that the cost is such
today that if we cranked the whole thing
down to zero inductions, we would be
:avinq about $3 billion, according to the
best figures we can get from Gates Com-
niissiOn. This Commission has indicated
about a $3.2 billion cost under the vari-
ous components and the pay progrrattl,
and rather than an added-on figure, I
think it could be shown that, after a
transition period, we would be trading
one figure for another: that is, the $3
billion it would cost us for the draft as
opposed to $3 billion for an all-volun-
teer system. But, in addition, we would be
getting far more for our money, be-
cause we are going to have less turnover
than with our inductees today, and the
military services are going to require
fewer men for training programs and
training stations, who can then be re-
assigned to other functions.
So I think there are many savings that
could be effected by an all-volunteer sys-
tem. The Senator from Arizona said this
morning he believed we would actually
save money, with less outlay than we
have today under the conscription sys-
tem.
Mr. DOLE. As I understand, only about
7 percent of the young men drafted now
stay in the Armed Forces beyond their
ear obligation. According to the Gates
2-
y
Commission there would be very little
difference in the cost question. which
would mean, with the lower turnover, as
the Senator from Oregon has pointed
out, less expenditures for training. You
start with the same number, but they re-
main longer under the volunteer con-
cept.
Perhaps the senior Senator from Mas-
sachusetts raised a valid question. I have
asked it, number of college students about
the voluntary army, and find a great
many are for it, because they do not
plan to volunteer. But this is a fact of
life. Many of these same young students
are now in college because of a draft
deferment, so they are in a sanctuary,
in any event.
The idea is to get away from peace-
time conscription, which may not be in-
voluntary servitude, but something close
to it. So the concept, so far tai I am
concerned, is sound. There will be in-
equities, but in an effort to answer some
of the objections, I have prepared a list
of a number of questions and then have
tried to provide appropriate responses.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD at this point some of the
usual objections raised to the all-volun-
teer army concept, together with some
of the responses to those arguments.
There being no objection, the objec-
tions and responses were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
RECORD- SENATE August 20, 1:770
A) P R.B.yPONti/'&--VOLUNTKYA
A" Y
1. cosy
One objection often registered against the
all-volunteer army is that it is simply too
expansive.
Responses
(1) The President's Commt$Sion On An
Ail-Volunteer Armed Force (The Gates Com-
mis=tun) has estimated that the cost of the
program, if it is initiated in fiscal 1971,
would be $3.24 billion.
(21 But this figure does not take into
ace,unt savings due to reductions in per-
sor;nel turnover. As the Gates Commission
Rep?:rrt noted: "When force levels are atabi-
11ztect, the additional expenditures needed
in the transition to a voluntary force will
be partly offset by savings engendered
through lower turnover and a reduction in
the number of persons in training status."-
Other authorities have .......... ..
these savings: to order men into uniform rather than re-
!si "Lower turnover means that fewer re- crusting them. But I believe our military
crafts must be trained. producing consider- needs in the future will place a special
able cost savings since at present there is premium on the services of career 2t, d ors."
nearly one trainer for each trainee."-Walter Congresional Rcc_'rd, January 1969,
cf
l
ege
s1434.
Y (A. professor of economies, Col
B'i'tness Administration. University of r_r. rL.ectt AND POOR PEOPLE
R,rhester in Current History. July, 1968-
I b) " . At the present time, only about
7 percent of the young men drafted stay in
the Armed Forces beyond their 2-year obliga-
ti ;.n
-This high turnover rate causes many of
the services' most experienced personnel to
be tied down In training new recruits. Today,
se-:en out of every 10 men in the Army have
lets than 2 years military experience. As one
Pe-.tenon military official has noted:
'As soon as we are able to operate as a
u- I'. the trained men leave and we have to
wart, all over again.' "-Senator Hatfield on
t.ite Senate floor, January 22, 1969, 61432.
c) "The essential wisdom of the American
s"heme of allocating its resources through
voluntary mechanisms rather than through
government management needs to be ex-
tended to this Important area of human
rc'snurces where the costs of tmi~aocatiion
productive
rte measured in years,
portent years. of hundreds of thousands of
c.ur citizens."-Scholars Committee on Selec-
tive Service Report to President S. S. Pitzer
page 12.
