Mr. BLANDFORD. Now approximately 800,000 men each year attain the age of 18% and become liable for induction. That would then mean for all practical purposes that everybody upon the adoption of this amendment above the age of 23 would escape all obligation to serve his country because he (1) could not be inducted unless he had been deferred? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. BLANDFORD. But assuming he had not been deferred, he would pass on to the age of 26 and then go right straight out of the pool entirely because he had passed the age of induction. So your amendment proposes in effect to reduce the manpower by, I would guess, a million and a half men, just as a rough guess, who are 23 and above. I don't know if those figures are correct. Mr. TRIGGS. Temporarily. Mr. BLANDFORD. It is not temporary. It is forever. Because you would never get them. The CHAIRMAN. He goes out. Mr. BLANDFORD. He is past the age of induction. Mr. TRIGGS. You are saying we will never need him, then. Mr. BLANDFORD. No; it is not a question of not needing him. The point is this. You always face this situation in a draft law. If you take the youngest first, you use up those people and then the others pass right beyond the age of 26, and then when you do come to an emergency situation, that is when you have to stretch way out in your draft laws up to age 35 and 40 in order to get a large group because you have used up the younger ones. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. BLANDFORD. Now the only way that the Selective Service System can operate in any sense of fairness is to get a man inducted before he passes the age of liability. But to be fair to the individual, the law has always permitted a young man to volunteer for induction or to volunteer in the Regular Army if he is of draft age for 2 years in the Regular Army. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. BLANDFORD. Now it is difficult to comprehend how much more fair the Congress could be or the law could be with respect to these people. Because everybody in the Nation is assumed to know that he has an obligation to serve. And as the chairman has indicated, if he on his own free will, assumes responsibilities at the age of 23 or 24, he does so knowing that he still is liable for induction. And the only fair way we can operate a draft law is to get a man before he passes the age of liability. The CHAIRMAN. And 800,000 is coming in the pool every year. So you would be just right down at the youthful age all the time and all those over 23 years old would kiss the draft goodby. Mr. TRIGGS. You know, all of those folks of 18 or 19 are at that age for some period of their life and at an older age for some other period of their life. So it is no discrimination between individuals, except that we start from where we are. Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes; that is exactly the point. Mr. BATES. Except for those over 23. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Have you any other amendment to present on behalf of the American Farm Bureau? Mr. TRIGGS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you. We appreciate your amendment and we thoroughly understand it. Thank you very much. (The statement submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation is as follows:) STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION The American Farm Bureau Federation has asked that the bill to extend the Universal Military Training and Service Act (H. R. 3005) be amended "to establish the principle that wherever possible young men needed for service in the armed services be called before their 23d birthday. The request was presented today at a hearing on the bill being held by the House Committee on Armed Services. Matt Triggs, AFBF assistant legislative director, presented the testimony. "We do not seek, nor does this proposed amendment contemplate, any special consideration for farm people," Triggs said. He explained that the arguments cited by the AFBF apply with equal force to young men in nonfarm employment as to young men in agriculture. "Military service should be timed so as to have a minimum effect upon the careers and family life of the young men of the Nation," he said. He pointed out that the present Selective Service System tends to pass over young men at a time when they could perform their military service with the least disruptive effects upon their lives. "It leaves them dangling in an uncertain status until age 26-or age 35 if deferred for any reason-subject to call after they have acquired family responsibilities and become established in their civilian occupations," he explained. He said during this period of uncertainty it is difficult for them to make any plans for the future, to engage in any business, or to obtain employment with a future. He urged that local draft boards select such additional men from 18 to 22 years of age-normally after completion of high school-as may be necessary to bring up active military forces to the levels determined by national policy to be necessary. "This would be the exact reverse of the present practice of the Selective Service System," he said, "which involves calling the older men first and going down to the younger age groups if necessary to meet a call for induction." STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, RELATING TO H. R. 3005, TO EXTEND THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT My name is Matt Triggs. I am authorized to appear before this committee to present the policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation relating to the Universal Military Training and Selective Service Act. The selection of manpower for the armed services is a subject which was included, together with other major questions of public policy, for study and consideration of community and county farm bureaus during the fall of 1954. The recommendations developed at such local meetings served as the basis for the development of State farm bureau resolutions on this subject. These State farm bureau resolutions were the basis for the adoption of a policy on this subject by the elected voting delegates of the member State farm bureaus at the last annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau. The complete policy statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation relating to military training and selective service is as follows: "World peace is our national objective. We continue to urge an active program for the promotion of international friendship. Under current world conditions the United States needs a strong military force for our own defense, to discourage aggression, and to assist