that we are suffering and the casualties that we are suffering and the burden that this country is paying-I do feel that this should be considered as a hot-war situation for the purposes of student deferments. Chairman RUSSELL. So you would suspend all student deferments during this period to the conclusion of hostilities in South Vietnam? Senator KENNEDY. I would, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. I was about to ask you about the reorganization of the machinery, but I don't believe you went into that in your hearings to any extended degree.

Senator KENNEDY. No, we did not. I am generally familiar with both the President's message and the conclusion of the Marshall Commission report, recommending establishment of boards of appeals as well as some 350 regional boards across the country, and national standards to eliminate some of the inequities at the present time. All these things, I believe, are extremely important. I believe also that Project 100,000 is extremely important.

I also would hope that this committee would consider Armed Forces schools for those young people who do not quite meet the percentiles required by the Armed Forces of our country, but who come very close to them. Many of these young men want to volunteer, want in many instances to make the Armed Forces their careers, and either because of some health deficiency, perhaps, or because of some slight educational deficiency, they might not be able to meet the minimum requirements.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Secretary of Defense has embarked on a very elaborate pilot project on that to the extent of 100,000 men, dealing both with physical and mental inability to qualify under present standards. That is a rather sizable program.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Morris, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, testified before our subcommittee. He mentioned that these 100,000 men are undergoing exactly the same kind of training programs, as far as basic and advanced infantry training, as the others, those who are taken, drafted or volunteer into the Armed Forces, but that there is available to the 100,000 some additional kinds of guidance.

Chairman RUSSELL. It is more than guidance. I think they give them dental work.

Senator KENNEDY. Yes, that is right.

Chairman RUSSELL. And things of that kind, minor operations. Senator KENNEDY. That is right.

Chairman RUSSELL. They repair physical deficiencies.

Senator KENNEDY. I think that of the approximately 5 million 1-Y's between 18 and 35, that there are some 500,000, as I understand it, who can be readily rehabilitated. Further, a high percentage of these who would like to volunteer for the Armed Forces.

I think when we are considering reducing the concept of compulsion, which all of us would like to reduce, and to provide some greater opportunity for voluntarism, that this is an area that we should look into. Of course I am hopeful that this Project 100,000 will be successful.

Chairman RUSSELL. We will at least have a much clearer idea as to the potentialities of the program in the next few months. Thank you very much, Senator. It is very kind of you to come here. We appreciate your inquiry and study into this subject.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

USE OF DATE OF BIRTH MEANS:
THE FIRST 5 BORN IN THE MONTH
DRAFTED, THE OTHERS ARE NOT.
USE OF RANDOM SELECTION MEANS:

ARE

EACH OF THE THIRTY BORN IN THE
MONTH STANDS AN EQUAL CHANCE,

IRRESPECTIVE OF ACC IDENTS OF BIRTH

Chairman RUSSELL. We will be very glad to get copies of the charts to be included in the hearings along with your statement.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will now hear the testimony of the Honorable Richard Schweiker, Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Pennsylvania. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Schweiker. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD SCHWEIKER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a member of the House Armed Service Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today in support of meaningful modernization and reform of our antiquated and unfair draft system. On February 7, I introduced the Draft Reform Act of 1967 (H.R. 5017), the first comprehensive draft reform legislation to be presented to the 90th Congress. My nine-point plan boils down to this:

1. The first group of men drafted should be 1812 year-olds, reversing the present policy of taking first the oldest men under 26.

2. A man would be eligible for the draft for only 4 years (1811⁄2 to 2211⁄2) instead of the present 72 years (181⁄2 to 26). This would allow men to plan their futures with more certainty.

3. College students could still get deferments, but as soon as they finished college, their 4 years of draft eligibility would begin, and they would be placed in the top priority group as 1812-year-old, regardless of their actual age, up to 35.

4. College students would not be permitted a fatherhood deferment if they had been granted a college deferment.

5. Separate draft calls of the Selective Service System's 4,084 local boards would be replaced by a single national manpower pool to wipe out all differences in types and number of men drafted that now exist from one board to another.

6. Men would be selected at random from a national computerized pool of those available for induction in the 182 to 19121⁄2 top priority age bracket. Only in the unlikely event that the number of I-A's in this age group was too small to meet draft calls, would men in the 2d-year, 3d-year, or 4th-year age groups be subjected to call.

7. Local boards would be bound to apply national standards in deciding which students receive deferments and which civilian jobholders are deferred because their work is critical.

8. Local draft boards would be compelled to reopen the case of a man classified I-A if he submits new facts which, if true, would entitle him to a different draft status.

9. The period of time given a man to appeal his local draft board's classification should be lengthened from the present 10 days to 15. The drafting of younger men first would give men more certainty. with which to plan their lives since they would be drafted at a time. when their lives were least likely to be seriously disrupted. Military men favor the plan because they say younger men are easier to train. A Gallup poll showed 54 percent of the public wanted military service

77-909-67-13

to start at 18 or younger, while another 20 percent said it should start at age 19 or 20.

Most major proposals for draft reform suggest induction at age 19 or 20. I believe it would be wiser to begin the draft earlier-at age 1812 to 1912. At age 18 only one man in five is still in high school. Thus about 80 percent of young men at 18 are finished high school. By age 19, only one man out of 15 is still in high school.

A draft that would not take them until at least age 19, would make the job prospects for men under 19 even more hopeless than those prospects are today in the unskilled labor market.

As much as I favor a draft of young men starting at age 1812, I do not believe it is desirable to send draftees overseas before they have reached 19. I have introduced a bill (H.R. 7024) that would add to the law requiring 4 months of training on U.S. soil, a proviso barring overseas assignment for draftees before their 19th birthday.

I am strongly in favor of continuing student deferments, both for undergraduate and graduate work. But my bill contains safeguards to keep these temporary student deferments from turning into permanent exemptions.

There seems no valid reason why some of our young men should not pursue higher education at 1812, as long as they will be fully draftvulnerable on completion of that education. The National Advisory Commission recommended abolishing all undergraduate de ferments, but called at the same time for a look at the feasibility of letting a man choose to serve as late as 4 years after he was selected.

My bill would accomplish the same end as such postponed service, but would be more flexible while keeping student deferments. It would put an ex-student under 35, whose deferment has expired, into the highest draft-priority pool-along with the 1812 to 1912 year olds, would then have a 4-year period of draft liability, with their 1st year after school being their most likely year to be drafted.

Postponed service or abolition of student deferments would both have a serious adverse effect on procurement of junior officer candidates, a majority of whom are now obtained from the ranks of recent college graduates. In addition, the flexibility inherent in my plan seems to me more desirable than a postponement system, which would draft an initial group of men in 1967 and then let some choose to serve several years later, after finishing college. I believe draft calls should be kept as low as possible at all times, tailored to the particular requirements of the moment, and not padded with names of extra men who will not be immediately needed and who could choose to serve later.

Today it is possible for a student to remain in college, become a father before his student deferment expires, and hence obtain a permanent exemption from military duty. My bill eliminates this possibility. In 1964 a survey of men between 27 and 34 showed that 74 percent of the men whose education stopped at high school graduation had served in the military. For men whose education stopped with a college undergraduate degree, the figure was 70 percent. But for men who had gone on to graduate school, only 27 percent of the men surveyed had served.