University
,
H snfortl
iii "livery young man who has served in category. The Gates Commission provided
i awned forces knows the incredible waste some statistics: "The proportion of backs be-
of our persent system of forced but short- low the poverty line In 1967 was 38 per-
,,-m service. He knows the money that could cent while only 11 percent of whiter, were in
e raved the new efficiency that could re- the same category. But, in absolute numbers
uit from a volunteer system which calls on more than twice as many whites (17.6 mil-
::)uiig men ear to endure two years of service lion, as blacks (8.3 million) were below the
':,ciao: a they have to, but to choose it for poverty line"-page 142.
a Z .uger period because It offers 'advantages (2) When we look at true volunteers nn-
der the present system, we do not find a dis-
hal seem to them appealing "-Adial E. Ste-
true
d
"A
on
As Sir. Nixon pointed out in a spcch of
October 17, 1968:
"Conscription was an efficient mechanism
for raising the ma-sive land armies of past
volunteer army would attract a dispropor-
tionate number of poor people, especially
blacks, thus leaving the burden of national
defense pr.m..rily on them.
Rc:-ponscs-Poor people
(1) It is unfair to criticize the all-volun-
teer army because it might, in increasing
salaries to improve the force, attract those
who are presently unable to earn his.titer sal-
aries elsewhere. It is not the all-volunteer
army which is to be blamed; rather we
should take further steps to insure that good
paying jobs become available throughout so-
ciety.
(2) There are some jobs in soviet;; which
are often con=idered to be unattractive and
often dangerous. But no one considers that
employees to be exploited, since th take
the job voluntarily and receive adequate remuneration.
Re,pcit es-Block people
(1) No matter where the poverty line is
drawn. there will always be a greater num-
g
m
, Commission commented:
her 18. 1956. In the Congressional Recor
January 22, 1989.81437. unteers. blacks are now serving in tine armed
rtion to their
-
n. iILexIBILLTY
s me opponents argue that an all-volun-
teer army would undermine our military
flexibility.
(A) An a11-volunteer army would not pro-
, ids ua suf [dent military manpower. The
volunteer conc.pt simply cannot work.
(B) Given time the concept will work. but
not under present circumstances. We need
a more gradual phase-out of the draft.
Responses
(1) In case of a national emergency, the
President will have authority under the Hat-
field amendment to request a standby draft
by a joint resolution of Congre~ . 11 the Gates
Is clear, Congress would re.?pa
Commission concluded: "T"he Commission
has recommended a standby draft which can
forces almost exactly in prop
numbers in the U.B. population"-page 144.
(3) It is physically impossible, just in
terms of numbers, for blacks to compose
the majority of the armed forces. Economist
Milton Friedman, writing in The New Guard,
noted: "It has been estimated that even if
every qualified Negro who does not now
serve were to serve, whites would still con-
stitute a substantial majority of the Armed
Forces."
(4) Two concluding remarks should be
made concerning blacks serving in the all-
volunteer army:
(a) Present advances that are being made
in providing equality for blacks should mean
that more economy. This ss will open ithe1lik likelihood
economymy. .
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
be put law effect promptl5? if circumstances
require mobili2attion of large numbers of
men, History shows that Congress has
quickly granted the authority to draft when
needed"-Page 13.
(2) The volunteer system could certainly
provide us the same number of men as we
employed before our involvement in Viet-
nam. The Gates Commission program is based
upon a force of 2-5 million men, roughly the
came figure (2.43 million men) as we main-
tained in the force before Vietnam.
(3) In fact, the all-volunteer force would
enhance, rs'her than undermine, the flexi-
bility of our military. The: guerrilla wars of
the 1960's and 70's require well-trained com-
pact units. as opp.,sed to the large masses
of men that c: ascription produced for our
World War II cammitments.
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
August 20, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
that blacks would turn to the army in dispro-
portionate numbers.
