lation will be required. Having accepted this premise, we then worked toward what, to us, represented a fair and equitable approach to this problem. In this position we have found ourselves in concert with this committee in the past and we wish to express our sincere appreciation for the manner in which we and our points of view have been received here previously. If we may, we would like to review now, some of the more salient points of our position in these matters: 1. Physicians should be appointed, reappointed, or promoted to a rank commensurate with their professional education, experience and ability. 2. National, State and local advisory committees should continue to function. 3. All prior service, both line and medical, should be considered when a physician is sought for callup. 4. The tour of duty for physicains inducted under special callup should be limited by law. Also, physicians thus utilized should be afforded by law a chance to resign their commissions upon completion of their tours of duty. 5. Only those physicians who have a liability under the basic Selective Service Act or Reserve program should be called. 6. Overall, we have consistently held the view (shared, we feel, by this committee and the Congress) that doctors who have not previously served in the uniform should have this opportunity before veteran doctors with prior service are recalled involuntarily. 7. Further, we have held that it is the responsibility of the Nation, through its Congress, its Department of Defense and its military services to enact and formulate the necessary laws, directives and regulations to provide for emergencies, of whatever scope. When it becomes necessary to implement a special callup of physicians to meet an emergency, we feel that the first priority should call nonveteran doctors who have been deferred from service for their education. These should be followed by others who had not previously served, and aliens should be acceptable in both groups. 8. Physician to troop ratio should remain at around three per thousand. 9. In the ultimate the most desirable situation obtains when the majority of the military medical officers are true volunteers (as opposed to draft volunteers). Toward this goal we have concurred with the services, and applauded them, when they have provided an increasingly more favorable professional climate with high standards of professional care and more opportunities for postgraduate training in medical specialties. We have also concurred, and applauded, when the Congress has seen fit to provide incentives in pay and allowances for medical officers. We hope these will be continued. AN INEQUITY AND A DANGER As the committee surely perceives from this review, our society has been substantially in accord with its actions and the current law, which is being considered for renewal. Even so, there is a potential inequity and a potential danger in the present law which should be pointed out: (a) The inequity is that even though only those physicians who have a liability under the basic Selective Service Act are called, they are all subject to call because they are physicians, while others are called by lot. (b) The danger is that as the law now stands a physician who has served on active duty, but remains in obligatory Reserve status because he was inducted, enlisted or appointed prior to his 26th birthday, might be recalled in an emergency while others with similar education who had never served could see him off a second time. THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Further, those provisions of the law which allow exemption from draft status by virtue of active duty with the U.S. Public Health Service are objectionable to our society. The attention of the committee is invited to your own 1959 committee print, from which the present law was taken, and specifically to pages 13, 14, and 15, and the following sections pertaining to "Deferment and exemptions": sections 6(a), 6(b) (2), 6(b) (3), 6(c) (1). Because duty in the Public Health Service fulfills draft requirements, the Government in effect can and does draft doctors to serve in the U.S. Public Health Service. If this practice is allowed to stand as a principle, there would be nothing to prevent its being enlarged so that the Government could draft doctors for any Federal Service, including, for example, work with civilian employee dispensaries, the Veterans' Administration, etc. There are two other areas of concern to us which we feel the committee may wish to consider: dependent facilities in military hospital construction and the medical reserve programs. MILITARY HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION Recent DOD1 plans have included substantial facilities for dependents in military hospitals, to be constructed in or near cities within the United States. When we supported the dependents medical care bill it was agreed and incorporated into the law itself that military medical facilities would not be enlarged for the primary purpose of caring for dependents.2 Our concern then and now is that enlarged facilities can only lead to a larger staff. As long as we need to draft doctors, or face them with draft to get them to volunteer, it would seem a breach of faith as well as contrary to the statute to enlarge or build military hospital sections primarily for obstetrics and pediatrics. THE MEDICAL RESERVE PROGRAM It is rather difficult to approach this subject. Those in the Reserve program are doing such a grand job they deserve only praise. In spite of this, however, the program itself fulfills only a part of the Nation's preparedness needs at this time: 1. It is topheavy with senior officers. 