friendly nations in the defense of their freedoms. We look forward to the time when the international situation will permit a reduction in armaments by all nations. "With full recognition of the importance of maintenance of adequate military forces, we point out that maximum national strength is not solely a result of a maximum military establishment but is based upon optimum use and development of all resources, of which the basic resource is manpower. The underpinning of military strength is a strong and productive civilian economy. "We reaffirm our belief in the selective principle as the basis for most efficient utilization of our manpower resources. We cannot emphasize too strongly, however, that the so-called Selective Service System as presently enacted in law, and as administered in practice, constitutes a particularly undesirable form of universal conscription. We are opposed to the extension of the present Selective Service Act unless a rended as provided herein. "The present Selective Service System tends to pass over young men at a time when they could perform their military service with least disruptive effects upon their lives. It leaves them dangling in an uncertain status until age 26 (or age 35 if deferred for any reason), subject to call after they have acquired family responsibilities and become established in their civilian occupa'ions. During this period of uncertainty it is difficult for them to make any plans for the future, to engage in any business, or to obtain employment with a future. "We believe that universal military training does not represent an intelligent use of manpower resources. Our purpose should be to create adequate reserves without the wastes involved in requiring an unnecessarily large number of men to undertake military training. The principle should be that we will train a sufficient number of men to meet national reserve needs, rather than the principle of universal training. "Because of these convictions, we recommend a military training and service program involving the following features: "(1) Vigorous recruitment programs to obtain the maximum number of enlistees and reenlistees by voluntary action. Under modern conditions the core of our military forces must necessarily consist of men well trained in the use of modern instruments of war and military tactics who continue voluntarily in service for extended enlistment periods. Sufficient inducements must be provided to obtain the major portion of enlisted men in active military forces by voluntary enlistment and reenlistment. "(2) Selection by local draft boards of such additional men from 18 to 22 years of age (normally after completion of high school) as may be necessary to bring up active military forces to the levels determined by national policy to be necessary. "(3) Opportunity for young men at the approximate age of 18 to 22 to volunteer for reserve training. Volunteers for reserve training should be exempt from draft into the armed services as long as they remain active in reserve service. "After a minimum period of basic training, trainees should return to their homes or colleges and serve in reserve units, such as National Guard, Reserve Officer Training Corps, or other reserve units for a limited period of years. The reserve training and service should be carefully planned and carried forward on an aggressive basis. Leadership of competent officers, adequate facilities, equipment, and reasonable incentives should be provided to create a worthwhile training program and a spirit and pride of service. The program will require location of reserve training centers in reasonable proximity to the trainees' places of residence." We therefore respectfully recommend to the committee that H. R. 3005 be amended to establish the principle that wherever possible young men needed for service in the armed services be called before their 23d birthday. It is suggested this might be accomplished by the addition of a section 3 to H. R. 3005 to read substantially as follows: "SEC. 3. Section 5 (a) (1) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act (ch. 144, 65 Stat. 87) as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: No local board shall order for induction for training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States any person of age 23 or older unless there is not available within the jurisdiction of such local board a sufficient number of younger persons deemed by the local board to be available for induction to enable such local board to meet a call for men which it has been ordered to furnish for induction.' We do not seck, nor does this proposed amendment contemplate, any special consideration for farm people. The arguments supporting the recommendation we have made apply with equal force to young men in nonfarm employment as to young men in agriculture. We believe that it is clearly in the national interest, as it is in the interest of the young people involved, that military service be timed so as to have a minimum effect upon the careers and family life of the young men of the Nation. This can be accomplished by the very simple process of starting with the younger age group and working up. This would be the exact reverse of the present practice of the Selective Service System, which involves calling the older men first and going down to the younger age groups if neessary to meet a call for induction. It is appreciated that there may be reasons why the committee might prefer to simply extend the act rather than to open the issue up to amendment. When there is, however, an opportunity to substantially improve the operation of the selective service program (and it is our conviction that there is) this would appear to warrant careful study. The opportunity to appear before this committee is greatly appreciated. I do want to emphasize that the recommendation of the American Farm Bureau Federation that I have endeavored to present to you, represents a sincere effort by farm people to improve the operation of the Selective Service System. Your consideration is respectfully recommended. Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lankford. Mr. LANKFORD. In line with what Mr. Triggs has had to say, I would like to offer for the record the stand of the Prince Georges County, in Maryland, Farm Bureau. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; put that in. POLICY DEVELOPMENT, FARM BUREAU'S RESOLUTIONS PROCESS-HOW FARM BUREAU MEMBERS IN PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY HELPED WRITE THE PROGRAM OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ON SELECTIVE SERVICE When policy was being developed at the county level in Maryland this fall, a number of counties including Kent, Baltimore, Harford, Talbot, Queen Annes, Cecil, Carroll, Somerset, and Prince Georges turned in recommendations on the United States Selective Service System. They were thinking in terms of April 1955, when the present selective-service law expires and the Congress must adopt a new act or continue the present one. Prince Georges gave the most serious treatment to this complicated problem was it was that county's resolution which became the heart of Maryland Farm Bureau resolution on the subject. The Maryland resolution then was submitted to the AFBF Resolutions Committee and much to the pleasant surprise of Marylanders, the substance of the national policy stand on the draft was identical to the Maryland proposal. The dramatic similarity between the resolutions of Prince Georges County and the Maryland Farm Bureau, and between Maryland and the American Farm Bureau recommendations, is best illustrated by quoting, as follows: "PRINCE GEORGES STAND ON DRAFT OF FARM YOUTH "The national defense is a metter of importance to each and every citizen of the Nation. Although it is a burden which falls largely upon the youth of the Nation, every citizen should expect to bear his rightful share. "The national defense includes not only service in the Armed Forces, and also the protection of our food and fiber supply and the manufacture of materials and facilities either for use by the Armed Forces or to sustain the civilian population. These additional aspects of national defense have been largely overlooked in the selective-service program. "With agriculture requiring more and more skills and larger and larger investments of capital, lifelong training and experience are fundamental to the stability of agriculture, and to the sustained production of agricultural commodities in time of conflict. "The Farm Bureau views with alarm the way in which Selective Service draws young men, who have embarked upon careers of farming and who have already substantial investments in their farm business, off of the farms for military service. Frequently, these men must liquidate their farm operation at great loss, and generally, upon release from the service, do not return to the farm. "The way in which many young men fundamental to family farm operation are forced to leave agriculture is viewed with equal alarm. "The Selective Service System is rapidly taking all of the young men away from the farm, and as the present farmers reach the age where they can no longer engage in active farm operation, the agriculture of the Nation will suffer irreparable farm. "It is the view of the Farm Bureau of Frince Georges County that adequate arrangement should be made in selective-service laws to provide permanent deferment of young farmers whose farm operations would be forced into liquidation by compulsory military service." MARYLAND'S STAND ON SELECTIVE SERVICE The defense of the United States is a matter of importance to each and every citizen of the Nation. Although it is a burden which falls largely upon the youth of the Nation, every citizen should expect to bear his rightful share. The defense program includes not only service in the Armed Forces but also the protection of our food and fiber supply and the manufacture of materials and facilities either for use by the Armed Forces or to sustain the civilian population. We feel that these additional aspects of national defense have been largely overlooked in the Selective Service program. With agriculture requiring more and more skills and larger and larger investments of capital; lifelong training and experience are fundamental to the stability of agriculture and to the sustained production of agricultural commodities in time of conflict. The Farm Bureau views with alarm the way in which young men, who have embarked upon careers of farming and who have made substantial investments in their farm business, are taken off of their farm for military service. Frequently, these men must liquidate their farm operation at a great loss, and generally, upon release from the service, do not return to the farm. It is felt that over a period of years, if this practice continues, the total United States agricultural production will be sharply curtailed. We understand that the total number of men in all branches of the armed services is being reduced from 3.6 millions in 1953 and the 3.3 million in 1954 to approximately 3 million in 1955. If this program of reduction is followed, it may indicate that young men would be drafted into the Armed Forces at the older ages and therefore create more hardships on the individuals as well as the whole industry. If it remains necessary to continue a broad armed services training program, the Maryland Farm Bureau recommends the following: 1. That no form of a UMT program be inaugurated. 2. That the current maximum age for eligibility of service in the Armed Forces of 35 years be reduced to the age limit of 25 years. 3. That a young man be called to receive his military training between the ages of 18 and 20 years or after his educational program is completed. 4. That a classification for permanent deferment be established for farm boys who have started or have definite plans to start commercial farming on their own and their turn in armed services does not come up during the 18- to 20-year period. Each case should be considered on its merits. This classification is a must to insure the future of agricultural production so essential to the national economy. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. One minute. Mr. Bray. Mr. BRAY. I don't want to take a great deal of time here, but I believe this gentleman has brought out a question-I am not saying he has a solution for that amendment. But the question-there is no use of kidding ourselves. We say that everybody is ultimately going to serve. At the present rate in which we are drawing people from the pool and the present rate at which people are becoming 181⁄2 years of age, we might as well face the fact that, extend it to 80 or 90 years, there won't be over half or one-third of the people ever called. I don't know what the answer to it is. I brought that out in a question of the Assistant Secretary of Defense on Manpower, Mr. Burgess, I believe it was, that very question. And by his figures it plainly showed that we are never going to, the way we are going, on a 2-year basis that we are not going to use even a third of the men. Now we are getting higher and higher in that bracket and we can't raise it much above 75 or 80 before we catch up with all of them. I mean it is something we have to consider. I think perhaps at this time we can't resolve it. |