As Mark Hatfield commented: "As we ex-
pand the opportunities in the civilian job
sector, fewer black men will find the military
to be the most attractive road to higher eco-
nomic and social status, and this will tend to
place an effective ceiling on the proportion of
blacks who enlist."-speech reprinted in
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, April 3, 1969, 53592.
(b) The Gates Commission made the fol-
lowing prediction on the number of blacks
that would serve in the all-volunteer force:
"For the Army, we estimate that the pro-
portion of blacks will be 17 percent for the
mixed force and 19 percent for the volun-
tary force as compared to 12.8 percent in the
Army today."-page 15.
IV. MILITARISM
Opponents to the all-volunteer army may
argue that it would destroy the constitu-
tional and traditional subordination of the
military to the civilian sector. The expres-
sion often used in connection with this argu-
ment is "mercenary army," describing a
bloodthirsty force that kills for cash.
RESPONSES
(1) It is unrealistic to suggest that em-
ploying only volunteers at higher pay would
completely transform the military-civilian
relationship or that it would make drastic
changes in the motives of our men.
(a) "To suggest that men who enlist to
serve their country do so only for pay is to
demean the hundreds of thousands who
voluntarily serve today. More than half of all
the men in today's forces are true volun-
teers." The Gates Commission Report,
page 136.
(b) "A mercenary is a soldier of fortune-
one who fights for or against anyone for
pay. What we're talking about now is Amer-
lean soldiers, serving under the American
flag. We are talking about men who proudly
wear our country's uniform in defense of its
freedom. We're talking about the same kind
of citizen armed force America has had'ever
since it began, excepting only the period
when we have relied on the draft." Richard
Nixon, campaign speech, October 17, 1968.
(2) It should be noted that the only real
change in the composition of the army's
personnel will be in the lower ranks. The
higher echelons, which are composed of ca-
reer men anyway, are the ones who deter-
mined the, relationship of the military to the
civilian sector.
(a) "The'danger of military elitism comes
primarily from the officers who are, and al-
ways have been, professionals. The civilian
influence must be injected at the top-in
the office of the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air
Force, if we are to establish safeguards
against the dangers of a military clique or
class. The possible military threat to politi-
cal stability is largely unrelated to the sys-
tem used in recruiting enlisted men:"-Sen-
ator Hatfield, Congressional Record, April 29,
1969.
(b) "To the extent that a military force
endangers freedom and democracy, the dan-
ger comes from the higher ranks of commis-
sioned officers, all of whom are volunteers, as
are most of the lower ranks of officers and
all of the higher ranks of noncommissioned
officers. Using conscripts instead of volun-
teers in the lowest enlisted grades, and those
are the only ranks in which we use appreci-
able proportions of conscripts, is no protec-
tion-as was illustrated by recent coups in
Greece and South America."-W. Allen Wal-
lis, University of Rochester in Science, March
28, 1969.
V. THERE ARE SOME LESSER WORKABILITY
ARGUMENTS WHICH COULD BE ADVANCED
You should be aware of these:
(1) We, and specifically President Nixon,
could be taking steps now to enhance the
attractiveness of the military, short of
adopting an all-volunteer, system.
S 13803
(a) Senator Scott alluded to this on the by people who had chosen a military career
floor July 27, 1970: rather than at least partly by reluctant con-
He noted that President Nixon can and scripts anxious only to serve out their term.
should be "... gradually replacing those Aside from the effect on fighting spirie this
draftees who are presently serving in Viet- would produce a lower turnover in the armed
nam with volunteers . By sending only services, saving precious man-hours that are
volunteers to Vietnam to replace those sol- now wasted in training or being trained. It
diers whose tours of duty in Vietnam have would permit also intensive training and a
ended, the administration can take the lead. higher average level of skill of the men in the
It can visibly demonstrate that the volunteer service. And it would encourage the use of
concept Is a viable one." 512125 more and better equipment. A smaller, but
(b) "The President would like to reduce more highly skilled, technically competent,
the draft'gradually and to improve the qual- and better armed force could provide the
ity of the military services by increasing their same or greater military strength."-Milton
appeal. He has asked Secretary of Defense Friedman, The New Guard.