2. It is geared more to a major mobilization effort than to exercises such as Lebanon, Berlin, Cuba, or to limited scope engagements such as Vietnam. 3. To call up individuals or units as things stand now would violate some of the principles our society has approved and this committee and the Congress have incorporated into law. Korea is a good example (a bad example) of this. In spite of the obvious difficulties involved, our society feels that we as a nation, the Congress and the services must tackle this problem. It may be refreshing to find that our initial proposals involve no additional cost to the taxpayers, and, as a matter of fact, some could be accomplished without even changing the law. In its essence we would like to propose that the principle of rotation, with full protective provisions, be applied to Reserve active duty service. We feel this is in the national interest because it would tend to fill a gaping need, for example, in times when troops must be pulled out and concentrated on short notice, such as Lebanon or Cuba. Recent experience suggests that the willingness of this Nation to pool forces and resources and point them toward a pressing problem has resolved the problem in a relatively short time. It would seem reasonable to call up Reserves, even those with prior service, to plug the holes and man the instruments until reinforcements could be brought in. It would not seem reasonable to commit such people with prior service to an extended tour, hence the desire to establish the principle of rotation after, say, 60 to 90 days of duty. This could be done to a limited extent under present law and regulations in at least one of the services. It would be done uniformly if authorized by the Congress and we feel we would get some volunteers, if the tours were limited by statute. On behalf of the National Medical Veterans Society we would like to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing here. If the chairman or others would like to question us, we shall do our best to answer. STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. NERON, NATIONAL COMMANDER, VETERANS OF World WAR I OF THE U.S.A., INC., WASHINGTON 2, D.C. As national commander of the Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A., Inc., we wish to go on record in full support of section 17 (c) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act as amended (50 app. U.S.C. 467 (c)), be amended by striking out "July 1, 1963" and inserting in place thereof "July 1, 1967." The Veterans of World War I, due to past experiences at the outbreak of war, April 6, 1917, were faced by the Armed Forces unprepared to enter into a major war. The Selective Service Act was not put into effect until June 5, 1917, some 2 months after the declaration of war. The recruits selected under the draft laws did not start to enter camp for training until September 10, 1917. It was 1 month later before the second group of selective service recruits were started to military installations. This great delay in organizing an efficient Armed Forces in the defense of this country was indeed a serious handicap to those in command. It made it necessary for this country to send troops overseas who were certainly 1 Project report-June, July, August 1902, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Health and Medical) Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower). 2 Public Law 569, 84th Cong., title I, sec. 103(a), "Primary Mission," title II, sec. 201(c)-"Adequate facilities"; title III, sec. 301 (b) and (c) "Retired members and their dependents"; sec. 306(2) "Repeal of the act of May 10, 1943." not properly trained or equipped for engagement against the enemy. I believe it is a matter of record that it takes 1 full year to properly train a soldier or sailor in war tactics and to be prepared to defend their country. In 1940, when the Selective Service Act was passed by Congress, it had only a one vote margin. There was much agitation against entering military service by people who do not understand military preparation for the defense of the Nation. This Selective Service Act proved to be of great assistance in preparing a force of men who were capable of defending this country after the attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. In preparing for the defense of this Nation in a nuclear war, the recruits are required to indeed go through extensive training. We are well aware that unfriendly military preparations have been made close to this country. In this dangerous situation, the Veterans of World War I fully support H.R. 2438 and plead with the honorable members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to extend the Universal Military Training and Service Act by recommending favorably the extension to at least July 1, 1967. This organization stands ready to assist your committee and the Congress and the Nation in full support of H.R. 2438. It is interesting to note that in 3,400 years of recorded history, there have only been 250 years of world peace. Therefore, as head of this organization, I again plead with you to extend the draft law until at least July 1, 1967. STATEMENT OF MRS. ANNALEE STEWART, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM (U.S. SECTION), WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I am Mrs. Annalee