Mel Laird to prepare new programs that will (B) The Association of the U.S, Army
encours('ge men to re-enlist. (AUSA), which does not advocate a volun-
"Laird is ready to offer up to 10,000 new teem army, concluded nonetheless that "an
family units, educational opportunities for all-volunteer force should be a more efficient
servicemen who would like to study, and one."
various financial inducements. He is even
willing to abolish KP and hire civilians to do
the hated kitchen work."-Jack Anderson,
"Volunteer Army is Far in Future," The
Washington Post, March 27, 1970, page D-15.
(2) How can we possibly attract doctors
and other high-skill people since they can no
doubt always make better pay in the civilian
economy?
(3) Will all branches of the armed forces
receive the same pay? If so, won't everyone
seek to serve in areas or branches (Navy or
Air Force) which would entail the least direct
risk?
(4) We could end the Inequities of the
present draft system by ending deferments
and initiating a program of national service
for everyone. This would obviate the need
for the all-volunteer force.
Finally, we propose three reasons why the
draft should be replaced with an all-volun-
teer system:
(Note that counter-proposals, such as the
one above for National Service, would not
answer all these points.)
1. Conscription is the greatest enfringe-
ment of personal freedom in America today.
"We should recognize that (the draft) is
about the most odious form of Government
control we have yet accepted. We should not
forget that it is a basic violation of our tradi-
tions of freedom and individualism."-The
Wall Street Journal, March 1967 editorial.
If. The present draft is unfair and inequi-
table.
(A). Even under the lottery system, with
the risk supposedly spread equally, some
young men are forced to serve while others
are not.
"Any system which selects only some from
a pool of many will inevitably have some
elements of inequijy."-President Nixon in
his message to Congress, May 18, 1969.
(B) It is discriminatory within society as
a whole since those who are forced to serve
are burdened with a "hidden tax."
(1) "Whatever the extra amount, we are
paying a larger sum in concealed form. Con-
scription is a tax in kind-forced labor ex-
acted from the men who serve involuntarily
-Milton Friedman, "A Volunteer Army,"
Newsweek, Dec. 19, 1966.
(2) "We shift the cost of military service
from.the well-to-do taxpayer, who benefits
by lower taxes, to the impecunious young
draftee."-John Kenneth Galbraith, "The
Case for a Volunteer Army," Time, Jan. 10,
1969.
(3) "Men who are forced to serve in the
military at artificially law pay are actually
paying a form of tax which subsidizes those
in the society who do not serve. Furthermore,
the output of the civilian economy is re-
duced because more men serve in the military
than would be required for an all-volunteer
force of the same strength."-The Gates
Commission Report page 9.
III. It is infficient and real costs can be
reduced. Drafted men lack the desire and
intensive training that would exist under
the all-volunteer system.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I
should like to comment briefly on what
the Senator from Kansas has said, be-
cause I believe he is putting his finger
on a number of good points.
The idea that somehow the draft pro-
vides us with an across-the-board, more
equitable system of recruitment than an
all-volunteer system, merely because col-
lege and university students are not re-
sponding to a question as to whether they
are going to volunteer, if we carried that
logic to its conclusion, we would not
accept any volunteers in the military.
Mr. DOLE. That is very true. And a
great number of people would volunteer
as generals, but not many want to volun-
teer as privates. The Senator from Ore-
gon, the principal sponsor of the amend-
ment, understands that one way to at-
tract young men into the Army is
through realistic pay scales. Perhaps
some of those would be college students--
perhaps not any great number, but, as
the Senator knows, our induction rate is
very low. * now. Our draft calls will be
down to practically zero next year. In
fact, as Secretary Laird has already an-
nounced, I do not recall in which month,
but in one of the coming months the
draft call will be zero, because of volun-
teers and deescalation in South Vietnam.
The Senator gave the figure; was it
only 8 percent who are reenlisted, out of
the drafted manpower pool?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. So we are not discussing
any great departure. We are proposing
a realistic proposal that would make it
attractive for young men to enter the
service and to have some comparability
with those on the outside as far as pay
scales are concerned. That is the primary
thrust of the Senator's effort.
Mr. HATFIELD. That is correct.
Mr. DOLE. I do not believe it is a
radical departure. It is not an effort to
create some mercenary force; it is not an
effort to create an all-black army; it is
not an effort to create an army com-
posed only of poor people. I agree with
the Senator's earlier statement in that
we are going to have pretty much the
same black-white ratio we have now;
maybe a slight increase of blacks, but a
very slight increase.
The objections should be answered.
This is a serious question. It is a depar-
ture in some sense, but not the radical
departure many feel it is, because they
fail to understand the volunteer concept.
(A) "A volunteer army would be manned It has great merit, and I support it.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
 S 13804
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE Alt y it-st l0, Ii
Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the com-
ments of the able Senator from Kansas,
because here again I think we have to
realize, when the Senator speaks about
this not being a radical departure or an
innovative scheme that has not been
tried, that for 170 years of this Nation's
history, we relied completely, to provide
military services for this country, on a
volunteer system. For 170 years: this is
the first time in the history of this Na-
tion that we have tolerated peacetime
conscription.
The Senator knows the history of con-
scription in this country; it has been
used oniv in times of great emergency-
the Civil War, World War I, World War
11-and I think the fact is that we have
come to accept it as a way of life because
it is the easiest thing to do. and that we.
therefore, have not really attempted to
put into action a voluntary system,
which would be far more in keeping with
the history of this Nation than a con-
scription system-
I think when we look at Canada, Great
Britain. Australia, and the other coun-
tries of the Western World which have
relied upon a volunteer system and have
done so successfully, that it is certainly
a general indication: even though they
are not comparable at all to our country's
requirements and commitments, it cer-
tainly shows that other countries as well
as the United States have been success-
ful in the raising of armies and other
military branches on a volunteer system,
plus the fact that we, today, have a vol-
unteer program providing the military
manpower for the Marines, the Navy,
and the Air Force, and it is only the Army
for which we basically have to rely on
the draft for manpower.
I do not think we would have to do
that if we returned to the tradition of
this country by providing equitable pay.
I do not think it is fair for the men them-
selves to bear the cost of their own mili-
tary service. The taxpayers should pay
for the military requirements of this Na-
tion, and that is all the amendment pro-
poses.
One last word. President Nixon has
made it very clear, both in his campaign
and in the Republican Party platform
of 1968, as well as the Republican Party
platform of 1964, that this Nation, under
his leadership, is committed to an all-
volunteer army. -
Let us not read more into what the
President has said, or try to interpret
the President, because he has stated it
very clearly in a radio message he gave
to the American people during, the 1968
campaign. He predicated the timing of
this change on a diminished manpower
requirement in Vietnam. So I think it
ought to be very clear that we are not
claiming the President has endorsed his
particular amendment at this time: but
the President has stood very clearly and
firmly in support of the concept, as well
as both major political parties. Democrat
and Republican, in their party platforms.
Lastly. I think this gives the President
and Congress an opportunity to under-
take this through a reasonable transi-
tion, in a very responsible way, to see if
it will work; I for one believe it will, but
it certainly will have at least almost a
year to determine the validity of my
belief.
Mr. DOLE, I have the exact comment
that then candidate Nixon made on
October 17. 1968. He addressed himself
to the voluntary army concept and also
the objection it would be a mercenary
force. He said:
A mercenary is a soldier of fortune-one
who fights for or against anyone for pay.
What we're talking about now is American
so:ciaers, serving under the American flag.
We are talking about men who proudly wear
uu:r wuutry's uniform In defense of its free-
dc:ui. We're talking about the same kind of
Mv!:'en armed force America has had ever
sin.?e it began. excepting only the period
when we have relied on the draft.
I believe that is the statement that the
S, orator from Oregon had in mind.