Stewart, legislative secretary of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom with an office at 120 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. We would like to express our gratitude to the committee for giving us an opportunity to present testimony in opposition to S. 846. The league originated in 1915 in the midst of the First World War, with Jane Addams as its first president. Throughout its history it has maintained a policy and program consistent with its purpose to work by nonviolent means for the establishment throughout the world of those political, economic, social, and psychological conditions which can assure peace and freedom. The league has always opposed peacetime constription which it considers contrary to American traditions. It is accepted by public opinion only when people are convinced that the draft is necessary and that it is being carried out fairly. Millions of Americans today are not satisfied on either of these points. Others can present, with good evidence, reasons for opposing the extension of the draft based on its inefficiency and wastefulness. This has been ably outlined by John C. Esty, Jr., in the Nation, February 23, 1963.* While we do not agree with every point in the article, we believe that it emphasizes certain ideas that are worth studying seriously. The league recognizes Mr. Esty's reasons and shares his concerns, but it believes that there are even more serious reasons for opposing the extension of the draft and any form of compulsory universal military training. We feel that compulsory military training has done a great deal of harm to the morality of our young people, both in training them for the destruction of individuals and nations and in developing in them a process of evasion in order to avoid being drafted. Many use such legal methods as remaining in school or getting married and starting their families at a younger age. These are sometimes forms of conscious evasion. Prof. Eli Ginzberg of Columbia University states that most young Americans "grow up without the understanding of military obligation, with the consequence that if and when they are called to duty, they view it as an imposition, an annoyance, or a stroke of bad luck that they were caught while so many others escaped." According to Mr. Esty, young men today no longer face a moral dilemma in regard to the draft; they simply see military service as "no longer relevant"-in view of the devastation a thermonuclear war would create. In addition to the fact that young men may openly seek draft evasion, many feel that the draft cuts across all walks of life without really strengthening the military services. While the broad base of the draft has sometimes been cited as a strong point, it is also necessary to see what has occurred in practice. Besides the men who consciously seek a II-S (student deferment) or III-A (minor depend *NOTE. Mr. Esty's article is included as a part of the testimony of Rev. Montgomery J. Shroyer. ents) status, there are a few who even leave the country. However, all the above forms of evasion generally require some financial security. What of the young man who graduates from high school and who for reasons, financial or otherwise, does not attend college? He is placed in an extremely difficult position. In most cases he is unable to get a job, even one for which he may be qualified, because employers are unwilling to hire and train someone who may be drafted. Thereby, he is denied even the opportunity to earn money in order to go to college if he wishes to do so. Very often the young man is driven into the Armed Forces out of desperation. Is this a good attitude for a young man to have in reference to serving his country? Congressman Roman Pucinski, of Illinois, stated in 1959: "I just completed *** a very intensive survey in Chicago on teenage gangs and juvenile delinquency, and I find that the draft has a very important effect on the present development of our young people. *** Hundreds of thousands *** are forced to live in a shadow of constant doubt as to their future when actually only a few thousands are ultimately drafted. *** Many young men who graduate from high school and who do not, or cannot because of economic reasons, go to college find it impossible to get decent employment because the first thing they are asked by a potential employer is what is his draft status. *** I could not begin to tell you the hardships that this situation is causing." It is obvious that we have problems to solve both in this country and abroad. The real problems of the world as we see them are economic, social, and political. They go beyond a military solution and intimate a wider field of service for one's country than primarily a military service. Ending the draft would be a step toward again placing the military in a subordinate position with regard to policy matters. This country has always stood firmly for civilian government, recognizing the dangers of military authoritarianism. We hope that the dangers of military voices in policy matters will be seriously weighed in the light of the consequences. It is the responsibility of citizens to work for the kinds of alternatives which will deemphasize the military and place the solutions in their proper area which is to eliminate the causes of war. There is another reason the emphasis of our Nation on a military solution fails to build peace and freedom. Such stress on military force often keeps other countries from understanding our real desire for peace. It isn't a question of the motives of U.S. foreign policy, but the implementation: the methods we use make us appear warlike rather than peace loving. The United States has an opportunity to exert real world leadership. Discontinuance of the draft by the United States could be followed by major efforts for the international abolition of conscription. In the midst of a prolonged cold war, without more clear-cut affirmative acts for peace, it is hard for either side to convince the other that it really wants peace. Ending the peacetime draft could help ease international tensions by convincing the world that we honestly seek peace by preparing for it, promote political settlements and disarmament agreements, and release men and resources to help concentrate on the real need of the world's people to raise their standard of living. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has gone on record many times in support of the Peace Corps. We believe that an essential preliminary to lasting peace is greater understanding between the peoples of the world through personal contact and firsthand knowledge. We hope to see, in the future, more young people enter an enlarged Peace Corps. We are encouraged too by the warm reception given to S. 1, the Youth Conservation Corps bill, by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. We hope that this bill or one for a Domestic Peace Corps will be enacted and become an integral part of the life of our country. While the league advocates the abolition of conscription, we recognize that in 1959 many organizations supported a 2-year extension with the understanding that during that period a joint committee of Congress would study the draft to find out whether it is the most efficient way of maintaining the national defense, and mainly whether it is necessary to maintain the force levels. Since the methods and goals of national defense have changed so rapidly with technological advances, such a study is even more desirable now than it was 4 years ago. In addition the league feels that real, positive support should be given not only for the goal of general and complete disarmament, which our President said is the basis of our foreign policy (at the United Nations in 1961), but also for a continued effort to negotiate the proposals for universal disarmament which have been set forth by both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If the nations really agree on positive steps toward world disarmament, they will be lifting the burden of arms from the whole world and conscription from its youth. WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, GENTLEMEN: The La Jolla-San Diego Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom wishes to register its opposition to extension of the draft because we believe that its overall influence is harmful to the young men of our Nation. We regret the interruption to education and to planning for the future which it involves. We object to putting boys in military camps. We deplore that at an impressionable age our young men are taught to think in terms of military solutions, and that independent ideas, initiative, and personal responsibility are discouraged. It is these very qualities of moral freedom and responsibility, so characteristic of the early days of this country, which we feel are most needed in today's world. It is these qualities which conscription has tended to suppress in other nations. We are deeply concerned that that does not happen in our own land. Yours respectfully, Mrs. JOHN BEARDSLEY, Legislative Chairman. Hon. RICHARD RUSSELL, LOS ALTOS, CALIF., February 28, 1963. Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, DEAR SENATOR: The San Jose, Calif., Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom requests herewith the right to submit the following statement for inclusion in the hearings on H.R. 2438, in opposition to the extension of the draft. We agree with Representative Byron Johnson in his debate statement in 1959, in which he said, "It (the draft) extends the military influence on American life contrary to our constitutional intent to maintain civil dominance over the military.' We feel that as Representative William Meyer asserted in the same debate, "The draft lulls us into a false sense of security and hinders the mobilizing of moral and spiritual forces while inculcating militaristic doctrine. * * * It violates our traditions and conflicts with much of our moral and religious thinking. This does not contribute to our international standing or to peaceful solutions of world problems." It seems to us that what is needed is a massive effort to end the arms race and build a world of law and order. There must be a greatly intensified effort to develop and refine U.S. proposals for general and complete disarmament, to negotiate for them with renewed energy, and to strengthen and expand the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. We feel that an end to the draft would terminate the inequities of the present system and it would allow young men to plan their future with assurance. With the ending of the draft, we could look forward to the release of men and resources to more creative functions in professions which contribute in a more positive way to the needs of the world's people. The above statement is submitted in lieu of personal testimony. Sincerely, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, Mrs. D. R. CHRISTEON, Legislative Chairman, San Jose, Calif., Branch. |