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. The President made clear
without equivocation; that he supports
the all-volunteer army concept.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would say further,
in connection with the point about the
number of draftees serving in Vietnam,
which has been discussed this morning,
that we have the figures which indicate
that 88 percent of the infantry riflemen
in Vietnam are draftees; but under Pres-
ident Nixon's withdrawal projections,
they will have left by this time next
year-that is, those who are being with-
drawn-and we expect to have most of
those draftees out of Vietnam. As of
July 1, 1970, we find, computing the total
armed force strength in Vietnam, that
approximately 25 percent of them are
draftees.
So that we have, again, the basis of a
mixed force fighting in Vietnam. It is
not a matter of having all our draftees
there and our professionals or nondraft-
cc7 elsewhere.
'Mr. President, I look forward to the
continuation of this discussion, and I am
hopeful that the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services can-
Mr. EAGLE ON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield, with the understand-
in' that he will not lose his right to the
fie or?
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I will
vote against the Hatfield amendment to
create an all-volunteer Army.
The effects of this amendment would
be so far reaching that I feel it Is unwise
to lust tack it onto another bill without
full and extensive Senate committee
hearings.
I have several serious questions about
a volunteer Army which should be an-
swered in such hearings.
First, what will It cost? According to
the Department of Defense, it would cost
$4.3 billion, but some observers estimate
It could cost far more. When the budget
deficit for this fiscal year Is currently
estimated at over $10 billion-when there
are desperate needs In such areas as
education, health, housing, and the en-
vironment-I believe Congress must se-
riously study both the total cost of this
proposal and its priority as it relates
to other national needs.
Second. would a volunteer Army In-
crease the already substantial power
and influence of the military on Ameri-
can life?
Third, what effect would this amend-
ment have on the war in Vietnam? Al-
though I oppose the war in Vietnam
and am a cosponsor of the McGovern-
Hatfield amendment to end the war. the
effects of precipitately instituting an all-
volunteer Army in the midst of a war
need further and serious study.
Fourth, what are the alternatives? Al-
though the Gates Commission which
studied the volunteer Army concept re-
leased a report of over 200 page-, only
four were devoted to "Alternativek to an
All-Volunteer Force." I think possible
alternatives deserve more consideration
Fifth, is the push for an all-volunteer
Army a reaction to the tragic involve-
ment in Vietnam rather than a needed
and practicable reform? After all, in
peacetime we virtually have an all-vol-
unteer Army and in times of war some
type of draft will probably be necessary
anyway. What is really gained?
I believe questions such as these
should be explored in depth in legisla-
tive hearings and that it is not sufficient
to adopt such a far-reaching program by
the simple expedient of an amendment
to a bill on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. will the
Senator yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am very
much impressed, indeed, with the fine
analysis of this problem-the points in-
volved and the consequences of the adop-
tion of this amendment-put forth by
the Senator from Missouri. I thinir that
with his fine, analytical mind, he has
analyzed the matter clearly and has
made an excellent contribution io the
debate.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator
from Mississippi. And I thank the Sena-
tor from Oregon for yielding for this
purpose.
Mr. HATFIELD. I am not sosure that
I am glad I yielded at this point, but I am
happy to say that I appreciate very much
the questions raised by the Senator from
Missouri; because I think he has raised
not only valid questions but also ques-
tions that really go to the very heart of
this amendment, and for which we cer-
tainly feel we have the material and the
data to give response. I would like 0 have
the privilege of a copy of the Senator's
questions. They certainly deserve more
than an off-the-cuff response at this
point.
I think that by reading the colloquy
that took place this morning, the Senator
from Missouri will find that we did ad-
dress ourselves to most of these questions.
and I would be happy to go into greater
depth on the points he raises.
Mr. President, I am about ready
yield the floor. Before I do so, I want
reiterate that the cosponsors of this
amendment and I are and have- been
ready to reach an agreement on time. I
am hopeful that the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, together
with his colleagues who oppose this
amendment, can come to some kind of
agreement so that we can look forward to
a vote-not trying to hurry the debate
but recognizing, as the Senator from
Mississippi said yesterday, that the Sen-
ate is trying to clean up its work, trying
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110040-9